Category Archives: Women in Islam

The Women of Jannah

By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

In Suraah Ahzaab, Allah Ta`ala has mentioned the following ten qualities which every Muslim should strive to inculcate in themselves. The woman of Jannah is one who has the following qualities:

1. She is a Muslimah: She readily, willingly and cheerfully submits to Allah’s commands. She does not question the wisdom of the Shariah. “Men have charge over women” says Allah. The woman of wonder does not believe in “gender equality, etc.” and does not suffer from an inferior complex, as she is fully aware that in her role as a home executive she gains the Pleasure of Allah Ta`ala.

2. She is a Mu’minah: Filled with Imaan from head to toe, her faith is unshakable. Her quest and mission in life: to perfect her Imaan and serve her husband.

3. She is Contented: The woman of Jannah is more than contented with her lot. She craves not an iota nor a drop of the Dunya. She has no complaints nor demands. She does not waste her time roaming in malls etc. as this does not enthrall her.

4. She is Truthful: Truthfulness is her trademark. In intention, in speech and deed, the woman of wonder is truthful to Allah and His Rasul (Sallallahu alayhi Wasallam). She is loyal to her husband. She detests falsehood, hypocrisy and pretence.

5. She has Sabr: The woman of Jannah is a mountain of Sabr. She has accepted Sabr as her lot since her desire is to enter Jannah. Sabr with her husband, Sabr with in-laws, Sabr with children, Sabr in overseeing the affairs of her home. Sabr, yes Sabr — lots and lots of it.

6. She is Humble: Hidden deep within the bowels of the earth, lay gems and gold. These are only of benefit when the earth is cut and sliced apart.  The earth seldom takes offence. Instead it yields its riches to the very ones who destroyed its features. The women of Jannah is as humble as the earth, full of goodness to others without expecting anything in return. She seeks no name, no fame, no glory, no prizes, no acknowledgement for her deeds.

7. She is Charitable: The woman of Jannah is always looking for ways to be charitable. In her free time, some times she would cook a pot of food for the poor or invite relatives. Sometimes knit a garment for an orphan. In speech she is charitable with praises for others. And yes, she fears propagating her charitable acts, lest it is told to her on the Day of Qiyaamah to find her rewards by those whom she sought to please in the World.

8. She Fasts: Bearing her health in mind, she fasts regularly. Nafl fasts are conditional to her husband’s approval; Fardh fasts not so. The woman of Jannah hastens to complete her Qadha fasts.

9. She is Chaste: The woman of Jannah jealously guards her chastity. In accordance to the commands of Allah Ta’ala she lowers her eyesight; remains glued indoors and converses in a non-alluring manner with strangers in times of severe need, from behind a curtain. The woman of wonder acts upon the Holy Qur’aan and ensures that she avoids anything that may attract the attention of forbidden males to herself Thus, she never passes the gathering of men having applied perfumes, nor does she attend weddings where she is exposed to others on the roads, etc. Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam honoured  Hadhrat Fatima Radiallahu anha because she said that the best conduct of a woman is: “They (women) should not look at men and men should not look at them.” Such is the high degree of chastity of a woman of wonder!

10. She Remembers Allah in abundance: The woman of Jannah does not waste her precious time.

More precious than a pearl necklace around her neck, is a Tasbeeh in her hand. This soothes her aching heart which is always desirous for meeting Allah Ta’ala.

A woman of Jannah is intelligent and has no urge to prove how clever she is by hankering for a university degree. She recognizes that Allah has created her differently and that her role in life is different form that of a man. She understands fully that her husband is the door to her Jannah and service to him the key to that door. She does not betray his secrets nor seek the pleasure of others — be it her very own parents — at the expense of her husband’s displeasure. A wise shepherdess she is to her flock, caring and feeding them, clothing them and educating them, ever mindful that no harm befalls them and no pain afflicts them.


Such a woman of Jannah has been promised by Allah His Forgiveness and an immense reward!

Such a woman’s name will echo throughout the plains of Qiyaamah. Her prize will be an entry into Jannah from any of its’ eight gates. Owing to her fear of Allah, perhaps to her surprise, she will find two Jannahs awaiting her. Therein she will know no pain, tiredness or fear. Gone are the days of making Sabr. Forever she will remain young with countless of servants to serve her. Every conceivable delight will be at her fingertips. A lifetime was spent cooking, baking, frying, washing and in worry. Now she will simply be pampered with the most choicest of dishes. In lieu of remaining glued to the four walls of her house, she will be permitted to roam and fly on horses made of gold. In return for her obedience to Allah and His Rasul Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, she now will sit with a crown on her head and have scores of damsels to beckon.

In return for upholding the correct Shar’i Hijaab, she will be adorned with clothing that will consist of seventy colourful shades. This true wonder of a woman’s prize is “what no eyes had seen, no ears had heard and no mind had conceived.”

May all our sisters have the Taufeeq to pursue this dream. (Ameen)



Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“It is not lawful for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to go on a journey of three days without a mahram.”

In another Hadith narration a journey of one day is mentioned. Thus a woman who undertakes a journey without a valid Shar’i Mahram is akin to a kaafirah. Undertaking a journey without a mahram in open defiance of the prohibition declared by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), himself, is explicit kufr. The attitude of such a faasiqah / faajirah testifies to her kufr. Her so-called abaya mock purdah – deceptively donned to hoodwink others and to deceive herself into the belief of her being a Mu’minah, does not save her from her kufr.

In this era, there is a glut of molvis – evil ones – who aid and abet women in their fisq, fujoor and kufr. These maajin muftis who are agents of Iblees, with their haraam zig-zag fatwas in reality abolish the sacred Law of Allah Ta’ala established by explicit Hadith Nusoos of the most authentic class.


The muftis of Mr. Taqi Usmani’s Darul Uloom in Korangi, Karachi, Pakistan issued the following baatil fatwa regarding a woman travelling without a valid Shar’i Mahram:


“Question: What, is it permissible for a Mahram person to leave at the airport a woman who will travel alone in the plane, then at her destination another Mahram will receive her?” Answer (by the Korangi muftis):

Answer (by the Korangi muftis):

Be it clear that in general conditions (aam haalaat) it is not permissible for a woman to travel without her husband or a mahram even if the journey is by plane. However, if there is a dire need (shadeed majboori) which compels a woman to travel without a mahram, then in such a case it is permissible for her to travel with a group of pious women on condition that there is no fear of fitnah

Since the time travelling by plane is not much, the fear of fitnah is minimized. Hence, in the case asked (in the question), if truly the need is dire, then there appears to be scope for this when a mahram leaves her at the airport, and another mahram receives her at the other airport, and furthermore, if there are pious women with her on the plane, and she does not have to pass the night at some place.”

(End of Korangi’s Zig-Zag fatwa)


An essential requisite for a Mufti engaged in the duty of Ifta’ is that he should have Taqwa and be far-sighted. It is not permissible for a moron to be or to act as a mufti irrespective of the academic course of Deeni study he had pursued.

If a mufti lacks a panoptic view of the scenario of the case regarding which a fatwa is sought, then it is not permissible for him to issue a fatwa. Lack of sincerity, worldly and nafsaani motives, inadequate comprehension of the kutub, and lack of panoptic vision induce a mufti to issue zig-zag fatwas. He attempts, albeit abortively, to navigate between Haqq and Baatil to produce fatwas – liberal fatwas – to assuage the questioners, and this evil has greater applicability if the questioner is wealthy or belongs to the ruling class of scorpions. Little does such a mufti maajin understand that in the department of Ifta’ he is in a veritable spiritual minefield. If the Fear of Allah Ta’ala is not embedded in his heart, he will blow up and destroy his Imaan with his zig-zag and even blatantly baatil corrupt fatwas.

The Korangi Muftis in their averment in aforementioned fatwa, although conceding the impermissibility of a woman travelling without a mahram, resort to their zig-zag shaitaani technique of introducing the element of ‘majboori’ (dire need) when in reality neither did the questioner raise this issue nor does there exist this element in 99% of the cases of women nowadays travelling alone, without mahrams.

The questioner had posed the simple question: ‘Is it halaal to eat pork or consume liquor?’ His question is unconditional. He does not seek an answer for a case of shadeed majboori. He just wants to know whether khinzeer and khamr are halaal or not. Instead of presenting the simple and unambiguous fatwa of hurmat (being haraam – not permissible), the mufti maajin resorting to his zig-zag tricks, and displaying blithe disregard for the Shariah, laboriously and without valid reason introduces the shadeed majboori (extremely dire need) dimension which occasions the fatwa of permissibility.

All Muslims are aware that in cases of dire need, consumption of a little pork or haraam food to save one’s life becomes not only permissible, but Waajib. However, the question pertains to normal situations, not to shadeed majboori cases as the Korangi Muftis have hallucinated for justifying their zig-zag fatwa of permissibility for a woman to travel without mahram.

Today, droves of women – all lewd – be-sharam and be-hayaa – travel without mahrams without the slightest vellication of conscience, and in wanton disregard of the severe prohibition. There travel is not constrained by shadeed majboori as the Korangi Muftis subtly adorn the question with in order to fit it with their fatwa of permissibility.

What is this shadeed majboori which constrains abolition of the prohibition or diversion from it? These muftis have the duty of expounding exactly what is this ghost of shadeed majboori which permits the droves of women to travel without mahrams. In total disregard of the Shariah’s condition of tafelah when real need constrains emergence from the home, not for travel, but for attending to real needs within the town, women nowadays, on the basis of zig-zag fatwas of the maajin muftis, not only prowl in the public domain, but embark on journeys without the accompaniment of mahrams thereby invoking on themselves the La’nat (Curse) of Allah Azza Wa Jal and His Malaaikah. “Tafelah” is the term used by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which means a woman dressed shabbily, like and old hag with even emission of smelly bodily odours. No woman today who take to the streets or who goes on a journey will ever accept the condition of her being a tafelah when emerging from her home. On the contrary, they will be dressed in their best garments, perfumed and painted like prostitutes and set to entrap fussaaq and fujjaar. When they emerge, they truly emerge as Habaailush Shaitaan (the Traps of the Devil) mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Woman is aurah. When she emerges (from her home), shaitaan casts surreptitious glances at her (plotting to ambush her and with her to trap males into the commission of zina).”

The question does not make mention of shadeed majboori. A simple answer to a simple question was sought, yet the Korangi muftis went to the inordinate length of zig-zagging between two mutually repellent extremes, viz. Haqq and Baatil, in a stupid attempt to strike a balance between Islamic austerity and western satanic liberality to appease the westernized zanaadaqah.

These muftis initiated their fatwa by conceding the impermissibility of women travelling without mahrams. Then by stupid meandering movements, they attempt to manoeuvre through the spiritual minefield. Thus they hallucinate several baseless probabilities which in reality are not to be found, and which are unrelated to the question. Attaching permissibility to the haraam act with a group of pious women is incongruous to say the least.

Firstly, in today’s world, there is no ‘pious’ group of women on a journey. They are all lewd when they undertake a journey without their respective mahrams. These muftis cannot be academically so stupid as not to understand that whether it is one woman or a group of women, it will be haraam for them to travel without mahrams. However, clutching at passing straws in the silly attempt to fabricate ‘daleel’ for a daleel-less, baatil fatwa, these supposedly Hanafi muqallideen muftis have dug out from the Shaafi’ kutub the permissibility of a group of pious elderly women travelling without mahrams. This endeavour by the Korangi muftis is baatil and most unbefitting of Muftis.

Firstly, it is not permissible to extract rulings from other Math-habs without valid cause or real Majboori, not hallucinated ‘majboori’ such as the hallucination of the Korangi muftis. Incorporating into our Math-hab masaa-il from other Math-habs is valid only when there is a real dire need.

There is no dire need – no shadeed majboori – for women to undertake journeys without mahrams for Umrah or tabligh or visiting, etc.

Secondly, the Shaafi’ concession is based on pious elderly women, not young women dressed and adorned to attract and entice fussaaq and fujjaar. Thirdly, the condition of tafelah applies to the Shaafi’ concession.

Another extremely silly, deceptive argument proffered by the Korangi muftis is their assumption that much time is not spent when travelling by plane, hence the possibility of fitnah – the fitnah of pre-zina paraphernalia – is minimized. This assumption is the effect of dwelling in selfdeception. What is their concept of ‘fitnah’? Their liberalism has negated the Islamic conception of fitnah from their minds, hence they have so ignorantly entertained the idea of a minimum degree of fitnah on a plane journey. We really fail to understand what their understanding of fitnah is. Furthermore, assuming that there is ‘little fitnah’ on the plane, it does not cancel the Prohibition of travelling without a mahram. The ‘little fitnah’ argument is a shaitaani ‘daleel’ which the muftis have simple lapped up with the application of cognitive intelligence. The is no shadeed majboori to invoke the Fiqhi principle which legalizes prohibitions.

The noblest ages were the three eras attendant to Rasulullah’s age. Of these three noble ages in which flourished the greatest goodness and virtue the world had ever witnessed, the era of the Sahaabah was the noblest. In their era most of the Pious Wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were alive, and so were all the Pious Sahaabiyyah. Yet, the Sahaabah discerned the germination of the seeds of fitnah which impelled them to ban these great Ladies of Islam from attending the Musjid for even Salaat, and even whilst they emerged from their homes in the tafelah state. They were prohibited from even the Musjid – the Musjid which was permitted for them by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But today these maajin muftis say that it is permissible for a woman to embark of a ten thousand kilometre plane journey without a mahram in glaring opposition to Allah and His Rasool who had likened such a woman to a kaafirah.

Then to justify this vile breach, they present the flapdoodle argument of a ‘little fitnah’. Just what is this ‘little fitnah’ which the Shariah is assumed to tolerate for a woman whose entire being according to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is Aurah , and whose emergence from the home sets into motion satanic conspiracies of zina-fitnah?

The element of fitnah which necessitates the strictest observance of Purdah and the prohibition of travelling without a mahram, in its worst form is zina (fornication). The variety of other acts which culminate in zina are all major factors of the Islamic concept of fitnah. Bringing all such fitnah factors within the scope of prohibition, the Qur’aan states: “Do not approach near to zina.” Providing the tafseer of this fitnah concept of the Qur’aan Majeed, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explained that the eyes commit zina; the ears commit zina; the tongue commit zina; the hands commit zina; the feet commit zina, and the mind and the heart commit zina.

At every step of the journey, beginning from home to the destination a thousand or ten thousand kilometres away, a glut of fitnah – fitnah in the meaning of the Qur’aan and hadith – prevails. There is the zina fitnah on the streets, at the airports and on the plane. At the airports it is at its worst. Mingling with kuffaar, fussaaq and fujjaar is the norm. Lewdness is at its height in these haunts of shaitaan. The lone woman is subjected to this deluge of fitnah and satanism at the airport despite the presence of a mahram. On the plane, without her mahram, it is infinitely worse. She is exposed to kuffaar, fussaaq and fujjaar males. She has to at times interact with fussaaq or kuffaar male staff of the plane despite the presence of faasiqaat, faajiraat and kaafiraat staff. Furthermore, this woman travelling alone is bereft of Taqwa. There is nothing to inhibit her from flaunting herself. There is no mahram who can exercise some restraint and inhibition on her.

From the immigration check point right through the entire process of her embarkation, she is without the stupid, dayyooth ‘mahram’ who abandoned her at the airport under cover of the baatil fatwa issued by the Karongi muftis. The same haraam scenario is duplicated when she lands at her destination. The airports are veritable cities. She has to mingle, rub shoulders with all and sundry. She is a million times more exposed to fitnah – the Islamic idea of fitnah – than she would be in a mall in her home city.

The idea of ‘little fitnah’ concocted by the Karongi muftis is scandalously and egregiously baatil. In fact it is an inspiration urinated into their brains by shaitaan. They have stupidly and disingenuously sniffed around for ‘daleels’ to halaalize a major sin – a sin akin to kufr, for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the existence of Imaan in Allah and the Last Day does not allow a woman to travel without a mahram.

The other silly ‘daleel’ of the time factor further exhibits the jahaalat of the muftis. Regardless if the exposure to fitnah is for a short while as contended by the Karongi muftis, it has absolutely no effect on the Prohibition. It remains haraam for a woman to travel without a mahram. The addition of this time factor is a flaccid, in fact baseless, argument in the endeavour to override the Prohibition. It is most unbefitting for muftis to conduct themselves so irresponsibly as to halaalize a major sin akin to kufr, simply on the basis of assumption.

The Prohibition is not diluted if the journey is not encumbered by ‘much time’. The Prohibition is unconditional. A woman may not travel without a mahram regardless of the time factor. Also, what do they mean by ‘little time’? Utter drivel. What is the ‘time’ concept of these muftis? They claim that since much time is not spent on the journey, the Prohibition is waived. What is the need for this stupidity when the shadeed majboori argument is tendered for waiving the Prohibition? If there genuinely exists shadeed majboori, no one will deny the concession or the permissibility. But they have to first Islamically prove the existence of shadeed majboori.

It is haraam to simply assume shadeed majboori when even the one who poses the question does not refer to such a scenario. When there does exist shadeed majboori, there is no need for the twaddle of ‘little fitnah’, ‘little time’, group of pious ladies, not having to sleep the night anywhere, etc.

Shadeed majboori will automatically override the Prohibition. There will be no need for muftis to issue a fatwa to allow the consumption of a little pork when shadeed majboori genuinely exists. The affected person will act and indulge in the prohibition without any need to refer to muftis.

In their fatwa the Karongi muftis have repeatedly harped on their imaginary shadeed majboori basis despite the reality of there being no such dire need mentioned in the question. They therefore had absolutely no need to introduce this falsehood into the question. They hallucinated the shadeed majboori only to deceive themselves and mislead others. These are the effects of lack of Fear.

Although the muftis have raised the shadeed majboori element for cancelling the Prohibition, they also stupidly attach the condition of “not having to sleep overnight anywhere”. When shadeed majboori by itself correctly halaalizes the Prohibition, the accretion of the sleeping overnight condition is superfluous and drivel. The Fiqhi principle: “Dhururaat (dire needs) render permissible Mahzuraat (Prohibitions)”, operates independent of the conditions with which the Karongi muftis have most unacademically encumbered it (i.e. this Principle). For example, in a scenario where a man is permitted to consume a little pork, this Principle applies without restrictions. Thus, regardless of whether the pork is procured with haraam money or whether it is stolen, etc., the suffering man is allowed to avail himself of the concession in the circumstances in which he finds himself. A mufti may not encumber the permissibility with the condition, for example, of halaal procurement, or any other condition.

Similarly, if shadeed majboori genuinely exists, a woman may travel without a mahram, without a jilbaab, without a head scarf, etc. She will not be in need of any mufti’s fatwa to avail herself of the permissibility. She only has to consult her heart and conscience in compliance with the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” If she is sincere and a woman of Imaan, then, Insha-Allah, her heart will proffer the correct fatwa, not the type of zig-zag fatwa which the maajin muftis of today disgorge sometimes without application of the mind, and at most times, constrained by nafsaani and worldly objectives.

A shadeed majboori will be the flight of women from human devils in war zones such as Syria, Burma, Kashmir, etc. where they are ravaged by the kuffaar Pigs. Another shadeed majboori is the death of the husband along the journey. In fact, the cases of shadeed majboori are rare. But for these liberal muftis influenced by westernism, and for the moron molvis of the Tabligh Jamaat, Nafl Umrah, women’s tabligh, visiting relatives, wedding functions, etc. are ‘shadeed majboori’. Their concept of Dhururat (shadeed majboori) is compounded stupidity. Since they dwell in confusion, lacking in valid comprehension of the applicability of the juridical (fiqhi) principles, and motivated by nafsaani designs, they meander and zig-zag between the extremes of Haqq and Baatil abortively attempting to strike a plausible balance to assuage both the people of Haqq and the people of Baatil. Instead of achieving their ludicrous objective, they stumble into the domain of kufr with their zig-zagging.

The Karongi muftis have demonstrated their egregious error on the issue of women travelling without mahrams, with their laborious and confused zig-zagging to fabricate the baatil fatwa which does not answer the question. They have unlawfully, in terms of the Shariah, encumbered the question with their imaginary ‘shadeed majboori’ element, then on this baseless premises, erroneously fabricated several fictitious stipulations to maul and mutilate the unrestricted Dhururat Principle for the production of the obscene fatwa which halaalizes a major sin akin to kufr.

The fatwa is obscene because it provides a licence for immorality – for zina. The Qur’aan prohibits every approach to zina, and every stepping stone leading to zina. But the Korangi fatwa opens the door for this immoral fitnah.

The confusion of the Karongi muftis on this issue is indeed surprising. Despite having hallucinated the premise of shadeed majboori, their ultimate averment is: “There appears to be scope for it.” That is, for women travelling without mahrams. If shadeed majboori (a real dire need) does exist, the talk of ‘there being scope’ is a stupid excrescent. Shadeed Majboori (Dire Need – Dhururat) renders explicit permissibility. The circumspective attitude adopted by the muftis demonstrates their ambivalence, uncertainty and confusion. The Principle evolved from the Qur’aan, itself precludes the zig-zag vacillation of the muftis between the two extremes of Haqq and Baatil. Their understanding of mere possibility of scope for permissibility when shadeed majboori exists, testifies to their lack of understanding of the operation of the Usool.

In the background of the question asked, is the widespread practice of women nowadays travelling without mahrams. This practice has become intensified by the kufr decree of the kufr Saudi Najdi regime. The evil Saudi regime has abolished the Shariah, and now permits women to travel without mahrams. The Korangi muftis should have understood that the questioner was seeking a fatwa on the prevalent, widespread practice. He was not asking about any shadeed majboori scenario. Without taking into account the factual position, the Korangi muftis with their stupid, baatil fatwa have only assisted to indurate an already established haraam practice.


Our advice for the Muftiaan-e-Kiraam of Korangi and elsewhere is to fear Allah Ta’ala; to cultivate some Taqwa; to engage in Muraaqabah-e-Maut and Muraaqaba-e-Qabr; to bear in mind the Hisaab of Qiyaamah; to understand that Ifta’ is not a joke or a hobby; to realize that the Mufti dangles between Heaven and Hell; to seek only the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala, not the pleasure of people; not to be influenced by the wealthy and the rulers, and to perpetually engage in Thikrullaah. Only then will Muftis be able to fulfil the obligation which they have imposed on themselves by setting up their Darul Iftas.

When issuing fatwas, Muftis should endeavour to strengthen the bond between people and Allah Ta’ala. They should apply their brains constructively so as to close the avenues for fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. Nowadays, the shaitaani attitude is to open doors for evil, vice, fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and even kufr on the basis of the shaitaani-hallucinated fatwa-taqwa argument. Without applying their minds, the youngster maajin ‘muftis’ who dwell in confusion, seek to emancipate people from the fetters of the Shariah by baselessly introducing the ‘fatwa-taqwa’ stupidity.


It is haraam for women to travel without a valid mahram. Their travelling without a mahram is a kabeerah sin which emaciates Imaan, and if this sin is believed to be halaal, it will deracinate Imaan.

Contradictions in Feminism

By a Sister

Feminism is riddled with contradictions. Here are just a few (out of SO MANY):

1. Feminism claims to be good for women, yet being a woman is not good enough for feminism.

By denigrating things that women tend to excel at (being empathetic, nurturing, having and raising children), feminism seeks to strip women of their very womanliness.

Feminism opposes femininity, forcing women to view their own innate feminine qualities (like modesty, chastity, nurturing, etc) as suspect and as weak, unimportant, and less than men. It creates an artificial equivalence between masculinity and power, thereby masculizing women, stripping them of their femininity. Feminism devalues traditional femininity and pressures women to adopt masculinity.
Women end up warping their own selves, suppressing their own emotions and feminine inclinations in order to act more stereotypically masculine (being promiscuous, valuing career over family, etc).

So which is it? Is being a woman not good enough, even though feminism claims to be good for women? Is femininity not good enough for feminism?

2. The foundational premise of feminism is that the patriarchy exists to subjugate and abuse women, so basically men are bad. But…the irony is that feminism is also pushing women to be like men (see point #1).

So which is it? Are men bad and thus not to be imitated, or are they superior and thus to be imitated? It can’t be both.

3. Feminism claims that men and women are equal in every way: equal strengths, equal roles, equal everything!

Yet by doing the above (point #1 and #2), it actually teaches women that men are superior. If women are pushed to be less like women and more like men, then the feminist implication here is that men are better. That is why we want to be like them. That is why we are ditching our own natures in order to adopt theirs.

So which is it? Are men worse than women (“men are trash!”)? Or are men equal to women? They can’t be worse than and equal to women at the same time.

4. Feminism tries to make two opposing claims simultaneously: that women are strong, AND that women are vulnerable. Both of these claims can’t be true at the same time. Either women are strong and capable and therefore should be completely independent of men, OR women are vulnerable, and perpetual victims of men’s violence, and therefore should be protected by men.
Which is it? Are women strong and don’t need anything from men? Or are women victims and need protection from men?

5. Feminism villianizes masculinity yet it benefits from masculinity.

When men act traditionally masculine, feminists are quick to call them “toxic” and “macho.” Yet feminists don’t make a peep when men act traditionally masculine when it suits feminists, such as when men work at construction sites, in sewage drains, or in mines. The dangerous, filthy, and physically difficult jobs are fine for men to have, but don’t they dare extend their masculinity beyond those specific areas! Otherwise the previously-approved masculinity is toxic masculinity.

So which is it? Is masculinity useful or toxic? It can’t be both.

Feminism can’t seem to make coherent, consistent points. It is based purely on theories that are inherently self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Thankfully, we don’t need feminism.
Feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on the wellbeing of women. We don’t need to adopt the tangled mess that is feminism in order to secure rights, comfort, or happiness for women.

Within the system of Islam, we find the Divinely-ordained balance of the rights and responsibilities of both genders, leading to well-being and harmony.


The concept of equality needs to be properly explained, because the current meaning of equality has been imposed by the Western World. According to that meaning, equality becomes a strange phenomenon for it advocates free intermingling of men & women, free sex, even freedom of dress itself, free and uniform working conditions for both men and women regardless of their natural differences of physical structures and capacities. This wrong conception of equality upholds the notion that women can achieve equality with men only by constantly labouring to please them by running their lives in men’s style, by behaving according to male’s standards with all the liberty and so-called equality that a modern women has acquired (in theory of course, not in practice) her actual condition emerges as a very sorry condition.

For instance, as recently as the year 1988, some American states still enforced laws, which kept wives subservient to their husbands. Under these laws, a wife was not allowed economic independence. So to open a checking account or buy or sell property she had to obtain her husband’s permission and signature. The right to vote was also slow in coming . Women had only been filling voting forms for the past 75 years.

According to Susan Faduli, 80% of (American) females are still stuck in dead-end jobs that are almost always relegated to females, i.e. clerks, secretaries, receptionists or sales-positions and nearly 75% of full-time employed women were earning under $20,000.00 annually. Not only this, women have to do better than the men they work with. Thus they are overworked and overstressed but still earn less than the man they work with. According to Karen Nussboum, Director of Labour department’s Women’s Bureau (of the U.S.) woman typically earn 71 cents for every Dollar earned by a man. This shows how American women are still living under much oppression and face numerous injustices largely due to their unequal working power in comparison with men. But still they must work for if they does not, even for the fact that they want to stay at home and raise children they will be insecure because the whole system does not uphold or even recognize their role as wives or mothers. This is what women activists Attorney Frances Leonard says, while addressing women:

Place your hopes and dreams in the long future of your marriage; but recognize that the state won’t back you in the gamble. When you forego your own career opportunities in the expectation of joint future returns, you place yourself at serious risk; and no amount of bitterness and recrimination will finance you if things don’t work out in the end.

That is why in case of divorce, which frequently happens, majority of American women cannot assert their legal rights of alimony or child’s maintainence against the husband and the father of the child, because they cannot afford attorney (i.e legal) fees which ranges somewhat near $50,000.00. Jennifer Gordon, head of the San Francisco Bar Association’s Family Law division says:

If you are making $40,000, $50,000 even $60,000 a year, I don’t see how you can afford a family lawyer at $200.00 an hour.”

Beside the fact that annual earning of nearly 75% of American women is, according to Susan Faduli, less than $20,000, there are some automatic deductions from the earning; the first one is the whopping portion of taxes. Then, car payment on an average of not less than $200 per month. Day care expenses,  where a women has a child under school age, total at least $80 per week. Gas, car maintenance and insurance are included as well. Expenses for food, rent, phone and electricity must also be included where she does not have a husband who is ready to pay for these. And to start a modest wardrobe for a working woman is not cheap.

The sex discrimination faced by women in the American society adds fuel to the fire. The startling findings show that everything from haircut, dry-cleaning, clothing costs to car repairs and purchases are areas where women pay more than men simply because they are female. Another example is that women pay more for medical services in comparison to men. She not only makes more doctor visits, but a woman who sees a doctor forbthe same illness a man does, is often given more tests and more medications. On top of that a woman is often requested to for a follow-up visit, while such request is seldom given to a male patient. The American Medical Association says the reasons for this “are not clear.”

In order for a woman to be successful in a modern society like the American society, she must forget about her womanhood, motherhood or even marriage and behave and live like men. In Terri Apter’s comprehensive study of successful women in America, she says:

They did not believe that they could have it all: they believed that they could have what they wanted by giving up what other woman had. They were modern in deliberately counting the cost of marriage – which women are far more likely to do today…”

Apter found that women who are financially successful were single or atleast childless. Women who never married explained that they saw marriage at odds with their career commitments. Those who were divorced or separated said that their career commitments  had been an important factor in the breakdown of the marriage. In addition to this, Apter concludes:

For these women, the task was to keep guard on thenselves and to change, to learn in more and more details how to think like man: that was their path to success.”


Man and Woman, under the Shari’ah, though differ from one another biologically, are equal in terms of human status. They have definite partnership with one another, and there is no distinction between them as regards to their respective rights. In the words of the Qur’an 3:195:

So their Lord accepted of them (their supplications and answered them. “Never will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female. You are (members) one of another…” [Qur’an 3:195]

But modern civilization, instead of providing women with equal status with men, it has, it fact, managed to provide them with an unequal status. This problem of inequality between man and woman created by Western civilization cannot be solved by it. This is even the view of the internationally accalimed western writer, Germaine Greer. On this, she says, “The West has no answer to the problems of inequality between sexes.”

However, under the Shari’ah, mam and woman are equal participants so far as the carrying out of the function of daily living is concerned. Furthermore, men and women have equal rights over each other, which have been balanced by equal duties, as Allah says in Qur’an:

And they (women) have rights (over their husband as regards to living exoenses) similar (to those of their husband over them as regards to obedience and respect) to what is reasonable…” [Qur’an 2:228]

This clearly shows that the relationship of men and women is not of bondage or of disparity but of oure clear camaraderei and co-operation in the path of virtue. And in camaraderei, all the members are equal. To portray and sum up the role of men and women towards each other, the term awliya has been employed by the Qur’an that is in 9:71 which provides:

The believers, men and women, are awliya (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another; they enjoin (on the people) al-Ma’ruf (i.e. Islamic monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbid (people) from al-Munkar i.e polytheism and disbeliefs of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden). [Qur’an 9:71]

The Qur’anic verse sets forth that men and women are equally responsible for reforming the society through social, political, educational and economic mediums and that they are to oerform this job in an atmosphere of security and protection towards each other.

However, equality here, from the Islamic perspective, does not mean absolute equality of both sexes in every detail, identicality or sameness. It only means overall equality in the totality of rights and responsibilities of both sexes. This is because even through man and woman are equal in their status as human beings, they defunitelt differ; their roles, due to their natural differeces also differ. Thus man and woman are not, in the eyes of the Shari’ah, the duplicate of one another, but the complements, there being in each, quite incontrovertible, biological differences which lead to the natural separation of sphere and occupation. It is not an established biological fact that there are differences in their physiological structure and physiological arrangement which gear man to work outside the home and woman inside the home. This is even in accordance  with some Qur’anic provisions specifically Surah Ta-Ha 20:117, Surah Rum 30:21, Surah Nahl 16:72. Therefore, if anybody who does not accept the differences between the sexes, even by trying to resemble the opposite sex has been cursed by the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

It should be noted that, the fact that man and woman are naturally different, does not mean that one is superior to the other, as the criterion of superirity in Islam is based only on piety and God-fearing. This is in accordance with Surah Hujurat, verse 13 which orovides that:

O Mankind!, we have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has at-taqwa (i.e. he is one of the Muttaqun, the pious). Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, Well-Acquainted (with all things). [Surah Hujurat: 13]

From this ayat, it is clear that in terms of spirituality and humanness, both genders stand on equal footing before Allah. It is also clear that nowhere in the primary sources of Islam (Qur’an and Sunnah) do we find any basis of superiority of one gender over the other.

Human mis-interpretations, culturally-bound opinions or manipulations are not congruent with what Islam teaches. The full equality of all human beings before Allah is beyond doubt. The equality should not be confused, however, with role-differentiation in the spirit of co-operation and complementarity.

In identifying man’s beginning as a product of a male and female and not dust from which Aadam was made or Aadam from whom Hawwa was made (referring to the verse [49:13]), Allah also lays emphasis on the complementary roles of males and females in relation to human society. Each has a distinction and unique role and each has been endowed with physical and psychological gift suitable for fulfilling their respective roles. Hence, from an Islamic viewpoint, the Western concept of woman’s liberation and unisex are to a large degree despised because they upset the natural balance laid down by Allah. In order to stress the importance of men and women being distinct from each other, the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) cursed men who tried to resemble women and women who tried to resemble men. Islam is not against equal pay for equal work, but it is against the trend among many advocates of women’s liberation towards hating men while trying to be like them. From an Islamic perspective, true equality of men and women lies in their equal responsibility to worship Allah as He commanded them and in their accountability for all what was entrusted to them in this life. Thus their differences are complementary and not antagonistic.

Refuting Nuraan Davids on her Criticism of Not Allowing Women in the Masaajid

By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape


On 7 June 2018, an article titled ‘How Muslims betray Islam by not allowing women in mosques’ was published on News24 website, which is authored by some woman called Nuraan Davids, who, by implication, has imprudently accused the thousands of Fuqaha, Muhadditheen, Ulama and also the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum of betraying Islam by not allowing women in the Masaajid. And this is undoubtedly dangerous for one’s Imaan.

How can one ever say that Muslims are betraying Islam by not allowing women at the Masaajid, when the very first people to prohibit women from  the Masaajid, were the Sahaabah??? People should contemplate before speaking or writing. Think before you ink! 

Furthermore, according to all four Math-habs, it is not permissible for women to attend the Masaajid. She does not mention anywhere in her article the four Math-habs. This alone speaks volumes of her status in the Shariah!

After perusing her comments, we ca comfortably say that her write-up has no academic worth as will be explained further on Insha Allah. 

In fact, since she has intentionally ignored the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum as well as the four Math-habs, her editorial appearing on News24 is not even worth a look.

When one is not willing to submit oneself to the rulings of the Fuqaha who base their rulings on Qur’aan and Hadeeth, then this is a clear sign of deviation. And precisely it is observed that her comments are smothered in Dhalaal (deviation) and Baatil (falsehood).

However, it is not just an issue of her presenting her gratuitous opinions – albeit Baatil. There is another dimension to it. She has published her comments on NEWS24, which is Kufr Media. Her article is deliberately calculated to give the impression to Non-Muslims that women are allowed to attend the Masaajid and preventing them from the  Masaajid is in fact against Islam as her title explicitly suggests!

Then it has been noticed that many Muslims have also circulated her column which shows that such deviation is on the increase amongst ignorant Muslims. Therefore, in addition to her propagation of Baatil, her viewpoint and perspective is utterly misleading. 

Another reason why her shoddy article is so misleading is that she implies to be a follower of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Thus, she avers in her article:

“What, therefore, does the Qur’an and the Sunnah (example of the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH) – the foundational source codes of Islam – say about women?”

Our response and comments to this question appear further on in this treatise. Thus, negative perspectives and misinformation have been flagrantly disseminated by Nuraan Davids who should really feel ashamed of herself if she is not a Shia, but a genuine Muslim. 

Keeping the above in mind, it is necessary to respond to her in the blessed words of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam: 

“This Ilm (of the Shariah) will be borne by the pious of every successive generation. They (the Ulama-e-Haqq) will drive away from it (this Shariah) the interpolations of the deviates, the falsehood of the false-mongers and the interpretations of the ignoramuses.” [Mishkaat]

The above Hadeeth necessitates a response to her article. Nuraan David’s interpretations of the women-Masjid issue is indeed amongst the Ta’weelaat of the ignoramuses. 

In this regard, the Fatwa of Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah confirms the ‘ignoramus’ status of Nuraan Davids. He clearly states: 

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid, the Eidgah, the shopping malls, and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi (moron) who is a jaahil, and who lacks ability in understanding the subtleties of the Shariah …………The correct verdict is categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And, this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’) Math-hab.” [Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyatul Kubra]

Alhamdulillah, a refutation of Nuraan’s article is presented with the Fadhl of Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’ala, as Allah Ta’ala clearly says:

“We fling the Haqq on Baatil. Then it smashes it’s (i.e. Baatil’s) brains out. Then suddenly it  vanishes.” [Qur’aan]


Her article is entitled ‘How Muslims betray Islam by not allowing women in mosques’.

The very first Muslims who banned women from the Masaajid were the Sahaabah! So, were the Sahaabah betraying Islam? (Astaghfirullah) Let Nuraan Davids and her ilk answer this question without prevaricating?

Who were the first Muslims to ban women from the Musaajid? Were these Muslims, i.e. the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum, whom Allah Ta’ala and Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam have praised, ever disloyal to Islam? (Nauthubillah)

Hazrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu Anha) and the Sahaabah prohibited the women from the Musjid. And so vehement was their prohibition that some Sahaabah would pelt the women with pebbles to prevent them from the Musjid. This is mentioned in authentic Ahaadeeth.

For example, Hazrat Abu Amr Shaibaani reports that he saw Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu Anhu) expelling women from the Masjid on the day of Jumu’ah by throwing pebbles at them. [Musannaf Ibn  Abi Shaybah]

Now what does Nuraan and her clique have to say about the action of Hazrat Abdullah Bin Mas’ood Radhiyallahu Anhu that was not opposed by a single Sahaabi???

There is Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah on the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid. Besides the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum), the Salafus Saaliheen (pious predecessors) who came after them, prohibited women from the Masaajid too. The Taabi’een, their students, etc. also were against women attending the Masaajid.

The Fuqaha of the four Math-habs have presented the views of the Sahaabah when it comes to prohibiting women from the Masaajid. 


The fact that women were allowed to attend the Masaajid during the era and lifetime of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam is not denied. However, the permission was not unconditional. The initial permissibility was restricted with a number of very strict conditions. In addition, all of these conditions are derived from ‘The Sunnah’. 

Moreover, all of these conditions ceased to exist even in the Sahaabah’s time which led to the Sahaabah banning women from the Masaajid! Today, it is much worse!

In addition, Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “O People! Prohibit your women from coming to the Musjid with decoration and coquetry.”  

And this is precisely what the Ulama-e-haq are doing! They are prohibiting women from the Masjid as per the instruction of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. When Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam stipulated the permissibility with strict conditions, it is clear that if the conditions are not fulfilled, then according to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), women should be prohibited.

The Sahaabah did exactly this. They understood the Qur’aan and Sunnah better than anyone else. They understood the commands and prohibitions of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam better than anyone else did. Thus, it is in fact Kufr to imply that the Sahaabah were betraying Islam when they banned women from the Masjid. The Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum took their guidance from Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam.

So, it is extremely dangerous to aver that one is betraying  Islam by preventing women from the Masaajid. It should now be clear who are the ones actually betraying Islam in this age of ours. 

Thus, all those who prohibit women from the Masaajid, are in fact honouring Islam. Moreover, accusing those who prohibit women from the Masaajid of betraying Islam, is in fact a betrayal of Islam itself. Thus, those clamouring for women to attend the Masaajid are in fact the actual ones betraying Islam because they think they understand the Shariah better than the Sahaabah whereas Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “My Ummah will not enact Ijma’ on error”.

The very title of her article betrays Allah Ta’ala, Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum, the Fuqaha, the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, the four Math-habs, Islam and all Muslims who follow the Haq. Had she remained silent, and observed the injunctions of the Shariah pertaining to Hijaab, she would not have blundered by publicly exposing herself which is diametrically in conflict with the Shariah.

A refutation of the comments within her article has not yet even commenced, and already so many discrepancies were found in just her title. This alone speaks volumes of her ‘integrity’…


Nuraan Davids commences her article by stating:

‘Recently a group of Muslim women from Johannesburg and Durban were quoted saying “we want to pray in mosques too”.’  


1. Firstly, Allah Ta’ala says that women should remain at home. It is the Law of the Shariah that women may not emerge from their homes except for needs which are deemed imperative by the Shariah. Emerging for Salaah is not a valid need for women. The Qur’aan and Hadeeth testify to this fact.

2. Secondly, it is in conflict with the exhortations of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam encouraged women to perform Salaah at home.

Allamah Ibn Nujaim states: “Women should not attend the Jamaat (Salaat) in view of the aayat: “And remain resolutely in your homes…’ and the Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) that the Salaat of a woman in the innermost corner of her home is better than her Salaat in the courtyard of her house, and her Salaat in the courtyard of her house is better than her Salaat in the Musjid, and her home is better for her than the Musjid. The author of Kanzud Daqaaiq has mentioned in Kaafi that the Fatwa of this era is impermissibility for women to attend any/all Salaat (in the Musjid/Eidgah) because of the prevalence of immorality.”  

3. Thirdly, women who wish to pray in the Masaajid should reflect on the following – The Shaafi Faqeeh, Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah states in his Fatwa:

“The statement of Ibn Khuzaimah who is among our Akaabir (senior) As-haab supports this: ‘The Salaat of a woman in her home is superior to her Salaat in the Musjid of Rasulullah (Sallallahu  Alayhi Wasallam) despite it (Salaat in Musjid-e-Nabawi) being equal to a thousand Salaat. This refers to the Salaat of men, not of women. Therefore, when it (her Salaat in her home) is superior (than even 1000 Salaat of men who perform in Musjid Nabawi), then the motive which brings her out of the home is either riya (show) or pride, and this is haraam.”  

Fourthly, there is no emphasis in the Shariah for women to attend the Masjid for congregational Salaat. The fact of the matter is that there exists not even the weakest of weak Ahaadith which exhorts and encourages women to attend the Masjid.

5. The best Masjid for a woman is her home. Hazrat Umme Salmah (Radhiyallahu Anha) reports from Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), “The best Musaajid for women are the inner-most corners of their homes.” [Imaam Ahmad/ Baihaqi/  Kanzul Ummaal]

Hazrat Ibn Mas`ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) also stated, “No woman performs a Salaat more beloved to Allah Ta`ala than (the Salaat which she performs) in the darkest corner of her home.”   Tabraani reports this narration in Kabeer and all the narrators are authentic. [Majmauz Zawaaid]

6. Women in this age emerge from their homes adorned, etc. Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam had instructed the Sahaabah to ban such women from the Masaajid.

7. Accordingly, the Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid. The Fuqaha and the Ulama-e-Haq accept this fact. According to the Shariah, it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid. The Fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha is clear and categorical. Hazrat Aisha Radhiyallahu Anha has said: 

‘If Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam knew what the women had innovated after him, he would have prevented them from the Musaajid just as how the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited’ [BUKHARI]

Those who truly love the Sahaabah and who understand the worth and value of the Sahaabah will not find any problem with the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid. After all, there is none who could have understood the Sunnah better than the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum. 

8. Besides the prohibition, it is unintelligent for women to say that they wish to perform Salaah at the Masaajid when Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said that the Salaah of a woman performed individually is twenty five times more virtuous than her Salaah performed with Jamaat.

So, the answer to women who wish to pray in the Masaajid is: No! You may not pray in the Masaajid! If you want to pray in Masaajid, then your home is your Masjid.


Nuraan Davids further states:  

‘This was a response to attempts to prevent women from listening to the reciting of the Qur’an while attending evening prayers – as is customary during the month of Ramadan – at a Johannesburg mosque. Sadly, their appeals are not new.’  

Preventing women from the Masaajid is exactly what the Sahaabah had done. There is Ijmaa’ of the Fuqaha on the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid! Despite their Shaitaani appeals, they have failed to prove the permissibility of women attending the Masaajid.

Nuraan Davids has failed to explain ‘how Muslims betray Islam by not allowing women in mosques’. May Allah reward all those who reject their Shaitaani appeals. Aameen.


Blurting out emotionalism without thinking, she says: ‘The “women in mosques” campaign is one which has continue to blight not only the treatment of Muslim women in South Africa, but raises critical concerns and questions about the untold harm that Muslims themselves inflict upon Islam.’ (This is a verbatim quote – JAMIATNC.)

Those who allow women to the Masjid do not realize the untold harm they are causing to none but themselves. The Law of Islam is clear: It is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid! Nuraan Davids should not blight her intelligence by speaking drivel. Speak facts and quote the Fuqaha – do not utter emotional twaddle.

Once again, Nuraan claims: ‘The appeals by Muslim women to be afforded space within the precincts of a sacred space is a mere symptom of the greater marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination meted out by Muslim men.’  

This argument is baseless. The Fuqaha prohibited women from the Masaajid and the Sahaabah also banned women from the Masaajid. The Shaitaani arguments of ‘greater marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination’ are only cited by those who lack impartiality on the topic of women attending the Masaajid.

Once again, Nuraan fails to provide solid Shar’i evidence for her claims of ‘Muslims betraying Islam by not allowing women in mosques’. Nuraan should watch her tongue as it is clear that she is blurting out statements without understanding their implications. She really needs to learn who the illustrious Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum were before she too becomes a Shia Kaafir with her very her own tongue if she is already not one of them. 

Hazrat ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu Anhu) used to say, “Expel them (i.e. the women) from the Masjid, just as Allah Ta`ala had expelled the others.” [Majmauz Zawaaid – Haafidh Haithami said that all the narrators are authentic and reliable] Does Nuraan Davids know who is Hazrat Abdullah Bin Mas’ood Radhiyallahu Anhu? Learn before publicizing one’s ignorance.

The arguments of ‘greater marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination meted out by Muslim men’ are not Islamically academic. 

On the contrary, ‘the appeals by Muslim women to be afforded space within the precincts of a sacred space’ are symptoms of:

⚫ their ignorance of Islamic Law, ⚫ lack of knowledge of the status of the Sahaabah,
⚫ defiance to the Fuqaha,
⚫ shamelessly ignoring the Qur’aan, which clearly states that women must stay at home.
⚫ openly opposing the encouragement of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam for women to perform Salaah at home,  
⚫ signs of Salafism since they are not willing to submit to the Fuqaha and the four Math-habs,   ⚫ and dangerous implications of a Shia mentality in view of them not being able to accept the authority of the Sahaabah which has been a despicable trait of the Shias since the beginning of their vile existence on earth.  


Presenting another superficial argument, Nuraan states: 

“On a superficial level, it is easy to poke fun at the absurdity of excluding women from any mosque. The men, who enjoy the comfort of plush prayer mats as they pray to “their Lord”, while knowing that their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters are placing their heads onto the cold slabs of a courtyard, are the very same men who usher these same women into the sacred spaces of two of Islam’s holiest mosques: al-Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina, also known as the Prophet’s mosque, and al-Masjid al-Haram, home of the Ka’aba in Mecca.”

This is not an academic argument. Men ushering their women into Masjidun Nabawi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam or into Masjidul Haraam, is not a daleel to usher women all over the show! When a woman performing Salaah in her home is more virtuous than performing Salaah in Masjidun Nabawi, then what does one’s intelligence say regarding other Masaajid?

It is as though these people (who clamour for women attending the Masjid) regard themselves as being more virtuous than Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and that their Musaajid hold greater virtue than Masjid-e-Nabawi! The Sahaabah used to even throw pebbles at the women who attempted to attend Masjidun Nabawi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam.

Women must place their heads on the warm Musallahs of their homes. Who told these shameless women to emerge from their homes in conflict with the Shariah to the Masjid?

Her statement, “cold slabs of courtyard” can be viewed as an affront and insult at the Hadith which states that the woman’s salaat in her courtyard is better than her Salaat in the Musjid! 

Excluding women from the Masaajid is not absurd. Had it been an absurdity, then the Sahaabah would have not banned and even pelted the women with pebbles to drive them away from the Masaajid!

Nuraan’s arguments are absolutely absurd. No wonder, the Shariah does not accord any significance to the array of qualifications, degrees and plaudits acquired from kuffaar universities. The brains and thinking of most of these university graduates are like the Kuffaar. This is the effect of the educational brothels, viz. the universities and colleges.


Blurting out nonsense, she states:

“On the other hand, the exclusion and marginalisation of Muslim women feed into a greater normative-patriarchal narrative that women are defined primarily (at times, solely) in relation to her private space, and hence, the private responsibility of the family. In this regard, her status as the custodian of Islamic values are seemingly held in check through secluded domesticity.“

Islam has a patriarchal ideology. We request Nuraan to read and study with an open mind the booklet titled ‘The Patriarchal Ideology of Islam’ published by the International Thaanvi Academy of Islamic Research.

If after reading this book, Nuraan still cannot understand the patriarchal ideology of Islam, then she should go for a check-up.

Allah Ta’ala has established patriarchy for mankind since the creation of Hazrat Aadam (Alayhis Salaam). Hazrat Hawwaa (Alayhis Salaam) was his subordinate, and according to the authentic Ahaadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) she was created from the left rib of Nabi Aadam (Alayhis Salaam).

Nuraan does not explain what she means by ‘exclusion and marginalisation of Muslim women’. What are women excluded from? What Shaitaani marginalisation is Nuraan ranting about?

If she is referring to women being excluded and marginalized away from the Masjid, then Alhamdulillah, we Muslims – the real ones – do not see anything wrong with it as the Sahaabah excluded women from the Masaajid in times much better than this immoral age of ours.

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Women have no share in emerging from their homes, except in cases of need.” This is proven from the Qur’aan too. The Fuqaha have explained these facts.

In another Hadeeth, it is mentioned: “Women are objects of concealment. When she leaves her home, Shaitaan lies in ambush for her.”

Secluded domesticity is a praiseworthy quality for women.

Hazrat Anas (Radhiyallahu Anhu) said: “The women came to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and said: “O Rasulullah, the men have surpassed us with virtue and in Jihad in the Path of Allah, for we have no (such) deed by which we can acquire the deed of the Mujaahideen in Allah’s Path.” Then Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Whoever among you stays within her home will obtain the virtue of the Mujaahid in the Path of Allah.”
[Musnad Al-Bazzar]

What does Nuraan Davids have to say about all the above words of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam if she is a genuine Muslim???


Uttering rubbish, Nuraan ignorantly avers:

“But, of course, Islam does not relegate Muslim women to the confines of their home; this is the work of patriarchal Islam, and every Muslim (men or women) has a responsibility to contest it.”  

What does she mean by ‘Patriarchal Islam’? Patriarchal Islam is treasured in the Qur’aan. We follow the Islam of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Fortunately, there is only one Islam which is a patriarchal Islam without doubt. It is Allah’s Patriarchal System. Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam taught Patriarchal Islam to the Ummah.

Therefore, we do not know which religion Nuraan follows as Islam stands for Patriarchy. A person, who frowns upon patriarchal Islam, is obviously not a Muslim. Never can such a person be a Muslim, because he or she openly opposes and rejects the Shariah with such an unacceptable stance.

The statement ‘Islam does not relegate Muslim women to the confines of their home’ is a blatant lie. Allah Ta’ala “relegates” women to the confines of their home. The Qur’aan clearly states: “And (O Women!) remain resolutely in your homes.”  

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “The closest a woman is unto Allah is in the innermost corner of her home.” Thus, it should be clear that according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah, women are confined to their homes. Islam elevates women to the confines of their homes – they are not ‘relegated’.

Nuraan speaks of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, but she does not know what is in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. And if she knows all of the above, and still contests or rejects it, then we have to inform her that she has expelled herself from Islam by her own words and actions – not by us! 

She should thus decide what she wants – the patriarchal narrative which comes directly from Allah Ta’ala and Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam which takes one to Jannah or the western Kufr concept of ‘equality’ and ‘female exhibition and exposure’ which sends one to Jahannam – where Shaitaan and his followers will everlastingly remain!

Contesting the Qur’aan and Sunnah is Kufr which is undoubtedly the ‘responsibility’ of Shaitaan and his followers. Patriarchal Islam is proven from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Muslim women must cling to their homes. Only Kuffaar and Zindeeqs contest the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. And Nuraan is one of them!


Nuraan states:

“What, therefore, does the Qur’an and the Sunnah (example of the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH) – the foundational source codes of Islam – say about women? Chapter 33 (‘The Confederates’, verse 35) states:

For Muslim men and women – for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast [and deny themselves] for men and women who guard their chastity and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise – for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.

This verse not only confirms the equality between men and women but locates this equality within an ethical human condition. It also confirms the autonomous intellectuality and spirituality of Muslim women.”

This Aayat nowhere proves that women may attend the Masaajid. We have mentioned above several Ahaadeeth and the Qur’anic Aayat pertaining to women remaining indoors, etc. Yet, two Aayats preceding this Aayat is the aayat which states that women must cling to their homes. Why has Nuraan deliberately ignored this Aayat? Simply because it goes against her grain?

Allamah Kaasaani Rahimahullah states: “The Fuqaha have unanimously agreed (enacted Ijmaa`) that indeed there is no concession for Ash-shawaabb to emerge (khurooj) for Jumu`ah, Eidayn and Any Salaah because of the statement of Allah Ta`ala: (And (O Women) remain firmly in your homes)’ And the command of qaraar (remaining steadfast in the home) is a prohibition of roaming/travelling/parading around and on the grounds that their khurooj is indisputably a sabab (means) of fitnah. And fitnah is haraam and whatever leads to haraam is also haraam!!!” [Badaai us Sanaai]

While it is possible for women to surpass men in piety (Taqwa) – in fact, many women had surpassed millions and billions of males in this field – and attain closer divine proximity than men attain, their status in terms of the Shariah remains the same. The inequalities listed in the booklet ‘The Patriarchal Ideology of Islam’, and many more, will remain as decreed by Allah Ta’ala.


Nuraan presents her personal ‘Tafseer’ of the Aayat 35 of Surah Ahzaab as follows:

“This verse not only confirms the equality between men and women but locates this equality within an ethical human condition. It also confirms the autonomous intellectuality and spirituality of Muslim women.”  

From which Tafseer Kitaab did Nuraan find the above opinion? Which authority of the Shariah has stated that there is equality between men and women? Which authority of the Shariah has ever claimed what Nuraan has averred in respect to this Aayat? We can comfortably say that this is Nuraan’s personal opinion.

Hazrat Umar Bin Khattaab (Radhiyallahu Anhu) said: “Verily, the people of self-opinion are the enemies of the Sunnah.”  

And, about such juhhaal the Qur’aan Hakeem says:

“And among the people is he who disputes in the (Shariah) of Allah without any knowledge, and he follows every rebellious shaitaan.” [Aayat 3, Surah Hajj]

The Qur’aan states: “For men is a rank over women.” We believe what the Qur’aan says – not what Nuraan says.

We quote from the ‘Patriarchal Ideology of Islam’ for Nuraan Davids and her ilk:

‘Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Never ever will prosper a nation who assigns its affairs to a woman.” This is undeniable patriarchy. It is the product of Allah’s ordained patriarchy for the Muslim Ummah.

Again, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Relegate them to the back as Allah has placed them at the back.” Women have to compulsorily take the back seat.

It is haraam for them to strip themselves of Imaani hayaa to rub shoulders with males in the public domain, and it is haraam for the lewd fussaaq men to promote any concept which violently clashes with the Qur’aanic system of Patriarchy.

Hazrat Umm-e-Salmah (Radhiyallahu Anha) said to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam): “O Rasulullah! We (women) do not hear at all Allah Ta’ala mentioning women with regard to (the virtues) of Hijrat (Migration).”  

To comfort and assure the women that their good deeds will not go to waste, and that they too will be rewarded in the Aakhirah in the same way as men will be rewarded, the following aayat was revealed:

“Then their Rabb responded to them: Verily I shall not destroy the deed of any worker among you, male or female…”

It is the total patriarchal tenor of the Qur’aan which constrained Hazrat Umm-e-Salmah to obtain clarification from Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). The patriarchal style of the Qur’aanic response to Hazrat Umm-e-Salamah’s query is significant. Whilst a female had posed the question, the Divine Response employs only masculine pronouns. The Divine Response of several lines which were in response to a lady’s question and which was for the sake of appeasing the ladies, mentions masculine terms 15 times. Only once is the word, ‘female’ used in this aayat, and that was for the assurance of the ladies. The patriarchy in the Qur’aan is strongly affirmed by this verse, as well as the tenor of the entire Qur’aan.

The Qur’aanic command for the permissibility of polygyny and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and of the Sahaabah in this regard loudly affirm the patriarchy of Islam.


Nuraan also spoke about ‘autonomous intellectuality and spirituality of Muslim women’.

While primarily Nuqs fil Aql (Intellectual Deficiency) is the inherent attribute of females, there are also males who are plagued with this malady. In relation to women, Nuqs fil Aql is not a malady. It is the natural attribute of femininity.

For Nuraan Davids, we quote this wonderful piece for intellectual refreshment:

“Confirming the intellectual deficiency of women, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said that women are Naaqisaatul Aql (Defective of Intelligence). In substantiation of woman’s intellectual deficiency Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) cited the aforementioned Qur’aanic aayat in which the testimony of two females is ordained.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) also stated female deficiency in the Deeni sphere. When he was asked to explain their Deeni deficiency, Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) cited the monthly haidh cycles of women. The relevant authentic Hadith confirms the Aqli (intellectual) and Deeni (religious) deficiencies of women. In this regard, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:

“O Assembly of Women! Give Sadqah (in abundance), for verily I see you (women) to be the majority of the inmates of the Fire.” Then the women said: ‘Why, O Rasulullah!’ He said: “You curse in abundance and you are ungrateful to (your) husbands. I have not seen anyone from among (those of) deficient intelligence and deficient Deen usurping the intelligence of (even) a man of (great) sagacity than you (women).” Then the women asked: ‘What is the deficiency of our Deen and our intelligence, O Rasulullah?’ He said: “Is not the testimony of a woman the equivalent of half the testimony of a man?” They responded: ‘Undoubtedly, it is so.’ He said: “Then that is (on account of) the deficiency of her intelligence. Is it not that when she menstruates, she does not perform Salaat nor fast?” They said: ‘Yes, undoubtedly it is so.’ He said: Thus, that is the deficiency in her Deen.” [Bukhaari, Vol.1, page 44]

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) indicated that only four females had been bestowed with perfect intellectual ability: Hazrat Maryam (Alayhis Salaam), Hazrat Aasiyah (Rahmatullah Alayha), Hazrat Khadijah (Radhiyallahu Anha) and Hazrat Faatimah (Radhiyallahu Anha).

Indeed the Patriarchy is profound in this address of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). What clearer and more forceful evidence does one need for the Patriarchal system ordained by the Qur’aan!

Due to the intellectual and Deeni deficiencies which are their natural attributes for which Muslim women hold no shame, nor apologize, and on account of their physical weakness, and also because of the their natural home role as wives and mothers, Allah Ta’ala has placed them under male domination. Only men driven to insanity by the influence of satanism are capable of the audacious stupidity to deny this natural divine truth and system.”  (End of quote)

The above sufficiently dispels Nuraan’s baseless reasoning which is in diametric conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah.


Nuraan then states:

“As a historical text, the Qur’an introduced far-reaching changes to the personal and social conditions of Muslim women under circumstances of an apparent deeply ensconced Arabian patriarchy – which includes the right to decide on marriage, the right to inherit and the right to own property.

Historical accounts describe women of the first Muslim community as attending mosques, planning and taking part in religious services on feast days, and listening to the Prophet’s sermons. They were not passive and docile followers, but active interlocutors and participants in their faith and other social matters. Women in medieval Islam are described as freely studying with men and other women – both in the halaqat [study circles] and the madrassah [college]. And after receiving their ijazat [certificates], they would continue to teach both men and women. Both textually and contextually, Muslim women are centrally placed as equal participants.” (The above is a verbatim quote from the link Nuraan sent to us.)

1. She should read and study the ‘The Patriarchal Ideology of Islam’. The book in detail explains issues pertaining to women, inheritance, etc. 

2. Her argument in no way is consistent with her insulting title. The discussion is about women attending the Masjid, not inheritance, marriage and owning property. These aspects have no relevance to the subject under discussion. 

3. Historical accounts of women attending Masaajid, etc. are not Shari daleel. Earlier in her treatise she spoke about ‘the Qur’an and the Sunnah (example of the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH) – the foundational source codes of Islam’.

What is ‘PBUH’. Are you so lazy to write out the full Durood? What type of a professor are you that you don’t even know the meaning of ‘Sunnah’ and don’t even know the ruling pertaining to abbreviations like ‘PBUH’, ‘SAW’, etc? Even on non-Muslim media, one should write the Durood or its translation out in full.

4. The permissibility of women attending the Masaajid during the era of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam was not general. It was restricted with strict conditions which did not exist during the age of Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu.

5. The Sahaabah understood the Deen better than anyone else. And they banned women from the Masaajid based on the Usools of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. Nuraan does not present proof for all her statements. Moreover, her quotes are wholly out of context.

6. Intermingling of the sexes is Haraam. Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah has criticized the intermingling of men and women. In Al-Majmoo’, Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah criticizes intermingling of the sexes.

Furthermore, not only Imaam Nawawi criticizes intermingling of the sexes. Imaam Sheeraazi Shaafi’ee, Imaam Sarakhsi Hanafi, Faqeeh Ibn Arabi Maaliki, Faqeeh Ibn Qudaamah Hambali, Faqeeh Ibn Rajab Hambali, Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalaani Shaafi’ee, Allamah Aini Hanafi, Imaam Hattaab Maaliki, Faqeeh Hajaawi Hambali, Ibn Hajar Haitami Shaafi’ee, and many other Fuqaha! The prohibition of intermingling of the sexes is proven by the Qur’aan, Sunnah and Ijmaa’!

Insha Allah, a detailed booklet on intermingling of the sexes will also be published.

7. Women teaching men directly without an intervening screen is in conflict with the Qur’aan. The Aayat is mentioned in Surah Ahzaab. Is Nuraan so ignorant of this fact, yet she is an ‘expert’ when it comes to misinterpreting the Qur’aan! Why has she deliberately ignored this Aayat which also appears in Surah Ahzaab?

8. Women are not centrally placed as equal participants. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Relegate them to the back as Allah has placed them at the back.”


Uttering more Shaitaani drivel, Nuraan states:

“The problem is, however, that because of patriarchal hegemony, women and women’s experiences are mostly excluded from historical and current methods of interpretive reference. Secondly, the applications of Qur’anic interpretations when constructing laws to govern personal and private Islamic affairs, as well as public policies and institutions, are based on male interpretive privilege.”

What was Ayesha’s Radhiyallahu Anha Fatwa regarding women attending the Masjid? So, the talk of ‘male interpretive privilege’ is absolute nonsense. Her arguments are pure drivel and baseless too!

There were female Fuqaha too. But, they remained at home. And they interpreted the Deen the same way the honourable male Fuqaha interpreted the Deen. Thousands and millions of females of the past have understood, interpreted and explained the Shariah as how the Qur’aan explains the status of men being higher than women!

Patriarchal hegemony is proven from the Qur’aan. Hence, blaming patriarchal hegemony for women’s exclusion from ‘interpretive reference’ is in fact finding fault with the Qur’aan. And this is what Nuraan has exactly been doing in her entire article. She is attacking Qur’aanic concepts and Qur’aanic Law! 

She is really suffering from some Zanaadaqah. She has a problem with Allah’s Patriarchal System which Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) taught and practised. Her Imaan is undoubtedly questionable.


Posing a silly question and Shaitaani answer, Nuraan says:

“So, how should Muslims respond to the exclusion of women from mosques?  

The answer is: In the same way that they should respond to any form of injustice – from racism and xenophobia, to oppression and extremism. Any notion of  injustice is fundamentally at odds with the Qur’anic injunction, quoted from the chapter, entitled, ‘The Women’ (4:135): O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives”  

Excluding women from the Masaajid is not injustice. The Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum banned women from the Masaajid. Nuraan’s statements have Kufr implications!

On the contrary, it is injustice to the Shariah to say women may attend the Masaajid when the Shariah has already been explained to us by the Fuqaha who took their cue from the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum, the Sunnah and the Qur’aan.

They did not derive rulings from their back pockets like how Nuraan behaves by submitting the Qur’aan and Hadeeth to her moronic personal opinions of Shaitaaniyyat and Be-hayaai (shamelessness)! 

The Qur’aan says that women must stay at home, but Nuraan openly advocates the opposite. It speaks volumes of her ‘justice’ too.


Acting too big for her boots, she avers:

“To conclude, it is true that Muslim men assume and maintain authority through patriarchal interpretations, and at times, deliberate misinterpretations of the source codes. However, it is equally true that the far-reaching and marginalising effect of male interpretive privilege is sustained by the lack of female understanding of Qur’anic exegesis. Even though Muslim women directly experience the consequences of oppressive misreadings of religious texts, few question their legitimacy, and fewer still have explored the liberatory aspects of the Qur’an’s teachings.

In the absence, however, of reading the Qur’an and exploring its content, Muslim women are neither in a position to question or challenge oppressive misreadings, nor are they able to remedy their own oppression. The appeal by Muslim women to be granted access to the mosque, has to, therefore be understood as a demand for just and equal recognition. As a collective (ummah) the responsibility falls on all Muslims to preserve the integrity and values of Islam by speaking out against all forms of injustice.”  

1. Nuraan did not explain the ‘deliberate misinterpretations of the source codes’. Kindly explain them. The ‘Source Codes’ were best understood by the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum. And the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum banned women from the Masaajid.

2. It is false to say that ‘the far-reaching and marginalising effect of male interpretive privilege is sustained by the lack of female understanding of Qur’anic exegesis’. Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha was an expert of the Shariah. Yet women were banned from the Masaajid.

3. The talk of ‘oppressive misreadings of religious texts’ is a blatant lie and indeed despicably slanderous. Which religious text has been oppressively misread when it comes to the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid???

4. Nuraan is not an authority of the Shariah. The Fuqaha are the authorities of the Shariah. She should submit herself to the rulings of the Fuqaha.

5. She has not mentioned what is/are the ‘liberatory aspects of the Qur’an’s teachings’?

6. The Qur’aan states that women must stay at home. So-called Muslim women, who question  and challenge the Shariah, are not really ‘Muslims’. 

7. Her statements are full of ‘hot air’. She has failed to prove the permissibility of women attending the Masaajid. When it comes to women being debarred from the Masaajid, then this is not oppression.

By allowing women at the Masaajid, one would not be ‘preserving the integrity and values of Islam’. A Masjid is not a ‘university’ where Zina of different degrees would ever be tolerated, except by people of immorality. Thus, it is a fact that shamelessness and every law of Hijaab is violated at those Masaajid where women are allowed access. Even the Haramain is not spared! Allamah Ibn Hajar has elaborately explained this. He states in a very lengthy Fatwa, which will Insha Allah, be published separately.

“Among the worst evils is the mingling of the ignoramuses among the masses. Men with their wives with exposed faces mix with other men during Tawaaf. Also among the evils is what the women of Makkah and others do when they intend to perform Tawaaf and enter the Musjid. They adorn themselves and use very strong perfume which can be smelt from a distance. With this they distract the attention of the people, and this constitutes a cause for attracting gazes towards them, leading to different kinds of moral corruption. We supplicate to Allah to guide the rulers to eradicate these evils, Aameen! Now ponder! You will find the situation categorically demanding prohibition even with regards to Tawaaf when women perpetrate acts leading to fitnah. Thus, this situation further supports what she (Hazrat Aishah Radhiyallahu  Anha) had said earlier. ………. (In view of the appalling moral decadence) how can prohibiting her not be incumbent……..and how can it be said that emergence (from the home) is permissible for her. This cannot be in the Shariah.

Among the haraam acts is their (women’s) brushing against men in the Musjid and the road. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “It is better for a man to brush against a mud-soiled pig than his shoulders brushing against a woman who is not lawful for him.” Narrated by Tabaraani.….. Therefore if you say: ‘What, do you prohibit women from the Musaajid, places of Eid Salaat and visiting the quboor besides the Qabar of Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)? My response is: ‘How is it possible for me not to say so when there is consensus on this (prohibition) because of the non-existence of the conditions of permissibility for khurooj (i.e. emergence from the home to attend the Musjid, etc.). And that (the conditions for permissibility) during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) were piety and moral purity.” (END OF QUOTE)

Nuraan also mentions ‘oppression’. We ask Nuraan and all Shayaateen openly: 

“Were the Sahaabah oppressors when they banned women from the Masaajid???” (Allah save us from such vile Shia-type Kufr. Aameen)

Now answer the question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and don’t beat around the bush!

Her selective citation of Aayaat and misinterpretation of the Qur’aan are dangerous. And this is what happens to people who behave like Salafis and Shias!

She does not seem to even know what is justice Islamically speaking! 

Nuraan Davids and all those clamouring for women to attend the Masaajid, have failed to present a solid basis for their Shaitaani view of promoting women to attend the Masaajid in this belated era of the 1st Century. 


It is necessary to take note of all her accusations she has made against the Sahaabah, Fuqaha, Ulama and the Ahle Haq who prohibit women from the Masjid. In fact, it seems as if she is unhappy with the Shariah as she displays Shia tendencies, modernist propensities and a disposition of being anti-Ulama. 

The Fuqaha, Sahaabah, and authorities of the Shariah who prohibit women from attending the Masaajid are accused of:

⚫ betraying Islam  
⚫ blighting the treatment of Muslim women.
⚫ inflicting harm upon Islam
⚫ marginalization
⚫ discrimination
⚫ absurdity
⚫ patriarchal Islam  
⚫ injustice
⚫ deliberate misinterpretations of the source codes
⚫ oppressive misreadings of religious texts
⚫ oppression, etc.

Yet, she is described as the ‘Chairperson of, and Associate Professor of Philosophy of Education in the Department of Education Policy Studies in the Faculty of Education at Stellenbosch University.’

She may have another hundred titles attributed to her, but none of these worldly titles confer upon her the right to dabble in matters of the Shariah, since she is wholly ignorant of even the basics of Deen – let alone even the Fiqhi intricacies which moronic professors and PhDs should incumbently steer away from instead of making fools out of themselves by writing stupid baseless essays on topics which they have not properly researched.


What is the purpose of publishing an article of this nature on News24, which is Non-Muslim Media? Why put something like this Gutha (rubbish/flotsam) on a public platform which is visited by thousands of Non-Muslims?

With all the accusations accompanying her nauseating article, she has rendered a great disservice to Islam – in fact an open betrayal. She deliberately and intentionally proposes ideas and concepts which are in conflict with the Shariah – The Qur’aan and Sunnah.

In addition to this, she is not a Mujtahid. She has no right to refer directly to the Qur’aan and Hadeeth, tear them out of context, misinterpret them and submit them to her western ideas of Kufr, Fisq and Fujoor!

In fact, the final ruling of the Shariah is what the Fuqaha have said whom we have extensively quoted in our booklet against ‘Habibia Soofie Mosque’. The Fuqaha derive their rulings from the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the Sahaabah. The Sunnah of Sahaabah is equated to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

She paints a very negative picture of Muslims to the non-Muslims and achieves nothing but the pleasure of Shaitaan, who appears to be her ‘lord’. Her article is full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing. On the contrary, her article conceals the Haq and is a total misrepresentation of Islamic Law. She should realise that her ‘professor’ title does not confer upon her the right to speak rubbish in the name of ‘Islam’.

Allah Ta’ala has granted her brains, but it is clear that this Aunt is incapable of using her brains because she is not interested in what the Sahabah and Fuqaha have to say, but instead opts for opinions which the Shariah rejects with contempt.


We must reiterate that if she did not intend to accuse the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum of ‘betraying’ Islam, then she should have first consulted the Ulamae-Haq (proper Ulama who make Hijaab, do not appear on TV or pose for photographs) who would have advised her of the Kufr implications, Shaitaani accusations and baseless arguments with which her article is fraught. But, instead of consulting Ulama or rather sealing her lips, she deemed it necessary to launch an attack – albeit spineless and putrid – against all those who are upholding a prohibition enacted by the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum.

For a ‘Muslim’ who loves the Sahaabah, her very title is absolutely disgusting. Really, what did she gain in her tirade and fulmination against those standing up for the truth which is in fact the Fatwa of the Sahaabah – which is upheld by the Fuqaha of the only four valid Math-habs – Hanafi, Shaafi, Maaliki and Hambali?

Besides the title of her article betraying Islam, her article that was published, also betrays Islam. Thus, Nuraan Davids has betrayed Islam with her article as has been explained, with the Fadhl of Allah.

The need for responding to this article was necessary because it allusively criticizes and condemns the Sahaabah, it is misleading, it has dangerous implications and it is bereft of any academic worth.

Concerning the Sahaabah, Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said:

“Honour my Sahaabah…”  

“Adhere compulsorily to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my rightly-guided Khulafa.”  

“My Sahaabah are like the Stars  (of Guidance)…”  

In addition to its academic bankruptcy, her critique is clogged with inaccuracies and impertinent insults which do not prove the permissibility of women attending the Masaajid.

She should first present a solid valid case for the permissibility of women attending the Masaajid. After she is able to present a hallucinatory basis for the imagined permissibility of women attending the Masaajid, then only should she embark on a decrial of those not allowing women to attend the Masaajid. But, instead of presenting evidence for her views, she launched a verbal attack against all Muslims who ban women from the Masaajid.

She prefers blaming Islam’s Patriarchal system which is proven from the Qur’aan. She is also very ignorant of the laws of Hijaab, because had she known proper Islamic Law regarding Hijaab, she should have not descended to the level of an ignoramus and pen drivel regarding women being confined to the precincts of her home.

What aggravates her crime is her public self-exhibition which is directly in conflict with the Qur’aan. In the meaning of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, a woman is progressive when she recedes into the sanctity of her home and remains glued there in obedience to the Qur’aanic command: “And, remain (glued) inside your homes, and make not a display of yourselves such as the exhibitions of Jaahiliyyah.”

This is the concept of progress of women which Hazrat Faatimah (Radhiyallahu Anha) defined to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), and which he highly praised. These westernized ‘progressive’ stupid aunts are participants in the ‘exhibition of Jaahiliyyah’.

Finally, if she was aware that the Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid, she would have never been able to pen such vile accusations which are a direct assault on the integrity of the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum. It is only Kuffaar such as Shias who attack the honour and integrity of the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum…Thus, she should really check her Imaan as her article implicates the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum of betraying Islam which is Kufr – and reeks of Shiism!

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid, the Eidgah, the shopping malls, and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi (moron) who is a jaahil, and who lacks ability in understanding the  subtleties of the Shariah ………… The correct verdict is categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And, this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’) Mathhab.”   [HAZRAT IBN HAJAR HAITAMI RAHIMAHULLAH]


By a Sister 

Nowadays, we have thousands of women across the world portraying themselves in different manners all in an attempt to establish feminine liberalism. Many of these females are under the mistaken impression that a woman’s worth can only be fully appreciated when she has the same rights, responsibilities and schedules as men. 

This idea has taken such deep root that there are many of our Muslim mothers and sisters who are falling for it. Muslim women have developed the misconception that they are oppressed or have lesser worth than men, due to the fact that Islam has clearly differentiated between the roles of the two genders. 

I wish to ask those liberalists who harper on regarding gender-equality whether a male being unable to give birth makes him any lesser of a man? If not, then why insist on removing the modesty which is naturally ingrained in women? Why persist in your efforts to equalise the roles of both genders? 

At this point, I would like to set the minds of my Muslim mothers and sisters at ease with regards to their high position in the eyes of Allah… 

First of all, it should be noted that Allah makes special mention of Maryam (alayhissalaam) in the Qur’aan, indicating quite clearly that gender is not factor for the high position that a person may earn in Allah’s eyes. In mentioning her story, Allah describes the disappointment that her mother expressed when she gave birth to a female. Thereafter Allah states: ‘and the male is not like a female’, after which mention is made of the exalted status that she reached despite her gender. This clearly illustrates that taqwa is not based on gender and certainly, the most honourable in the eyes of Allah are those with the most taqwa. 

Secondly, in numerous places, reference is made to the world as a place of provisions. In one hadeeth Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) mentions: ‘the entire world is provisions and the best of provisions is a virtuous wife.’ This hadeeth explains that the most important thing that a man can gain in this world is a righteous wife, due to the fact that men are easily swayed by women. Therefore, if a man gains a wife who brings him closer to Allah, she will be a means of his success, both in this world and the hereafter. Kind of reminds one of the saying: ‘Behind every successful man is a woman.’ 

Thirdly, numerous concessions are given for women in this world, without their reward being lessened in the least. For example:  

*A woman who performs her hajj (which is fardh anyway) gets the reward of being in jihaad. 

*A woman who experiences pregnancy and childbirth, gets the reward of being in jihaad, so much so that if she dies during that time, she enjoys the reward of a martyr. 

*A woman is not just permitted to read salaah in her home, but commanded too, and also she receives more reward for performing salaah at home than she receives for reading salaah in masjidun nabawi. Therefore, she earns more reward than a man who goes out in the cold to join the jamaat salaah. 

*A woman who sweeps out her home while making the dhikr of Allah, gains the same reward as one who sweeps out the Ka’ba . 

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made mention of just one Sahabi (RA) who would be welcomed from all the eight doors of Jannah: the most honourable Abu Bakr Siddeeq (Radhiyallahu Anhu). Yet, this virtue is promised to any woman who does four things:

1) Performs her five times salaah.

2) Keeps her Ramadhaan fasts.

3) Protects her chastity.

4) Obeys her husband.

Last, but certainly not least, it is mentioned that a woman who observes the correct laws of hijaab in this world – not just covering the face, but only emerging from her home at times of utter necessity – Allah Himself will visit her in Jannah. 

We ask Allah to bestow on all Muslim women the ability to follow in the footsteps of pious examples like Maryam (alayhis salaam), Aasiyah (alayhis salaam), Khadijah (radhiyallahu anha), Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) and Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). Aameen

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

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

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

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

Qur’aanic Purdah

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kays group says in its pamphlet:

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

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

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

The Kays group states:

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

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

The modernist writers of the pamphlet further claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kays and company defines the jilbaab as follows:

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

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

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

Tafseer Ibn Katheer states in its description of the jilbaab:

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

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

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

Tafseer Abi Sa-ood defines the jilbaab as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in Ihyaaul Uloom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Niqaab, Kays and company state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pamphlet of the modernists asks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Hadith also in Muatta-e-Maalik:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kays and his associates claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This difference is explained as follows in BAZLUL MAJHOOD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Ainul Hidaayah appears the following:

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

The following appears in Raddul Mukhtaar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Kays states in his pamphlet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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