SALMAN NADWI’S HINDU BOOT-LICKING HARAAM ‘FATWA’

QUESTION

Asalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

Yesterday, the Muslim Personal Law Board held a meeting in Hyderabad (India) related to the Babri Masjid and they concluded that they won’t compromise on the land of Babri Masjid and they will fight the case in the courts.

On the contrary Maulana Salman Nadwi after meeting with a kaafir boet (idol) pujari endorses that there should be an “out of court” settlement, and even if it means that we should compromise on the land of the Babri Masjid for the sake of a temple, we should do so, so that we can build another Musjid “in a land allotted somewhere else”.

There has been a huge uproar in the Media and the Muslims are divided in their own opinion. While some supporting the stance of Maulana Salman Nadwi, others are supporting the stance of the Muslim personal law board.

Please comment on this issue. What is the actual stance of the Shariah?

ANSWER [By Mujlisul Ulama]

The stance of the Shariah on the issue of Musjids is clearer than daylight at the zenith. A Musjid is termed, The House of Allah. Once a land has been made Waqf for a Musjid, it will remain a Musjid even after the Day of Qiyaamah. All the plots of land on which Musjids have been built will be incorporated into the land of Jannat.

There is absolutely no way of desanctifying and de-Musjidizing a Musjid. It will remain a Musjid forever even if a temple or a brothel has been built on it by the worshippers of Shaitaan. A Musjid can never ever be sold or bartered away or alienated in any way whatsoever.

What the character Salman Nadwi disgorged about an ‘out of court settlement’  to make way for the construction of an abode for idol-worship – for kufr and shirk, is pure, unadulterated bootlicking – licking the boots of the Hindu boet-pujaaris. Whatever this chap’s satanic motive for his bootlicking stupidity may be, is known to only Allah Ta’ala. If he is a ‘maulana’, he appears lamentably stupid for disgorging the haraam flotsam of exchanging the Babri Musjid for land somewhere else. The worst satanistic aspect of his stupid ‘fatwa’ is that he agrees for constructing a temple to worship idols on the Musjid’s site. He appears to be a hidden Hindu.

A Musjid built on any other allotted land will be a new Musjid. It will not be the Babri Musjid which the idol-worshippers have usurped by force and violence with the active connivance of India’s Hindu government. These worshippers of Satan have forcibly usurped and wrenched the Babri Musjid from the Muslim community. Although this was a punishment from Allah Ta’ala for Muslims, we are not in a position to comment on that aspect. Our comments are restricted to the ostensible law of the Shariah.

It is the incumbent obligation of the down-trodden, weak and morally degenerate Muslim community of India to adopt all lawful methods, such as the courts, in a bid to reclaim the Babri Musjid land. There should be absolutely no compromise. It is haraam to accept any other land in exchange for the Babri Musjid land. That Land will remain a Musjid and shall, Insha-Allah, reclaim its status in Jannat.

If the community fails in its bid in the court, they should accept it as Allah’s Decree, increase Istighfaar and Taubah, and reform their absolutely rotten moral condition, and this has greater applicability for the Ulama. If Muslims are unable to reclaim the Babri Musjid by lawful means, let the followers of the Devil keep it. But never should Muslims settle and compromise.

Salman Nadwi, the Hindu bootlicker should hang his head in shame. If he happens to be associated with a Madrasah, the authorities should give him the boot for his Hindu-bootlicking.

Advertisements

The Meaning of Salah (Durood) and Salaam

By Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Usmani (rahimahullah)

Surely, Allah and His angels send blessings to the Prophet. O those who believe, do pray Allah to bless him, and send your Salam (prayer for his being in peace) to him in abundance. [Surah al-Anzab: 56]

The real purpose of the verse was to obligate Muslims to send Salah (durood) and Salaam upon the Holy Prophet ﷺ. But the command was given in a manner that, first of all, Allah Ta’ala pointed out that He Himself and His angels perform the act of Salah for the Holy Prophet ﷺ. After that, common Muslims were ordered to follow suit. By doing so, it is indicated that the station of the Holy Prophet ﷺ is so high that the act asked to be done by common Muslims in his respect is something already done by Allah Ta’ala Himself as well as angels with Him. Now then, common believers who are indebted to so many favours done to them by as their noble Prophet ﷺ should certainly give high priority to making this act their essential concern. Then there is yet another good outcome of this modality of expression. It proves the great merit accredited to Muslims who send Salah and Salaam as Allah Ta’ala makes them share in doing what Allah Ta’ala Himself does and so do His angels.

The word: صلوة (Salah) is used in the Arabic language to convey the sense of: Mercy (rahmah), prayer (du’a) and praise (madh and thana). The Salah attributed to Allah Ta’ala in the cited verse means His sending of mercy, but Salah from the angels denotes their prayer for him, and thesense of Salah (durood) from common believers is a combination of dua’ (prayer) and thana’ (praise). Most commentators have given these very meanings and Imam Al-Bukhari has reported from Abu-l-‘Aliyah that the Salah of Allah Ta’ala means the honor accorded to him and the praise showered on him before the angels. As for the honor bestowed on him by Allah Ta’ala within this mortal world, it translates as the high rank he was blessed with when, on many an occasion, his mention was joined with the mention of Allah Ta’ala in adhan (the initial call for prayers) and iqamah (the call announcing the immediate start of the prayer) and elsewhere, and that Allah Ta’ala made the religion brought by him spread and prevail throughout the world, and that He enjoined upon all people to keep acting in accordance with the Shari’ah brought by him right through the last day of al-Qiyamah and, along with it, He has undertaken to keep his Shari’ah stand perennially protected. Then, as for the honor bestowed upon him in the Hereafter, it can be said that his station was made to be the most exalted of the entire creation and, at a time when no prophet or angel could dare intercede on behalf of anyone, it was right at that time that he was blessed with the celebrated station of intercession called: مقام محمود (Al-ma’qam-ul-mahmud:  Praised  Station).

Given the interpretation that Allah’s Salah in favour of the Holy Prophet ﷺ means praise, someone may raise a doubt that, according to the narrations of Hadith, Salah and Salaam are also offered to the family and companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ. If so, how can anyone other than him be made to share in the honor bestowed and praise done by Allah Ta’ala? This doubt has been answered in Ruh-ul-Ma’ani etc. by saying that the degrees of such honor and praise are many. The Holy Prophet ﷺ has it at its highest, while his family and companions and believers in general are included with him only to a certain degree.

As for the word: سالام (Salaam), it is an infinitive in the sense of السلامة (as-salaamah) and means staying in peace. And السلام عليك (As-salamu-‘alaik: conveniently taken as ‘peace on you’) means: May the state of peace and security from losses, defects and calamities be with you. And since, according to the rule of Arabic grammar, this is not the occasion to use the word: علي (‘ala: on, upon), but since the word ‘Salaam’ implies praise, hence the word: علي is appended with it.

And some other early commentators have taken the word: Salaam here to mean the sacred Being of Allah Ta’ala, because Salaam is among the beautiful names of Allah Ta’ala. According to this view the sentence will mean that Allah is enough to take care of your security and well-being.

The method of Salah and Salaam

There appears a Hadith in the Sahih of Bukhari and Muslim, as well as in other books of Hadith, where Sayyidina Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah (radhiyallahu anhu) has been reported to have said: ‘(When this verse was revealed), someone asked the Holy Prophet ﷺ: “(The verse orders us to do two things, Salah and salaam.) We already know the method of saying salaam, (being السلام عليك ايها النبي that is, may peace and safety be on you. O Prophet) now tell us the method of Salah also.” He said: Say these words:

image

“O Allah, send mercy on Muhammad and on the progeny of Muhammad, as You sent mercy on Ibrahim and on the progeny of Ibrahim. Verily, You are Praised, Glorious. O Allah, send blessings on Muhammad and on the progeny of Muhammad as You sent blessings on Ibrahim and on the progeny of Ibrahim. Verily, You are Praised, Glorious.”

Some other words in this respect have also been reported in other narrations of Hadith.

As for the reason why the noble Sahabah asked this question, perhaps it is that they had already been taught the method of offering their Salaam in the تشهد: (tashahhud or saying of: التحيات At-tahiyyat) where it is said: السلام عليك ايها النبي ورحمةالله وبركاته (as-salamu ‘alaika aiyuhannabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh: Peace and safety on you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings). Therefore, they did not like to determine, on their own, the precise words in the case of the saying of Salah. Instead of that, they wanted the exact words of saying the Salah to be determined by the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself. It is for this reason that صلوة (Salah) has generally been adopted in these very words as part of the prescribed prayers, Namaz or Salah. But, it does not mean that the obligation of sending Salah (durood) is restricted to these specific words, because many different forms of Salah (durood), have been authentically reported from the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself. The requirement of sending Salah and Salaam can be fulfilled by every such sentence that has the words of Salah and Salaam in it. Then, it is also not necessary that those words should have been reported exactly as said by the Holy Prophet ﷺ. In fact, the obligation may be discharged and the reward of sending Salah may be achieved by any style of address that conveys the words of Salah and Salaam. But, it is obvious that the exact words reported from the Holy Prophet ﷺ are certainly much more blessed and are the cause of bringing many more rewards. It was for this very reason that the noble Sahabah had asked the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself to determine the words of صلوة (Salah).

In the Qa’dah (sitting position) of the prescribed prayer (Salah or Namaz), the saying of the words of Salah and Salaam exa’ctly in the manner reported above is masnun (per Sunnah) right up to the last day of Qiyamah, (even though these words are meant to address the Holy Prophet ﷺ by saying ‘Salaam on you, O prophet’) As for occasions  outside the prescribed prayers (Salah or Namaz), these exact words should have been employed when the Holy Prophet ﷺ  was addressed during his lifetime. When, after his departure from this mortal world, one has the good fortune of standing before the sacred Rawdah (the holy tomb) of the Holy Prophet ﷺ and submitting his Salam to him, then, there too, it is masnun to employ the form of second person: السلام اليك (as-salamu ‘alaik). Other than that, wherever Salah and Salaam is recited in absentia, then, the use of the third person form has been reported from the Sahabah, Tabi’in and the Imams of the Muslim Ummah – for example: … (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam i.e. May Allah send mercy and peace to him).- as fully demonstrated by books of Hadith at large.

The wisdom behind the aforesaid method of Salah and Salaam

The outcome of the method of Salah and Salaam which stands proved from the blessed words spoken by him and demonstrated practically through his deeds is no other but that all of us in the Muslim Ummah should pray to Allah Ta’ala for mercy, peace and safety for him. At this point, a question is worth noting. Is it not that the verse required us to personally fulfill the right of the Holy Prophet ﷺ that he be revered and honored, but the method proposed was that we pray to Allah? Embedded here is the hint that fulfilling the due right of honoring and obeying the Holy Prophet ﷺ was not within the power and control of any of us, therefore, it was made mandatory for us that we should supplicate before Allah Ta’ala. (Ruh-ul- Ma’ani)

The injunctions of Salah and Salaam

In the last Qa’dah (sitting position) of the prescribed prayers, (namaz or Salah), the saying of درود شريف (Salah, that is, the noble durood) is Sunnah Mu’akkadah (emphasized Sunnah) according to the majority of the Imams. But, with Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, it is wajib (necessary). If abandoned, it becomes necessary, according to them, to make namaz or Salah all over again.

Related Rulings on Durood and Salaam

1. When someone mentions the name of the Holy Prophet ﷺ, or hears someone mentioning it, reciting the words of sending Salah (the noble durood) becomes wajib (obligatory) on him or her. This is a point of consensus among the majority of Muslim jurists. The reason is that there are warnings in Hadith against not reciting the noble durud when his blessed name is being referred. According to Jami’ of Tirmidhi, the Holy Prophet ﷺ said: “Disgraced is the man before whom I am mentioned, yet he does not send Salah (Durud) on me”. (Tirmidhi calls this Hadith ‘Hasan’, and Ibn-us-Sunni reports it with strong authorities).

And in another Hadith it has been said: “A miser is he before whom I am mentioned yet he does not send Salah (Durood) on me”.   (reported by Tirmidhi who rated it as ‘Hasan Sahih’).

2. If his blessed mention is made repeatedly in a single sitting, reciting the Salah (Durood) only once may discharge the obligation. But, the desirable (mustahabb) thing is to recite the noble Durood every time one makes his blessed mention himself, or hears someone else make it. Who can claim to mention the name of the Holy Prophet ﷺ more frequently than the scholars of the Hadith? Their function is nothing but to narrate the ahadith of the Holy Prophet ﷺ in which they have to mention his name repeatedly. Still, their consistent practice was to recite or write the Salah each and every time. All books of Hadith bear testimony to this fact. In doing so, they never bothered about this incidence of repetition of Salah and Salaam which would increase the volume of the book in a sizable measure, because fairly often, there come very short ahadith in which his blessed name finds mention after every one or two lines – and at places, it appears more than once within one single line – still, these respected scholars and experts of Hadith never abandon or ignore Salah and Salaam anywhere.

3. The way it is Wajib (necessary) to say Salah and Salaam vocally at the time one makes his blessed mention verbally, similarly, it is also wajib to write Salah and Salaam with the pen when one uses it at the time of writing. In this case, there are people who would abbreviate its words and get away by writing صلعم (of which, “SAW” is a counterpart). This is not enough. One should write the full Salah and Salaam (that is: صلى الله اليه وسلم: Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). [Read here: Ruling on Writing Abbreviations like S.A.W, R.A, PBUH, A.S, RAH, etc ]

4. At the time his blessed mention is being made, the better, higher and more desirable choice is no other but that both Salah and Salaam be recited and written. But, should someone take one of these, that is, only Salah or only Salaam, as sufficient, then, it is no sin in the sight of the majority of Muslim jurists. Shaykh-ul-Islam Nawawi and others have declared it as makruh (reprehensible) to take only one as sufficient. Ibn Hajar Al-Haithami said that by Karahah (reprehensibility) they mean its being Khilaf-ul-awla (contrary to the ‘preferred choice) which is known as Makruh Tanzihi (not desirable). And the consistent practice of the ‘ulama’ of the Muslim Ummah bears testimony to the fact that they invariably put these together while, on some occasions, they would go by only one as well.

5. Using the word: صلوة (Salah) for anyone other than prophets عليهم السلام is not permissible in the sight of the majority of ‘Ulama’. In his Sunan, Imam Baihaqi has reported the fatwa of Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) as  follows: “Salah is not sent upon any one except the Holy Prophet  but prayer is made for Muslim men and Muslim women to seek forgiveness for them.”

With Imam Shafi’i, using the word: صلوة (Salah) for any one other than a prophet is perennially Makruh (reprehensible, repugnant). Imam Abu Hanifah and his pupils also hold the same view. However, it is permissible that after saying Salah for the Holy Prophet, some other people are also included in the same sentence, like his family members, Companions and all believers.

And Imam Juwaini said that the rule about the word: صلوة (Salah) is the same as the rule about the word: سلام (Salaam), since it is not correct to use it for someone other than a prophet – except that one says السلام اليكم (as-salaamu-‘alaikum) as a greeting while addressing someone. This is permissible, and Masnun. But, saying or writing: اليه السلام (‘alaihissalaam) with the name of someone absent is not correct in the case of someone other than a prophet (Al-khasa’is-ul-kubra, by  Suyuti, v.2, p. 262)

‘Allamah Liqa’i has quoted Qadi ‘Iyad saying: Major authentic scholars of the Muslim Ummah have gone by this view, and this is the view of Imam Malik, Sufyan and many Muslim jurists who hold that its use is not permissible for anyone other than a prophet. This is similar to the case of the use of الله سبحانه و تعالى (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) which is particular to Almighty Allah. Thus, in the case of common Muslims – with the exception of prophets – there should be a prayer for forgiveness and pleasure from Allah. This is as it appears in the Qur’an: “Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him” – 5:119, 9:100,  28:22, 98:8). (Ruh-ul-Ma’ani)

The Hadith of Hadhrat Musa (Alayhissalaam) Punching Malakul Maut

By Mujlisul Ulama

Narrated Abu Huraira (Radhiyallahu Anhu): The angel of death was sent to Musa (alayhissalaam) and when he went to him, Musa (alayhissalaam) slapped him severely, spoiling one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord, and said, “You sent me to a slave who does not want to die.” Allah restored his eye and said, “Go back and tell him (i.e. Musa alayhissalaam) to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his hand.” (So the angel came to him and told him the same). Then Musa (alayhissalaam) asked, “O my Lord! What will be then?” He said, “Death will be then.” He (Musa alayhissalaam) said, “(Let it be) now.” He asked Allah that He bring him near the Sacred Land at a distance of a stone’s throw. Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, “Were I there I would show you the grave of Musa (alayhissalaam) by the way near the red sand hill.” [Sahih Bukhari]

The acceptance of this Hadith as authentic by the greatest authorities of Hadith negates the slightest shad­ow of doubt regarding the authenticity of the Hadith which is nowadays being subjected to blasphemous ridi­cule and criticism. The authenticity of the Hadith is established and has been upheld by all authorities of Ahadith. For the past fourteen hundred years, ijma’ (Consensus of the Ummah) has existed on the authenti­city of this Hadith – on the fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did make this statement. Who then are those in this belated age to reject and ridicule this authentic Hadith – the sacred utterance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Only those whose hearts have become sealed to the Noor of Hidayah can venture to undertake the peril of mocking and ridiculing the authentic and sacred words of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Hadhrat Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), the great authority of the Shafi Math-hab, states in his Sharhul Muslim (Commentary of the Saheeh of Imaam Muslim):

“AI-Maazari said: ‘Verily, some atheists have refuted this Hadith and have rejected its probability. They say that how is it permissible for Musa to break the eye of Malakul Maut?”

This self-same argument which the mulaahidah (atheists) of Imaam Nawawi’s time advanced is today being propounded by some people who align themse­lves with the people of knowledge. Thus, in considering their reason or intelligence to be the standard for the acceptance of a hadith, they have grouped themselves together with the mulaahidah  mentioned by Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh).

Since this Hadith has been reliably attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and there is not the slightest vestige of doubt in its authenticity, the question of its refutation does not occur to men grounded in Knowledge and Imaan. If logic conflicts with the sacred utterance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh wasallam), we shall and must necessarily abandon such logic as defective and crooked and uphold the correct­ness and validity of the Hadith. Every statement of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was made on inspiration and revelation from Allah Ta’ala, hence the Qur’aan Shareef declares categorically:

“He [Muhammad] does not speak by his desire. It [his talk] is nothing but Wahi which is revealed.”

Hence, those who deny the validity and correctness of the proven and sacred words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) do so at the peril of their Imaan.

In their rejection of this Saheeh Hadith they present another utterly fallacious argument. They cite the Qur’­aanic ayat:

“They [i.e.the Angels] do not disobey Allah regard­ing that which He has commanded them. And, they do as they are commanded.”

This ayat is cited by the rejectors of the Hadith as their proof. It is indeed unworthy of men of knowledge to resort to such baseless ways of argumentation. This fallacious arguments mirrors the lack of understanding of the rejectors of the Hadith and their inability to argue their case on the basis of the Shariah. Firstly, this ayat does not remotely refer to the Hadith or the subject of the Hadith in question. There is no relationship between the ayat cited and the Hadith which is being rejected and subjected to ridicule by some Sheikhs. The Malaaikah (Angels) being in perpetual obedience to Allah Ta’ala is not refuted or doubted. The Hadith pert­aining to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Malakul Maut in no way negates the obedience of the Malaaikah stated in the Qur’aanic verse.

There is absolutely no contradiction between the Hadith in question and the Qur’aanic verse cited by the rejectors. In returning to Allah Ta’ala after being expelled by Musaa (alayhis salaam), Malakul Maut did not disobey Allah Ta’ala because his (Malakul Maut’s) return was not due to disobedience, but was occasioned by helplessness. Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) rendered him helpless. This may seem surprising to the logic of those who have rejected the authenticity of the Hadith without having the slightest Shar’i evidence. But, to people of firm Imaan there is nothing surprising in Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) having rendered Malakul Maut helpless on this occasion. It should be well understood that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are the chosen representatives and messengers of Allah Ta’ala. They have a superior rank than the Malaaikah.

The Sajdah which all Malaaikah made to Nabi Aadam (alayhis salaam) is indicative of the superiority of the Ambiya over the Malaaikah. In fact, it is the unanimous belief of the Ahl-e-Sunnah Wal jama’ah that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are sup­erior in rank to the Angels. This fact is known to Malakul Maut and all the Malaaikah. Therefore, assuming that Malakul Maut had the power to retaliate when Musa (alayhis salaam) struck him, it is inconceivable that he would have retaliated and acted in opposition to the wishes of his superior, viz., Musa (alayhis salaam) in this case. Should Malakul Maut have acted in retaliation or take the soul of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) contrary to his wishes, he would have been acting in contravent­ion of the command which is stated in the ayat: “They do not disobey Allah.”, because it is Allah’s Command that Malakul Maut takes the soul of the Ambiya (alayh­imus salaam) with their permission. Hence, when Mala­kul Maut returned to Allah Ta’ala, he did so in obed­ience to the Divine Command since he was under the impression that Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) refused to die at that time.

The authorities of the Shariah have also said that on that particular occasion, Malakul Maut visited Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) in human form. He appeared unannounced and did not introduce himself. Musaa (alayhis salaam) mistook him for an intruder about to attack him, hence he acted in self-defence. But, when Malakul Maut returned the second time he revealed his identity, hence Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) readily submitted inspite of the fact that Allah Ta’ala granted Musaa (alayhis salaam) the choice of remaining alive for as many years as he wished.

Allah Ta’ala has bestowed tremendous power to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam). In one hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)-said:

“Verily, mankind will be in a swoon [of death on the Day of Qiyaamah after the Trumpet has been sounded]. will be the first to be revived [when the Trumpet is sounded the second time]. Then suddenly I will observe Musaa [alayhis salaam] holding onto the side of the Arsh [Throne of Allah]. I do not know if he was among those who had passed out [into non-existence when the Trumpet was sounded the first time] and was revived before me or was he among those who have been saved [from the destruction wrought by the Trumpet].”

Those who are holding up the Throne of Allah Ta’ala are Malaaikah of colossal power. Their size and power as described by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) boggle the human mind. Yet Musa (alayhis salaam) on the Day of Qiyaamah will be in that group of mighty Angels holding aloft the Arsh of Allah Ta’ala. This in itself indicates the enormous power which Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam). Lest the rejectors ridicule this Hadith as well, we furnish here­under the proof of its authenticity. Imaam Muslim (rahmatullah alayh) records this Hadith in his Saheeh with five Sanads.

We have, by the grace of Allah Ta’ala explained the proof and the subject matter of the Hadith which has been ridiculed and rejected in some quarters. Muslims who have been thrown into doubt should now under­stand that the Hadith is Saheeh (authentic) and has been accepted as such by the Ummah and all authorit­ies of the Shariah for the past fourteen centuries. The rejection of the Hadith presented by some Sheikhs is thus baseless and without substance. And, upon us is but to deliver the clear message: 

They follow nothing but baseless opinion,and they do nothing but conjecture. [Qur’an]

Loudspeakers and Hadhrat Thanwi’s Fatwa

Question: In the Dhameemah (Appendix) of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s Imdaadul Fataawa, Vol.1, Mufti Muhammad Shafi says that it is permissible to use loudspeakers for Salaat in the Musjids. He adds that if Hadhrat Thanvi was alive, he would have retracted his fatwa and concur with the permissibility view.

Answer by Mujlisul Ulama:
In the Dhameemah to Imdaadul Fataawa, Mufti Shafi’ (rahmatullah alayh) does not say that if Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) was alive “he would say that the usage of loudspeakers for Salaah is permissible”. Mufti Shafi said: “In these circumstances, Hadhrat Thanvi would retract his fatwa of fasaad-e-namaaz.” That is, he would retract his view of Salaat of the muqtadis not being valid if a loudspeaker is used.

Using the loudspeaker in Namaaz and the Fasaad of the Namaaz are two separate issues. Whilst Namaaz will not be faasid if a loudspeaker is used, the karaahat (abomination and impermissibility) of the instrument in Salaat remains intact. 

Besides the issue of invalidity of Salaat which was Hadhrat Thanvi’s Fatwa, Hadhrat had also presented other reasons for the prohibition. Study the entire Fatwa in Imdaadul Fataawa. In his Fatwa he had mentioned that it is not permissible to even bring the loudspeaker into the Musjid. Read the Fatwa with concentration to understand the Shar’i abhorrence for the introduction of the loudspeaker into the Musjid and Salaat. Even if he would retract one view (i.e. if he had been alive today), there are still several other factors which render the loudspeaker impermissible for Salaat.

At no stage did we ever say that Salaat with the loudspeaker invalidates the Salaat despite this being our inclination. But, the use of the loudspeaker in the vast majority of cases remains   haraam. In most Musjids the loudspeaker is used even if there is a half saff of musallis. Many Musjids are so small that there is totally no need for a loudspeaker which has become merely a style and fashion. We have seen in many Musjids, the mike switched on when there are just a dozen  musallis or less and the Musjid itself is small making it totally unnecessary for a loudspeaker. Besides the waste, riya (show) and stupidity, the khushu’ of the Salaat is disturbed with this unnecessary apparatus attached to Salaat. Furthermore, nowadays they have a new style. They tie the mike to the Imaam giving the impression of him being a dog on a leash.

All the arguments which Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) explained in his lengthy Fatwa remain valid to this day. The only issue which may change is the question of fasaad-e-namaaz. We are averse to research the loudspeaker from the technological aspect, because we know that we shalll ultimately be forced to say that the Salaat of the musallis becomes faasid if a loudspeaker is used. The explanation which the India and Pakistan university professors gave the Ulama about the technological aspects of the loudspeaker is inaccurate. We are positive that a proper study of the loudspeaker will establish that the end sound is not the original voice of the Imaam. But, as mentioned above, we have no intention to explore this issue in view of the Ibtilaa-e-Aam of the entire Ummah.

ZINA GROPING IN FRONT OF THE KA’BAH

Question: A lot of women are saying they were groped and sexually assaulted by men during Hajj and Taawaf.  Their bottoms and breasts were grabbed and so on, including my mother. What is the solution to this? Can the hajj be segregated? What should the punishment of such a man be? I’ve heard it’s been done by Saudi guards as well. This has really disturbed me a lot.Wallaahul Must-aan!

Answer [By Mujlisul Ulama]:

Yes, only Allah is the Musta-aan. Only Allah Ta’ala can help the Ummah in this rotten, satanic state which prevails even right at Baitullah Shareef. The only available solution for the shocking filth taking place in the Holy precincts is to refrain from going for Nafl Hajj and Umrah. In the present scenario it is HARAAM to go for Nafl Hajj and Umrah There is nothing one can do to curb this filth and fitnah because the Najdi Saudi regime is kuffaar, and these miserable villains are allowing all this corruption to happen.

Only the authorities can segregate the men and women.

But they will not do so since they are not even Muslims.

It is incumbent to stay away from even the Holy Cities. Only those on whom Hajj is Fardh should go. It will not be permissible for a woman to make Tawaaf without her male mahram.

Zindeeq morons who have lost their Imaan always present intermingling of men and women in Musjidul Haraam as ‘daleel’ (stupid proof) for claiming permissibility. Their moronic argument is that if it is not permissible for women to attend Musjids as the Ulama-e-Haqq propagate, then women would not have been allowed to make tawaaf with men. According to these morons whatever happens in the Haram is proof of the Shariah. By the same token they now say that the zina groping as mentioned in the question is permissible because it happens in the Haram. Their brains are corrupted by shaitaani manipulation. Zina-groping is now a new ‘daleel’ in the armoury of stupidity of the morons.  Henceforth groping women in the Musaajid will be permissible according to the morons because this takes place in the Haram.

Many women are now exposing the zina harassment to which they had been subjected to by swines in the Haram Shareef right in front of the Ka’bah Shareef and whilst waiting to kiss Hajr-e-Aswad. There can be no worse pigs than these evil scoundrels.

Those who perpetrate the heinous acts of zina right in front of Baitullah Shareef are worse than pigs. These swines cannever be Muslims. It does not occur to them that it is quite possible for Allah Azza Wa Jal to physically transfigure and transform them into pigs and apes or into stone. In bygone times a man and a woman had been transformed into rocks for having committed zina in Baitullah. The mushrikeen then made deities of these zina idols and worshipped them.

Those who perpetrate such filth in the Haram, if they are not physically transfigured, they should know that at least their hearts have been transmogrified into pigs and apes.

In these circumstances it is HARAAM for women to go to Makkah for Umrah or Nafl Hajj. Only such husbands who are DAYYOOTH can be comfortable with the acts of zina to which their womenfolk are subjected. There are utterly shameless and without a semblance of honour (ghairat).

The Permissibility of Attaching [Qur’anic] Amulets [Ta’widh]

The Fifth Issue: The Permissibility of Attaching [Qur’anic] Amulets[1]

By Imām Abu Abdillāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Anṣārī al-Qurtubi (rahimahullah) [d. 671 AH]

Translated by Abu Humayd

Translator’s Preface  

The following is a translation of an excerpt from Imām al-Qurṭubī’s  [d. 671 AH] Tafsīr[2] of the Qur’ān relating to the permissibility of wearing Qur’ānic Ta’wīdh. Imām al-Qurṭubī sets out to answer some of the claims of those who unconditionally deem the usage of Ta’wīdh to be impermissible. In all, he deduces seven Masā’il (issues) regarding the following verse: 

image

“We send down (stage by stage) in the Qur’an that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.”   [Sūrat ‘l-Isrā’, 82]

Under the fifth Mas’alah al-Qurṭubī indicates – whilst utilising the above verse – towards the permissibility of Ta’wīdh, drawing upon evidences from the Qur’ān, Sunnah, Āthār (narrations), sayings of the Scholars and logic.

Fifth issue: [Imām] Mālik said:

‘There is no harm in attaching texts that contain in them the names of Allāh – the Mighty and Majestic – upon the necks of the ill to attain blessings by it so long as the one who wears it does not intend by that to ward off the evil eye.’

So this [saying of Mālik] means, that before the evil eye occurs [one shouldn’t attach it]. Of this opinion are the majority of the people of knowledge. 

And all which is attached [as ta’widh] after an affliction in terms of Allāh’s – the Mighty and Majestic – names and His book in the hope of [finding] relief and cure by Allāh – The High – is like the permitted form of ruqyah sanctioned by the Sunnah in [dealing with] the evil eye and it’s like. 

‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said:

‘When one of you becomes frightened during sleep, then let him say: ‘I seek refuge in Allāh’s Perfect Words from His anger, His punishment, the evil of the devils and that they should come’.

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr used to teach this du’a to those of his children who could grasp it. Whereas for those of them that could not grasp it, he would write it and then hang it around their necks.

Hence if it is said, it was narrated from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ that he said:  

‘Whoever hangs something  has entrusted [his care] to it’

And that Ibn Mas’ūd had seen a tied amulet on his slave girl so he very strongly pulled it off then cut it and said:  

‘Verily the family of Ibn Mas’ūd are free from shirk’.  Thereafter he said: ‘Verily amulets, incantations and ṭi’walah (charms) are shirk.’ It was said: ‘What are ṭiwalah’? He replied: ‘That due to which a woman shows love to her husband.’

It was narrated from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Āmir al-Juhanī that he said, I heard the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ say:  

‘Whoever attaches a tamīmah (amulets), may Allāh not fulfil his need, and whoever wears a sea-shell, may Allāh not give him peace.’ Khalīl ibn Aḥmad said: ‘Tamīmah is a pendant which has in it [verses of] protection, and sea-shell is beads.’

Abū ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Abd ‘l-Barr) said: ‘Tamimah in the speech of the Arabs refers to a pendant, and its meaning according to the people of knowledge is: those pendants worn across necks for fear of the evil eye – or the like – striking, or that it does not occur before it comes to pass, may Allāh not grant him recovery and safety [from illness]. As for one who wears sea shells, which falls under the same meaning [as tamīmah], then meaning he has not entrusted to Allāh [his affairs], so may Allāh not grant him blessings in the state of well-being he finds himself in, and Allāh knows best.

So all of these (narrations mentioned above) was to caution against acts engaged in by the people of Jāhiliyyah (ignorance) like wearing amulets and pendants, and that they would consider these things to protect them and ward off calamity, and this is of course only done by Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic; He is the granter of ease and the one who tests [by inflicting illness], whom has no partner. Therefore, the Messenger of Allāh forbade them from such actions which they would carry out in their [period] of Jāhiliyyah.

It is narrated from ‘Ā’ishah that she said:

‘That which is attached after affliction befalls is not considered to be among the [impermissible] amulets.’

Some of the people of knowledge  disliked hanging amulets in all situations, [whether] before being afflicted with illness or even after it. The first position – permissible to wear – is most correct in light of narrations and speculation, Inshā-Allāh Ta’ālā. As for what has been related from Ibn Mas’ud, then it is plausible he intended (by his dislike for its wearing) non-Quranic things obtained from fortune-tellers and soothsayers since seeking remedy from the quran, whether in attached form (amulet) or otherwise, is not shirk. His saying: ‘Whoever hangs something has entrusted (his care) to it’. So whoever attaches the Qu’rān (as an amulet) ought to be under the care of Allah and not be entrusted to others beside Him; because, it is He, Most High, who is ultimately sought and upon Him reliance is placed when seeking cure through the Quran.

Ibn ‘l-Musayyib was asked regarding ta’wīdh: ‘Can it be attached’? He replied: ‘If it is placed in a tube or garment then there is no harm in it if what was written in it is Qur’ān.’

[It is also narrated] from al-Dhaḥḥāk that he saw no harm in a  man attaching something from the book of Allāh if he removed this at the time of sexual intercourse and during the call of nature. Abū Ja’far Muḥammad ibn  ‘Alī also allowed hanging ta’wīdh on children. Ibn Sīrīn used to see no harm in a person attaching something from the Qur’ān…

References

[1] A suitable title was given by the Translator.

[2] Al-Jāmi’ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān [10/288-289]

Valentine’s Day – A Day for the Muslims???

By Ebrahim Saifuddin

Another day yet approaches on which Muslims become inane and participate in it with much ebullience. Every 14th of February across the globe, couples give each other gifts as a sign of their love. Most of them do not even know why they are celebrating this day and what the origin of this day is. Apart from other people, across the Muslim world such acts are carried out on this day as well.

Historians link this day to a certain St. Valentine. The Catholic Church identifies some three saints who were martyrs and all three were called Valentine. There are variations in the origin of this day. Some say that this day originates from a Roman called Valentine who was asked to give up Christianity but refused to do so and thus was killed on 14th February 269 C.E., the day which was also allocated to love lotteries. Another tradition arises from the time of Emperor Claudius II. He came to a conclusion that single men made better soldiers and thus made it illegal for young men to marry. No wives, no families – hence better soldiers. During this time St. Valentine was a priest at the temple and he found the actions of Claudius outrageous and thus defied the emperor. He married off young men in private. When the emperor got to know the actions of Valentine, he sent him to jail and according to certain sources; he was to be put to death. In 496 C.E., the 14th of February was set as a day to honor St. Valentine by Pope Gelasius.

Some legends also inform us that St. Valentine fell in love with the Jailer’s daughter who would visit him often before he was put to death. It is also stated that before his death, Valentine wrote a letter for her (sort of a love letter) and signed it off as “From Your Valentine”.

One cannot point to the exact origin of this day however on thing is for certain that regardless of which version of the story holds to be true, this is an event which the Muslims were not asked by our beloved Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to celebrate. This is a day with origins deep within Christianity and not Islam. It should also be pointed out the Christianity as a religion does not either ask its followers to celebrate this day. This day is a complete innovation by man. It honors a saint not of the Islamic religion but of Christianity. It is also important to point out here that in the pagan Roman days, mid-February was allocated for the festival of love. It is also believed commonly by some that these Roman traditions seeped into what we now call the Valentine’s Day.

Every year Muslims spend a lot of money buying chocolates, jewelries, cards and a range of other gift items. While it is perfectly okay for married couples to give each other gifts on any day of the year, it is most definitely against Islam for unmarried ‘couples’ to follow these practices. Islam does recognize the factor ‘love’ but does not recognize ‘love affairs’. So why do we forget our teachings and the Law of Allah so easily?

First let me point out that when I said above that it is okay for married couples to give each other gifts, I certainly did not mean that they should do it on this particular day. In Islam a husband and wife should express love for each other every single day hence borrowing the name given to 14th of February, I would say that everyday should be a Valentine’s Day for the husband and wife.

So what happens when a husband and wife go out of their way to express their love for each other particularly on this day? When the child sees that his or her parents are going out of their way on this particular day, he or she would automatically start to associate this day as being one in which you are to express you love for your loved ones and thus even unintentionally we as parents would be teaching them that this day is actually of some significance.

As Muslims we should know and realize the importance of our religious teachings. Islam in itself is a religion of peace and love and thus we are to express our love not only towards our parents, wives/husbands, and children but also towards our neighbors, the poor and the needy, and all of the Muslim Ummah and humanity. So we are to express this love and care for them throughout the year. No one particular day is needed for us to express our love for others.

To a Muslim, Islam should be the first and foremost priority and we should not blindly imitate the rest of the world. Just because they want to follow a day does not mean that we as Muslims should do the same. We are told by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ not to imitate the non-Muslims then why do we repeatedly imitate them.

Islam is a complete way of life and we are to follow this complete way of life to come close to Allah. We should not be a party to the irreligious practices that do take place on that day among everyone; Muslims or non-Muslims. As being part of the Muslim Ummah we should boycott such man-made innovations and not be a part of it. InshaAllah we should all make a decision to move towards Islam rather than away from it by becoming a part of such un-Islamic events.

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam