The Essence Of Salaat Alan-Nabi

[By Abu Hudhaifa Muhammed Karolia Moulana Karolia]

When  we  Muslims  discuss  the  greatness  of  our  beloved  Rasool  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  we  focus  on  various  aspects  of  his  life;  his  handsome  features,  his  sublime  conduct,  his  noble  teachings,  his  remarkable  achievements,  his  miracles  and  his  excellence  over  the  rest  of  the  Ambiyaa  (alaihimus  salaam).  With  regards  to  the  last  aspect,  it  could  be  asked  that  ‘if  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  excelled  the  rest  of  the  Ambiyaa  (alaihimus  salaam),  why  did  Allah  command  the  angels  to  prostrate  to  Aadam  (alaihis  salaam)  instead  of  Rasulullah sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam?  Does  this  not  imply  that  Aadam (alaihis  salaam)  enjoyed  a  greater  status  than  Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam?’

The  answer  to  this  question  is  in  the  aayah

“Surely  Allah  and  His  angels  send  salawaat  to  the  Nabi. O  those who  have  Imaan,  you  also  send  salaat  and  salaam  to  him.”  [Al-Ahzaab (Aayah  56)]

➡ In  this  aayah  Allah  informs  us  that  He  also  sends  salawaat to  Rasulullah  sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam.  On  the  contrary,  it is  quite  obvious  that  Allah  did  not  prostrate  to  Aadam  (alaihis  salaam)  when  He  had  commanded  the  malaaikah (angels)  to  do  so.  [Shamsud-Deen  As-Sakhaawi,  Al-Qawl-ul-Badee’  (Pg.  36)]   

➡ Usage  of  the  past  tense  in  all  the  aayaat  that  refer  to  the prostration  of  the  angels  to  Aadam  (alaihis  salaam)  indicates that  this  happened  only  once.  However,  usage  of  the  present  tense  in  this  aayah  implies  that  Allah  and  His  angels continuously  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  sallallahu  alaihi wasallam.

➡ While  the  command  to  prostrate  to  Aadam  (alaihis  salaam)  applied  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  skies  only,  the  sending  of  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  applies  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  skies  and  the  earth.  Thus  Allah  says:

“O  those  who  have  Imaan,  you  also  send  salaat  and  salaam  to  him.”  

The  fact  that  Allah  and  His  angels  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  is  sufficient  proof  of  his  lofty  status  in  the  court  of  Allah.  This  is  enhanced  further  by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  evidence  whatsoever  –  neither  in  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Sunnah  nor  in  any  of  the  previous  scriptures  –  that  Allah  sends  salawaat  to  any  other  Nabi.  

Besides  highlighting  the  status  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam),  this  aayah  also  draws  attention  to  the  reason  why  we  should  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam);  if  Allah  and  His  angels  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  should  we  not  be  doing  the  same?  When  ordaining  fasting  on  the  Muslims,  Allah  said:  “…fasting has  been  ordained  for  you  just  as  it  was  ordained  for  those  who were  before  you.” [Surah  Al-Baqarah (Aayah 183)]

The  meaning  of  this  being  that:  ‘if  the previous  nations  were  able  to  fast,  you  could  also  do  so’.

Similarly,  when  ordaining  salawaat  in  favour  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  Allah  commenced  the  aayah  saying that  He  and  His  angels  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam).  The  reason  for  this  is  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam). ‘If  Allah  and  the  angels  do  so,  you  too  should  do  so!’  

Ibn-ul-Qayyim  rahimahullah  mentioned  thirty  nine  benefits  of  sending  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam. [Jilaa-ul-Afhaam  (Pg.216-222)]

The  first  benefit  that  he  mentioned  is  obedience  to  the  command  of  Allah.  The  second  and  third  benefits  are  conformity  with  Allah  and  the  angels;  those  who  send  frequent  salawaat  to  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  are  following  the  example  of  Allah the  His  angels.

As  a  rule,  man’s  reward  and  punishment  is  always  according  to his  actions.  Haafidh  Ibn  Kathir  (rahimahullah)  says  in  this regard  that:  “reward  and  punishment  are  in accordance  with  the  nature  of  one’s  action)”  [He  mentioned  this  on  thirteen  different  occasions  in  his  Tafseer-ul-Qur’aan-il-Adheem.  For  example:  Vol.1 Pg.52 and  Vol. 1  Pg.167], Thus:

➡  Allah says  in  the  Qur’aan:  “Remember  me  and  I  will   remember  you.” [Surah  Al-Baqarah  (Aayah 152)]

➡  Those  who drink  wine  in  the  worldly  life  will  be  deprived  of the  wine  of  Jannah. 

➡ Those  who  wear  silk  in  the  worldly  life  will  be  prevented from  wearing  it  in  Jannah. 

➡  Those who  listen  to  music  in  the  worldly  life  will  never  hear the  voices  of  the  qurraa  of  Jannah. 

Likewise,  the  reward  for  those  who  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  is  that  Allah  and  His  angels  send  salawaat  to  them. [Jilaa-ul-Afhaam (Pg.216)]

THE  MEANING  OF  SALAWAAT There  is  a  consensus  among  the  Mufassireen  that  the  salawaat  of  the  angels  is  du’aa  that  Allah  show  mercy  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam).  However,  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  regarding  the  salawaat  of  Allah.  Some  claim  that  it  means  mercy.  Thus  the  meaning  of  Allah  sending  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  is  that  Allah  shows  special  mercy  to  him.  Others  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  means  praise.

Hence  the  meaning  of  Allah  sending  salawaat  to  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  is  that  Allah  praises  him  among  the  angels.  Accordingly,  those  who  send  frequent  salawaat  to Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  earn  the  mercy  of  Allah  and  His  praises.

Irrespective  of  the  meaning  of  the  salawaat  of  Allah,  does Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  really  need  our  du’aas?  After  all,  if  Allah  is  continuously  showering  His  mercy  upon  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  why  do  we  sinners  have to  make  du’aa  to  Allah  to  shower  His  mercy on  him?

The  answer  to  this  question  is  that  definitely  Rasulullah     (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  does  not  require  our  du’aas. However,  there  are  three  reasons  why  we  send  salawaat  to him.  They  are:

1.  By  sending  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam)  we  follow  the  example  of  Allah  and  thereby  gain  closeness  to  him.  We  also  earn  His  mercy,  forgiveness  for our  sins  and  a  higher  rank  in  Jannah.  In  short,  we  send salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  for   our  own  benefit.

2.  By  sending  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam)  we  acknowledge  his  exalted  status.

3.  It  is  also  a  means  of  expressing  our  gratitude  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam). [Haashiyat-us-Saawi  Alal-Jalaalayn (V.3 Pg.269)]  

Among  the  other  benefits  of  sending  salawaat  to  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  are:

1.  The  names  of  those  who  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  are  presented  to  him. [Jilaa-ul-Afhaam (Pg.220)] 

This  is understood from  the  following  two  ahaadith:

a.  “Surely  your  salaat  is  presented  to  me.”   [Sunan  Abi Da’ud  V.1 Pg. 150]

b.  “Allah  has  deputed  a  group  of  angels  to  convey  to  me  the  salaam  sent  to  me  by  my  Ummah.”  [ibid]  

2.  Frequent  recitation  of  salawaat  increases  one’s  love  for  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam). 

“The  person  who  loves  something  speaks  much  of  it.” 
[This  is  a  famous  Arabic  parable]

3.  Consequently,  those  who  recite  frequent  salawaat eventually  become  the  beloved  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi   wasallam).  [Jilaa-ul-Afhaam (Pg.220)]

In  all  the  various  wordings  of  the  salawaat  that  we  send  to Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam, we say  “Allahumma Salli ‘Alaa’”  or  “sallallahu alaihi”  In  both  phrases  we  are  actually  asking  Allah  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam).  The  question  arises  that,  considering  Allah’s  command  that  we  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam,  why  do  we ask  Allah  to  do  so?  Should  we  not  be  saying  “I  send  salawaat”?    

One  answer  to  this  question  is  that  due  to  our  sins  and  spiritual  weaknesses,  our  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  cannot  be  as  significant  as  that  of  Allah’s.  We  therefore   ask  Allah  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi   wasallam)  on  our  behalf.  [Al-Qawl-ul-Badee’ (Pg.72)]  

Another  answer  is  that  when  commanding  us  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  Allah  did  not  indicate  the  required  amount.  This  could  be  a  reminder  to  us  that  no  matter  how  much  salawaat  we  send  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  it  will  never  be  enough.  Hence,  we  ask  Allah  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  on  our  behalf  because  He  knows  best  how  much  salawaat  should  be  sent  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam).  Putting  it differently,  asking  Allah  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  on  our  behalf  is  an  acknowledgment  that  ‘O  Allah,  we  wish  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi   wasallam)  but  we  are  unable  to  do  so  in  a  manner  that  befits  the  lofty  status  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam).  We  therefore  request  you  to  do  it  on  our  behalf.  This  is  similar to  the  du’aa, ‘O  Allah,  I  am  unable  to  praise you!’.  [Al-Qawl-ul-Badee’ (Pg.73)]

AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION Just  as  the  Ummah  have  been  commanded  to  send  salawaat  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam),  he  has  also  been commanded  to  send  salawaat  to  them.

“And  send  salawaat  to  them.  Undoubtedly,  your  salawaat  is  tranquility  for  them.” [Surah  At-Tawbah (Aayah 103)]

The  reason  for  this,  as  observed  by  Fakhrud-Deen  Ar-Raazi,  is  so  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  may  repay  the  Ummah  and  not  be  obliged  to  them.  [Mafaateeh-ul-Ghaib]


Taqlid of Imam Bukhari (Rahimahullah)???

By Abu Usmah Ayyub Ibn Moulana Muhammad

Question: If a man claims to be following the Fiqh of Imam Bukhari, will he not be on the straight path?

Answer: Before we commence with the answer to this question, it should be known that the scholars have differed with regards to the Fiqh of many of the famous Muhadditheen, and more specifically with regards to Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. Whilst some Shafi’ scholars list them amongst the Shafi’s, apparently they were Mujtahidin,  who performed Ijtihad within the framework of the madhahib of the Imams.

Moulana Sarfaraz, on Page 129 of ‘Al-Kalam al-Mufid’, quotes ‘Allamah ‘Al-Al-Subki as stating in Tabaqat Ash-Shafi’iyyah, Vol. 2 p. 83 about Imam Abu Dawud (rahimahullah): “Our Shaikh, Imam Dhahabi (rahimahullah) used to say: Imam Abu Dawud learnt Fiqh from Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and remained with him for a period of time.” Moulana Sarfaraz also quotes with reference to its original sources, that Imam Ibnul Qayyim, ‘Allamah Isma’il Basha Baghdadi and Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah have mentioned that Imam Abu Dawud (rahimahullah) was a Hanbali.  

This kind of Ijtihad is Ijtihad of the second category.

Degrees and Categories of the Fuqaha
The scholars have differed in as far as categorizing the Fuqaha. The following is an example: `Allamah Shamsuddin Mujammar Ibn Sulaiman, better known as Ibn Kamal Basha writes in one of his booklets:  

It is essential for a Mufti who is a Muqallid (i.e. not a Mujtahid) to know the condition of the one whose opinion he uses to pass judgement. We do not mean that he should know his name, lineage and where he comes from, as that is of no avail to him. Rather, we mean his calibre of knowledge in “Riwayah” (i.e. Hadith, etc.),  his status in “Dirayah” (i.e. expertise in Fiqh), and his category amongst the Fuqaha, so that he (i.e. the Muqallid) may have enough insight into distinguishing between the various scholars who may differ, and he may also have sufficient ability to recognize the preponderant view (i.e. the one declared stronger in proof by the Fuqaha) amongst two conflicting views. We therefore state: 

“Verily the Fuqaha are divided into seven categories (in the following order):  

1) The category of the Mujtahidin – i.e. those who perform Ijtihad in the Shari`ah, such as the four Imams in Fiqh, and those who treaded their path in building the fundamental principles for extracting subsidiary laws from the four main sources (of  viz. the Qur’n, , Ijma` and Qiyas). They do not make Taqlid of anyone, neither in subsidiary laws, nor in principles. 

2) The category of those who perform Ijtihad within the madhhab (of a Mujtahid), such as Abu Yusuf and Muhammad (rahimahullah) the two students of Imam Abu Hanifah. They had the ability to extract laws from the basic sources (of Shar`ah) in accordance with the principles laid down by their teacher (Imam Abu Hanifah). They differed with him in subsidiary laws, but made Taqlid of him in the fundamental principles. 

3) The category of those who perform Ijtihad in laws regarding which there exists no narration (statement) from the authority of the madh-hab, such as Al-Khassaf (d. 261 A.H.), Abu Ja’far at-Tahawi (d. 321 A.H.), Abul Hasan Al-Karkhi (d. 340 A.H.), Shamsuddin Al-Hulwani (d. 456 A.H.), Shamsul A-immah As-Sarakhsi (d.  500 A.H.), Fakhrul Islam Al-Bazdawi (d. 482 A.H.), Fakhrul Islam Qadi Khan (d. 593 A.H.) and others who do not have the capacity to differ with the Imam, not as far as principles, and nor as far as subsidiary laws. However, they extract laws regarding which there is no narration from him, in accordance with the principles that he (the Imam) had laid, and fundamentals that he had expounded. 

4) The category of the ‘Abut-Takhrij’ from amongst the Muqallidin, such as Imam Ar-Razi Al-Jassas (d. 370 A.H) and his like. They do not have the ability to perform Ijtihad at all. They however, possess extensive knowledge about the principles, and have accurately mastered the sources. Thus they have the power to elaborate/specify the meanings of such ambiguous statements and laws, narrated from the authority of the madh-hab or one of his disciples, that may be understood in two different ways or may have two differing possible meanings …  

5) The category of the ‘Ashabut-Tarjih’ of the Muqallidin, such as Abul Hasan Al-Quduri (d. 428 A.H), the author of ‘Al-Hidayah’ (d. 593 A.H) and their like. Their task is to preponderate one opinion (within the madh-hab) over others by (the following examples of categorical) statements like: this (view) is preferred, this one is more correct as far as narration, this is clearer, this is more analogical, this is easier for the people, etc.

6)  The category of those  Muqallidin who have the ability to  differentiate between the  stronger, the strong, the weak,  the Zahir-ur-riwayah,  the Zahirul-Madh-hab, and the rare  narrations; such as the authors of the authorized texts (of Fiqh)  such as: ‘Kanz’,  ‘Al-Mukhtar’,  ‘Al-Wiqayah’,  ‘Al-Majma`’,  etc. Their task is to abstain from quoting rejected opinions and weak  narrations in their books.

7)  The category of those  Muqallidin who do not possess the ability of any of the above-mentioned. They cannot distinguish the  incorrect from the correct, neither the left from the right. They only gather facts that they come across. They are similar to the person gathering wood during the (darkness of the) night,  (as he cannot see what he  picks up,  whether it is a stick or a snake). Woe unto those who follow them.”

Note: Studying the above  categories brings to light that the madhahib were not the work of mere individuals, but the joint effort of numerous experts in their respective fields of expertise. This is precisely what preserved these madhahib.

Some contend that they may have even been qualified to be of the first category of Ijtihad like that of the four Imams.  

`Allamah Yusuf Al-Binnori says: “I said in the past, and say again: “These illustrious Imams, the compilers of the “Sihah” (Books of authentic Ahadtih), such as the Imams: Bukhari, Muslim and others had specific inclinations within the intricacies of Fiqh, Ijtihad and other complex masa’il, either on the basis of Fiqh and Ijtihad or because of following their respective Imams. In this way they selected one view in issues wherein the Fuqaha differed. Thereafter, when they compiled (their respective books of Hadith), they gathered in it whatever conformed to their own madhahib of Fiqh; whereby (the effect of) their Fiqh extended to Hadith; and they omitted the rest that did not conform to their practice. (This applies to all the compilers) except those who took upon themselves the task of presenting the Ahadith that conformed to the practices of both views, such as Imam Tirmidhi in most instances, Ibn Abi Shaibah and Imam `Abdur-razzaq in their Musannafs, Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, and others…””  [Ma’arif al-Sunan]

Thus, the selection of Ahadith generally made by a Muhaddith in chapters pertaining to the laws of (which are minimal in comparison to the major part of their books), were those that conformed to his madh-hab of Fiqh. Therefore, it will be correct to say that the Ahadith mentioned in his book conformed to his practice, while it will be equally incorrect to say that these Ahadith – as presented by the Muhaddith without any further details – constitute the basis of his practice.  

After having insight into the above, we return to the question under discussion, the gist of which is: Can I make Taqlid of Imam Bukhari (or any of the illustrious compilers of the books of Hadith)? (We discuss this question under the assumption that they were Mujtahidin of the first degree).

The answer is in the negative for the following reasons:  

Firstly, amongst the conditions for making of a particular Imam, is that: 
a) his entire madh-hab must have been compiled and available, 
b) his principles of extracting laws from the original sources of  (Usul-al-Fiqh) must also be available, 
c) he should have left behind someone, who had studied “Fiqh” at his hands and understood his complete concept of extracting Masaa-il from the sources, etc.  

None of the above-mentioned conditions are found with these illustrious scholars of Hadith. How would it ever be possible for any one of these conditions to be found when these illustrious Muhaddith specialized and spent their entire lives in the field of “protecting the Hadtih (i.e. the words thereof) of our beloved Rasulullah ﷺ ” (known as the science of hadith), and not in the field of extracting masaa-il (laws) there-from (known as the science of Fiqh). They were known by their students and by all the scholars that followed, as Muhaddithins and not as Fuqaha.

Difference Between a Muhaddith and a Faqih
A Muhaddith is one whose life is devoted to preserving the sacred Hadith of Rasulullah. For this, he exerts himself in gathering the Ahadth – whether by memory as in the case of the Mutaqaddimin (i.e. early scholars), or by script as in the case of the latter scholars. He also gathers their chains of narration, and is meticulous about every vowel, letter, and dot in the words of the Hadith. He also studies and scrutinizes the chains of narration and the life-story of each narrator. Basically, he engages himself in the study of the various sciences relating to the preservation and recording of the Noble Ahadith of Raslullah. Each one of the above sciences is an independent field of study. Some of them may further be subdivided into numerous other branches. The Muhaddith should have a basic understanding of the principles relating to all of the above sciences as well as a comprehensive grasp of the field he specializes in. The Muhaddith have thus been categorized into numerous groups, with some having super-specialized in one or two branches of the field of Hadith. 

A Faqih (jurist) on the other hand is one whose life is devoted to understanding the purport of the sacred words of Rasulullah ﷺ, and acquiring proficiency in it. In order to achieve this, he should possess a basic understanding of the various sciences of Hadith as well. He also gathers Ahadtih and extracts common meanings from them. He has the ability to explain the apparent contradictions that are found in the Ahadith and untie their knots. He has a deep understanding of the Qur’an and is well-versed in the various sciences of the Arabic language as well. He also possesses knowledge of the statements of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), and has a comprehensive understanding of the principles of analogy. 

The Muhaddith were always in larger numbers than the Fuqaha. And those who managed to excel in both were even less. Shaikh `Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah (rahimahullah)  writes: “And those who gathered between “Riwayah” (i.e. the science of Hadith) and “Dirayah” (i.e. the science of Fiqh) were very few. Hafiz Ar- Ramahurmuzi narrates in his book ‘Al-Muhaddithul Fasilu Bainar-Rawi wal Wa’i on page 60, from Anas Ibn Sirin (rahimahullahl  who stated: “I came to Kufah and saw four thousand people seeking Hadith, and four hundred who were studying Fiqh.”   

This is because of the complexity of Fiqh which is based on (vast) knowledge and deep understanding of the book of Allah, the Sunnah and the statements of Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), etc. It also requires one to have the capacity to gather the various proofs, and preponderate between them; and to possess a deep insight into the different purports within the Arabic language as regards “Balghah”, “Majaz”, “Haqiqah” “Kinayah”, etc.  

There is no doubt about the ease in mere narrating for that person whose mind is focused on memorizing, absorbing and narrating only. It is for this reason that more people devoted themselves to specializing in “Riwayah.”  Whilst the Mujtahid is one who has comprehensive knowledge of both the above fields and others as well, the term Fuqaha is also utilized with reference to the Mujtahidin.

A few examples are given hereunder, to elucidate the difference between a Muhaddith and a Faqih: 

1) Muhammad Ibn `Abdullah Ibnul-Hakam was asked. Who is a Faqih? He replied. “The person who extracts one principle from the Qur’an or Sunnah in which he was not preceded by anyone, then divides that principle into one hundred branches.”  The person asked. Who is it that has such power? In reply he said: “Muhammad bin Idris Ash-Shafi’i” (this was the name of Imam Shafi’i rahimahullah). 

2) At times, Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) would be asked about a mas’alah (ruling) whilst in the presence of his teacher, Imam A`mash (rahimahullah) – the famous and renowned Tabi’i (one who learnt from Sahabah) and scholar of Hadith and Qira’at – in the following manner: “What do you state about the following …”. He would give a reply according to his deductions concerning the mas’alah (ruling). Imam A`mash would then enquire from him the substantiation for his answer. The following is an example of how he used to reply: “You narrated to us from Abu Salih who narrated from Abu Hurairah, and from Abu Wa’il who narrated from `Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud from Abu Iyas from Abu Mas’ud Al-Ansari that Rasulullah ﷺ said:

He who indicates towards a good deed, shall receive the like reward as the one who carried it out. 

and you narrated to us from Abu Salih from Abu Hurairah that a man said to Raslullah: O Rasul of Allah! I was performing Salah in my home when a man came to me, so I felt pleasure in that. Raslullah ﷺ replied to him:

For you are two rewards, the reward of secrecy, and the reward of publicity… 

And you narrated to us from Hakam from Abul Hakam, from  Hudhaifah from Raslullah ﷺ …; and you narrated to us from Abuz-Zubair from Jabir from Rasulullah; and you narrated Yazid ar-Raqqashi from Anas  from Raslullah ﷺ…”. 

Imam A`mash  would then exclaim: “Enough! You wish to narrate to me in one moment what I narrated to you in 100 days. I was not aware that you have practical application to all these Ahadith. O Fuqaha! You are the physicians and we (the Muhaddithin) are the dispensers. And you, O man (speaking to Imam Abu Hanifah) have gathered both sides. 

3) Muhammad Ibn Samm`ah  narrates; ‘Isa Ibn Aban (a famous Muhaddith and well-known  scholar) used to perform Salah with us (in the masjid where Imam Muhammad Ibnul Hasan rahimahullah  – the student of Imam Abu Hanifa and the third highest authority of the Hanafi madh-hab – used to perform Salah and thereafter have discussions on  Fiqh).  I used to invite him to come to Muhammad Ibnul Hasan rahimahullah (to learn from him). He would say in reply: “These are people who contradict Hadith.” ‘Isa (rahimahullah) was a scholar who had memorized a substantial amount of Hadith. 

“One morning he performed Fajr Salah with us, and it happened to be the very same day Imam Muhammad (rahimahullah) was going to conduct his discourse. I did not allow him to leave until he (also) sat in the gathering. At the close (of the discussion), I took him to Imam Muhammad (rahimahullah)  and said: “This is the son of your brother (in Islam) Aban Ibn Sadaqah, the scribe. He is brilliant, and has the knowledge of Hadith. I invited him to you but he refused saying that we contradict Hadith.” Imam Muhammad addressed him and said: “O my son! What do you see us contradicting in Hadith? Do not bear witness against us until you hear from us”. So Imam ‘Isa (rahimahullah) asked him questions relating to twenty-five chapters of Hadith, and in each chapter, Imam Mummad  answered (narrating to him the Ahadith of these subjects) and would inform him of all those Ahadith that have been abrogated, with proof and evidence.   

Ibn Aban turned to me and said: “There was a barrier between myself and (divine light), which has now been lifted! I was not aware that there existed a man in Allah’s kingdom like this, who He has disclosed for the people.”   ‘Isa (rahimahullah) then accompanied Imam Muhammad  and did not separate from him, until he became a faqih by him.” 

The above examples draw a vivid picture of the difference between a Faqih and a Muhaddith. A Muaddith preserves the Ahadith of Rasulullah, and a Faqih extracts the Deen of Allah Ta`ala from them. Thus, in practice, the Faqih ought to be followed. It is for this reason that Sufyan Ibn `Uyaynah (rahimahullah), an illustrious scholar of Hadith, used to say:

“Submitting to the Fuqaha is safety in Deen”

Imam `Ali Ibn Al-Ja`d relates about the famous Muhaddith among the Tabi’in, Zuhair Ibn Mu`wiyah that a man came to him (to learn). He asked him: “Where do you come from (i.e. where have you been learning previously)?” The man replied: “…from Abu Hanifa.” Imam Zuhair remarked: “Your going to Abu Hanifa for one day is more beneficial for you than staying with me for one month.” 

It has also been narrated about `Abdullah Ibn Wahb (rahimahullah), one of the most eminent students of Imam Malik  and an outstanding scholar of , that he said: “I met (i.e. studied under) three hundred and sixty `Ulama’. Had it not been for Imam Malik and Imam Laith Ibn Sa`d, I would have gone astray in knowledge.”  

He is also reported to have stated: “Every student of Hadith who does not have an Imam (guide/leader) in Fiqh is astray. Had it not been for Imam Malik and Laith, we would have been astray.”  

He once said: In `Ilm, we followed four: two in Egypt and two in Madinah: Laith Ibn Sa`d and `Amr Ibn Al-Harith in Egypt, and Malik and Al-Majishun in Madinah. Had it not been for them, we would have been astray.”

It is probably for this reason that  Ibn `Abdil Barr  (d: 423 A.H.) wrote: “As for studying Hadith in the manner that students of today study it, without obtaining some knowledge of Fiqh and contemplating its meanings (properly), this is Makruh according to a group of the `Ulama.’”

Secondly, only a fraction of the Ahadith mentioned in their books pertain to “Ahkam” (laws). Most of them relate to other subjects that are generally dealt with in the books of Hadith (such as history, the signs of Qiyamah, the lifestyle and noble conduct of Rasulullah, virtues of various deeds, warnings and punishments for bad deeds, etc). If we compare this to the innumerable laws that were extracted by the Fuqaha, it becomes clear that each fraternity served the cause of `Ilm in their respective fields of expertise, and each of them is an authority within his own field only.  

Finally, Shaikh Muhammad ‘Awwamah states: “Thus to make  and to follow them (the scholars of Hadith) in their Fiqh is not preferred to the Taqlid of the Fuqaha: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi and Ahmad. Instead the Taqlid of these (scholars of Fiqh) is preferred to the Taqlid of those (Muhaddithin). The statement of Imam Tirmidhi, a great Muhaddith himself and the compiler of one of the canonical collections, who said:

The Fuqaha are more knowledgeable about the meanings of Hadith.

“This is a clear matter in which there lies no obscurity.” It thus becomes clear that the claim of following the Fiqh of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) is based on ignorance.

[Taken from the book Who are the Blind Followers?]

The Need to Preserve the Sunnah Aspect in Maktabs/ Madaaris

[Mujlisul Ulama]

Explaining  the  introduction  of western  methods  of  teaching  in  Maktabs  which  are  supposed  to  cater  for  Deeni  ta’leem  and tarbiyat,  a  brother  writes:

I  am  uncertain  as  to  the  reasons  behind  why  our  maktab systems  seem  to  see  the  need to  “modernise”  by  emulating the  western  methodology  of teaching.

For  example,  nowadays,  we  see  colouring  books,  books  with  animate  objects  containing  “Islamic”  stories  and  PowerPoint  presentations  and  the  argument  presented  is  that  it  is  not  haraam  and  that  these methods  have  yielded  success  in  schools.

The  result  is  that  there  is not  even  the  semblance  of  the hardy  environment  in  which Sahabah  Radhiyallahu  Anhum learnt  and  in  which  their  tarbiyah  took  place.  It  is  as  if  they  are  not  our  role  models,  mujahadah  is  not  required  for  hidayat  and  that  their  methodology  is  outdated.

Nowadays,  the  requirement is  university  style  lectures,  as  if  to  say  that  the  methodology for  the  prophetic  era  was  for that  time,  and  that  in  this  time,  we  need  to  take  advantage  of  “advancement.”

Nowadays  we  will  see  colourful  posters  on  the  wall  and  maktab  classrooms  painted like  school  classrooms.  No  doubt  some  secular  psychological  study  will  be  used  to  justify  abrogating  the  numerous sacrifices  the  Sahabah  Radiallahu  Anhum  undertook  to  acquire  ilm.

(A)  I  am  not  a  knowledgeable  or  pious  person,  but  am  I right  in  concluding  that the  aforementioned  is  due  to  an  inferiority  complex as  a  result  of  weakness  of  Imaan?

(B)  Please  detail  the  correct methodology  of  how  I should  educate  my  child  so  that  I  am  as  close  to  the  Sunnah  as  possible.   (End of letter)

The  intellectual  inferiority  of Muslims  of  this  era  has  constrained  them  to  abandon  the  blessed  methodology  of  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Salafus  Saaliheen  in  even  the  sphere  of Deeni  ta’leem  and  tarbiyat.  There  can  never  ever  develop  a  better  system  of  teaching  the  Qur’aan  and  every  branch  of  knowledge  related  to  the  Qur’aan  than  the  method.

The  methods  of  the  western kuffaar  are  bereft  of  benefit and  barkat.  It  is  illogic  and  it indicates  extreme  Imaani  deficiency  to  substitute  the  mubaarak  age-old  methodology  of  the  Salafus  Saaliheen  with  the  methodology  of  the  enemies  of  the  Qur’aan.  The  systems  of  the  enemies  of  the  Qur’aan  can  never  surpass  the  glittering  methodology  of  those  to  whom  the  Qur’aan  was  revealed.

The  gross  mental  inferiority  of  Muslims  which  is  the  effect  of  the  colonization  of  their  brains  by  western  education  with  its  atheistic  ethos  and  emphasis  on  immorality  and  perversion,  is  most  lamentable.  Even  the  ulama  of  this  age  have  fallen  victim  to  the  disease  of  mental  inferiority  and  adoption  of  kuffaar  ways  and  systems  over  and  above  the  Sunnah of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

Rajm – The Punishment Of Stoning the Adulterers

By Mujlisul Ulama

There  is  consensus  of  the  followers  of  the  THREE  religions  — Islam,  Judaism  and  Christianity  —  that  the  Promulgator  of  the  Law  of stoning  adulterers  to  death  is  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  The  Tauraah  and  the  Injeel  corroborate  the  Shariah  of  Muhammadur  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  in  the  Law  of  Rajm.

Kuffaar  and  Muslims  alike   agree  that  Rajm  was  ordered  by  Allah  Ta’ala.  This  command  exists  to  this  day  in  the  scriptures  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaaraa.

If  Rajm  is  ‘barbaric’,  the  charge  is  directed  by  the  accusers  to  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  The  attempt  to  shift  the  ‘blame’  of  Rajm  to  the  ‘Maulanas’  of  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent  is  to  display  rational  bankruptcy.

The  insane  desire  of  the  modernist  heretics  and  atheists  to  appease  their  western  intellectual  masters  does  not  detract  from  the  conclusively  proven  truth  that  Rajm  is  by  the  Command  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.

The  recent  feverish  attempts  by  modernists  to  negate  the  Islamic  validity  of  Rajm  (Stoning  to  death  for  adultery),  ensuing  in  the  wake  of  the  adverse  kuffaar  media  publicity  centering  around  the  Rajm  sentence  decreed  by  a  Nigerian  Shariah  court,  was  motivated  solely  by  the  mad  desire  to  placate  their  western  intellectual  masters  who  were  all  screaming  from  the  rooftops  that  Rajm  is  barbaric. 

For  the  sake  of  appeasing  the  western  masters,  the  modernist zindeeqs,  mulhids  and    munaafiqs  masquerading  as  Muslims,  embarked  on  their  usual  exercises  of  baseless  interpretation  of  the  Qur’aan  and  flagrant  rejection  of  the  sacred  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  They  have  failed  to  realize,  in  fact,  they  cannot  be  concerned,  that  rejection  of  the  Ahaadith  is  tantamount  to  rejection  of  the  Qur’aan.  Without  the  Ahaadith,  there  is  no  Qur’aan,  no  Islam. 

The  mental  derangement  of  some  of  these  modernists  has  constrained  them  to  label  the  Ahaadith  —  all  the  Ahaadith    —  of  Nabi-e-Kareem  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  an  ‘evil  spirit’.  There can  be  no  doubt  in  the  kufr  of  these  agents  of  shaitaan. 

Since   unwary  Muslims  and  those  who  lack  sound  Deeni  Ilm  have  been  thrown  into  doubt  by  these  evil  modernists,  a  need  developed  to  respond  to  the  drivel  and  kufr  which  the  ignoramuses  have  presented  in  substantiation  of  their  claim  that  Rajm  is  not  an  Islamic  punishment.  By  such  denial  they  hoped  to  curry  favour  with  the  western  kuffaar.  They  have  chosen  to  abase  themselves  to  the  West  by  depicting  Islam  in  a  mould  which  assuages  the  palates  of  the  kuffaar.  In  this  exercise  they  conspicuously  exposed themselves  by  revealing  the  kufr  hidden  in  their  hearts.  Emergence  from  the  restrictive  confines  of  the  Shar’iah  to  enter  into  the  domain  of  unbridled  interpretation  which  is  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  principles  of  the  Shariah  gives  rise  to  kufr.  This  is  precisely  what  the  modernist  deniers  of  Rajm  are  guilty  of.

In  the  intense  desire  to  appease  the  western  kuffaar, Munaafiqeen  (Hypocrites)  hibernating  in  the  folds  of  the  Ummah,  were  compelled  by  the  Nigerian  episode  to  reveal  their  true  colours  of  nifaaq  (hypocrisy)  by  overtly  decrying  the  Rajm  command  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  The  western  intellectual  masters  had  indoctrinated  these  hypocrites  during  their  secular  educational  period  with  the  atheist  cult  of  ‘enlightment’  and  liberalism.  It  is  this  cult  of ‘enlightened’  kufr  which  has  constrained  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  to  flagrantly  brand  the  Law  of  Allah  Ta’ala  as  being  ‘barbaric’.  In  so  doing,  they  were  loyally  and  dutifully  mimicking  and  aping  their  masters  from  whom  they  have  inherited  the  mental  disease  of  intellectual  paralysis. 

As  an  imperative  corollary  of  this  mental  aberration,  the  brains  of   the  modernist  munaafiqeen  operate  under  extreme  duress  in  the  straitjacket  of  western  kuffaar  mentalism.  It  is  this  chronic  mental  disease  which  compels  them  to  eternally  and  baselessly  interpret  the  Ahkaam  of  Allah  Ta’ala  to  accord  His  Immutable  Shariah accommodation  within  the  confines  of  the  concepts  of  life fabricated  by  the  western  kuffaar.  But  this  accommodation  can  be  effected  only  at  the  expense  of  jettisoning  Imaan  right  out  from  the  heart.  Kuffaar  can  be  placated  only  by  means  of  kufr.  Hence,  the  product  of  any  interpretation  offered  by  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  has  to  necessarily  be  kufr

The  pleasure  of  the  kuffaar  cannot  be  attained  without  submission to  kufr.  Thus  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  warning  the  Mu’mineen,  states:

“Never  will  the  Yahood  and  Nasaaraa  be  pleased  with  you    as  long  as  you  do  not  follow  their  cult.”  

But  following  the  cult  and  culture  of  the  kuffaar  leads  inevitably  to  kufr  and  everlasting  disaster,  loss  and  failure.  Sounding  this  Warning,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:

“O  People  of  Imaan!  If  you  follow  those  who  have  embraced  kufr,  they  will  turn  you  on  your  heels  (to  abandon  Islam).  You  will  then  become  the  (everlasting)  losers  (in  this  world  and  the  Aakhirah). (Don’t  appease  them  because)  in  actual  fact,  Allah  is  your  Friend (and  Protector),  and  He  is  the  best  of  helpers.”  

When  the  Nigerian  Shariah  Court  handed  down  the  sentence  of  Rajm  the  world  of  the  kuffaar  braying  like  asses  shouted  that  the  sentence  was  ’barbaric’.  In  the  noise  they  kicked  up,  there  is  nothing  of  surprise.  This  reaction  was  entirely  expected.  It  is  indeed  a  futile  exercise  to  even  comment  on  the  reaction  of  aliens.  But  there  is  a  need  to  expose  the  munaafiqeen  who  masquerade  as  Muslims.  From  within  the  fold  they  feverishly  labour  to  undermine  Islam.  Their  strategy  for  achieving  this  nefarious  goal  is  to  ostensibly  present  Qur’aanic  proof  in  substantiation  of  the  cries  of  the  western  critics  of  Islam. 

The  kuffaar  claim  that  the  Immutable  Law  of  Rajm  is  ’barbaric’.  It  logically  devolves  on  their  vassals,  namely,  the  modernist  munaafiqen,  to  fabricate  ‘enlightened’  interpretation  of  the  Qur’aan  to  confirm  the  decree  of  ‘barbarism’  which  the  enemies  of  Islam  have  levelled  against  the  Law  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  In  the  desperate  attempt  to  denounce  and  refute  Rajm  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  have  surfaced  with  two  of  the  flimsiest  arguments  —  arguments  devoid  of  the  slightest  vestige  of  Shar’i  substance.  These  two  ridiculous  grounds  advanced  to  corroborate  the  ‘enlightened’  view  of  the  aliens  are:

(1)  Rajm  is  barbaric,  hence  it  cannot  be  a  law  of  Islam

(2)  There  is  no  Qur’aanic  substantion  for  Rajm.

These  are  two  stupidities,  the  fallacy  of  which  should  be conspicuous  to  every  Muslim  who  had  enjoyed  a  basic  Madrassah  ta’leem  at  primary  level.  There  is  absolutely  no  valid  ground  for  the  refutation  of  Rajm.  In  fact,  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  languishing  in  intellectual  paralysis  have  been  unable  to  add  even  a  third stupidity  in  their  attempt  to  justify  their  kufr  denial  of  a  Shar’i  Hukm  which  is  based  on  the  highest  category  of  Shar’i  evidence,  viz.,  Ahaadith  Mutawaatarah,  which  have  the  force  of  Qur’aanic  aayaat

Before  presenting  the  evidence  of  the  Shariah  to  conclusively substantiate  the  validity  and  immutability  of  Allah’s  Law  of  Rajm,  we  shall  examine  and  demolish  the  arguments  of  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  —  their  arguments  which  are  in  fact  devoid  of  any  Shar’i  substance.

Their  first  flimsy  argument  which  may  have  deceived  people  of  shallow  understanding  and  those  who  lack  in  basic  or  primary Madrassah  education,  is  the  charge  of  ‘barbarism’  which  the  kuffaar  level  at  Islam.  Since  the  west  believes  that  the  punishment  of  Rajm  is  ‘barbaric’,  it  has  become  imperative  for  their  vassals  whose  intellectual  vessels  are  deranged  by  the  mental  slavery  of  their  educational indoctrination,  to  echo  the  same  theme. 

In  taking  up  the  defence  of  the  kuffaar  on  this  issue,  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  are  tacitly  proclaiming  that  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  and  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  have  commanded  an  act  of barbarism — Nauthubillaah! 

Since  there  is  not  the  slightest  loophole  for  assaulting  the  validity  of  the  Law  of  Rajm,  the  logical  conclusion  in  terms  of  the  view  propounded  by  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  is  that  the  entire  Penal  Code  of  Islam  is  barbaric.

In  fact,  there  is  no  need  for  anyone  to  arrive  at  this  conclusion  by  deduction  because  the  western  kuffaar  do  believe  and  have  made  no  secret  of  it  that  the  Hudood  (Prescribed  Punishments)  as  well  as  Ta’zeer  (Discretionary  Punishment)  of  Islam  are  barbaric.  In  fact,  their  hatred  for  Islam  is  not  restricted  to  criticism  of  the  Islamic  Penal  System.  They  direct  their  invective  against  even  the  loftiest  concept  of  Monothiesm,  i.e.  the  doctrine  of  Tauheed,  which  inspite  of  its  uncompromising  stand  of  Allah’s  Unity  and  the  total denunciation  and  rejection  of  the  slightest  vestige  of  idolatry,  even  photographs — they  brand  this  doctrine  of  Tauheed,  idolatry.  The  Qur’aan  Majeed  has  stated  the  truth:

“Verily,  hatred  (for  Islam  and  Muslims)  has  spewed  from  their mouths,  but  what  their  breasts  conceal  is  worse.”  

Therefore,  by  aligning  themselves  with  the  kuffaar  on  the  issue  of  Rajm,  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  imply  their  concurrence  as  far  as  all  Shar’i  punishments  are  concerned.  The  further  implication  is  their  total  rejection  of  the  Islam  which  was  presented,  interpreted  and taught  by  Rasulullah      (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  noble  Sahaabah.

There  is  no  intelligent  reason   for  restricting  the  notion  of ‘barbarism’   to  the  punishment  to  Rajm.  While  the  kuffaar conception  of  ‘barbarism’  of  Islamic  punishments  and  its  penal  code  is  uniform,  the    modernist  munaafiqeen  and    other  mulhideen  are  in  a  quandary.  They  are  at  a  loss  in  their  selection.  Which  punishment  of  the  Shariah  is  ’barbaric’  and  which  is ’humane’?  In  the  view  of  the  kuffaar  every  Shar’i  punishment  is  ’barbaric’.  The  modernist  mulhids  and  zindeeqs  are  at  pains  to  convince  Muslims  and  the  kuffaar  critics  that  the  Islamic  punishment  for  adultery  is  100  lashes,  not  Rajm.  Since  the  100  lashes  are  stated  by  a  Qur’aanic  Aayat  too  explicit  and  emphatic  for  interpretation  and  rejection,  at  least  at  this  stage  in  the  progress  towards  kufr,  they  have  no  alternative  other  than  to  concur  with  the  100  lash  Hadd.  But  according  to  the  very  same  shayaateen  who brand  Rajm  as  barbaric,  the  100  lash  Hadd  is  also  barbaric.  Their mental  quandary  and  frustration  have  thus  become    grounded  in  incongruity  and  terrible  confusion  on  this  score.
The  Qur’aan  decrees  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  100  lashes  for  fornication  committed  by  unmarried  persons,  cutting  the  hands  of  thieves,  impaling  dacoits  and  cutting  off  their  hands  and  feet  at  opposite  sides,  etc.  None  of  these  punishments  is  acceptable  to  the  kuffaar  since  all  these  Hudood  are  ‘barbaric’  in  the  conception  of  the  ‘enlightened’  kuffaar  who  have  sanctified  and   legalized    infanticide,  homosexuality,  lesbianism,  prostitution  and  other  immoral  crimes  of debauchery. 

While  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  have  hitherto  been  constrained  to  maintain  silence  on  the  ‘barbarism’  of  the  aforementioned  constituents  of  Islam’s  Penal  Code  on  account  of  explicit  Qur’aanic  references,  they  believe  that  they  have    sufficient  scope  for  manouvreing  on  at  least  the    Rajm  question  to  soothe  and  placate  their  western  intellectual  and  cultural  masters.  This  false  belief  based  on  their  nifaaq  has  now  been  overtly  proclaimed  because  there  is  no  explicit  reference  to  Rajm  in  the  Qur’aan  Majeed.  But  in  the  attempt  to  trade  their  belief  of  kufr  (viz.  the refutation  of  Rajm),  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  have  no  option  other  than  to  bare  their  kufr  and  nifaaq  by  denying  the  validity  of  the  ordinances  and  teachings  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  In  so  doing  they  are  in  diametric  conflict  with  the  Qur’aan  which  they  cite  as  the  Book  in  which  they  believe.  But  every  Muslim of  true  Imaan  can  understand  the  worth  of  their  claim  of  belief  in  the  Qur’aan.

In  rejecting  the  validity  of    Rajm,  the  logical  consequence  is  so  glaring  that  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  these  modernist  munaafiqeen  imply  or  indirectly  reject  the  Qur’aan.  The  only conclusion  is  that  they  directly  reject  the  Qur’aan.  If,  for  example,  a  zindeeq  or  a  munaafiq  claims  that  Islam  does  not  have  as  its fundamental  belief  performance  of  Five  Salaat  daily  and  then  he backs  up  his  kufr  by  claiming  that  there  is  no  Qur’aanic  reference  for this  practice,  we  shall  not  be  in  error  for  declaring  that  this  criminal  has  overtly,  directly  and  outrightly  rejected  the  Qur’aan.  It  is  the  Qur’aan  which  commands  obedience  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).  The  Qur’aan  is  replete  with  such  commands  to  follow  and  obey  the  Nabi  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  Insha’Allah,  this  angle  will  be  presented  later  when  discussing  the  second  baseless  argument  of  the  modernist  munaafiqeen.

Let  us  revert  to  their  claim  that  Rajm  is  ‘barbaric’  The  very  people  who  put  up  a  howl  against  Islam’s  Penal  Code,  freely,  flagrantly  and  without  the  slightest  pang  of  conscience  subject  thousands  of  civilians  to  brutal  bombing  from  the  skies.  People  who  are  not  involved  in  hostilities  —men,  women,  children,  the  old,  the  sick  —  hospitals  and  orphanages,  are  all  pummeled  and  brutalized  with  thousands  of  tons  of  bombs,  poisonous  and  other  sophisticated incendiary  devices  which  not  only  kill,  but  horribly  maim,  deform  and  disfigure  human  beings.  But  this  is  not  barbaric!!!

The  brutal  torture  camps  in  Guantanamo  Bay,  the  numerous prisons  of  torture  operated  by  kuffaar  governments  in  which countless  thousands  are  hideously  and  horribly  subjected  to  the  most  inhuman  types  of  physical  torture,  the  punishment  of  horrible  hangings,  the  electric  chair  and  death  by  poison  are  all  supposedly  humane  acts  which  are  no  secrets.  In  the  conception  of  the  kuffaar  these  acts  of  torture  and  death  are  ‘humane’  while  in  the understanding  of  Muslims  all  these  acts  are  truly  barbaric.

While  execution  with  the  sword  is  the  most  humane  form  of  killing  ordained  by  Allah  Ta’ala,  it  is  ‘barbaric’  in  the  western  conception.  From  these  few  examples  it  should  be  clear  that  an  act  which  is barbaric  to  kuffaar  is  valid  and  humane  to  Muslims  and  vice  versa.  In  view  of  the  Penal  Code  of  Islam  being  divine,  being  the  product  of  Wahi  (Revelation)  from  Allah  Ta’ala,  it  is  the  best  and  the  most  humane  system.  On  the  contrary,  the  system  of  punishment  of  the  kuffaar  is  the  product  of  the  human  mind,  hence  it  cannot  be  termed  humane  in  comparison    to  the  Divine  Code.  The  charge of  barbarism  rebounds  directly  on  the  very  people  who  level  it against  Islam.

It  is  quite  obvious  that  there  is  no  uniform  definition  for  the  term  ’barbaric’  nor  does  the  word  have  the  same  meaning  for  people  of  different  cultures.  Inspite  of  the  differences  of  concepts,  Muslims  can  claim  with  emphasis  that  the  Islamic  system  is  best  since  it  is  the  Code  revealed  by  Allah  Ta’ala  and  was  implemented  by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Any  Muslim  who  denies  this  reality  has  the  obligation  of  producing  his  Shar’i  evidence,  not  the  figments  of  his  opinion  and  instincts which  have  been  corrupted  by  kuffaar  indoctrination  and  culture. In  the  words  of  the  Qur’aan:  “Bring  forth  your  proof  if  indeed you  are  truthful.” So  far,  not  a  single  one  of  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  has  surfaced  with  Shar’i  evidence  to  bolster  the  kuffaar  claim  which  the  miscreants  in  our  midst  are  echoing  and mimicking.  They  simply  bandy  figments  of  their  opinion  which cannot  be  taken  seriously  and  which  definitely  have  no  semblance  whatsoever  with  what  could  be  termed  evidence  of  the  Shariah.

It  is  not  difficult  to  fathom  the  reason  for  the  attitude  of    the  modernist  munaafiqeen.  Years  of  indoctrination  in  the  educational institutions  of  the  western  kuffaar  have  impregnated  their  hearts, with  sceptism,  agnosticism,  hereticism  and  hypocrisy  —  kufr  and  nifaaq.  Like  Siamese  twins,  their  brains  have  become  conjoined  with  the  brains  of  their  intellectual  masters.  They  are  therefore wholly  incapable  of  independent  and  rational  thinking.  Their  mental procedures  are  inextricably  interwoven  with  the  conceptual attitudes  of  the  so-called  enlightened  western  kuffaar.  But  at  the same  time  the  pressure  of  the  society  in  which  they  thrive  does  not permit  them  to  proclaim  their  hidden  ideology  acquired  from  the  tutors  of  kufr.  They  thus  profess  themselves  to  be  Muslims  while  they  are  immersed  in  a  cauldron  of  kufr.

In  this  mental  imbroglio  in  which  they  happen  to  discover themselves,  they  feel  obliged    to  satisfy  irreconcilable    opposites   —   Muslims  and  Kuffaar.  The  attempt  to  placate  both  groups  is   motivated  by  worldly  and  nafsaani  aims.  There  is  nothing  of  altruism  in  the  stupid,  ridiculous  and  impossible  endeavour  to  tread  two  divergent  paths  at  the  same  time. 

When  there  is  absolutely  no  latitude  for  mental  gymnastics  and  manoeuvring  on  account  of  explicit  evidence  or  entrenched  acceptance  by  the  community,  the  munaafiqeen  exercise  restraint  and  sulk  in  silence  because  of  their  inability  to  overtly  support  their  intellectual  masters.  Thus,  on  the  issue  of  cutting  off  the  hand  of  the  thief,  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  are  compelled  to  suffer  in  silence  and  feel  that  at  least  at  this  juncture  in  history,  they  may  not  join the  chorus  which  dins  into  the  ears  the  charge  of  ‘barbarism’  because  even  the  Muslim  in  the  street  knows  what  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  declares  most  explicitly  on  this  issue. 

However,  on  the  issue  of  Rajm  they  have  become  audacious  and  openly  denounce  this  immutable  law  of  Allah  Ta’ala  because  there  is  no  explicit  Qur’aanic  textual  reference.  This  point  will,  Insha’Allah,  be discussed  later.

The  Islamic  system  of  Thabah  (Slaughtering)  is  ’barbaric’  to  the west,  but  to  us  it  is  the  most  humane  system.  The  kuffaar  systems  of  killing  animals  such  as  shocking,  pithing,  shooting,  scalding,  hammering,  etc.,  are  barbaric  according  to  Islam,  but  ’humane’  according  to  the  kuffaar.  Hanging  and  all  other  methods  of  execution  are  barbaric  for  Muslims,  but  humane  for  the  kuffaar.  Islam  permits  execution  by  only  the  sword  and  nothing  else.  For  the  kuffaar  this  is  barbaric  while  for  us  it  is  humane.

The  overt  support  which  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  are  offering  the  kuffaar  on  the  question  of  Rajm  is  their  agreement  and  acceptance  of  the  charge  of  ‘barbarism’  which  has  been  hurled  at  Islam.  But  this  charge  does  not  negate  the  validity  of  the  Law.  It  is not  evidence  to  substantiate  the  claim  that  Rajm  has  not  been  ordained  by  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  In  order  to  dismiss  the  validity  of  Rajm  it  is  necessary  for  the  modernist  munaafiqeen  to  substantiate  their  claim   with  proofs  of  the  Shariah.  Their  personal  ideas,  attitudes,  interpretation  and  opinion  are  not  evidence  of  the  Shariah.

Furthermore,  it  is  essential  for  sustaining  the  charge  of barbarism  to  prove  that  at  no  stage  in  the  world’s  history  did Allah  Ta’ala  ordain  Rajm  for  fornicators.  The  charge  of  Rajm being  ‘barbaric’  falls  flat  and  has  absolutely  no  substance  if  at  any  time  in  man’s  history  Rajm  had  been  a  Divine  Punishment.  Any  claim  of  barbarism  would  then  be  tantamount  to  saying  that  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  is  ‘barbaric’  —  Nauthubillaah!  Insha’Allah,  we  shall  revert  to  this  point  later.

Suffice  to  observe  here  that  besides  the  charge  of  barbarism  being  false,  and  even  if  we  had  to  momentarily  assume  that  in  the understanding  of  human  beings  it  is  ’barbaric’,  then  too,  it  is  not  a  ground  for  the  averment  that  there  is  no  Rajm  in  Islam.  Should  it  be  argued  that  ritual  ablutions  (wudhu)  five  times  a  day  and  Salaat  five  times  a  day  are  an  excessive  imposition  and  burden,  hence  it  is  not  a  tenet  of  Islam,  then  everyone  will  understand  the  absurdity  of  this  line  of  argument  and  the  falsity  of  the  claim.  Similarly, the  argument  that  Rajm  is  not  Islamic  because  it  is  ‘barbaric’  is  absurd,  emotional  and  irrational  even  if  it  is  momentarily  assumed  that  it  is  ’barbaric’.

The  summary  of  our  negation  of  first  semblance  of  an  argument  presented  by  the   followers  of  the  ’enlightened’  kuffaar  is:

(1) There  is  no  consensus  of  mankind  on  the  definition  and conception  of  barbarism.
(2) Even  if  there  is  unanimity  on  the  conception  or  meaning  of  barbarism,  it  is  not  a  ground  for  refuting  a  properly  substantiated  Law  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  A  refutation  has  to  be  based  on  facts  and  evidence,  not  on  emotional  attitudes.
(3)  The  Ummah  of  Islam  rejects  with  contempt  the  charge  that  Rajm  is  barbaric.
(4) The  aim  of  the  anti-Rajm  protagonists  is  nothing  but  to  appease  the  kuffaar  with  apologies  and  personal  opinion  presented  by  way  of  baseless  interpretation.
(5)  The  claim  that  Rajm  is  not  an  Islamic  injunction  is  kufr  which  expels  such  a  believer  from  the  fold  of  Islam.
(6) Numerous  practices,  laws  and  rituals  of  both  western  kuffaar  and  eastern  kuffaar  despite  their  acceptance,  are  regarded  as  barbaric  by  Islam. (7) The  exercise  to  appease  the  ‘enlightened’  west  is  the  direct  consequence  of  the  kuffaar  educational  system  which  breeds  kufr  in  Aqaaid  (Beliefs)  and  immodesty  in  Akhlaaq  (moral  character).

RAJM  IS  NOT  IN  THE  QUR’AAN The  next  claim  which  they  posit  as  an  argument  in  negation  of  Rajm  is  that  the  Qur’aan  is  silent  in  this  regard.

The  Shariah  of  Islam  is  Immutable.  This  Shariah  is  the  product  of  Wahi  (Divine  Revelation).  It  is  not  the  consequence  of  man’s  opinion.  Affirming  this  transcendental  Truth,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed proclaims:

“Then,  We  established  you  on  a  Shariah.  Therefore,  follow  it,  and  do  not  follow  the  vain  desires  of  those  who  do  not  know.”  

This  Aayat  of  the  Qur’aan  confirms  that  the  Shariah  is  Divine  and  Immutable.  That  the  Qur’aan  is  the  Fountainhead  of  this  Divine  Shariah  is  an  incontestable  axiomatic  fact  stemming  from  the  irrefutable  Qur’aanic  assertion  that  Allah  Ta’ala  handed  Islam  to Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah  in  the  Completed  and  Perfected  Form  which  tolerates  no  change,  no  diversion  and  no  interpretation  which  conflicts  with  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  Shariah’s  Immutability  due  to  its  Divine  origin.  Beautifully  and  emphatically  expressing  this  fact  of  Islam,  the  Qur’aan  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  (Allah)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  (on  this  Day)  have  I  completed  for  you  My  Ni’mat  (Bounty),  and  I  have  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen.”  

Another  axiomatic  fact  arising  from  the  claim  that  Islam  has been  divinely  completed,  perfected  and  chosen  for  the  Ummah  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah,  is  the  sustainment  and  endurance  of  its authenticity  throughout  the  ages,  from  its  inception  until  the  time  of  the  world’s  demise  is  ushered  in  with  the  disappearance  of  the  last  Muslim  who  recites  the  Name  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  Confirming  this reality,  the  Qur’aan  Shareef  states:

“Verily,  We  have  revealed  the  Thikr  and,  verily,  We  are  its Protectors.”  

“They  (the  kuffaar  and  munaafiqeen)  intend  to  extinguish  the  Noor  (Shariah)  of  Allah,  but  Allah  will  complete  His  Noor  even  though  the  kaafiroon  abhor  it.”  

Further  elucidating  the  Divine  Protection  decreed  for  Islam, Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“This  Knowledge  (of  the  Deen)  will  remain  by  the  Pious  of  every  generation.  They  will  eliminate  from  it  the  interpolation  of  the  deviates,  the  falsehood  of  the  people  of  baatil,  and  the  baseless  interpretation  of  the  ignoramuses.” [Mishkaat]

Thus,  the  assurance  of  the  Immutability  of  the  Shariah  is  given  by  the  Qur’aan  and  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  further  added  that  the  noblest  of  ages  are  the  Khairul  Quroon  —  the  Age  of  the  Sahaabah,  the  Age  of  the    Taabieen  and  the  Age  of  the    Tab-e-Taabieen.  It  was  in  this  glorious  epoch  of  Islam  which  adjoined  the  Age  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  that  all  the  illustrious  Authorities  of  Islam   —  the  Fuqaha,  Muhadditheen  and  Mufassireen —  had  flourished.  It  is  inconceivable  that  Islam  had been  distorted,  mutilated  and  interpolated  beyond  recognition  by  the  very  first  generations  of  Islam  for  whose  reliability  and  uprighteousness  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  testifies.

The  Shariah  as  it  existed  during  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon  was  the  perfect  and  complete  Shariah  which  Allah  Ta’ala  speaks  of  in  the  Qur’aan.  From  this  we  understand  that  the  principle  of  authenticity  of  any  act,  tenet  or  injunction  is  its  existence  and  acceptance    by  the  illustrious  Authorities  of  Islam  during  the  Khairul  Quroon  era.  It  is  perfidious  and  kufr  to  claim  that  an  injunction  which  the  Sahaabah,  the  Taabieen  and  Tab-e-aabieen  upheld  is  baseless  and  a fabrication  of  the  ‘Maulanas’  of  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent.  This  is  a  notorious  crutch  of  the  Ahl-e-baatil  in  general  in  the  South  African  scenario  of  misinterpretation  by  the  deviates,  heretics,  skeptics  and modernist  munaafiqeen.

To  the  best  of  the  world’s  knowledge,  the  era  of  the  “Maulanas”  of  the  Indo-Pak  sub-continent  had  not  yet  dawned  during  the  Khairul Quroon  epoch.  The  era  of  the  “Maulanas”  began  more  than  11 centuries  after  the  Khairul  Quroon.  Thus,  the  undermentioned  claim  made  by  one  munaafiq  and  murtad   so-called  sheikh  in  appeasement  of  his  western  kuffaar  masters,  is  manifest  drivel  displaying  the  jahaalat  of  the  lost  soul  who  asserts  in  his  exposition  of  Jahaalat:

“If  you,  the  reader,  wish  to  find  peace  of  mind  and  certainty  of  knowledge  on  this  question,  then  come  back  to  Allah’s  pure  unadulterated  word.  Only  the  Holy  Quran  is  absolutely  free  of  vexing,  infuriating  contradictions,  whereas  the  hadith  (on  which  the  “maulanas”  base  all  their  so-called  “arguments”  in  favour  of  stoning  is  full  of  elisions  (sic),  evasions  and  absurdities.  May  Allah  save  our  souls  from being  entangled  with  the  asphyxiating  incubus  of  Hadith.  The  solution  to  ALL  our  problems  lies  ONLY  in  the  Quran.”  

Before  we  proceed  to  demolish  the  muck  and  the  kufr  which  the  zindeeq  has  gorged  out  here,  it  is  necessary  to  furnish  the  definition  of  the  word  ‘incubus’  to  enable  readers  to  gain  an  insight  into  the mindset  of  this  evil  ‘sheikh’. 

The  dictionaries  defining  incubus,  say:  An  evil  spirit  said  to  descend  on  people  while  they  sleep  and  to  have  sexual  intercourse  with  women.”

This  is  the  vile  epithet  which  the  evil  ‘sheikh’  has  coined  for  the  sacred  words  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  —  words  which  the  Qur’aan  describe  as  follows:

“He  (Muhammad)  does  not  speak  of  vain  desire.  It  (his  Hadith)  is  nothing  but  Wahi  which  is  revealed  (from  Allah).”

The  Hadith  which  is  part  of  Divine  Revelation  except  that  it does  not  form  part  of  the  Qur’aanic  text,  is  depicted  by  the  vile  ‘sheikh’  as  “an  evil    (satanic)  spirit  which  possesses  women  and  indulges  in  sexual  intercourse  with  them.”  Can  there  be  any  doubt  in  the  kufr  of  this  man.  The  entire  edifice  of  Hadith  which  represents  the  knowledge  and  the  Deen  which  Allah  Ta’ala  inspired  into  the  heart  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  labeled  an incubus  by  the  miserable  soul  in  his  satanic  endeavour  to  negate  Rajm  in  pursuance  of  the  objective  of  appeasing  the  kuffaar  masters.

Indeed,  this  unfortunate  ‘sheikh’  has  scraped  the  very  bottom  of  the  barrel  of  kufr.  One  cannot  descend  further  into  the  pit  of  kufr  than  this  evil  ‘sheikh’  who  has  branded  the  ‘Revelation  from  Allah’  to  be  an  incubus.  The  ‘Wahi’  which  Allah  Ta’ala  inspired  into  the  mubaarak  heart  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  which  emanated  on  his  blessed  tongue  in  the  form  we  know  as  the  Hadith  is  villified  by  the  murtad  with  an  expletive  with  which  the  sacred  Hadith  (Wahi  Ghair  Matluw)  has  hitherto  never  been  maligned.  Truly,  this  man  is  the  evil  spirit—the  incubus  — the  human  shaitaan  from  which  we  are  instructed  in  Surah  Naas  to  seek  refuge  in  Allah.

“Say:  I  seek  refuge  in  the  Rabb  of  mankind,  The  King  of  mankind,  The  Deity  of  mankind  from  the  evil  of  Waswaas,  the  Khannaas  who  whispers  (his  evil)  into  the  breasts  of  people  —  (the   Khannaas  or  the  shaitaan)  from  among  jinn  and  men.”  

It  is  only  a  human  khannaas  who  will  revile  the  Wahi  of  Allah  with  the  vile  epithet,  ‘incubus’  and  shamelessly  say  that  the  entire  sacred  Edifice  of  Ahaadith-e-Nabawi  is  an  evil  spirit  which  descends  on  people  during  the  night,  possesses  women  and  indulges  in  sexual  intercourse  with  them.  Intelligent  discussion  with  such  a  khannaas  cannot  be  possible.

The  evidence  which  we  shall  present,  Insha’Allah,  will  be  acclaimed  by  all  Muslims  who  lack  bias  in  favour  of  kufrkuffaar  and  their  ‘enlightened’  cults  and  cultures.  The  evidence  will  show  if  Rajm  came  into  effect  with  the  advent  of  the  era  of  the  “maulanas”  or  had  it  existed  in  all  previous  Divine  Shariahs  as  well  as  the  Shariah  of  Muhammdur  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).    Remember  that  the  era  of  the    “maulanas”  of  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent  had  dawned  on  mankind  only  about  150  years  ago  while  the  Khairul  Quroon  epoch  was  under  the  direct  Spiritual  Shadow  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  It  was  the  time  of  the  Sahaabah  and  their  illustrious  Students.

Let  us  ask  the  munaafiq  sheikh:  “Was  Rajm  ever  effected  in  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent  since  the  inception  of  the  era  of  the  “maulanas”?  Is  the  Law  of  Rajm  discussed  or  not  in  ALL  the  Kutub  of  Islam  —  Fiqh,  Hadith  and  Tafseer  books  —  which  existed  from  the  earliest  times  of  this  Deen  more  than  a  millennium  prior  to  the  age  of  the  “Maulanas”  on  the  Indo-Pak  sub-continent?  Who  were  the  authors  of  all  the  thousands  of  Deeni  kutub  in  the  pre-maulana  era,  from  the  inception  of  Islam?  Were  Hadhrat  Umar,  Hadhrat Uthmaan,  Hadhrat  Ali  and  the  countless  Sahaabah  (radhiyallahu  anhum)  “maulanas”  from  India,  Pakistan  and  Bangladesh?  Was  Imaam  Maalik,  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah,  Imaam  Shaafi,  Imaam  Ahmad  Bin  Hambal  and  the  innumerable  Fuqaha  of  these  ages  “maulanas”  of  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent?  Did  all  these  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  order  and  discuss  Rajm  or  not?  Do  the  present  non-maulana  Ulama  all  over  the  Muslim  World  believe  in  the  validity  of  Rajm  or  not?  Let  the  miserable  munaafiq  and  murtad  “sheikh”  answer!

Is  the  Nigerian  Qaadhi  and  the  Nigerian  Ulama  of  the  Maaliki  Math-hab  — those  who  handed  down  the  sentence  of  Rajm  — products  of  the  Daarul  ulooms  of  the  “maulanas”  of  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent?  Did  they  acquire  the  law  of  Rajm  from  the  “maulanas”?  This  will  suffice  to  demonstrate  the  utter  nonsense  and  trash  the  munaafiq  and  murtad  “sheikh”  has  gorged  out  from  his  belly  of  kufr.

For the benefit of unwary Muslims,  Rajm is expounded in the greatest detail in all the Books of Islam from the earliest time of this Deen

(1) Hadhrat  Umar  Ibn  Khattaab  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  said: “Verily, Allah Ta’ala sent Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the Haqq (Truth), and He revealed the Kitaab (Qur’aan) to him. Among the (aayaat) which Allah had revealed to him was the aayat of Rajm. I recited it, understood  it  and  memorized  it.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) executed Rajm, and we (the Sahaabah) after him executed Rajm. I fear that due to the long duration of time on people they may say: ‘We do not find Rajm in the Kitaab of Allah.’ Thus, they will go astray by abandoning an injunction which Allah Ta’ala had revealed. (Know) that Rajm is incumbent on the one who commits zina when he or she is (of the quality of) Ihsaan (i.e. married), when evidence has been established or there is pregnancy or confession.”  [Bukhaari and Muslim] 

(2) Hadhrat Ibnus Saamit (radhiyallahu anhu) — a Sahaabi — narrated: “Verily, the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Take from me! Take from me! Verily Allah has made a way for them (adulteresses) — (The punishment) for an unmarried person with an unmarried person is 100 lashes and banishment of one year; for married persons it is 100 lashes and Rajm.”  [Muslim and Abu Daawood] 

(3) “Sha’bi narrated that on the occasion when Ali Ibn Taalib (radhiyallahu anhu) executed Rajm on a woman on the Day of Jumuah,  he  said:  ‘I  applied  Rajm  on  her  by  the  Sunnat  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).”  [Bukhaari]

In  this  incident,  Hadhrat  Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  had  flogged  the man,  Shuraahah  on  Thursday  and  executed  Rajm  on  the  woman  on  Friday.  When  it  was  said  to  Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhu): ”You  have combined  Jald  (flogging)  and  Rajm  (stoning).”  He  said:  “I  flogged him  on  the  authority  of  the  Kitaab  of  Allah  and  executed  Rajm  on  the  authority  of  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).”  

(4)  “Jaabir  Bin  Abdullah  Ansaari  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrated  that  a  man  from  (the  tribe  of)  Aslam  came  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  and  said  that  he  had  committed  zina.  He  testified  against  himself  four  times.  Then  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  ordered  that  he  be  stoned.  Rajm  was  then  inflicted  on  him.  He  was  a  married  person.  [Bukhaari]

(5)   “Abu  Hurairah  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  while Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  was  in  the  Musjid  a  man  approached  him  and  exclaimed: ‘O  Rasulullah!  Verily,  I  have  committed  zina.’   Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  ignored  him.  When  he  had  testified  against  himself  four  times,  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  called  him  and  said:  ‘Are  you  insane?’ He  replied:  ‘No.’  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  asked:  ‘Are  you  married?’  He  said:  ‘Yes.’  Then  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  ordered  (the Sahaabah): Take  him  away  and  execute  Rajm  on  him.

(6)  “Abu  Hurairah  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrated  that  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: ‘The  child  is  for  the  bed  (of  the  husband,  i.e.  it  is  his  legitimate  child  notwithstanding  the  accusation  of  adultery  levelled  at  his  wife),  and  for  the  adulterer  are  stones  (i.e. Rajm).” [Sahih Muslim]

(7)  A  man  had  committed  adultery  with  his  employer’s  wife.  The  man’s  father  had  secured  the  release  of  his  son  from  his  apprehenders  by  ransoming  him  with  100  sheep  and  a  slave.  When  the  matter  was  presented  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam), he said:

“I  take  oath  by  The  Being  in  Whose  control  is  my  life!  I  shall decide  by  the  Kitaab  of  Allah.  The  100  sheep  and  the  slave  should  be  returned  to  you,  and  your  son  be  flogged  100  lashes  and  banished  for  a  year.”  

Then  (instructing  a  Sahaabi)  whose  name  was  Unays,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  ‘O  Unays!  Go  to  the  wife  of  this  man.  If  she  confesses  to  having  committed  zina,  then  execute  Rajm  on  her.’ He  went  to  her.  After  she confessed, he inflicted Rajm on her.”  [Sahih Bukhaari]

Besides  these  few  quotations  from  the  authentic  Hadith  kutub,  all  other  Hadith  Books  report  on  Rajm.  All  Authorities  report  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  commanded  the  infliction  of  Rajm.  The  Sahaabah  had  inflicted  Rajm  during  the lifetime  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  and  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen had done the same during their respective khilaafats.

None  of  these  Hadith  books  was  the  work  of  any  Maulana  of  the  Indo-Pak  subcontinent.  None  of  these  illustrious  personalities  was  a  Maulana  who  had  graduated  at  any  Daarul  Uloom  of  the Indo-Pak  subcontinent.  Only  confirmed  munaafiqeen  and  murtaddeen can venture such drivel.

The  evidence  to  substantiate  Rajm  is  overwhelming  and  conclusive.  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  whose  sanity  is  intact  to  deny  historical  facts  which  no  one  has  ever  refuted  in  the  past  fourteen  centuries  of  Islam’s  history.  The  only  exception  is  the  deviated  sect, the  Khawaarij.  These  heretics  were  the  only  criminals  in  the  history  of  Islam  who  had  denied  Rajm.  Insha’Allah,  we  shall  elaborate  this  issue  later.  But,  they  never  denied  the  historical  fact  that  Rajm  was practiced.  They  denied  its  validity  as  an  Islamic  injunction.  But  the  modernist  zindeeqs  deny  even  the  historical  reality  of  the  Rajm.

Irrespective  of  the  fiqhi  (juridical)  differences  regarding  the  details  of  pertaining  to  Rajm  in  terms  of  the  different  Math-habs  which  present  their  proofs  on  valid  Hadith  and  Qur’aanic  basis,  there  is complete  consensus  of  all  Authorities  and  Math-habs  on  the  validity  of  Rajm.  No  one  has  ever  disputed  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  and  his  Khulafa-e-Rashideen  had  inflicted  the punishment  of  Rajm  on  adulterers.  The  only  differences  pertain  to  the  type  and  degree  of  evidence  required  to  secure  conviction.  But  on  Rajm  itself,  there  is  no  dispute.  There  is  only  unanimity. 

The  modernist  munaafiqeen  and  murtadd  so-called  sheikhs  and  scholars  are  at  pains  in  their  endeavour  to  confuse  Muslims  by  introducing  differences  in  details.  They  have  embarked  on  this  futile and  devious  exercise  in  a  bid  to  divert  attention  from  the  validity  of  Rajm  and  from  the  irrefutable  fact  that  Rajm  had  existed  in  Islam from  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

Islamic,  Hadith  and  historical  facts  cannot  be  denied  and  dismissed  on  the  basis  of  Qur’aanic  silence.  If  an  event  is  not  recorded  in  the  explicit  text  of  the  Qur’aan  Shareef,  it  does  not  follow  as  a  logical  or  incumbent  conclusion  that  such  an  event  never  existed  in history.  Consider  the  existence  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  No  person,  be  he  Muslim,  Shiah  or  any  other  brand  of  kaafir  denies  the  historical  fact  of  the  Khilaafat  of  the  four    Khulafa  of  Islam.  While  the  Shiahs  deny  the  Islamic  legality  and  legitimacy  of  the  Khilaafat of  the  first  three  Righteous  Khulafa  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam),  they  do  not  refute  the  historical  fact  of  the  Khilaafat  of  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr,  Hadhrat  Umar  and  Hadhrat  Uthmaan  (radhiyallahu  anhum).

To  claim  that  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  and  the other  Khulafa  were  not  installed  as  the  Rulers  of  Islam  merely  on  the  basis  of  the  silence  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  on  this  issue,  is  palpably  absurd.  In  exactly  the  same  manner  is  it  absurd  to  claim that  Rajm  was  not  a  punishment  inflicted  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen  because  the  Qur’aan nowhere  mentions  it.

If  any  munaafiq  or  murtadd  has  a  rabid  desire  to  appease  his  kuffaar  masters  by  a  denunciation  of  Rajm,  he  should  tender  a  refutation  of  the  Islamic  legality  and  validity  of  Rajm  in  which  the  Ummah  believes.  He  should  present  facts  in  refutation,  not  display absurdity  and  puerility  by  asserting  the  very  non-existence  of  Rajm  in  Rasulullah’s  time.  Such  a  stupid  denial  is  a  vivid  commentary  of  the  stark  ignorance  and  downright  stupidity  of  these  westernized  munaafiqeen  and  murtaddeen.

We  have  furnished  conclusive  evidence  from  the  Ahaadith  for  the  belief  and  contention  of  the  Ummah  that  Rajm  was  commanded  and  executed  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideeen.

Let  us  now  see  what  the  illustrious  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  —  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  the  Fuqaha  in  general  —  have  to  say  on  this  issue.  Summing  up  the  Verdict  of  these  noble  Authorities  —  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  —  the  following  appears  in  Al-Mughni  of  Ibn Qudaamah, the Hambali (non-Maulana) authority:

“The  compulsion  of  Rajm  for  a  married  adulterer  and  adulteress is  the  view  of  all  the  People  of  Ilm  among  the  Sahaabah,  the  Taabieen  and  those  Ulama  who  followed  after  them  in  all  the lands  (of  Islam).  We  do  not  know  of  any  opposing  view  except  that of  the  Khawaarij.

As  for  us  (the  Ahlus  Sunnah  Wal  Jama’ah)  Rajm  is  proven  on  the  authority  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  by  way  of  his  statement  and  his  practice  in  such  narrations  which  resemble  Mutawaatar.  There  is  consensus  of  the  Ashaab  (Sahaabah)  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  on  Rajm.  Verily,  Allah  Ta’ala  had  revealed  it  (Rajm)  in  His  Kitaab.  However,  only  its  written  text  has  been  abrogated,  not  its  hukm  (effectiveness  as  law).”

(In  substantiation,  Al-Mughni  cites  the  narration  of  Hadhrat Umar  which  we  have  recorded  later  in  this  post). 

As  well  as  the  following quotation:  The  following  appears  in  Mathaabib  Ar’ba-ah:

“The  Aimmah  are  unanimous  that  the  Hadd  of  Rajm  is compulsory  for  the  adulterer  and  adulteress  if  the  condition  of  Ihsaan  is  found  in  them.  Stoning  them  is  compulsory  until  they  die.  This  is  based  on  the  statement  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam):  When  the  married  man  and  married  woman  commit  zina  stone  them  absolutely  as  a  punishment  from  Allah.”  The  Hadith  is  Muttafaq  Alayh  (i.e.  narrated  by  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  Imaam Muslim).

Also  on  the  basis  of  the  statement  of  the  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam):  “Verily,  Rajm  is  a  Command  in  the  Kitaab  of  Allah  for  the  one  who  commits  zina  if  he  or  she  is  a  married  person……..This Hadith  is  Muttafaq  Alayh.”  

And  also  on  the  basis  of  the  fact  that  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  inflicted  Rajm  on  Maaiz  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  and  he  inflicted  Rajm  on  Hadhrat  Ghaamadiyyah  (radhiyallahu  anha)  and  others  besides  them.  And,  also  the  fact  that  the  Khulafa-e-Rashideen  inflicted  the  Hadd  of  Rajm.  For  this  there  is  Ijma’  (Consensus)  without  any  criticism  from  anyone  among  them  (the Sahaabah).

Thus  the  Hadd  of  Rajm  is  substantiated  on  the  basis  of Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah,  the  practice  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah.”

Maaliki  Math-hab:  “Rajm  will  be  executed  against  the  adult Muslim….”   [Mawaahibul Jaleel]

Hanafi  Math-hab:  “When  the  ihsaan  of  the  adulterer  has  been  substantiated  by  means  of  evidence  or  confession,  Rajm  will  be  inflicted  on  him  on  the  basis  of  Nass  (categoric  Hadith  Proof),  and  on  the  basis  of  rational  proof.  The  Nass  is  the    Mash-hoor  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam):  ‘The  blood  of  a  Muslim  is  not  lawful  except  with  one  of  three  factors—  Kufr  after  Imaan; Zina  after  Ihsaan;  Killing  a  person  without  valid  cause.”   [Badaaius Sanaa’i]

Shaafi  Math-hab:  “When  the  adulterer  is  a  muhsin,  his  (or  her)  hadd  (prescribed  punishment)  is  Rajam.” [Raudhatut Taalibeen]

Hambali  Math-hab:  “The  Aimmah  are  unanimous  that  the Hadd  of  the  adulterer  and  adulteress  is  Rajm….”  [Al-Mughni]

These  few  references  have  been  cited  merely  as  a  sample  of  the  vast  volume  of      unequivocal  proofs  stated  in  the  innumerable  Books  of  the  Shariah  right  from  the  very  beginning  of  Islam  down  to  this  day.  The  consensus  of  the  Ummah  in  every  age  on  the  validity  of  Rajm  is  complete  and  unique.  There  is  not  a  single  dissenting  voice  on  this  issue  among  the  authorities  of  the  Shariah  in  Islam’s  14 century  history.  The  consensus  on  Rajm  is  of  the  same  degree  as  the  Ijma’  (Consensus)  on  100  lashes  for  unmarried  fornicators.

It  goes  without  saying  that  Islam  with  its  Shariah  and  Sunnah,  had  attained  completion  and  perfection  during  the  very  lifetime  of Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Qur’aan: “This  day  have  I  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  I  have completed  for  you  My  Favour,  and  I  have  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen.”  

The  most  incontrovertible  evidence  for  the  perfection  and completion  of  Allah’s  Shariah  is  the  Finality  of  Nubuwwat.  The  self-evident  consequence  of  the  Finality  of  Nubuwwat  is  that  the  Shariah  brought  by  Muhammad  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  the  Final,  the  Complete  and  the  Perfect  Shariah  which  will  not  tolerate any  adulteration,  interpolation,  excess  and  deletion.  Whatever  was  part  of  this  immutable  Shariah  during  the  age  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Khairul  Quroon  (the  Three  Noble  Ages  after  him),  will  remain  integral  constituents  of  this  Divine Shariah  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah.  Whatever  was  not  part  of  this  Shariah  during  the  Khairul  Quroon  epoch  is  not  part  of  the  immutable  Shariah  of  Allah  Ta’ala.

A  very  very  important  yardstick  for  the  determination  of  the truth  or  falsity  of  a  view  is  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  that  view/belief/injunction  during  the  era  of  the  Khairul  Quroon.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  demarcated  the  limits  of  goodness  and  truth  with  the  ending  of  this  noble  era.  The ascendancy  of  falsehood  and  innovation  was  initiated  after  the  Khairul  Quroon.  Hence,  any  view,  belief,  tenet  or  practice  which  enjoyed  the  Consensus  (Ijma’)  of  the  Ummah  during  the  Khairul Quroon  was  an  integral  constituent  of  the  inviolable  and  sacred  Deen.  Which  was  completed  and  perfected  by  Allah  Ta’ala  during  the  lifetime  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

In  the  light  of  this  Shar’i  Yardstick,  the  substantiation  of  the  chronological  inception  of  the  belief  that  Rajm  is  not  an  Islamic  injunction  and  that  it  was  not  ordered  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  an  imperative  devolution  on  these  modernist  juhhaalzindeeqs  and  munaafiqeen  who  have  blindly  joined  the  kuffaar  chorus  labeling  Rajm  ‘barbaric’.  It  rests  squarely  on  the  shoulders  of  these  ignoramuses  who  pipe  the  theme  and  song  of  the  western  kuffaar  to  produce  irrefutable  evidence  that  Rajm  was  not  the  mandatory  punishment  for  adulterers  of  the  Ihsaan  class.  For  the  sake  of  brevity  we  shall  content  ourselves  with  saying  that  married  persons  are  of  the  Ihsaan  classification  although  the  term  has  a  much  wider  meaning. 

It  is  necessary  for  the  denouncers  of  Rajm  to  substantiate  with  Shar’i’  evidence  that  Rajm  did  not  exist  in  the  age  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  nor    in  the  era  of  the  Khairul  Quroon,  nor  in  the  entuire  history  of  Islam,  nor  did  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  ever  execute  the    punishment  of  Rajm,  nor  did  the  Sahaabah  ever  mete  out  this  punishment  and  that  there  exists  no  Ijma’  on  the  validity  of  Rajm  from  the  time  of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

It  furthermore  devolves  on  these  miserable  miscreants  who  have  traded  their  souls  to  appease  the  western  kuffaar  for  whatever  nafsaani  designs  they  may  be  having,  to  state  when  precisely  in  the  history  of  Islam  did  their  view  develop,  that  is,  the  view  that  Rajm  is  not  an  Islamic  injunction.  If  they  fail  to  present  a  satisfactory response — and  most  assuredly  they  must  fail —  to  these  queries,  their  case  falls  flat. In  fact,  their  claim  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  substance.

Even  the  enemies  of  Rajm  join  the  consensus  of  the  Ummah  in  upholding  the  claim  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  in  fact  mete  out  Rajm  to  two  Yahood  adulterers.  In  a  ludicrous  attempt  to  provide  credibility  for  their  view,  the  mulhids  aver  that such  Rajm  which  was  ordered  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  was  in  terms  of  the  Tauraah — the  Shariah  of  Hadhrat  Nabi  Musaa  (alayhis salaam).

Be  that  as  it  may.  The  irrefutable  fact  inherent  in  this  averment  is  that  Rajm  was  a  prescription  of  the  Tauraah.  It  is  a  known  fact  on which  every  Muslim  has  to  incumbently  have  Imaan,  that  the  Tauraah  was  the  Divine  Scripture  which  Allah  Ta’ala  had  revealed  to Hadhrat  Musaa  (alayhis  salaam).  The  fact  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  issued  the  decree  of  Rajm  in  compliance  with  the  Shariah,  testifies  to  the  truth  and  the  divinity  of  the  punishment  of  Rajm.

In  other  words,  Allah  Ta’ala  had  commanded  Rajm  for  adulterers.  Now  when  Rajm  is  irrefutably  a  command  of  Allah  Ta’ala  and  it  was  ordered  to  be  inflicted  on  adulterers  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam),  then  by  which  attribute  of  Imaan  can  a  Muslim  deny  the  validity  of  this  punishment,  and  by  which  stretch  of  Imaani  intelligence  can  he  join  the  kuffaar  chorus  to  sing  the  song  of  ‘barbarism’?

COMMAND OF THE QUR’AAN Besides  the  command  of  Rajm  in  the  Mansukhut  Tilaawat (aayat  whose  recitation  alone  is  abrogated),  the  Qur’aan  commands  that  Muslims  accept  Rajm  in  the  same  way  as  they  accept  that  there  are  five  Fardh  Salaat  in  a  day.  Issuing  this  command,  The  Qur’aan  Majeed  states:

“Obey  Allah  and  His  Rasool  ………”  

“Whatever  the  Rasool  brings  to  you,  hold  on  firmly  to  it,  and whatever he forbids you of, abstain from it.”  

“Verily,  in  the  Rasool  of  Allah  is  a  Beautiful  Pattern (of life and law)……..”  

“It  is  not  lawful  for  a  believing  man  nor  a  believing  woman  when  Allah and  His  Rasool  have  ordained  a  matter  that  they  have  any  choice  regarding  their affairs.”  

“By  your  Rabb!  They  do  not  believe  (i.e.  they  are  not  Mu’min)  as  long  as  they  do   not  appoint  you  (O  Muhammed!)  as  the  arbiter  in their  mutual  disputes.  Then  they  find  no  fault  with  what  you  (O  Muhammad!)  have decided,  and  they  wholly  submit.”  

“The  Mu’mineen  are  only  those  who  believe  in  Allah  and  His Rasool,  then  they  have  no  doubt…..”  

“Say  (O  Muhammad!)  Obey  Allah  and  the  Rasool.  If  you  turn  your  backs,  then  (know  that)  verily,  Allah  does  not  love  the  kaafireen.”  

“O People of Imaan! Believe in Allah and in His Rasool…”  

“…Those  who  believe  in  Our  Aayaat,  they  are  those  who  follow  the Rasool  who  is  the  Ummi  Nabi  ….”  

The  Qur’aan  repeatedly  commands  obedience  to  Allah’s  Rasool.  Minus  this  obedience  the  claim  of  following  the  Qur’aan  is  absolutely  baseless  and  absurd.  The  Qur’aanic  theme  of  this  twin  obedience  testifies  to  the  incumbency  of  obeying  what  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  commanded.  He  had  commanded  innumerable    Ahkaam  (laws  of  the  Shariah)  for  which  there  is  no  explicit  reference  in  the  Qur’aan.  But  to  argue  that  Fajr  does  not have  two  raka’ts  Fardh  on  account  of  the  silence  of  the  Qur’aan  is  not  an  implied  rejection  of  the  Qur’aan.  It  is  a  clear  and  a  direct  refutation  of  the  Qur’aan.  The  demand  to  produce  explicit  textual  reference  from  the  Qur’aan  for  every  injunction  of  the  Shariah  is  preposterous  and  stems  from  kufr  hidden  in  the  heart.

The  Qur’aan  itself  describes  that  it  is  a  Thikr  or  an  admonition.  The  Qur’aan  is  not  a  book  of  Fiqhi  (juridical)  details.  The  Deen  of  Islam  is  not  confined  to  the  Qur’aanic  text.  This  fact  is  too  obvious  for  dilation.  Broad  immutable  principles  are  deducted  from  Qur’aanic  Aayaat,  on  which  are  based  innumerable  details  of  the  Shariah.  Among  these  inviolable  Principles  is  the  principle  of  Itaa’at-e-Rasool (or obedience to the Messenger of Allah).

This  principle  is  substantiated  by  numerous  Qur’aanic  verses.  The  incumbency  of  obedience  to  the  Rasool  is  in  the  same  category  as  obedience  to  Allah  Ta’ala.  Those  who  seek  to  create  a  division  between  the  twin  obediences  (which  in  reality  is  ONE  obedience  – the  obedience  to  Allah  Ta’ala)  explicitly  deny  the  many  Qur’aanic verses  commanding  obedience  to  the  Rasool,  e.g.

“O  People  of  Imaan!  Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasoool…”

The  copious  Qur’aanic  verses  and  the  Ahaadith  Mutawaatarah  leave  absolutely  no  scope  for  doubt  or  difference  in  the  incumbency  of  obeying  the  Rasool. 

It  is  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  who  had  commanded  Rajm  and  who  had  practically  executed  this  punishment  to  married  adulterors.  It  is  unintelligent  to  refute  this  historical  reality  on  the basis  of  this  punishment  being  ’inhumane’,  and  that  there  is  no  explicit  reference  to  it  in  the  Qur’aan.  Allah  Ta’ala  and  His  Rasool  are  more  aware  of  what  constitutes  humanity  and  inhumanity.  Allah  Ta’ala,  The  Creator  understands  the  need  of  a  punishment  for  a  crime.  The  command  to  punish  with  a  specific  form  of  punishment  is  the  prerogative  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  No  creation  of  His  has  any  right  whatsoever  to  find  fault  with  such  a  divine  decree.  The  very  questioning  of  the  validity  and  humanity  of  Rajm  is  kufr  which  renders  a  Muslim  a  murtadd  (renegade  —  outside  the  pale  of  Islam).

In  their  abortive  attempt  to  refute  the  validity  of  Rajm,  the aforementioned  enemies  of  the  Deen  from  within,  resort  to  the folowing  arguments:

(1)  The  Qur’aan  is  silent  on  Rajm.
(2)  The  Aayat  in  Surah  Noor  orders  100  lashes  for  zina.
(3) Summary  dismissal  of  all  the  Ahaadith  which  make  explicit  reference  to  Rajm.
(4) The  Rajm  decreed  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  on  two  Jewish  culprits  was  in  terms  of  the  Tauraah,  and  was  not  an injunction  of  Islam.

Silence  of  the  Qur’aan  on  any  issue  is  not  evidence  for  the  non-existence  of  an  injunction.  The  Qur’aan  is  silent  on  the  number  of  times  Salaat  is  Fardh  daily.  It  is  silent  on  the  number  of  raka’ts;  silent  on  the  manner  in  which  Salaat  has  to  be  performed;  silent  on  the  hundreds  of  rules  pertaining  to  Salaat  such  as  Qiraa’t,  Qiyaam, Sajdah,  Sajdah  Sahw,  Tashahhud,  Qa’dah  Ulaa,  Qa’dah,  Akheerah,  Tashahhud,  Durood,  Salaam,  etc.,  etc.;  silent  on  the  details  of  Zakaat,  Saum  and  the  innumerable  other  rites  and  acts  of  ibaadat. The  Qur’aan  is  silent  on  the  method  of  Thabah  (Islamic  ritual  slaughter);  silent  on  the  detailed  masaail  related  to  Tahaarat;  silent  on  the  Islamic  system  of  burial  and  the  performance  of  ghusl  and Janaazah  Salaat;  silent  on  Eid  Salaat;  silent  on  thousands  of issues  on  which  there  exists  Ijma’  (Consensus)  of  the  entire Ummah from the very inception of Islam.

In  view  of  this  situation  of  Qur’aanic  Silence,  the  denial  of  all  Ahaadith  by  the  murtadd  incubus  is  the  ranting  of  a  man  whom  shaitaan  has  driven  to  insanity  by  his  wicked  touch.  There  is  no  need  for  intelligent  comment  on  this  issue  as  every  Mu’min  with  understanding  does  understand  the  fundamental  importance  of  the  Ahaadith  in  the  formulation  of  the  structure  of  the  Divine  Shariah.  Only  an  incubus  can  claim  that  there  can  be  an  ‘islam’  bereft  of  the  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

The  punishment  of  100  lashes  is  the  Hadd  for  unmarried  adulterers.  This  is  the  unanimous  Ruling  of  the  entire  Ummah  from  the  very  beginning  of  Islam,  there  being  no  difference  of  opinion  on  this  issue.  Ijma’  on  this  fact  has  existed  from  the  inception  of  Islam.  In  view  of  the  complete  unanimity  of  the  entire  Ummah  for  the  past fourteen  centuries  on  the  applicability  of  this  Hadd,  the  stupid  argument  of  the  mulhids  and  incubuses  is  dismissed  with contempt.  Further  argument  on  this  issue  in  the  face  of  the  Wall  of  Consensus  is  redundant.

This  averment  is  too  ludicrous  for  intelligent  comment.  We  dismiss  it  with  the  brief  comment,  that  thousands  of  Islamic  teachings,  tenets, injunctions  and  beliefs  are  structured  on  the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  The  names  of   the   famous  Muhadditheen  such  as  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim  are  household  names.  Suffice  to  say  that  minus  the  Ahaadith  there  is  no  Qur’aan  and  no  Islam.  No  Muslim  will  proffer  an  ear  to  this  kufr drivel  of  the  incubus.

Assuming  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did    in  fact,  sentence  the  two  Jews  to  be  executed  by  Rajm  in  terms  of  the  Tauraah,  it  is  a  confession  made  by  the  deniers  of  Rajm.  In  this  confession  they  have  been  compelled  to  concede  that,  after  all,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  order  the  execution  of  Rajm.

Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  came  to  abrogate  all  previous  Shariahs  and  Laws  and  impose  only  the  Final  Shariah  of  Allah  Ta’ala — Islam.  He  did  not  govern  by  the  earlier  Shariahs.  There  are  many  issues  on  which  there  is  the  agreement  of  this  Final  Shariah  with  the  Shariah  of  the  Tauraah,  since  both  were  revealed  Laws  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  There  is  absolutely  no  substantiation  for  the  claim  that  the  Rajm  which  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasasallam)  ordered  for  the  two  Jews  on  the  basis  of  the  Tauraah  does  not  apply  to  Muslims.  Any  such  suggestion  is  debunked  by  the  example  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah.

The  Ahaadith  substantiating    Rajm  are  of  the  Mutawaatar  class  which  is  the  highest  category  of  Hadith.  This  category  of  Hadith  gives  rise  to  the  consequence  of  Qatiyat  (Absolute  Certitude,  not brooking  the  slightest  vestige  of  doubt)  in  the  same  way  as  the  Qur’aan. 

None  of  the  Sahaabah  and  Fuqaha  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  had  ever  ventured  the  interpretation  ventured  by  the  incubuses  to  refute  Rajm.  Whatever  valid  interpretation  was  made  by  the  Authorities  of the  Shariah,  it  did  not  conclude  in  the  rejection  of  Rajm.  On  the  contrary  all  the  Fuqaha  and  Mufassireen  notwithstanding  interpretations,  confirmed  the  validity  and  Qatiyyat  of  the  injunction  of  Rajm.

The  very  first  deviate  sect  of  kufr  to  develop  in  the  Ummah  was  the  Khawaarij.  These  deviates  were  mercilessly  pursued  and  exterminated  by  Hadhrat  Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhu).  Like  the  incubuses,  this  sect  denied  Rajm.  Discussing  the  denial  of  the  Khawaarij,     Allamah  Zafar  Ahmad  Uthmaani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in I’laaus Sunan: 

“Rajm  is  proven  by  the  statements  and  actions  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  The  Narrations  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi    wasallam)  in  this  regard  are  comparable  to  Mutawaatar.  The  Sahaabah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  enacted  consensus  on  it  (Rajm).”

Muhaqqiq  states  in  Al-Fath:  “The  denial  of  the  Khawaarij  is  baatil  because  they  deny  the  evidence  of  the  Ijma’  of  the  Sahaabah,  hence  it  (their  denial)  is  compound  ignorance  of  the  evidence.  In  fact  it  (the Law  of  Rajm)  is  Ijma’  Qat-iyy…..

The  substantiation  of  Rajm  from  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  is  Mutawaatar  in  meaning  just  as  the  courage  of  Ali,  the  generosity  of  Haatim  and  the  justice  of  Umar  (are  substantiated  by  such  narrations  of  Mutawaatar  meaning).

There  is  absolutely  no  doubt  in  the  basis  of  Rajm………Verily,  Umar  said: 
“I  fear  that  after  a  lapse  of  considerable  time,  people  (like  today’s  incubuses)  will  say:  ’We  do  not  find  Rajm  in  the  Book  of  Allah,  while  Allah  has  revealed  it  (Rajm)  in  His  Kitaab.’’ 

Only  its  text  has  been abrogated,  not  its  hukm.  It  has  been  narrated  from  Umar  Ibn Khattaab  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  that  he  said:  ’Verily,  Allah  Ta’ala  sent  Muhammad  with  the  Truth  and  revealed  to  him  The  Kitaab (Qur’aan).  Among  that  which    He  (Allah  had  revealed  to  him  was  the  Aayat  of  Rajm.  I  recited  it,  understood  it  and  memorized  it.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  ordered  Rajm  and  after  him  we  too  ordered  Rajm.  I  fear  that  after  a  considerable  time  has lapsed,  people  will  say  (like  the  incubuses  say  today):  ’We  do  not  find  Rajm  in  the  Book  of  Allah.’  Thus  they  will  go  astray  by  abandoning  a  compulsory  command  which  Allah  has revealed………..He  recited:  ’When  the  married  man  and  married woman  commit  zina,  then  stone  them  as  an  absolute  punishment from  Allah.  And  Allah  is  The  Mighty,  The  Wise.’  This  Hadith  is  Muttafaq  Alayh  (i.e.  Narrated  by  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  Imaam Muslim).”

A  delegation  of  the  Khawaarij  came  to  Hadhrat  Umar  Bin  Abdul  Azeez   (Umar,  The  Second),  and  said:  “In  the  Book  of  Allah  is  nothing  other  than  lashes.”  Umar  Bin  Abdul  Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “You  say  nothing  (by  way  of  proof))  except  what  is  in  the  Qur’aan.”  They  said:  “Yes.”  He  said:  “Inform  me  about  the  number  of  the  Fardh  Salaat,  the  number  of  their  Arkaan  and   raka’ts,  and  of  their  respective  times.  Where  do  you  find  these  in  the  Book  of  Allah  Ta’ala?  And,  tell  me  about  the  things  in  which  Zakaat  is  compulsory  —  their  quantities  and  their  Nisaabs.”  They said:  “Give  us  time.”    Thus,  they  departed  and  returned  the  same  day  (after  having  checked  the  Qur’aan).  They  said:  “We  did  not  find  these  things  in  the  Qur’aan.”  Umar  Bin  Abdul  Azeez  said:  “How  did  you  then  accept  these?”  They  said:  “Because,  verily  the  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  practised  these  and  so  did  the  Muslims  (the  Sahaabah)  after  him.”  He  then  said  to  them:  “Similarly  is  Rajm.  Verily  the  Nabi  (Alayhis  Salaam)  stoned  and  the  Khulafa  after  him  stoned  as  well  as  the  Muslims  thereafter.”

The  Khawaarij  inspite  of  their  deviation,  at  least  possessed  sufficient  intelligence  to  refrain  from  refuting  the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  in  the  immoral  way  of  the  incubus.  They  had  to  concede  by  their  silence  the  validity  of  the  Argument of  Hadhrat  Umar  Bin  Abdul  Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh).

In  Al-Mughni  it  is  recorded:  “With  regards  to  the  compulsion  of  Rajm  for  the  Muhsin  adulterer,  man  or  woman  — this  is  the  view  of  all  the  People  of  Knowledge  among  the  Sahaabah,  the  Taabieen  and  the  Ulama  of  the  lands  (of  Islam)  in  all  ages  after  them  (the  Taabieen).  We  do  not  know  of  any  difference  in  this  regard  except  that  of  the  Khawaarij.”

The  following  appears  in  Al-Fiqhul  Islaamiyyu  wa  Adillatuhu: “There  is  consensus  of  the  Ulama  on  the  Hadd  of  the  muhsin  adulterer.  And,  it  (the  Hadd)  is  Rajm.  This  is  substantiated  with  the  proof  of  the  Sunnah  Mutawaatarah,  the  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah  and rational  argument.  As  for  the  Sunnah  —  there  are  numerous  Ahaadith  (to  substantiate  Rajm). 

Among  them  is:  ’The  blood  of  a  Muslim  is  not  lawful  except  on  the  basis  of  one  of  three  reasons —  a  married  adulterer,  life  for  life  (in case  of  murder),  and  one  who  abandons  his  Deen,  dissenting  from  the  Jama’ah  (Ahlus  Sunnah  Wal  Jama’ah).

[Bukhaari,  Muslim  from  Ibn  Mas’ud,  Uthmaan,  Aishah,  Abu  Hurairah,  Jaabir,  Ammaar  Bin  Yaaasir  —  Refer  to  Nasbur Raayah. Also  Al-Majmaauz Zawaaid  and  Al-Arbaeenun Nawawiyyah].

“The  episode  of  Aseef  who  had  committed  adultery  with  a  woman,   then    Rasulullah    (sallallahu    alayhi    wasallam)  said  to  a  man  from  Aslam:  ‘O  Unais!  Go  to  this  woman,  and  if  she  confesses,  then stone her.”   [Bukhaari,  Muslim,  Muatta,  Ahmad,  Abu  Daawood, Tirmizi, Nasaai]

“The  story  of  Maaiz,  which  has  been  narrated  from  various  sources. Verily  he  confessed  to  having  committed  adultery.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  then  commanded  Rajm  to  be  inflicted  on  him.” [Muslim,  Abu  Daawood,  Ahmad,  Bukhaari,  Tirmizi,  Baihqi,  Abu Ya’la, Tabaraani]

The  incident  of  Maa-iz  has  been  narrated  by  a  group  of  Sahaabah, and it has reached the level of Mutawaatarah.

“The  episode  of  Al-Ghaamadiyyah.  She  had  confessed  to  zina.  Rasulullah    (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had    her  stoned  after  she  gave  birth.”  [Muslim, Abu Daawood, Nailul Autaar]

The Ummah has enacted Ijma’ on the legality of Rajm.”

Al-Mathaahibul Arba-ah states: “The  Aimmah  are  unanimous  that  the  man  and  woman  in  whom  the  conditions  of  Ihsaan  are  fulfilled,  when  they  commit  adultery,  then  Rajm  is  compulsory  on  both  of  them  until  they  die.  The  proof  for  this  is  the  statement  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam):  “When  the  married  man  and  the  married  woman commit  adultery,  then  stone  both  of  them  as  a  punishment  from  Allah.”  This  Hadith  is  Muttafaq  Alayh  (i.e.  it  has  been  narrated  by Bukhaari and Muslim.)

And  on  account  of  the  statement  of  the  Nabi  (alayhis  salaam):  “The  blood  of  a  person  is  not  lawful  except  for  one  of  three  reasons.  The married  adulterer,  life  for  life  (murder),  and  the  one  who  renounces  his  Deen,  dissenting  from  the  Jama’ah.”  This  has  been  narrated  in  Bukhaari  and  Muslim  from  Aishah  (radhiyallahu  anha),  Abu  Hurairah and  Ibn  Mas’ud  (radhiyallahu  anhuma).

And  because  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  stoned  Maa-iz,  and he stoned Al-Ghaamidiyyah and others besides them.

And  because  the  Khulafa  Raashideen  executed  Rajm  by  virtue  of  Ijma’  without  anyone  among  them  (the  Sahaabah)  objecting.  Thus  the  Hadd  of  Rajm  is  based  on  Ahaadith  Mutawaatarah,  on  the  practice  of  the  Rasool  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah.  And,  it  is  also  proven  on  the  basis  of  the  Qur’aan  in terms  of  the  view  of  those  who  say  that  the  Hadith  of  Rajm  was  an  aayat  of  the  Qur’aan,  then  its  recital  was  abrogated  while  its  hukm  was  retained.”

Nuskh  or  abrogation  of  Qur’aanic  verses  and  laws  of  the  Shariah  is  the  prerogative  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  No  one  has  the  right  to  question  the  authority  and  prerogative  right  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  Stating  the Qur’aanic  Principle  of  Nuskh,   Allah  Ta’ala  says:

“Whatever  We  (Allah)  abrogate  of  any  Aayat  or  cause  it  to  be  forgotten,  We  bring  (another)  better  than  it  or  similar  to  it.  What,  do  you  not  know  that  verily  Allah  has  power  over  everything?” [Surah Baqarah, aayat 106] 

There  is  Ijma’  (Consenus)  of  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Ummah  on  the  nuskh  of  tilaawat  of  the  aayat  of  Rajm.  There  is  also  Ijma’  on  the  retention  of  the  hukm  of  this  abrogated  aayat.  The  law  remains  effective.  Only  incubuses  have  the  audacious  stupidity  of  denying  what  the  entire  Ummah  has  believed  in  since  the  very  inception  of Islam. 

Declaring  the  lofty  status  of  Ameerul  Mu’mineen,  Umar  Bin Khattaab  (radhiyallahu  anhu),  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) said:  “If  a  Nabi  had  to  come  after  me,  it  would  have  been  Umar.”

He  possessed  the  qualities,  attributes  and  qualifications  of a  Nabi.  If  Nubuwwat  had  not  been  sealed  in  Muhammad  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  the  next  Nabi  would  have  been  Hadhrat  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhu).  His  attributes  of  Nubuwwat  —  his  insight,  far-sightedness  and  wisdom  —  are  conspicuous  in  many  acts  and  statements.  In  the  matter  of  Rajm  this  is  manifest  in  his prediction  that  a  time  will  come  when  people  will  refute  the  validity  of  Rajm  by  claiming  that  the  Qur’aan  is  silent  on  this  Hadd.  He,  therefore,  closed  the  avenue  for  the  incubuses  by  reciting  the  Mansukh  aayat  of  Rajm,  and  by  his  categoric  affirmation  of  Rajm  having  been  executed  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and by  himself  (as  the  Ameerul  Mu’mineen)  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Not  a  single  Sahaabi  contested  the  statements  of  Hadhrat  Umar (radhiyallahu  anhu).  The  Ijma’  of  the  Sahaabah  on  Rajm  is  an  irrefutable  fact  which  only  mulhids,  zindeeqs,  munaafiqs  and  incubuses  will  stupidly  deny.  The  denial  proffered  by  these  criminals  is  calculated  to  appease  their  western  mentors  who  have  propounded  the  concept  of  “international  standards  of  human  rights”.

The  numerous  Ahaadith  on  Rajm,  accepted  by  all  authorities  of  the  Shariah,  leave  absolutely  no  scope  for  the  denial  of  Rajm  and  for  any interpretation  to  refute  Rajm.

Some  incubuses  (evil  spirits  who  ravage  women  at  night)  have  vainly  tried  to  peddle  the  notion  that  Rajm  was  the  law  of  the  Tauraah,  which  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  adhered  to  prior  to  the  revelation  of  the  verse  ordering  100  lashes  for  zina.  This  claim  is  palpably  fallacious.
Not  a  single  authority,  right  from  the  time  of  the  Sahaabah,  ever  entertained  this  baseless  opinion  which  is  the  idea  of  the  mulhids  of  this  age.  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  for  this  baseless  claim.  Incidents  of  Rajm  inflicted  by  Rasulullah    (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  were  carried  out  after  the  revelation  of  this  verse  which  applied  to  only  unmarried  fornicators.  The  Rajm  executed  by  the  Khulafa  Raashideen  is  absolute  confirmation  for  this  truth.  The incubuses  have  nothing  to  stand  on  other  than  the  figments  of  their  imagination  and  their  personal  opinions  which  meet  with  the  approval  of  only  the  western  kuffaar  who  rant  and  rail  against  the injunctions  of  Islam  in  general.  Their  vilification  is  not  confined  to  Rajm.

One  incubus  who  styles  himself  as  a  ‘sheikh’  attempted  to  deny  the  Rajm  Hadith  by  saying  that  this  narration  is  of  the  Aahaad  class. 

Firstly,  he  has  no  right  to  present  the  Hadith  categories  to  substantiate  his  baatil  and  kufr  denial  of  Rajm  because  he believes  and  propagates  that  ALL  Ahaadith  are  fabrications  and  ‘evil  spirits’.  According  to  the  insane  incubus,  only  the  Qur’aan  has  to  be  accepted,  nothing  else.  When  it  suits  his  fancy,  he  conveniently  forgets  his  total  denial  of  Hadith,  and  seeks  to  use  the  Hadith  as  a  crutchz to  support  his  corrupt  view  of  kufr.

Secondly,  all  the  Sahaabah  and  the  illustrious  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era,  had  greater  knowledge  of  the  Hadith  categories  than  this  incubus  of  this  day.  Yet  they  elevated these  Aahaad  narrations  to  the  pedestal  of  Mutawwatar  —  the highest  category  of  Hadith  on  par  with  the  Qur’aan  in  so  far  as  belief  and  derivation  of Ahkaam  are  concerned.

Thirdly,  the  incubus  is  a  Jaahil  (ignoramus)  who  has  neither knowledge  nor  authority  to  voice  himself  on  the  classification  and  application  of  Ahaadith.

Fourthly,  an  opinion  of  an  incubus  of  this  age  cannot  be  cited  in  negation  of  the  fourteen  century  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah.

Fifthly,  the  widespread  acceptance  by  the  Authorities  of  Hadith  of  the  Aahaad  class  and  the  Ijma’  of  the  Sahaabah  and  all  the  subsequent  Authorities  on  such  narrations  being  valid  basis  for  such Ahkaam  which  require  Qat’i  proof  for  their  validity,  elevates  the  meaning  and  applicability  of  these  Ahaadith  to  the  pedestal  of  Mutawaatar.

Sight  should  not  be  lost  of  the  one  single  ‘proof’  of  those  who  deny  the  validity  of  Rajm.  They  structure  their  denial  on  the  basis  of   Rajm  being  ‘barbaric’.  Their  denial  is  motivated  solely  by  the  desire  to  vindicate  the  cry  of  the  enemies  of  Islam  who  brand  the  Islamic  Penal  System  barbaric.  For  upholding  this  view  of  the  kuffaar,  these  incubus  deniers  of  Rajm  present  their  utterly  baseless  interpretations  and  rejection  of  all  the  authentic  Ahaadith  which  confirm  the  Law  of  Rajm.  In  their  inordinate  desire  to  appease  their  western  masters  and  mentors,  they  imply  that  Allah  Ta’ala  and  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  are  ‘barbaric’ — Nauthubillah!

That  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  ordered  Rajm  to be  inflicted  on  two  Yahudi  adulterers  is  undeniable.  Regardless  of  whether  he  had  ordered  Rajm  in  terms  of  the  Tauraah  or  in  terms  of  the  Qur’aan.  It  is  immaterial.  The  undeniable  reality  is  that  Nabi-e-Kareem  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  execute  Rajm  on  the  Yahudi  adulterers.  If  Rajm  is  ‘barbaric’,  the  charge  of  barbarism  is  leveled  at  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  Allah  Ta’ala because  the  Rasool  acts  only  in  obedience  to  the  Command  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  The  kufr  and  irtidaad  of  the  incubuses  should  therefore  be  manifest  to  all.

The  discussion  in  these  pages  conclusively  establishes  that  Rajm  has  been  an  injunction  of  Islam  from  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  In  fact,  it  was  an  injunction  in  the  Shariats  prior  to  the  Shariah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).  No  one,  not  even  the  kuffaar,  deny  the  fact  of  Rajm  having  been  the  Law  in  the  Shariah  of  the  Tauraah.  The  Christian  Bible  too  confirms  this  fact.  Only  the  incubuses  slinking  in  the  folds of  the  Ummah  deny  the  validity  of  Rajm.

Rajm  is  substantiated  by  the  Qur’aan  which  commands obedience  to  the  Rasool  and  which  equates  obedience  of  the  Rasool to  obedience  to  Allah  Ta’ala.  The  Qur’aan  upholds  Rajm  with  a  Mansukhut  Tilaawat  aayat  as  has  already  been  explained.

Rajm  is  substantiated  by  Ahaadith  of  the  Mutawaatar  category.  Such  Ahaadith  have  the  same  degree  of  absolute  certitude  as  the  Qur’aan.

Rajm  is  upheld  by  the  Ijma’  of  the  Sahaabah,  the  Taabieen  and  all  the  Authorities  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era.

Rajm  is  confirmed  by  the  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah  in  every  age from  the  beginning  to  this  day.  Never  was  there  a  difference  of  opinion  on  the  question  of  the  validity  of  Rajm.  Only  the  deviate  Khawaarij  sect  had  denied  the  legal  validity  of  Rajm,  not  its  historical  reality.

The  mass  and  volume  of  evidence  in  support  of  the  validity  of  Rajm  cannot  be  dismissed  on  the  basis  of  the  personal  ideas  and  baseless opinions  of  a  handful  of  modernists,  zindeeqs,  mulhids,  munaafiqs  and  incubuses  of  this  age.

In  refutation  of  the  fallacies  of  the  deniers  of  Rajm,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  states: 

“Those  who  dispute  in  the  matter  of  Allah  after  He  (i.e. His  Law)  has  been  accepted,  their  disputation  is  baseless  by  their  Rabb.  And,  on  them  is    the  Wrath  (of  Allah)  and  for  them  there  is  a dreadful  punishment.” [Surah  Shuraa,  Aayat  16]

THE OPERATION OF RAJM Alhamdulillah!  By  the  fadhl  of  Allah  Ta’ala,  we  have  explained  the  Shar’i  Proofs  for  the  Law  of  Rajm.  The  overwhelming  volume  of  evidence  from  all  Sources  of  the  Shariah  establishes  the  validity  of  this  injunction  of  Islam  beyond  the  slightest  vestige  of  doubt.  It cannot  be  a  Muslim  who  will  view  with  intransigence  the formidable  volume  of  Shar’i  evidences  there  exists  to  substantiate  the  validity  of  Rajm.  How  a  person  professing  to  be  a  Muslim  can  scrape  the  dregs  of  kufr  in  an  attempt  to  deny  an  injunction  in  whose  wall  of  evidence  there  is  not  the  slightest  crack,  beggars Islamic  imagination.

It  is  our  belief  that  murtadds  who  profess  to  be  Muslims,  then  blasphemously  describing  the  Hadith  of  the  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  as  an  evil  spirit  which  indulgences  in  sexual  intercourse  with  women  during  the  night  times  when  it  manages  to  gain possession  of  them,  deserve  the  punishment  of  Rajm. Undoubtedly,  if  Daarul  Islam  had  existed,  such  punishment would  have  been  forthcoming  for  such  vile  incubuses.

We  shall  now,  Insha  ’Allah,  proceed  to  explain  how  Rajm  would  operate  in  a  truly  Daarul Islam  region.

Rajm  is  a  prescribed  form  of  punishment  called  Hadd  (plural: Hudood).  In  the  ShariahHadd  is  a  fixed  prescribed  punishment,  the  execution  of  which  is  compulsory  as  a  Haqq  (Right)  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  It   unlike  Qisaas  (life  for  a  life,  for  example)  because  in Qisaas  is  the  Haqq  of  others  besides  Allah  Ta’ala,  hence  waiving  the  punishment  of  Qisaas  by  forgiveness  or  compromise  is permissible,  although  it  is  also  a  prescribed  form  of  punishment.  But,  the  class  of  Hudood  to  which  Rajm  is  assigned  does  not  entertain  forgiveness,  waiver  or  compromise  if  the  crime  is  proven  by  way  of  Bayyinah  (the  testimony  of  witnesses).

There  are  two  kinds  of  Hadd  for  zina  —  Jald  (lashes)  and  Rajm (stoning  to  death).  In  this  treatise  we  shall  deal  with  only  the operation  of  Rajm.

Rajm  comes  into  effect  with  the  condition  of  IhsaanIhsaan  for  the  validity  of  Rajm  is  a  combination  of  attributes  which  the  Shariah  stipulates  for  the  execution  of  Rajm.  In  the  absence  of  Ihsaan,  the punishment  of  Rajm  will  not  be  applicable.  There  are  seven  such attributes as follows:

(1) Aql  or  sanity. The  adulterer  must  be  a  sane  person.   
(2) Buloogh  or  puberty.  The  adulterer  must  be  an  adult.      (3) Hurriyyat  —  The  adulterer  must  be  a  free  person,  not  a slave.  
(4) Islam—  The  adulterer  must  be  a  Muslim.    
(5) An-Nikaahus  Saheeh —  The  adulterer  must  have  been  married  in  a  valid  Nikah.
(6) Both  husband  and  wife  in  the  Saheeh  Nikah  should  be  of these  attributes.  In  other  words,  both  (i.e.  the  husband  and  wife)  should  be  sane,  adults,  free  and  Muslims.  The  presence  of  these  attributes  in  them  both  is  a  condition  for  the  validity  of  their  Ihsaan.  When  these  attributes  exist  in  both  of  them,  they  (husband    and  wife)  will  be  said  to  be  muhsan,  i.e.  the  quality  of  Ihsaan  in  each  one.

(7)  Consummation  of  the  marriage  (i.e. sexual  intercourse) must  have  taken  place  in  the  Saheeh  Nikah  posterior  to  the existence  of  all  the  aforementioned  six  attributes.

If  any  one  of  these  attributes  is  lacking  in  the  adulterer,  Rajm will  not  apply  since  he/she  will  be  lacking  in  the  condition  of  Ihsaan  which  is  imperative  for the  Wujoob  of  Rajm.

Thus,  if  a  married  man  commits  adultery  before  he  consummated  his  Nikah  with  sexual  intercourse,  he  will  not  be  a  muhsin,  hence  Rajm  cannot  be  inflicted  on  him.  If  a  husband  or  wife  had contracted  a  Faasid  Nikah,  e.g.  only  one  witness  was  present,  then  Rajm  cannot  be  inflicted  on  any  one  of  them,  should  they  commit  adultery,  i.e.  indulge  in  sexual  relations  with  another   woman/man,  even  if  they  had  consummated  their Faasid  Nikah.

Similarly,  if  one  of  the  spouses  is  a  minor,  i.e.  has  not  attained  buloogh  (puberty),  then  even  if  the  Nikah  is  consummated,  none  of  the  spouses  will  be  a  muhsin.  Should  even  the  adult  spouse commit  adultery,  Rajm  will  not  be  inflicted.

In  the  meaning  of  the  Shariah  zina  is  the  voluntary  indulgence  in unlawful  vaginal  sexual  intercourse  with  a  living  woman  in  Daarul  Islam  by  a  person  on  whom  the  laws  of  Islam  are  incumbent,  while the  union  is  totally  devoid  of  any  semblance  of  mielk (right/ownership)  such  as  a  resemblance  with  Nikah  or  a  marriage  of doubtful  validity.  The  slightest  doubt  in  the  application  of  this comprehensive  concept  of  zina  to  the  act  of  adultery  will  cancel  the punishment of Rajm.

The  principle  underlying  the  cancellation  of  Rajm  with  the introduction  of  the  slightest  doubt  is  the  statement  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam): “Cancel  Hudood  with  doubts.”  In  other words,  if  a  doubt  develops  in  establishing  either  the  definition  of   zina  or  in  the  determination  of  the  attribute  of  Ihsaan,  the  punishment  of  Rajm  falls  away. 
Any  other  haraam  sexual  act  committed,  while  it  will  be  morally  zina,  in  the  technical  terminology  of  the  Shariah  it  will  not  be  zina,  hence  neither  Rajm  nor  Jald  will  apply.

Zina  will  be  proven  in  the court  of  the  Qaadhi  in  Daarul  Islam  in  two  ways:  Iqraar  (Confession)  or  Bayyinah  (Eye  Witnesses).

Zina  is  proven  by  the  confession  of  the  adulterer,  The  following  conditions  are  essential  for  the  validity  of  Iqraar:

(1) Buloogh  (Puberty):  The  confessor  must  be  an  adult  (one  who  has  attained  buloogh).

(2) An-Nutq  (Verbal  Confession):    The  confession  must  be  made  verbally  by  the  adulterer.  A  written  confession  is  not  valid. The  Qaadhi  will  not  entertain  a  written  confession.  If  a  dumb  person  (one  who  does  not  have  the  power  of  speech)  presents  a  written  confession,  it  will  be  rejected  by  the  Qaadhi.

(3)  Adad  (Number):  The    confession  has  to  be  made  four  times,  each  confession  in  a  separate  session.

(4)  Each  confession  should  be    made  in  the  presence  of  the Qaadhi.  A  confession  made  in  the  absence  of  the  Qaadhi  is  not  valid.  Thus,  if  the  adulterer  made  three  confessions  in  the  presence  of  the  Qaadhi,  and  one  in  the  presence  of  some  other  official,  his  confession  will  not  be  valid.  Even  if  four  witnesses  testify  that  the adulterer  had  made  a  confession,  it  will  not  be  valid  if  the  Qaadhi  was  not  present.

(5) Aql  (Sanity):  The  confessor  must  be  sane.  The  confession  of  an  intoxicated  person  is  not  valid.

(6) The  person  with  whom  adultery  was  allegedly  committed  should  be  one  who  is  able  to  defend  himself/herself  verbally.  Thus,  if  a  man  confesses  to  adultery  which  he  committed  with  a  dumb  woman,  his  confession  will  not  be  valid.

In  all  cases  where  the  confession  is  not  valid,  it  will  be  dismissed  by  the  Qaadhi  and  there  will  be  no  punishment  for  the  self-confessed  adulterer.

After  the  adulterer  had  made  four  confessions  in  the  presence  of  the  Qaadhi  in  four  different  sessions,  it  is  mandatory  for  the  Qaadhi to  institute  an  investigation  to  establish  the  sanity  and  other essential  attributes  of  the  confessor.  If  the  investigation  confirms  the  confessor’s  sanity,  etc.,  the  Qaadhi  will  then  interrogate  him  and  ask  him  to  explain  the  definition  of  zina,  how  he  had  committed  it, where  he  had  committed  it,  with  whom  he  had  committed  it,  and  when  he  had  committed  it. 

After  he/she  has  satisfactorily  answered  all  questions,  the  Qaadhi  will  question  him  regarding  his  state  of  Ihsaan.  Is  he  a  muhsin or  not?

If  the  confessor  says:  ‘I  am  a  muhsin.”,  the  Qaadhi  will  impose  on  him  to  explain  the  Shar’i  concept  of  Ihsaan.  The  reader  will  be  aware  from  the  explanation  on  Ihsaan  that  Ihsaan  is  a  concept  comprising  a  number  of  conditions.  These  conditions  are  not  within  the  knowledge  of  every  man  in  the  street.  Most  people  will  fail  to  correctly  explain  the  concept  of  Ihsaan.  If  there  is  any  flaw  or deficiency  in  his/her  explanation,  Rajm  will  not  be  imposed.

After  all  these  hurdles  have  been  cleared,  and  all  conditions  for  Rajm  have  been  satisfied  beyond  the  slightest  vestige  of  doubt,  the  Qaadhi  will  convict  the  adulterer  and  the  sentence  of  Rajm  will  be  passed..  If  after  conviction  and  sentence,  the  adulterer  retracts  his confession, it will be accepted and the sentence falls away.

It  is  significant  that  the  Shariah  does  not  allow  the  Qaadhi  to  accept  a  confession  or  to  convict  the  confessor  or  the  one  who  has  been  charged,  on  the  basis  of  his  (the  Qaadhi’s)  awareness  of  the  crime  to  which  he  was  an  eye  witness.  His  judgement  must  not  be influenced  by  his  own  awareness  of  the  crime  which  he  had  seen  being  committed.

Another  significant  factor  is  the  wording  of  the  definition  of  zina  which  the  confessor  has  to  explain.  If  he  says,  for  example:  “I  indulged  in  haraam  sexual  intercourse.”,  his  confession  will  be  dismissed  even  if  he  thereafter  presents  the  technical  definition.

The  confessor  has  the  right  to  retract  his  confession  at  any  time even  while  the  Rajm  is  in  progress.  The  adulterer  who  has  been sentenced  on  the  basis  of  his/her  confession,  will  not  be  shackled  or tied  in  any  way.  He  will  stand  in  an  open  place  observing  the  crowd and  the  mounds  of  stones  infront  of  him.  If  fear  overcomes  him  and  he  walks  away,  his  departure  will  be  registered  as  retraction.  The  Rajm  falls  away.  If  he  flees  under  the  barrage  of  stones,  his  flight  will  be  registered  as  a  retraction.  Rajm  will  fall  away  and  he  will  be  proclaimed  not  guilty.

If  the  confessor  after  his  conviction  adheres  to  his  confession,  but  withdraws  his  confession  in  relation  to  him  being  a  muhsin,  Rajm  falls  away.

The  Qaadhi  will  have  to  initiate  the  stone-throwing.  The  Shariah  exhorts  the  Qaadhi  to  induce  the  convicted  adulterer  to  retract  his  confession.  A  form  of  inducement  is  that  the  Qaadhi  should  say:  “Perhaps  you  only  touched  her  or  kissed  her.”  If  inspite  of  all  these opportunities  and  inducement  to  retract,  the  adulterer  refuses  and  resolutely  insists  that    Rajm  be  executed,  then  ofcourse,  there  is  no  other  option  but  to  carry  out  the  punishment.  However,  as mentioned  earlier,  the  adulteror  still  has  the  opportunity  of ’retracting’  by  simply  fleeing  or  walking  away  either  before  the stoning  begins  or  during  the  course  of  the  stoning.

Every  unbiased  person  can  now  pass  his/her  judgment.  The  Shariah  has  left  no  stone  unturned  in  a  bid  to  save  the  adulterer  from  Rajm.

Adultery  can  theoretically  be  proven  by  means  of  Bayyinah  as  well.  In  relation  to  zinaBayyinah  is  the  testification  of  four  eyewitnesses.  The  extremely  rigid  conditions  essential  for  valid  Bayyinah  will  explain  why  we  say:  Adultery  can  be  theoretically  proven  by Bayyinah.  The  type  of  Bayyinah  the  Shariah  requires  to  secure  a  conviction  in  a  zina  charge  makes  it  practically  impossible  to  secure  such  a  conviction.  The  conditions  for  the  validity  of  Bayyinah  are:

(1)  The  eye-witnesses  must  be  males.  The  testimony  of  even  a thousand  saintly  females  is  not  admissible  in  all  crimes  of  Hudood.
(2)  The  witnesses  must  be  Muslim.  
(3)  The  witnesses  must  be  adults.  
(4)  The  witnesses  must  be  sane.
(5)  The  testimony  must  be  verbal,  not  written.
(6)  The  testimony  must  be  in  the  presence  of  the  Qaadhi.
(7)  The  witnesses  must  be  Aadil,  i.e.  uprighteous,  honest,  truthful  and  saintly  men  who  are  well-known  in  society  for  their  moral  integrity  and  piety. (8)  The  number  of  witnesses  must  be  four.  The  severity  of  the  demands  of  this  condition  is  more  than  adequate  to  deter  any  man  who  contemplates  testifying  in  a  case  of  zina.  Only  eyewitness  accounts  are  admissible.  If  three  eye-  witnesses  come  forward  to  testify,  but  there  is  no  fourth  witness,  each  one  of  the  four  will  be  flogged  80  lashes.  If  after  four  Aadil  witnesses testified,  one  of  them  retracts  his  testimony,  all  four  will  be flogged  80  lashes  each. 

The  Qaadhi  will  institute  public  and  private  investigations  to establish  the  integrity    (Adaalat)  of  the  four  witnesses.  If  he  discovers  a  discrepancy  in  the  adaalat  of  even  one  witness,  all  four  will  be  flogged  80  lashes  each. 

These  severe  and  stringent  requirements  make  it  too  dangerous  for  eye-witnesses  to  come  forward  to  testify.  Furthermore,  saintly  people  will  not  come  forward  to  testify.  They  know  that  the  Shariah exhorts  Muslims  to  conceal  sins  and  not  to  publicize  them.  The  Shariah  does  not  make  it  incumbent  on  eye-witnesses  to  report  sins  or  to  testify.  It  is  therefore,  practically  impossible  to  secure  a  conviction  on  the  basis  of  Bayyinah.

The  Qaadhi,  after  having  established  the  Islamic  integrity  of  the  Four  witnesses  will  interrogate  them  in  the  same  manner  described  in  the explanation  of  the  procedure  for  the  confessor.  A  further requirement  is  that  the  witnesses  will  have  to  testify   as  follows:  “We  saw  him  having  intercourse  with  her  in  her  vagina  like  the  stick  inside  the  surmah  container (i.e.  like  a  key  inside  the  lock).”

No  man,  leave  alone  a  saintly  man,  can  ever  hope  to  witness zina  being  committed  in  this  naked  manner.  This  very  impossible  requirement  stipulated  by  the  Shariah  is  to  ensure  that  there  can  be  no  conviction  on  the  basis  of  Bayyinah.  The  practical  impossibility  of  four  pious,  saintly  men  observing  in  the  darkness,  under  cover  of blankets  Zina  being  committed    so  explicitly  as  the  Qaadhi demands,  should  be  self-evident.

From  the  explanation  in  the  aforegoing  pages,  it  will  be  abundantly clear  that  it  is  well  nigh  impossible  for  a  Shariah  court  to  convict people  of  adultery  on  the  basis  of  Bayyinah.  Shar’i  Bayyinah  is  not practically  possible  to  achieve.  Conviction  can  be  secured  only  on the  basis  of  the  Shar’i  process  of  Iqraar  (Confession)  which  itself  is  an extremely difficult process as the requisites confirm.

Only  men  and  women  whose  hearts  are  saturated  with  Divine  Fear and  Divine  Love,  and  who  have  the  accountability  of  the  Divine  Court  of  the  Aakhirah  uppermost  in  their  minds  —  only  such  people  will  demand  that  Rajm  be  inflicted  on  them.  In  other  words,  it  will  be  Rajm  by  the  demand  of  the  adulterors,  and  in  most  cases their  demand  will  not  be  satisfied  on  account  of  the  technicalities  of  the  Shariah’s  legal  process.

Three  zina  convictions  in  recent  years  testify  to  the incompetence  of  the  Qaadhis  manning  the  Shariah  courts.  A  few  years  ago  a  Saudi  princess  and  her  lover  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Saudi  royal  family,  were  executed  by  a  firing  squad.  The  method  of  execution  was  neither  Rajm  nor  Jald,  which  are  the  only prescribed  forms  of  punishment  for  adultery  and  fornication according  to  the  Shariah.  Neither  was  the  crime  proven  on  the  basis  of  Iqraar    (Confession)  nor  by  Bayyinah    (the  testimony  of  four  saintly  persons).  There  were  conflicting  reports  on  the  status  of  the couple.  The  ambiguity  and  doubt  were  clear  facets  of  this  case.  It  is  quite  evident  that  neither  were  the  proceedings  proper  nor  the  punishment  in  accordance  with  the  Shariah,  yet  a  so-called  Shar’i  court  handed  down  the  punishment.  It  is  therefore  improper  to equate  the  Saudi  court’s  conviction  and  sentence  with  the  Shariah.  Although  the  sentence  was  handled  by  the  Saudi  ’Shariah’  court,  it  cannot be  substantiated  on  Shar’i grounds.

The  second  case  was  truly  bizarre.  A  woman  was  convicted  of  zina  in  Pakistan  during  the  then  State  of  Pakistan  while  Ziyaul  Haq  was  the  president.  A  properly    constituted  Shar’i  court  found  the  woman  guilty  of  zina  and  decreed  Rajm  for  her.  We  learnt  of  this  case  via  the  Evening  Post,  our  local  daily  in  Port  Elizabeth.  From  the  facts  mentioned  in  the  press  report,  we  were  convinced  that  the  Shariah  Court  had  committed  a  grievious  error  in  its  judgement.  It  had  handled  the  case  very  incompetently  and  the  Hadith  Principle  of “Ward  off  Hudood  with  doubts.”,  was  completely ignored.  Several  valid  and  serious  doubts  clouded  the  whole  case.  Inspite  of  these  grave  doubts,  the  Court  convicted  the  woman  and  ordered  Rajm. 

The  relevant  press  report  is  reproduced  here  for  better  understanding  of  the  readers.

Press Report- Evening Post 3-12-1987
Shahida Parveen dabbed hear tears with the corner of her shawl as she was told of her conviction for adultery and rape, and her sentence under Pakistan’s Islamic Law: death by stoning.

Shahida, 25, from the central city of Faisalabad , wore a prison uniform, a wedding ring and a nose pin, a traditional ornament on the subcontinent. “I couldn’t believe it when I heard the sentence,” she said through an interpreter. “It’s all a false case, I just pray to God for my innocence and leave everything to Him.” She insists she is legally married to her cousin, Mohammed Sarwar. But the court rejected her claim and concluded that she is still married to Khushi Mohammed, who has brought the case of adultery against her. Shahida maintains that Khushi divorced her in April 1986 because she could not have children and because he wanted to marry another woman. The court held, however, that the divorce papers produced by Shahida and Sarwar were forged, and that their marriage was illegal. 

“I hold that she commited zena-il-jabe (rape),” ruled judge Nasiruddin Abro. “I therefore convict them of the offence of zena (adultery) Ordinance 1979 and I order that she shall be stoned to death at a public place.”

RESPECTED Shahida blames her step-mother, Khorshid, a cousin of Khushi, for her arrest. She said Khorshid who is only 35, wanted her to marry another cousin, who is deaf and dumb, after her divorce from Khushi. “I refused and finally married the man of my own choice.” she said. She said Sarwar, 27, loves her.  “He looked after me.  Provided me with food and respected me.  I was happy.”   Shahida told of leaving Karachi to stay with her aunt in Lahore to the north, and of the difficulty of being a divorced woman in a traditional society like Pakistan. “I had problems with people talking behind my back or making passing remarks,” Shahida said of the social pressure on her. So her aunt’s son consented to marry her 90 days after her divorce, according to a rule in Islam.  That happiness lasted only two weeks when police came to arrest her and Sarwar at their home and took them to a police station in Karachi.  Twelve days later she was transferred to jail.

The  sentence  was  set  to  be  meted  out  in  a  matter  of  days.  In  the execution  of  our  duty  of  Amr  Bil  Ma’roof  Nahy  Anil  Munkar  (Commanding  Righteousness  and  Prohibiting    evil),  we  sent  the following  telegram  (there  were  no  fax  machines  in  1987)  to  the President  of  Pakistan:

“In  the  Name  of  Allah.  The  execution  of  Shahida  Parveen  and  Mohammed  Sarwar.  Rajm  in  this  case  not  applicable    in  terms  of  Shariah.  Rasulullah  said  Hudood  are  cancelled  by    the  element  of  doubt.  Our  letter  of  explanation  has  been  posted  to  you  today. Stay  execution  at  least  until  you  have  read  our  letter  stating  the  Law  of  Allah  in  this  case.”

ASSALAMU ALAIKUM                     4th December 1987
12th  Rabiuth  Thaani  1408

President Ziyaul Haq Government of Pakistan Islamabad, PAKISTAN


Enclosed  herewith  is  a  press  report  which  appeared  in  our  local press.  We  have  no  facts  and  information  on  the  case  mentioned other  than  what  appears  in  the  press  report.  Since  the  matter  is  of the  gravest  importance  in  view  of  the  lives  of  Muslims  being involved,  we  are  presuming  that  the  report  is  correct.  Until  further  facts  come  to  light  we  have  no  grounds  to  dismiss  the  report  as  false.  

According  to  the  report,  one  sister,  Shahida  Parveen  of  Faisalabad  has  been  sentenced  to  be  stoned  to  death  (Rajm)  for  having  committed  adultery.  However,  from  what  we  have  gleaned  from  the  report,  there  is  insufficient  evidence  for  the  imposition  of  the  Rajm sentence  or  for  even    Jald  (100  lashes)  in  terms  of  the  Shariah. Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  made  it  abundantly  clear  that  Hudood  are  waived  by  the  introduction  of  the  element  of  doubt.  In  this  regard  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“Hudood  are  waived with doubts.”

In  the  case  under  discussion  there  seems  to  be  the  strong  element of  doubt  (in  fact  doubts).  This  element  exists  very  strongly  in  view  of the  woman’s  claim  that  she  is  married  to  Sarwar.  Her  claim  of marriage  is  sufficient  in  the  Shariah  for  waiving  of  Rajm.  In  fact  the  sentence  of  Rajm  cannot  be  handed  in  view  of  this  strong  doubt.  The  Kutub  of  the  Shariah  make  this  fact  abundantly  clear.

Furthermore,  even  if  she  is  not  legally  married,  we  fail  to  understand how  the  crime  of  zina  has  been  proved  against  her  in  view  of  the stringent  conditions  imposed  by  the  Shariah  for  proving  the  crime of  adultery.  The  enclosed  article  which  we  had  published  sometime  ago  in  our  Islamic  periodical,  The  Majlis,  explains  in  detail  the  requirements  stipulated  by  the  Shariah  for  the  capital  punishment  of    Rajm  to  become  legally  applicable.  We  plead  with  you  to  peruse  the  article  carefully,  and  should  any  miscarriage  of  Islamic  justice  have  been  committed,  it  should  be  rectified. 

The  matter  is  of  vital     importance  to  Muslims  and  we  feel  strongly  about  this  matter.  The  life  of  a  woman,  most  probably  innocent,  is  at  stake.  While  the  introduction  of  the  Islamic  Penal  system  in  Pakistan  is  laudable,  it  is  imperative  to  ensure  that  all the  conditions  and  requirements  of  the  Shariah  in  this  regard  are  fulfilled. 

A  man  and  a  woman  living  together  illegally,  while  abominable  and  sinful,  is  not  zina  in  the  technical  language  of  the  Shariah.  If  the  police  found  Shahida  and  Sarwar  living  together  as  man  and  wife,  such  discovery  does  not  prove  the  commission  of  zina  in  terms  of the  Shariah.  If  the  nikah  claimed  by  Shahida  has  been  confirmed to  be  illegal  in  the  Shariah,  the  Qaadhi  can    only  issue  a  decree  of separation.  But  no  Islamic  court  has  the  right  to  impose  the  Hadd  of  Rajm  (or  Jald)  on  the  couple  because  they  happen  to  be  living  together  illegally.

Zina  can  only  be  proved  if  four  pious/saintly  (Aadil)  male  witnesses  observed  with  their  own  eyes  the  couple  had  indulged  in  the  actual  act  of  sexual  intercourse.  We  are  certain  that  the  police  (four  Aadil  ones  among  them)  could  not  have  observed  the  commission  of  the  act  of  sexual  intercourse  in  its  explicit  and  naked  details  allegedly   committed  by  the  two.  The    Shariah  stipulates  that  the  actual  sexual  act  of  intercourse  in  its  naked  details  has  to  be  observed  by  four  pious  male  witnesses  with  their  own  eyes.  But  it  is  practically  impossible  for  such  explicit  evidence  forthcoming  from  pious  persons  even  if  they  had  witnessed  the  act  with  their  own  eyes  (which  ofcourse,  is  not  practically  possible).

It  is  clear  to  us  and  quite  obvious  that  the  court  has  overstepped  the limits  of  the  Shariah  and  has  imposed  the  sentence  of  Rajm without  having  obtained  the  required  Shar’i  evidence.  The  due Islamic  or  Shar’i  process  of  Justice  has  not  been  followed.  In  the circumstances  it  is  imperative  that  you  as  the  Father  of  the  Nation, as  President  of  Pakistan,  urgently  look  into  the  matter  and  prevent the  execution  of  an  act  of  zulm  of  the  gravest  degree.  May  Allah Ta’ala bestow to you the necessary taufeeq. Was-salaam    

MUJLISUL ULAMA OF SOUTH AFRICA   ***********************  

Alhamdulillaah!  The  lady  was  granted  a  reprieve  and  the sentence  set  aside  most  probably  due  to  international  kuffaar  pressure,  not  due  to  any  concern  for  the  Shariah.  This  is  the  lamentable  condition  of  Muslims  in  this  age.

Let  us  now  examine  the  Shariah  court’s  ruling  in  the  light  of  the  Shariah.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  instructed  that  the  introduction  of  doubts  cancels  Hudood.  This  principle  applies  to  all  Hudood  punishments,  not  only  to  Rajm.  In  the  Pakistani  case,   the  following  factors  established  the  incidence  of  doubts  beyond any  shadow  of  doubt:

(1) The  lady  resolutely  claimed  that  she  was  legally  married  to the  man.

(2) She  claimed  that  her  former  husband  had  divorced  her.

(3) She held divorce papers to prove that she was divorced.

These  three  factors  are  more  than  ample  for  the  introduction  of  doubt  as  far  as  the  trial  and  the  Qaadhi  are  concerned.  As  far  as  the  accused  are  concerned,  they  did  not  commit  and  unlawful  act.  Hence,  assuming  that  she  was  caught  red-handed  indulging  in  sexual  intercourse,  it  would  not  be  zina.  The  court,  therefore,  had no  right  to  convict  her  of  zina  and  order  her  to  die  by  Rajm.

According  to  the  Shariah,  the  validity  of  divorce  is  not  reliant  on  witnesses  nor  on  documentary  evidence.  Thus,  if  a  man  issues  three  divorces  or  one  Talaaq  Baa-in  to  his  wife,  then  she  is  fully  within  her  Shar’i  right  to  consider  herself  divorced.  In  fact,  she  is  under obligation  to  separate  herself  from  the  man  and  not  allow   him  to  approach  her.  Even  if  he  denies  having  issued  Talaaq,  the  Shariah’s  ruling  is  “The  woman  is  like  the  Qaadhi.”  In  other  words,  in  the  matter  of  decreeing  Talaaq,  just  as  the  Qaadhi  executes  this  function,  so  too  can  the  woman  decree  that  she  is  finally  divorced  from  the  man  if  she  is  convinced  that  he  had  given  her  three  Talaaqs  or  one  Talaaq  Baa-in.

If  in  an  Islamic  court  in  Daarul  Islam,  the  Qaadhi  rejects  the  woman’s  claim  of  Talaaq  due  to  lack  of  evidence  (witnesses)  and  orders  her  to  return  to  her  husband,  she  will  have  to  submit  to  the  Qaadhi’s  ruling.  However,  in  view  of  the  strong  element  of  doubt  in  the  ruling  of  the  Qaadhi,  and  the  certainty  of  Talaaq  in  the woman’s  mind,  she  will  not  be  sinful  if  she  resorts  to  some stratagem  to  escape  from  the  clutches  of  the  man  whom  she honestly  believes  is  not  her  husband.  When  a  woman  in  such  a  situation  claims  that  she  has  been  divorced,  then  even  if  it  is  not  accepted  by  a  court,  the  element  of  doubt  does  exist,  and  this  does  not allow  the  imposition  of  the  Hadd  punishment.

Furthermore,  the  fact  that  she  claimed  that  she  was  married  to  the  man,  Sarwar,  is  a  very  strong  factor  for  her  acquittal.  An  Islamic  marriage  for  its  validity  does  not  require  any  documents  or  certificates.  Only  two  witnesses  will  suffice  for  the  validity  of  the  nikah.  The  court  had  rejected  the  validity  of  her  nikah,  not  because  there  were  no  witneses  to  the  nikah,  but  on  the  basis  that  she  was  still  ’legally’  married  to  another  chap.  But  she  persisted  in  her claim  that  this  chap  was  no  longer  her  husband  and  that  she  had  married  another  man.  Thus,  her  Nikah  with  Sarwar  was  in  dispute.  A  disputed  Nikah  is  termed  An-Nikaahul  Mukhtalaf  Feeh  which  makes  an  acquittal  mandatory. 

Even  if  her  claims  could  have  been  disproved  with  proper  Shar’i  evidence  —  which  was  not  done  —  then  too  the  doubt  remained  in  a  very  very  strong  degree  of  probability,  hence  a  conviction  in  any crime necessitating  Hadd  is  simply  not  valid.

According  to  the  Shariah  a  marriage  termed  ‘Shubhatun    Nikah’  (Doubtful  nikah)  wards  off  the  sentence  of  Hadd.  Neither  Rajm  nor  Jald  can  be  imposed  if  there  had  transpired  such  an  invalid  nikah,  e.g.  nikah  without  witnesses.  So,  even  if  the  woman  had  failed  to  produce  the  witnesses  to  her  nikah  with  Sarwar,  the  shubah  (doubt)  is  a  Shar’i  verdict  which  cannot  be  dismissed.  It  has  to  be  incumbently  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Qaadhi  who  is compelled  by  the  Shariah  to  acquit  the  accused  on  the  basis  of  this  shubah.

The  Court  also  had  committed  a  grievous  error  in  opening  up  an  investigation  into  her  claim  of  divorce  and  subsequent  marriage.  The  court  was  over-zealous  in  striving  for  a  conviction  in  the  way  prosecutors  do  in  a  western  court. 

The  court  had  no  right  to  initiate  another  trial  within  the  trial  of  zina.  If  the  man  who  claimed  that  he  was  the  husband  of  this  lady,  wanted  her  back  believing  her  to  be  his  wife,  he  was  supposed  to  have  instituted  legal  proceedings  in  a  separate  case.  It  was  improper  to  have  brought  up  this  matter  in  the  zina  trial.  But  the  Shariah  court  conducted  the  proceedings  in  a  manner  unbefitting  of  a  proper  Shariah  court.  It  befitted  a  western  court.  This  attitude  for a  Shariah  court  is  most  despicable  and  haraam  since  Allah  Ta’ala  and  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  exhorted  and  emphasized  that  the  crime  should  be  concealed  and  as  far  as  possible  the  culprits  be  exonerated. 

The  very  fact  that  the  court  had  investigated  her  claim  regarding  divorce  and  marriage  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  element  of  doubt.  If  there  was  no  doubt,  the  need  for  an  investigation  to  establish  the worth of  her  claim  would  not  have  arisen.

Of  crucial  importance  is  the  fact  that  Khushi  (the  ex-husband  according  to  Shahida)  brought  the  case  of  adultery  against  her.  The  accuser  had  not  produced  four  pious  male  eye-witnesses  to  prove  that  she  had  committed  zina.  In  terms  of  the  Shariah  the  court  had  to  order  him  to  receive  a  flogging  of  80  lashes.

The  most  bizarre  aspect  of  this  case  was  that  the  Shariah  court  had  convicted  the  woman  of  zina  and  had  imposed  the  sentence  of  Rajm  without  the  mandatory  four  eye-witnesses.  The  police  arrived  at  her  home  and  simply  arrested  her  and  the  man  whom  she  claims  was  her  husband.  Then  they  were  charged  with  adultery.  It  is difficult  to  believe  that  the  judge  was  a  Shar’i  Qaadhi.  He  must  have  been  a  secular  magistrate  of  a  westernized  secular  court  promoted  to  the  post  of  a  Qaadhi,  hence  he  issued  the  stupid  ruling  of  Zinal  bil  Jabar (rape).

The  question  of  rape  does  not  arise,  not  in  terms  of  the  Shariah  nor  in  terms  of  western  law.  A  man  and  woman  are  living  together willingly.  Even  if  they  were  not  married,  the  question  of  rape  does  not  feature  any  where.  It  appears  as  if  the  qaadhi  or  perhaps  the  secular  magistrate  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of  Zina  bil Jabar

The  hatred  for  Islam  harboured  by  the  kuffaar  becomes  manifest  in  their  criticism  and  attacks  against,  not  only  Rajm,  but  against  the  entire  Penal  System  of  Islam.  In  fact,  their  attacks  are  not  confined to  the  Penal  Code  of  Islam.  These  attacks  are  directed  at  Islam  and  all  its  beliefs  and  practices.  About  their  hatred,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  states:

“Verily,  hatred  from  their  hearts has  spewed  from  their  mouth.  But  what  their  breasts  conceal  is  worse.”  

In  their  attacks  against  Islamic  beliefs  and  practices.  The  cult  of  liberalism  with  which  kuffaar  educational  institutions  indoctrinate  Muslims  have  spawned  a  breed  of  hypocrites  in  the  Ummah.  That  disease  of  malice  and  hatred  for  Islam  have  been  subtly  extended  into  the  hearts  of  the  modernists  who  vividly  epitomize  the  kufr  of  their  years  of  indoctrination  when  they  come  out  in  defence  of  the  western  critics  of  Islam  each  time  they  target  an  Islamic  practice  or  belief  for  ridicule  and  condemnation.  The  most  recent  example  is  Rajm.

Alhamdulillah,  this  article  answers  adequately  and  conclusively  the  fallacies  which  the  enemies  with  the  aid  of  the  zindeeqs,  mulhids and  munaafiqs  in  the  Ummah  have  spun  around  this  immutable injunction  of  Islam.

THE DETERRENT VALUE OF RAJM From  the  elaboration  of  Rajm  which  has  been  presented  in  this  discussion,  it  should  be  evident  that  the  primary  value  of  both  Jald  (flogging)  and  Rajm  (Stoning),  in  fact  of  all  the  Hudood  punishments,  is  their  deterrent  value.  Throughout  the  history  of Islam,  the  Hudood  had  precisely  acted  in  this  capacity.  We, therefore  find,  a  neglible  crime  rate  wherever  a  true  Darul  Islam  had  existed.

Aspects  of  the  Shariah  does  not  qualify  a  state  for  being  a government  of  the  Shariah.  Nevertheless,  even  where  aspects  of  the  Shariah’s  penal  system  operate,  the  crime  is  negligible comparatively  speaking.  Saudi  Arabia  is  an  example,  and  a  better example  was  the  Taliban  of  Afghanistan  where  every person — man  or  woman — could  walk  freely,  during  the  day  or  night, anywhere  in  the  land  without  the  fear  of  being  accosted  and  molested  by  thugs,  murderers,  robbers,  bandits,  rapists  and  the  like  of  criminals  which  western  civilization  breeds.

The  disappearance  of  the  Taliban  State  and  its  substitution  with  the  American  kufr  state  of  Kerzai,  has  reintroduced  the  pre-Taliban  total  anarchy  and  reign  of  crime  in  that  luckless  land. 

A  perusal  of  the  discussion  on  the  stringent  requisites  for  the operation  of  Hadd-e-Zina  (Punishment  for  Adultery)  indicates  with  clarity  that  the  only  way  in  which  a  conviction  of  adultery  can  be  secured  in  an  Islamic  court  is  by  the  voluntary  confession  of  the culprit.  And,  even  this  system  of  confession  which  is  unparalleled  and  unique,  renders  the  confession  inadmissible  if  the  slightest discrepancy  develops  in  the  wording  of  the  verbal  confession  which has  to  be  compulsorily  renewed  in  four  different  sessions  in  front  of the  Qaadhi.

In  fact,  the  Shariah  has  designed  its  system  to  deliberately  introduce  flaws  into  a  voluntary  confession  with  a  view  to  dismiss  it.  Islam  emphasizes  concealment  of  the  sin  and  exhorts  the  sinners  to purify  themselves  by  taking  the  moral  route,  i.e.  Taubah  (Repentence),  hence  the  Qaadhi  is  instructed  to  plead  with  the confessor  after  his  conviction  and  just  before  practically  executing  the  sentence,  to  retract.  Which  system  is  more  humane  and  considerate  for  Insaan  than  this  divine  immutable  Shariah  of  Allah Ta’ala. 

Never  can  zina  be  proved  by  way  of  eye-witnesses.  It  should  be remembered  that  the  Shariah  NEVER  convicts  people  on  the  basis  of  circumstancial  evidence  which  is  a  fallacy  as  far  as  the  Islamic  court  is  concerned.  The  impossible  conditions  which  the  Shariah  stipulates  for  this  type  of  evidence  is  a  formidable  barrier  for  anyone  contemplating  to  step  forward  to  accuse  a  person  of  zina  or  to  testify  in  such  a  case.  He  is  fully  aware  that  the  sword  of  80  lashes  is  suspended  above  his  head.  It  is  just  not  possible  to  secure  a  conviction  on  the  basis  of  Bayyinah  —  the  testification  of  four  saintly  eye-witnesses  who  observed  the  sexual  act  of  intercourse  being  perpetrated  in  its  explicit  detail.

Inspite  of  this  impossibility  to  prove  the  commission  of  zina,  the  masses  of  people  are  and  have  always  been  ignorant  of  this  fact.  As  far  as  they  are  concerned,  they  have  to  be  very  careful  and  abstain  from  the  immorality  of  zina.  They  do  so  either  on  account  of  fear  for  Allah  Ta’ala  or  for  fear  of  the  relevant  Hadd  —  whipping  or  stoning.  They  are  blissfully  ignorant  of  the  legal  technicalities  which  make conviction  impossible,  hence  the  deterrent  value  remains.  So  has  it  been,  and  so  shall  it  remain.

In  a  truly  Islamic  governed  nation,  the  masses  will  be,    by  intentional  design,  kept  in  the  dark  of  the  legal  technicalities  of  the  Shariah  which  render  conviction  a  total  impossibility.  Darul  Islam  governed  region  will  not  allow  books  such  as  the  one  we  are  here  presenting,  to  be  published  and  disseminated.  The  knowledge  of  these  facts  will  be  the  preserve  of  those  who  pursue  the  Ilm  of  the  Deen  at  the  higher  academic  level.  In  comparison  to  the  general  population,  this  is  a  small  percentage.  In  short,  the  Darul Islam  government  will  ensure  that  the  masses  hardly  gain   information  of  such  knowledge  which  will  negate  the  deterrent  value  of  the  Hudood  and  open  a  wide  avenue  for  evil  and  immorality.  It  is  worthwhile  to  remember  that  Islam  does  not  subscribe  to  the  western  concept  of  freedom  of  the  press  and  free  dissemination  of  just  every  kind  of  muck,  filth,  and  pornography  which  are  among  the  salient  features  of  western  civilization.  And,  this  type  of  censorship  is  imposed  by  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  which  states:

“When  there  comes  to  them  a  matter  pertaining  to  either  safety  or  fear,  they  publicize  it.  And,  if  they  referred  it  to  the  Rasool  and  the  Ulul  Amr  (leaders)  among  them,  then  most  certainly,  those  whom  (are  experienced)  among      them  will  investigate  it  and know  it.” [aayat 83 Surah Nisaa’]

Only  after  due  investigation,  if  the  authorities  deem  it  appropriate,  will  they  release  the  news  or  information  for  public  consummation.  This  is  the  Shariah  of  Islam  —  the  Divine  Shariah  which  is  unique  and which  stands  poles  apart  from  all  worldly  and  kufr  cults  and  civilizations.

The  Islamic  Penal  Code  and  all  other  departments  of  the  Deen cannot  be  gauged  and  measured  by  the  ’shariah’  courts  of  the present  day.

There  is  no  Islamic  government  anywhere  on  earth.  Nigeria  is governed  by  a  Christian  regime.  The  shariah  courts  existing  in  the  predominantly  Northern  region  are  not  Shar’i  courts  in  the  true  sense.

They  really  have  no  coercive  authority.  Besides  being  stripped  of  full  coercive  power,  there  is  a  dearth  of  true  Islamic  Knowledge  as  well. Precisely  for  these  reasons  had  it  become  imperative  to  buckle under  international  kuffar  pressure;  to  conduct  an  appeal  in  western  style,  and  in  fact  to  have  convicted  the  woman  in  the  first  place.  There  were  discrepancies  which  the  court  had  either  ignored  or  had  been  ignorant  of. 

While  we  have  inveigled  against  the  miscreants  and  modernists  in  our  community,  we  nevertheless,  supplicate  to  Allah  Ta’ala  to  bestow  to  them  the  taufeeq  to  understand  their  folly  and  return  to  Imaan.  And,  may  Allah  Ta’ala  preserve  our  Imaan  as  well.  No  one  knows  what  the  morrow  holds  for  him.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  said,  Imaan  is  suspended  between  hope  and  fear.  And  the  conclusion  of  our  Call  is:  All  praise  is  due  unto  Allah,  the  Rabb  of  all  the  worlds.  We  supplicate  to  Allah  Ta’ala  to  accept  this  little  and  humble  effort  in  the  service  of  His  Deen.

Judeo-Christian Allegation on Sulayman Alayhis Salaam (Solomon) being a Magician

Claims Regarding Prophet Sulaymaan
It is widespread amongst the Jews, Christians and the Occultists that Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salaam) practiced magic, and some of them consider him to be a magician and not a Prophet. There are many other claims and associations made with respect to Sulayman (alayhis salaam) which he is free of. In this article we want to clarify the Qur’anic treatment of this subject which absolves and exonerates Sulayman (alayhis salaam) from the false things attributed to him.

The Qur’an on Prophet Sulayman, the Devils, Magic and Babylon
First the passage in the Qur’an on this subject, Allah, the Most High, said in Surah al-Baqarah:

وَلَمَّا جَاءهُمْ رَسُولٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ نَبَذَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ كِتَابَ اللّهِ وَرَاء ظُهُورِهِمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ. وَاتَّبَعُواْ مَا تَتْلُواْ الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَى مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـكِنَّ الشَّيْاطِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّى يَقُولاَ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلاَ تَكْفُرْ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّقُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَزَوْجِهِ وَمَا هُم بِضَآرِّينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلاَ يَنفَعُهُمْ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُواْ لَمَنِ اشْتَرَاهُ مَا لَهُ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنْ خَلاَقٍ وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَوْاْ بِهِ أَنفُسَهُمْ لَوْ كَانُواْ يَعْلَمُونَ

And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah (Muhammad) confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the Scripture threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know! They followed what the Shayaateen (devils) gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulayman (Solomon).  Sulayman did not disbelieve, but the Shayaateen (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels, Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, “We are only for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).” And from these (angels) people learn that by which they cause separation between man and his wife, but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s permission. And they learn that which harms them and profits them not. And indeed they knew that the buyers of it (magic) would have no share in the Hereafter. And how bad indeed was that for which they sold their ownselves, if they but knew. [Al-Baqarah 2:101-102]

We can turn to the classical commentaries of Ibn Jareer at-Tabari and Ibn Kathir for the explanation of these verses, part by part, so what follows will be based upon these commentaries.

Background to the Verse on Magic

وَلَمَّا جَاءهُمْ رَسُولٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ نَبَذَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ كِتَابَ اللّهِ وَرَء ظُهُورِهِمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُون

And when there came to
them a Messenger from Allah (Muhammad) confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the Scripture threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know!  

Ibn Kathir explains that this refers to a faction amongst the Jews who threw the Torah behind their backs when they learned that the glad tidings of the Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ are found within it, and that they abandoned it as if they did not know that this (knowledge) was in it. Instead they resorted to magic (witchcraft, sorcery), and Ibn Kathir makes mention of Labeed bin al-A’sam, the Jew who practiced witchcraft upon the Prophet ﷺ, with the use of a comb thrown into a well. At-Tabari explains likewise that this verse is in rebuke of the Jews who were in the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and rejected his prophethood despite knowing he was a messenger, and in rebuke of them not acting upon this knowledge which is in their hands (in the Torah), and their following of their ancestors who followed what the devils rehearsed to them in the kingship of Sulayman (of magic).

This verse leads into the next one which continues on the subject of magic.

The Devils in the Time of Sulaymaan (alayhis salaam)

وَاتَّبَعُواْ مَا تَتْلُواْ الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَى مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَنَ

They followed what the Shayaateen (devils) gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulayman (Solomon)…

At-Tabari brings narrations:

From Mujaahid: That this that the devils (shayaateen) used to listen to the revelation (in his time) and whenever they caught something of it, they added two hundred other words like it. So Sulayman consfiscated these books from them, and when Sulaymaan died, the devils found them and taught the people from them, which was magic.

From Qatadah: That this refers to soothsaying and magic, and that Allaah mentions here that the devils innovated books in which there was magic, and then they spread it amongst the people and taught it to them.

Ibn Abbaas: That the devils in the time of Sulayman wrote books in which there was magic and disbelief, then they buried them under the throne of Sulayman, and later they brought them out and read them to the people.

Magic Was Taught By the Devils and Sulayman (alayhis salaam) Was Free From It

وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـكِنَّ الشَّيْاطِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ

Sulayman did not disbelieve, but the Shayaateen (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic…  

At-Tabari explains that in this verse that what Allaah ascribed to the devils, the Jews ascribed to Sulayman (alayhis salaam), claiming that it was from his knowledge, and that he subjugated the men, Jinn and devils (shayaateen), and other creatures of Allaah through magic. And on account of this belief of their’s they justified to the people their own actions in doing what Allaah had made unlawful upon them of magic. And then they said that Sulayman (alayhis salaam) was not a Prophet but a magician, so Allaah absolved Sulayman bin Dawud (alayhis salaam) from magic and kufr against the claims made against him, and also declared as liars those justifying their practice of magic, and Allaah exposed them in that they were simply following the magic that the devils rehearsed to them during the era of Sulayman (alayhis salaam).

Ibn Kathir brings a narration:

Muhammad bin Ishaaq bin Yasaar: That the devils wrote books on types of magic, after they knew of Sulayman’s death, and so they wrote “Whoever wishes to attain such and such, let him do such and such”, and they put all of this into a book, and then placed a seal on it upon the seal of Prophet Sulayman and they wrote as its title, “This is What Aasif bin Burkhyaa the Friend of the King Sulayman Wrote of the Kept Treasures of Knowledge”. Then they buried it beneath his throne. Later, some of the Children of Israel found this book and they said, “By Allaah Sulayman’s (alayhis salaam) kingdom was not except by way of this (magic)”. So they spread this magic amongst the people, they learned it and taught it, and magic is not found amongst anyone more than amongst the Jews…

And at-Tabari brings a number of narrations:

Ibn Hawshab: He states similar to what was said by Ibn Ishaq above, and explains that the devils would write, “Whoever wants to arrive at such and such let him turn to the sun and let him say such and such. And whoever wants [to be able] to do such and such, let him face his back to the sun and let him say such and such.” So they wrote the likes of this and put it in a book, and gave it the same title as mentioned by Ibn Ishaq above. Then they buried it under Sulayman’s (alayhis salaam) throne.

When Sulayman died, Iblees  stood as a khateeb and said, “O people, verily Sulayman was not a prophet, but he was a magician, so hold to his magic which is in his place of retreat and in his houses”, then he showed them the place in which it was buried, and when they found it they said, “By Allaah, Sulayman was a magician, and this is his magic, with it shall we worship, and through it shall we subdue (others)”. However, the believers amongst those Jews said, “Rather, he was a Prophet, a believer”. Then, when Allaah sent the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, he mentioned the Prophets, until he mentioned Dawud and Sulayman, so the Jews said, “Look at Muhammad, mixing truth with falsehood, he is mentioning  Sulayman along with the Prophets, he was merely a magician who would carry the winds”, so Allah revealed the verse, Sulayman did not disbelieve, but the Shayaateen (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic…

Saeed bin Jubair: That Sulayman (alayhis salaam) use to follow up what was in the hands of the devils of magic, and he took it from them and put it all under his throne in his treasure house. The devils were not able to reach it, so they came to the men and said “Do you want the knowledge by which Sulayman used to subjugate the devils and the winds and other (things)?” They said, “Yes”, and so the devils directed them to the treasure house, under the throne. So the men found it and then began acting upon it. This (false claim) continued until the people of Hijaz said that Sulayman (alayhis salaam) used to also practice this, and that this is magic. Then Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, revealed, upon the tongue of Muhammad ﷺ the exoneration of Sulayman from that.

Qatadah: The devils innovated a book in which there was magic and they spread it amongst the people teaching it to them. When Sulayman (alayhis salaam) heard of it, he followed up those books, took them and buried them under his throne, hating that the people would learn from them. When Allaah took Sulayman (alayhis salaam) away, the devils took out those books from where they were and taught them to the people. They (the devils) said that this is the knowledge that Sulayman used to conceal and keep to himself. So Allaah excused Sulayman and exonerated him, saying, Sulayman did not disbelieve, but the Shayaateen (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic.”

Muhammad bin Ishaaq: That the book(s) they found after the death of Sulayman (alayhis salaam), they claim that it was a book revealed by Allaah from Sulayman, which Sulayman (alayhis salaam) kept hidden from them, so they took it and made it into their religion.

What happened was that the people fell into two groups. 

The first: Those amongst the believers who knew magic was kufr and unlawful, and so they reviled Sulaymaan (alayhis salaam), out of their wrong belief that he practiced magic, and some of them denied he was a Prophet. 

The second: Another group who held that since Sulayman (alayhis salaam) was a Prophet and he practiced magic (as they were misled to believe by the devils), then they considered it permissible to indulge in magic, so they took that as a religion to be followed, and this is what characterized these people from that time until the time of Prophet Jesus (alayhis salaam) through to the time of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, right until this day of ours.

Note here that in this verse Allaah is referring to the Jews contemporary to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and it is an indication that they continued upon that magic that the devils rehearsed to the people in the time of Sulaymaan in the 10th century BC. In this verse Allaah, is clearing Sulayman from that false accusation and recounting the historical facts and realities. In the 6th century BC. Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldean king of Babylon (Baabil), conquered Judah (the Jews, Bani Israil) and put them into exile. When these Jews came to Babylon, in addition to the magic they had learned from the devils, they also learned of the magic at Baabil part of which came to the people through the angels Harut and Marut. Baabil was a center of occult science, and it was the place of the Chaldeans who were star and planet worshipers. Whilst in captivity in Baabil (Babylon) Jewish priests, after looking into and studying the “mystery religion” of those Babylonians developed their own sophisticated form of occultism.

The occult knowledge and codified magic practiced by the Jews historically and today is known as the Qabbalah (also spelt Kabbalah and referred to as “Jewish Mysticism” or “Jewish Esoteric Knowledge”). It is essentially (and in reality) a coded system of magic, of invoking the Jinn (and angels, as they believe), through words, numbers, symbols, geometry and so on. Also, the word Qabbalah, is from the hebrew root Q-B-L, (“to receive”), and it is similar to the Arabic root of qaaf, baa, laam (“to receive”). It means to receive “mystical knowledge”, or “secret teaching”, and it is expressed diagramatically through what is called the “Tree of Life”. The Qabbalah was transmitted orally and secretly through the centuries and was written down in the the Christian era. What was written is not the entire Qabbalah but just the rudiments of it. The essence, core and reality of the Qabbalah is only ever passed on through oral tradition and with conditions. It continued to be transmitted through the ages (picking up elements from other beliefs) right to this day and has been and still is behind the esoteric doctrines of most secret orders and sects. Iblees and his offspring the Jinn, have continued to deceive people into believing that there is “immortality” through “secret esoteric knowledge”, and that the practitioners of these esoteric mystery religions of Babylon and Egypt (magic and devil worship) can become “angels” and “live forever”. These people consider themselves “illuminated” and the rest of mankind as gullible, incapable, unfit, inferior people who must be hemmed in and ruled over.

Babylon and The Two Angels Harut and Marut

وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ

… and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels, Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, “We are only for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).”

Babylon (Baabil, Babel) is a region just south of Bagdhad in Iraq, and it was the place of Nimrod who is said by at-Tabari (and other sources) to have built the Tower of Babel, and the place of the Chaldeans and Assyrians, and the Sabean planet worshippers. It became a center of much learning, especially magic and astrology. Magic was integral to the functioning of the society. It should be noted that place-names are not generally mentioned in the Qur’an in relation to past events, and there are only a few that are mentioned, such as Midyan, Iram, Baabil, so the mention of Baabil in particular has significance and as we shall see, the verse we are discussing is extremely accurate in characterizing those Jews who simply followed the magic rehearsed to them by the devils in the time of Sulayman (alayhis salaam) and what they took from Babylon, and which they incorporated into the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud).

At-Tabaree brings numerous narrations:

As-Sudee: That this was another type of magic by which they (the Jews) disputed with him (Muhammad ﷺ), through what was revealed upon the two Angels, and that the speech of the Angels between themselves, when it is taught to the men, crafted and acted upon, it is magic.

Qataadah: Magic is of two types: The magic taught by the devils, and the magic taught by Harut and Marut.

Ibn Zayd: The devils and the two angels teaching the people magic.

At-Tabaree explains:

So the meaning of the verse upon the explanation of this saying which we have mentioned from those whom we have mentioned it from is: That the Jews followed that (magic) which the devils rehearsed to them during the lifetime of Sulayman (alayhis salaam) which was (that magic) sent down upon the two angels at Baabil (Babylon), Harut and Marut, and they are two angels from the angels of Allaah.

And he says:

Indeed Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent down (all) the good and the evil, and He explained all of that to His servants, and He inspired His Messengers (with revelation) and ordered them to teach His creation and to distinguish for them what is lawful from what is unlawful, such as fornication (adultery), stealing, and all the sins which they (the Prophets) informed them about and prohibited them from committing them. So magic is one of those sins which He informed them of and prohibited them from acting upon.

Then at-Tabari mentions an alternative reading of the verse:

So the explanation of the verse upon this saying is: And they followed the magic that the devils rehearsed in the lifetime of Sulayman and [that magic of] the separation between a man and his wife which was revealed upon the two angels at Baabil, Harut and Marut.

And he brings in this regard:

Mujaahid: As for magic, then the devils taught it, and as for what the angels taught, then it is separation between a man and his wife, as Allaah the Most High said.

Then at-Tabari brings about ten or so narrations from the early commentators regarding the two angels, and we will bring the information from those narrations together here:

Ibn Abbaas: Allaah open up the heaven so that the angels could look at the actions of sons of Adan.

[Ar-Rabee’]: When the people after Adam (alayhissalaam) fell into what they fell into of sins and disbelief in Allaah, the Angels in the heaven said, “O Lord this world, you created them for your worship and obedience, but they have fallen into disbelief, killing the unlawful soul, eating unlawful wealth, stealing and fornicating, and drinking intoxicant”, and so they began to supplicate against them, and did not make excuse for them.

[Mujaahid]: For the Angels became surprised at the oppression of the sons of Adan, and their had come to them Messengers and books and clear proofs. 

[Ibn Abbaas]: The Angels said, “O Lord, those children of Adam  whom you created with your own hand, and to which you made the angels prostrate,and to whom you taught all the names of all things, they commit sins.”

[Ibn Mas’ood]: The Angels supplicated against them, and against the earth, heaven and mountins, saying “O Lord, will you not destroy them?”

[Ibn Abbaas]: So Allaah said that if you were in their place you would have done actions just like theirs. 

[Ibn Mas’ood]: So Allaah revealed to the Angels: “If I sent down the lust, desire (shahwah) and the devils upon your hearts, and you descended (to the earth), you would have done (the same) also.” And so the angels conversed amongst themselves that if they were put to trial they would remain firm.

[Ibn Abbaas]: They (the angels) said, “Subhaanallaah, this is not something befitting for us to do.” So they were ordered to choose (from amongst them) who would be sent down to the earth, so they chose Harut and Marut,.

As-Sudee:  Harut and Marut reviled the people of the earth for their judgements (ahkaam), and it was said to them that the son of Adam was given ten desires by which they disobey Allaah. And Harut and Marut said that if these desires were given to them, and were then sent down (to the earth) they would have judged with (and abided by) justice. So Allaah said, “Descend, I have given you both those ten desires, so judge amongst the people with justice…”

[Ibn Abbaas]: They were sent down to the earth and everything was made lawful for them on the earth except that they should not associate partners with Allaah in worship, and nor steal, and nor fornicate, and nor drink intoxicants and nor kill a soul that Allaah had made unlawful except with due right. So they continued (upon the earth) until they came across a woman given half of beauty, called Beedhukht. 

[As-Sudee]: She came to them regarding a dispute with her husband.

[Ibn Abbaas]: When they saw her, they desired to commit zinaa with her. She said not unless you worship others alongside Allaah, and drink intoxicants and kill a soul and prostrate to this idol. So they said “We do not associate anything with Allaah (in worship)”.

[Ar-Rabee’]: When she saw that they refused to worship the idol, she said to them that you must choose one of these three, either worship the idol, kill a soul or drink intoxicants. 

[Ibn Abbaas]: So one of the angels said to the other “Go back to her” and she said, “No, unless you drink intoxicants”, so they did until they were intoxicated. Then a man came upon them (and saw them)…

[Ar-Rabee’]: So they feared that he might divulge this (their being intoxicated)… 

[Ibn Abbaas]: so they killed him. When they fell into this evil, Allaah open the heaven for His angels, and they said, “Subhaanaka, you are most knowledgeable”. 

[Ar-Rabee’]: When the angels saw what these two angels had fallen into, they were very surprised … and so they began to seek forgiveness for those in the earth after this. Then it was said to them to choose the punishment of the world or that of the hereafter, so they said (to themselves) that the punishment of the world expires but the punishment of the hereafter never ends. So they chose the punishment of the world, and so they were placed in Baabil  (Babylon), and they are punished there. 

[Mujaahid]: They were ordered to go to Baabil, where their punishment was to be given. 

As-Sudee: So they were restrained in Baabil where they began speaking to the people with their speech which was magic.

Ibn Katheer, after mentioning many of these narrations in his tafseer of this verse explains that the story of Harut and Marut has been narrated from a group amongst the taabi’een, such as Mujahid, as-Sudee, al-Hasan al-Basree, Qataadah, Abu al-Aaliyah, az-Zuhree, ar-Rabee’ bin Anas, Muqaatil bin Hayyaan and others, and that a portion of the mufassireen (exegetes) from the earlier and later ones have also reported them, and that the contents of them go back to the narrations that come from Banee Israa’eel, since there is no authentic, connected hadeeth, ascribed to the truthful, the believed, the infallible, who does not speak of his own desire [the Prophet (alayhis salaam)], and that the report in the Qur’an is given generally, without detail, and that we believe in what Allaah has related in the Qur’an upon what Allaah intended by it, and Allaah knows best about the reality.

Harut and Marut and the Tribulation of Magic

وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّى يَقُولاَ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلاَ تَكْفُر

…but neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, “We are only for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).”  

At-Tabari brings narrations:

Qatadah and al-Hasan: A (covenant) was taken from them that they would not teach anyone until they said, “We are a tribulation so do not disbelieve”.

Ibn Juraij: A covenant was taken from them bot that they do not teach anyone until they say, “We are a tribulation so do not disbelieve, no one ventures into magic except a disbeliever”.

At-Tabari explains that the tribulation (fitnah) is a trial, an examination, a test.

Learning What Separates a Man From His Wife

فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّقُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَزَوْجِهِ

And from these (angels) people learn that by which they cause separation between man and his wife…

At-Tabari explains:

The meaning of the speech is that the angels would not teach anyone until they said they are a tribulation, but the people would refuse to accept this and proceed to learn from them what would separate a man from his wife.

And this type of magic occurs when a man (or woman) is made to imagine things about the spouse that which is not real, so he may see her as very ugly, or may perceive unbearable smells, and things of this nature, which are not real, but they are only in his own mind, so he is made to imagine things that are not real. This is from the type of magic that is called “imaginary”.

At-Tabari brings a narration:

Qatadah: The separation of them (husband and wife) is that he would bewitch each one from its partner,and cause each one of them to hate their partner.

Benefit and Harm Lies Only with Allaah and With His Permission and Decree

وَمَا هُم بِضَآرِّينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ

…but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s permission…

At-Tabari comments:

Those who learned from the two angels, Harut and Marut, that by which they separate between a man and his wife, were not able to harm (anyone) with what they learned from them both (the angels) through which they (tried) to separate between a man and his wife in relation to anyone amongst the people, except for the one whom Allaah had already decreed that such (magic) will harm him. As for the one for whom Allaah has repelled its harm, and guarded him from the disliked magic, and blowing on knots and spells (incantations), then that will not harm him and its harm will not reach him.

And he brings a narration:

Sufyaan (ath-Thawree): Regarding His saying, “but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s permission”, he said: By the qadaa (ordainment, decree) of Allaah.

And the qadaa (ordainment, decree) here refers to the qadaa al-kawnee, that which relates to all the occurrences in the creation, both good and evil – whilst noting that evil exists only within the occurrences in the creation and not in Allaah’s actions of decreeing them and bringing them into existence, since in Allaah’s actions are nothing but wisdom and justice, and they have a far-reaching purpose and lofty goals, tied to his wisdom and justice.

Magicians Only Learn What Harms Them

وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلاَ يَنفَعُهُمْ

And they learn that which harms them and profits them not.

At-Tabari says:

They learn from them the magic which harms them in their religion, and it does not benefit them in their hereafter. As for this life in the world, then they used to earn through it and acquire a (means of) living through it.

The Practitioners of Magic Have No Share in the Hereafter

وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُواْ لَمَنِ اشْتَرَاهُ مَا لَهُ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنْ خَلاَقٍ

And indeed they knew that the buyers of it (magic) would have no share in the Hereafter.

At-Tabari brings narrations:

Qatadah: The people of the book knew that from the covenant that Allaah took from them that the sorcerer will have no share on the Day of Judgement with Allaah.

As-Sudee: Meaning the Jews, He says that the Jews already know that whoever learned it or chose it, he would have no share in the Hereafter.

Mujahid: For the one who purchased (the knowledge) of what separates a man from his wife.

Ibn Zayd: The Jews knew that in the Book of Allaah, in the Torah, that whoever purchased magic and abandoned the deen of Allaah, he will not have any share in the Hereafter and so the fire is his destination.

And at-Tabari explains that this is in reference to the Jews at the time of Muhammad ﷺ for they knew from their own book, the Torah, these facts (as occurs in the above narrations) but despite knowing this they continued to follow the magic rehearsed at the time of Sulayman (alayhis salaam) by the devils and the magic revealed by Harut  and Marut to the people at Baabil  (Babylon), and they essentially threw the Torah behind their backs, even after knowing the Muhammad was mentioned therein.

As for “buying, purchasing” mentioned in the verse, there are numerous views on the meaning of “khalaaq” (خَلاَقٍ) such as “naseeb” (portion, share, part) or “hujjah” (proof), meaning such a one has no proof on the Day of Judgement or “deen” (religion), meaning that such a one has no deen. But at-Tabari says what is most correct is that it means “naseeb”, that such a one will have no share in the Hereafter.

At-Tabari then says:

He means that such a one will have no share of reward and recompense (jazaa’, thawaab) or Paradise, besides his share of the Hellfire… He means that they have no share of good deeds, as for evil deeds then they have their share of them.

Magicians Sell Their Souls

وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَوْاْ بِهِ أَنفُسَهُمْ لَوْ كَانُواْ يَعْلَمُونَ

And how bad indeed was that for which they sold their own selves, if they but knew.

At-Tabari says:

So He informed about them that they knew that whoever purchased of magic, that he would have no share in the Hereafter, and He described them that they commit disobedience to Allaah, out of full knowledge of it, and they disbelieve in Allaah and His Messengers, and they prefer following the devils and acting upon what they have introduced of magic over His Book, His inspiration and His revelation, out of stubborn opposition on their behalf and transgression against His Messengers, and transgressing His limits, and with their full knowledge of the punishment that lies for them with Allaah for whoever does that….

And in clarification of Allaah first affirming knowledge for them and then negating knowledge from in the end of this verse, at-Tabari says:

Allaah negated knowledge from them by saying, “…if they but knew…”, after he had described tehm that they knew, by saying, “…and indeed they knew…”, for the reason that they did not act upon what they knew. And the aalim (scholar) is the one who acts upon his knowledge. When his action opposes his knowledge, then he falls amongst the meanings of “the ignorant”.

Also Read: The Mystery Beneath Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dajjalic “New World Order”

Response to the Modernists Argument that Jumu’ah is Compulsory on Women

Question: The modernists argue that Jumu’ah is compulsory on even women because the Qur’aan in proclaiming the compulsion of Jumu’ah, addresses all believers. Believers as mentioned in the Qur’aan applies to both men and women. They further maintain that the Hadith severely denounces those who miss three Jumu’ahs. Therefore, the consequences of women not performing Jumu’ah are fatal for Imaan. The Ulama, according to these protagonists, are liable for these fatal consequences because they prohibit women from attending the Musjid. Please comment on these arguments.

Answer by Mujlisul Ulama:
Ignoramuses and slaves of western libertinism lack the intelligence to understand Shar’i arguments. The density of their minds and their intellectual stagnation brought about by their complete diversion from Islam, have effaced not only their ability to understand, but even their very Imaan. The colossal degree of their stupidity is conspicuously exhibited by  this type of fallacious reasoning. Have all the Sahaabah misunderstood the Qur’aan and the Hadith? Did all the illustrious Shar’i authorities among the Taabieen and Tabe Taabieen misconstrue the Qur’aan and the Sunnah?

Did the entire Ummah, right from the epoch of the Sahaabah down to the present age fail to understand the Qur’aan and the Ahadith while these modernist ignoramuses, deficient in Imaan and lacking in entirety in Islamic virtue, have understood? Stupidity too has its limits, but such limitations apply to ordinary, sincere people whose minds have not been deranged by the touch of Iblees. But, the minds of these modernists have been thoroughly corrupted by the spell of shaitaan. They are therefore his agents. They deliberately, and flagrantly aid and abet shaitaan in all his schemes of dhalaal and kufr. Only minds deranged by shiitaani poison argue in the way these slaves of western libertinism do.

Not a single Math-hab, not a single Faqeeh, not a single Muhaddith and not a single Mufassir has ever propagated the idea of Jumu’ah being incumbent on women. Not even the baatil sects propagate this fallacy of the slaves of the west. There is no shred of evidence in the Qur’aan, Hadith and Islamic history for this baseless claim of shaitaan’s league. Do these ignoramuses claim to understand the Qur’aan and Sunnah better than the Sahaabah—the Students of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?

If Jumu’ah was incumbent on women, why did the Khulafa-e-­Raashideen not ensure that women attended Jumu’ah? Far from ensuring their attendance, the Khulafa-e­-Raashideen and the Sahaabah as a whole banned women from the Musaajid. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded the Ummah to follow to fellow modernist who seek expression for their libertine emotions under guise of Islam and its practices.

The phrase, `Ya ayyuhal ladheena aamanu’ (O Believers!), while it literally brings within its scope all believers — men and women — does not in every instance bring within its purview females. While in most cases this Qur’aanic term refers to women as well, there are many instances where the reference is solely to males. The verses pertaining to war — in which war is made obligatory on males are directed to only males although this same phrase is used in the address. Armies of women never went into Jihad at any time in Islamic history, from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), right down to the present day.

While a handful of women would accompany their husbands, they did not participate in response to the command directed to the male. Just as Jihad is not incumbent on women, so too is Jumu’ah and Jamaat not incumbent on them. For the interpretation of the Qur’aanic aayaat, it is imperative to resort to the expositions of the Sahaabah who had acquired the tafseer of the verses and the teachings of the Shariah directly from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Only Shiahs believe that the Sahaabah did not understand Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In fact, they (the Shiahs) claim that the Sahaabah were not Muslims. If these munaafiq modernists overtly proclaim their kufr and announce their allegiance to Shi’ism, then everyone will understand and the matter will be settled. The ludicrous ideas and misinterpretations of ignoramuses who reject the authority of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Students (the Sahaabah) are of no substance and should be dismissed as utterly fallacious.


By Mujilisul Ulama

A Concerned Brother from Stanger (Natal) writes:

“Assalamu Alykum – I was visiting some family members in Stanger also known as kwaDukuza. I was performing my Salaah with Jamaat in the Musjid. After the Salaah an announcement was made that a program will be taking place after the sunnats about inheritance and how important it was.

Moulana Abdullah Khan of Jamiat KZN who used to live in Stanger, made the announcement and delivered the talk. Before the talk started, I saw a big DAJJAL’S EYE TV SCREEN being set up and A PROJECTOR. I couldn’t believe my eyes that this tv gadget of iblees was being set up right inside the Musjid.

Then Mr Khan sitting in a nice cosy chair prepared specially for him told everyone that while a certain brother (perhaps a human shaitan) was setting up this tv screen and projector, he noticed that some people were surprised at what they were seeing (referring to DAJJAL’S EYE and projector). He continued by saying that before people would just listen and remember. Now that’s no more the case. Rather people nowadays look and remember. He was justifying his nafsaniyat and shaytaniyat.

Also a rather lamentable sewerage utterance of his was that he’s made it in a classroom and that’s what they do in Darul Ulooms. Ulema were sitting there so many, but none stopped this Mr Khan and his cohorts from their haraam activity. 

Now here comes the big question marks. Let’s say for argument their Shaytaniyat and Bidah under the guise of Deen is Okay and permissible, then won’t this be opening a door of Fitna!!!!!!!!

Why a fitna you may ask? From teaching Deen they can then go further in sin. Like Radio Shaytan from where it was to where it’s now. I presume you know of the pitiful state of the Ummah in Burma, Iraq, Syria etc. How can I put it?

Some Molvi trying to encourage people could play on the tv clips from BBC or maybe CNN the plight of the Syrians. Maybe block out the music and later on justify music after a while with some nonsense. Please comment as I am very confused. Is this okay or what?”  (End of letter)


Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon shall there dawn an age when……..the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be their ulama. From them will percolate fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

We are in that age predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The worst fitnah-mongers and fitnah-breeders today are the molvis and sheikhs who belong to the fraternity of ulama-e-soo’. The Jamiat KZN has joined this shaitaani fraternity consisting of the NNB jamiat of Fordsburg, the MJC and the Bid’ati Qabar Puja jamiats. That is why Mr.Khan has so flagrantly exposed his fisq and fujoor right inside the Musjid. He has no Islamic skin on his face, hence the shameless display of Kabeerah sins right inside the Musjid. 

This type of molvi is in fact worse than Dajjaal – the Dajjaal-in-Chief who still has to appear. Many small Dajjaals will appear to prepare the stage for their Chief Dajjaal mentioned in the Hadith. Mr. Khan and the fraternity of vile molvis and sheikhs are all Dajjaal’s agents. They are busy preparing the stage for their Chief, hence Mr. Khan has introduced Dajjal’s Eye in the Musjid. 

The evil which he has spoken to assuage the hurt feelings of those musallis who have some vestige of Deeni understanding, is the type of satanically adorned talk described in the Qur’aan Majeed as“Zukhruful Qawl”. The explanation which Mr.Khan presented in a bid to justify to the musallis that Dajjaal’s Eye is permissible and beneficial even in the Musjid, has been urinated into his brains by Shaitaan. About the ilk of Mr. Khan and the NNB molvis, MJC sheikhs and other bogus ‘scholars’ for dollars of Bogus uucsa, the following appears in the Hadith:

Abu Zarr (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “One day while I was walking hand-in-hand with Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he said: ‘I fear more than Dajjaal for my Ummah.” I said: What can be more fearful on your Ummah than Dajjaal?” Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The aimmah mudhilleen.”

The greatest CURSE and PUNISHMENT on this disobedient Ummah of this age are the molvis and sheikhs who are mudhilleen – those who mislead. They lead astray the stupid masses with their zukhruful qawl satanic inspirations – the type of deceptive talk disgorged by Mr. Khan, Reverend Bham and the balance of this vile mob, to justify haraam television inside the Musjid. 

In the latest issue of The Majlis appears a detailed article of Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf Binnuri (Rahmatullah alayh) in which he explains the  villainy of using haraam methods and haraam media, in particular television, for ‘propagating’ the Deen. In reality only satanism is propagated via haraam methods. Furthermore, using haraam television for a Deeni program, justifying it and sullying the sanctity of the Musjid with Dajjaal’s Eye are tantamount to kufr. Mr. Khan must do some introspection to examine the state of his Imaan. May Allah Ta’ala save Muslims from the villainy of these evil characters who are worse than Dajjaal.



Recently in the Musjid in the town of Stanger (Natal), some Deeni lessons on the subject of Inheritance were imparted by using a ‘huge’ screen and a projector. The Majlis published an article criticizing this method of teaching inside the Musjid. Some persons defending the program said that:

A projector screen and a projector were used. Animate objects were not displayed. 

Thus, according to them there is no basis for saying that the program was haraam.  

Those defending the display in the Musjid are floundering in confusion because they have not understood the status of a Musjid. It is therefore best to first explain what exactly a Musjid is. Without understanding the status of a Musjid, the arguments presented to justify in the Musjid an activity which may be normally permissible will be superficial and baseless.

According to the Hadith the most beloved places on earth to Allah Ta’ala are the Musaajid whilst the most detested places are the market-places. On the Day of Qiyaamah, all plots of land on which Musaajid were built will be annexed to the land in Jannat.

The primary purpose of the Musjid is IbaadatSalaat, I’tikaaf and silent Thikrullaah in general. The Musjid is described as the House of Allah. It is not permissible to enter the Musjid in the state of janaabat, in fact not even without wudhu. It is not permissible to conduct even a lawful trade transaction in the Musjid, even selling a Qur’aan. Leave alone selling a Qur’aan, it is not permissible to recite the Qur’aan Majeed aloud inside the Musjid when there are Musallis present.

The sanctity of the Musjid is such that in terms of the Hanafi Musjid even Janaazah Salaat may not be performed inside the Musjid proper. The Musjid is the abode for I’tikaaf for which niyyat is essential. Thus a Nafl I’tikaaf is enacted with a niyyat at all times of entry into the Musjid. It is not permissible for those not observing I’tikaaf to eat inside the Musjid.

It is not permissible to take inside the Musjid anything which has an offensive odour. For example, halaal fish which is a wonderful ni’mat of Allah Ta’ala, may not be taken into the Musjid. Similarly, one who has consumed raw garlic and onions, may not immediately enter the Musjid.

A paid Ustaadh may not teach even the Qur’aan Majeed inside the Musjid. It is Allah’s House, hence everything of the dunya is prohibited inside the Musjid regardless of the merit, value, benefit and goodness of the worldly acts and activities. The Musjid is not the venue which befits worldly activities.

It is HARAAM to engage in worldly conversation inside the Musjid. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Speaking in the Musjid consumes good deeds just as cattle consume (and deplete) grass.”

Once when Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) saw some persons engaging in conversation inside the Musjid, he struck them with his shawl and expelled them from the Musjid.

Once when Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) saw two strangers speaking inside the Musjid, he warned them and said that if they had been residents of Madinah, he would have whipped them. But since they were strangers, he sufficed with a verbal warning.

It is not permissible to make announcements about lost items in the Musjid. It is not permissible to sit in the Musjid with legs outstretched towards the Qiblah. In fact this should be avoided even outside the Musjid. It is not permissible to unnecessarily – without valid reason – lean against the Musjid’s walls or while away the time staring at the ceiling. It is not permissible to hang frames or pictures of even Qur’aanic Aayaat or Allah’s Beautiful Names on the walls of the Musjid, the Mihraab wall in particular. Only Bid’atis perpetrate such acts.

From this brief description of the extremely lofty status of the Musjid, it will be clear to sincere and unbiased Muslims that the Musjid is not an ordinary building which may be treated like a hall or a maktab.

What had transpired in the Stanger Musjid has defiled the sanctity of the Musjid in the following ways:

1) The screen and the projector bestowed a cinema atmosphere to the House of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The screen was placed right in front of the Musjid. The Musjid is not the venue for such displays and antics which pillage the sacred atmosphere of the Musjid. The resemblance was with a cinema.

2) There is no difference between the projector and the tv screen. The resemblance is the same.

3) In addition to pictures, there were videos regardless of the fact that animate objects were at this initial stage not displayed. That stage will still come after shaitaan has succeeded in desensitizing Imaani inhibitions and acclimatizing the people to haraam pictography. In this regard, the condition of senior Ulama such as Mufti Taqi and Maulana Rafi Usmani is lamentable. They have drifted so far from Siraatul Mustaqeem that they now deem television and digital pictures of animate objects to be permissible,

This is the scheme of shaitaan. He erodes Imaani inhibition to evil by imperceptible degrees. The fate of shaitaaniyat prevailing at Al-Azhar and all other Arab Madaaris was not an overnight affliction. Shaitaan operates his cunning schemes subtly by degrees.

Displaying even pictures of inanimate objects in the Musjid is haraam. The Musjid is not a secular school classroom. It is not permissible to transform the Musjid atmosphere into an atmosphere which prevails at a school.

4) People were behaving with disrespect in the Musjid. They forgot where they were. The screen and the projector caused their minds to drift perhaps to the cinema or some school building or hall, hence people were talking, making a noise, talking nonsense and leaning against the walls. This information has been passed to us by several musallis who had witnessed the defilement of the Musjid.

5) The subject of Meeraath (Inheritance) is as old as the Qur’aan Majeed. It was taught from the age of the Sahaabah. This Ilm has to be imparted in the Sunnah methodology which has come down to us – down the long corridor of more than 14 centuries. The screen and the projector for teaching Ilm-e-Wahi are haraam Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. It is bereft of barkat.

On the issue of teaching the Deen by means of a screen and projector, the followers of Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (Rahmatullah alayh) will be interested to know what his view was. You will not find it in Fataawa Mahmoodiyyah. He said about the use of the projector to teach Maktab children the Arabic alphabet and reciting Qur’aan: “It totally destroys the mental ability of the child.” Hadhrat Mufti Sahib had made this statement in the house of this writer in the presence of  about 20 persons among them were two NNB jamiat molvis who had brought Hadhrat to Port Elizabeth with an ulterior motive. At that time the NNB jamiat did not exist. It was Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal. We might as well digress and explain the background of Hadhrat’s statement.

This was some decades ago when the Benoni Muslim Jamaat had introduced projectors in their maktabs. We had criticized this departure from the tareeqah of the Akaabireen and Salafus Saaliheen. At the discussion on this issue in Port Elizabeth, the two NNB jamiat molvis were at pains to extract a jawaaz (permissibility) fatwa from Hadhrat Mufti Sahib. They failed, and that was when he made the aforementioned statement. Those who usually cite Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan Sahib to bolster their bid’ah and haraam activities by misinterpreting his statements should  know that he was  against projectors even in Maktabs, leave alone Musaajid.

It is not a matter of only pictures of animate objects not being used. The entire program was highly unbefitting for a Musjid. It was tantamount to sacrilege – defiling the holy atmosphere and sanctity of the Musjid. There is no barkat whatsoever in these kuffaar methods to teach Ilm-e-Wahi. The mubaarak tareeqah of the Salafus Saaliheen is of imperative importance, full of noor and barkat.

A brother mentioned: “In our Musjid we also have two screens at the back that display the salaat times and other relevant information that would be beneficial for our Musallees from a computer.”

These two computer screens at the back of the Musjid, most probably in the Sehn area, are not a basis for justifying the inconsiderate program which was conducted inside the Musjid proper with the big screen right in front at the Qiblah wall.

Firstly, the two computer screens are not a valid Shar’i ma’khath (basis for extracting and basing a ruling). These two small screens themselves are in need of a Shar’i ruling for deciding their status and fate. It is not a daleel for justifying what had transpired inside the Musjid. In fact, it is best to get rid of the two small screens at the back of the Musjid. Even these screens contaminate the Musjid atmosphere.

Besides this, the several other factors explained above contribute to the impermissibility of the big screen and the method of imparting the ta’leem inside the Musjid.





Question #153344 (India)

What do the ‘Ulamaa-e-Deen & Muftiyaan say regarding the following matter,

How is it in the view of the Sharee’ah to video record a Deeni program in a masjid & to upload it on the youtube..?

Published on: Aug 3, 2017

Answer #153344


In the name of ALLAAH, the all Merciful, the ever Merciful

Since video recording comprises of picture-making (photography) & this (photography or picture-making of living beings) being haraam is self-evident (i.e. It’s prohibition is established by nass qat’i (undeniable/absolute proofs) in Sharee’ah).

The abomination of the sin committed inside a Musjid is of an aggravated nature.

Then to upload & transfer it (i.e. video recording of  a Deeni program) onto youtube is also a sin. To keep the Masjid clean & pure from such type of abhorred things (such as photography, videography of living things, etc.) is Waajib.

And only ALLAAH Ta’aalaa knows…

Daarul Iftaa,

Daarul ‘Uloom Deoband

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam