Category Archives: Women in Islam

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

By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape

INTRODUCTION

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]

THE ‘TITLE’ OF HER ARTICLE BETRAYS ISLAM

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. 

BANNING WOMEN FROM THE MASAAJID COMES FROM NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

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’…

‘WE WANT TO PRAY IN MOSQUES TOO’.

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”.’  

Response:

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.

SHAITAANI APPEALS

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.

BLIGHTS HER OWN INTELLIGENCE

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.
NO DISCRIMINATION

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.  

MAKKAH MUKARRAMAH

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.

PATRIARCHAL

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???

THE CONFINES OF THE HOME

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!

THE QUR’AAN AND SUNNAH

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.

EQUALITY

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.

AUTONOMUS INTELLECTUALITY

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.

HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS

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.”

MALE INTERPRETIVE PRIVILEGE

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.

HER SHAITAANI ADVICE

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 LIKE SOME BIG MUFASSIRAH

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. 

HER BASELESS ACCUSATIONS WHICH STINK OF KUFR

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.

NEWS24

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.

HER BETRAYAL OF ISLAM AND THE DEEN

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]

THE CURSE OF FEMININE LIBERALISM

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.

DUMBFOUNDING STUPIDITY

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.”

Women Attending the Eid Salaah – Response to the Corrupt Arguments

BY JAMIATUL ULAMA NORTHERN CAPE

“And (O Women) remain firmly in your homes” [Qur’aan]

HAZRAT AYESHA RADHIYALLAHU ANHA’S FATWA 

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]

THE AMUSING CONTROVERSY OF THE MORONS 

Commencing their putrid article, the Mazaar-Mawlid Bid’atis aver: 

“There has been much controversy in South Africa regarding our mothers and sisters in Islam attending the Eid prayers. Others in the Muslim world will find it amusing!”

Before responding to the Bid’ati Mass-Mawlid and Grand Moulood clowns, the official rulings of all four Math-habs will be salutary for those who think that they understand the Shariah better than the four Math-habs: 

The Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab:

According to Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah, it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, Shopping malls, etc. 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).”  [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]

The Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab:

Allamah Kaasaani Rahimahullah states: “The Fuqaha have unanimously agreed (enacted Ijmaa`) that indeed there is noconcession 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 steadfastly at 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]

(The term as-shawaabb means young women, and ash-shawaabb are not confined to teenage girls. All those females who are not aged hags and who hold sexual attraction come within the scope of ash-shawaabb.)

The Fatwa of the Maaliki Math-hab:

“And 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’. And when the situation is like that, then such a ruling of prohibition will be applied. Thus, the prohibition of women (attending the Eidgah and Musaajid) is categorical in this era under all circumstances because in there emergence from their homes, there is fitnah which is never concealed…” [Allamah Ibnul Haaj 737 – Al-Madkhal]

The Fatwa of the Hambali Math-hab:

“It is impermissible for beautiful women even if they are not young to attend Jamaat Salaah with men because of the fear of fitnah by them!” [Matlab Ulin Nuha]

The above rulings are found in many more Kitaabs of all four Math-habs. It is the only correct Fatwa and it confirms that all four Math-habs have enacted Ijmaa’ on the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid, the Eidgah, etc. already many centuries ago!

Thus, it should be clear that those who clamour for women attending the Eidgahs are morons according to the Shaafis! The ones who propagate opinions in conflict with the four Math-habs are the worst of fitnah-makers! According to the Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab by Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah, it is only stupid people who claim that women may attend the Eidgahs, Masaajid, etc!

What is the objective of the Bid’atis when they say that ‘Others in the Muslim world will find it amusing!” The objective is to portray the idea that in Islam, women may attend the Masaajid and the Eidgah! Far from being  the truth, we have presented the views of all four Math-habs! The Four Math-habs is in fact the Shariah which portrays the correct understanding of the Ahaadeeth!

It is rather amusing that these so-called ‘sunnis’ are clamouring for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgahs, etc! The Sahaabah were the very first ones who enacted the ban! Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said that his Sahaabah are like stars! The Sunnah cannot be understood without the medium of the Sahaabah. And the Sahaabah and the entire Shariah will not be properly understood without submitting one’s self to the official rulings of the Math-hab which one follows!  

THE ERA OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

Clutching at straws, they state: “The Hadith of the Prophet (SAW) as narrated by Imam Bukhari and others is CLEAR that the women would attend the Eid Salah in the  Era of the Prophet (SAW).”

The response:

First and foremost, it is necessary to mention that ‘saw’ is not a Durood! The shortest Durood is Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam – not disrespectful abbreviations like ‘saw’ and ‘pbuh’!

Secondly, the Hadith of Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha in Bukhari is clear that Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam would have prohibited women from the Masaajid, thus 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’

Thirdly, the Fuqaha utilize the Fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha, the Fatwa of Hazrat Umar and other Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum as the basis for prohibition!

Fourthly, we are Muqallideen. We have no right to refer directly to the Ahaadeeth for Fiqhi rulings. Only the Mujtahideen have such a right. That is why those who opine that women may attend the Masaajid, are against all four Math-habs and are unable to present a valid argument for their weak case!

Fifthly, no one – not even one of the Fuqaha of the four Mathhabs – have denied that women attended the Eidgah as well as the Masaajid during Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s time! However, they all explained that this permission was restricted with strict conditions. And these conditions were not upheld even in Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha’s time, that is why the Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid.

The conditions were stipulated by Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself! Allah Ta’ala has granted us the Ni’mat (bounty) of Aql (intelligence). And we should use our brains. The Sahaabah followed the Sunnah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam very meticulously. From the entire Ummah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, the best of mankind is the Sahaabah. It is a sign of Kufr to believe or imagine that the Sahaabah would oppose Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam! Thus, when the conditions were not upheld in Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s time, then what does intelligence dictate in this era of immorality and promiscuity!

Sixthly, the era of the Sahaabah is known as Khairul Quroon – the best of eras! In such pure eras, women were banned. Then what should be said about this filthy era of ours! The Fuqaha have mentioned the details in their Fiqh Kutub! Thus, it is highly irresponsible and also deviation to submit the Ahaadeeth to one’s personal opinion!

Seventhly, it would be beautiful to quote Allamah ‘Aini Rahimahullah who said:

“So look at what Hazrat Aisha Radhiyallahu Anha said: ‘If Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam saw what the women have introduced’. And it was not (a long period of time) between this statement (i.e. the above-mentioned portion of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha’s Fatwa) and the demise of Nabi Alayhis Salaam except a very short period that the women (of that era) did not introduce even  one-hundredth (100th) of what the women of this era (i.e. around 800 Hijri) have introduced. Thus, if it was the women of this era, they would have been banned from living, leave alone them being prohibited from the Masaajid and other places.” [Sharah Abu Dawood]

THE SUNNAH OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

The anti-Sunnah Bid’atis state: 

“In fact, the Prophet (SAW) would order all women, including the young virgins, those in haydh, and those did not have proper clothes to attend (the latter were instructed to borrow clothes and the menstruating women to just sit there in the Eidgah/Musalla). This was the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) as he established it for all generations.”

The Sunnah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam is what the four Math-habs say. The Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid! Do you Bid’atis understand the Sunnah better than the Sahaabah? If you claim yes, then we have no discussion with you morons! And if you say No, then utilize your Aql and clearly try to understand the rulings of the Fuqaha of the four Math-habs. 

The above-mentioned Hadeeth is the Hadeeth of Hazrat Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha. The Fuqaha of all four Math-habs understood the Hadeeth quoted above better than the morons of today! Even Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah has responded to the above-mentioned Hadeeth with the Hadeeth of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha which we already mentioned above!

Allamah Sarakhsi states: “there is no khurooj (emergence from the home) upon women for the two Eids. And undoubtedly, they were given concession in this regard (i.e. attending the Eid-Gah). However, today, I certainly regard it as Makrooh (their attendance at the Eidgah) i.e. for Ash-Shawaab for undoubtedly women have been ordered with qaraar fil buyoot (to stay always at home) and they have been banned from khurooj (emerging from the home) because there is fitnah in khurooj.”

(The term as-shawaabb means young women, and ash-shawaabb are not confined to teenage girls. All those females who are not aged hags and who hold sexual attraction come within the scope of ash-shawaabb.) 

Furthermore, the term Makrooh above means Haraam! This is based on Fiqh! 

Explaining the concession which is not applicable anymore, Allamah Sarakhsi states: “So it is evident that their Khurooj (for Eid Salaah during the concession period) was only to increase the number of the Muslims.” This is confirmed by the Hanafi and Shaafi Fuqaha and this is the response to the Hadith of Umme  Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha which deviates love to quote. The view of impermissibility is backed up with the fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha. Allamah Aini says: “Where is Hazrat Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha in comparison to Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha?”

Furthermore, it is a blatant lie to say that it is Sunnah for women to attend the Masaajid. Not one authority from amongst the Fuqaha held such a view! It was merely permissible, but not even a general permissibility. It was permissibility restricted  lwith conditions. The following extract from Fataawa Fiqhiyyatul Kubra explains the reality which the stubborn Bid’atis don’t want to accept:

“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.” – Portion of a lengthy Fatwa of Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah!

THE STUPID ARGUMENT OF TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED

The stupid Bid’atis assert “Of course, in later times, with the expansion of Islam to various lands and cultures, this Sunnah was “temporarily suspended” by some Fuqaha, especially noting that the attendance of women was not considered an Obligation, but an Encouraged matter (which may be “suspended temporarily” by the Ulama considering their context). They tried to suspend it due to (genuine or cultural) fears of Fitna and danger.”  

Firstly, it was never and will never ever be Sunnah for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc. The claim of Sunnah is a blatant lie! Does anyone in his right mind believe that the Sahaabah would have prohibited others from the Sunnah?

Secondly, the argument of expansion to Islam to various lands is absolutely baseless. These Mawlid rubbishes don’t seem to know what they utter and mutter in their stupid arguments! These Bid’atis need to expand their brains to understand that the Sahaabah banned women in Medina Munawwarah from the Masaajid! Furthermore, none of the Fuqaha mentioned culture or the expansion of Islam as a reason for prohibiting women from the Masaajid. Thus, it is drivel to speak of the expansion of Islam. 

Thirdly, women were not prohibited temporarily from the Masaajid by the Fuqaha. We already quoted all four Math-habs and all the Fuqaha have enacted Ijmaa’ that it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid! The following quotes prove this fact:

➡ The correct version is that the Fatwa is absolute prohibition.  [Al-Fataawa Al Fiqhiyatul Kubra]

➡ On the issue of women attending the Musaajid and the Eidgah, Sheikh Imaam Allamah Jundi (771) Rahimahullah states: “and in this era of ours, prohibition is conclusive. Allah knows best. The famous statement of Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha – “If Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had seen what women have innovated…until the end of the Hadeeth” – indicates towards it (the prohibition)”.   [At-Towdeeh]

➡ Allamah Bukhaari (616) states: “Verily, the correct view according to us is that there is no concession for women to attend any Salaah whatsoever….and our companions have taken proof from Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu’s prohibition of women emerging from their homes based on the fitnah which he had observed.” [Muheetul  Burhaani]

➡And it is mentioned in An-Naseehah that women will be prohibited from attending the Eid Salaah – very strictly with beauty, perfume and (anything) which intends/causes/is a means of fitnah. And he said: ‘Banning them in these times from khurooj is most beneficial for them and for men in several ways.” [Al-Furoo’ of Ibnul Maflah]

The above quotes are just a few. We can fill a catalogue of quotes to prove that it is absolutely Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid, the Eidgah, the shopping malls, etc. The talk of a temporary prohibition is pure rubbish!

Fourthly, it is not an issue of “some Fuqaha”, but there is Ijmaa’ of all the Fuqaha on prohibition!

Fifthly, the statement ‘especially noting that the attendance of women was not considered an Obligation, but an Encouraged matter’ is absolute nonsense! The Fuqaha did not prohibit women from the Masaajid simply because it was not Fardh for women to attend. 

Sixthly, women attending Masaajid was never encouraged. These Bid’ati morons quote only  the Ahaadeeth which suit them. The following Ahaadeeth prove that women were never encouraged to attend the Masaajid. On the contrary, they were encouraged to perform their Salaah at home!

➡ Hadhrat Umme Salmah (Radhiyallahu Anha) reports from Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) that he said, “The best Musaajid for women are the innermost corner of their homes.” [Imaam Ahmad/Baihaqi/ Kanzul Ummaal]

➡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.”

➡ It is reported from Umme Humaid, the wife of Abi Humaid As-Saa`idi from Nabi (sallallahu Alayhi wasallam) that he said to her, “I have been informed that you like to perform Salaat behind me, but your Salaat in the innermost corner of your house is better than your Salaat performed in your room and it is better for you to read in your room than in your veranda and it is better for you to read Salaat in your house than in your local Masjid and your Salaat performed in your local Masjid is better than your Salaat performed in my Masjid.” [Imaam  Ahmad/Ibn Hibbaan/Kanzul Ummaal]

The statements of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the above-mentioned Ahaadeeth clearly prove that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had emphasized that the Salaat of a woman in the remotest corner of her home is superior to performing Salaat in his Musjid behind him!

The Shaafi Faqeeh, Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah states in his Fatwa:

“The statement of Ibn Khuzaimah who is among our Akaabir (senior) Ashaab 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 being equal to a thousand Salaat. This means 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.”

Keeping these Ahaadith in front of us, it is clear that the attendance of women for congregational Salaat in the Masjid during the era of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) was not due to any virtue or greater reward; rather it was based on mere consent and permissibility. And then too, the permissibility was restricted with very strict conditions!

How sad and deplorable then is the state of those morons who call women to the Musaajid and encourage them to perform their Salaat in congregation. They are actually exhorting opposition to the teachings and wishes of Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). To further aggravate the issue they deem this a Sunnat, and they regard their actions as being a revival of the Sunnat! 

If it had been Sunnat for women to attend the Masjid for congregational Salaat, why then did Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) teach that a woman’s Salaat in her local Masjid is better than her Salaat in Masjid-e-Nabawi and that her Salaat in her home is better than her Salaat in her local Masjid? It is obvious then that a woman’s Salaat performed in isolation in her home would be an omission of the Sunnat. Is the reward in practising a Sunnat greater or omitting it? It will then be as though Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is encouraging an omission of a Sunnat by encouraging women to perform their Salaat in their homes!

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!

It is neither Fardh, Waajib, nor Sunnat-e-Muakkadah for women to attend the Masjid for the five times Salaat in congregation with men. 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.

Seventhly, the deviates state: “They tried to suspend it due to (genuine or cultural) fears of Fitna and danger”. Even these moron Bid’atis are constrained to concede that the prohibition was based on ‘Fitnah and danger’. The Fuqaha never tried to suspend women from the Masjid. They categorically prohibited women from the Masaajid. We already mentioned many of their Fataawa above which is the official ruling of the Shariah. The element of Fitnah is an element of prohibition. Can’t these Bid’atis understand such a simple fact which all the Fuqaha Rahimahumullah have explained???

RESTRICTING THE PROHIBITION  TO THE HANAFI MATH-HAB

The morons of Habibia Soofie-goofie Mosque state: 

“The Hanafis were at the forefront of this “suspension”. The founding savant of the Hanafi Madh-hab, Imam Muhammad bin al-Hasan narrates in his Kitab al-Athaar that: “Imam Abu-Hanifah informed us from Abd-al-Karim ibn Abi’l-Mukhariq that (the female Sahabi) Umm Atiyyah (RA) said: “Women used to be granted as a concession (“ordered” in other stronger narrations) to go out to attend the two Eids (prayers): al-Fitr and al-Adha (i.e. in the time of the Prophet SAW).” However, immediately after that, Imam Muhammad states:

“Their going out to attend the Eid does not please us, except for old women beyond child-bearing age. This is the opinion of Abu-Hanifah also.” As we can see from this early Hanafi text: all women were already attending the Eid prayer (as per the established Sunnah) in those early days. However, it seems that the noble Imam Abu-Hanifah (a Persian from Iraq) did not “like it”. Nevertheless, even he (RA) also, made an exception for “older women”. He didn’t ban it outright!”

Response:

Firstly, it is misleading to say that ‘The Hanafis were at the forefront of this “suspension”. As explained earlier, it wasn’t a suspension, but a prohibition. The Sahaabah were at the forefront prohibiting women from the Masaajid.

Hadhrat Abu Amr Shaibaani reports that he saw Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu Anhu) expelling women from the Masjid on the day of Jumu’ah, saying, “Go to your homes, it is better for you.” [Majmauz Zawaaid – Haafidh Haithami said that all the narrators are authentic and reliable]

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the second Khalifah, prohibited women from the Musjid. Not a single Sahaabi differed with him. Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar and Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu Anhuma) would pelt women with pebbles, chasing them away from the Musjid.

Secondly, the citation from Kitaabul Aathaar is in fact an admission that our Fuqaha were well aware of the Ahaadeeth which indicated permission. Whilst the prohibition is until Qiyaamah, the permission was very temporary.

Thirdly, we had already responded to the Hadeeth of Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha above. Even Imaam Muhammed Rahimahullah understood the Ahaadeeth differently than the Bid’atis.

Fourthly, the translation of the Bid’atis of Imaam Muhammed’s’ statement is a hard nail into the coffin of the Bid’atis dead dalaail on the issue of women attending the Masaajid and the Eidgah which is: “Their going out to attend the Eid does not please us, except for old women beyond child-bearing age.”.

However, it is also necessary to clarify that La-Yu’jibuna is in fact interpretation of “karaahat’ which means impermissibility. The following text in Kitaabul Asl clarifies the issue:

Concerning women attending Eid Salaah, Imaam Abu Hanifah stated: “Verily today, I regard it as Makrooh.” Explaining the reality, Allamah Sarakhsi states: “there is no khurooj (emergence from the home) upon women for the two Eids. And undoubtedly, they were given concession in this regard (i.e. attending the Eid-Gah). However, today, I certainly regard it as Makrooh (their attendance at the Eidgah) i.e. for Ash-Shawaab for undoubtedly women have been ordered with qaraar fil buyoot (to stay always at home) and they have been banned from khurooj (emerging from the home) because there is fitnah in khurooj.”

The above clearly shows that it is Haraam for women to attend the Eidgah. The Fitnah is much worse in this era! The concession for ‘old women beyond child-bearing age’ is a clear admission that the element of Fitnah is an element which all the Fuqaha considered which the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum had understood from Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam!

Fifthly, the Bid’atis state: “As we can see from this early Hanafi text: all women were already attending the Eid prayer (as per the established Sunnah) in those early days.” Women attending the Eid Salaah was not an established Sunnah as proven above! The established Sunnah by the Sahaabah who understood the Sunnah better than anyone else, was to ban and prevent women from the Masaajid, etc. From the early days, women were banned from the Masaajid, the Eidgahs, etc. 

Sixthly, according to all four Math-habs, it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid and the Eidgah as proven earlier. Thus, there is no merit in saying: “However, it seems that the noble Imam Abu-Hanifah (a Persian from Iraq) did not “like it”.” Imaam  Abu Hanifah did not just dislike the presence of women at the Masaajid and Eidgahs, but was against it and abhorred it, except for old hags attending Fajr, Esha and Eidgah due to the element of Fitnah being less! Why not Zuhr and Asr – O morons?

Imaam Abu Hanifah was not just any ordinary Persian from Iraq. Imaam Shaafi Rahimahullah mentioned that ‘the people are the children of Abu Hanifah in Fiqh’! Imaam Maalik has mentioned regarding Imaam Abu Hanifah’s intellect and great Ijtihaad, that if Imaam Abu Hanifah said that the pillar is made out of gold, then he will even prove to you that it is made out of gold!

The statement “Nevertheless, even he (RA) also, made an exception for “older women”. He didn’t ban it outright!” really means nothing for the Bid’atis. The exception of older women is in fact a solid proof that it is Haraam for all young women to attend the Masaajid and Eidgah! Any women which holds sexual attraction is prohibited from attending the Masaajid and Eidgah! The question is: why did Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah ban all young women??? The claim of Sunnah by the Bid’atis is false!!!

Even if Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah did not ban women outright, the Fuqaha of the Hanafi, and the other three Math-habs banned all women outrightly from the Masaajid and the Eidgah! They based the outright ban on the principles of the Imaam of the Math-hab.

Even old women are raped in these days! Nowadays, the fitnah is not only from criminals who ravage even old hags. The fitnah also stems from the hags themselves. It is standard practice nowadays for hags to emulate young women in dress, make-up and zina stunts. Cant these Bid’atis understand such a reality? Are they so blind to see that the element of Fitnah is so glaring that there is really no need even to explain that it is Haraam for women to  attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc! 

THE ARGUMENT OF HANAFI-RULED LANDS

The Bid’atis then present the following stupid argument: “It seems that this Hanafi opinion of “suspending the Sunnah” (not “prohibiting it” as no one can do that), spread in Hanafi ruled lands (e.g. Indo-Pak), where the local pre-Islamic cultures were already very conservative regarding women attending public gatherings.”  

Response:
Firstly, it does not only seem, but it is clear that these Bid’atis are incapable of understanding that the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid, Eidgah, shopping centres, etc. is not solely a Hanafi opinion. It is the Fatwa of the Shaafi, Maaliki and Hambali Math-habs! It is the Fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Abdullah Bin Mas’ood, Hazrat Abdullah Bin Umar Radhiyallahu Anhum, etc.

If anyone in the world feels that they have a lot of knowledge, then they should present to us just the name of one Sahaabi who never agreed to the ban which Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu had imposed upon women attending the Masaajid?????????????????????????? 

Secondly, it is a baseless slander to accuse Hanafis of suspending a Sunnah! If it was a Sunnah for women to attend the Masaajid, then why did Imaam Maalik Rahimahullah prohibit women from the Masaajid whereas Imaam Maalik’s Math-hab is from Madina Munawwarah?

Thirdly, to say that no one can prohibit women from the Masaajid clearly indicates the Ilmi bankruptcy of those who make such stupid claims. The Sahaabah prohibited women from the Masaajid. So who the hell are these stupid Mawlid Bid’ati morons to say that no one can prohibit women from the Masaajid? Do these Habibia Soofie-goofies think that they understand the Sunnah better than the Sahaabah?

Fourthly, it is incorrect to say that the prohibition “spread in Hanafi ruled lands (e.g. Indo-Pak)”. In the very beginning, we had quoted the Fataawa of all four Math-habs. All four Math-habs are against it! And none of them were from the Indo-Pak sub-continent which the stupid Bid’ati scavengers present as a ‘daleel’. Hence, the following appears in the Mufta-Biha Kitaab of the Maaliki Math-hab:

“Qaadhi Iyaadh said: ‘and when they are prohibited from the Musjid, then to a greater extent they will be prohibited from attending other places.” [Mawaahibul Jaleel]

And according to Shaafis, Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah states:

“Verily, the young woman and beautiful woman and those whom men desire: it is impermissible for them to be present at the Eidgah due to the fear of fitnah upon them and by them. And if it is said that this fatwa contradicts the Hadith of Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha, then we say: ‘it is established in the two Saheehs (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) from Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha who said: ‘If Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam had to observe what women had introduced, he would have prohibited them just as how the women of the Bani Israeel were prohibited.” And also because the fitnahs and causes of evil in these times are much more than the first era (which Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha speaks about).”  [Al-Majmoo’ of Nawawi –  676]

Even Allamah Aini Rahimahullah criticized the women of Egypt approximately 600 years ago in his Umdatul Qaari stating that the women who were banned from the Masaajid in the time of the Sahaabah, did not introduce even 1000th of the Fitnah of the women in Egypt in the era he lived! In our day of filth and crime, the fitnah is a million times worse.

Fifthly, the following statement has no academic worth: ‘where the local pre-Islamic cultures were already very conservative regarding women attending public gatherings’. Pre-Islamic cultures was not the basis for prohibiting women from attending public gatherings. 

The following ruling appears in a Shaafi Fiqh Kitaab:

“Women should not attend Jamaat (in the Musjid) whether they are young or old because of the spread of fasaad (evil, immorality). …..The fatwa today is on prohibition for all…..This includes (the daily) Jamaat Salaat, Eid, Istisqaa and gatherings oflectures, especially the lecture programmes of the juhhaal (the cardboard muftis and paper molvis) who masquerade as Ulama whilst their motive is carnal lust.” [Tuhfatul Habeeb]

The lecture programs of Juhhaal refer to the stupid Mawlids/Mouloods and functions of the Ninowy, Habibia, Sultan Bahu, Saaberie Chisty, Urs, Giyaarwi, and Qabar Pujaari Bid’atis!

UNINTERRUPTED ATTENDANCE OF SHAMELESS WOMEN

The Bid’atis lauding praises on all the corrupt deviates who allow women to attend the Masaajid, the Eidgahs, etc. states: “HOWEVER, I wish to remind everyone here that while this may have been the case with Hanafi India or Salafi Arabia (exception of the Haramayn though); in OTHER PARTS OF THE MUSLIM WORLD, the Sunnah of women attending the Eid Salah has continued uninterrupted.”  

Response:
Firstly, we wish to remind you that the Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid!

Secondly, currently in this world, it is only deviates, Mudhilleen, Bid’atis and the Ulama-e-Soo morons who allow women to go to the Masaajid! 

Thirdly, there is no benefit in mentioning Hanafi and Salafi as the ruling is not restricted to the Hanafis or the anti-Taqleed Salafis! We have proven that according to all four Math-habs, women may not attend the Masaajid! We have quoted excessively from the Kutub above!
Fourthly, what happens in other parts of the Muslim World, is not a valid proof according to Fiqh! The Fatwas of the Fuqaha should be quoted – not the abnormal practices of corrupt Muslims in other parts or some parts of the Muslim world!

Fifthly, there is no Sunnah of women attending the Eid Salaah. It was never Sunnah and will never be Sunnah until Qiyaamah. Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah clinches the ruling of the Shaafi Math-hab as follows:

“Tahaawi said that the command for their emergence was in the initial period of Islam so that the Muslims may appear large in number in the  eyes of  the enemies.  

It is mentioned in Sharh Ibn Daqeequl Eid: ‘Verily, in that time (the initial period of Islam) the people of Islam were in numerical inferiority, hence there was a need to emphasize the emergence of women and (even) the females of khudoor (young girls who remain within their homes).….. 

It is mentioned in Musannaf of Ibnul Attaar that going to the Musjid in the darkness at the time of safety from harm and fitnah, was permitted during the era of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and for a while during the time of the Sahaabah. Thereafter this (emergence from the homes to go to the Musjid) was prohibited because of the (fitnah) which women had introduced such as adornment, perfume, and their mischief with men. Then he (the Author of Musannaf) mentioned the Hadith of Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) in which appears the prohibition of females.……………

It is appropriate (i.e. necessary) for a man not to aid his wife or any woman under his jurisdiction to emerge from her home.………. This (i.e. their attending the Musjid in the initial period of Islam) has been prohibited for other eras because in their attendance there are many acts of haraam corruption.

And, he (i.e. Imaam Ghazaali) said in Al-Ihya: ‘It is Waajib to prohibit women from attending the Musaajid for Salaat and gatherings of thikr when there is fear of fitnah. These then are the different views of the Ulama according to the changing times. When there is the incidence of fitnah, then (their attendance) is haraam without any doubt. The meaning of fitnah is zina and its introductory steps such as looking (at females), privacy with them, touching, etc.

At the time of the prevalence of haraam acts, the correct view is absolute haraam, and a Faqeeh does not hesitate in this (i.e. in issuing the fatwa of haraam).  ………………….The correct version is that the Fatwa is absolute prohibition.” [Al-Fataawa Al Fiqhiyatul Kubra]

The argument of the Bid’atis that ‘Nobody “suspended it” or stopped it ever’ is a blatant lie. Read again what Ibn Hajar Haitami of the Shaafi Math-hab has said above! Since, these Habibia Soofi—Darbaar-goofies have attributed the prohibition to ‘Hanafi India’, it would be exciting to know which Math-hab they follow! It can be none other than the Math-hab of ghabaawat and Shaitaaniyyat. And Imaam Ghazaali was not from the Indo-Pak subcontinent. The Bid’ati grave-worshippers may check out this fact.

Applicable to these Habibia Bid’atis 100%, Ibn Hajar states:

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid 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).” [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]”

‘Congratulations’ to all those morons who say that women may attend the Masaajid in this belated age of Fitnah, immorality, promiscuity and shamelessness. These moron Bid’ati clowns feast on lies.

HARAAM PHOTOS
The Bid’ati says: “I attach here photos from the Eid Salah in the Mauritanian Desert. It is perhaps the closest image one can get of the Salah of the Prophet (SAW)’s time. You will notice the women sitting behind the men.”  

Haraam photos are not academic proofs! The official rulings of all four Math-habs have already been mentioned! These Habibia Bid’atis are conducting themselves like corrupt Salafis on the issue of women attending the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc! They don’t seem to be following any of the four Math-habs, except the Math-hab of Shaitaaniyyat and Haraam Mawlid-merrymaking circus-type carnivals!

It is indeed scraping the very bottom of the barrel of stupidity to present as proof haraam photos of haraam practices of the ignoramuses of this belated century to negate what the Shariah has ruled during the era of the Sahaabah at a time when not a single Sahaabi had ventured near to the Indo-Pak subcontinent to be influenced by Indian culture which the moron Bid’atis hallucinate.

THE SHAAFI MATH-HAB AND INDONESIA

The lost Bid’ati states: “Also, photos from Indonesia (country with largest Muslim population). Muslims of the Cape come from Indonesia generally and follow the Shafi’i Madh-hab. As a photo says a thousand words, attached are also photos of mass female Eid congregations from: Egypt, Kashmir, Senegal, Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Iran, Philippines, UK, Gambia and INDIA. Please look at them carefully so that we can expand our horizons! We are part of a global Ummah. After that, as South Africans, we are part of Africa.”

Even the circus-clowns would be amazed at the comicality of these Mawlid comedians! We have already explained the ruling of the Shaafi Math-hab. According to Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah, all those in Indonesia, Egypt, Kashmir, Senegal, Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Iran, Philippines, UK, Gambia and INDIA who allow women to attend the Masaajid are MORONS! 

There is no academic value in this article of the Bid’atis besides misleading statements, lies, and laughable disgorgements. What type of a ludicrous argument or statement is ‘After that, as South Africans, we are part of Africa.’!!!!

We follow the Shariah – not Africa or any of the other countries mentioned by the moron! Really, these Bid’atis seem to be very sciolistically skilled in the art of verbal antics! They seem to have enough time to fool around with the laws of Allah which is dangerous for one’s Imaan! May Allah save us. Aameen!

These Bid’atis need to expand the horizons of their intelligence and need to realize that the final-word on all issues is the verdicts and rulings of the Fuqaha. If they can’t understand this, then they are worse than the deviant Salafis who shun the Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. In rejecting the Ijma’ of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah on the prohibition of women attending the Eidgah, Musjid, etc., the deviance of the Bid’atis is worse than that of the Salafis.

THE GLOBAL/AFRICAN CONTEXT
Posing their laughable question, these moronic Bid’atis state:

“The question for our local Fuqaha is: As 21st century South African Muslims, will we continue to advocate this “suspension of the Sunnah” that we inherited from our Indian Hanafi roots? or are we going to suspend that “suspension” itself and go back to the Sunnah as the more suitable option for our multi-cultural global/African context???”

Firstly, the local Ulama are not Fuqaha. They are Muqallideen who must follow the official rulings of the four Math-habs! And according to all four Math-habs, it is Haraam for women to attend the Eidgah!

Secondly, there has been no suspension of the Sunnah. Accusing the Sahaabah or anyone of suspending the Sunnah is a slanderous lie! It was only a concession which women were granted to attend the Masaajid during the era of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam restricted with very stringent conditions which did not exist even in the Sahaabah’s time which led to the Sahaabah banning women from the Masaajid! Today, it is much worse!

Thirdly, the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc. is not inherited from Indian Hanafi roots. In this entire article, we have quoted many Fuqaha. Kindly prove to us if even one of the Fuqaha whom we quoted in this article, is Indian! If not, then please don’t speak rubbish in the name of Deen! It has been proven that it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc. according to all four Math-habs!

Fourthly, we will continue to advocate the ban which the Sahaabah and all four Math-habs have placed upon women. Anything contrary to it, is against the Shariah! The prohibition has been inherited from the Sahaabah, from the time of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) when Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) had not yet been born. The alleged ‘Hanafi roots’ is a cunning deception of shaitaan who is the Imaam of the Bid’ati grave-worshippers.

Fifthly, The Sunnah of the Sahaabah is to prohibit women from the Masaajid! The talk of suspending a suspension is the effect of moronic hallucination!

Sixthly, the talk of a ‘multi-cultural global/African context’ is pure bunkum! We are bound to follow the Shariah! The context in which the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha had issued the prohibition should be looked at! View things according to the Shariah, not according to Haraam photos and the corrupt contexts of corrupt societies! 

Seventhly, as 21st Century followers of the Shariah, we follow the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of all four Math-habs who have regarded the attendance of women at the Masaajid and Eidgahs as HARAAM! This is the one and only option for all true Muslims – but not for morons! The corrupt societies which are today sinking further and further into the mire of immorality and transgression are not evidence to present in negation of a law of the Shariah enacted by the Sahaabah.

USOOLE FIQH

The jaahil Bid’atis state: “Do note that going against the Hanafi Madh-hab in one issue does not remove one from the Madh-hab as is well-known to anyone who has studied Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh.”  

Firstly, it is not an issue of “going against the Hanafi Madh-hab on one issue” as these moron Bid’atis contend. It is an issue of rejecting the Ijma’ of all Four Math-habs – an Ijma’ inherited from the Sahaabah. It is an issue of rejecting the Shariah as upheld by all Four Math-habs. These Bid’atis don’t seem to know what they are speaking! If you against your own Math-hab on one issue, then you are going beyond the parameters of Taqleed! Full submission to the Fuqaha is necessary!

Secondly, Taqleed demands full submission to the rulings of the Fuqaha! Furthermore, on this issue, all four Math-habs are unanimous that it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid and the Eidgah! Therefore, if one goes against the Haraam ruling, then one is going against the Shariah. Thus, it is best for rubbishes to shut their mouths, instead of vomiting out filth in the name of Fiqh and Usoole-Fiqh.

These morons seem to know very little of Fiqh. That is why Ibn Hajar has declared them as morons as he smashes Baatil with the Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab as follows:

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid 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).”  [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]”

A SALAFI CONTENTION

Presenting an argument which only the rubbish Salafis quote, these wayward Bid’atis aver:

“Note also that Imam Abu-Hanifah (RA) himself stated:”If the hadith is authentic, then that is my Madh-hab”. Hanafi Ulama stated that this important statement of the Imam means: ‘If an opinion of Imam Abu-Hanifah – that was based on analogy or contextual considerations (and not a hadith) – seems to contradict an authentic hadith, then one should leave that opinion and follow the hadith. One will still remain a Hanafi’. See the Radd al-Muhtar of al-Allamah Ibn-Abidin al-Shami.”  

So the Hadith of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha is authentic which all four Math-habs have accepted as a basis for prohibition! So what benefit is the citation of the principle, and then too citing it out of context! The Fatwa of all four Math-habs is based on the Hadith of Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha, etc. 

Furthermore, the statement “If the hadith is authentic, then that is my Madh-hab” is not general. The above-statement of Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah clearly refers to only the Mujtahideen as mentioned by Allamah Shaami Rahimahullah. Allamah Shaami states: “and it is not hidden that this (principle of Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah) refers to those who have Nazr in the Nusoos and are acquainted with the Muhkam from the Mansookh!” Thus, the above-citation of the Bid’atis from Shaami is very selective and not complete! These Bid’atis are very dishonest in their stupid articles of Baatil! 

In addition, the era of Ijtihaad has ended long ago! The statement of Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah has been torn out of it’s context! Imaam Shaafi Rahimahullah also mentioned this statement. However, what does the statement mean? Imam Nawawi Rahimahullah states:

وهذا اذي قاله الشافعي ليس معنا ان كل احد راى حديثا صحيحا قال هذا مذحب الشافعي و عمل  بضاهره: و انما هذا فيمن له رتبة ال اجتهاد في المذحب على ما تقدم من صفته او قريب منه: وشرطه ان يغلب على ظنه ان الشافعي رحمه الله لم يقف على هذا الحديث اؤلم يعلم صحته: وهذا و انما يكون بعد مطالعة كتب الشافعي كهلا ونحوها من كتب اءصحابه الاخذين عنخ وما اشبهها وهذاشرط صعب قل من ينصف به

“What Imaam Shaafi’ee said does not mean that everyone who sees a Saheeh hadith should say “This is the Math-hab of Imaam Shaafi’ee,” applying the purely external or apparent meaning of his statement. What he said most certainly applies only to such a person who has the rank of Ijtihaad in the Math-hab as explained earlier… It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imaam Shaafi’ee was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity. And this is possible only after having researched all the books of Imaam Shaafi’ee and other similar books of the companions of Imaam Shaafi’, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them. This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfil. Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times.” [Al Majmoo’]

The one who baselessly claims that women may go to the Masjid in this era of Fitnah is a member of the Math-hab of morons as he has contradicted Ijmaa! It is injudicious for ignorant morons to speak on Islamic topics as they only flaunt their ignorance and stupidity on issues in which they are wholly unqualified to comment on! 

To aver that the Fatwa of Tahreem (i.e. it is Haraam) of women attending Eidgah is “an opinion based on contextual considerations, and not textual evidence” is a blatant lie. It is not just opinion, but the Fatwa of all four Math-habs based on Ahaadeeth!

The Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid. But, these morons are unable to understand the status of the Sahaabah. Their mentality and mind-set is like the corrupt Kuffaar Shias and the deviated and lost Salafis. These Bid’atis are totally lost and off-track!

Therefore, if anyone goes against the (Ijmaa’ee) unanimous Fatwa of the four Math-habs in order to follow his shameless and baseless opinions based upon his misunderstanding of the Hadith, is a moron, as confirmed by Allamah Ibn Hajar Haithami Rahimahullah of the Shaafi Math-hab!

“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).” [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]

Your Menses And Ramadaan

Every month women go through a menstrual cycle. Life carries on as normal however, ibadah defers. A woman in her menses (haidh) is exempt from salaah during her cycle and during Ramadaan she is exempt from fasting.

So we are fine with our menses in our normal daily life, but what happens in Ramadaan when we want to gain maximum out of the blessed month? When our spirituality is at its peak?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said about menstruation, “Verily this is a matter Allah has written upon the girls of Prophet Adam (Allah bless him)…” [Bukhari]

Islam sees menstruation as a natural bodily process and does not consider it a hindrance or punishment… A women experiencing her menses or nifaas is regarded as napaak (spiritually impure) for the duration of her cycle and is exempt from certain acts of ibadah, if a menstruating woman fulfills this command with the intention to submit to Allah’s order, she is actually worshiping Allah the entire time that she refrains from the ritual prayer and ritual fasting. However, there are numerous ways a menstruating women can engage herself in ibadah (worship of Allah).

Below are some of the ways a women experiences her cycle can still gain closeness to Allah during Ramadaan and every other month. Inshallah.

1. Listen to the Quran
“The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur’an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong).” [Baqara: 185]

She should listen to the Quran as much as possible. Taking great care that she is not touching it, it is also prohibited to recite the Quran, which means to move one’s lips while producing sound. [ibn Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar].

2. Engage in abundance of Dhikr (Remembrance of Allah)
“…and men who remember Allah much and women who remember – Allah hath prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward.” [The Confederates: 35]

She should try to use every free time available in the remembrance of Allah. There are various supplications and each one has a reward.

3. Recite Durood upon Nabi (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
She seeks the tremendous benefit of sending blessings and praise (salawat) upon the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) because it is not only an act that increases her love for Nabi(صلى الله عليه و سلم) but also raises her status in the eyes of Allah ten times, erases 10 sins and 10 good deeds are written for her.

4. Give Generously In Charity
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The best charity is that given in Ramadan.” [al-Tirmidhi]

She should reach into her pocket and give whatever she can without hesitation to those in need.

5. Be Kind to Others, Including Spouses & Family Members
The Companion Salman al-Farasi related that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said about Ramadan in a sermon given on the last day of Sha’ban, “…It is a month of patience and the reward of patience is Paradise…” [Sahih ibn Khuzayma; Sayuti, al-Jami’ al-Kabir; Bayhaqi, Shu`ab al-Iman]

She uses this time to rebuild and mend any broken relationships. She should not use menstruation as an excuse for anger; instead she should shower those around her with love, care and compassion.

6. Make Dua
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said about Ramadan, “Verily, Allah frees people (from the Hellfire) in every day and every night and for each Muslim among them is a supplication which will be answered.” [Ahmad]

She should take lots of time in her day to make dua. And should ensure that she remembers the ummah in her duas.

7. Repentance
The Companion Salman al-Farasi related that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said about Ramadan in a sermon given on the last day of Sha’ban, “…It is a month (in which) the first of it is mercy, and the middle of it is forgiveness, and the last of it is pardon from the Fire…” [Sahih ibn Khuzayma; Sayuti, al-Jami’ al-Kabir; Bayhaqi, Shi’b al-Iman]

She asks Allah to pardon her, cover her sins, and save her from the Hell-fire. She begs for forgiveness and realizes her absolute neediness to His mercy. She wakes up in the middle of the night, even though she is menstruating, and repents in a time when Allah promises to forgive.

8. Feed Fasting People
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) also said in the aforementioned sermon, “…Whoever feeds a fasting person in (the month of Ramadan), for him is the forgiveness of his sins and freeing his neck from the Fire…” [Sahih ibn Khuzayma; Sayuti, al-Jami’ al-Kabir; Bayhaqi, Shi’b al-Iman]

She hosts her relatives, friends or community members for iftar. Care should be taken that this does not become extravagant and an act of show.

9. Show Allah Goodness
The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Ramadan has come to you. (It is) a month of blessing, in which Allah covers you with blessing, for He sends down Mercy, decreases sins and answers prayers. In it, Allah looks at your competition (in good deeds), and boasts about you to His angels. So show Allah goodness from yourselves, for the unfortunate one is he who is deprived in (this month) of the mercy of Allah.” [Tabarani]

Try to do a small act of kindness each day. Even if it is just reminding everyone about salaah or waking the family up for tahajud prayers.

10. Righteous Deeds
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “When the month of Ramadan starts, the gates of the heaven are opened and the gates of Hell are closed and the devils are chained” [Bukhari, Muslim]

She realizes that now is the perfect time to carry out any act of good. Try to utilize the time well. One such way is attending lectures and programs in her locality.

We should not look at this “break’ as time off, yet we should use it to gain or keep constant the momentum of spirituality.
May Allah make us from amongst those that are always rightly guided. Inshallah.

Extract- seekershub.org

ISLAM AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE MUSLIM WOMEN

[By a Sister]

NO Muslim country is to­day free and uncontaminat­ed with a fierce propaganda campaign against Purdah as “reactionary obscuran­tism” and insisting upon female “emancipation” as the essential for the eco­nomic and social develop­ment of our community. If we claim to be Muslims, is it not our duty to know what our faith teaches us on this subject?

Regarding the notion of female “equality,” verse 34 in Surah an-Nisa tells us that men are in charge of women because God has made the former to excel the latter and because they spend their property for the support of women. This means that no Muslim woman should be obliged to earn her livelihood unless she possesses no property, has lost her husband through divorce or death and has no other male re­lative to provide for her. The Holy Qur’an teaches us that the husband is both master and friend to his wife; his duty is to treat her with justice, love and kindness and in turn the wife must be loyal and obedient. Our Holy Qur’an describes the husband as a degree above the wife not to make him a cruel tyrant but for the preservation of the family. In families where the wife is economically independent, the husband automatically loses his role as head of the household. Consequently when the mother dominates, the children lose all respect for the father.

Surah an-Nur, verse 30-­31, forbid Muslim men to look at strange women or Muslim women at strange men and commands men and women alike to cast their gaze down. Women must wear head-veils and draw them over their bo­soms and not display their beauty to anyone except their husbands and close family relations within the prohibited degrees of mar­riage. This verse by im­plication bans painting the face with cosmetics or any kind of dress designed for sex appeal. The Hadith tells us that when Asma, the sister of Ayesha, once ap­peared wearing transparent clothes, the Holy Prophet ﷺ rebuked her saying that once a woman reaches pu­berty, nothing of her should be exposed except her face, hands and feet.

In Surah al-Ahzab, verse 55, God admonishes the wives of the Holy Prophet ﷺ to stay in their homes and forbade Muslim women to go out for pleasure adorned in finery and dress or behave in public in any manner that attracts attention to themselves. They can con­verse freely only with close family relations within the prohibited degrees of mar­riage, their husbands, their servants and their slaves. Verse 53 of this same Surah orders the believers to show due respect for the wives of the Prophet ﷺ by requesting of them from behind a curtain. Verse 59 says that when Muslim women find it necessary to go out, they should wear an outer-gar­ment enveloping the entire body so that they may be recognised as virtuous be­lievers and not be annoyed.

The Hadith forbid Muslim women to be alone with any man not her husband or within the prohibited degrees of marriage, to live alone apart from her family or to undertake any long journey without escort by her close male relations. If the most authentic Hadith strongly discourage women from participating even in the public congregational prayers in the mosque and urge them to perform their prayers in the privacy of their own rooms as most pleasing in the sight of God, how on earth then, can a Muslim tolerate women as secretaries, bank clerks, air hostesses, waitresses in restaurants, models singers, dancers and actresses over the radio, television and in films?

Surah an-Nur (verses 1-24) threatens the most severe penalties in this world and the Hereafter to those who indulge in any sexual relations outside of marriage. What then could be more irrefutable evidence of Islam’s support of Purdah than this testimony from the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah? The restrictions Islamic injunctions place upon the movements of Muslim women are intended solely for their own benefit to prevent men from taking unfair advantage. Islam not only condemns immorality but also forbids the believers to follow any of the ways leading to it!

The first champions of the movement for women’s “emancipation” were none else than Marx and Engels — the founders of Com­munism who preached in their COMMUNIST MANI­FESTO (1848) that mar­riage, home and family were nothing but a curse which kept women in perpetual slavery. Therefore they in­sisted that the women must be “liberated” from domestic servitude and achieve full economic independence through full-time employ­ment in industry. The subsequent champions of feminism insisted that women must be granted as much freedom to indulge in illicit sex as the men through co-education, em­ployment alongside men, mixed social functions and courtship before marriage in semi-nude fashions with contraceptives, sterilization and abortion to prevent un­wanted pregnancies and state-controlled nurseries and public boarding schools assuming the responsibility for the rearing of the children, many of whom would be illegitimate. This is in essence what the modern concept of “women’s rights” amounts to!

The propaganda cam­paign for women’s “emanci­pation” waged by the press, radio, television and cinema, belittles the role of woman as wife and mother and des­cribes those who spend their time maintaining their homes and raising their children as an unpardon­able waste of energy and an economic loss of half the nation’s manpower. These champions of femi­nism are insisting that every girl be prepared in school and college to compete with men for jobs in offices and factories. Yet at the same time, they assert that the emancipated woman’s primary duty is still her home! In other words, this means that the modern woman must bear a double burden; in addition to earn­ing her own living in full­ time employment outside the home, she must at the same time somehow per­form the near-impossible task of fulfilling all her obligations to her husband and children and keep house single-handed! Is this justice??.

Have the new family laws enacted in most Muslim countries to conform with the legal codes of the West, really improved the position of our women? This legis­lation is very careful indeed to specify a minimum age for marriage but forgets to place any similar restrictions upon illicit affairs between young girls and boys who are prohibited to marry. In most Muslim countries, in contradiction to the whole spirit of Qur’an and Sunnah, polygamy is being more and more restricted and even forbidden by our modernists – who have never posed the question whether it is better for a woman to share her hus­band’s love with another woman who is also his legitimate wife and main­tain her right to remain under the protection of his roof, receive his support and her children have the love and care of a father, or would she rather see her husband forced into clandes­tine illicit affairs because the law of the land prohibits him from marrying again until he divorces her first and throws her and her children out? Is it not far better for the woman who is not getting on well with her husband to be divorced by him in private so that the unhappy couple can part in peace, each free to marry again, or should the case be decided by a Court and the husband, to be rid of the marriage tie, be compelled to falsely charge his wife with immoral conduct in order to convince the third party of the “necessity” for the divorce, resulting in public scandal and the poor woman’s reputation ruined for life?

Actually the champions of female ’emancipation’ are not at all interested in the personal happiness and wel­fare of the women concern­ed. This movement should be recognized by all Mus­lims for what it is — a malignant conspiracy to des­troy the home and family and eventually wreck our entire society. The cheap slogans of “women’s rights,” “emancipation” and “pro­gress” only serve as a smoke screen to obscure its real intentions. Once the woman leaves the home, there is no home and the movement for female emancipation here cannot but lead to the same catastrophe which has al­ready happened elsewhere — universal indulgence in illicit contacts with the sexual behavior of the humans in­volved so degraded as would shock the wild beasts in the jungle, and as an inevitable result of the destruction of the home and family and indeed the whole moral framework of our com­munity, an epidemic of juvenile delinquency, crime and an atmosphere saturat­ed with violence, unrest and lawlessness in general. The history of the civilizations of the past is sufficient proof that when vice and immorality run rampant, no society can long survive.

The “Camel Hump” Hijab

image

By Mujlisul Ulama

Many women fold, plait and wrap their hair into a huge ball on top of their heads. Severely  condemning this lewd hair-style, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) describing a group of Jahannum, said: “(They are) women who whilst dressed are naked; they are astray and they lead (males) astray (with their wiles and charms); their heads are like the humps of Bukhti camels. They will not enter Jannat nor will they smell of the fragrance of Jannat……….” (Muslim) 

The satanic purpose for adopting this haraam style is to attract the gaze of males. Thus the Hadith says that such women are astray and lead astray the men who gaze at her. Women sporting a ‘camel’s hump’ on their heads are among the accursed ones who are doomed for Jahannum. They will not even be allowed to smell of the wonderful fragrance of Jannat which according to the Hadith can be perceived from millions of miles.

Women with these lewd hair-styles should also remember that their Salaat in this condition is not accepted.. The other accursed characteristic of lewd women mentioned in this Hadith by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is ‘nudity despite garments’. Women whose garments are either transparent or tight-fitting are the targets of this castigation. The curse of Allah Ta’ala and of His Malaaikah constantly settles on such women who adopt immoral styles. They are described in the Hadith as a fitnah for themselves and a fitnah for others, that is, for men.