[Majlisul Ulama]
THE HORRENDOUS DESECRATION OF THE MAYYIT AND THE FALSE AND SATANIC REACTION TO THE HAQQ OF THE SHARIAH
The irrefutable truth is that horrendous desecration of the body of Hadhrat Maulana Abdul Hafiz Makki (Rahmatullah alayh) was perpetrated by ignorant followers/family members in total disregard of the Shariah. The desecration was particularly vile in that it consisted of a compound of haraam piled on haraam. There was absolutely no Shar’i grounds and no moral justification for having perpetrated the horrendous sacrilege and desecration of the Mayyit.
Now, after the facts and the truth of the Shariah have been harshly and conspicuously presented to them (Transportation of the Mayyit – A Satanic Desecration ) and to the Muslim community, the perpetrators of the villainous desecration – the khuddaam – are at haraam pains to defend their haraam desecration of the Mayyit. Flagrantly disregarding the Shariah, oblivious of the accountability on Qiyaamah in the Divine Court of Allah Azza Wa Jal, uncaring of the pain caused to the Mayyit, indifferent to the heinous humiliation inflicted on the body of the Mayyit and in total negation of the command and spirit of the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the criminal elements responsible for the desecration are clutching at straws to justify the haraam violations which they had committed to gratify their nafsaani promptings.
In so doing, it is therefore pertinent to ask them: Whose Sunnah are you following in your reaction to the Haqq? The Sunnah of your Father, Hadhrat Aadam (Alayhis salaam) or the sunnah of your enemy, Iblees? When Hadhrat Aadam (Alayhis salaam) had erred, his humility, regret and remorse compelled him to lay in Sajdah for 40 years crying in repentance:
“O our Rabb! We have indeed oppressed ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then undoubtedly, we shall be among the losers.”
If the perpetrators of the villainy belong to the progeny of Hadhrat Aadam (Alayhis salaam), it behoves them to resort to the Sunnah of our Ancestor, Hadhrat Aadam (Alayhis salaam).
But the haraam reaction of the wrong-doers constrains us to believe that they are following in the footsteps of Shaitaan who defiantly justified his villainy of disobedience by uttering:
“You (O Allah!) have created me from fire and you have created him from sand. (Hence it is not befitting my dignity to prostrate to Aadam even if it is your command).”
The justification of the palpable haraam desecration is a desperate act akin to the sunnah of Iblees who justified his haraam rebellion against Allah Azza Wa Jal. Those who are now justifying the evil desecration which can never be validly justified regardless of any plethora of Fiqhi technicalities or isolated examples of saintly persons, are morally and spiritually bankrupt in the same way as shaitaan is bankrupt. Truth and honour demand that the gross error of the desecration be acknowledged, and amends be made with Taubah.
The khuddaam of Hadhrat Makki are making desperate attempts to justify the sacrilege and to provide Shar’i grounds for the desecration which they have so dastardly perpetrated. In a bayaan by one of the khuddaam a series of spurious arguments has been presented to justify the transportation and desecration of the Mayyit. There is no validity in any of the arguments.
In his bayaan the khaadim sahib’s reliance is on some isolated episodes pertaining primarily to the amwaat of some of our Akaabireen whose bodies were transported and buried in places where they had not died. This is the strongest ‘daleel’ tendered by the khaadim sahib for the haraam desecration perpetrated by the khuddaam to the body of Hadhrat Makki (Rahmatullah alayh). In the abortive bid to justify the evil deed, the khaadim sahib has closed his eyes – the eyes of the heart – from the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and from the Ijmaa-ee practice of the Ummah since the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and in typical display of peer-puja, thereby bringing himself within the purview of the Qur’aanic prohibition on peer-puja. Mentioning the peer-puja of Bani Israa-eel, the Qur’aan Majeed states:
“They took their ahbaar and ruhbaan as gods besides Allah…….”
Statements (fatwas) and acts in conflict with the Shariah committed by seniors on the basis of an error in judgment or errors committed by their ghaafil khuddaam are quoted as ‘daleel’ in wanton disregard for the clear-cut ahkaam of the Shariah which are negated with isolated episodes and even errors of the Buzrugs. About this despicable attitude, Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “He who clings to the rarities (and obscurities) of the Ulama, verily, he has made an exit from Islam.”
When the eyes of the baatil are blind, the mind is incapable of correct application. About this issue, the Qur’aan Majeed says:
“The (physical) eyes are not blind, but the eyes within the breasts are blind.”
Let it be well understood that the criterion is the Shariah, not the isolated episodes and statements of the Buzrugs. Any statement or act of any Buzrug regardless of his lofty rank, never constitutes a Shar’i daleel if it is in conflict with the Shariah. Any baseless act of a genuine senior shall either be accorded a suitable interpretation or set aside if the conflict cannot be reconciled with the Shariah. But, never is it permissible to present it as a daleel for gratifying the nafs with perceived acts of ‘piety’ and goodness. The Buzrug’s status and maqbooliyat may not be presented in negation of the Shariah, and on such basis construe the act to be valid in the Shariah.
The khaadim does concede that: “Hazrat Wala did not issue any such wasiyyat or naseehat that, ‘Wherever I pass away I should be returned’.”
This revelation further compounds the villainy of the khuddaam who had taken upon themselves the liability of flagrantly violating the Shariah and scandalously desecrating the Mayyit.
In a bid to neutralize the effect of no wasiyyat having been made by Hazrat Wala, the khaadim adds: “However, there is no doubt that Hazrat Wala’s desire to reside and be buried in Madinah Munawwarah came before this faqeer and haqeer, his khaadim, on several occasions.” It is the desire of most Muslims to die and be buried in Madinah Munawwarah. But such desire never justifies violation of the Shariah and desecration of the Mayyit. The khaadim sahib acted in flagrant violation of the Shariah to gratify his nafs and to show gross misconceived ‘respect’ and ‘honour’ for his Hadhrat. In the process of satisfying his nafs, he remained blind and oblivious of the villainy which follows in the wake of having the body transported from South Africa to Madinah.
If it had been the Divine Desire for the Hadhrat to be buried in Madinah, he would not have undertaken the journey out of Madinah on the eve of his Maut. He would have remained there and his Maut would have claimed him and he would have been buried honourably in the Holy Place. The fact that the Hadhrat departed from the Holy Land to die within hours of arrival in South Africa, is adequate for concluding that it was Allah’s Will for him to be buried here in this country.
The question is: How was it possible to thwart the Divine Will? In this dunya, Allah Ta’ala has granted us limited free will. While it is the Divine Will to acquire Rizq in only halaal ways, insaan has been endowed with the necessary free will to take his Rizq in haraam ways. Similarly, while it is the Divine Will that man abstains from sin, he (man) has been given the free will to act in conflict with the Divine Will and to indulge in sin. Allah’s command is that a man should not utter Talaaq thrice in a single session. Despite this being Allah’s Desire, the man has the free will to act in conflict thereby damning and dooming himself.
In like manner, the desecration and transportation of the Mayyit were effected in conflict with the Divine Command. It is therefore not a conundrum pertaining to man’s ‘power’ of acting in conflict with Allah’s Command. Man does so by his own volition for which Allah Ta’ala has granted him limited scope in this dunya. The Shariah was there as an adequate guide. But this was ignored and violated recklessly to give effect to gross nafsaaniyat.
In an astounding display of lack of understanding of the Shariah, the khaadim sahib says in his bayaan:
“The mas-alah of bringing the mayyit from far afield had already been resolved when Hazrat Raipuri (rahmatullah alaih) made wasiyyat in Raipur that, “If I pass away in Pakistan then bring me to Raipur.” At that time on the excuse of lack of means his khuddaam in Pakistan buried him there in Pakistan. And, let me say this as well that from Lahore where he passed away the janaazah was brought to Tudya Shareef, which according to that time, you know what a distance it was.”
Hadhrat Raipuri (Rahmatullah alayh) was a Buzrug who flourished some decades ago. His wasiyyat was in conflict with the Shariah, and such a conflict with the Shariah in no way whatsoever can abrogate the 14 Century practice of the Ummah based on the clear-cut commands of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on which is structured the Mas’alah of immediate burial in the place of Maut. Hadhrat Raipuri’s wasiyyat resolves nothing. It only complicated the matter for khuddaam who are inclined to peer-puja instead of obedience to the Shariah. The example of Hadhrat Raipuri’s wasiyyat is fallacious. It is not a valid premiss for structuring a Shar’i mas’alah. His wasiyyat is not among the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. An issue is resolved in terms of Shar’i Dalaa-il, not in accordance with wasiyyats and whims of Buzrugs, especially when such whim is in conspicuous conflict with the Shariah.
Hadhrat Raipuri’s wasiyyat necessitated great delay in the burial while Rasulullah’s Command obligates the Ummah to bury immediately without undue delay. The Command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) applies to all members of the Ummah whether Buzrug, faasiq and faajir. A Buzrug is not exempted from Rasulullah’s command of immediate burial. Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“Make haste with the Janaazah. If he (the mayyit) was a pious person, then the (abode) you are sending him to is best. If he was impious, then get rid of him from your shoulders.”
“When the Janaazah is ready (i.e. ghusl and kafan have been completed), and the men load it on their necks, then if he was pious, he exclaims: “Send me forward”. And, if he was impious, he wails and says to his family: “Where are you taking it (the Janaazah). Everything except insaan hears its (wailing) voice. If insaan had to hear it, he will fall down unconscious.”
According to the Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) there are only two types of mayyit – pious and impious. Regardless of greater piety, there is no third category to which Buzrugs, peers and shaikhs are assigned. If they were genuine, they come within the ambit of the ‘pious’. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the pious mayyit demands haste for his burial. He is aware of the wondrous abode of bliss awaiting him. He therefore commands his relatives and khuddaam: ‘Qaddi muni!’ (Send me forth!).
Now, in response to Maulana Makki’s call of ‘Qaddi muni!’, his khuddaam did the direct opposite. Instead of sending him forth to his heavenly abode of bliss, where did they send him? And what did they do with him? They sent him to a stinking mortuary here in South Africa to be mingled with najis kuffaar corpses. Then they treated him like chattel. He was loaded like cargo in the hold of a plane together with other cargo. Then in Jiddah he was again handled like cargo. Are these the abodes for which the Mayyit pleaded: “Qaddi muni!” ???
Whilst Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded haste with the burial, these miserable khuddaam who are incapable of constructively and Islamically applying their minds, acted in diametric opposition by deliberately delaying the burial. The Hadhrat died on Monday before Maghrib, but was buried on Thursday after Fajr. Is this compliance with the Hadith? Is this obedience to the Shariah?
The filthy and humiliating act of mutilation dubbed ‘embalming’ is another scandalous chapter which shall be discussed later, Insha-Allah. The khuddaam are most dishonest in their denial of the perpetration of this barbaric act on the body of Maulana Makki (Rahmatullah alayh).
Every unbiased Muslim who does not subscribe to peer-puja will understand the gross and flagrant violation of the Shariah and the Ahaadith committed by stupid friends pandering to their personal emotional dictates.
The action of the khuddaam of Hadhrat Raipuri (Rahmatullah alayh) has no validity in the Shariah. It does not constitute a Shar’i daleel. Burying the Hadhrat in Budiyah Shareef away from Lahore where he had died is the error of the khuddaam. In fact, even the wasiyyat of Hadhrat Raipuri (Rahmatullah alayh) is not condonable in terms of the Shariah. No Hadhrat regardless of his lofty status is above the Shariah.
The argument of Budiyah Shareef to justify transportation to another country and the grotesque acts of desecration and indignity to the Mayyit, besides being stupid is baseless and has been tendered without having any regard for the Shariah. This attitude is the effect of peer puja.
Presenting another flaccid argument to justify the humiliating method of transportation of the mayyit, the khaadim sahib avers:
“Besides this, a year later Maulana Yusuf Khandhelwi who was the Ameer of the Jamaat at that time, his janaazah was taken from Lahore to Delhi and buried there.”
The very same response tendered in refutation of the flapdoodle ‘daleel’ related to Hadhrat Raipuri, is applicable here to the burial of Hadhrat Yusuf Kandhelwi. The error committed here too does not constitute a Shar’i daleel. What the khuddaam of this Hadhrat did, whether of their own accord or in fulfilment of a wasiyyat was baatil and not permissible. If it was the effect of a wasiyyat, then the khuddaam were guilty of peer- pujar which brings them within the purview of the Qur’aanic castigation:
“They take their ahbaar and ruhbaan as gods besides Allah….”
In the backdrop of Rasulullah’s explicit and emphatic commands and the standard practice of the Ummah, the wasiyyats of Hadhrat Raipuri and Hadhrat Yusuf Kandhelwi have absolutely no shar’i validity. It is not permissible to even cite such wasiyyats which are nugatory of the ahkaam of the Shariah.
Then the khaadim sahib attempted to justify the haraam transportation and the haraam desecration of the mayyit with the case of Hadhrat Ayyoob Ansaari (Radhiyallahu anhu). There is absolutely no resemblance with the Janaazah of Hadhrat Ayyoob Ansaari (Radhiyallahu anhu). This great Sahaabi was carried on the mubaarak shoulders of the Mujaahideen among whom were many Sahaabah. His Janaazah was not delayed for days. His body was not subjected to mutilation and desecration. From the moment of his Maut, it was the fulfilment of the Sunnah every step. His desire was to be buried at the front extremity of the battleline. This was not in another city. It was on the same battlefield where numerous Muslims had gained shahaadat. It was not a case of transporting the Mayyit from one city to another. The bearers of his Janaazah walked to the spot of burial which was at the bottom of the walls of Constantinople. He was not shoved in a najis mortuary nor was his Body treated like chattel loaded with cargo.
Even the Christians honoured his Qabr. They would visit the Qabr and supplicate for rain and other needs. It is utterly stupid to say the least, to present this episode as a basis for the villainy which was committed to the body of Hadhrat Makki.
Furthermore, the khaadim sahib baselessly latched on to this episode, despite there being no long transportation and desecration, completely forgetting about the more than a hundred thousand Sahaabah who were not transported back to Madinah for burial. They were buried where they met their death. The norm of the Sahaabah and the entire Ummah throughout the history of Islam has always been to bury on the same day and in the place where death occurred. It is precisely for this reason that all Muslims are appalled when they hear of the mayyit being transported to another country in emulation of kuffaar practices. It is just not Islamic practice to send the mayyit to a mortuary, to delay the burial for days and to transport it like cargo to another country.
Speaking with a forked tongue incongruently, the khaadim sahib says:
“So actually we should firstly understand that to keep the mayyit too long (ziyada der tak) which is unavoidable in a journey, the change in the mayyit is natural—is in conflict with the honour of the Mayyit. The blood inside, the putrid matter inside becomes bacteria. Through this, the mayyit’s looks changes. So this is in conflict with the honour of the mayyit. This is the actual illat of not delaying the mayyit. To hasten in the burial is in the Ahaadith-e-Mubaarak. This is absolutely correct. There is no doubt in it.”
Despite conceding the veracity of the command in the Hadith, and acknowledging the violation of the honour of the Mayyit caused by the delay, etc., the khaadim sahib very illogically justifies all the acts which are in stark contravention of what he has conceded to be the ‘absolute truth’. The illat (raison d’etre – the purpose) for the prohibition of transporting the mayyit and delaying the burial is the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Whether the facial form changes or not, the prohibition remains intact.
The illat advanced by the khaadim sahib is the product of his own opinion. It is not the basis for the command issued by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). On the contrary, the illat stated in the relevant Ahaadith, is the abode of bliss towards which the Mayyit desires to quickly proceed, hence he calls out: Qaddi muni!’ (Send me ahead!), and as far as the impious mayyit is concerned, the illat for the commanded haste in burial is to get rid of the evil mayyit.
Therefore, even if there is assurance that the Mayyit because of being a Maqbool Wali, will not decompose if the burial is delayed, then too, it will be haraam to unnecessarily delay the burial and to emulate the way of the kuffaar who bury after days. Thus, the khaadim sahib’s claim of the delay being ‘jaaiz’ in this case is utterly baseless. He stupidly bases his fallacious ‘fatwa’ on what ‘many people believe”. Thus he says:
“Now many people view that the mayyit of the mashaaikh and seniors do not decompose, therefore, delay in their burial is jaa-iz. This is clearly stated.”
Where is this clearly stated? What the many juhala believe is not a daleel in the Shariah. A fatwa cannot be blurted out on the basis of what many people believe. The command to make haste with the burial is applicable to all – to even the Shuhada and the Auliya regardless of their bodies not decomposing. The Shariah may not be subjected to change on the basis of whimsical opinion.
The khaadim sahib has promised that a “complete treatise” shall be published shortly in vindication of the grotesque villainy which had been perpetrated. We await the treatise. Insha-Allah, an adequate response shall be forthcoming.
The khaadim sahib further says: “….this amal is after the demise. It has nothing to do with the Buzrugs. It is related to the khuddaam.”
With this statement the khaadim attempts to create the impression that the criticism is directed at the Mayyit, but this is false. The criticism is in fact for the khuddaam who have perpetrated the villainous desecration. It is not in any way whatsoever directed at the Mayyit.
The khaadim sahib alleges that the acts perpetrated on the Mayyit were for his ‘ikraam’ (respect and honour). His conception of ikraam is indeed weird. ‘Ikraam’ in conflict with the Shariah is haraam. It is indeed surprising that these khuddaam presenting a plethora of arguments in negation of the haste commanded by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They search for straws to clutch on to justify their conflict with the clear-cut command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They are clearly the victims of peer-puja.
The khaadim sahib says:“While we are on it, I submit that two Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu anhuma) passed away out of Madinah Munawwarah. All these points are coming in the kitaab.” We await the kitaab, and shall, Insha’Allah, adequately respond to “all these points” of baatil with which they will be attempting to vindicate their villainy.
Regarding the delay of the number of days after the death, the khaadim sahib says that the four day claim is erroneous. According to him, the death occurred on Monday after Asr before Maghrib. On Wednesday the Mayyit arrived in Jiddah. The burial took place after fajr on Thursday. This is about two and a half days. Despite the ‘4 day’ understanding being erroneous, the two and a half days of delay is not vindicated by the Shariah. The evil of this long delay of more than two days and almost three nights is not minimized by the erroneous four day claim. The fact is that there was an inordinate haraam delay of two and half days, and within this period of haraam delay, the following acts were committed on the Mayyit:
• Inordinate impermissible delay • Placing him in the mortuary with najis kuffaar corpses
• Haraam, barbaric embalming.
• Transporting with cargo in kuffaar style coffin
• Huge waste of tens of thousands of rands
• A second ghusl in conflict with the Shariah
• A second ‘janazah salaat’ in conflict with the Shariah.
(see full stops after each point above)
Instead of ikraam, compounded humiliation was meted out to the Mayyit by khuddaam who had failed to apply their brains and who had ignored Rasulullah’s command.
The khaadim sahib brazenly denies that the Mayyit was embalmed, calling it a lie. Let it be known that this khaadim and whoever has misinformed him are liars. To export a dead body the law imposes embalming. No shipping agent will accept a body for export without a valid certificate to prove that the corpse was embalmed. The claim that khuddaam were present to ensure that the body was not embalmed may be told to the baboons.
The first claim was that only some chemical liquid was poured over the Mayyit. Now comes the brazen denial of any act of embalming being done. They are all liars. Furthermore, as the law requires, the body was stripped of its kafan and sealed in a polythene bag and enclosed in a kuffaar style coffin and loaded together with cargo and chattel. This was the ‘ikraam’ which the khuddaam offered their Hadhratwala.
In the abortive attempt to deflect the focus from the villainous desecration inherent in the very act of exporting a body to another country, the khaadim sahib, harps primarily on the aspects of delay and transportation. He presents isolated incidents of buzrugs being transported elsewhere for burial. He ignores the commands of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He attaches greater importance to the improper wasiyyats of some buzrugs. He ignores the practice of the Ummah.
In this specific case of the export of the body of Hadhrat Makki (Rahmatullah alayh), the emphasis of the criticism is not restricted to only ‘transportation’ and ‘delay’. Whilst these aspects are also not permissible, the other acts of desecration and sacrilege are of the worst kind of abomination and humiliation to which the Mayyit has been subjected to.
It is pertinent to ask: Why did they renew the ghusl in Madinah? Why did they again perform Janaazah Salaat? Do these khuddaam follow any Math-hab? Are they genuine Hanafis as they portray themselves or are they part Hanafi, part salafi and part something else? What was the status of the ghusl, kafan and Janaazah Salaat in Pietermaritzburg where he had died? What necessitated a repetition of the ghusl and kafan, and on what daleel has this been done?
When ghusl was repeated, did they remove the kafan or was the body denuded of its kafan? If the former, then why? If the latter, then it confirms the notorious lie the khaadim has presented.
Citing the incongruous acts and statements of saintly people in negation of the Shariah is the inspiration and ta’leem of shaitaan. The Auliya also warn of this grave error of seeking to supersede the Shariah by citing the acts and statements of the Ush-shaaq. Hadhrat Shah Waliyullah Muhaddith Dehlwi (Rahmatullah alayh) said in Tafheematul Ilaahiyah:
“You hold (as daleel) on to the talk of the maghlubeen among the Ush-shaaq whereas the kalaam of the Ushshaaq should be wrapped up and not narrated. (i.e. their statements and acts should not be cited as proof).”
Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Kabir Rifaai’ (Rahmatullah alayh) says in Numyaanul Mushayyid:
“Respected people! What is it that you are doing? You say Haarith said so; Baayazid said so; and Mansur Hallaj said so. Before saying so, say Imaam Shafi said so; Imaam Maalik said so; Imaam Ahmad said so; and Imaam Abu Hanifah said so. The statements of Baayazid Bistami and Haarith can neither drop you nor rise you. Imaam Shafi and Imaam Maalik by their statements show the Path of Salvation and indicate the success of the Law.”
When the act of Haaji Imdaadullah (Rahmatullah alayh) was presented to justify Milaad, Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi (Rahmatullah alayh) commented: “Haaji Sahib is not the name of a Shar’i daleel.”
In the art of peer puja, these so-called ‘deobandis’ are following in the footsteps of the Barelwi Qabar Pujaaris. The ultimate consequence of peer puja is qabar puja.
A student at Madrasah Zakariyya writes:
“Bismihi Ta’ala
My teacher, Mufti Radhaul Haq d.b. told us in Darse Bukhari that we should try to make ta-weel or find a good reason if ever a great personality erred or thought by us to err. There may be a good explanation behind his action that we should try to look for. The sunnah also teaches us to make ta-weel of the mistake of others and not be conclusive on what we saw.”
Our Comment: This advice was given in the context of the transportation and desecration of the Mayyit of Hadhrat Makki (Rahmatullah alayh). Undoubtedly, the advice is correct. However, it has not been offered correctly nor understood correctly by the audience.
While the genuine Buzrug should not be criticized for his error, his error should not be presented as Shar’i daleel. This is the issue. The ta’weel is to save the Buzrug from criticism and to prevent the prospective critic from maligning a Wali of Allah Ta’ala. This has, Alhamdulillah, never been our attitude and position. What is being said is that the errors of the pious should not be converted into Shar’i dalaa-il.
In criticizing the haraam transportation and desecration of the Mayyit, the dead Buzrug is not being targeted. The haraam attitude of his khuddaam is being criticized, for they are justifying their haraam misdeeds, which the Shariah has prohibited. In this particular case, there is no need for making any ta’weel of an error of a Buzrug. The Buzrug has departed from this world, and the misdeeds are perpetrated by his khuddaam who are doggedly justifying their abominations.
The student quotes Mufti Radhaul Haq as follows:
“Although I give fatwa on quick and close burial, but still I can find a qawl from zahirur-riwayah of Hanafi kitaab that it is permissible to transport very far the deceased before burial”
This statement of the venerable Mufti Sahib is a disservice to the Deen and it provides scope for the commission of haraam in the name of the Hanafi Math-hab. The Mufti Sahib has in entirety ignored the acts of desecration which accompanied the transportation of the Mayyit.
We shall, Insha-Allah, comment on the isolated ‘qawl’ cited by the Mufti Sahib, in our next Response when we respond to the treatise which the khuddaam are currently preparing. In brief, Mufti Radhaul Haq’s comment does not serve the interests of the Ummah and the Deen. It is extremely short-sighted to say the least. They do not view criticism objectively. In their emotional reaction to criticism, they are oblivious of the harm and damage they cause to the Deen and the Ummah. Their attitude is to defend baatil at all costs, hence they dig out from the kutub obscurities to override the clear-cut rulings of the Fuqaha and the popular understanding and amal of the Ummah.
HASTE IS THE COMMAND
RASULULLAH (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM) COMMANDED:
“MAKE HASTE WITH THE JANAAZAH.
IF THE MAYYIT WAS PIOUS, THEN THE ABODE TO WHICH YOU ARE SENDING HIM IS BETTER (THAN THE PLACE WHERE YOU ARE KEEPING HIM).
IF THE MAYYIT WAS IMPIOUS, THEN GET RID OF HIM FROM YOUR NECKS.”
Instead of sending the Buzrug to his expected abode of Bliss to which he looks forward, what did his khuddaam do? They subjected him to indignity and humiliation by handling him like chattel and shipped him off like cargo in the most undignified and abominable manner.
For their villainy, they should not seek justification in the kutub of Fiqh, extracting texts which allude to transferring of bodies WITHOUT INFLICTING THE SLIGHTEST ACT OF HUMILIATION AND DESECRATION. There is absolutely no resemblance between the mas’alah in the Kutub and the villainy perpetrated on the Mayyit. Citing the wasiyyat of a Buzrug is a dastardly attempt to pull wool over the eyes of the public by shifting the focus from the villainy of the desecration to the mas’alah of mere transportation.
Islam Reigns 