Category Archives: Women in Islam

Women Attending the Eid Salaah – Response to the Corrupt Arguments


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


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]


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!  


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 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 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???


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!”


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 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.”  

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!


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.”  

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.

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 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.

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.


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]”


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.



[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


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.

The Satanic Western Concept of “Liberating” Women

By Haqqseeker 

Some decades ago a number of warped minded Western thinkers started advocating that for women, the marriage and the family life were nothing more than a curse that confined them to persistent slavery. They maintained that women must be liberated from male subjugation and domestic responsibilities and achieve full independence in every aspect of life.

The hidden agenda of these women liberation champions was to grant women as much freedom to indulge in illicit sex as men via mixed education, courtship before marriage, attending mixed social functions which included drinking, drug-taking and dancing and participating in other evil activities.

Simply put, they wanted women to be ‘COMPLETELY LIBERATED’.

Unfortunately, in their effort to achieve this ‘liberation’, chaos has engulfed western society today.

Listed below are some of the shocking negative outcomes. Remember, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the evil corrupt life of the western women and their culture:

1. Today’s ‘liberated’ western woman is portrayed as a sex object in advertisements, movies, music videos, modelling, and even in certain video games.

The principle being: The less she puts on the more she earns.

2. Infidelity and extramarital sex are part of one’s personal freedom in society today.

3. Sex before marriage has become a modern trend. Hence there is a widespread use of contraceptives which has led to universities and colleges being fully equipped with condoms for students to freely enjoy sex.

4. Indulgence in sex at a young age has become an ‘in thing’. Macmillan Visual Almanac (1995) reported that 70% of American boys and 56% of American girls have had sexual relationship before the age of 18.

5. A girl can walk into her home holding her boyfriend’s hand and then head straight into her bedroom closing the door behind them without a batting of an eyelid from her helpless parents. Parents have lost the right to object or protest.

6. Families are broken, children are neglected and abused and morality has become an unwanted commodity.

7. Music Festivals like the one that took place in Las Vegas recently, where the gunman Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured more than 500 are more common. These are functions that last a few days and grant people complete freedom to indulge in their any and every desires.

8. Abortion rates are on the rise while more and more children are born out of wedlock leading to young girls dropping out of schools and even more children being abandoned.

9. Escalating rates of divorce and the birth of children to unmarried mothers have become the major factors behind the emergence of single parenting.

10. LGBT Community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community) has come into existence. Now James can marry Joseph and Emily can wed Elizabeth without anyone objecting or risk the wrath of the entire world for being ‘backward’ or depriving one from their ‘freedom of choice’.

11. While more and more countries are legalising same-sex marriage, the institution of marriage itself is facing a predicament. There are people who are predicting that marriage in the western society will soon be a thing of the past — perhaps within a generation. Fundamental shifts in today’s thinking are impacting society’s evaluation of this time-honoured institution. Terms like ‘marriage‘, ‘matrimony‘, ‘wedlock‘, ‘bride and groom‘ and ‘husband and  wife‘ are becoming obsolete. A man and a woman, man and man, or woman and woman can live as ‘partners‘ for as long as they wish.

Can we genuinely call this the ‘Liberation of the Women’?


[Maulana Sharkir Ahmed]


A  lesbian-type,  moron  Kaafirah  belonging  to  the  Gay-Lesbian  temple  in  Cape  Town  has  written  an  article  loaded  with  pure  stupidities  to  deny  the  Islamic  law  pertaining  to Hijaab.  In  her  flotsam  drivel  she  made  her  best  stupid endeavours  to  debunk  the  validity  of  the  Jilbaab/Burqah, Niqaab  and  Khimaar  (headscarf).  In  her  satanic  attempt  she  has  succeeded  in  only  displaying  her  stark  ignorance  and the density of her copro-brains.

Her  arguments  consist  of  only  compounded  rubbish  which evokes  the  mirth  of  all  and  sundry  –  of  even  such modernists  whose  brains  have  not  been  convoluted  by  the gay-lesbian-homosexual cult.

Although  the  rubbish  which  the  moron  Kaafirah  has disgorged  does  not  warrant  an  intelligent  response,  we  have  nevertheless  deemed  it  appropriate  to  refute  her rubbish  which  may  influence  such  ignorant  Muslims  who have  lost  their  Imaani  bearings.  The  discussion  which follows  is  for  the  benefit  of  ignorant  Muslims  who  may have  been  cast  into  doubt  by  the  stinking  effluvium discharged the moron Kaafirah.


The  only  reason  why  a  response  to  a  letter  by  a  lesbian Kaafirah  has  been  deemed  appropriate,  is  the  confusion  to unwary  and  ignorant  Muslims  caused  by  a  Muslim-sounding  name  of  a  shaitaanah  who  purports  to  be  the secretary  of  a  Musjid.  If  it  was  not  for  this  obfuscation stemming  in  the  wake  of  the  use  of  Muslim  nomenclature by  this  Kaafirah,  responding  would  be  an  exercise  in wasteful futility.

At  the  outset  it  is  imperative  to  make  known  to  Muslims that  the  temple  dubbed,  “The  Open  Mosque”  in  Weinberg, Cape  Town,  is  not  a  Musjid  of  Islam.  It  is  a  kaafir  temple which  appears  to  be  a  haunt  of  gays,  lesbians,  homosexuals and  other  specimens  of  similar shayaateenul ins ilk.

The  ‘Koran’  the  Kaafirah  refers  to  is  not  actually  the Qur’aan  of  Islam.  It  could  probably  be  a  Shiah  ‘Koran’  or  some  other  Shaitaani  scripture  which  the  kuffaar  of  the  Weinberg  temple are  dubbing  with  the  Islamic term. A  little  rumination  reveals  that  the  sinister  and  satanic motive  underlying  the  use  of  Islamic  terms  for  the institutions,  beliefs  and  tenets  of  the  followers  of  this  sect is  shaitaan,  which  has  mushroomed  recently,  is  a  satanic  attempt  to  cause  obfuscation  so  as  to  confuse  and  mislead  into  shaitaan’s  snare  the  ignorant  folk  of  the  Western  Cape  which  is  the  most  fertile  ground  for  all  the  deviant  and  satanic  sects  and  religions  which  have  raised  their  ugly  devilish  heads  in recent  years.

Since  the  views  expressed  by  the  Kaafirah  secretary  of  the Satanist  sect  under  cover  of  Islamic  nomenclature,  have absolutely  no  relevance  to  Islam,  there  is  no  need  to respond  to  the  ludicrous  drivel  which  has  been  excreted  in the  letter.  Furthermore,  responding  to  comments  of  the  kuffaar  which  they  vituperatively  disgorge  in  their  opprobrious  animosity  for  Islam  as  Allah  Ta’ala  states  in the Qur’aan Majeed:

“Verily,  hatred  has  been  disgorged  (for  you)  from  their mouths.  But,  what  their  breasts  conceal  (of  greater  hatred) is  worse  (than  what  they  verbally  disgorge).”,   serves  no  beneficial  purpose  since  it  is  not  possible  to  convince  those  whose  hearts  Allah  Ta’ala  has  sealed.  Their  hearts  are  corroded  with Satanism.

However,  one  consideration  constrains  a  response,  and  that is  the  confusion  which  the  human  shayaateen  create  in  the minds  of  some  ignorant  Muslims  with  their  statements  of  deception  adorned  satanically  with  Islamic  hues.  Referring  to  such  adorned  views  of  the  devil,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed says:

“Thus,  have  We  (i.e.  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal)  created  for  every  Nabi  enemies  from  human  devils  and  jinn  devils  who inspire  one another  with  adorned statements  of  deception.”

The  response  which  follows  is  not  directed  at  the  Kaafirah shaitaanah,  but  is  for  the  benefit  of  ignorant  Muslims  of deficient  Imaan,  who  may  be  negatively  influenced  by  the satanically  inspired  statements  of  deception  adorned  with Islamic  nomenclature.  It  is  not  our  policy  to  respond  to adverse  comments  on  Islam  made  by  non-Muslims.  Their hatred  and  stupidity  are  expected  and  are  norms  for  life  on  earth  which  Allah  Ta’ala  has  ordained  to  be  the  arena  for the  conflict  between  Truth  and  falsehood,  Islam  and  kufr, and  this  conflict  will  inevitably  remain  until  the  termination  of this  world’s  term  of  existence.

The  Kaafirah  shaitaanatul  ins,  alleges  in  her  vituperative diatribe:

“Nowhere  in  the  Qur’an  is  it  obligatory  for  women  to conceal faces  (“burqah/niqab”)  or  hair (“hijab”).”  

Firstly,  the  Kaafirah  illustrates  her  ignorance  by  translating “to  conceal  faces”   to  mean  “burqah/niqab”.  Neither burqah  nor  niqaab  means “to  conceal  the  face”.  Concealing the  face  is  an  act  whilst  both  the  burqah  and  the  niqaab  are tangible  garments  donned  by  Purdah  Nasheen  ladies,  whilst the  Burqah  is  the  outer  garments  which  conceals  the  entire body  from  head  to  feet,  including  the  faces,  the  Niqaab  is  part  of  the  Burqah  garment.  Both  the  Burqah  and  the Niqaab  are  explicitly  and  emphatically  commanded  in  the Qur’aan  and  in  the  Ahaadith,  and  cast  in  the  Rock  of  the practical  Sunnah  of  the  Sahaabiyaat  and  the  Women  of  the  Ummah  since  the  very  inception  of  Islam.  And  this  is  the  noble  practice  of  the  Noble  Ladies  of  Islam  down  Islam’s  long  historical  Passage of  more  than  fourteen  centuries.

But  Kaafirahs,  Murtaddahs,  Faajiraat  and  Faasiqaat  are  too stupid,  dumb,  immoral  and  mentally  deranged  to comprehend  these  simple  Qur’aanic  facts  and  realities  of the  Islamic  Way  of  life  ordained  by  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal, and  revealed  by  Him  to  Muhammadur  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  We  are  stating  this  for  the benefit  of  ignorant  Muslims  who  may  have  been  influences by  the  Jaahilah  Kaafirah  agent  of  Iblees.  Our  concern  is  not with the  Kaafirah. 

A  salient  feature  of  all  kaafirahs  masquerading  as  Muslims  is  that  invariably,  they  are  masculinized  and  defeminised  belonging  to  the  alien  lesbionic  species  who  are  the  effects of  Shaitaan’s  supplication  which  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal,  in  His Eternal  Wisdom  had  granted  on  the  occasion  of  the  Devil’s  expulsion  from  the  Heavens  when  he  (the  Devil)  had supplicated:  “O  Allah!  Grant  me  snares  (with  which  I could  play  my  trade  of  deception  on  earth).”  Came  the Divine  Response: “Your  traps  will  be  women.”

These  satanic  traps  specifically  include  Kaafirahs  of  the  lesbian  species  whom  Iblees  harnesses  into  his  conspiracy and  camouflaging  them  with  Islamic  nomenclature  and designations,  sets  them  loose  to  ensnare,  dupe  and  mislead such  ignorant  Muslims  who  are  extremely  deficient  in Imaan  due  to  their  wholesale  consumption  of  halaalized carrion  meats  and  chicken  and  their  indulgence  in  cell phone  pornography.  By  the  way,  among  the  snares  and agents  of  Iblees  are  also  the  entire  gamut  of  Facebook  movies  and  sheikhs.  They  are  like  these  Kaafirah  agents  of  Iblees  deflecting  stupid  Muslims  from  Siraatul  Mustaqeem by  means  of  Islamic  terminology,  Qur’aanic  verses  and Ahaadith  which  they  submit  to  satanic  interpretation,  and  by  means  if  their  satanically  acquired  art  of  verbal  eloquence  which  according  to  the  Hadith  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  will  be  a  characteristic  of   Shayaateenul  Jinn  (real  Jinn  devils)  who  will  prowl  in  the Musaajid  reciting  beautiful  qiraa’t  and  delivering  eloquent bayaans.  Muslims  should  beware  of  these  satanic  species  of  creation  whom  Allah  Ta’ala  in  His  Eternal  Wisdom permits  to  operate.  Stating  this  fact,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed avers: 

“If  your  Rabb  had  willed,  they  (i.e.  the  human  and  jinn devils)  would  not  have  been  able  to  perpetrate  it  (that  is, their  schemes  and  plots  of  deception).  Therefore,  leave them and that (evil) which they are fabricating.”

“Leave  them”,  says  Allah  Ta’ala  in  this  Verse.  Do  not engage  them  in  futile  discussion  thinking  that  you  will  be able  to  convince  these  Kaafirahs  and  other  agents  of  Iblees.  They  cannot  be  convinced  to  accept  the  Truth,  for  they  are  the  assistants  of  Iblees  in  terms  of  the  Eternal  Divine  Command.  And  this  is  Taqdeer  which  defies  the  extremely  limited  intellectual comprehension  of  even  the Ambiya  (Alayhimus Salaam). 

This  slight  digression  is  merely  to  impress  on  the  minds  of ignorant  Muslims  that  they  should  not  allow  themselves  to be  ensnared  into  the  den  of  Iblees  by  his  agents  such  as Kaafirahs  who  parade  as  Muslimahs  with  their  deceptive cover  of  Muslim  names  and Muslim-sounding  terms.

The  other  greater  and  laughable  stupidity  of  the  Kaafirah  is her  understanding  of  the  term  “hijab”.  She  translates  this term  to  mean  “concealing  the  hair”.  This  is  a  voluminous  and  a  vociferous  testification  of  her  self-professed  stupidity,  yet  this  shaitaanatul  ins  audaciously  sets  herself  up  as  an  authority  of  the  Qur’aan.  While  she  may  be  an authority  of  some  satanic  scripture,  she  lacks  even  an  ABC  understanding  of  the  Qur’aan  which  is  the  Scripture  of Islam.

“Hijaab”  does  not  means  “concealing  the  hair”.  Hijaab  is the  Islamic  concept  of  segregation  of  the  sexes,  which  has  several  categories  which  are  explained  in  our  article: Islamic Hijaab.  Concealing  the  hair is  only  one  act  or  requisite  of  Hijaab.  It  is  not  the  be  all  of  Hijaab.  A  woman  who  conceals  her  hair  but  struts  in  the  public  with her  face  bared,  does  not observe  Hijaab. 

Hijaab  is  not  confined  to  concealing  the  hair,  and  it  does not  mean  “concealing  the  hair”  as  the  moron  Kaafirah  has translated.  The  first  category  of  Hijaab  is  for  women  to remain  indoors  within  the  precincts  of  their  homes,  and  not  to  emerge  unnecessarily.  Thus,  a  woman  who  emerges from  her  home  into  the  public  domain  without  valid  Shar’i justification  is  in  flagrant  violation  of  Hijaab  even  if  she emerges  with  a  Burqah  and  with  her  face  concealed  with  a Niqaab.

Secondly,  even  if  it  be  assumed  momentarily,  that  the Qur’aan  Majeed  is  silent  regarding  the  Niqaab,  there  is  no  principle  in  Islam  stating  that  if  anything  is  absent  from  the  Qur’aan  it  is  not  part  of  Islam.  There  are  thousands  of issues  which  are  not  in  the  Qur’aan,  but  they  are  integral constituents  of  Islam.

The  basis  of  Islam  is  not  confined  to  the  Qur’aan.  There  are  Four  Sources  of  Islamic  Law.  Of  course,  this  is  for  the edification  of  ignorant  Muslims  who  may  have  been  confused  by  the  Kaafirah’s  satanic  drivel,  and  by  her  masquerading  as  a Muslim.

Every  Muslim,  be  he/she  ignorant  of  the  Shariah,  knows and  understands  that  the  Five  daily  Fardh  Salaat  constitute the  central  Pillar  upholding  the  edifice  of  Islam.  Nowhere in  the  Qur’aan  is  it  mentioned  that  five  Salaat  are compulsorily  daily.  The  number  of  raka’ts,  the classification  of  the  Salaat  categories,  the  various  formulae to  be  recited  in  Salaat,  the  variety  of  postures  of  Salaat,  the Islamic  method  of  performing  Wudhu,  the  Islamic  way  of ghusl,  kafan  and  dafan,  and  the  millions  of  other  masaa-il  which  the  entire  Ummah  has  practised  since  the  era  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  are  nowhere  to  be  found  in  the  Qur’aan  in  explicit  mention.  Thus,  in  terms  of  the  moronic  principle  of  stupidity  propounded  by  the Kaafirah  it  will  follow  that  there  is  no  Islam.  But  this  is precisely  the  satanic  plot  of  the  Devil-in-Chief,  Mr.  Iblees, who  utilizes  and  manipulates  such  Kaafirahs,  and  also lesbians,  gays,  homosexuals  and  every  kind  of  sexual pervert  posing  as  Muslims  –  he  uses  them  to  further  his plot  –  his  plot  of  convincing  stupid,  ignorant  and incorrigible  modernist  Muslims  that  there  is  no  credible  existence  for Islam.

Deny  the  very  basis  of  the  Qur’aan,  that  is  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  is  structured,  is shaitaan’s  plot  to  debunk  Islam  from  the  minds  of  ignorant Muslims  whom  the  Kaafirahs,  Shaitaanahs,  Faasiqahs  and Faajirahs  woo  and  ensnare  with  their  convoluted  villainy percolating  from  their  vermiculated  brains.  The  first  step  in the  satanic  plot  to  destroy  Islam  is  to  hoist  the  idea  that  Islam  is  only  the  Qur’aan,  and  all  other  Sources  of  the  Deen  are  the  products  of  opinion,  tradition  and  cultures  of  different  nations  who  had  embraced  Islam.

The  second  phase  in  the  shaitaan’s  plot  will  be  to  convince  ignoramuses  that  the  very  basis  on  which  the  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  is  claimed,  namely,  Hadith,  is  flawed  and  man-made,  hence  the  Qur’aan  too  is  man-made.  When  the  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  is  demolished,  then  obviously,  Imaan  is  destroyed. This  is  also  the  ploy  of  the Shiahs.

Since  the  Kaafirah  is  a  moron  and  under  shaitaani  influence,  she  cannot  be  expected  to  understand  the  Qur’aan  Majeed,  hence  her  ludicrous  and  stupid  claim  of the  Burqah  and  Niqaab  not  being  mentioned  and commanded  in  the  Qur’aan.  We  have  already  mentioned that  even  if  this  was  the  case,  total  Hijaab  which  includes  donning  a  Burqah/Jilbaab  with  face-covering  (Niqaab)  remains  compulsory.  The  evidence  for  this,  besides  the Qur’aan  Majeed,  is  the  command  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  practical  implementation  of Hijaab  by  the  Sahaabiyaat  and  the  noble  Women  of  the  Ummah,  and  the  unanimous  view  and  decree  of  all  the  Fuqaha  of  all  Math-habs, even  of  deviant  math-habs.

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) ….”

Tafseer  Mazhari  (as  well  as  other  Tafaaseer)  describe  the Jilbaab  as  follows:

“It  is  a  sheet  (or  shawl)  which  a  woman  wraps around  her,  on  top  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’oud, Ubaidah,  Qataadah,  Hasan  Basri,  Saeed  Bin  Jubair, Ibraaheem  Nakh’i,  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  on  top  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-wood  defines  the  jilbaab  as  follows:

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

“In  this  verse  is  the  indication  that  young  women have  been  commanded to conceal their faces  from strange  males  when they  emerge.”

Imaam  Qurtubi  states  in  his  Al-Jami  li  Akhaamil  Qur’aan:

“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  on  top  of  the  head and  covered  the  face  as  well.

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.

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 (sallallahu  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  incident  prior  to the  revelation  of  the  Law  of  Hijaab  or  to  special circumstances  which  were  exceptional  cases  and  not  the normal  rule.

From  the  foregoing  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.

The  stupidity  of  the  dumb,  moron  Kaafirah  whose  brains are  clogged  with  fisq  and  fujoor,  should  be  palpably manifest  from  the  aforegoing  elaboration  pertaining  to Hijaab  and  Niqaab.  We  reiterate  that  this  discussion  is  for the  edification  of  ignorant  Muslims  who  may  have  been influenced  by  the  filth  and  foul  effluvium  of  the shaitaanatul  ins  who  has  churlishly  belched  her  animosity for  Islam  by  the  deception  of using  Islamic  sources.

The  moron  Kaafirah,  further  advertising  the  density  of  her gross intellectual deficiency, states in her stupid effluxion:

“Irrespective of what the later-manufactured “components”  of  Islam  (hadith,  shariah  and  fatwahs)  claim  about  face-masking  and  head-covering,  these  nondivine  sources  Cannot  overturn  the  heavenly  text  (Qur’an: chapter 6, verse 114).”

The  Kaafirah  does  not  have  the  haziest  idea  of  the  meaning of  Islam  and  the  Qur’aan.  She  lapped  up  the  filthy  vomit  of some  other  Kaafir/Murtad  and  presented  it  as  her  own ‘research’.  Exhibiting  her  stupendous  stupidity,  this  agent  of  Iblees,  claims  that  Hadith  is  a  “later-manufactured component  of  Islam”.   How  does  she  Kaafirah  define Islam?  What  is  the  first  “component”  of  Islam?  How  many  “components”  does  Islam  have?  If  Hadith  is  a  “later-manufactured  component”  then  by  what  stretch  of  even  kufr  and  satanic  logic  will  the  Qur’aan  also  not  be  a  “later-manufactured  component”?  What  is  the  difference  between Hadith  and  Qur’aan?  If  Hadith  is  not  a  divine  source,  then  on  what  basis  does  the  miserable,  moron  Kaafirah  believe  that  the Qur’aan  is  of  divine  source?

Let  it  be  well  understood  that  besides  genuine  Muslims,  no one  else  can  ever  produce  evidence  to  substantiate  that  the  Qur’aan  is  of  divine  origin.  Did  the  Angel  Jibraeel  (Alayhis salaam)  descend  from  the  Heavens  to  reveal  and  hand  the  “heavenly  text”  to  the  Kaafirah  or  to  any  other  moron sexual  pervert  of  the  Gay  Temple  of  Wynberg?  Intelligence  and  rationalism  demand  that  before  tendering  one’s  basis  on  which  one  structures  the  edifice  of  one’s  argument,  one  has  to  first  prove  the  validity  and  authenticity  of  the  basis.   A Hindu  idol-worshipper  may  not  try  to  prove  to  a  Muslim  the  validity  of  his  idol-worship  by  citing  his  holy  scripture, the  Gita.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned  his  basis  is  corrupt. Since  there  is  no  common  platform,  the  argument  may  not  be  pursued  from  such  a  platform/basis  which  is  reliable  to  only  one  of  the  contestants.  Thus,  if  the  moron  Kaafirah  wallowing  in  satanic  jahaalat  of  the  worst  variety,  expects  Muslims  to  heed  her  evidence  which  she  presents  from  her  ‘Koran’,  then  it  logically  devolves  on  her  to  first  prove  the  veracity,  validity  and  authenticity  of  the  source  from  which  she  cites  her  corrupt  and  convoluted  views  in  the  name  of Islam.

Now  we  demand  from  the  stupid  Kaafirah,  to  present  her evidence  for  her  belief  and  claim  that  the  Qur’aan  from which  she  is  citing  is  the  “heavenly  text”  which  the  Angel Jibraeel  (Alayhis  salaam)  had  revealed  from  Allah  Ta’ala to  Muhammadur  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). If  she  fails  to  produce  this  evidence  –  and  she  will miserably  fail  even  if  Iblees  gives  birth  to  her  a  dozen times  –  then  all  her  claims  cited  in  the  name  of  the  Qur’aan  must  necessarily  be  dismissed  as  the  stupid  ranting  and  hallucination  of  a dumb  woman  reeking  of satanism.

Since  the  Kaafirah  has  absolutely  no  evidence  to  prove  that  the  Koran  from  which  she  cites  is  the ”heavenly  text”,  all  her  silly  and  ludicrous  flotsam  arguments  which  she  has  presented  without  advancing  even  a  vestige  of  a  rational  basis,  are  dismissed  as  baseless.  In  order  for  even  a miniscule  of  credibility,  it  is  imperative  that  the  Kaafirah explains the following essential queries:

(1) On  what  basis  do  you,  O  Moron  Kaafirah,  claim  that the  scripture  from  which  you  are  quoting  is  the  “heavenly text”?
(2) What  is  the  source  of  your  belief  that  the  ’koran’  you have  is  the  Heavenly  Qur’aan  Majeed  which  we  Muslims have?
(3) How  was  the  Qur’aan  revealed?  What  was  the medium/media  for  its  revelation?
(4) If  you  believe  that  the  Arch-Angel  was  one  such medium,  on  what  basis  have  you  manufactured  this  belief?
(5) To  whom  do  you  believe  the  Qur’aan  was  revealed? If  you  concede  that  it  was  revealed  to  Muhammad (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  then  on  what  basis  are  you manufacturing  this  claim?  Did  Muhammad  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  or  the  Angel  Jibraaeel  (Alayhis  salaam) appear  in  person  to  you  to  authenticate  the  book  you  are quoting  from  as  being  the  “heavenly  text”  you  claim  it  to be?
(6)  Narrate  all  your  evidence  for  claiming  that  the present  Qur’aan  is  indeed  the  “heavenly  text”.  After enumerating  your  evidences,  O  Moron  Kaafirah,  produce  your  proofs  for  authenticating  these  proofs.
(7) Are  the  sources  on  which  you  rely  and  on  which  you base  your  belief  of  the  Qur’aan  being  the  “heavenly  text” “later-manufactured”  or  manufactured  in  the  very  era  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)?  If  you  say  that they  are  later-manufactured,  then  you  have  shot  yourself  in the  leg  with  your  egregious  self-contradiction.  If  you  say that  it  is  not  “later  manufactured”,  then  what  is  your  rational evidence  for  your  irrational averment?

For  the  sake  of  brevity  we  shall  curtail  our  list  of  queries. This  list  could  be  magnified  manifold  to  further  entangle and  fetter  the  stupid  Kaafirah in  her  own  net  of  satanism. 

Now  for  the  edification  of  ignorant  Muslims  who  may  have been  adversely  influence  by  the  kufr  percolating  from  the  satanically  scorbutic  brains  of  the  Kaafirah  grimalkin,  let  it be  well  understood  that  minus  Hadith,  there  is  no  Qur’aan and  no  Islam.  The  very  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  is  based  on  Hadith.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  Hadith  that  the Qur’aan  Majeed  was  compiled  in  the  present  Book  form during  the  Khilaafat  of  the  first  three  Khulafa  of  Islam (viz., Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr,  Umar  and  Uthmaan  – Radhiyallahu anhum).

After  the  demise  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), the Qur’aan  Majeed  was  primarily ‘manufactured’  from  the  Holy  Breasts  of  the  Huffaaz Sahaabah.  Then  this  Qur’aan  which  in  terms  of  the Kaafirah’s  satanic  logic  should  be  a  “later-manufactured component  of  Islam”  was  passed  down  the  Ummah  from generation  to  generation  until  it  has  reliable  and authentically reached us.

The  historical  evidence  proves  that  Hadith  is  the  FIRST component  of  Islam,  and  the  Qur’aan  is  the  SECOND component  of  Islam,  because  the  Qur’aan  for  its  authenticity  was  100%  reliant  on  Hadith.  The  Qur’aan  Majeed  was  not  revealed  in  one  Book  form  from  the  Heavens.  We  are  sure  that  all  of  these  stupid,  moron followers  of  Shaitaan  who  claim  that  the  Qur’aan  is  the only  source  of  Islam,  have  absolutely  no  option  but  to accept  that  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  was  revealed  piecemeal  over  a  period  of  23  years.  From  whence  is  this  information acquired?  From  only  the  so-called  “later-manufactured” Hadith  component  which  in  reality  is  the  Primary Component  of  Islam.  Confirming  and  emphasizing  this  Primary  Component,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  states  in numerous  Aayaat: “Obey  Allah  and  obey  His  Rasool.”   In one  Aayat,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  commands: “Whatever  the Rasool  gives  you,  hold  on  to  it,  and  whatever  he  forbids you from, abstain from it.”  
Belief  in  the  Qur’aan  is  possible  only  on  the  basis  of  belief in  the  Hadith.  Deny  Hadith  and  the  Qur’aan  will  be scuttled,  and  this  is  the  demolition  of  Islam  which  all  these stercoraceous  agents  of  Iblees  are  actively  conniving.  The entire  edifice  of  Islam  is  structured  on  the  Hadith component  of  Islam.  Not  a  single  belief,  tenet,  principle, teaching,  ritual,  etc.  is  independent  of  Hadith.  Not  even  the first  Fundamental  practical  tenet  of  Islam,  viz.  Salaat,  is  independent  of  Hadith.  Nothing,  almost  absolutely  none  of  the  details of  Salaat,  are  described  in  the Qur’aan.

Further  displaying  her  stark  ignorance  of  Islam,  the  moron Kaafirah  says  that  the  “shariah”  is  a  later-manufactured component  of  Islam.  This  display  of  egregious  ignorance of  the  meaning  of  ‘shariah’  is  indeed  laughable.  She  makes  a  mockery  of  her  own  satanically  vermiculated  sensorium. What  is  her  conception  of  the  Shariah?  What  does  this stupid  grimalkin  mama  understand  of  the  term  ‘shariah’? The  Qur’aan  Majeed  states:

“Then  We  have  established  you  on  a  Shariah  regarding affairs.  Therefore,  follow  it  (the  Shariah),  and  do  not follow  the  base  desires  of  those  who  know  not  (such  as  the droves of shaitaan’s agents and progeny).”

The  collective  beliefs,  laws,  rituals  and  practices  of  Islam are  termed  the  Shariah.  If  the  Shariah  is  a  “later-manufactured”  component  (component  of  what?),  then  it  is  just  as  saying  that  Islam  is  a  “later-manufactured component”.  In  this  case  it  must  be  asked:  Later  to  what? The  word  ‘Shariah’  simply  refers  to  the  collective  details of  all  the  departments  of  Islam.  It  is  nothing  apart  from Islam.  But  the  moron  Kaafirah  is  too  stupid  to  understand this simple fact.

Again  she  makes  a  mockery  of  herself  by  claiming  that “fatwahs”  is  a  later-manufactured  component  of  Islam.  Here  again  she  flaunts  her  ignorance.  She  does  not  have  the  haziest  idea  of  the  meaning  of  ‘fatwa’.  Firstly,  she  adds  ‘h’  at  the  end  of  the  word  ‘fatwa’.  This  by  itself  indicates  her  ignorance.  There  is  no  ‘h’  (or  haa)  at  anywhere  in  the  term  ‘fatwa’.  The  plural  is  not  ‘fatwahs’.  It  is  Fataawaa.  If  an  English  plural  form  is  desired,  she  should  have  said: ‘fatwas”,  not  ‘fatwahs’.  Now  what  is  the  meaning  of ‘fatwa’?  Fatwa  simply  means  a  verdict,  a  decree,  a  judicial opinion.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  issued  Fataawa.  The  Sahaabah  issued  Fataawa,  and  so  did  all  Jurists  and  Ulama  issue  Fataawa,  all  based  on  the  Shariah,  i.e.  the  Qur’aan  and  Sunnah.  Thus,  Fatwa  is  not  a component  of  Islam  in  the  way  the  moron  has  posited  it.  It  is  not  a  later-manufactured  source  of  Islam.  It  is  simply  an  answer  to  a question.

Every  belief,  act,  teaching,  tenet  and  ritual  are  all components  of  Islam  which  never  were  “later-manufactured”.  All  these  components,  down  to  the minutest  detail,  constitute  the  SUNNAH  known  as  ‘Islam’ which  was  perfected  and  completed  during  the  very  life time  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  as explicitly confirmed by the Qur’aan Majeed:
“This  Day  have  I  perfected  for  you  your  Deen  and completed  for  you  My  favour,  and  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen.”     
Only  moron  Kaafirahs  and  Zindeeqs  proffer  the  baseless idea  of  any  aspect  of  Islam  being  “later-manufactured”. The  disgorgement  of  such  rubbish  is  inspirations  of shaitaan.  Everything  of  Islam  was  manufactured  divinely  and  passed  on  to  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  by  Jibraeel  (Alayhis  salaam)  or  by  direct  inspiration  (Wahi) from  Allah  Ta’ala  into  the  blessed  heart  of  the  Nabi (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  It  is  this  complete  and  perfect divine  Shariah  which  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  handed  to  the  Sahaabah  to  pass  on  to  the Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Taabieen  era  for  the  purpose of  codification  and  systematic  formulation  for  the  benefit of  the  posterity  of  the  Ummah.  Only  followers  of  Iblees  are capable  of  propounding  the  kufr  ideology  of  anything  of Allah’s  Shariah  being  later  accretions  and  “later-manufactured”.

The  moron  Kaafirah’s  claim  that  the  burqah  and  niqaab  are the  effects  of  “traditional  propaganda”  further  confirms  the  density  of  her  kufr  brain  corrupted  with  stercoraceous substances  excreted  by  Iblees.  It  comes  in  the  Primary Component  of  Islam  that  Shaitaan  urinates  in  the  ears  of his  beloved  devotees  such  as  the  moron  Kaafirah.  This stupid  woman  wallowing  in  satanism  is  ignorant  of  even simple  history,  hence  she  stupidly  blurts  out  drivel  which  makes  a  mockery  of  herself.  What  is  the  basis  for  the stupid  assertion  that  the  burqah  and  niqaab  is  ‘traditional propaganda’?  Firstly,  what  exactly  does  this  jaahil  Kaafirah mean  by  ‘traditional’?  Undoubtedly,  the  burqah,  the  niqaab and  everything  related  to  Islam  are  ‘traditional’.  These  are  all  the  artefacts  of  the  Tradition  known  as  the  Sunnah.  The  evidence  to  prove  that  the  burqah  and  niqaab  are  integral aspects  of  the  divine  Sunnah,  is  irrefutable.  No  one  has ever  succeeded  to  rationally  debunk  this  position.  Every  jaahil,  zindeeq,  murtad,  munaafiq  and  kaafir  who abortively  attempt  to  deny  Islamic  teachings  and  practices to  appease  shaitaan  and  their  western  masters  who  have colonized  their  brains,  emotionally  blurt  out  stupidity devoid  of  facts  and  Shar’i  evidence.  They  are  totally lacking  in  rational  argument.

The  moron  Kaafirah  should  present  her  evidence  to  bolster her  stupid  claim  of  the  Islamic  Burqah  and  Niqaab  having being  acquired  from  “ancient  Persian  custom”.  Did  the  noble  Wives  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  acquire  their  burqah  and  niqaab  from  Persia  or  Persian custom?  Is  the  Qur’aanic  command  to  don  Burqah  and  Niqaab  the  effect  of  ancient  Persian  custom?  It  is  only  an  intransigent  person  whose  brain  is  overshadowed  with  satanism  who  possesses  the  stupidity  of  denying  the Qur’aanic  command  to  don Burqah  and  Niqaab.

If  Face-Covering  had  not  been  the  permanent  practice  in vogue  among  the  Sahaabiyaat,  the  Law  of  Allah  Ta’ala would  not  have  ordained  that  women  should  not  don  Niqaabs  during  the  state  of  Ihraam.  This  fact  alone  suffices to  debunk  the  stupid  baseless  idea  of  the  Niqaab  not  being in  existence  during  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  If  the  Niqaab  had  not  been  in  vogue, Islam  would  not  have  ordered  women  to  remove  it  during the  state  of  Ihraam.  This  fact  further  illustrates  the  jahaalat  of  the  moron  Kaafirah.

Flaunting  her  ignorance audaciously, the Kaafirah says: “Since  it  is  pre-Islamic  and  non-Qur’aanic,  it  is  un-Muslim,  as  no  masked  woman  can  perform  the  hajj  or  undertake daily  prayer.”

Every  word  of  this  stupid  conclusion  is  a  claim  arbitrarily made  without  the  slightest  shred  of  evidence.  Earlier  in  this dissertation  it  has  been  shown  that  the  Niqaab  is  Qur’aanic,  Sunnah  and  the  Command  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  whilst  the moron  grimalkin  Kaafirah  has  miserably  failed  to  present  even  an  iota  of  proof  for  her  stupid,  convoluted  views.  She  has  disgorged  nothing  besides  her  stupid  personal  opinion  which  she  has  gleaned  from  the  writings  of  other  kuffaar and  zanadiqah.  It  is  quite  simple  to  say  that  the  niqaab  is  ‘pre-Islamic’,  but  it  is  another  matter  to  proffer  the  proof  for  this  fallacious  claim.  She  speaks  nothing  but  kufr twaddle. 

Furthermore,  her  claim  about  the  Salaat  of  a  woman  whose face  is  covered,  is  preposterous  stupidity.  Both  the  Hajj  and the  Salaat  of  a  woman  donning  Niqaab  are  valid.  However, if  the  niqaab  cloth  sits  on  the  face,  the  dumm  penalty  is  applicable.  The  claim  that  she  cannot  undertake  Hajj  with  face  covering  is  manifestly  baseless.  Numerous  women perform  Hajj  with  such  face-covering  which  does  not necessitate  any  penalty.  In  fact,  such  face-covering  during Hajj  is  Waajib.  But  the  dumb  Kaafirah  has  no  understanding  of  these  rules  of  the  Shariah.  Also,  the  Salaat  of  a  female  whose  face  is  covered  is  valid.  The  claim  that  she  cannot  ‘undertake  prayer’  is  ludicrously stupid.

Dwelling  in  satanically  compounded  ignorance,  the  stupid Kaafirah says: 

“Hair-covering  is  a  Jewish  tradition  and  a  Christian practice….  Today’s  fad  of  face  and  hair  concealment  is  a foolish imitation of imported Wahhabi-Salafi sectarianism….”

It  is  indeed  demeaning  to  respond  to  such  copro-drivel. Nevertheless,  we  are  constrained  to  respond  and  refute  the  stupid  Kaafirah  gremalkin’s  absurdity  to  protect  ignorant  Muslims  from  being deflected  from  rectitude.

She  utters  her  self-contradiction  in  the  same  breath.  The dumb  Kaafirah  woman  has  attributed  the  Qur’aanic  Hijaab  consisting  of  Burqah  and  Niqaab  to  three  sources  from which  she  claims  the  Niqaab  and  Khimar  (head-cover)  have  been  imported:

•  From ancient Persian custom
•  From Jewish and Christian  traditions
• From Wahhabi-Salafi sectarianism.

If  Muslims  had  imported  the  Niqaab  and  the  Khimaar  from ancient  Persian  custom,  then  the  mention  of  Jewish  and Christian  traditions  is  stupidly  superfluous.  The  one  source was  sufficient  for  emulation,  and  this  adequacy  negates  the need  for  further  importation  of a  practice  already  acquired.

If  the  niqaab  and  khimaar  were  imported  from  one  of  the first  two  sources  mentioned  above,  then  what  is  the meaning  of  importation  from  Wahhaabis/Salafis?  The Wahhaabi  movement  came  into  existence  just  recently,  not  even  two  centuries  ago.  Every  moron  knows  that  the niqaab  and  the  khimaar,  jilbaab  and  burqah,  were incumbent  items  of  the  dress  of  honourable  females  many many  centuries  prior  to  the  appearance  of  Salafism.  The niqaab,  etc.  had  existed  in  the  entire  Ummah  –  in  every  Muslim  country  –  in  every  Muslim  nation  long  before  Salafism.  Salafis  constitute  a  very  small  number  of  the  Ummah,  and  they  are  late-comers  on  the  Islamic  scene. There  was  therefore  no  importation  from  them  as  the stupid,  dumb,  moron Kaafirah avers.

In  propounding  her  fallacious  stupidities,  the  dumb  Kafirah woman  entangles  herself  in  incongruities.  Thus,  forgetting her  own  stupid  principle  of  “later-manufactured components”  which  she  utilized  in  her  abortive  attempt  to debunk  the  Niqaab  and  Khimaar,  the  moron  avers  that  “a masked  woman”  cannot  perform  Hajj,  and  that  she  cannot even  engage  in  Salaat.  Let  us  now  ask  this  jaahilah, Kaafirah  who  excels  in  stupid  incongruities  and  self-contradictions:  Where  in  the  Qur’aan  is  it  mentioned  that  a  woman  may  not  don  niqaab  during  Hajj?  And,  where  is  it  mentioned  in  the  Qur’aan  that  a  woman  may  not  perform Salaat  with  her  face  covered?  Nowhere  in  the  Qur’aan  do these  issues  appear.  So  on  what  basis  has  the  dumb grimalkin  presented  the  mas’alah  that  a  woman  may  not  wear  niqaab  during  Hajj?  Without  hesitation,  she selectively  extracted  this  rule  from  the  “later-manufactured components”  of  Islam.  Whilst  the  Niqaab  is  substantiated by  explicit  Qur’aanic  text,  the  stupid  mompara  had  no option  but  to  resort  to  Hadith  and  Fiqh  from  whence  she selected the mas’alah.

Did  the  moron  Kaafirah  ever  seen  or  heard  of  a  woman with  a  bare  head  –  with  all  her  hair  exposed  during  Hajj?  She  is  conveniently  silent  about  this  issue.  Whilst  she  stupidly  denies  head-covering  in  the  Qur’aan,  attributing  it  to  Jewish  and  Christian  traditions,  she  is  flummoxed  by  the requisite  of  head-covering  which  all  women  in  Hajj observe,  hence  her  silence  on  this  issue.  She  has  yet  to apprize  us  of  her  source  for  her  hallucinated  rule  that  a woman  with  face-covering  cannot  perform  Salaat.  She  has to  produce  the  proof  from  the  “heavenly  text”,  not  from “later-manufactured  hadith,  shariah and  fatwahs”.

Then  the  moron  Kaafirah  says:  “Aside  from  everyone  being modest,  females  need  only  cover  their  bosoms.”    

She  has degenerated  into  the  lowest  dregs  of  immorality  to  forge  this  ludicrous  stupidity.  In  terms  of  her  satanic  logic, besides  the  bosom,  the  entire  body  of  the  female  may  be exhibited  in  public.  She  may  expose  her  legs,  arms,  back, etc.  as  long  as  her  bosom  is  covered.  Will  any  sane  Muslim irrespective  of  whatever  degree  of  ignorance  he  may  be wallowing  in, ever  accept  this piece  of  Satanism?

When  it  suits  the  moron  Kaafirah,  she  unhesitatingly  and selectively  extracts  masaa-il  from  “later-manufactured components”,  conveniently  forgetting  about  her  stupid principle  of  the  “heavenly  text”  which  in  her  copro-brains  is  the  only  source  of  Islam.    In  fact,  her  adoption  of  the “heavenly  text”  as  the  only  basis  for  Islam  is  in  total negation  of  her  own  stupid,  lopsided  “later-manufactured components”  rubbish.  Since  these  so-called  “later-manufactured  components”  are  the  production  of  a  “sexist clergy”  and  “deliberate  misrepresentation  by  Islamic priesthood”,  it  is  irrational  to  say  the  very  least,  for  the moron  of  the  lesbian  cult  and  temple  to  seek  aid  from  these “later-manufactured”  sources  when  she  finds  herself flummoxed. 

The  shaitaan-incarnate  moron  Kaafirah,  boggling  the  mind, denies  even  the  headscarf  (khimaar).  Hitherto,  modernists, zindeeqs  and  the  devil’s  progeny  have  denied  the Qur’aanic  command  of  face-concealment.  But  this shaitaanah,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  is  the  first  of  the Devil’s  progeny  who  has  denied  even  the  Qur’aanic  command  for  women  to  cover  their  hair.  She  attributes covering  the  hair  to  Jewish  and  Christian  practice,  stupidly forgetting  or  genuinely  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  such  noble practices  are  the  remnants  of  Islam  taught  to  the  Jews  by  Hadhrat   Musaa  (Alayhis  salaam),  and  to  the  Christians  by  Hadhrat  Isaa  (Alayhis  salaam).  Every  Muslim,  man  and  woman,  from  the  very  inception  of  Islam,  is  aware  that  even  if  a  few  strands  of  the  female’s  hair  are  exposed  during  Salaat,  her  Salaat  will  not  be  valid.  Besides  human  specimens  of  the  lesbian  and  transgender  type,  no  other  faasiqahs  and  faajirahs  will  accept  performing  Salaat  without  their  hair  being  covered,  even  if  they  are prostitutes  who  are  normal  females,  not  of  the  lesbian  type  such  as  these  Kaafirahs  masquerading  as  Muslims  and denying  that  the  sun  shines during  daytime.

Explicitly  referring  to  head  cover  for  women,  the  Qur’aan Majeed states:

“They  should  put  their  khumur  (plural  of  khimaar- headscarf) over their bosoms.” (Aayat 31, Surah Noor)

It  has  already  been  explained  earlier  that  the  Khimaar  is  a garment  apart  from  the  Jilbaab.  The  jilbaab  is  the  large outer  cloak  which  is  over  the  khimaar,  and  it  enshrouds  the entire  body  leaving  not  a  centimetre  exposed.  But  the stupid  Kaafirah,  compounding  her  intellectual  deficiency  with  deliberate  intransigence,  hopelessly  fails  to  understand  this  simple  fact.  Whilst  normal  females  enjoy  the  attribute  of  Nuqs  fil  Aql  (intellectual  deficiency), Kaafirahs  of  the  lesbian-transgender  cult  suffer  from  the  curse  of  Mafqoodul  Aql  (total  lack  of  brains),  hence  the  disgorgement  of  so much  rubbish.

When  stupid  lesbians  parading  as  Muslims  and  setting themselves  up  as  authorities  of  the  Shariah  appear,  then  we know  that  Qiyaamah  cannot  be  in  the  too  distant  future. Their  spiritual  and  physical  stench  is  unbearable  to  even shaitaan  himself.  Even  skunks  flee  at  their  approach.    

The Impermissibility of Women Attending the Musaajid

[Jamiatul Ulama, Northern Cape]

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) said:

“The best Salaat of a woman is her Salaat in the innermost recess of her home.”

Upholding the Prohibition  decreed by Hadhrat Umar Ibn  Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu), the Khalifah of the time, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said:

“If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) saw what the women  have introduced (by way of mischief), he would most certainly prohibit them from the Musjid.”


(1) Tabyeenul Haqaaiq, Vol. 1,  pages 139  and 140: “They should  not attend congregations, i.e. in  all Salaats, whether they (the  women) are young or old. This is the verdict of the Mutakh-khireen  (Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf) because  of the rise of fasaad in our times.  …….The accepted verdict in our  age is prohibition for all (Salaats)  because of the change in the  times. Precisely for this reason  did Aishah (radhiyallahu anha)  say: “If Rasulullah had seen of the  women what we have seen, then  most assuredly he would have  forbidden them from the Musjid  just as the women of Bani Israaeel  were prohibited. Women have  introduced (in their lives)  adornment, perfume and wearing  jewellery. It was for this reason  that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  had forbidden them (from  attending the Musjid). The  changing of the ahkaam because  of the changing of the times  cannot be denied, e.g. it is  permissible to lock the Musjid at nights in our age (whereas originally this was not permissible).”

(2) Mabsoot of Imaam Sarakhsi,  Vol. 16, page 37: “Verily, during  the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Abu Bakr  (radhiyallahu anhu) women used  to attend jama-aat (for Salaat). However, Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) prohibited this, and he was correct (in so doing).”

(3) Al-Ikhtiyaar Ta’leelil Mukhtaar,  Vol. 1, page 139: “During our times nothing of it (i.e. whether the women attending the Musjid  are young or old) is permissible  because of the fasaad of the  times and the rampancy of immorality.”

(4) An-Nihaayah: “Our Fuqaha  base the prohibition of women attending the Musjid on the prohibition declared by Hadhrat  Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu  anhu). When he discerned the  fitnah (mischief) which women had initiated, he forbade their emergence.”

(5) Allaamah Aini (rahmatullah  alayh) of the 8th century says: “If Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) could observe the innovations and evils  which the women of this age (i.e.  the 8th century of Islam) have introduced, her rejection (of  women attending the Musjid),  would be more vehement. The  interval between the era of  Aishah’s rejection and  Rasulullah’s time is very little.  The wrongs which the women during the time of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) had  introduced were insignificant  compared to the evils which they have introduced during this age (i.e. the 8th century).”

(6) Al-Muheetul Burhaani:  “The  Ruling is prohibition for all  Salaats because of the spread of  fitnah of the age.”

(7) Al-Jauharah: “The verdict  (Fatwa) today is prohibition of  women’s presence (in the Musjid)  for  all Salaat because of the prevalence of mischief.”

(8) Munazzal: “The Fatwa today is  that it is forbidden for women to  attend the Musjid for all Salaats because of the appearance of fitnah.”

(9) Al-Kifaayah: “The Fatwa today  is prohibition of females  attending (the Musjid) for all  Salaats because of the spread of fitnah.”

(10) Mufti Kifaayatullah states in  his treatise, The Prohibition of  Women Attending Gatherings and Public Lectures: “The Ruling  of our Companions is that which  the author of Badaius Sanaai has said. In this there is a consensus  of opinion that a woman cannot  attend Eid or Jumuah Salaat. In  fact, she is prohibited from  attending any/all Salaat (in the  Musjid). This ruling is based on  the Qur’aanic aayat: ‘And remain resolutely in your homes…’. The  emergence of women from their homes is a cause of fitnah.” It is  further stated in Badaai: ‘Women  are not allowed to attend Salaat  with Jamaat. The proof is in the  narration of Hadhrat Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) wherein he  prohibited women from emerging from their homes.”

(11) Fataawa Alamghiri, Vol. 1,  page 93: “The Fatwa of these  times is that it is impermissible  for women to attend (the Musjid) for any Salaat because this is an era of social decay and fitnah.”

(12) Bahrur Raa-iq, Vol. 1, page  380: “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) because of the prevalence of immorality.”

(13) Allaamah Badruddin Aini  states in Sharah Kanz: “Women, be they young or old, are prohibited from attending the  Musjid for Jamaat Salaat because  this is an era of social decay and immorality.”

(14) Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar, Vol. 1,  page 397: “It is not permissible  for women to attend Salaat in congregation, whether it be  Jumuah or Eid or a lecture, even  if she is old and even if it is night  time. This is the final ruling on this issue. Due to the state of immorality, this ruling has been given.”

All the kutub of the Hanafi Math-hab register a firm, resolute  uncompromising prohibition on  women attending the Musjid for  Salaat or for lectures in this era  of fitnah and fasaad – evil and  immorality of men and women.  The Prohibition is based on the  Dalaa-il of the Qur’aan and  Sunnah. Only morons and immoral liberals of this age deny this irrefutable reality of the Shariah.


It will be prudent to state the  Shaafi’ view as well. Miscreants  and morons have an evil habit of misleading people by ascribing  falsities to the Shaafi’ Math-hab.  The Shaafi’ Fuqaha are just as vehement and resolute in prohibiting women from the Musjid as the Hanafi Fuqaha.

(1) I’aanatut Taalibeen, Vol. 2,  page 5: “Yes, it is Makrooh (i.e.  forbidden) for women of  adornment to attend the Musjid  with males because of the Hadith  in Bukhaari and Muslim narrated  from Aishah (radhiyallahu anha)  who said: ‘If Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) had to see what  women have initiated (today),  then most certainly he would  prohibit them from the Musjid  just as the women of Bani Israaeel  were prohibited.” And this prohibition is on account of the fitnah in it (in their emergenc  from their homes to attend the Musjid). The text of Sharh states:  ‘It is Makrooh (reprehensible and forbidden) for a woman to attend  Jamaat of the Musjid if she is young even if she dons shabby  (unattractive/old) garments, and  even if she is not young, but with her there is something of beauty  or the fragrance of perfume.’ And  it is the duty of the Imaam or his representatives to prevent them (from the Musjid).”

(2) Al-Iqnaa li Shurabeeni, Vol. 1, page 164: “It is Makrooh for the women of beauty (adornment) to attend (the Musjid) with males  because of the Hadith of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) narrated in  Bukhaari and Muslim…………..”

(3) Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 4, page 172: “When a young woman or even an old women who can be a cause of  lust, intends to attend the Musjid, it is Makrooh for her. It is also Makrooh for her husband or wali to allow her (to attend the Musjid). If it is such an old  woman who is not desirable (i.e.  she is not a cause of lust for  others) and if there is no mafsadah (fitnah/mischief) either  for her or for others, then it is  preferable for the husband to  allow her if she seeks permission.  But if he refuses (to give  permission) then it is not haraam  for him (to refuse).”

(4) Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 5, Page 13: Explaining the prohibition, it is  said: “ …..and because the fitnah  and the ways of evil in these times are abundant contrary to the initial era (of Islam).”

(5) Kifaayatul Akhyaar, Vol. 1,  page 149: “If Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  to see what women have  introduced, he would most  certainly prohibit them from the  Musjid just as the women of Bani  Israaeel were  prohibited.’  This  then is the Fatwa of Ummul  Mu’mineen in the best of ages.  Then what should be (the fatwa)  in this corrupt time of ours?  Verily many others (Fuqaha)  besides Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) had also prohibited women from  attending the Musjid – others, e.g. Urwah Bin Zubair  (radhiyallahu anhu), Qaasim,  Yahya Ansaari and Maalik… And  this (difference of opinion regarding women’s attendance)  applied to that (early) age. But  during this era of ours, not a  single Muslim will hesitate to  prohibit women except a ghabi  (an ignoramus/moron whose  brains are dense) who lacks  understanding of the deeper  wisdom of the Shariah. He seeks  proof from the zaahiri daleel (i.e.  he looks at only the text/the  words) without understanding  its meaning………….The correct version is resolutely Tahreem (i.e.  it is haraam for women to attend  the Musjid). And the Fatwa is according to it.”

(6) Haashiyataan, Vol. 1, page  222:  “…..the likes of young  women of adornment or old  perfumed women, and it is  haraam for a married woman to  go to (the Musjid) without the  permission of  her husband, and it is haraam for him to permit her because of fitnah from her or on her.”

(7) Bujairmi alal Khateeb, Vol. 2,  page 107: “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 of lectures, especially  the lecture programmes of the  juhhaal (the cardboard muftis and  paper molvis) who masquerade as Ulama whilst their motive is carnal lust.”


In the Shaafi’ kitaab, Kifaayatul  Akhyaar, Vol.1, page 149, the  opinion of morons is vehemently criticized. The author, Ibn Hajar  Haitami (rahmatullah alayh)  citing the famous Hadith of  Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) which constitutes a fundamental basis for the decree of Prohibition, states: 

“If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) had seen what women  have introduced, then most assuredly he would prohibit them  from the Musjid just as the  women of Bani Israaeel were  prohibited.” (Then he comments):  ‘This, then is the fatwa of Ummul  Mu’mineen during Khairul Quroon  (the Best of Ages – the Age of  the Sahaabah). Then what should  it be during this corrupt age of  ours? (i.e. many centuries after  Khairul Quroon with immorality  on the ascendancy). Others  besides Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) too have stated the prohibition of women attending the Musjid.

Among them are Urwah Bin Zubair (radhiyallahu anhu), Qaasim, Yahya Ansaari, Maalik, and Abu Hanifah once then at another time he gave permission (for old women duringFajr, Maghrib and Isha). Similarly, Abu Yusuf prohibited it. This (prohibition) with some  differences applied to that age  (the Khairul Quroon). However,  with regard to our age (i.e. the  8/9th century), no one among  the Muslimeen will hesitate in  (the fatwa) of prohibiting women,  except a moron lacking in the  understanding of the subtleties  of the Shariah. Verily he (the  moron) argues (and seeks proof)  with the literal text and he applies it literally without understanding  its meaning and without taking into account the wisdom (and understanding) of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha). …..And, the  Fatwa is on this (i.e  prohibition).  And Allah knows best.”

Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah  alayh) has made it abundantly  clear that only a moron – a  person with a dense brain whose  intellectual channels are clogged  with stupidity – looks at the text  and simply ascribes to it a literal  effect in terms of the apparent  meaning. He is blind to the many  factors  and circumstances which  fetter the text of the Hadith. The  density of his brain precludes the  moron from understanding the  Fatwa of Wisdom issued by  Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu  anha) and the wisdom of Hadhrat Umar’s prohibition, and the verdicts of the Mutakh-khireen Fuqaha of all Math-habs

Ibn Hajar states in his famed Al-Fataawal Kubral Fiqhiyah, Vol. 1,  page 204, which we reproduce  here for the benefit of all:

“It is appropriate in our age (i.e.  the 8th century) to categorically  decree haraam the emergence of  young and adorned women  because of the abundance of  fasaad (mischief/vice/immorality). The factor which made lawful  (female) emergence during the Khairul Quroon (the age of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), the Sahaabah and Taabieen) has most certainly  disappeared, and also has  disappeared (what is mentioned  in the Qur’aanic verse): ‘They (women) should not reveal their  beauty and they should lower  their gaze.” And, similarly is it  with the men. The evils of female  emergence now is categorical.  Then there has been mentioned  what Hadhrat Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) said  (regarding prohibition of women  attending the Musjid)……….And,  no one will hesitate in  prohibiting women (from the Musjid and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi 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).”

Thus, according to Hadhrat Ibn  Hajar Haitami Shaafi’  (rahmatullah alayh) and  according to all the Fuqaha of all  the Math-habs, the one who calls  for women to attend the Musjid,  especially in this immoral, libertine age of zina, fisq and  fujoor, is a ghabi, a jaahil, one  who is dim and dense in the brains and due to these  intellectual maladies is unable to  understand the deeper meanings  of the Shariah.


A Clinching Ruling of the Shaafi’ Math-hab

Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh), the eighth century authority of the Shaafi’ Math-hab has elaborately presented this Prohibition in Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyatul Kubra. He has argued the case from all angles, and has resolutely confirmed the  prohibition for all categories of  women on account of the confirmed fitnah. The pandemic  of fitnah has been incremental  and there is no hope of it receding. Extracts from his lengthy detailed elaboration are as follows:

“With regard to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from the Musjid”, and similar other Ahaadith on this topic, it is  obvious that this permission is  regulated by conditions which the Ulama have explained. These  conditions have been obtained  from the Ahaadith. They are: The  woman must not be perfumed  nor adorned with jewels which make sounds. Her garments  should not be attractive. There  should be no mingling with males. The woman should not be young  or like a young woman who can  be a cause of fitnah. There  should be no fear of mischief in  the road. ……..If even one of  these conditions is lacking, then she will be prohibited (from going to the Musjid or anywhere else).

The condition for permissibility of emerging is the non-existence of fitnah and this is obvious. When emergence is haraam (because of fitnah), then prohibiting (women) is Waajib (on the husband or the guardian).

Furthermore, the statement of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) reinforces prohibition, for she said: ‘If Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) had seen what  the women have introduced, he  would prohibit them from the Musjid just as the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited.’

What she (Hadhrat Aishah-  radhiyallahu anha) had deducted  is supported by the statement of  Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh),  viz., ‘The fataawa (verdicts) for people will be in accordance with the immorality which they have introduced.’ The meaning of Imaam Maalik’s statement is what Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) had intended. In other words, if a person introduces such an act for which the Principles of the Shariah dictate a decree other than the decree which had existed before the innovation, then a new decree will be applied according to what has been introduced, not in accordance with what had existed prior to the introduction. ………..

This is supported by her Hadith  narrated by Ibn Maajah: ‘While  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was seated in the Musjid an adorned woman  entered the Musjid walking  proudly showing off her beauty  in the Musjid. Then said  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam): ‘O people! Forbid your women from wearing garments  of beauty and from pride in the  Musjid, for verily, Bani Israaeel  were cursed when their women dressed beautifully and swaggered in the Musaajid.’

When a woman emerges only in  this manner, she shall be prevented. …… (The prohibition)  is further supported by the  statement of Ghazaali in Al-Ihya.  He said: ‘It is Waajib to prohibit  women from attending the  Musaajid for Salaat, for gatherings of knowledge and  thikr when there is fear of fitnah, for verily Aishah (radhiyallahu  anha) had prohibited them. It  was then said to her: ‘Verily,  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) did not prohibit women from jamaa-aat (gatherings in  the Musjid).’ She then said: ‘If  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) had known what the  women have introduced after him, he would most certainly have prohibited them.’

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.

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 (Hadhrat 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.’

Among the Mutaqaddimeen, the two noble and illustrious Shaikhs and Imaams: Shaikh Taqiuddeen Al-Haseeni and our Shaikh  Alaauddeen Muhammad Bin  Muhammad Bin Muhammad Al-Najjaari May Allah cover them  with His mercy – have (also) stated this (as explained above).  That which both these illustrious  Shaikhs have stated is adequate  for a person who abandons his  desire. Some have inferred that  the view of Tahreem (i.e. haraam  for women to attend the Musjid)  and the claim of consensus on  prohibition are in conflict with  the (Shaafi’) Math-hab. But it is  not so. On the basis of what I  explain from the kutub of the  Math-hab, etc. their purpose is  clarified, and it explains that  there is no conflict (with the Math-hab) in what they have said.
That which they (the two  illustrious Shaikhs) have said is  that, verily, the Fatwa in this age  is the prohibition of women’s  emergence (from their homes to attend the Musjid, etc.). None, but a moron subservient to his  base desires will hesitate in this  (i.e. in accepting that it is  prohibited for women), for verily,  the ahkaam change with the  changing of the people of the  age. This is the correct version according to the Ulama of the Salf and Khalf of the Math-habs.

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-Fataawal Fiqhiyatul Kubra)

It is significant that Ibn Hajar  Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) has  branded the rejecter of  prohibition a moron (ghabi).    Only morons attempt to utilize  their corrupted intelligence to  cancel ahkaam of the Shariah which have existed since the earliest age of Islam and which all the Authorities have confirmed.

The differences of the early  Fuqaha are restricted to ‘old  women’ – old grandmothers –  who are beyond the age of  marriage and who do not  constitute fitnah for even old  men. This is clearly stated in the  kutub of the Shariah. As far as  young, middle-aged and such old  women who flaunt beauty and adornment or exercise an  attraction are concerned, there is  consensus of the Fuqaha of all  Math-habs that it is not  permissible for them to attend the Musjid. However, the moron  deceptively labours to confuse  people with this slight difference.  After the Khairul Quroon era, the  prohibition was extended to even  old women because of the fitnah  of the times – the fitnah of the  women and the fitnah of the men.
As far as the present age – the  15th Islamic century/the 21st  century of the Christian era – is  concerned, immorality is total.  Moral depravity, shamelessness,  lewdness, abandonment of  hijaab, etc. are the order of the  day. Under no circumstances will  it ever be permissible for women to attend the Musjid in these times. The position is worse in  the Haramain Shareefain. The  rulers being immoral are  permitting the perpetration of  immorality and fitnah right inside  the sacred precincts of the Holy  Musaajid. The evil is appalling,  particularly during Tawaaf. The  authorities have grossly failed in  their obligation of maintaining strict segregation and separation of Tawaaf times for the sexes. 


Question: A Mufti in the U.S.A. while acknowledging that the Shariah has prohibited women  from the Musjid is of the view  that in the present age women  are all over in the public.  Therefore separate Salaat facilities at the Musaajid should  be set aside for them. He says  that the Ulama who are against  this are extreme. Please comment.

Answer by Majlisul Ulama:

The advice which the mufti proffers regarding the   construction of separate facilities for females at the Musaajid is extremely short-sighted and not  permissible. This Deen of Islam  was revealed, completed and  perfected more than fourteen  centuries ago. There is no room  for changing the masaa-il of  Islam to accommodate deviation  and what has been impermissible  since the time of the Sahaabah.

Today among the Yahood there  remains not a semblance of the  Shariah of Nabi Musa (alayhis  salaam), and among the  Christians not a semblance of the  Shariah of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). The reason for this total  loss of the Shariats of the  previous Ambiya (alayhimus  salaam) is the policy of   subjecting their respective  Shariats to an evolutionary process which permits perennial  change, distortion,  misinterpretation, mutilation and  transmogrification of the Laws  of Allah Ta’ala. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a licence to interpret and distort the religion in terms of their fanciful  reasoning and nafsaani demands.

But, by the fadhl of Allah Ta’ala  Islam will not be extinguished  because Allah Ta’ala has created a  mechanism to protect the  originality and pristine purity of  this Deen, and that mechanism is  the institution of the Ulama-e-Haqq whose obligation is to act  as the watchdogs of the Divine Shariah.

The proposal to open up the Musjids or to establish separate Salaat facilities attached to the Musaajid for ladies because they  are already wandering in public is  a deception of shaitaan. Such  deceptions of shaitaan are termed Talbeesul Iblees. Shaitaan  approaches ‘scholars’ – shallow -minded ‘scholars’ whose hearts  and minds are anchored to the dunya, and who submit and make  subservient the Shariah to  worldly expediencies – such expediencies which are haraam, and grips them in his tentacles.  Instead of issuing the Shariah’s  ruling for the expediency, the  endeavour – the haraam  endeavour – is to distort and  mutilate the Shariah to conform to the development.

Thus, the endeavour is to give  recognition and confer permissibility to female  participation in public life by  twisting the Shariah’s prohibition  of females attending the Musjid into a confounded ‘permissibility’  which in reality is a haraam  ‘permissibility’. It is illogic and  haraam to change a ruling of the  Shariah simply because women  are participating in public life, shoulder to shoulder with males.  Our reaction should be the  opposite. The prohibition to attend the Musjid should be more  emphasized and women should  be educated and castigated for  their emergence from their homes in emulation of their western counterparts. Their  haraam emergence and participation in public life should  be condemned regardless of  whether they accept or reject. It  is downright stupid and not  permissible to argue that since    women are participating in  brothels, we should open up the  Musaajid for them for Salaat.

The presence of women in public  malls, etc. is not grounds for  transforming a haraam practice  into a permissible one. On the  contrary, the liberal muftis who  are trying to make women’s  emergence acceptable, should  rather fulfil their obligation of  Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil  Munkar by education and propagation to inform women  that their participation in public life in the domain of males is haraam.

If a woman has degenerated to  the level of mingling with the  opposite sex and participating  fully in public life as mentioned  by the ‘mufti’ in his corrupt fatwa, then what prevents her from  performing her Salaat in a corner  of the mall or in the office where  she works or in a corner on the  pavement? In fact, we (males) do exactly so. We perform Salaat no  Musjid nearby. Now if a woman    acts like a man and emerges from  her home to mingle with the  opposite sex in public, then she  too can perform Salaat in the  public as men do.

The entire day she spends in  public. Suddenly when Salaat    time arrives then she will make it  Qadha or forgo it rather than  perform it in the public which she  has made her ‘home’. It is indeed  preposterous and unjust to  charge the prohibition sits with  extremism for preventing women  from the Musjid, when the  women are in fact practising  haraam extremism by being in  public, then aggravating their  haraam extremism and sins by  abstaining from Salaat and  making it qadha simply because  there is no Musjid nearby or no  ladies facilities. Since they have  chosen the haraam practice of  public participation, they should perform their Salaat also in the public.

All the arguments in favour of  women’s facilities are the effects  of Satanism. Shaitaan whispers    his shaitaaniyat into the brains  of moron ‘muftis’ who have a  concept of churning out ‘halaal’  fatwas from haraam acts. Two  haraam acts do not equate to a  halaal act. Thus, the act of female  intermingling is haraam. The act  of  women attending the Musjid  is haraam. These two cannot be fused into a halaal.

By legalizing women’s facilities at  Musjids, the practice will become  entrenched. It will be become a  permanent feature of the  Shariah’s landscape in the same  way as the Yahood and the  Nasaara have made all their  haraam interpolations integral  parts of their respective religions.
The liberal ‘muftis’ who are acting as the representatives of women  in the public, despite acknowledging the reason for the Sahaabah preventing women  from the Musjid, believe that it is  allowed today when the same  dangers have multiplied manifold  in this age of immorality. We  cannot simply resign ourselves to  accepting female intermingling in  the public domain. We must and shall continuously castigate their  evil regardless even if not a single  woman accepts the naseehat of  the Shariah. Our obligation is  only to deliver the clear Message  of the Deen. Hidaayat is the  prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. He  guides whomever He wills, and  He leaves to stray whomever He desires. Our duty is only to guard  the purity of Islam. And, this  obligation demands rejection of  the new-fangled contaminated,  corrupt ‘fatwas’ of the shallow-minded, modernist ‘muftis’ who  are bereft of Khauf-e-Ilaahi  (Divine Fear). It seems that they  believe that they are not going to  die, hence their audacity in  churning out corrupt ‘fatwas’  which only mislead people further  into corruption and moral degeneration.

The errant ‘mufti’ cites the ‘classical’ Fuqaha as if the fatwa  which they had issued was  personal opinion which could be  set aside. He acquits himself as if  the ‘fitnah’ which was and is the  basis for the prohibition, no  longer exists in the present age,  hence he subtly attempts to  restrict the prohibition with what  he describes as “the context in  which the Fuqaha were giving  such verdicts” . Any Muslim of  intelligence who has no shaitaani objective will understand that the “context of the Fuqaha” exists today to a far greater degree to warrant an emphasis on the prohibition. Nothing has developed since the era of the “classical” Fuqaha to warrant a relaxation or amelioration in the  strict fatwa of prohibition. On  the contrary, the fitnah has multiplied manifold.

Arguing in favour of female emergence in conflict with the unequivocal prohibition announced in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith, the liberal ‘mufti’ says:  “The need to emerge out of the house was not like the need we  have in today’s complicated world.”  This is utterly fallacious.  Zina may not be justified nor  mitigated by arguing that the  times of our era differ vastly from  the time when the prohibition was revealed. Such arguments are satanic. The ‘context’ is the same.  Nothing has happened to the  ‘context’ to justify the forging of  a new ‘fatwa’ on an issue in which  the “context” has only worsened.  Furthermore, even if the ‘context’ changes for the better, the prohibition can never be mitigated or relaxed until the day of Qiyaamah because never is it possible for an age such as the age of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the  Sahaabah to be resurrected. The ‘fitnah’ which had already developed during the age of the Sahaabah and on which basis the  prohibition was enacted by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  and the Sahaabah, will not be ameliorated. That fitnah is in a  constant incremental state of worsening.

The liberal mufti very ignorantly  avers that it is “unfair” to prevent  women from the Musaajid in view  of them already being all over the  show and the market places, etc. Thus, he advocates relaxation of  a Shar’i prohibition on the basis  of haraam acts perpetrated by  women. In other words, he confers acceptance and  respectability to women in the streets and market places, hence  the doors of the Musaajid should  be thrown open for them. The  consequence of this stupid,  lopsided satanic logic is nothing  other than the introduction of  the fitnah into our last bastions  of piety, namely, the Musaajid.  The “scholar of piety” who had  advocated this stance, is  extremely short-sighted and  shallow in his knowledge, hence  he ventured this stupid opinion. This very same logic could be  extended to prostitutes in a brothel. In terms of this lopsided  logic emanating from warped  brains, it follows that the  Musaajid should open their doors  for prostitutes to perform Salaat  since they are already on the  streets and in the vice dens plying their haraam abominable trade. The current ‘complicated world’ is  not valid grounds for women’s  emergence. In fact, the contrary  is valid. That is, due to the evils  of the current ‘complicated world’, the need for women to remain  indoors is greater than the need which had existed during the age of the Sahaabah.

He further tries to justify females  going to the Musjid by saying:  “…at times there may be a  genuine need for women to go  out to the Mosques, such as    when travelling…..” This reasoning is deceptive, and another example of Talbeesul Iblees. Firstly, he has been compelled to confess and  concede that the need for  women to emerge from their  houses is restricted to “times of  genuine need”. Such need had  always existed since time  immemorial. Despite their  emergence during times of    genuine need, the prohibition  had remained in force for the  past fourteen centuries.   Womenfolk in our communities  had always emerged from their  homes when there was genuine  need. When this happened, Allah  Ta’ala always made arrangements  for their Salaat to be performed  on time in privacy. 

Genuine need is not prowling in  the malls, market places and  working in factories and offices.  Genuine needs are visiting  relatives, close friends, etc. They  will perform Salaat at the homes  of the people whom they visit. If    they visit for any other valid  reason, they can perform Salaat  wherever they happen to be. But,  the reality is that there is never a  need for qadha, and never such a  situation where they cannot find facilities for Salaat. Their  necessary emergence is seldom, while in this age, their emergence  is an abundance of haraam. And,  for this haraam, the prohibition  may not be abrogated.

Thus, the stance of those who  prohibit women from the Musjid  is never ‘extreme’. It is tantamount to kufr for branding a  Hukm of the Shariah as being ‘extreme’. Every ruling of the Shariah is moderate and designed    for the welfare and best interests  of the Ummah. The miscreant  ‘mufti’ who has branded the  Ulama who prohibit women from  the Musjid as being ‘extreme’ is  implying that the ruling of the  Shariah is ‘extreme’. He should  repent for such denigration of  the Shariah. He plods the path of  baatil and dhalaal.