Tag Archives: Niqaab

Qur’aanic Purdah – A Refutation of the Modernists’ Anti-Islamic Views

Note: In this age of closer proximity to the Day of Qiyamah, we are witnessing emergence of  modernists so-called “sunni shaykhs” and “molvis” who are implementing their own deviated opinions in the names of Islam and the Shari’ah. The worrying aspect is that such people are emerging from historically reputed educational institutions like Al-Azhar which has now deviated drastically from Siraat Mustaqeem, sadly this tumour of modernism is also spreading to other institutions  as well, may Allah Ta’ala by His Mercy save the students of the Deen from the tentacles of the modernists.

Nearly a decade ago, one of the modernist “Shaykh” of Al-Azhar named Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi had claimed that “niqab has nothing to do with Islam”, taking this as their “trump card”, the modernists have began to criticize the Islamic institution of Hijab and started issuing their shaytani pamphlets to deviate the laymen. It should be borne in mind that their will be many such modernists who will again and again proclaim such statements in the future, it is important to refute their silly arguments. The following article will refute one such pamphlet regarding the Niqab issue disgorged by a modernist:

By Mujlisul Ulama

Question: Shaikh Tantawi of the Al-Azhar university in Egypt has criticized the Niqaab and has urged that it be banned. Please comment.

Answer: Modernists and liberal so-called sheikhs are propagating against many teachings of Islam. We have answered the type of ignorance which Tantawi propagates in our booklet, Qur’aanic Purdah which refutes the baseless contention that Hijaab is a mere `custom’. The ignorant sheikh has lost the road.

Qur’aanic Purdah

By Mujlisul Ulama

A pamphlet, titled IS PURDAH ISLAMIC?, authored by a modernist group (A. Kays & Associates), is replete with kufr and baatil in that the views expressed are in diametric conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The pamphlet seeks to impress unwary and ignorant people with its so-called ‘research’ approach. But, only like-thinking modernists and ignoramuses will perhaps be influenced by the drivel written in the pamphlet in the name of research.

The very first paragraph of the pamphlet demonstrates the shallowness of the ‘research’ of deviate modernists who lack in entirety in the Shar’i conception of Imaan. Displaying gross ignorance, the authors of the pamphlet allege:

“IN THE FIRST PLACE the word Purdah is not Arabic (the language of the Holy Qur’aan). The Arabic alphabet has no ‘p’. Purdah is of Persian origin and it has many meanings:….”

This presentation is an attempt to befuddle the minds of people who are unable to think for themselves. If a term is not of Arabic origin, it does not follow that the concept or the teaching/practice which the term denotes is not Islamic – is not Qur’aanic. The conclusion which the modernist authors desire people to draw from their puerile observation is that the Islamic institution of Purdah/Hijaab is in actual fact not Islamic – not Qur’aanic – because the word Purdah is not Arabic. This conclusion is absurd.

NAMAAZ is not of Arabic origin. Nowhere in the Qur’aan does the word, NAMAAZ, appear. But it will be stupid and absurd to claim that the institution of Salaat is not Islamic – not Qur’aanic – because the term, NAMAAZ, is Persian. Only ignoramuses can venture such absurd conclusions.

Then the modernist authors seek to peddle the idea that the Fuqaha of Islam have designated the face-veil as PURDAH. In other words, it is their claim that Purdah as used by the authorities of Islam means the face-veil. This allegation is fallacious. Purdah does not refer to the face-covering. The face-veil is known as NIQAAB, not Purdah.

PURDAH is an Islamic concept. It is the Institution of modesty, antipromiscuity, anti-nudity and anti-vulgarity. It is the Islamic Institution which brings within its purview all acts and teachings pertaining to hayaa (modesty, shame and respect). The face-veil is simply one item of Purdah, just as dress is an item of Purdah. In the context of the Shariah’s order, PURDAH is applicable to both males and females.

The literal meanings (with which the modernists wish to impress) are of no significance and of no consequence. Of importance and significance are the Shar’i meanings and expositions attached to the term used to denote the Institution of Islam. Thus, the literal meaning of Namaaz is of no importance. The Shar’i meaning denoted by the Persian term, NAMAAZ, is of significance to the Ummah. Similarly, the literal meanings of the Persian term, PURDAH, are not our concern. Our concern is the Institution of Islam regardless of what word is used to denote it – whether a Persian, Chinese, English or Latin term. Different nations have different words to describe the Institutions of Islam. It never follows from the non-Arabic terms that the institutions these terms represent are not Qur’aanic or not Islamic. We should be concerned with meanings, not the words used to convey the meanings.

The Kays group says in its pamphlet:

“THE TERM generally indicated a woman in a veil, from head to toe, the face being covered.”

This statement is false. People who understand the meaning of Purdah never refer to a woman in a veil as ‘purdah’. While a woman in veil and cloak will be said to be observing purdah or hijaab, the term itself does not indicate a woman with veil as claimed by Mr. Kays and company.

Purdah as understood by its proponents (i.e. the authorities of the Shariah) means the Islamic practice of separation of the sexes. Every act of such segregation comes within the scope of Purdah or Hijaab. Thus when a man lowers his gaze when a shameless woman without veil comes in his presence, it will be said that he is observing purdah. When a man comes to a home and the females withdraw into seclusion, it will be said that they are observing purdah whether they are donning cloak and veil or seductive garments. Their act of segregating themselves from the males is called purdah, i.e. this particular act is part of purdah or an item in the Islamic concept of Purdah.

The Kays group states:

“PURDAH-NASHEEN means a veiled woman or one who stays behind a curtain or does not come out of the house.”

The Urdu/Persian word ‘nasheen’ means sitting. Purdah Nasheen women means women who live in Purdah, i.e. secluded from males. A woman who observes all Islamic demands of modesty and decorum in both dress and conduct, living in separation from ghair mahrams, will be described as a purdah nasheen woman even if she does not wear the cloak and veil in her state of separation and even if she wears revealing and seductive garments in privacy for the sake of her husband. On the contrary, a woman who wears a face-veil, but wanders around the streets and drives about in cars (i.e. she herself drives), is not a purdah nasheen woman. In a town in Kenya, women in droves prowl the streets after Maghrib. All of them wear a face-veil. A stranger will wonder at these ‘purdah nasheen’ females roaming the streets immediately after the Maghrib Athaan. For the benefit of the Kays group, these so-called ‘purdah nasheen’ females are all prostitutes plying their vile trade. Such women can never be termed purdah nasheen solely on account of wearing a niqaab (face-veil). Again we shall emphasise that while the veil is an item of purdah, it is not PURDAH itself nor is a woman with a niqaab necessarily purdah nasheen. The Urdu dictionary, Firozul Lughaat defines purdah nasheen as follows: a female who conceals (herself); a female who sits in purdah; a chaste woman; a (morally) pure woman. It does not mean a woman with a veil. If a woman donning a niqaab does not subscribe to the Shar’i institution of Purdah/Hijaab, she will not be described as a purdah nasheen lady of Islam.

The modernist writers of the pamphlet further claim:

“PURDAH is often confused with HIJAAB which is an Arabic word used in the Holy Qur’aan in several places.”

The confusion lies in the thinking of Kays and his associates. His allegation is tantamount to the claim:

“Namaaz/Prayer is often confused with Salaat which is an Arabic word used in the Holy Qur’aan in several places.”

If by Namaaz we refer to the Islamic Institution of Salaat – i.e. Salaat as taught by the Qur’aan and Sunnah – it will be absurd to claim that there exists confusion in using these words for Salaat. Similarly, if by the word PURDAH we mean the Islamic Institution of Hijaab, no confusion whatever is implied. Crooked thinking and oblique mental vision conjecture the idea of confusion.

In an attempt to impress ignorant people with their so-called ‘research’, the group presents a definition of Raaghib. Thus is it said by this group:

“The great Arab linguist, Raaghib, says it means a kind of obstruction/impediment which prevents the reaching of one thing to another, concurred by lexicologist Ibn Faras (Ref. Taaj and Muheet).”

The attempt to deny the Shar’i validity of the Niqaab (face-veil) by trying to sound academic, is futile and stupid. Instead of Raaghib’s definition of ‘al-hijaab’ being any substantiation for the baseless claim of the Kays group, it on the contrary provides proof for the Shar’i command of Niqaab. Raaghib’s definition applies aptly to the Niqaab because the Niqaab is in fact an “obstruction/impediment which prevents” the lustful gazes of men “reaching” the face of the woman donning the Niqaab. The Shariah imposes the Niqaab precisely to create the obstruction or the impediment so necessary for the maintenance of moral purity of both man and woman.

Undoubtedly, Purdah and Hijaab is one and the same thing. In the same way that Namaaz and Salaat is the same thing, Purdah and Hijaab is the same thing. It matters not that the terms Namaaz and Purdah are not Arabic. The teachings and demands of Purdah are identical with the teachings and demands of Hijaab. Insha’Allah, this will be substantiated with conclusive Shar’i evidence.

Since Kays and his associates are labouring under a gross misconception regarding the meaning of Purdah, they can ignorantly mock:

“They somehow misinterpret the Qur’aanic term to mean a Ninja-style veil, though the Holy Qur’aan does not say this, nor implies it even indirectly!”

(An implication is an indirect reference. Therefore to say: “nor implies it even indirectly!” is both superfluous and inaccurate.)

The reference of the above statement is to “Indo-Pak preachers”. By claiming that ‘Indo-Pak preachers’ propagate the incumbency of the Niqaab, Kays and his associates have displayed stark ignorance of the reality. The Niqaab is not restricted to India and Pakistan. The entire Arab World, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Turkey and most Muslim countries have adopted the Niqaab since the very inception of Islam in their lands. To this day innumerable Muslim ladies of almost every nation on earth don the Niqaab. It is only the modernist, immoral pseudo-Muslim women aping every style of the kuffaar West, who have renounced the veil. It is indeed a great travesty of the truth to aver that the veil is the invention of the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’. The Niqaab is the introduction and command of Islam – the command of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah of which Kays and his associates are wholly ignorant notwithstanding their childish research.

In a smattering outline of the ‘history of the veil’, the pamphlet claims that the following communities also had adopted the Veil of Virtue and Modesty:

The elites and priests of  the Assyrians.
➡ The Greeks.
➡ The Zoroastrians of Persia.
➡ The Jews.
➡The pre-Islam Arabs.
➡ Some castes in India among the  Hindus.
➡ Christians.
➡ Some Christian sects to this day wear the veil.

The modernists, in their ignorance, have failed to understand that the VEIL which formed part of the culture of all these and other communities was in fact a remnant of the Islamic Culture which they had inherited from their respective Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam).

Allah Ta’ala has sent a Nabi or Rasool to every community. Man was not created and left like the beasts of the jungle to be nourishment for some other species of creation. Man was despatched to earth to prepare himself for the Aakhirah. Hence, a Rasool was sent to guide every nation to the Path of Jannat. In this regard the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“For every nation was a Rasool.”   (Aayat 47, Surah Yunus)

Whatever goodness and virtue are observed in non-Muslim communities, even in pagans, were inherited from the Shariahs of the Ambiyaa which were sent to the various nations of the world. Highly civilized nations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc., were not left to shaitaan and the vagaries of the nafs. A Nabi came to every nation. The rites of Hajj practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs were not the products of their paganism. They had inherited the rituals of Hajj from their ancestor, Hadhrat Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam). In the course of time, they drifted from the Path of Islam and corrupted all the acts of Ibaadat and the Beliefs which they had initially acquired from Hadhrat Ibraaheem and Hadhrat Ismaa’eel (alayhimas salaam).

That all civilized communities had the veil for their womenfolk, is indicative of this practice being a unanimous demand of civilized culture – culture which was brought and taught by the Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam). On the contrary, nudity, semi-nudity, immodesty, female exhibition and the like are acts of shaitaan. Such acts of immodesty are the hallmark of uncivilized communities of savages and barbarians.

In Surah Ahzaab, aayat 59, Allah Ta’ala announces the command of Hijaab/Purdah pertaining to the covering of the entire body, including the head and face. Thus, Allah Ta’ala says:

“O Nabi! Tell your wives, your daughters and the women of the Mu’mineen that they draw over themselves their jalaabeeb (outer-cloaks or shawls)….”  

Kays and company defines the jilbaab as follows:

“The jilbaab was a fairly large piece of cloth draped around the neck and over the shoulders, hanging on the back as a showpiece, or to wrap around the  whole body.”

This description of the jilbaab is misleading and erroneous. Tafseer Mazhari describes the jilbaab as follows:

“It is a sheet (or shawl) which a woman wraps around her, ontop of her dress and head-scarf (khimaar)…. Ibn Abbaas and Abu Ubaidah (radhiyallahu anhuma) said: ‘The women of the Mu’mineen were commanded to conceal their heads and their faces with the jalaabeeb, except  one eye.”  

Tafseer Ibn Katheer states in its description of the jilbaab:

“Jilbaab is the shawl over the head-scarf (khimaar). This has been stated by Ibn Mas’ud, Ubaidah, Qataadah, Hasan Basri, Saeed Bin Jubair, Ibraaheem Nakh’ai, Ataa Khuraasani and others.

Ali Bin Ali Talhah narrates that Ibn Abbaas said: Allah ordered the women of the Mu’mineen that when they emerge from their home for a need, they should cover their faces from ontop of their heads with the jalaabeeb and leave exposed one eye.

Muhammad Bin Sireen said: I asked Ubaidah Salmaani about Allah’s statement (viz. they should hang over themselves their jalaabeeb). He then (practically demonstrated) by concealing his face and head, and exposing his left eye.”  

Tafseer Abi Sa-ood defines the jilbaab as follows:

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

It is said that it is the shawl. It is every garment with which women conceal their faces and their bodies when they emerge (from their homes) for needs.

Sadi said that it conceals her one eye, and her face.”  

Commenting on the aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab, Abu Bakr Jassaas says:

“Since it was the practice of the Arab women to leave their faces open like slave-girls, and this would invite the gazes of men, Allah and His Rasool ordered them (women) to hang down (irkhaa’) the jalaabeeb over them when they intend to emerge for their needs.

Ibn Abbaas and Ubaidah Salmaani said that it covers a woman so much that only her one eye remains exposed to enable her to see.”

All other authoritative books of Tafseer describe the jilbaab and the method of donning it in the same way as mentioned above, i.e. the jilbaab was worn from ontop of the head and covered the face as well.

None of the great and illustrious Mufassireen whose references we have cited was among the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’. The authorities from whose works we present our proofs are all Sahaabah, Taabieen and other great authorities of the Shariah.

The encyclopaedic LISAANUL ARAB of Ibn Manthur Jamaluddin  Muhammad al-Ansaari defines Jilbaab as follows:

“Jilbaab is bigger than the khimaar (the long head-scarf) smaller than the ridaa’ (the outer shawl). The woman conceals with it her head and breast.”  

These definitions presented by the authorities of the Shariah are adequate for understanding that the jilbaab is not a garment worn from the neck downwards. Even if it was worn in this fashion prior to the command issued for the observance of PURDAH/HIJAAB (i.e. to conceal the head and face), aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab ordered women to conceal their heads and faces with their jalaabeeb henceforth. Their style of wearing the jilbaab beyond the home precincts was changed by this aayat of Surah Ahzaab. There is unanimity of the Shar’i authorities on this issue.

It should be further understood that the Arab Muslim ladies (i.e. the Sahaabiyyah or female Sahaabah) were accustomed to don a khimaar and a ridaa’. Khimaar is a big, long head scarf. Ridaa’ is the big sheet which is wrapped around the body. When they ventured out of their homes (i.e. even prior to the revelation of the PURDAH aayat of Surah Ahzaab), their hair, head, breasts and body were well covered. The command to ‘hang over them’ their jalaabeeb will be meaningless, if the purpose was merely to cover the hair. The order would have been redundant since the khimaar already took care of the hair and head. The ridaa’ took care of the body. But for greater and complete PURDAH with a view to thwart the evil and lustful gazes of the fussaaq and munaafiqeen, the command was issued to conceal the face with the jilbaab. And on this score there is copious evidence and the authoritative ruling of the Sahaabah and Fuqaha in general.

In Saheeh Muslim, the jilbaab is described as such a big garment which could be wrapped around two women.

The garment which normally covered the bosoms of the women was the large head-scarf (ornhi) which extended from over the head, down over the bosoms until the waist and even lower down. The Qur’aan Majeed mentions the khimaar distinct from the jilbaab. Thus, in aayat 31 of Surah Noor, the Qur’aan declares:

“They should put their khumur (plural of khimaar) over their bosoms….”  

With regard to the jilbaab, aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab commands that they ‘hang their jilbaabs OVER them’. The head is part of ‘them’ and it is the point from which ‘hanging’ of the jilbaab is instructed. Its function is apart from the function of the khimaar. Its primary function is to conceal the FACE while the primary function of the khimaar is to conceal the head and the bosom. After the command was received, ladies would cover their faces in varying degrees depending on circumstances. Some covered their faces completely exposing only one eye to enable them to see. This was the standard way in which the jilbaab was donned. At times both eyes were exposed while some say that the greater part of the face was covered. But there is unanimity among the authorities of the Shariah that the purpose of the jilbaab was to conceal the FACE from the lustful and shaitaani gazes of the fusaaq and munaafiqeen and to distinguish the chaste females of Islam from slave-girls and prostitutes.

The following extract from our article, ISLAMIC HIJAAB (PURDAH), further explains the JILBAAB:

She must be properly and thoroughly covered in a loose outer-cloak which totally conceals her entire body including her face. In the following aayat, the Qur’aan Shareef commands this Hijaab:

“O Nabi! Say to your wives, your daughters and the women of the Believers that they draw over them their jilbaabs (outer-cloaks). That (covering with the jilbaabs) is the least (requirement) so that they be recognized (as respectable and honourable ladies) and not be molested (by evil men)”. [Surah Ahzaab, aayat 59]

A jilbaab is an outer sheet or cloak which during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was large enough to conceal two women. The way in which the ladies during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah wore the jilbaab covered them from head to feet including the face. The term yudneena – (they should lower or draw down) appearing in the above aayat orders that the cloak be drawn over from above and lowered in such a way as to conceal the face as well. Covering the face outside the home precincts was the standard and normal practice of the womenfolk during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In this regard Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrates:

“During the occasion of Hajjatul Wida when people passed near to us, we (the ladies) would draw the jilbaab over the head and the face. When they (the people) departed from us, we would open our faces”. (Abu Dawood)

Imam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in Ihyaaul Uloom:

“Women emerged (during the time of Nabi (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) with niqaabs on their faces”.  

Niqaab is a cloth which conceals the face and not a transparent veil. In a Hadith in Abu Dawood an incident is described in which a young man was martyred. His mother, wearing a jilbaab fully covering her face came into the battlefield to enquire about her son. With face fully covered she appeared in the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Some people were surprised to observe that the lady donned face-covering even during an emergency and on such a grave occasion. When she learnt of their surprise, the mother of the slain Sahaabi said:

“My son is lost, but my shame and modesty are not lost”.  

In Durrul Mukhtaar, the authoritative Islamic Law Book, the following verdict of the Shariah is recorded:

“Young women are compulsorily prohibited from revealing their faces in the presence of men”.  

These narrations are sufficient to indicate that it is an Islamic demand of compulsion for women to conceal their faces when circumstances compel them to leave the home boundaries. This practice of concealing the face was not a later introduction, but existed from the very time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Certain narrations which indicate that, women appeared in the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should not be misconstrued and understood to have been the normal practice. Such narrations pertain to either incidents prior to the revelation of the Law of Hijaab or to special circumstances which were exceptional cases and not the normal rule.

From the aforegoing discussion it should be abundantly clear that Purdah or Hijaab does not mean ‘niqaab’ or the face-veil. The Niqaab is rather an item of Hijaab/Purdah.

Regarding the Niqaab, Kays and company state:

“Niqaab or Burqa means the same, but the Holy Qur’aan does not use these words.”

It is surprising for so-called ‘research scholars’ to speak such drivel in a bid to refute the fourteen century practice of the Ummah. Of what significance is the non-appearance of these terms in the Holy Qur’aan? Does it mean that a practice is invalid and unsubstantiated simply because direct reference to it is not made in the Qur’aan Majeed? Any such conclusion is obviously not only Islamically absurd, but it is downright stupid. The number of Salaat raka’ts is not mentioned anywhere in the Qur’aan and so is a myriad of other Shar’i laws. Will it be sensible for anyone to conclude that the laws of Islam which are not mentioned in the Qur’aan have no validity simply because they do not appear in the Qur’aan Majeed? We need not dwell further on this self-evident absurdity and fallacy which the modernists are attempting to propagate.

Secondly, it is erroneous to claim that niqaab and burqa mean the same thing. The “Indo-Pak preachers” never made this claim. Niqaab refers to only the veil which conceals the face while burqa is the outer-garment or the jilbaab. The niqaab forms part of the burqa. In the early days, i.e. during the age of the Sahaabah, the jilbaab or the loose sheet served the purpose of covering the entire body as well as the face. The present day burqa is a more convenient form of jilbaab. The face-covering (niqaab) is a separate item attached to the outer-garb or sometimes it is  apart. Thus, the niqaab is part of the burqa, but it is never the burqa.

Although the words, niqaab and burqa are not in the Qur’aan Majeed, both these terms are Arabic and are mentioned in numerous Kitaabs of the Ulama of Islam many centuries before the era of the “Indo-Pak preachers”. The ladies of Arabia referred to their outer-garment (i.e. their  Purdah dress – their jilbaab) as ‘BURQA’. Thus, LISAANUL ARAB states:

“Al-Burqa: It is well-known to the women of Arabia.”  

Niqaab too is defined as “the cloth concealing the face of the woman”. These meanings could be ascertained from any Arabic dictionary. Both these terms are Arabic and not ‘fabrications’ of the “Indo-Pak preachers” as Kays & Co. would like Muslims to believe.

Undoubtedly, the “Indo-Pak preachers” borrowed the same Arabic terms to describe the outer-garb and the face-cloth which Muslim ladies had adopted. Any Urdu dictionary will describe burqa as:

“a kind of mantle or veil covering the whole body from head to foot.”  

On the other hand, niqaab is defined as only a veil. Since its function is to veil only the face.

Regardless of the non-appearance of these terms in the Qur’aan or whether niqaab and burqa mean the same thing, it cannot be cited in negation of the concealment of the female’s face in public because aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab, the Ahaadith and the permanent practice of the Sahaabi ladies and of the Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s fourteen century history bear evidence with the greatest clarity that it is Waajib for the female to conceal her face in public. The exercise to refute the validity of face-concealment by attempting to sidetrack the minds of unwary and ignorant people by the employment of fallacious arguments centring around words, is stupid and futile.

The pamphlet of the modernists asks:

“If the face was to be covered why the command not to look at it?”

Firstly, modernist logic cannot be employed to refute and negate the commands of Allah Ta’ala. Regardless of how logical an argument may appear, it cannot be cited to negate any teaching of the Shariah. The Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the Tawaaruth of the Ummah very clearly uphold the practice of concealing the face. This irrefutable practice of the Ummah cannot be negated and proclaimed invalid simply because some deviates in this belated century present their logical understanding. The clear-cut ahkaam of the Shariah cannot be abrogated by an implied conclusion extracted by modernists who have absolutely no footing, no grounding and no standing in the firmament of Shar’i Uloom.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah had greater and the proper understanding of the aayat in which Allah Ta’ala commands men to cast down their gaze. Despite their knowledge and understanding of the aayat, their womenfolk concealed their faces in public. And, they did not come up with the stupid doubts of kufr emanating from the modernists of our day.

Secondly, the instruction to ‘cast down the gaze’ is not restricted to viewing the faces of females. The Mufassireen, commenting on this aayat state that the prohibition to stare applies to all things which are unlawful to look at. Thus, a man should cast down his gaze even for young lads on account of the fitnah of being attracted to unnatural acts. Looking at any part of the satr of either man or woman is haraam. The thighs of males so much exposed in these immoral times also come within the scope of this prohibition to stare.

Thirdly, it is quite possible that inspite of having their faces concealed with a jilbaab to which a niqaab has not been fitted, the woman’s face may become momentarily exposed due to her movements. On such occasion, the man should lower his gaze.

Fourthly, when a man passes by a woman, he should lower his gaze even if her face is concealed. It is an act of misconduct and despicable to stare at a woman even if she is completely covered in her burqa. It is still necessary to cast down the gaze. It is indeed rude to stare at females even if they are covered in their jilbaabs with their faces concealed.

There is, therefore, absolutely no valid argument for the denouncers of Islamic Purdah in the verse instructing men to cast down their gaze. There is no conflict between this aayat and the Niqaab.

The aayat ordering down-casting of the gaze is not restricted to only Muslim women. Non-Muslim women do not wear the jilbaab. Muslim men will always have to cross paths with them in all times and in all lands. There is thus an imperative and a great need to cast down the gaze.

In a futile attempt to deny the Shar’i command for the woman to conceal her face in public, Kays & Associates say in their pamphlet of baatil:

“When the Hadith says, look properly at the prospective bride before proposing as it develops affection, but how does one see if the Command was to cover the face.”

“Research scholars” should display at least rudimentary understanding of the subject matter they desire to dilate. The Shariah allows a woman to expose any part of her aurah or satr for a valid need. If any part of her body requires medical treatment, then it is permissible for her to reveal that part. There are exceptions to all the rules of the Shariah. Opening up the face for the valid reason of marriage is lawful. This is a specific ruling of the Shariah in which there is no dispute. A specific situation or concession cannot be cited as a basis for the negation of the law itself. A woman is allowed to reveal her face, not only for allowing a prospective groom to see her, but also when she has to appear in front of the Qaadhi. But these concessions do not cancel the general prohibition. The Qur’aanic aayat commanding  concealment of the face (i.e. verse 59 of Surah Ahzaab) remains intact notwithstanding the concessions applicable to certain cases and situations. It is, therefore, childish to wonder: ‘how does one see….”

Kays & Associates display stark ignorance of the Shariah in the following statements appearing in their baatil pamphlet:

“The Holy Prophet (S) asked some women on Pilgrimage NOT to cover their faces and hands, even then they covered it when strange men passed by. It seems that the Commands on modesty had inspired a fashion, thinking that it was far better to incline towards more modesty than less.”

For their baseless conclusions which they raise on the grounds of Ahaadith which they have not quoted, they tender the following Kitaabs: Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik, Abu Dawood and Tirmizi. Let us now refer to Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik to ascertain the worth of the conclusions of the modernist group. The following Hadith narration appears in Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik:

“Naafi’ narrates that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said: The woman in ihraam should not place a niqaab on her face nor wear gloves.”

The instruction stated by Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is for women in the state of ihraam. It does not apply for those who are not in ihraam. It is quite evident from this instruction that it was the practice of the Sahaabiyyah (ladies) to conceal their faces under normal and daily circumstances, hence the need to issue an express directive prohibiting wearing of the Niqaab during ihraam. One of the compulsory conditions of ihraam for ladies is that the cloth should not touch their faces. The usual niqaab cannot be donned without it touching the face, hence the prohibition. In the same way as it is forbidden for men in ihraam to cover their heads, so is it prohibited for women to cover their faces in ihraam in such a way which allows the niqaab cloth to touch their faces.

Another Hadith also in Muatta-e-Maalik:

“Faatimah Bint Munthir said: We would cover our faces in the state of ihraam when we accompanied Asmaa Bint Abi Bakr (radhiyallahu anhuma) and she would not object.”

They would don a face-veil in such a way which prevented the cloth from touching the face. The cloth would overhang on a protuberance placed on the head. This narration too substantiates that it was the normal practice of the ladies during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah to conceal their faces in public from the lustful gazes of men. Faatimah Bint Munthir mentioned that they did this in the company of the Sahaabiyyah, Hadhrat Asmaa (radhiyallahu anha), in substantiation of their practice of concealing their faces even during the state of ihraam. This is how strongly the ladies of Islam felt about the imperative need to conceal their faces in public.

Let us now study  the Hadith in Abu Dawood. Mujaahid narrates:

“Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: Travellers (on mounts) would pass by us whilst we were in the state of ihraam together with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When they came near to us, we would hang our jilbaab over our face. When they would pass (and be at a distance) we  would open (our faces).”

Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) states the Islamic practice on donning the niqaab with great clarity. It is abundantly clear from the attitude displayed by Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and the other ladies with her that it was the practice for women to conceal their face, hence they considered it incumbent to do so even during the state of ihraam when it is not permissible to allow the niqaab cloth to touch the face. Thus, if the niqaab is worn in such a way by the muhrimah that it does not touch her face, there is no penalty since the Ihraam Prohibitions have not been violated.

On the occasion when Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and other ladies of Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) House were on Hajj, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) had accompanied them. They would cover their faces inspite of being in ihraam when men would approach, but Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never reprimanded them or even requested them to refrain from the act of concealing their faces as Mr. Kays would like us to believe.

Let us now study a little the Hadith on this subject in Tirmizi:

In a Hadith narrated by Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) enumerating the prohibitions of Ihraam, he states that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The woman in ihraam should not wear a niqaab nor gloves.”

In this narration it is clearly stated that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade the donning of the niqaab during the state of ihraam. The prohibition is directed by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) exclusively to women in ihraam. This is categorically stated in the Arabic text of the Hadith. This prohibition further substantiates that it was the practice of the females in the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to wear a niqaab. It is therefore, silly, to say the least, to ascribe the practice of the Sahaabi ladies concealing their faces to some ‘fashion’ inspired by the Qur’aanic command to adopt Modesty and Purdah. If we accept for a brief moment that the ladies derived the inspiration for greater modesty from the Qur’aanic command, then no one has the right to denounce such holy inspiration, least of all modernists who are extremely ill-equipped in matters pertaining to Shar’i Uloom. When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not prohibit women from wearing the niqaab when they were not in ihraam, when he did not prohibit them from concealing their faces in a particular manner even during the state of ihraam and when he did not forbid them from concealing their faces with their jalaabeeb, how can the modernists of Kays & Associate’s ilk arrogate such a right to themselves?

In a Hadith appearing in Bukhaari Shareef, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) enumerating  the prohibitions of ihraam, said:

“Women should not wear the burqa (i.e. during ihraam).”

The burqa (or the jilbaab) entailed concealment of the face. In the context of the Hadith, her statement means that the burqa should not be worn in such a manner which allows the cloth of the niqaab to touch the face. In fact, in a narration mentioned earlier in this article, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) explicitly says that they would hang their jalaabeeb from over their heads to conceal their faces when male travellers would approach. And, this was during ihraam.

From all the aforegoing Ahaadith it will be seen that the view expressed by Kays is a figment of his imagination. His claim that the practice of concealing the face in vogue during the time of the Sahaabah was simply a ‘fashion’ of “some women”, is ridiculous. It is false to claim that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had asked “some women NOT to cover their faces and hands….” This was specially meant for the state of ihraam, and even then they were not prohibited from concealing their faces in a way which prevented the cloth from touching the face. The Ahaadith of Hadhrat Aishah and Hadhrat Asmaa and of others bear ample testimony to this fact.

The attempt to induce people to swallow the falsehood that the niqaab, burqa and jilbaab are the creations of the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’, viz. The ULAMA-E-HAQQ of the last two centuries, is despicable. This fallacious supposition completely ignores that the institution of Purdah along with its items such as the burqa and niqaab, were in force during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and were the direct product of the Qur’aanic Commands.

Kays and his associates claim:

“The word HIJAAB has been used as a misnomer for a garment.”

He then goes on to present a meaningless discussion totally unrelated to the topic. In the first instance, the word Hijaab is not used for a garment. Hijaab is used to signify an institution, viz., the Islamic institution of separation between men and women. There are various dimensions of Hijaab applicable to both males and females. Just as women have to adopt hijaab so too do men have to.

Words are immaterial. The meanings are of importance. Whether Qur’aanic or Islamic Salaat is called Namaaz, Prayer, or Dua, etc., is of no significance. If by these non-Arabic terms the proper Shar’i meaning of Salaat (i.e. Qiyaam, Qira’t, Ruku, Sujood, etc.) is conveyed, there is absolutely no Shar’i proscription in the utilization of such terms. Similarly, it is of no significance if alien terms are used to denote the Qur’aanic or Shar’i concept of male-female seclusion/separation. Whether the term is hijaab, purdah, niqaab, veil, face-cloth or pyjamas, it is of no significance as long as these terms convey the Qur’aanic meaning of the Hijaab verses and the Sunnah way of women observing modesty, viz., concealing their faces in public, remaining indoors, etc., etc. Mr. Kays is simply attempting to bamboozle the minds of unwary people by putting up an ‘academic’ front and discussing words. This is a plain attempt to sidetrack the issue and to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting people.

The claim of the ‘INDO-PAK PREACHERS’, i.e. of the Ulama-e-Haqq of India and Pakistan in this age is that the system of Hijaab they are advocating is the precise code of Modesty and purity of conduct which the Qur’aan and Sunnah command. This lofty code of Hijaab – Qur’aanic and Sunnah HIJAAB or PURDAH commands that:

➡ Women conceal their faces in public whether with a burqa, niqaab, jilbaab, outer-cloak or a blanket made of jute-sackcloth.

➡ Women remain within the precincts of the home and emerge only when necessary.

These are the main constituents of Hijaab which brings within its purview a host of acts and rules pertaining to Haya (shame and modesty) and moral purity.

All four Math-habs unanimously rule that during ihraam it becomes incumbent on women to conceal their faces from males. However, there is some difference of opinion regarding the manner of concealment.

This difference is explained as follows in BAZLUL MAJHOOD:

“….Verily, they (the Fuqaha) differ as to when it becomes necessary (to conceal the face) because of Hijaab for strangers (i.e. ghair mahrams). According to the Hanafiyyah and Shafi’iyyah it is obligatory to ensure that nothing of the (niqaab) cloth touches the face. It (the niqaab) should be kept at a distance from the face by means of some protuberance. The Hanaabilah and Maalikiyyah say that it does not matter even if the cloth of the ghitaa (i.e. niqaab) touches the face because of need.”

The entire world of Islam – all the authorities, right from the time of the Sahaabah, speak of Hijaab and Niqaab, but the modernist deviates lacking in Shar’i Uloom very audaciously put forward  their untenable baatil and fallacies.

Mr. Kays, in his pamphlet of baatil and confusion, embarks on a little discussion regarding the principles of Hadith. It is clear from his claims that the smattering of information he has gleaned about this branch of Islamic Knowledge amply displays his ignorance of Usool-e-Hadith. Infants should not attempt to swim in the deep waters of oceans. The comments of Kays on the categories of Ahaadith have illustrated his lack of understanding of the subject of Usoolul Hadith. He has seen somewhere that a certain Hadith is described by the authorities as ‘Mursal’ for example. He then concludes that such a Hadith is literally speaking ‘defective’, ‘weak’, hence ‘rejected’. He fails to understand that the terms given to Ahaadith narrations by the Muhadditheen are technical in import. It does not follow that Mursal narrations or Dhaeef narrations or Ahaadith categorized as AAHAAD are rejected, and the ‘rational’ law cannot be based on such an ‘Hadith’ as he claims.

He very ignorantly says: “This so-called Hadith is recorded by Abu Dawood (Sunan) who himself says it is Mursal.” This statement demonstrates that Kays does not understand even the definition of Hadith, hence he stupidly labels the narration, ‘so-called Hadith’. One qualified in the science of Usoolul Hadith, will not commit such a childish blunder which leaves us aghast in view of its emanation from one who professes to be a ‘research scholar’.

He further claims that it is the rule of the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha that if a Hadith does not belong to the Mutawaatir category, it can be discounted. This is utterly baseless.

Let it be understood that in the first instance, the science of the Principles of Hadith, unlike Usoolul Fiqh and Fiqh, is not binding on the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha who acquired their Ilm from the Sahaabah and the Students of the Sahaabah.

The conditions and principles of Hadith formulated by Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh), for example, 200 years after the Sahaabah cannot be cited as a basis for the rejection of a fatwa issued by the Students of the Sahaabah or by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayhima) who appeared long before the dawn of the age of the Muhadditheen. When a Mujtahid cites a Hadith in substantiation of his Fatwa, it automatically implies that the Hadith which is his basis, is an authentic Hadith in which there is no vestige of doubt irrespective of the category to which a Muhaddith had assigned to it a century or two later.

In the presence of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Hammaad,  Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Maalik and numerous others of the Taabieen age, Imaam Bukhaari and the many Muhadditheen of his age and thereafter are all infants.

Coming back to the question of the acceptability or rejection of a Mursal Hadith, let it be known that according to the Ahnaaf (Hanafis) and Maalikis, a Mursal Hadith is acceptable for Hujjat (for a firm basis on which to base Shar’i Law) without reservation. In fact, they assert that the ‘irsaal’ in the Hadith indicates the perfection of the authenticity. They have their proofs for their claim. This is not the occasion to elaborate. According to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) if the Mursal narration is bolstered in some other way, it will be accepted even if it has been categorized as Dhaeef.

For the benefit of Mr. Kays and his associates, he should be informed that regardless of the classification of the narrations, all the Ahaadith in the following Kitaabs are SAHEEH: Muatta Imaam Maalik, Saheeh Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, Saheeh Haakim, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah and many others.

For his further information the Muhadditheen assert that all the Ahaadith in the undermentioned books are worthy of Ihtijaaj (i.e. to cite as a basis for a ruling) inspite of the fact that some of the narrations in these Kitaabs are classified as Hasan and Dhaeef. These Books of Hadith are: Sunan Abi Dawood, Jaami’, Tirmizi, Sunan Nisaai, Musnad Ahmad, etc.

The above have been mentioned  by way of sample. Only deviates and those plodding the Path to Jahannum will venture to pick up a few scattered pebbles from the multi-faceted science of Hadith Principles and throw them at the illustrious Aimmah Mujtahideen and Fuqaha who were in entirety independent of the presentations of Imaam Bukhaari and other Muhadditheen two centuries later.

Lest the thrust of our rebuttal of the baatil pamphlet be forgotten, we should at this juncture repeat that:

➡ The incumbency of the NIQAAB (face-cloth for concealing the female’s face in public) is the product of aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab.

➡ This incumbency is supported by the general practice of the ladies of the age of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam), of the ladies of the Taabieen age, of the ladies of the Tab-e-Taabieen age and of the ladies of the Ummah down Islam’s long passage of 14  centuries.

A Shar’i Practice which is upheld and supported by such a mass of solid proof can never be discounted by the oblique logic of the liberals and modernists of this age – liberals who hold no pedestal in the firmament of Shar’i Uloom.

Kays claims in his pamphlet that “rational law cannot be based on Mursal and Aahaad narrations which are to be discounted and rejected”. This he claims to be “the Rule of Law of the Muhaddith and Jurist”. He later cites a narration in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stated that the male thigh is part of the aurah (i.e. part of the body which has to be compulsorily concealed). This particular Hadith has been variously classified by the Muhadditheen. Some say that it is Maudhoo’, some say Dhaeef, some say it is Hasan, etc. The Hadith appears in Abu Dawood, Bukhaari, Tirmizi and other Kitaabs. Inspite of its classification, the great Fuqaha, long before Imaam Bukhaari and the classification of the Hadith by the later Muhadditheen, utilized it as the basis for formulating the Waajib law of the male’s Satr. It is thus haraam to expose the thigh. This severe ruling has been issued on the basis of this Hadith which Kays asks Muslims to discount and reject.

The above is but one example of the formulation of LAW on the basis of Ahaadith which have been classified in the ‘weak’ category by the later Muhadditheen. It is indeed silly and irrational to seek to negate the Shariah formulated by the Sahaabah and Taabieen by bringing the Hadith classification of the later Muhadditheen in conflict with the system of the Fuqaha who had no need for the Hadith classification of the later Muhadditheen.

While these modernists have no respect for the Muhadditheen and do not accept the science of Hadith classification of the Muhadditheen, they only seek to extract support for their baatil views from whichever principle the Muhadditheen had formulated. If a principle of the later Muhadditheen seemingly conflicts with the verdicts of the Fuqaha, they will quickly and gleefully cite it in an attempt to reject the Faqih’s fatwa. It is for this reason that their statements and arguments are replete with contradictions.

Kays and his associates say that the Hadith pertaining to the ‘aurah’ is an Ahaad Hadith. In his definition of Aahaad Hadith, Kays says:

“….that if an Hadith is Ahaad (a single report) and not Mutawaatir (not repeated by other reliable recorders) then it is not an undisputed statement and can therefore be discounted.”

Far from discounting the ‘aurah’ Hadith, the Jurists have made it their strongest basis for declaring the thigh to be part of the aurah.

Kays has also failed to understand the meaning of Khabr-e-Waahid or Hadith known as Aahaad. He has defined it wrongly. Aahaad Ahaadith are classified into different categories. One category pertains to number of narrators in each epoch. With regard to this factor, this type of Hadith is divided into three kinds: Mash’hoor, Azeez and Ghareeb. This is not the occasion to go into detailed definitions of each kind of classification. It suffices to say that:

➡ All Aahaad narrations are not the effects of single reporters.

➡ It is not a principle that Ahaad cannot constitute a basis for the formulation of Ahkaam (the  ‘rational’ law stated by Kays).

This brief explanation on Hadith categories has been presented merely to show that Kays & Associates have no proper understanding of the branch of knowledge known as Usoolul Hadith.  

They are therefore  not competent to speak on this subject. As far as the Laws of the Shariah are concerned, the criterion is the verdict promulgated by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, not the classification of Hadith by the later Muhadditheen. When a Hadith is authentic by the Fuqaha, it becomes irrefutable evidence for the Law. The task of setting out the Shariah in a systematic form was entrusted to the Fuqaha whose age commenced with the age of the Sahaabah. 

The Students of the Sahaabah were the Fuqaha and the Mujtahideen of the first epoch. The Ahkaam which have been transmitted on the authority of the Fuqaha, long before the age of the Muhadditheen, constitute the Shariah.

In Ainul Hidaayah appears the following:

“The Ulama of the Taabieen era accepted a narration when its authenticity is established by them. Imaam Shaafi has stated this in his Risaalah. Ibn Abdul Barr said that this order (referring to a particular narration) is Mash’hoor according to the Ulama-e-Taareekh and Ma’roof according to the Aimmah among the Fuqaha. Thus it resembles Mutawaatir. Since it resembles the category of Mutawaatir, there is no need for a sanad.”

The following appears in Raddul Mukhtaar:

“When the Mujtahid deducts (a law) on the basis of a Hadith, it in fact is evidence for the authenticity of the Hadith.”  

Among the abundant nonsense contained in the pamphlet, we shall quote one more claim of drivel:

“What the Holy Prophet of Islam had done for the emancipation of womankind was mercilessly undone when the Khilaafat (rule by consultation) was seized for the father-to-son kingship of the Umayyads, assisted by their sponsored scholars.”

Mr. Kays is unable to decide who had “re-enslaved” womankind – the Umayyads who were all Arabs and closely related to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the “Indo-Pak preachers”? In this nonsensical slander we shall only discuss briefly at this juncture, Mr. Kays definition of khilaafat. He has defined khilaafat as “rule by consultation”.

In the same way as he has sucked many of his contentions from his thumb, so too has he sucked this one. Khilaafat does not mean rule by consultation. Khalifah means a representative or a successor. The Khalifah is the Representative of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) who in turn was the Khalifah of Allah Ta’ala on earth. While shura (consultation) is Sunnah in all affairs, the rule of the Khalifah is distinctly autocratic – subject to Divinely imposed Laws. 

He governs according to the Shariah, hence he is the Representative of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam). The Khalifah is not obligated to follow the decision of any consultative assembly as the juhhaal modernists enamoured by the kufr concepts of western democracy would like us to believe. The decision of the Khalifah is final and absolute whether it conforms or conflicts with the unanimous decision of all the citizens in the land.

Mr. Kays should make a bit deeper ‘research’ to ascertain the literal as well as Shar’i meanings of Khalifah and Khilaafat. If he does, he will feel ashamed of advertising the nonsense which clutters his so-called ‘research’ pamphlet. May Allah Ta’ala guide the Ummah and protect the Imaan of the unwary from the ravages of shaitaaniyat.

Mr. Kays states in his pamphlet:

“Every thinking Muslim accepts the Holy Qur’aan as the only source of Divine Laws.”

Does the modernist wish the Ummah to accept that the countless millions of Muslims, the world over, from the inception of Islam down to this day, were not thinking Muslims on account of their allegiance to the views and verdicts of the illustrious Fuqaha, Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Mufassireen, the first group of whom acquired their Ilm of the Deen from the Sahaabah? Does the modernist think that Muslims can accept that the great authorities of Islam from the age of the Sahaabah were not ‘thinking Muslims’ because they never propagated the lewd and libertine opinions which the kufr-mongering modernists inherited from their kufr masters and tutors at kuffaar universities? Does the modernist think that only he and his ilk are ‘thinking Muslims’ and those who devoted their lives to the pursuit of Qur’aanic and Hadith Ilm were not ‘thinking Muslims’?

Let the modernists understand that all thinking Muslims refute the contention that “the Holy Qur’aan is the only source of the Divine Laws

Mr. Kays and company, in their pamphlet of baatil, had attempted to disprove the rulings of the Fuqaha by presenting some Hadith classifications. They contend that a law cannot be formulated on the basis of a mursal narration. Then they presented the argument of Aahaad narrations, etc. Now, let them prove their contention from the Qur’aan, the “only source of Divine Laws”. Where in the Qur’aan does it say that “rational law” cannot be based on a mursal Hadith?

While the Ulama-e-Haqq cite the Qur’aan, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah in support of the VEIL and Separation between men and women (i.e. HIJAAB/PURDAH), the modernist, in his pamphlet cites Lady Sukaynah, a great grand-daughter of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Where in the Qur’aan does it say that the act or views of a great grand-daughter of the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), many decades after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), constitute Divine laws? How come the views of the Lady have suddenly become transformed into Divine Law? Those who claim that the Qur’aan is the only source of Divine Law should desist from hiding behind the skirts of historical ladies when they are in a tight corner lacking in ability to present proofs from the “only source of Divine Laws”.

Those who claim that the Qur’aan is the only source of Divine Law, should confine themselves to only Qur’aanic verses. They have no right to cite Ahaadith. They have no right to cite any of the Fuqaha. Just as their citation of the bible or gita in substantiation of their arguments will be baseless and rejected, so too their arguments on the basis of Hadith, etc., are MARDOOD (accursed and rejected).

The Ummah believes in the Qur’aan, the Hadith and abide by the expositions of the Fuqaha who gained their knowledge from Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Students. We are, therefore, entitled to bring into operation all Shar’i arguments in defence of the Haqq of Islam. 

On the other hand, the mulhideen and the zindeeqs – the modernists – donning external masks of Islam, have no right to cite any basis whatever other than what they have stupidly opined to be “the only source of Divine Laws”. May Allah Ta’ala protect Muslims from the villainy of Ilhaad.

Mr. Kays and his ilk should state unequivocally if they believe that Fajr has two raka’ts, Zuhr four, Asr four, Maghrib three and Ishaa four raka’ts. They must let the Muslim community know if they believe that 2½% Zakaat is Fardh every year. And, what are their beliefs about:

➡Burying the dead? Can we  cremate?
➡ Is it required of  Muslims to drape the body with Masnoon Kafan as everyone does this day?
➡ Does nocturnal emission of semen obligate ghusl-e-janaabat? ➡ Putting on Ihraam garb for Hajj?
➡ Observing the numerous rules of Hajj, Salaat and other acts of Ibaadat?

Yes, in short, what are your beliefs pertaining to the numerous beliefs and practices of Islam to which the Ummah subscribe?

If you accept the validity of the aforementioned enumerated acts of Islam, then on what basis? You believe that the Qur’aan is “the only source of Divine Laws”. Where in the Qur’aan is the number of raka’ts mentioned? Where is it said in the Qur’aan that every raka’t has one ruku’ and two sajdah? Where is it said in the Qur’aan that Surah Faatihah should be recited in every raka’t and At-tahiyaat be recited in a sitting after every two raka’ts? Where do the myriad of other Shar’i rules exist in the Qur’aan – “the only source of Divine Laws” in the opinion of the modernist?

Nowhere in the Qur’aan will Mr.  Kays and his associates find any reference for all the masaail of the Shariah, yet we are sure that even if he and his ilk reject the myriad of Islamic rules, they at least will ostensibly say that Five Salaat are fardh every day. If they do believe in this Pillar of Islam, let them show us where in the  Qur’aan  it  appears  that  Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Maghrib and Ishaa are fardh Salaat. And, where in the Qur’aan does it say that Salaat is the NAMAAZ which every Muslim accepts?

Truly, these modernists are trapped in the quagmire of their own baatil and dhalaal. They are unable to distinguish day and night and right from left, hence their ‘research’ is a concoction of confusion, contradictions, absurdities, kufr and baatil.

In an absurd attempt to reject the Shariah of the Qur’aan, Kays presents this drivel:

“What we find today in some Kitaabs is mainly the result of deep penetration by the Zanaadeeq (Persian convert hypocrites) and the king sponsored scholars.”

What a disgusting conclusion for a ‘research scholar’ professing to be a Muslim? Which Kitaabs are you referring to, Mr. Kays? Enumerate the Kitaabs. Which Persian hypocrites are you speaking of? Let the Muslim community know of your inner thoughts concealed in ambiguity. Mention the ‘hypocrites’ you have in mind and state the names of their kitaabs so that the community can judge them and their kitaabs in the mirror of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Is Kays & Associates perhaps referring to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and his companions? Or to Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi, Imaam Ibn Hambal (rahmatullah alayhim) and to the other countless Fuqaha of Islam whose thousands of Kitaabs are extant today? There are not only “some Kitaabs” as mentioned by Kays. There are thousands of Kitaabs authored by the greatest Fuqaha and Ulama of Islam. Kays should mention the “some Kitaabs” to which he has made reference.

Does Kays perhaps know and understand the sources from whence the vast treasure of Islamic knowledge has been acquired? Does he realise who were the fountain-heads of this Knowledge which is today to be found in thousands of Kitaabs? Does he know who the Shuyookh (Ustaadhs) of Imaam Abu Hanifah were? Most certainly not the “Persian convert hypocrites” whom he has imagined.

To enlighten him and others we shall outline the Avenues of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s Uloom. Once Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) speaking about the authorities from whom he obtained his Ilm said: 

“I acquired the Knowledge of Ibn Umar (who was a senior Sahaabi) from the Ashaab of Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). I acquired the Ilm of Ibn Mas’oud (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Ibn Mas’oud (among the most senior Sahaabah). I acquired the Ilm of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Hadhrat Ali (a very senior Sahaabi). I acquired the Ilm of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Hadhrat Anas. I acquired the Ilm of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Abu Hurairah (a very senior Sahaabi).”

These five top-ranking Sahaabah, viz. Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’oud, Hadhrat Anas and Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhum) were the Fountain-heads of the Qur’aanic and Hadith Knowledge of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

At this juncture there is no need for us to enumerate the very lengthy list of the names of the illustrious Muhadditheen, Mufassireen and Fuqaha (not Persian convert hypocrites) among the Taabieen who had acquired their knowledge from the aforementioned five senior Sahaabah. The numerous Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and Mufassireen among the Taabieen were the Ustaadhs of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

The same holds good for Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh). The golden chain of his Ilm is closely linked to the Sahaabah. Thus, the knowledge which today exists in the innumerable Kitaabs of the four Math-habs of Islam is the authentic Ilm of the Sahaabah. The concoction of the “Persian convert hypocrites” is a fabricated figment in the minds of Kays and his associates.

Kays & associates should understand that they cannot befuddle and misguide the community by making stupid and sweeping claims which they cannever hope to substantiate with sound evidence. 

To say that what exists of Islam today is only the supposedly few kitaabs supposedly authored by imaginary “Persian convert hypocrites” is tantamount to claiming that Islam had died with the rise of the Ummayad Empire and for the past thirteen and a half centuries this Deen was hidden, mutilated and battered beyond recognition like Christianity, and that today in this age of kufr and evil some modernists who cannot even perform Salaat properly or who lack the correct knowledge of the rules of Tahaarat, have suddenly stumbled on the true Islam and gained the qualifications for correctly elaborating the Qur’aanic meanings.

Alas! These modernists cannot make even proper tilaawat of the Qur’aan. What do they understand of its meanings! May Allah Ta’ala save Muslims from the calamity of shaitaani modernism.


The ludicrousness of the modernist argument is dumbfounding. They seek to deny the validity of the Shariah by citing and distorting practices of individuals who have no rank in the firmament of Islamic Knowledge.

On the specific issue of PURDAH, the modernists in their attempt to scuttle the Qur’aan and Sunnah, cite the attitude and manner of Lady Sukaynah, the grand-daughter of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). In the first instance, the mulhideen have slandered this Lady by alleging that she did not observe PURDAH. Secondly, assuming that she was not in favour of PURDAH, her practice and view are of no significance as far as the Shariah is concerned. According to Mr. Kays she was 9 years old on the occasion of the episode of Karbala.

It is clear that she is not a Sahaabiyyah. Even if the modernists can present any of her statements (which they did not) to conflict with Qur’aanic PURDAH, it will be summarily rejected since the views of individuals carry no Shar’i weight if in conflict with the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Ummah regardless of their noble birth and regardless of their family ties to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Now let Mr. Kays and his group cite Lady Sukaynah’s statements and inform us of the category her words occupy in the classification of the Muhadditheen. Kays was quick to embark on a puerile explanation of Hadith classification of the Muhadditheen. Now let him state Lady Sukaynah’s narration and its classification. Let him present the sanad of her riwaayaat and the class thereof, whether Saheeh, Dhaeef, Maudhoo’, etc., etc.

How can Mr. Kays expect the Ummah to be so stupid as to swallow unknown historical data of dubious origin and distortion in a bid to abrogate the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the authoritative rulings of the Fuqaha – the Students of the Sahaabah? Lady Sukaynah and other ladies of history have no ranking in Shar’i Uloom.

Their words and actions cannot be cited in abrogation of the Shariah. While the Ulama cite the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the Sahaabah, the Fuqaha among the Taabieen and the unanimous practices of the Ummah, modernist deviates come up with the feeble, ambiguous and misinterpreted statements and actions of ladies who are unknown in Ilmi circles of the Shariah despite their noble linage.

Men who lack understanding in the application of Shar’i Law, in its Sources and operation should stick to their worldly occupations of monetary pursuit and not dabble in things beyond their mental capabilities.

The pamphlet of Kays & Associates is in entirety bereft of any Shar’i proof for their contentions of baatil. The modernist group has tendered only their personal opinion and a distorted version of the actions of an historical lady whose statements and acts do not constitute the Law of the Shariah. For people (the modernists) of such baseless opinion, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, the people of opinion are the enemies of the Sunnah.”


[Maulana Sharkir Ahmed]


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The  Kaafirah  shaitaanatul  ins,  alleges  in  her  vituperative diatribe:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In  Surah  Ahzaab,  aayat  59,  Allah  Ta’ala  announces  the command  of  Hijaab/Purdah  pertaining  to  the  covering  of the  entire  body,  including  the  head  and  face.  Thus,  Allah Ta’ala  says:

“O  Nabi!  Tell  your  wives,  your  daughters  and  the women  of  the  Mu’mineen  that  they  draw  over themselves  their  jalaabeeb  (outer-cloaks  or shawls) ….”

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

“It  is  a  sheet  (or  shawl)  which  a  woman  wraps around  her,  on  top  of  her  dress  and  head-scarf (khimaar)….  Ibn  Abbaas  and  Abu  Ubaidah (radhiyallahu  anhuma)  said:  ‘The  women  of  the Mu’mineen  were  commanded  to  conceal  their heads  and  their  faces  with  the  jalaabeeb,  except  one  eye.”

Tafseer  Ibn  Katheer  states  in  its  description  of  the  jilbaab:

“Jilbaab  is  the  shawl  over  the  head-scarf (khimaar).  This  has  been  stated  by  Ibn  Mas’oud, Ubaidah,  Qataadah,  Hasan  Basri,  Saeed  Bin  Jubair, Ibraaheem  Nakh’i,  Ataa  Khuraasani  and  others.

Ali  Bin  Ali  Talhah  narrates  that  Ibn  Abbaas  said: Allah  ordered  the  women  of  the  Mu’mineen  that when  they  emerge  from  their  home  for  a  need, they  should  cover  their  faces  from  on  top  of  their heads  with  the  jalaabeeb  and  leave  exposed  one eye.

Muhammad  Bin  Sireen  said:  I  asked  Ubaidah Salmaani  about  Allah’s  statement  (viz.  they should  hang  over  themselves  their  jalaabeeb).  He then  (practically  demonstrated)  by  concealing  his face  and  head,  and  exposing  his  left  eye.”

Tafseer  Abi  Sa-wood  defines  the  jilbaab  as  follows:

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

It  is  said  that  it  is  the  shawl.  It  is  every  garment with  which  women  conceal  their  faces  and  their bodies  when  they  emerge  (from  their  homes)  for needs.

Sadi  said  that  it  conceals  her  one  eye,  and  her face.”

Commenting  on  the  aayat  59  of  Surah  Ahzaab,  Abu  Bakr Jassaas  says:

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

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

“Since  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Arab  women  to leave  their  faces  open  like  slave-girls,  and  this would  invite  the  gazes  of  men,  Allah  and  His Rasool  ordered  them  (women)  to  hang  down (irkhaa’)  the  jalaabeeb  over  them  when  they intend  to  emerge  for  their  needs.

Ibn  Abbaas  and  Ubaidah  Salmaani  said  that  it covers  a  woman  so  much  that  only  her  one  eye  remains  exposed  to enable  her  to  see.”

All  other  authoritative  books  of  Tafseer  describe  the  jilbaab and  the  method  of  donning  it  in  the  same  way  as  mentioned above,  i.e.  the  jilbaab  was  worn  from  on  top  of  the  head and  covered  the  face  as  well.

The  encyclopaedic  LISAANUL  ARAB  of  Ibn  Manthur Jamaluddin  Muhammad  al-Ansaari  defines  Jilbaab  as follows:

“Jilbaab  is  bigger  than  the  khimaar  (the  long head-scarf)  smaller  than  the  ridaa’  (the  outer shawl).  The  woman  conceals  with  it  her  head  and breast.”

These  definitions  presented  by  the  authorities  of  the Shariah  are  adequate  for  understanding  that  the  jilbaab  is not  a  garment  worn  from  the  neck  downwards.  Even  if  it was  worn  in  this  fashion  prior  to  the  command  issued  for the  observance  of  PURDAH/HIJAAB  (i.e.  to  conceal  the head  and  face),  aayat  59  of  Surah  Ahzaab  ordered  women to  conceal  their  heads  and  faces  with  their  jalaabeeb henceforth.  Their  style  of  wearing  the  jilbaab  beyond  the home  precincts  was  changed  by  this  aayat  of  Surah Ahzaab.  There  is  unanimity  of  the  Shar’i  authorities  on  this issue.

It  should  be  further  understood  that  the  Arab  Muslim  ladies (i.e. the  Sahaabiyyah  or  female  Sahaabah)  were accustomed  to  don  a  khimaar  and  a  ridaa’.  Khimaar  is  a big,  long  head  scarf.  Ridaa’  is  the  big  sheet  which  is wrapped  around  the  body.  When  they  ventured  out  of  their homes  (i.e.  even  prior  to  the  revelation  of  the  PURDAH aayat  of  Surah  Ahzaab),  their  hair,  head,  breasts  and  body were  well  covered.  The  command  to  ‘hang  over  them’  their jalaabeeb  will  be  meaningless,  if  the  purpose  was  merely  to cover  the  hair.  The  order  would  have  been  redundant  since the  khimaar  already  took  care  of  the  hair  and  head.  The ridaa’  took  care  of  the  body.  But  for  greater  and  complete PURDAH  with  a  view  to  thwart  the  evil  and  lustful  gazes of  the  fussaaq  and  munaafiqeen,  the  command  was  issued to  conceal  the  face  with  the  jilbaab.  And  on  this  score  there is  copious  evidence  and  the  authoritative  ruling  of  the Sahaabah  and  Fuqaha  in  general.

In  Saheeh  Muslim,  the  jilbaab  is  described  as  such  a  big garment  which  could  be  wrapped  around  two  women.

The  garment  which  normally  covered  the  bosoms  of  the women  was  the  large  head-scarf  (ornhi)  which  extended from  over  the  head,  down  over  the  bosoms  until  the  waist and  even  lower  down.  The  Qur’aan  Majeed  mentions  the khimaar  distinct  from  the  jilbaab.  Thus,  in  aayat  31  of Surah  Noor,  the  Qur’aan  declares:

“They  should  put  their  khumur  (plural  of khimaar)  over  their  bosoms….”  

With  regard  to  the  jilbaab,  aayat  59  of  Surah  Ahzaab commands  that  they  ‘hang  their  jilbaabs  OVER  them’.  The head  is  part  of  ‘them’  and  it  is  the  point  from  which ‘hanging’  of  the  jilbaab  is  instructed.  Its  function  is  apart from  the  function  of  the  khimaar.  Its  primary  function  is  to conceal  the  FACE  while  the  primary  function  of  the khimaar  is  to  conceal  the  head  and  the  bosom.  After  the command  was  received,  ladies  would  cover  their  faces  in  varying  degrees  depending  on  circumstances.  Some covered  their  faces  completely  exposing  only  one  eye  to enable  them  to  see.  This  was  the  standard  way  in  which  the  jilbaab  was  donned.  At  times  both  eyes  were  exposed  while some  say  that  the  greater  part  of  the  face  was  covered.  But there  is  unanimity  among  the  authorities  of  the  Shariah  that the  purpose  of  the  jilbaab  was  to  conceal  the  FACE  from the  lustful  and  shaitaani  gazes  of  the  fusaaq  and munaafiqeen  and  to  distinguish  the  chaste  females  of  Islam  from  slave-girls  and  prostitutes.

A  jilbaab  is  an  outer  sheet  or  cloak  which  during  the  time of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  was  large  enough  to  conceal  two  women.  The  way  in  which  the ladies  during  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah  wore  the  jilbaab  covered  them  from  head  to  feet  including  the  face.  The  term  (yudneena  – they  should  lower  or  draw  down)  appearing  in  the  above aayat  orders  that  the  cloak  be  drawn  over  from  above  and  lowered  in  such  a  way  as  to  conceal  the  face  as  well. Covering  the  face  outside  the  home  precincts  was  the standard  and  normal  practice  of  the  womenfolk  during  the time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  In  this regard  Hadhrat  Aishah  (radhiyallahu  anha)  narrates:

“During  the  occasion  of  Hajjatul  Wida  when  people passed  near  to  us,  we  (the  ladies)  would  draw  the jilbaab  over  the  head  and  the  face.  When  they  (the people)  departed  from  us,  we  would  open  our  faces”.  (Abu  Dawood)

Imam  Ghazaali  (rahmatullah  alayh)  mentions  in  Ihyaaul Uloom:

“Women  emerged  (during  the  time  of  Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  with  niqaabs  on  their faces”.

Niqaab  is  a  cloth  which  conceals  the  face  and  not  a transparent  veil.  In  a  Hadith  in  Abu  Dawood  an  incident  is described  in  which  a  young  man  was  martyred.  His  mother, wearing  a  jilbaab  fully  covering  her  face  came  into  the battlefield  to  enquire  about  her  son.  With  face  fully covered  she  appeared  in  the  presence  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Some  people  were  surprised to  observe  that  the  lady  donned  face-covering  even  during an  emergency  and  on  such  a  grave  occasion.  When  she  learnt  of  their  surprise,  the  mother  of  the  slain  Sahaabi said:

“My  son  is  lost,  but  my  shame  and  modesty  are  not  lost”.

In  Durrul  Mukhtaar,  the  authoritative  Islamic  Law  Book, the  following  verdict  of  the  Shariah  is  recorded:

“Young  women  are  compulsorily  prohibited  from revealing  their  faces  in  the  presence  of  men”.

These  narrations  are  sufficient  to  indicate  that  it  is  an Islamic  demand  of  compulsion  for  women  to  conceal  their faces  when  circumstances  compel  them  to  leave  the  home boundaries.  This  practice  of  concealing  the  face  was  not  a later  introduction,  but  existed  from  the  very  time  of Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Certain  narrations which  indicate  that,  women  appeared  in  the  presence  of Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  should  not  be misconstrued  and  understood  to  have  been  the  normal practice.  Such  narrations  pertain  to  either  incident  prior  to the  revelation  of  the  Law  of  Hijaab  or  to  special circumstances  which  were  exceptional  cases  and  not  the normal  rule.

From  the  foregoing  discussion  it  should  be  abundantly clear  that  Purdah  or  Hijaab  does  not  mean  ‘niqaab’  or  the face-veil.  The  Niqaab  is  rather  an  item  of  Hijaab/Purdah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dwelling  in  satanically  compounded  ignorance,  the  stupid Kaafirah says: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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