Tag Archives: refutations

Pray as you see me pray – Albani’s deceptive work

Naseer-ud-deen Albani wrote a book titled, “Sifaat Salatun Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)”. However, what Albani failed to answer, despite his attempt to discredit the research of the four Imaam’s of fiqh, is the following:

Does the Quran explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sahih Bukhari explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sahih Muslim explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sunnan Nisa’i explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Jami At-Tirmizi explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sunnan Abu Dawud explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sunnan Ibn Majah explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Please name one single Muhaddith (Scholar of Hadith) amongst those listed above who has written a complete / comprehensive book on how to perform salaat?

Did the messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) order any of the 125,000 companions to record or write a book on “pray as you see me pray”?

Did any of the four Khulafaa Rashideen write a book on how to perform salaat in their lifetime? Especially Umar Ibn Khattab (known for establishing Fiqh) and Usmaan Ibn Affan (who compiled the Qur’an)?

Bilal Phillips, Albani, Madkhali, Salih al-Fawzan, Zakir Naik & Farhat Hashmi can not teach the ummah the complete way of salaat if they answered “No” to all the 10 Questions above. Then how on earth did they learn the right method of Salaat? The answer is that they (the Salafi’s) generated their method of Salaat by carefully studying and copying the candid research of Aimma-e- Mujtahideen; especially Imaam Shafi’i (rahmatullahi alayhi).

Allah Ta’ala has given the order in the Quran to “Establish Salaat” but the details have been left out. It is funny that Imaam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alayhi) is accused of knowing only 6-Ahadeeth. Interestingly, with “6-Ahadeeth” he was able to teach people the full methodology of Salaat. So, shouldn’t one go to the person who out of 6-hadeeth can teach the ummah how to pray, rather than Imaam Bukhari who collected over 600,000 ahadeeth, yet he didn’t teach anyone the full method of salaat?

Albani’s book “Sifaat Salaatun Nabi” is nothing more than a deceptive attempt at confusing the Ummah. In his book he could not produce a single sahih hadith that gives one the complete method and details of salaat. Even Albani’s book is incomplete despite the cut-and-paste that he did to mislead people. But the Salafi’s are blind followers of Albani so there is not much I can say. Albani has also commited injustice by hiding the following facts from the Ummah:

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Faraaid (Obligatory Acts of Salaat)

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Waajib acts of Salaat

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Sunnah’s of the Salaat

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Makrooh acts in Salaat

Why didn’t Albani tell the Ummah that even the greatest Imaam of Hadith; Imam Bukhari (rahmatullahi alayhi) did not provide ALL the SAHIH hadeeth to substantiate each and every act of Salaat; unless Albani learnt a better way to pray than Imaam Bukhari – because not All hadith reached Imaam Bukhari??


What does “Omnipresence” of Allah Ta’ala mean??

A Brain-dead Anthropomorphist ‘Salafi’  after having a look at the article: Divine Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala  posts a non-sensical question regarding the term ‘Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala’, his stupid Question was:

“Um… do you lot not know what “omnipresent” means?”

These duffer Salafi-modernists agents of Iblees, when they could not refute the proofs laid down academically, resort to transform into ‘quiz-masters’ as if like they had already refuted the contention which had been made, their moto is “If you cannot refute them, then question them and confuse them!”


The Principle of Omnipresence for the Divine Attributes are not literal as the Juhhaal Salafis want the people to believe and get mis-leaded to their “Quiz-masters ‘baboon’ tactic”

“Omnipresence” is an Attribute of Allah Ta’ala mentioned in simple Qur’aanic terms without delving into philosophical, metaphysical, academic and copro-arguments with all their hair-splitting paraphernalia, incongruities, absurdities, etc.  –  argument and exposition which are totally destructive for the masses, arguments which display the  ghabaawah (density of brains)  of even so-called ‘shaikhul islams’, and which open the avenue for kufr.

‘Omnipresence’ or ‘Everywhere’ is the most logical and simplest way for negating makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal. It is the best manner of refuting the Taimiyyite-Hashawi Aqeedah concept of confining Allah Azza Wa Jal to a specific place and space of His creation. The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah absolutely deny and negate the Taimiyyite belief of the confinement of Allah Ta’ala in space and direction  –  high is He above such blasphemy which the anthropomorphists and Taimiyyites ascribe to Him.
(Did you know??: ‘Salafi’ is just a label to deceive masses but they follow 7th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah!, know more: Are the Salafis “followers of Salaf Saaliheen”?? )

Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed:

The east and the west belong to Him. Wherever you turn your face, there is the Face (Presence) of Allah.

He is with you wherever you are.

He is with them wherever they are.

He is Allah in the heaven and Allah in the earth.

Thus, Allah’s Presence as mentioned in the Qur’aan, is Everywhere without confinement to makaan, and to our understanding it is Divine Omnipresence bila kayf. The uncorrupted minds of simple people do not dwell into avenues of kufr nor embroil themselves in hair-splitting academic issues and arguments. The simple belief of  ‘everywhere bila kayf’  is an affirmation of the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah that Allah Ta’ala is not confined to any specific space. This is the belief of Imaam Abu Hanifah and of all the Salf-e-Saaliheen  –  a belief inherited from the Sahaabah.

We do believe that Allah Ta’ala is in the Arsh, but at the same time we also believe that He is near to our jugular veins bila kayf (i.e without how) but unlike the hypocrite Salafis we do not take the literal meaning (with howness) for the first one and a selective ‘Ta’weel‘ for the second (Note: according to the crooked “Manhaaj” of the brain-dead Salafis, Ta’weel is not valid, yet one will see a Salafi moron hypocritically making Ta’weel for the ayat of “Allah being near to us than our Jugular veins”  as “knowledge” or even the ayat t “He is with you wherever you are” to mean “His knowledge is with us” and so on).

In the exposition of the Qur’aanic  verse: “He (Allah) is with you wherever you are.”, Imaam Bayhaqi narrated that the Sahaabi, Hadhrat Ubaadah (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the best Imaan of a Mu’min is that he understands and has implicit faith that Allah is with him wherever he is.  [Al-Asmaa’].

In simple terms: Allah Ta’ala being everyhwere (Omnipresent) in the meaning of  the context of the above Qur’aanic verses affirming Omnipresence  for Him  –  a meaning which is beyond the comprehension of the created human mind with its finite boundaries of operation.

Describing the non-existence of  makaan in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) stating the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, said: 

“He existed (since Eternity) and there had not existed makaan (space/place i.e. not even the ‘Arsh).”

We are to simply believe just as Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the Hadith. The Qur’aan says: Allah is wherever you turn your face. We say: Yes, we believe Allah is bila kayf  wherever we turn our face. The Qur’aan says: Allah is with you wherever you are. We say: We believe Allah is with us bila kayf  wherever we are. The Qur’aan says: Allah made istiwa on the Arsh. We say: We believe Allah’s  istiwa on the Arsh, bila kayf,  whatever it may mean without us attempting to fathom the  haqeeqat  of this istiwa. The Qur’aan says Allah is in the heaven and in the earth. We say: We believe Allah is in the heaven and in the earth bila kayf – bila makaan.

The only benefit and utility of the polemical and philosophical expositions of the Akaabireen Salaf-e-Saaliheen and of our recent Ulama on the issue of Allah’s  Sifaat and Zaat were to refute the corrupt, kufr beliefs of  the many baatil sects which had mushroomed in the Ummah. All of them were the illegitimate offspring of Greek philosophy initiated by the Mu’tazilahs & Hashawiyyah-Taymiyyites.

Also read: A Response to: “Akhi! If Allah is Everywhere, then is He also in Filthy Places??”

Dars-e-Nizaami and the Call of the Morons

By Majlisul Ulama


THE CURRICULUM OF  all the Deeni Madaaris in the Indian subcontinent comprising of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, is known as  Dars-e-Nizaami.  The period of the  Dars-e-Nizaami  course of study varies from five years to ten years. A student pursuing the Knowledge of the Deen, who completes this course obtains the  Alim Faadhil  qualification. The title of this Aalim is Molvi. The Molvi who pursues an extra year or two of higher studies is known as a Mufti

The one who has accomplished the  Dars-e-Nizaami  course of study is a  Sanadi Aalim.  His  Isnaad  (Chain of Ilm) through numerous Links extends directly to  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In his  Isnaad  there is not a single missing link. All the Asaatizah  (Teachers) in this glorious Chain of Knowledge are known and the Chain links up with Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

By means of self-study or studying under teachers who are not Sanadi Ulama, one will not be a qualified Aalim regardless of natural talent, or having studied and even memorized many kitaabs. A person may be a genius who has mastered the Arabic language, all the Hadith and  Fiqh books, but if he has not acquired his knowledge under the supervision and guidance of expert  Sanadi Ulama,  he  will not be a qualified Aalim. He remains a layman, and in some cases more ignorant than a layman since he wallows in self-deception created  by his ego. A man who studies Deeni Knowledge at the higher/academic level without the supervision of qualified Asaatizah becomes a danger to himself and to Muslim society. Shaitaan becomes his ustaadh (teacher).

The initiator of  the  Dars-e-Nizaami  syllabus was Hadhrat Mullah Nizaamuddeen Muhammad Sahaalwi (rahmatullah alayh), born in 1088 Hijri, and died in 1161 Hijri. The glorious syllabus which he had formulated has become so  Maqbool (Accepted)  that, despite  the Ulama having effected changes in the curriculum over the past couple of centuries,  Dars-e-Nizaami  remains the syllabus of all the Madaaris of the Indo-Pak subcontinent and of  the Madaaris in other countries  established  by the  Dars-e-Nizaami  Ulama  –  those who  had acquired their Ilm  at  Dars-e-Nizaami  Madaaris. Indeed, Allah Ta’ala has bestowed a lofty status to this wonderful syllabus of Mullah Nizaamuddeen Muhammad (rahmatullah alayh). It is unsurpassable. Whilst changes have been effected, the fundamental framework remains  Dars-e-Nizaami, and,  Insha’Allah, so shall it remain. The Ulama-e-Haqq will resist with might every attempt to secularize and kufrize this wonderful and glorious  Dars-e-Nizaami syllabus.


Allah Ta’ala has assumed on Himself the responsibility of protecting and guarding the Deen of Islam.  The Shariat  of  Islam which Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) delivered to mankind will not suffer the same fate of interpolation,  mutilation and destruction which has overtaken the Shariats of  Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam), Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) and of all the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) of bygone times. Declaring His Responsibility of guarding Islam, Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem:

“Verily, We have revealed the Thikr (the Qur’aan), and verily, We are its Guards.”      [Al-Hijr, aayat 9] 

The Qur’aan which is the fundamental basis of the Shariat  has two inter-related dimensions. One is its Text and the other is its Meaning. For guarding the Text of  the Qur’aan, Allah Ta’ala has created the Institution of Huffaaz. For guarding the Meaning of the Qur’aan, He has created the Institution of the Ulama. The evidence for this abounds in the Qur’aan and the Hadith. Hence, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “Verily, only the  Ulama are the Warathaa (Heirs) of the Ambiya.”  The Estate of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is this Deen of Islam, and the Ulama have inherited its Knowledge from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus they are  Ulama with a sacred  Isnaad.  They are not rudderless cranks who have picked up knowledge from here and there  –  from the refuse bins of  secular universities, books and the like. Dars-e-Nizaami, having been designed to give practical expression to the aforementioned Qur’aanic aayat,  caters for both dimensions of the sacred Objective of guarding and protecting the Shariat of Islam  –  the  Thikr  –  which Allah Ta’ala mentions and whose protection He has undertaken. The  zaahiri asbaab  (the material and ostensible means) which Allah Ta’ala has  created for guarding the Deen  are the Institutions of the Huffaaz and Ulama. This then is the Objective of Dars-e-Nizaami.  This sacred curriculum has no objective other than guarding and protecting the Deen. The Deeni Madaaris have been established,  not to impart the secular know-how of  constructing oxen wagons, donkey carts, ships, laying drain pipes, erecting  toilets, filthy standing urinals with which the Saudis are so enamoured,  building bridges, establishing banks, and the rest of  the needs of the mundane world.  Dars-e-Nizaami  does not cater for the means and ways of earning a livelihood. Its Objective demands focus on the Aakhirah, diversion from the dunya, Zuhd (renunciation of the world) and Tawakkul on Allah Azza Wa Jal. Its Objective is the very antithesis of the objectives of secular  institutions whose only objective is to teach how to construct donkey carts and lay toilet drain pipes.  The  ultimate goal of secular education which the western secular universities impart is the acquisition  of expertise in the advanced art of building donkey carts, albeit a different dimension of it whilst the primary and ultimate objectives and goals of  Dars-e-Nizaami  and the Madaaris are guarding the Deen and Allah’s Pleasure. 

Since the objectives and  goals of the two different kinds of education are divergent, their attributes and the ethos permeating them will necessarily be as different as are heaven and earth or Jannat and Jahannum. The determining and controlling attributes of worldly/secular education are greed, avarice, lust, selfishness, pride, arrogance and ostentation which all breed  fisqfujoor  and  kufr, hence we find the western educational institutions, especially universities being academic brothels. 

On the contrary, the attributes of  the sacred  Dars-e-Nizaami education  are  sacrifice, munificence, abstinence, philanthrophy  and altruism. The ethos of the Madaaris stems from the Qur’aanic Ta’leem:  

*   “And, the life of this world is nothing but play and amusement whilst the abode of the Aakhirah is best for him who adopts Taqwa. What! Have you no intelligence (to understand this transcendental truth of life’s purpose on earth)?” [Al-An’aam, aayat 32]

*    “The life of this dunya is (nothing) but provisions of deception.”  [Aal-e-Imraan, aayat 185]

*   “The life of this world has been adorned for the kuffaar; and they mock the People of Imaan (of the Camel Age. But they should know that) the People of Taqwa will be  elevated above them on the Day of Qiyaamah.  And, Allah provides (Rizq) for whomever He wishes without limit.”       [Al-Baqarah, aayat 212]

  “Never drag your eyes (i.e. do not focus) towards the glitter of this worldly life which We have bestowed (temporarily) to the different groups among them  (the kuffaar) in order to cast them into fitnah. And, the provision (Rizq) of your Rabb is better and  more enduring”    [Taahaa, aayat 131]

Regarding this ephemeral worldly life, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  said:

*    “This world is jeefah (carrion).”
“This world is a prison for the Mu’min and a paradise for the kaafir.”

*    “If you knew what I know (of the futility of this life and the reality of the Aakhirah and of the torments of the grave and the terrors of Qiyaamah, and of the  punishment of Jahannum  and the wonderful life of Jannat), then you would laugh less and cry much, and you would not derive pleasure from your wives on  your beds, and you would (leave this world) and flee into the wilderness.”

The Qur’aan and the Ahaadith are absolutely replete with such verses and narrations which create the ethos of  Dars-e-Nizaami  and the Deeni Madaaris. Thus, the  thought of secularizing  Dars-e-Nizaami  and diluting the holy ethos and atmosphere which  should permeate the Madaaris is obscene, unthinkable and a capital crime. It is the Waajib obligation of the Ulama to zealously and jealously guard the sacred  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum, and never incline a listening ear to the  ghutha  which the modernist  morons disgorge about the system of Ta’leem of the Madaaris.  


There are some modernist molvis  –  quarter-baked ones  –  morons –  who entered the Madaaris with corrupt motives, who wasted their time at  Madrasah  and who emerged  failures and  enemies of not only the Madaaris, but of the Deen itself. Added to their failure at the Madaaris is their acquired disease of mental inferiority which has created in their hearts an awe for western secular institutions. They compare the Madaaris with the external glitter of western universities. They stupidly view the effects and fruits of the Madaaris in the light of the technological progress  and the acquisition of well-paid jobs  which stem from secular education, and when seeing no such consequences emanating from the Madaaris, they label the Madrasah curriculum out-dated and antiquated.

This opinion simply mirrors the  jahaalat  of these moron proponents of change. They call for the Madrasah syllabus to be changed and brought in line with the devil’s  curriculum in the hope of  the Deeni Madaaris also becoming institutions of  material science and technology. One moron, crank  ‘molvi’  who happens to be the imaam of a Musjid in the U.S.A.  displaying his jahaalat says: 

“The point is that the ulema must  be kept abreast with contemporary developments, which is not possible if one argues that the dars-e-nizami should remain unchanged.”

The miscreant has not explained what he means by  being ‘abreast with contemporary developments’. There is not a contemporary development with which the  Ulama  –  the true Ulama  –  are not abreast.  It should be understood that not every molvi is an Aalim of the Haqq. Molvis who  pursue Deeni Ilm  with corrupt motives  worldly and nafsani agendas  –  end up in the dumps of materialism. Some become halaal inspectors certifying carrion; some become the employees of the riba banks certifying riba  –  making riba halaal; some take up imaamate jobs, then  talk rubbish like the jaahil  whose statements we are refuting in this article.

The  true Ulama who had correctly and diligently pursued the Dars-e-Nizaami  course of study  become the Ulama-e-Haqq  –  the Guardians of the Shariah  –  the Representatives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Despite them not having pursued secular  subjects  academically, they are  fully capable of issuing Fatwa on any secular  development.  Their  Ilmi isti’daad  (intellectual and academic ability) acquired from the  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum coupled with Taqwa,  have embellished these Ulama with adequate expertise  to study any subject in any field of  knowledge, which requires a Fatwa of the Shariah.  For the Ulama who are the Guardians of the Shariah to issue the correct Fatwa of the Shariah pertaining to any secular field, there is absolutely no need  for diversion from  Dars-e-Nizaami  nor for pursuing secular  education at a secular institution nor is there any need whatsoever to hybridize and pollute the pure, lofty, spiritual Dars-e-Nizaami  with the unholy, material sciences. The intellectual accomplishment of  the Ulama-e-Haqq endows them with sufficient ability to research any subject pertaining to the  material and mundane sciences  which require a Shar’i  Fatwa for the guidance of the Ummah. If necessary, the Ulama can and do call on secular experts to explain an issue for sake of clarity. Thus, keeping abreast with contemporary developments  does not require mutilation of  the  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum which has been introduced by  Ahlullaah.  The Men of Allah were far-sighted, and their efforts and works exude  barkat and immense benefit for the Ummah.  They were illustrious personalities inspired by Allah Ta’ala.  The one who calls for changing the wonderful  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum is a thorough moron, and he speaks nothing but ghutha. His call for change betrays  his stupidity. It is evidence for the fact that the poor moron did not understand what he was studying whilst at Madrasah. Only a moron whose brains are fossilized or colonized by westernism will fail to understand the wonderful benefits of Dars-e-Nizaami. The moron, quarter-baked  ‘molvi’  enamoured by western secular institutions avers: “How can you be considered to be a real scholar, an alim, if you study books written eight hundred or five hundred years ago, which is the case with the dars-e-nizami,  and totally leave out modern books?”

The moron displays his  jahaalat  in this averment. He does not even understand what is the meaning of a true Aalim nor the function of an Aalim nor the attributes of an Aalim nor the requisites for being a true Aalim. If he had any understanding of these requisites, he would not have acquitted himself so stupidly. Firstly, the moron should understand that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “The Ulama are the Waratha of the Ambiya.”  The Ulama  –that is, the  true Ulama  –  acquire a share of the heritage of Nubuwwat.  The functions of the mission of Nubuwwat are  thrust on to the Ulama. It is the obligation of the Ulama to perpetuate the mission of Nubuwwat and to guard that Deen which the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)   delivered  to mankind from Allah Azza Wa Jal.  If the Ulama  abstain from executing this obligation, who is there who will guard this Deen?

It is not among the functions of the Ulama to become shoemakers, plumbers, engineers, doctors, secular  lawyers, astronomers, technologists,  etc.  The obligation of the Ulama is merely to guide  the Ummah in the multifarious mundane avenues in which they have ramified in pursuit of their worldly goals. 

Secular qualifications are not  requisites for a man to  be qualified an Aalim of the Deen.  The only essential  requirements for a person to  be  a  Waarith of the  Ambiya  and a Guardian of the Shariah is the Knowledge of the Shariah and Taqwa. If any one of these two fundamental requisites is missing, a man can never  be an Aalim of the Deen. Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed:  “Verily, only the Ulama of Allah’s servants fear Him.”  Those bereft of  khashiyat are devoid of Taqwa, hence they cannot be true Ulama.

To be an economist, an engineer, a  chemist, a doctor, a lawyer, etc., are not at all  qualifications for an Aalim of the Deen.  If a lawyer seeks a fatwa on a specific  act of his profession, a true Aalim will study that specific act and present the Shar’i  Fatwa. The same applies to any secular profession,  and any mundane activity or profession. The true Ulama who are grounded in the Ilm of the Deen will research the issue which requires a Shar’i  directive, and the necessary Fatwa will be issued.

For the purpose of discharging their Shar’i  obligations,  the Ulama are  not in need of western secular educational accomplishments. The greatest Ulama of Islam were among the Sahaabah,  the Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen, and in recent times too we have had some of the best Ulama, and throughout the history of Islam,  great Ulama  adorned the firmament of Shar’i  Uloom. They were Warathatul Ambiya  in the fullest meaning of this lofty designation. None of them had pursued mundane or secular courses of study for the acquisition of their Shar’i  accomplishments and for the discharge of the duties and obligations of their sacred Office.

Just as there is absolutely no need for an Aalim of the Deen to pursue secular education, so too is there absolutely no need to effect any change in the glorious  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum which our Madaaris teach. Only a moron who lacks understanding of this wonderful curriculum, and of the  objective of its pursuit argues for change and  for corrupting  Deeni Uloom with the pollution of mundane branches of education. 

What are the “modern books” which this moron proposes should be introduced for mutilating the  holy  Dars-e-Nizaami  syllabus? The Qur’aan and the Sunnah  –that is, the Shariah, cannot be modernized. Modernizing any aspect of the Deen is kufr  –  clear-cut kufr which expels the moron from the confines of the Deen.

The moron speaks deprecatingly about books written eight or five hundred years ago without understanding that the Qur’aan and Sunnah are Divine Products of  more than fourteen centuries ago. Whether a kitaab has been written  five or eight centuries ago or whether it has to be written  today, it will be the very same Shariah revealed fourteen centuries ago which will have to be written in exactitude,  just as it is recorded in the Books of the Shariah written a thousand years and more ago. 

Nubuwwat has terminated. There is no new shariah to be revealed. Allah Ta’ala  had perfected the Deen during the very age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Then to adorn the Shariah with a systematic order and codification, Allah  Ta’ala established the  Quroon-e-Thalaathah  which is the final era in the evolutionary process of  codification of the  issues revealed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by Allah Azza Wa Jal.  This Deen does not tolerate the slightest iota of change.  All the principles of  the Shariah which are required for the formulation of Rulings on any new development until the Day of Qiyaamah have already been evolved and formulated from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith during the glorious epoch known as Quroon-e-Thalaathah.

The  Dars-e-Nizaami  which was introduced by our Akaabireen, admirably and adequately fulfils the obligation of guarding the authenticity of the Shariah and for providing solutions and rulings for any developing expedient until the end of earthly time. Only those suffering from the disease of  brain-colonization fail to understand the worth and efficacy of Dars-e-Nizaami.

The moron should  point out what the flaws are in our  Dars-e-Nizaami  and in the kutub which constitute  this glorious and sacred curriculum which was introduced by Ahlullaah, not by fussaaq and modernist morons who masquerade as ‘scholars’ in this stupid age. What deficiency in Shar’i  Uloom stems in the wake of studying Saheeh Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nisaai’, Tirmizi,  Muwatta Imaam Maalik, Ibn Maajah, Tahaawee, Mishkaat, Tafseer Baidhaawi, Hidaayah, Sharhul Wiqaayah, the books Ilmul Kalaam, Falsafah (Philosophy),  Mantiq  (Logic), Nahw, Sarf, Meeraath, etc., etc.? The moron should pinpoint the flaws he has discerned in this illustrious galaxy of  kutub of the Shariah.

Then, the miserable moron,  quarter-baked molvi with brains colonized by his western masters, avers: “But the dars-e-nizami is overloaded with books on antiquated Greek logic and philosophy….” Indeed, the  brains  of this moron are overloaded with the  ghutha  of mental inferiority and jahaalat. If  Dars-e-Nizaami  is ‘overloaded’ with  ‘antiquated’ books pertaining to the rational sciences, it  would follow  that  Logic and Greek philosophy are the primary subjects  in the  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum. This averment made by the moron is a blatant lie. In the five  or seven year course …about 10% of the kitaabs pertain to the rational sciences. 

The moron criticizing the rational sciences taught at the Madaaris says: “….rational sciences, much of which is quite irrelevant now.”   The conclusion of irrelevancy is  due to  his stupidity.  Very few rational science  kutub  are taught at the Madaaris affiliated with Deoband. The emphasis at out Madaaris is on the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The objective of these Madaaris is to safeguard the Deen, NOT to promote secular science and technology. The moron does not object  when subjects which are deemed necessary for a Bachelor of Science degree are not  taught for a Bachelor of Commerce qualification. And,  he does not object if a course in  kuffaar theology does not include subjects pertaining to engineering or to drain-pipe laying or to become an expert in making shoes. Furthermore, he does not object  when the acquisition of a medical degree of qualification does not require study in the subjects of  brick-laying, or  theology or  mercantile law, etc. So why does the moron harp on introducing stupid changes to a syllabus designed for goals of the Aakhirah? 

The objective of  Dars-e-Nizaami  is not the dunya.  It is the Aakhirah. Whoever wishes to become an Aalim of the Deen does not need to become a plumber or a secular lawyer or an engineer or a medical doctor. Whoever, wishes to pursue these mundane branches of knowledge is free to take the route of the secular institutions which cater for the dunya. Surely,  it is not expected  that a man who wishes to become a medical doctor has to also become accomplished in Usool-e-Fiqh or in Hadith or in Qur’aan Tafseer. What is expected of every Muslim is to  become proficient in the minimum degree of Islamic education which is Waajib, namely,  the knowledge which is required for  every day’s  acts of ibaadat and worldly indulgences. If he wants to trade he has to acquire  the knowledge of the masaail  pertaining to his branch of  trade, and this he can acquire from the Ulama

If a group of persons pursues an educational course which will qualify them to be medical doctors, no one castigates  them or the institution or the curriculum for not incorporating the study of law or  the study of how to clean sewerage pipes.  One who wants  to become a mason or a drain-pipe layer or an expert gardener is not expected to pursue all the sciences of the world nor is he expected to become a qualified Aalim or philosopher. So why the umbrage over Dars-e-Nizaami  which is the curriculum of study designed to defend and protect the Deen and to pursue the goals of the Aakhirah.

The existence of  Dars-e-Nizaami  does not preclude anyone from pursuing any branch of the secular sciences. If a group  engages in the  Dars-e-Nizaami  course of study, such engagement does not prevent others from learning how to clean toilets and how to build vehicles and ships.  Dars-e-Nizaami  is not  an obstacle in the path of the pursuit of secular sciences.  Dars-e-Nizaami  was  not introduced to displace secular education. Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayh), the Founder of Daarul Uloom Deoband had emphasized this fact.  What then is the need to effect change in the current course of study which produce qualified  Ulama whose obligation is to guard the Shariah? 

The problem with the detractors is that there is the disease of kufr in their hearts. They are  zindeeqs  who desire to revamp the Qur’aan and Sunnah to appease the palates of their western masters with whom  they are enamoured.  When  Greek philosophy, ancient history and  obsolete economics are taught in western educational institutions, the moron finds it to be progressive and fully justified, but when  these subjects are taught at a Daarul Uloom, they are ‘antiquated’. The moron’s brains are antiquated and fossilized as a consequence of western indoctrination, hence his oblique, squinteyed vision  produces a distorted image of  Dars-e-Nizaami  in his atrophied brains.

Let it be known that at no stage did any  of our Akaabir Ulama claim that  Dars-e-Nizaami  is immutable and that it is kufr to abandon it or to effect change to it. In fact, over the centuries,  Dars-e-Nizaami  has  undergone  many changes  at the hands of the Ulama. But,  when change is deemed necessary,  the Ulama will introduce the necessary changes. Morons, modernists and  zindeeqs  lack the brains for effecting appropriate change to the glorious  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum.  The changes effected by the Ulama ensure that Dars-e-Nizaami  retains  its essential  spiritual character and attributes so essential to foster the goals of the Aakhirah.

We have  studied by this system. Alhamdulillah, we find ourselves lacking in nothing. The Ulama are capable of issuing Fatwa on  any subject which requires Shar’i  directive  despite lacking in scrap qualifications doled out by  western secular institutions.  The intellect of those who have correctly  pursued  Dars-e-Nizaami  is attuned to research in any  subject, spiritual or mundane,  religious or secular, for the purposes of issuing Shar’i Fatwa.

If a person  who is currently pursuing a BSc degree also desires to become a lawyer, he will either have to postpone  his desire until after completing his first degree, or abandon it  to pursue the subjects necessary for becoming a lawyer. He cannot  weld the two branches together. But the moron expects  Dars-e-Nizaami  to be patched up and hybridized  with secular subjects. Those who wish to pursue secular subjects are free to do so.  Dars-e-Nizaami  in no ways prevents  from secular pursuit.

The Qur’aan and Ahaadith cannot be changed and mutilated for secular purposes. The Knowledge of these sacred sciences is a Narrational Science. It is not the product of man’s reasoning and opinion as  are all the secular  sciences.  Dars-e-Nizaami  protects this holy Narrational Science.

Among the western kuffaar with whom the moron is enamoured are scientists, medical practitioners, engineers, theologians, accountants, shoemakers, expert  toilet-cleaners etc., etc. Each one follows a different branch  of education, and some degree courses cater for antiquated subjects. But all of this  is acceptable to the moron, quarter-baked molvi who views the sacred  Dars-e-Nizaami with abhorrence. His claim that the current  Dars-e-Nizaami  is ‘overloaded with books  of  antiquated Greek philosophy’ is  blatantly untrue. It is merely a subject in the curriculum.

The moron proffering his corrupt advice, says: “They should be replaced by modern ‘rational subjects’ such as English and social sciences.”   What is so rational  about English? Since when is a language included in rational sciences?  Any Molvi who wishes to pursue English and  modern social science is not debarred  by  Dars-e-Nizaami  from  doing so. But why should  Dars-e-Nizaami  be encumbered  with the pollution of  English and   ‘modern social science’ when its objective is the Aakhirah, not the dunya? Why  do they not patch engineering with theology, or medicine with plumbing, or  accountancy with domestic science, or  medicine with law?  

Currently some of the ‘dead’ and  ‘antiquated  subjects with which the Bachelor of Arts qualification is offered  are:  ancient history, ancient near-eastern culture, art history,  biblical  archaeology, biblical  studies, classical culture, history of music,  new testament, old testament, philosophy,  religious studies, scripture studies,  and other  ghutha  subjects.  When such antiquated and even stupid subjects are taught by western universities, they  are progressive. But when a Daarul Uloom teaches a smattering of philosophy, it is accused of  overloading the curriculum with antiquated  subjects. Whilst the Daarul Ulooms concentrate on Qur’aan and Sunnah studies, they cater for a minimum of  philosophy contrary to what the moron claims.

The curriculum known as  Dars-e-Nizaami  has undergone  many changes since its inception in the 12th  century Hijri. The  syllabus adopted by Daarul Uloom Deoband is vastly different from the original  curriculum.  In every age, the senior  Ulama had effected changes to the curriculum as they deemed appropriate. In fact in South Africa, even more changes  have been effected to the already vastly changed  Dars-e-Nizaami  syllabus.  Each Madrasah has introduced its own change. However, the moron is either ignorant of the constant changes or  he does not consider  these changes adequate in view of his colonized  intelligence. For him change means to dump the  Dars-e-Nizaami  syllabus in entirety and to secularize and kufrize the Madaaris to produce  munaafiqs  and  zindeeqs  as do the secular universities. These universities  not only ruin the morals of Muslims, but  extinguish their Imaan with their emphasis on kufr indoctrination. This is what the moron is subtly advocating for the Deeni Madaaris.

Why should students who are  pursuing higher Qur’aanic and Hadith studies be encumbered with  secular subjects when these are available elsewhere? If the Madaaris  have to branch off into the secular field, who will guard this Deen of Islam, the protection of which has been divinely thrust on the shoulders of the Ulama?

The objectives of secular  institutions and  Deeni Madaaris are vastly different. They are divergent. Whilst the objective of secular studies is the  dunya, the  Maqsad  of Deeni Ta’leem is the Aakhirah. The need for secular education is not denied. But secular studies may not be pursued at the expense of Qur’aanic  education  nor may Deeni education be diluted with secular subjects.  The Qur’aan and Sunnah may not be made subservient to secular education nor watered down and transformed into an antiquated deadwood branch of study such as  the  antiquated  art subjects imparted by western universities.

The moron further alleges:  “Without this knowledge (i.e. modern secular knowledge) how can they provide appropriate leadership to the community, as ‘heirs of the Prophets’?”

For the information of this moron, he should know that the objective of acquiring  knowledge of the Qur’aan and Sunnah is never leadership. An intrinsic attribute of  Qur’aanic Knowledge is or should be  Zuhd  (renunciation  of the dunya).  Those who pursue this sacred Knowledge, become increasingly disillusioned with the dunya and their gaze  focuses on the Aakhirah. They abhor and fear leadership like one should  fear and abhor Hell. But in His Wisdom, Allah Azza Wa Jal creates the circumstances to compel  the true Ulama who are in reality recluses having a strong aversion for the dunya and community affairs, into positions of leadership. It is therefore seen that  the community  always turns  to the products of the Madaaris for leadership. From the cradle to the grave their links are inextricably interwoven with the Ulama. At every juncture in life’s  sojourn, Muslims, including the secularists  –  the doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. – are in need of the Ulama.

The Ulama are not the masses which are churned out by the Daarul  Ulooms. The Ulama are  such Molvis who are Ulama in the meaning of the Qur’aan. In every field of life they are capable  of leadership despite their aversion for such positions. They have the ability to provide direction and solutions for all the problems and the situations of the Ummah.  But in this age, most Muslims are averse to  the answers and solutions of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. They have become addicted to fisq, fujoor, carrion, riba  and kufr. Hence, they reject  Qur’aanic and Sunnah solutions. Then to soothe  their stupid conscience and to  deceive themselves into believing that they are still Muslims, they describe  their kufr rejection as being rejection of  the ‘orthodox’, ‘out-dated’ and ‘antiquated’ views of  the Ulama who had not pursued secular  studies in a kufr environment or an academic brothel such as a kaafir university. But in reality, they are rejecting the fourteen-century ‘antiquated’  Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The moron is unaware of the attitude of the true Ulama regarding leadership. Ulama who are  in the truest sense of the term Heirs of the Ambiya detest leadership. They flee from leadership. Morons and men who are bereft of the perception of the Aakhirah hanker after leadership. The objective of Knowledge is not the  acquisition of leadership. In this regard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Do not seek leadership.  If you  acquire it  as a result of your asking for it, you will be  cast to it (i.e. you will not be aided by Allah Ta’ala to discharge its rights and obligations). And if it is thrust on you without you applying for it, you will be aided in (discharging its rights).”      (Bukhaari and Muslim)

“Soon will you crave for leadership. However, it will be a  regret (calamity) on the Day of Qiyaamah.”         (Bukhaari)

“O Abu Tharr! You are weak, Verily, leadership is an amaanat, and on the Day of Qiyaamah it will be a disgrace except for one who has discharged its rights.”  (Muslim)

“By Allah! We do not appoint  to leadership anyone who asks for it nor one who craves for it.”    (Bukhaari  and Muslim)

Whilst morons crave for leadership, men of Taqwa and the Ulama (the true leaders of the Ummah) abhor this Trust. They fear it like one fears the Fire of Jahannum.  Leadership is not among the goals for  the pursuit and acquisition of Deeni Ilm. Despite these factors, Ulama who have studied in  Dars-e-Nizaami  Madaaris have become the true leaders of the Ummah because their  Ilm  was coupled with Khashyat.  Their  Taqwa  adorned their Ilm with  noor, baseerat and ma’rifat.  Although they detested leadership, Allah Azza Wa Jal thrust it on them because only  Ulama of Taqwa are qualified to be leaders of the Ummah, not morons who pursue secular education and display scrap university degrees with their names.

“Verily, only the Ulama of Allah’s servants fear Him.”

The stupid  quarter-baked molvi asks: “How will they be able to answer the questions that people in the street are asking? How will they be able to properly  deal with new jurisprudential issues  (fiqhi masail) if all they learn are issues that the medieval ulema discussed in the books that are still taught in the madrasas that claim to follow the dars-e-nizami?”

Regardless of  any curriculum followed by any institution, a moron will remain a moron and will not possess the expertise and intelligence to understand and respond to  even medieval issues. But Heirs of Rasullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who have acquired Ilm-e-Deen  by the  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum, and adorned it  with Taqwa  by way of  having  accomplished  Islaah  (reformation) of the nafs, are equipped with  the expertise necessary to answer not only “people in the  street”, but are superbly equipped to answer and refute the best and most learned  professor, thinker, philosopher and shaitaan  of western  education.  Names such as Shah Waliyullah Muhaddith Dehlawi, Maulana Abdul Hayy, Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, Maulana Rashid Ahmad  Gangohi  and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi are  a  minute number in the large galaxy of Ulama-e-Haqq  Warathatul Ambiya – produced by Dars-e-Nizaami.

The moron who has blurted out the aforementioned  ghutha perhaps lacks expertise in even the  rudimentary masaa-il pertaining to  Istinja, hence  he so stupidly disgorged  his drivel. Leave aside these great illustrious Ulama-e-Rabbaani, let any  western-educated expert in any field of mundane activity or branch of knowledge pose his questions on any topic for obtaining a Shar’i  ruling. Alhamdulillah, even today there are many  Dars-e-Nizaami  Ulama who will provide adequate responses and  shattering refutations for any  baatil  which modernists and  zindeeqs  attempt to inject into the body of the Deen.  Alhamdulillah, the  Dars-e-Nizaami  Ulama, i.e. those who are truly Ulama,  are  competent enough to respond to all expediencies – to all developments in any mundane field.

What the ‘medieval’ Ulama discuss and what the ‘medieval’ kutub contain are what the Medieval Qur’aan and the  Medieval Sunnah command and propagate. Allah Azza Wa Jal  is the Medieval Being. All His Ambiya and Rusul are Medieval Messengers; All the Adyaan (religions) Hadhrat Jibraeel delivered to them  are Medieval. We daily recite a Medieval Qur’aan, and we  daily worship in Medieval style.  Muslims are proud of their Medieval attribute of their Qur’aan, Sunnah, their Shariah,  their Deen  –  all Medieval issues. 

Those who have debunked their medieval religion, have no religion. They follow immoral cults of life. They are the Yahood and Nasaara, the Hindus and the Mushrikeen. They have discarded their medieval and divine religions, hence there exists no semblance of the Shariats of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) among their followers. The moron  zindeeq,  quarter-baked molvi whose brain is contaminated with coprophilitic  substances wants Islam to suffer  the same fate of  annihilation which has occurred to the previous Shariats, hence he advocates secularization – kufr secularization – of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Medievalism  is the Sunnah of Allah Azza Wa Jal, hence He states in the  Qur’aan Majeed:

“And you  will not  find for the (medieval) Sunnah of Allah a change.”

The sun and the moon follow their medieval pattern of  revolution and rotation. It has not been seen that sometimes the sun rising in the west or the north and setting in the south. Nor has it been observed that the medieval way of  procreation has changed. Modernity,  the science of the atheists  have  not been able to change the  medieval  anatomical  system by causing males to get  haidh  and give birth. The medieval pattern of cohabitation of spouses remains medieval. The tides, time, the winds and every atom in Allah’s creation  remain medieval and prehistoric. But the moron propagates the destruction of the medieval  Dars-e-Nizaami  which purports nothing other than teaching  the medieval Qur’aan and the  medieval Sunnah.

The moron, with his call to  displace  the medieval Qur’aan and Sunnah, implies the imperfection of the Deen and that it is time for a new Nabi with a new Shariah to rectify  his hallucinated ‘deficiencies’ in the existing Final Shariah.  The call for secularizing Dars-e-Nizaami  is a veiled promotion of  ‘refurbishing’ and ‘renovating’ Allah’s immutable Shariah. It is tantamount to digging up the foundations of the Deen

The moron, despite having a western-style toilet, still excretes in medieval style. He eats, urinates and excretes in medieval style. It behoves him to modernize these natural medieval styles of accomplishing his physical requisites. After having achieved modernization of his  medieval  procedure of excretion, then he may turn  his gaze to modernization of  the immutable medieval transcendental  truths of the Qur’aan and Sunnah which are expounded and preserved in the medieval  kutub  written many many centuries ago, and which  are today as fresh and as applicable as they were the day they were prepared by  the Best Brains which ever emblazoned the firmament of Knowledge, and  they will remain  ever fresh  until the day of Qiyaamah. The attempts of morons  – modernist juhhaal  –  will not succeed to disfigure this divine Shariah of Islam. There will always  be Officers in the Department of Nubuwwat who will guard the Amaanat which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has entrusted them with and which he has thrust on their shoulders.

These medieval  kutub  taught in the medieval  Dars-e-Nizaami system prepare the best Ulama. The only  flaw, and which is eternally lamentable,  in the system  nowadays is the lack of  Taqwa and the influx of  such persons who are unfit to pursue the  glorious Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum  –  students who are students in  name, but who  are wholly lacking in  natural qualifications for the lofty pedestal of  Waraathat of the Ambiya.  But this is not  the fault of Dars-e-Nizaami.  Just as Islam is not the  cause of the criminal acts of its adherents, so too  is  Dars-e-Nizaami  not the cause of the immorality of the students.

Regarding the moral decline of  Deeni personnel (Asaatizah, Ulama and Students), another moron comments: “We only want to change in their teaching system and methodology of running because they are rotten now…….they are the abode of false politics and untrue things in the name of Islam. They usher in sectarianism in  Muslim masses……..We only want to bring some good and desirable changes in the curricula of madrasas…”

Both the brains and heart of this moron are rotten to the core. He has  more than adequately demonstrated his  jahaalat  by attributing the decadent moral state of  Madaaris personnel to  Dars-e-Nizaami, hence after  lampooning the  Madaaris he calls for a changes in the curricula of the Madaaris. Any person with even a little intelligence will understand that there is absolutely no relationship  between immorality and the curriculum regardless of how medieval and ‘outdated’ the teaching system and syllabus may be. The fundamental constituents of the curriculum  are the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. All other branches of Ilm imparted at the Madaaris besides philosophy are offshoots of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. It is indeed kufr to attribute the decadent moral state to the Qur’aan and Ahaadith.

If the  desire  is to  remedy the ‘rotten’ moral condition, how will changing the  mubaarak  curriculum spawn the remedy?  The stupid critic has failed to understand and differentiate between the decadent morality and the  syllabus consisting of the Qur’aan and Hadith. Whilst the need for moral  Islaah  of  the  Asaatizah  and Talaba  is acknowledged, the call for changing the blessed and glorious  Dars-e-Nizaami  system is rejected with  contempt. Search for the causes of the  moral decadence and  suggest measures for  remedying  the ‘rotten’ morality. It is both stupid and slanderous to attribute the decadent moral state of the Teachers and Students to a curriculum which heavily emphasises the Qur’aan, Hadith, Tafseer and Fiqh.

Furthermore, the morons and those of their ilk who call for secularized syllabi should proceed and establish  the kind of institutions which they have in mind. What prevents them from going their own  deviant  route?  Why engage in a futile exercise of calling for the secularization of  Dars-e-Nizaami  when no one is prepared  to listen  to such rubbish?

Instead of wasting their time talking  and propagating rubbish, the morons should establish their own  rubbish  institutions with their own  rubbish  modernized and secularized  syllabus and see just how far they reach with their stupidity.

In fact there are such  institutions  which do not follow the  Dars-e-Nizaami  curriculum, but which purport to impart Islamic education at the academic level. But to the consternation of the modernists and liberals who have established  such secularized ‘madrasahs’, the products emerging from these institutions do not gain recognition as Ulama among even the masses.  The masses, for their  Deeni requirements  invariably  turn to the  Dars-e-Nizaami  Ulama. This is the reason why the moron liberals clamour  that the existing Madaaris should  modernize their curriculum. They understand well that the products emerging from these Madaaris  –  the medieval Madaaris  –  will be recognized as Ulama and leaders in the Muslim community  whereas this will not be so with the  products  of institutions  which do not resemble Dars-e-Nizaami Madaaris.  

Displaying his ignorance, the moron avers: “I think it (i.e. Dars-e-Nizaami) should be revised every thirty to forty years in accordance with changing conditions if it is to retain its relevance.”  It appears that the  quarter-baked molvi is unaware of the many changes which Dars-e-Nizaami  has undergone since its inception  two centuries ago. Over the years, changes have been effected to  Dars-e-Nizaami. In fact every Madrasah has effected some change to suit its  peculiar circumstances. Whilst the framework remains that of  Dars-e-Nizaami, substantial changes have been effected and this process continues. But by change, the moron means secularization and kufrization of the system. In South Africa, every Madrasah has its own syllabus  –  its own brand of  Dars-e-Nizaami. The period of study at different Madaaris vary from 5 years to  7  years  in South Africa.

The Madaaris should concentrate and  emphasize on only the Qur’aan and Sunnah and their incumbent branches of knowledge. A Madrasah is not  or should not be an institution catering for  secular education. Since the objectives of  Deeni Ta’leem and secular scrap education are  different and divergent, it is unwise to include  secular subjects in the Deeni Madaaris as Daarul Uloom Deoband has  now lamentably done. After the normal 8 year Aalim Faadhil  course of study at Deoband,  subjects such as Mastery in English Literature, Mastery in  Computer  Science, Training for Teaching (B-ed), Mastery in Da’wah and Mastery in Journalism have been introduced. When a Deeni Madrasah branches off into secular studies, the objective, namely, the Goals of the Aakhirah, become eclipsed, and even eliminated.

Students who are not naturally    disposed to piety and  khalwat (solitude)  should  be taught a brief course of study to ensure the safety of their Imaan, and to enable them to take up posts as teachers in Maktabs and Musaajid. They should not  be retained at the Madaaris to pursue the full  Aalim Faadhil  course. After completing the short incumbent course, they should be advised:  “After you have completed your Salaat, then  spread out in the  land and seek the fadhl  of Allah (the grace-  that is Rizq), and remember Allah much so that you attain success (in both worlds).” — [Al-Jumuah, aayat 7]

Mass production of molvis is  extremely  detrimental for the Deen and the Ummah.  Every Molvi is not an Aalim  who represents Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor does every  Molvi  have the natural qualifications for leading  the Ummah.  To be a true leader of Muslims, in addition to  expertise in higher  Islamic  Knowledge, natural ability is a pre-requisite and an essential condition. It is for this reason that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has compared  some students to ‘pigs’, and their Asaatizah to ‘garlanders of pigs’. Said Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“He who imparts Ilm to an unqualified  person is like one who garlands pigs with diamonds, pearls and gold.”

Since the Madaaris have completely ignored this  stricture of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  the moral corruption of Asaatizah and Talaba should not be surprising.

After the brief  course  –  one or two years  of study after the normal Maktab ta’leem  –  the students should  seek secular education and training in  the mundane spheres of life. Only a small number of students who have  salaamat in their tabiyat  –  who are of  high  moral character  –  should pursue the  Aalim Faadhil  course. Throughout  the course, the Aakhirah  has to be emphasized. Abhorrence for the dunya  and public life, and love for the Aakhirah and solitude should be cultivated in Students who will  become true Ulama so that they may become Ulama in the meaning of the Qur’aan, not in the meaning of  Dastaarbandi  (Turbanning). A true  Aalim must have a deep-seated aversion for leadership, and his natural disposition should  constrain him to flee from the masses.  

The responsibility of guarding and protecting the Deen of Islam is Allah’s. He will harness  whomever He wishes to become a Guardian of the Shariah. Shaitaan has hijacked the brains of the Asaatizah and the Talabah. From day one, the  idea of leadership, da’wah, etc. is implanted  in the mind of    the student  who pursues Deeni Ilm. This contaminates his niyyat. These issues  are not  the objectives of  Ilm-e-Deen. The objective is only  Ridha-e-Ilaahi,  and nothing else. Hence, Students in whom the Asaatizah discern the natural qualities of leadership, should be brainwashed to abhor leadership and publicity. The love for  Khalwat  (solitude)  must be ingrained in them. It is the Waajib duty of the Asaatizah to  ensure that their  Students  implement practically every Hadith and every mas’alah they learn.  It is a capital crime in this sphere of celestial Knowledge for a student to abstain, for example, from Tahajjud and Tahiyyatul  Wudhu or from  practising every aspect of the Sunnah  – every Adab and Mustahab  –  despite the fact that he has gained the knowledge of the  Sunnah. There has to incumbently be  emphasis on these acts of ibaadat.

Corruption  of  niyyat  and lack of  amal  (practical implementation of the commands)  are the causes of  the morally decadent state of the Asaatizah and the Talaba. It is gross stupidity and  blasphemy to  load the blame of this lamentable state of affairs on to Dars-e-Nizaami.

It is of the Sunnah of Allah Azza Wa Jal to select from the pious Ulama  whomever  He desires to guard His Deen.  When Allah Ta’ala chooses an Aalim for Deeni service, especially for confronting and refuting  baatil, then He creates the circumstances which constrain that Aalim into the arena to carry aloft the Standard of the Shariah. Then the myriads of shaitaani forces will not be able to  stifle and extinguish the Haqq which the solitary Officer in the Department of Amr Bil Ma’roof wa Nahy Anil Munkar executes.

The only issue with which Talaba pursuing higher Deen Ilm should be concerned with, is the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. Their  Maqsood should be only the Aakhirah. Every other intention should be incumbently expunged from their hearts. Whilst these  morons advocate the pursuit of Deeni knowledge for worldly goals,  the focus of  Dars-e-Nizaami  is on  lofty goals, far above worldly carrion. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “The dunya is jeefah (carrion).”  Ilm-e-Deen is not  pursued  –  or should  not be pursued – for this jeefah. Everyone is aware of the wonderful service to Islam rendered by Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh). The expertise for  his  Tajdeedi service to the Deen was not acquired from any institution.  On the contrary, he abandoned  his  academic career, went into  khalwat, renounced the world, wandered around the wilderness in search for Allah Ta’ala, and for nine years lived the life of a mendicant with no idea of  rendering any Deeni service or becoming a leader, etc.  In this way  –  in  the wilderness  –  Allah Ta’ala prepared Imaam Ghazaali to become the Mujaddid of his age. Then Allah Ta’ala created the circumstances to compel him to bear  the Standard of Islam and to seal the fate of the myriads of  zindeeqs  which had proliferated the age in which he lived. It is the Sunnah of Allah Ta’ala to field individuals into the arena to guard His Deen and to rebuff the enemies of Islam. The Auliya, Ulama and the Mujaddids were all individuals who rendered great services to the Deen. Those among  the Ulama  on whom Allah Ta’ala thrusts leadership, are divinely aided according to the explicit statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When Allah’s Nusrat  is at hand, these Ulama are adequate for all the developments of their time. They are  fully capable of apprizing the Ummah of the correct position of the Shariah. There is no issue which requires a Shar’i directive which is beyond their expertise.

Disgorging some more rubbish, the moron says:  “When I was a child, loudspeakers had just been introduced  in India and Mufti Atiqur  Rahman Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa  declaring  their use to be unlawful. Some other ulema also  reacted the same way, but later the ulema were forced to change their position.”

Again the moron has displayed his ignorance. The Ulama in declaring the impermissibility of using loudspeakers for Salaat do not blurt out  ghutha  as do these modernist,  quarter-baked moron molvis.  Their fatwa is based on  solid Shar’i  dalaa-il  which hitherto no one has been able to rationally and in terms of the Shariah refute. The moron’s claim that the ‘ulema were forced to change their position”  is  a  vile canard. If we momentarily assume that they did change their position, then such change would be based on solid Shar’i  dalaa-il. When new and  more facts come to light, then only morons with fossilized brains cling intransigently  to a former erroneous view which had been  propounded  on the basis of  existing information. There is absolutely no stigma attached to  review and retraction. This is a well-established principle  of the Fuqaha since time immemorial. Morons and baboons  –  slaves of the nafs  –  adhere to baatil and error to protect their false pride.

Secondly, the fatwa of impermissibility is extant to this day.  The difference of opinion among the senior Ulama on the loudspeaker issue is not on impermissibility  of using this instrument  in Salaat. This impermissibility is unanimous. All Ulama to which the moron has made reference were unanimous that it is not permissible to use the loudspeaker  in Salaat. The difference which prevails  among the senior Ulama is of validity  of Salaat. Whilst some claimed that the Salaat  with the loudspeaker is  faasid,  others differed on this score. None  of the senior Ulama were ‘forced  to change their position’. Their position remains the same today.

Since the moron is stupid  he is unable to  advance Shar’i  arguments with which to refute the fatwa of the Ulama. It is  inadequate to make ambiguous claims without presenting a single  daleel  for a contention. If this moron believes that he has any  Ilmi  expertise, he should refute the  dalaail  of the Ulama regarding their view on the use of loudspeakers in Salaat.

Regarding the views of liberal molvis of today, their views stand rejected because they have failed to proffer any Shar’i  dalaa-il  for their corrupt fatwa of permissibility.

Disgorging more  ghutha,  the moron says: “Many traditionalist ulema somehow automatically assume that anything new is haram or forbidden.”   This profane averment is vile slander  (buhtaan) which the  zindeeq  moron  directs at the Ulama. We challenge him to produce just one such example to bolster the rubbish he has vomited. When  the Ulama-e-Haqq speak,  they acquit themselves with valid Shar’i  dalaa-il. Let the  moron cite a few examples to validate his slander. The Ulama issue their Fataawa only after careful and even prolonged scrutiny. Only  jaahil  and quarter-baked molvis of the moron’s ilk will proclaim every new development automatically permissible or impermissible. A fatwa is forthcoming only after subjecting the issue to  scrutiny  in the light of the  dalaa-il of the Shariah.

Furthermore, all Ulama from the age of the Sahaabah down to this era and until Qiyaamah will always be ‘traditionalists’. They will never be  modernists who grovel at  the feet of westernism. They  are not men whose brains have been colonized by the west as is the case with this moron, quarter-baked molvi who desires that the Ulama issue fatwas  of permissibility  for  western-type urinals to enable people to urinate  standing  like donkeys in the public. These urinals which the stupid ‘scholars’ of Saudi Arabia have legalized and which are installed at Mina are the kind of new and modern developments which the moron wants halaalized.  In his concept of modern ‘ulema’ who can never be Heirs of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), every immoral, lewd and impure western development which is dubbed ‘enlightenment’ should be graced with fatwas of permissibility. Let the moron understand that the glorious  Dars-e-Nizaami  was not  formulated for opening  an avenue for immorality and filth to infiltrate into the Deen.

The miserable moron who lacks understanding of the purpose of Deeni Knowledge, says:

“At present, however,  madrasas are  largely the refuge of the poor, while middle-class  parents prefer to send their children to ‘secular’ schools because there they learn subjects that would help them get a good job in the future. If madrasas were to include such subjects in their syllabus, at least to a certain basic level, they would attract these students too.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “Poverty is my pride.”  In  another narration, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is reported as having supplicated:  “O Allah, keep me alive among the poor; let me die among the poor, and on the Day of Qiyaamah, resurrect me in the assembly of the Masaakeen.”  The wealthy will not acquire the  lofty  ranks and mansions which the poor will obtain and occupy in the Aakhirah. A book can be compiled on the  fadhaail of the poor mentioned by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The poorer the Madrasah, the more will it be diffused with  Noor. Let the moron open his clogged ears and his blocked brains to understand that a Madrasah is not  an institution which imparts education about worldly jobs. For jobs, the wealthy and the middleclass should search for secular institutions, not Madrasahs. The Maqsood  of the Madaaris is or  should  be only the Aakhirah, not the dunya. The one who pursues the Aakhirah should be prepared for trials, hardships and a life of abstinence  (zuhd).  There is nothing about jobs in a Madrasah. For jobs, the scrap secular institutions are available.

Displaying  the inferiority which grips his brains, the moron says: “So, even in North America, many madrasas that have  come up insist on keeping  Urdu, rather than English, as the medium of instruction, although few young North American Muslims know Urdu, their language now being English. As if  Urdu has some sanctity attached to it!”

Expunging the wonderful Urdu Language  from the Madaaris  is indeed a tremendous error  –  a disaster. Undoubtedly, the Urdu language has become  Islamicized. It is now a sacred language. It is the language  of  our Ulama and Auliya. It is part of our heritage. It may not be abandoned in favour of English  –  the language of savages and barbarians. The holy and Islamic ethos of the Madrasah will be utterly extinguished if Urdu is replaced with the language of the arch-enemies of Islam. Its script resembles the Qur’aanic script in almost exactitude. It  is ludicrous to teach Hadith, Tafseer and Fiqh through the medium of English, a language totally bereft of any spirituality.

It is our supplication that the Madrasahs in North America should resolutely retain the Urdu language and not succumb to pressure  of morons and modernists who argue in favour of  the language of those who are the leaders in immorality. Even a language has its peculiarities  and attributes which have effects on people. People of English by nature are generally arrogant, shameless and lewd. Urdu is a language which exudes humility and spirituality.  Furthermore, it is an easy language to learn, and there is a vast treasure of Islamic literature available in Urdu.  Urdu is our link with our Ulama of India and Pakistan where the fountains of  true Ilm are still to be found. True Ilm no longer exists in other countries. 

Over the centuries Ilm-e-Deen has travelled around the Muslim world, making different countries its  headquarters.  Since the last 150 years or so, India had become the headquarters of Deeni Ilm. At least the  Zaahiri Ilm  of the Deen is still available  at the Madaaris of India and Pakistan. It is  nowhere  else available in this era. Almost all institutions in other countries cater for a hybridized concoction of knowledge which is  wholly inadequate for the production of true Ulama. Far from eliminating Urdu, there should be greater effort to teach and retain this sacred language. After Arabic, there is no other language which enjoys the sanctity of Urdu.      

Furthermore, since the students in North America are already versed in English, what is the need to introduce English? And, what is the harm learning an additional, wonderful, spiritual language?

Our defence of  Dars-e-Nizaami  is not to be interpreted or understood to mean that the Madaaris today are 100% perfect. Whilst the morality is undoubtedly decadent,  Dars-e-Nizaami  is 100% correct and  secularization  of the curriculum is intolerable. Changes have constantly been effected to the original  Dars-e-Nizaami, and change in the  system is evolutionary. But the changes which the Ulama effect do not destroy the character and attributes of Dars-e-Nizaami. Despite changes, the  syllabus remains  Dars-e-Nizaami. Secularization of the curriculum will be the  demise of the   glorious Madaaris system established by the illustrious Auliya from the age of Shah Waliyullah Muhaddith Dehlwi (rahmatullah alayh).

It is the Waajib obligation of the Ulama who are operating Daarul Ulooms to ensure that the Madaaris maintain their Deeni character and  roohaani  ethos. Attempts to westernize/secularize the Madaaris should be vigorously resisted. It is the Fardh obligation of the Madaaris to guard the pristine purity of the Deen. They are the Bastions of Islam. They should not tolerate any adulteration  of the sacred Dars-e-Nizaami syllabus.

The Two Adhans for Jumu’ah and the views of Ghair Muqallideen

[By Mufti Afzal Hoosen Elias]

Two Adhans for Jumu’ah is Masnoon (Sunnat)

Hadhrat Saa’ib ibn Yazeed  (radhiyallahu anhu) said  that  in  time of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) the Adhan for Jumu’ah use to be at  the  time  the Imam sat on the  Mimbar. Then when the era of  the Khilaafat of Hadhrat  Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu)  came  and  the  quantity  of  people had increased, then  Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) gave  the  command  to  give  a  third  Adhan  (i.e. the  first  Adhan  for  Jumu’ah).  Therefore  upon  inclination,  that  Adhan was  given  and  this  had  become  a  separate  Sunnat.  [Bukhaari  Vol.1  pg 125, Abu Dawood Vol1 pg 155, Nasa’i Vol.1 pg 156]

It is established from the  mentioned Ahadith that in the  time  of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  the  time  of  the  rightly  guided  Khulafaa, in the  era of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) there  was one Adhan which was given in front of the Imam by the  Mimbar.  In  the  era  of  the  Khilaafat  of Hadhrat  Uthmaan  Ghani (radhiyallahu anhu) when  there were more people, he had given the command to give one  more Adhan. This Adhan was  given in the presence of the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam and not one of them objected it. Therefore  this Adhan, by consensus of the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam, has become  a common thing. In every era  after it this action has  continued. No Imam, Jurist or Mujthid has  objected to it. How could they  have contradicted it? Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)’s  command  was  to  hold  firm  on  his and the Khulafa-e-Raashideen’s Sunnat

This Adhan was given with the  command of Hadhrat Uthmaan  Ghani (radhiyallahu anhu),  because this was his Sunnat,  and  according  to  the  command  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  it  is  necessary  to  carry  it  out.  At first, this Adhan was given on  a raised platform, later on it was given in the Masjid.

Today, in every Masjid this Adhan is given in the Masjid. In Hajj, those who have the good fortune of going to see with their own eyes that in Makkah Mukarramah in Masjid-e-Haram and in Masjidun Nabawi this Adhan is  given.  All praise is due to Allah  the writer was a witness to this  also with his own eyes. There is  no objection to this Adhan being given in the Masjid.

However, contrary to the  Mubarak Ahadith, consensus  of  the Ummat and actions of the  Ummat, those Ghair Muqallideen  which have given the Fatwa of  twenty rakaats Taraweeh Salaah  as an innovation (Bid’at), have  also decided that this Adhan also  is an innovation (Bid’at). 

These Ghair Muqallideen are  saying that this Adhan is bid’at  because  it  is  not established  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), thus it cannot be a  Sunnat. This is the reason that the Ghair Muqallideen do not  give  this  Adhan, instead  that  Masjid in which it is given they  have declared it to be Bid’at and  prevent one from it. 

Therefore, Molwi Muhammad  Saheb Jonaghari writes: “In the  time of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  after, in the time  of the two Khulafaa, this second  Adhan also was not present,  yes  in the time of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) it was made  present in order for the time to  be known. It was called out in the  high place of the bazaar, not in  the Masjid. Then in our time in those Masaajid in which two Adhans are given that is a clear  innovation and in no way can it be  permissible.”  (Fataawa-e-Sataariyya, Vol.3, pg 85)

Molwi Ubaidullah Saheb writes:  “On the road to the Masjid of Jumu’ah Salaah one Adhan is  established, from Hadhrat  Uthmaan Ghani (radhiyallahu anhu) a second Adhan is established outside the Masjid.  Then  there should be adequate  and the second Adhan should  not be called out.” (Fataawa e Sataariyya Vol.3 pg 85)

Molwi Abdur Rahmaan Saheb  Mudarris-e-Madrassah Mia Delwi concludes:  “To  give  one  Adhan at the time of the Khutbah on  the day of  Jumu’ah is Masnoon,  there is no need for two Adhans  …” because of  this, the Adhan of  Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) which is called the first Adhan called out in the Masjid is an innovation (Bid’at)”  (Fataawa  e Ulama e Hadith Vol.2 pg 179)

Abdul  Wahaab  Saheb  writes:  “In  the Musaajid of the Ahnaaf  and the Ghair Muqallideen there  were two Adhans of Jumu’ah as it  is the custom of the Ahnaaf  today”.  Maulana Mawsoof Abdul Wahaab Saheb narrates: “I gave the first Adhan with one knee  inside and one outside of the  Masjid.” From this confident person there is proof for the  issuing of a Fatwa of it being a  bid’at and the Fatwa of the  second Adhan given when the  time the Imam sits at the Mimbar  is correct. Today, in  most  Masaajid of the Ahle Hadith this way of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is acted  upon.  (Majmu al Risaa’il , pg. 21)


The first Adhan of Jumu’ah which  is continuing from command of  the Khalifa Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and upon  which the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam had agreed upon, which has been  given in all the Islaamic kingdoms since the fourth century without  any objections, with which no  Imam, Jurist or Mujtahid had any  differences, because  that same Adhan is being given  inside the Masjid has become a Bid’at  in era  of the Ghair Muqallideen.  If  the  action  of  the Khulafaa-e-Raashideen  and  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam also is Bid’at and upon which the entire Ummat inherit  and to act upon is also a Bid’at,  then ask the Ghair Muqallideen that Sunnat is in whose actions will it be? Again it will mean that from the fourth century the entire  Ummats action was upon Bid’at  and today also the Imams and Muezzins who call out the Adhan in the Haramain Shareefain are committing the crime of Bid’at?

Respected readers, this is the  action of the Ghair Muqallideen  with Hadith. Now you decide is this conforming or contrary to the Hadith?

Demolishing Atabek Shukurov’s satanic opinion of Permissibility of Bank Riba/Interest – Loans

[Majlisul Ulama]




In  this  era  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah,  the  world abounds  with  juhala  and  mudhilleen  who  pose  as ‘authorities’  of  the  Shariah  when  in  reality  they  grope  and grovel  in  a  quagmire  of  jahaalat.  One  such  jaahil  whose articles  and  stupid  ‘fatwas’  are  loaded  with  hogwash  and nafsaani  flotsam,  is  one  Atabek  Shukurov  who  has  set himself  up  as  an  ‘authority’  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  whilst he  dwells  in  a  mire  of  jahl-e-murakkab.

Some  of  the  flotsam  ‘fatwas’  of  this  mudhil  have  crossed our  path.  Insha-Allah,  we  shall  respond  in  detail  in refutation  of  the  copro-jahl  with  which  his  ‘fatwas’  of  jahl are  besmirched.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  Hadith  that  in  times close  to  the  approach  of  Qiyaamah,  there  will  be shayaateen  masquerading  as  human  beings.  They  will deliver  lectures,  give  fatwas  and  even  recite  the  Qur’aan Majeed  right  inside  the  Musjid  to  lure  and  ensnare Muslims  into  their  den  of  Imaani  destruction.  It  appears that  this  Atabek  character  is  one  of  those  shayaateeni mudhilleen  predicted  in  the  Ahaadith.

This  jaahil  has  written  considerable  drivel  and  hogwash  in his  stupid  ‘fatwas’  on  the  issues  of  mortgages, homosexuality,  smoking,  etc.  If  Allah  Ta’ala  grants  us  the taufeeq,  we  shall  demolish  all  the  rubbish  which  this  latest mudhil  has  excreted  in  his  ‘fatwas’  which  are  the  coproeffects  of  his  jahl-e-murakkab.

In  brief,  we  apprize  the  Ummah  of  the  Haqq  of  the  masaa’il  which  the  mudhil  coprocreep  has  convoluted  and corrupted  with  his  jahaalat  which  maybe  deliberate  and designed  to  further  the  scheme  of  Iblees  in  his  mission  of undermining  and  destroying  Islam.

Know  and  understand  well  that  all  bank  loans  are interest-bearing.  There  is  no  type  of  loan  given  by  a bank  which  is  free  of  interest/riba.  Atabek’s  laborious and  abortive  attempt  to  ‘prove’  that  bank  interest  is not  Riba,  is  the  effect  of  shaitaan  having  gripped  his brains.  Just  as  the  mushrikeen  of  Arabia  would  say: “Trade  is  like  Riba.”,  hence  it  should  be  halaal,  so  too, does  this  agent  of  Iblees,  Atabek  say:  “Bank  interest  is tawkeel.”  This  agent  of  shaitaan  is  at  war  with  Allah and  His  Rasool,  for  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  issues  the following  ultimatum  of  war:  

“…If  you  do  not  desist  (from  devouring  riba),  then  take notice  of  WAR  from  Allah  and  His  Rasool.”

By  no  stretch  of  Imaani  logic  and  Fiqhi  logic  can  such clear-cut  Riba charged  by  banks,  ever  be  interpreted  to mean  anything  other  than  Riba.  Therefore,  all  bank  loans are  haraam.  All  such  loans  are  encumbered  with interest  which  no  brand  of  interpretation  can  ever cancel.

Homosexuality  is  HARAAM.  Homosexuals  are  worse than  adulterers.  Islam  prescribes  the  severest  punishment for  homosexuals. If  homosexuality  is  proved  in  the  court of  the  Qaadhi,  even  the  death  penalty  may  be  applicable. Atabek’s  article  is  designed  to  placate  the  palates  of  his western  kuffaar  masters  whom  he  is  bootlicking.

Smoking breaks the fast. The arguments in negation of this mas’alah are baseless. Insha-Allah, a detailed response shall be forthcoming for the khuraafaat (drivel and trash) which Atabek has expectorated.  The  present article is a refutation of his  stupid mortgage  expectoration, rather nafsaani excretion.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.”

This Atabek is from amongst the Mudhilleen mentioned in this Hadith.



A  sciolist  deviate,  one  Atabek  Shukurov,  in  the  U.K., posing  as  a  Hanafi  authority,  has  issued  a  corrupt,  baatil, stupid  ‘fatwa’  proclaiming  Riba  to  be  halaal.  Camouflaging  Riba  with  the  epithet  of  ‘mortgage’,  and employing  skulduggery  and  chicanery  to  convolute  Qardh into  Tawkeel,  the  deviate  jaahil  has  confirmed  that  he  is among  the  signs  of  Qiyaamah  predicted  by  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  who  had  mentioned  that  in times  in  proximity  to  Qiyaamah,  people  from  his  Ummah will  make  liquor  halaal  by  the  trick  of  nomenclature. Fanciful  names  will  be  coined  for  the  intoxicating  drinks to  render  it  halaal.

This  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has the  status  of  a  principle,  and  it  is  not  restricted  to  liquor.  It applies  to  all  haraam  practices  and  acts  which  are legalized  and  halaalized  by  means  of  fanciful  names  and fallacious  interpretations.  Thus, Tasweer  (pictures  of animate  objects)  is  opined  to  be  halaal  by  describing  it  as reflection,  digital  picture,  television  picture,  video, etc.

Riba  is  halaalized  by  dubbing  it  profit,  dividend  and  now ‘mortgage’  by  this  jaahil  deviate  whose  jahaalat conspicuously  renders  him  person’  non-grata  in  terms  of the  Shariah.  This  is  the  era  in  which  the  juhhaal  such  as Atabek,  preponderate.  There  are  numerous  such  ‘shaykhs’ of  deviation  prowling  around  the  world  executing  the dictates of Iblees and undermining the Divine Shariah

Atabek,  setting  himself  up  as  a  Hanafi  authority,  has stupidly  and  abortively  attempted  to  convince  Muslims that  in  the  acquisition  of  a  bank  loan,  the  evil  of  Riba  is not  involved.  Bank  loans  according  to  this  Ghabi  ‘shaykh’ are  not  interest-bearing.  His  jahl  is  indeed  shockingly lamentable.  He  truly    belongs  to  that  category  of  jaahil  ‘scholars’  who  gather  firewood  in  the  dark  on  an  intensely dark  night  without  knowing  if  his  hands  are  falling  on excreta  or  a  poisonous  snake.  Such  a  jaahil  ‘scholar’  is described  as  Haatibul  Lail  (one  who  gathers  firewood  in the  darkness  of  the  night).

Before  we  commence  with  our  detailed  refutation  of  his stupid  arguments  which  are  the  products  of  jahl  murakkab   (compound  ignorance),  we  present  this  brief  synopsis  for the  guidance  of  laymen  who    may  not  fully  understand  the academic  nature  of  the  refutation,  or  who  may  find technical  details  quite  boring.  This  synopsis  is  for  the guidance  of  laymen,  and  to  prevent  them  from  indulgence in  one  of  the  worst  sins  –  the  sin  of  Riba  which  in  one Hadith  is  described  as  a  conglomeration  of  more  than  70 major  sins,  the  lightest  of  which  is  like  committing adultery  with  one’s  own  mother.

Despite  the  extreme  danger  of  Riba  and  Allah’s abhorrence  for  it,  and  Allah’s  declaration  of  war  against those  who  indulge  in  Riba,  this  deviate  jaahil  deemed  it appropriate  to  recklessly  issue  a  licence  for  indulging  in Riba  thereby  embarking  on  a  satanic  mission  of  ruining the  Imaan  of  the  ignorant  and  unwary.

Understand  well  that  the  transaction  between  the  bank  and a  man  who  purchases  a  property  with  the  money  advanced by  the  bank  is  a  pure  interest-bearing  loan.  The  fanciful and  stupid  mental  gymnastics  in  which  the  Ghabi  ‘scholar’ engages  in  his  stupid  attempt  to  halaalize  Riba  by  dubbing the  transaction  ‘Tawkeel’,  is  unadulterated  haraam skulduggery.  No  one  should  be  fooled  and  befuddled  by the  utterly  fallacious  ‘fatwa’  of  Mr. Atabek  Shukurov  who has  clearly  demonstrated  that  as  far  as  the  Shariah  is concerned,  he  is  a  jaahil  and  a  mudhil.

No  amount  of  skulduggery  employing  Fiqhi  technicalities will  convince  a  sincere  Muslim  seeking  guidance  on  this issue,  that  the  money  which  a  bank  advances  for purchasing  a  property  is  a  not  a  loan  on  which  interest  has to  be  paid.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “Seek  a  fatwa  from  your  heart.”  Every  Muslim  has sufficient  intelligence  to  understand  what  in  reality  a  bank loan  is.  The  stupidity  of  Shukurov’s  arguments  proffered in  negation  of  bank-riba  defies  incredulity  and  is  an  insult to  intelligence.

In  both  terminology  and  factual  meaning,  a  bank  loan  is  an interest-bearing  loan,  and  no  amount  of  fanciful, technically  sounding  arguments  and  skulduggery  will appeal  to  the  pure  and  simple  intelligence  of  a  mind  which has  not  lost  its  equilibrium  in  the  wake  of  the  pursuit  of worldly  and  nafsaani  objectives.

For  practical  purposes,  Muslims  should  understand  that bank  loans  are  Riba-bearing    transactions,  the  reality  of which  is  not  changed  by  dubbing  such  loans  ‘mortgages’ and  the  gimmick  of  ‘tawkeel’.  Liquor  remains  haraam regardless  of  the  plethora  of  new  names  coined  for  the intoxicant.  Pictures  of  animate  objects  remain  haraam regardless  of  the  new  epithets  by  which  pictures  are  called. Riba  remains  haraam  regardless  of  the  nomenclature fabricated  by  the  commission  of  skulduggery  by  stupid ‘scholars’    and  paper  ‘mujtahids’  of  this  era  in  close proximity  to  Qiyaamah.

It  is  the  reality  of  the  transaction  which  is  the  determinant. BANK LOANS ARE HARAAM.     


In  the  introduction  of  his  garbage  permissibility  of  Ribafatwa’,  which  he  abortively  seeks  to  halaalize  with  the ‘mortgage’  designation,  and  the  convoluted  ‘tawkeel’ fabrication,  the  deviate  ‘scholar’,  Atabek,  says  to  Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Sahib:

The  issue  of  purchasing  a  property  with  the  support  of a  bank  is  well-known  to  be  controversial  amongst  Muslim academics.  It  is  likewise  well  known  that  most  of  the scholars  consider  certain  types  of  purchasing  a  house through  the  banks  to  be  prohibited.”

In  fact  all  the  Ulama  –  genuine  Ulama  –  are  unanimous  in the  fatwa  of  prohibition.  Buying  property  via  the conventional  capitalist  riba  banks  is  haraam.  There  is  no Aalim  who  would  dare  to  say  that  riba  is  halaal,  and  a bank  loan  with  the  encumbrance  of  interest  is  halaal.  Only deviates  of  Atabek’s  ilk  –  the  modernist,  suit  and  tie ‘scholars’ of  ghabaawah  proffer  the  view  of permissibility.  But  their  stupid  ‘fatwas’  are  devoid  of Shar’i  substance.  Even  the  products  offered  by  the  so-called  ‘islamic’  banks  are  contaminated  with  riba,  and most  of  their  deals  are  faasid  and  baatil.

In  describing  the  method  of  the  bank’s  operation  when granting  a  loan,  the  deviate  ‘scholar’  acknowledges  that the  prospective  buyer  of  a  property  “borrows”  money  from the  bank,  and  the  bank  “lends”  him  the  money,  then  with this  money  borrowed  from  the  bank,  he  buys  the  property, and  thereafter  the  borrower  has  to  repay  the  bank  in instalments  “with  some  profit”.  He  describes  the  gain acquired  by  the  bank  for  the  loan  given  as  “profit”,  thus bringing  himself  fully  within  the  purview  of  the  Hadith which  predicts  the  halaalization  of  haraam  by  means  of  the ruse  of  nomenclature.  Describing  pork  as  ‘mutton’  does not  halaalize  the  flesh  of  swine.  Similarly,  describing interest  as  ‘profit’  does  not  render  it  halaal.

According  to  the  Shariah,  a  loan  cannot  acquire  ‘profit’. The  hallucinated  ‘profit’  is  pure  riba.  Despite  accepting that  the  essential  constituents  of  the  transaction  are borrowing  and  lending,  the  jaahil  says  that  the  gain  is ‘profit’.  Making  a  mockery  of  his  own  intelligence,  he avers:  “The  interest  that  the  bank  will  be  charging  the buyer  depends  on  what  they  have  agreed.”  He  has  no alternative  but  to  call  a  spade  a  spade,  nevertheless,  he believes  that  this  haraam  interest  is  halaal.

Shooting  himself  in  the  leg,  he  is  constrained  to acknowledge:

As  times  passes  the  payable  amount  increases  with  it. For  example,  if  the  buyer  borrows  one  thousand  pounds and  pays  it  back  within  the  first  year,  then  he  has  to  pay one  thousand  and  thirty  pounds.  But  as  time  passes  the debt  increases,  because  the  interest  is  not  based  on  the initial  amount  that  is  borrowed  but  rather  on  the  amount which  is  due  each  year.  This  necessitates  the  payable amount  to  differ  based  on  the  time  of  the  payment.”

The  reality  of  Riba  is  conceded  in  this  statement  by  the deviate,  yet  he  stupidly  maintains  that  a  bank  loan  on which  interest  is  paid  is  not    a  riba  bearing  loan.


In  his  attempt  to  legalize  riba,  the  deviate  resorts  to ludicrous  mental  gymnastics,  juggling  with  the  concept  of Wikaalat  (Agency)  and  other  principles  which  have  no bearing  whatsoever  on  the  issue  of    bank  loans.  Thus,  he says:

The  initial  status  of  all  kinds    of  transactions  is  that they  are  permissible.  One  of  the  well-known  principles  of the  Hanafi  School  is  that  everything  beside  these  three  is permissible  by  default:  1.  Bloodshed  2.  Sexual  acts  3. Rituals  of  worship……….Based  on  this,  we  say,  everything is  permissible  unless  it  is    proven  to  not  permissible.”

Regarding  the  bank  loan  issue,  the  introduction  of  the aforementioned  principle  is  indeed  moronic.  

(1)  There  is  no  relationship  between  a  bank  loan encumbered  with  interest  and  this  principle.  The fundamental  constituents  of  borrowing,  lending  and paying  interest,  determine  the  Shariah’s  ruling.  A  clearcut  ruling  of  prohibition of  interest  cannot  be  submitted to  the  contentious  principle    formulated  by  opinion.

The  introduction  of  this  principle,  totally  unrelated  to  the  issue  of  bank  interest  loans,  is  a  silly  exercise  in  futility with  which  the      deviate  modernist  attempts  to  obfuscate  the  conspicuous  clarity  of  the  prohibition  of  bank  interest. However,  since  he  has  moronically  touched  on  this principle,  it  will  be  appropriate  to  discuss  and  refute  its applicability  to  the  issue  under  discussion.

Atabek  has  abortively    attempted  to  convey  the  idea  that   the  principle: “The  initial  (hukm)  regarding  things  is ibaahah  (permissibility).”,  is  the  standard  and  accepted  rule  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.  This  postulation  is  incorrect. This  is  the  principle  of  the  Jamhur  Shaafi’  Fuqaha,  not  of the  Hanafi  Fuqaha. The  following    elucidation  is presented  in  Al-Ashbaah  wan  Nathaair  ala  Math-habi  Abi Hanifah:

Is  the  Asl  (the  initial  hukm)  regarding  things  Ibaahah (permissibility)  until  such  time  that  there  is  a  daleel (evidence)  to  indicate  the  negation  of  ibaahah  –  and  this  is the  Math-hab  of  Ash-Shaafi’  (rahmatullah  alah)  –  or  is  it (i.e.  the  Asl)  Tahreem  (Prohibition)  until  there  is  daleel for  Ibaahah?  The  Shaafi’iyyah  attribute  this  (i.e.  the  Asl  is Tahreem) to  Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh).

In  Sharhul  Minaar  it  appears:  Things  are  initially  on Ibaahah  according  to  some  Hanafiyyah.  Among  them  is   Al-Karkhi.    Some  of  the  As-haab  of  Hadith  say:  The  Asl  in this is Al-Hazr (prohibition).

Our  As-haab  (the  Hanafi  Fuqaha)  say:  The  Asl  in  it  is Tawaqquf  (Non-Committal),  meaning  that   a  hukm  (of  the Shariah)  is  necessary  for  it,  but  we  are  not  aware  of  it  by means  of  intelligence.

In Hidaayah appears:  The Asl is Ibaahah.”

In  Al-Ash-Baah  wan  Nathaair  (Shaafi’),  the  Shaafi’ position is stated  as follows:

The  Asl  in  things  is  Ibaahah  until  there  is  daleel  to indicate  Tahreem  (Prohibition).  This  is  our  (i.e.  Shaafi) Math-hab.  According  to  Abu  Hanifah  the  Asl  is  Tahreem (Prohibition)  until  there  is  a  daleel  to  establish  Ibaahah (Permissibility).”
In  this  sphere  there  are  three  principles:  Ibaahah (Permissibility),  Tahreem  (Prohibition)  and  Tawaqquf (Non-Committal). Regarding  these  principles  formulated  on  the  basis  of  opinion,  there  is  considerable  difference  of opinion.  These  principles  are  not  cast  in  rock.  They  are  not Mansoos  on  the  basis  of  Wahi  nor  in  terms  of  the  Hadith.   Fuqaha  of  the  same  Math-hab    subscribe  to  differing opinions. Among  the  Hanafis  are  those  who  hold  the opinion  of  Ibaahah  while  others  of    the  Hanafi  Math-hab subscribe  to  the  Tahreem  view,  and      similar  is  the difference  in  the  other  Math-habs.

Furthermore,  these  principles    are  overridden  by  Shar’i Daleel.  They  will  operate  only  in  rare  cases  of  absolute absence  of  Shar’i  daleel.  There  is  also  no  strict  adherence to  these  principles  among  the  Fuqaha.  Consider  an  animal   such  as    the  giraffe (zaraafah).  The     Qur’aan  and Ahaadith  are  silent  regarding  the  permissibility  or prohibition  of  giraffe.  Those  who  subscribe  to  the  Ibaahah principle  opine  that  its  meat  is  halaal  while  those holding the  view  of  Tahreem  say  that  it  is  haraam.  Since  there  is no Shar’i  basis  for  proclaiming  giraffe  haraam,  the  holders of  the  Ibaahah  view  say  that  it  is  halaal.  On  the  other hand,    Imaam  Nawawi  and  Shiraazi  who  are  Shaafi’ authorities,  proclaim  giraffe  haraam  despite  the  Shaafi’ principle of Ibaahah

The  Hanafis  again,  despite  their  principle  of  Tahreem, proclaim  giraffe  to  be  halaal  since  there  is  no  Shar’i  daleel   for  saying  that  it  is  haraam.  From  this,  it  is  clear  that  the actual  determinant  is  Shar’i  daleel.  If  there  is  daleel  for Ibaahah,  the  ruling  will  be  permissibility. On  the contrary,  if  there  is  daleel  for  Tahreem,  the  fatwa  will  be on  hurmat.  Also  according  to  Imaam  Ahmad  Bin  Hambal (Rahmatullah  alayh),  giraffe  is  haraam  despite  the  Asl  of Ibaahah.

Although  the  principle  of  the  Shaafi’  Math-hab  is Ibaahah,  the  majority  of  the  Shaafi’  Fuqaha  have  refrained from  issuing  a  ruling  regarding  the  giraffe.  Neither  do they  say  that  it  is  halaal  nor  haraam  despite  their  Ibaahah   principle.  (Al-Ashbaah  wan  Nathaair  –  Shaafi’).  In  Al-Ashbaah  wan  Nathaair  of  Imaam  Jalaaluddin  Suyuti,  it  is   mentioned:   

The  majority  of  the  As-haab  (Shaafi’  Fuqaha)  have not entertained  this  issue  (of  the  giraffe)  at  all whatsoever,  neither  permissibility  nor  prohibition. Fataawa  Qaadhi  Husain  and  Imaam  Ghazaali  have explicitly  said  that  it  is  halaal……………

Ash-Shaikh has categorically  stated  in  At-Tanbeeh  that  it is  haraam.  In Sharhul  Muhazzab,  Consensus  (Ittifaaq)  is narrated  on  this.  And  so  too  has  Abul  Khattaab  of  the Hanaabilah    said.  No  one  from  the    Maalikiyyah  and  the Hanafiyyah  has  mentioned   it  (the  giraffe),  nevertheless, their  principles  dictate  it  being  halaal.”

Taqiyuddin  As-Subki  (Shaafi’)    mentions  in  his  Kitaab, Qadhaail Arab fi As-ilati Halab:

Shaikh  Abu  Is-haaq  has    categorically  stated  in  At-Tanbeeh  that   the  giraffe  is  haraam……..In  Sharhul Muhazzab,  Nawawi  has  narrated    Ittifaaq  (Consensus)  on the  giraffe’s  prohibition.

In  the  Kitaab,  Asnal  Mataalib  fi  Sharhi  Raudhit  Taalib  it appears as follows:

He  says  in  Al-Majmoo’  that  verily, the  giraffe  is haraam  without  any  difference  of  opinion.”  This  is  despite the  Ibaahah  principle  on  the  basis  of  which  other  Shaafi’ Fuqaha  proclaim  it  to  be  halaal.  There  exists  considerable  difference  and  argument  and conflicting  dalaa-il  in  the  Shaafi’  Math-hab  regarding  the permissibility  or  prohibition  of  the  giraffe  despite  the Jamhur’s  principle  of  Ibaahah

On  the  other  hand,  despite the  Tahreem  principle  of  the  Ahnaaf,  the  Hanafi  Fuqaha     say  that  giraffe  is  halaal.  It  should  be  quite  evident  that  the determinant  is  Shar’i  daleel.    

Consider  the  example  of  the  whale.  In  terms  of  the  Shaafi’ principle,  Ibaahah  applies,  and  not  only  to  the  whale,  but to  all  sea  animals.  However,  according  to  the  Ahnaaf, whale  and  all  sea  animals  are  haraam  despite  a  semblance of  Shar’i  daleel.  Although  a  Hadith    leads  to  the  possible conclusion  of  the  sea  animal  being  a  whale,  the  Hanafi Fuqaha  do  not  accept  that  the  sea  animal  described  in  the Hadith  was  a  whale,  hence  they  maintain  its  prohibition. They  have  their  own  Shar’i  dalaa-il  for  the  hurmat  of  the whale  and  all  sea  animals.  Thus,  the  emphasis  is  on Tahreem  by the Ahnaaf.

What  is  clear  from  the  considerable  difference,  conflict and  ambiguity  in  these  principles  is  that  the  determinant  is Shar’i Daleel which restricts and overrides  the principles.     

(2)  The  claim  that  this  principle  applies  to  trade transactions  is  erroneous. It  applies  to  existing  aspects  of creation  on  which  the  Shariah  is  silent,  e.g.  animals, plants,  a  water  channel  whose  ownership  is  unknown,  i.e. whether  it  is  private  property  or  not,  and  any  existent  for which  there  is  no  ruling  provided  by  the  Qur’aan  or Hadith.

It  is  stupid  and  baatil  to  apply  the  principle  of  Ibaahah  to  a transaction  or   even  a  tangible  substance  merely  because their  names  cannot  be  found  in  the  Nusoos.  It  may  not  be said  that  vodka  and  whisky  are  halaal  on  the  basis  of    the principle  of  Ibaahah.  It  may  not  be  said  that  pudding  is halaal  on  the  basis  of  this  principle  of  permissibility  simply  because  the  name,  ‘pudding’    does  not  exist  in the  Qur’aan  or  Hadith.  The  imperative  need  will  be  to examine  and  establish  what  exactly  are  the   ingredients and  constituents  of  these  substances.  If  the  ingredients  are haraam  or  the  effect  of  the  halaal  ingredients  is  haraam  such  as  intoxication, then  the  Shar’i  daleel  for  Tahreem  is confirmed.    

Similarly, mortgages  cannot  be    said  to  be  halaal  on  the basis  of  the  Ibaahah  principle  simply  because  this  term  is new  and    cannot  be  located  in  the  Nusoos.  The  incumbent   need    is  to  examine    and  establish    what  mortgages  are  all about.  The  introduction  of  the  Ibaahah  principle  in  this regard  demonstrates  the  jahaalat  of  Atabek.  The  simple issue  in  this  regard  is  that  a  bank  loan  is  encumbered  with interest/riba,  hence  it  is  Haraam.  There  is  absolutely  no need  for  the  invocation  of  any  one  of  the  three  principles to  determine    the  Shariah’s  verdict  on  bank-interest.  It  is   glaringly  Riba.  Only  brains  welded  by  stupidity  and aggravated  by  western  liberalism  and  a  bootlicking attitude,  understand  otherwise.

The  mudhaarabah  transaction  of  the  so-called  islamic banks    cannot  be  proclaimed  halaal  on  the  basis  of  the Ibaahah  principle,  and  simply  because  it  has  an  Islamic designation.  The  need  is  to  examine  the  constituents of the  contract  to  establish  the  Shar’i  ruling.

A  plant,  the  properties  of  which  are  unknown  –  whether beneficial  or  poisonous  –  shall  not  be  proclaimed  halaal or  haraam  simply  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of Ibaahah  and  Tahreem.  The  demand  is  for  establishing the  ruling  on  the  basis  of  Shar’i  daleel.  If  examination confirms  that  the  plant  is  poisonous,  then  obviously  the verdict  will  be  Tahreem.  If  it  is  not  harmful  or  poisonous, the  ruling  will  be  Ibaahah.

It  will  indeed  be  a  rarity  for  the  total  absence  of  Shar’i daleel  to  act  as  the  determinant.  In  such  rare  cases, Tawaqquf  will  apply,  thus  rendering  the  issue  to  the Mushtabah  realm.  As  far  as  bank  loans  are  concerned, there  is  absolutely  no  ambiguity  in    their  nature.  A  bank loan is  pronounced  haraam  by  the  categorical  Nusoos  of the  Qur’aan  and  Hadith.  Only  a  stupid  deviate  having  no affinity  with  the  Shariah  will  muster  the  stupid  audacity to  invoke  the  principle  of  Ibaahah  for  the  determination  of a  ruling  for  a  bank  loan  which  is  encumbered  with  riba. The  principle  may  not  be  used  in  conflict  with  a  mansoos alayh law.

The  unnecessary  and  stupid  introduction  of  the  Ibaahah principle  which  is  totally  unrelated  to   bank  interest/riba, has constrained this digression.  

Exhibiting his skulduggery, the  deviate Atabek says:

Coming  back  to  the  issue  of  mortgage,  I  say  it  cannot be  Riba,  because  the  bank  does  not  ‘lend’  the  money  as per  Shariah  definition  of  lending  or  debt.  That  is  because the  buyer  is  not  free  to  do  with  the  money  whatever  he wants.  The  bank  won’t  allow  him  to  do  anything  with  it except  buying  that  exact  house  which  he  has  agreed  with the bank to buy.  This is not called ’debt’”

Every  person  in  his  sane  senses  will  understand  that  this  is  a  lot  of  hogwash  and  bunkum.  By  what  stretch  of  logic –  kuffaar  or  Islamic  –    does  this  man  interpret   a straightforward,  simple  loan    to  be  some  other  transaction other  than  debt?  He  has  absolutely  not  even  a  single  valid Shar’i  argument  to  bolster  his  rubbish  view.  The  only stupid  and  absurd  ‘daleel’  he  proffers  is  that  the  bank advances  the  loan  for  a  specific  purpose,  namely,  to purchase  only  a  property  and  nothing  else.  There  is  no authority   in  the  Shariah  for  bolstering  this  stupid averment.  It  is  absurd  both  in  terms  of  the  Shariah  and   even  kuffaar  economical  laws.  In fact,  this  stupidity  is repulsive to  intelligence.

The  maximum  that  could  be  said  about  the  bank’s stipulated  condition  is  that  it  is  a  faasid/baatil  shart  –  a baseless  and  invalid  condition.  It  is  nothing  more  than  this.   Whilst  we  do  not  accept  that  this  specific  condition  in  the context  is  unlawful,  for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  we   shall  assume  that  the    stipulation  by  the  bank  which  is  not Islamically  permissible,    is  invalid.  Now  on  what  Shar’i authority  does  the  deviate  Atabek  base  his  stupid conclusion  of  the  reality  of    the  loan  being  cancelled  in consequence  of  the  invalid    condition?  There  is  absolutely no  authority  for  his  stupid  opinion  sucked  out  from  his nafs  and  constrained  by  modernity.

Just  as  in   the  case  of  Hibah  (Gift),  a  faasid  shart automatically  falling  away  leaving  the  Hibah  valid  and lawful,  so  too  is  it  with  Qardh  (loan  given).  If  a  man making  a  gift,  says: “This  car  is  a  gift  for  you  on condition  that  you  do  not  sell  it.”,  the  gift  is  valid  whilst the  faasid  condition  falls  away.  Similarly,  if  a  loan  is given  with  the  condition  that  the  borrower  should  use  it for  only  a  specific  purpose,  then    whilst  the  condition  is  invalid,  the  loan/debt  remains  valid  Qardh.  The  Fuqaha state in this regard:

Stipulation  of  time  (for  repayment)  is  not  binding  in Qardh  regardless  of  it  being  stipulated  as  a  condition  in the  transaction  or   delayed  to    after  the  transaction.”

The  reason  for  this  is:  “Verily,  Qardh  is    an  act  of Tabarru’ (kindness, favour).”

Qardh  belongs  to  the  class  of  transactions  which  are Tabarru’  (Kindness/Favour).  These  transactions  remain valid  despite  the  faasid  conditions  which  automatically fall  away,  leaving  the  transaction  valid.

If  the  haraam  condition  of  interest  is  stipulated,  the  capital sum  only  is  repayable.  The  haraam  stipulation  does  not cancel  the  reality  of    Qardh.  The  loan  remains  a  loan.

The  Rukn  of  Qardh  is  Ijaab  and  Qubool  according  to Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  and  Imaam  Muhammad.  According to  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf  it  is  only  Ijaab.  The  existence  of  the arkaan  suffices  for  the  validity    of  Qardh  which  remains unaffected  by  the  addition  of  a  faasid  shart.  Acts  of Tabarru’  such  as Hibah  (gifts),  Sadqah  (charity),  Nikah (marriage),  Khula’,  and  the  like  are  all  acts  of  Tabarru’ which  are  not  invalidated  by  faasid  shurootQardh  is  in the  same  category.

Even  a  Mudhaarabah  contract  encumbered  by  a  baatil shart,  remains  valid  whilst  the  invalid  condition  falls away.  Imaam  Muhammad  said:    “If  a  man  gives  a thousand  dirhams  for  conducting  Mudhaarabah  on  a  50-50  basis  profit-sharing  with  the  condition  that   the Mudhaarib  gives  his   land  to  the  Rabbul  Maal  to  enable him  to    cultivate  it  for  a  year  or  his  house  so  that  he  (the Rabbul  Maal)  may  live  in  it  for  a  year,  then  the  shart  is baatil,  and  the  Mudhaarabah  is  valid.”

Even  the  contract  of  Shirkat  (Partnership),  like Mudhaarabah,  is  not  a  Tabarru’  transaction.  Nevertheless, it remains  valid  despite  the  faasid  shart  which automatically  falls  away.  Only  if  the  conditions  extricate the  mudhaarabah  and  shirkat    transactions  from  their reality  by  negating  the  fundamental  constituent  which  is partnership  in  the  profit,  will  it  be  said  that  the   contract  is no  longer  what  it  was  intended  to  be,  hence  invalid.

It  should  now  be  quite  obvious  that  the  deviate  jaahil  has absolutely  not  a  single   viable    argument  for  substantiating his  stupid  and  fallacious  postulate  of   a  bank  loan  not  being  a  loan  (Qardh).  There  is  neither  Shar’i  basis  for  his  baatil  claim,  nor  a  logical  basis.

The  coprocreep  further  avers:   

Thus,  debt  is  the borrowing  of  an  item  from  someone  for  a  certain  period  of time  under  the  condition  of  returning  it  back.  The ownership  of  the  borrowed  item  will  be  transferred  to  the person  who  is  taking  it,  which  necessitates  that  he  is  free to  do  with  it  as  he  wants  —  the  person  who  is  lending  it out  has  no  right  to  dictate  what  he  can  and  cannot  do  with it.”

This  averment  is  defective  and  in  no  way  whatsoever   alters  the  reality  of  Qardh.  As  explained  above,  the  loan remains  a  loan  regardless  of  the  stipulation  of  any  faasid condition  by  the  lender,  the  bank  in  this  case.  In  the  above statement,  the  deviate  has  confused  two  different  types  of debt,  namely,  Qardh  and  DainQardh  is  a  loan  while Dain  is  a  debt  incurred  by  a  trade  transaction  such  as buying  an  item  on  credit.  In  Dain  it  is  incumbent  to   stipulate  the  time  of  payment.  In  Qardh,  no  time  factor applies.  It  is  not  permissible  to  fix  the  time  of  repayment. The  condition  of  a  time  frame  is  baatil  in  relation  to Qardh.  The  creditor  of  the  loan  has  the  right  to  demand repayment  at  any  time  regardless  of  whether  a  time  was  fixed  for  repayment.  The  “certain  period”  mentioned  by Atabek  is  baseless  and  does  not  apply  to  Qardh.  He needs  to  re-visit,  in  fact  re-study,  the  Kutub  of  Fiqh.  It  is clear  that  he  is  ignorant  of  many  Fiqhi  issues,  hence  he blurts  out  flotsam  and  jetsam  thereby    advertising  his  jahl.  Yet,  this  copro-jaahil,  shamelessly    insults  the   very  senior Ulama  of  Deoband.  Only  a  fool  is  ignorant  of  the  Stars  of Uloom  and  Taqwa  produced  by  Darul  Uloom  Deoband  in its  heyday.

The  Hanafi  Fuqaha  state:

  “Verily,  Qardh  is  like  Aariyah (an  item  given  on  loan).  Stipulation  of   a  time  (for returning  the  item)  is  not  incumbent  in  loaned  items.” 

This also  debunks  the  copro-jaahil’s  assertion,  viz.  “for  a certain  period  of  time”.  The  stipulation  of   time  of repayment   applies  to   the  debt  called  Dain,  not  to  Qardh.      

While  the  lender  has  the  right  to  utilize  the  loaned  money as  he  deems  appropriate,  the  stipulation  that  he  may  buy only  a  property  with  the  loan  in  no  way  whatsoever cancels  the  reality  and  nature  of  the  loan.  It  remains Qardh.  The  Kutub  of  Fiqh   are  explicit  in  this  regard.  But the  mudhil  is  ignorant  of  the  Kutub  although  he  has  set himself  up  as  an  expert  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  and  as  a mujtahid.  The  fellow  is  a  jaahil  paper  ‘mujtahid’  basking in  his  own  jahl-e-murakkab.  No  one   has  claimed  that  the lender  has  the  right  to  dictate  conditions.  The  issue  is  that the  loan  remains  Qardh  despite  the  dictation  of  the  lender. As  far  as  large  loans  are  concerned,  it  shall  be  shown later  that  there  is  a  need  for  the  bank  to  dictate  and advance  the  loan  for  only  a  specific  purpose.

Since  the  Qardh  remains  Qardh  despite  the  stipulation  of a  faasid  shart,  the  copro-jaahil  has  absolutely  no   basis  for  his  copro-interpretation  in  negation  of  the  reality  of  the loan  advanced  by  a  bank  –  a  loan  encumbered    with  Riba.            

The  jaahil  makes  a  big  issue    out  of  an  insignificant  factor  in  the  bank-loan.  He  maintains  that  the  borrower here  is  not  free  to  use  the  money  as  he    wishes.  Even  if  this  be  assumed  to  be  correct,  it  does  not  negate  the  reality of  the  loan  which  remains  Qardh  in  terms  of  the  Shariah. However,  the  factual  position  is  that  the  lender  is  free  to utilize  the  money  for  the  specific  purpose  for  which  he  has requested  the  loan.  He  approaches  the  bank    with  his  stated  wish  to  purchase  a  certain  property.  The  bank  does not  compel  him  to  buy  the  property  of  its  own  choice.  The lender  himself  selected  the  property  and  seeks  a  loan  to pay  the  price.  Thus,  the  bank  advances  him  the  loan  to purchase  what  he  had  selected  of  his  own  free  will.

If  a  lender  advances  a  loan  on  condition that  the  money   may  not  be  used  for  gambling,  squandering  on  haraam  and the  like,  the  reality  of  the  Qardh  is  not  negated.  Similarly, to  safeguard  its  interests,  the  bank  will  agree  to  the  loan   only  if  repayment  is  assured.  Thus,  if  the  borrower  seeks a  loan  of  a  million  pounds  for  a  property  whose  value  is  100,000  pounds,  the  bank  is    entitled  to  refuse,  and  to stipulate  that   only  such  a  property  be  purchased  which guarantees  the  loan.  In  safeguarding  its  interests,  the  bank is  not  dictating  to  the  lender  what  he  has  to  do  with  the money.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  borrower  who  approaches the  bank  for  a  loan  to  purchase  an  item  of  his  own  choice, not  of  the  bank’s  choice.  We  have  mentioned  this   fact   merely  to  highlight  the  stupidity  of  the  jaahil’s  averment. But  in  reality  this    issue  has  no  bearing  on  the  validity  of the  loan.  It  remains  a  valid  loan  regardless  of  the hallucinated dictation by the bank.  


Like  a  drowning  man  clutching  at  straws,  the  faasiq deviate  Atabek  desperately  proffers  the  hallucination  of  a bank  interest  bearing  loan  being  a  contract  of  Tawkeel (Agency). Not  even  a  layman  will  be  fooled  by  such  audacious  stupidity  which  asserts  that  pork  is  transformed  into  mutton  by    mere  imagination. In  presenting  his ludicrous postulate, he says:

The  different  topics  that  I  have  mentioned  necessitate that  a  mortgage  is  Tawkeel  and  not  a  debt  because  the scenario of a mortgage happens as follows

Customer  expresses  his  desire  to  buy  a  house  to  the  bank.

Bank  follows  its  procedure,  then  it  approves  the  buyer  to buy  the  house  on  behalf  of  the  bank  with  the  money  which he  gets  from  the  bank  by  cash  payment.

Then  he  buys  the  house  from  the  bank  by  instalments  over certain  period  of  time.  After  that  he  pays  back  that  money during that time period. 

This  is  the  practical  and  technical  explanation  of  a mortgage.  This  is  because  the  meaning  is  the  most important  thing  in  transactions  and  not  what  one  says  (i.e. it is about what you do and not what you say.”

Let  us  examine  this  hogwash.  The  ‘different  topics’ mentioned  by  the  copro-jaahil  in  no  way  whatever necessitate  that  a  bank  interest-bearing  loan  is  transformed into  Tawkeel  or  in  meaning  it  is  Tawkeel.  In  his disgorgement  of  ‘different  topics’,  he  has  merely  tried  to explain  the  meanings  of  Qardh  and  Tawkeel.  After explaining  the  technical  Fiqhi  meanings  of  these  two transactions,  he  arbitrarily  and  stupidly  without  Shar’i  basis  concludes  that  a  riba  loan  advanced  by  the  bank  is Tawkeel.  His  postulation  is  devoid  of  logical  content  and bereft  of  Shar’i  substance.  Furthermore,  his  corrupt theorizing  is  in  conflict  with  reality.

The  client,  i.e.  the  borrower,  does  not  approach  the  bank   to  purchase  a  house  from  the  bank,  for  the  bank  does  not own  a  house  for  sale  nor  is  the  bank  in  the  business  of buying  and  selling  properties.  Its  profession  is  to  lend money  to  borrowers  on  interest.  Only  a  moron  whose brains  have  been  convoluted  by  Iblees  will  contend   otherwise.  The  client  approaches  the  bank  for  a  loan  which the  bank  will  advance  only  if  he  is  creditworthy.  The procedure  which  the  bank  will  initiate  to    establish  the credit  worthiness  of  the  borrower  and  the  veracity  and viability  of    his  deal  with  the  owner  of  the  house  who  is the  actual  and  the  only  seller,  is  reasonable  and  absolutely necessary.      This  procedure  is  totally  unrelated  to  any  facet of  Tawkeel.  

The  deviate’s  claim  that  the  “bank  appoints  the  buyer  to buy  the  house  on  behalf  of  the  bank”,  is  an  absurd  LIE. Neither  practically  nor  technically  nor  logically  is  there any  veracity  in  this  baatil  claim  of  Atabek.    Furthermore, it  is  blatantly  false  to  say  that  the  bank  gives  the  cash directly  into  the  hands  of  the  borrower.  The  reality  is  that by  Iqtidhaaun  Nass  the  borrower  appoints  the  bank  as  his Wakeel  to  pay  his  debt  owing  to  the  owner  of  the  house who  is  the  true  and  the  real  seller  who  sells  the  property  to the  one  who  borrows  the  money  from  the  bank.  The  bank does  not  purchase  the  property  from  the  seller  as  the  jaahil alleges.  The  bank  merely  makes  payment  on  behalf  of  the borrower  who  is  the  true  and  the  real  buyer.

The  Fuqaha  state:    The  determinant  is  the  actual  meaning (the  reality  of  the  transaction),  not    the  words  (used  to embellish  a  haraam  transaction  for  rendering  it  halaal).  Thus,  if  interest  is  described  as  a  gift,  dividend,  profit, etc.,  it  will  not  change  the  reality.  It  remains  haraam  riba. Whilst  the  copro-jaahil  has  made  reference  to  this principle,  he  has  abortively  attempted  to  apply  it  in  a convoluted  manner  to  legalize  a  bank  interest-bearing loan.  The  true  meaning  of  the  deal  between  a  borrower and  the  bank  is  a  riba  loan.  No  amount  of  skulduggery  can change  this  reality.  Practically,  technically  and  logically the  bank  is  the  lender  and  not  the  buyer  nor  is  the borrower  the  Wakeel  to  buy  a  house  for  the  bank.  The reality  is  the  opposite,  namely,  the  bank  is  the  borrower’s Wakeel to  pay  his  debt  with  the  money  which  he  has borrowed  from  the  bank.
Regarding  the  Tawkeel  dimension,  the  Faasiq  has  placed the  cart  before  the  horse  by  contending  that  the  borrower is  the  bank’s  Wakeel  bish-Shiraa’  (the  agent  to  purchase on  behalf  of  the  bank).  On  the  contrary,  the    bank  is  the Wakeel  of  the  borrower.  Prior  to  advancing  the  loan,  and even  before  the  house  has  been  purchased,  the  bank stipulates  its  interest  which  will  escalate  annually.  The purchase  price  is  paid  to  the  owner/seller  with  the borrowed  money  on  which  the  bank  fixes  its  rate  of interest.

The  plethora  of  faasid  conditions  with  which  all  bank contracts  and  agreements  are  encumbered  does  not  negate the  reality  of  Qardh.  It  does  not  transform  Qardh  into Tawkeel.  Only  juhala  possess  sufficient  stupidity  to  deny this  reality  and  claim  that  the  money  borrowed  from  a bank  is  by  way  of  Tawkeel.

Exhibiting  his  contumacious  jahaalah,  the  copro-jaahil avers:

Thus,  when  the  bank  says  to  the  customer:  ‘this  is  a debt  we  are  lending  you  so  that  you  can  buy  a  house,  and you  have  to  pay  it  back  to  us’,  this  statement  is  incorrect literally  but  yet  correct  by  Iqtidha.  That  is  because  the bank  doesn’t  give  the  ownership  of  the  money  to  the customer  –  the  bank  will  block  you  from  using  this  money for  anything  besides  buying  that  specific  house  –  and  that is not called lending but rather ‘tawkeel’“

Perhaps  the  baboons  in  the  mountains  will  swallow  this stupidity.  Firstly,  the  Faasiq    has  misapplied  the  principle of  Iqtidhaun  Nass   which  is  an  implicit  demand  of  a statement  not  stated  verbally,  but  is  implied.  Saying  that the  bank’s  categorical  statement  of  the  money  advanced being  a  debt  is  literally  incorrect,  but  by  Iqtidha  is  correct, is  an  absurdity  and  self-contradiction  which  portray  this man’s  ignorance  regarding  the  principles  of  Fiqh.

If  the  statement  of  the  bank  is  CORRECT  by  way  of Iqtidha,  it  logically  follows  that  the  bank’s  version  is correct  because  the  demand  of  Iqtidha  is  valid  and incumbent,  and  may  not  be  cancelled  by    verbal/literal statements  which  may  have  a  different  meaning.  The principle  in  transactions  is    that  the  determinant  is  the  true and  actual  meaning,  not  the  words.  Both  the  words  and meaning  of  the  bank  confirm  the  reality  of  Qardh.  Whilst there  is  no  need  for  Iqtidha  to  determine  the  reality  of  the bank’s  interest-bearing  loan,  the  Faasiq  has  shot  himself  in the  leg  by  stupidly  saying  that  the  bank’s  statement  is correct  by  Iqtidha’.  By  making  this  claim  he  has  entrapped himself  into  conceding  that  a  bank’s  loan  is  in  fact  Qardh regardless  of  his  stupid    howling  to  the  contrary.  Both principles,  namely  Ibaaratun  Nass  as  well    as  Iqtidhaaun Nass  (by  his  own  admission)  confirm  the  reality  of  the transaction  to  be  Qardh.  The  reality  precludes  the  idea  of the  bank  having  in  actual  fact  purchased  the  house.

It  has  already  been  explained  above  that  the  stipulation  of a  faasid  shart   does  not  negate  the  reality  of  Qardh.  We again  reiterate  that  payment  by  the  bank  to  the  owner  of the  house  who  sells  his  property  is  not  a  faasid  condition because  the  borrower  approached  the  bank  specifically for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  loan  to  pay  for  the  house which  he  intends  purchasing  from  Zaid.  Thus,  the  bank acts  as  the  borrower’s  agent  by  effecting  payment  to  the seller,  viz.  Zaid.  It  is  utterly  fallacious  and  stupid  to  claim that  a  loan  is  not  a  loan  simply  because  the  lender stipulates  that  the  money  may  be  used for  only  paying  the creditor  of  the  borrower.  The  bank  pays  the  seller  on  the instruction  of  the  borrower  to  whom  the  bank  loans  the money  repayable  with Riba.

Making another drivel claim, the Faasiq says:

This  is  not  any  type  of  riba,  because  the  bank  does  not give  away  the  money  to  the  customer.

This  is  rubbish. The  bank  in  reality  does  give  the  money to  the  borrower  to  use  for  the  specific  purpose  for  which he  has  approached  the  bank.  It  is  the  borrower  who  asks the  bank  to  pay  for  the  house  which  he  will  be  buying from  Zaid.  Thus,  the  bank  acts  as  the  borrower’s  Wakeel  to  effect  payment  on  his  behalf.  This  is  the  simple  reality and  nature  of  the  transaction  with  the  bank.

The  claim  that  the  borrower  acts  as  the  representative  of the  bank  to  buy  a  house  for  the  bank  and  that  he  buys  the house  from  the  bank  is  a  donkey  claim.  Perhaps  donkeys may  swallow  this  absurdity.    A  man  of  Fisq  given  to bootlicking  and  emulation  of    the  western  kuffaar  lacks   Fahm.  His  brains  are   encased  in  a  western  straitjacket, hence  he  conjectures  stupid  theories  to  halaalize  riba.  And,  according  to  the  Qur’aan  only  a  man  who  has  been driven  to  madness  by  the  touch  of  shaitaan  legalizes  riba and  claims  it  to  be  trade. The  Faasiq  illustrates  his  jahaalah  in  an  answer  to  a  critic where he says: “If  I  give  you  money  and  say  to  you:  ‘It  is    a  gift  to  your father,  but    you  have  to  buy    food  and  bring  it  to  me  by using  this  money.”,  What  is  it?  Is  it  a  gift  or  maybe  some type  of  ‘usury’  or  also    ‘dowry’?  Owner  of  the  money specifying  one  and  only  way  of  using    it  and  excluding everything else is called “Tawkeel”.  This  answer    confirms  that  this  Faasiq  copro-jaahil  lacks knowledge  of  even  basic  masaa-il.  He  sets  himself  up  as an  authority  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab,  yet  he  is  egregiously ignorant  of  the  fact  that  in  the  example  he  has  cited  to silence  his  critic,  the  gift  remains  a  gift  (Hibah)  despite  the faasid  condition  which  simply  falls  away.  All  transactions of  Tabarru’  in  terms  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  remain  valid whilst  the  corrupt  conditions  automatically  fall  away.  On what  authority  does  this  jaahil  claim  that  the  Hibah  has been  transformed  into  Tawkeel  by  the  faasid  condition? He  has  absolutely  no  authority  since  he  blurts  out  trash from  his  nafs. In  his  superficial  exposition  of  Tawkeel,  the  Faasiq  sciolist avers:

The  rukn  of  wikala  is  anything  that  means  ‘offer  and accept’  –  even  indirectly  such  as  silence’.  So  the  real important  thing  is  to  express  that  a  person  is  appointing the second person as a representative.”

This  explanation  is  in  diametric  conflict  with  the  reality  of   the  relationship  between  the  bank  lender  and  the  borrower. There  is  not  even  the  slightest  hint  of  the  bank  appointing the  borrower  to  be  its    representative  to  purchase  a property  on  its  behalf.  Furthermore,  the  issue  of  being  the bank’s  wakeel  to  purchase  a  house  for  the  bank  is  the furthest  from  the  mind  of  the  borrower.  Thus,  there  is absolutely  no  expression    by  any  of  the  parties  which could  be  even  remotely  interpreted  to  mean   the  creation of  a  Wikaalat  contract.  The  conclusion  of  the  sciolist  is plain  skulduggery  and  fraud.  There  has  to  be  an  intention and  an  understanding,  for  that  will  be  the  reality  and  the determinant  in  trade  and  commerce  transactions.  But  the entire  contract  between  the  bank  and  the  buyer  of  the house,  from  beginning  to  end,  pertains  to  borrowing, lending and paying interest.


In  this  regard,  the  copro-jaahil  says:

As  for  the  price  not  being  fixed  but  differing  based  on  the time  of  paying  it  back,  as  we  said,  it  is  permissible according  to  the  two  students  of  Abu  Hanifah  without  any conditions.  It  is  also  permissible  according    to  Abu  Hanifa with  the  condition  that  I  explained  above  (i.e.  for  the  late payment  he  has  to  pay  a  ‘standard  price’,  and  the   ‘standard  price’  is  what  is  known  by  custom).”

His  postulate  is  fallacious.  For  the  validity  of  a  sale,  the price  has  to  be  incumbently  fixed.  An  item  may  not  be purchased  without  the  price  having  been  fixed  at  the session  of  the  sale.  Whilst  a  higher  price  is  permissible  if sold  on  credit,  the  essential  condition  for  the  validity  of the  sale  is  that  the  higher  price  must  be  fixed  at  the  time of  the  sale.  The  price  may  not  be  left  to  fluctuate  and differ  in  a  future  limbo  as  interest  rates  fluctuate  and differ.  The  different  two  prices  –  a  cash  price  and  a  credit price  –  must  be  stated  without  ambiguity  at  the  time  of   contracting  the  deal,  and  one  price  has  to  be  fixed.  The price  may  not  be  left  undetermined  for  future  fluctuation.

The  sciolist  cites  an  example  from  Quduri  without understanding  the  import  of  the  mas’alah.  Firstly.  The mas’alah  in  Quduri  does  not  remotely  refer  to  riba.  The bank’s  transaction  with  the  borrower  has  absolutely  no relationship  with  the  mas’alah    mentioned  in  Quduri  and which  the  copro-jaahil  cites.  Secondly,  the  mas’alah  applies  to  a  valid  trade  transaction  while  the  bank’s transaction  is  a  clear-cut  act  of  lending  money  on  interest, and  no    convoluted  and  stupid  interpretation  can  alter  this reality.  Thirdly,  the  mas’alah  in  Quduri  does  not  relate  to an  unspecified  price  or  a  price  which  is  not  fixed.  In  both cases  the  price  is  fixed.

Quduri  does  not  mention  the  issue  of  two  different  prices as  the  copro-jaahil  attempts  to  hoodwink  laymen  with  his chicanery.  He  cites  the  mas’alah  from  page  103  of Quduri,  but    what  he  claims  is  not  mentioned   in  the section  dealing  with  AL-Muraabah  and  At-Tauliyah.

Imaam  Quduri  merely  states  that  it  is  permissible  for  the buyer  to  increase  the  price  and  for  the  seller  to  increase  the commodity  and  decrease  the  price.  What  relationship  has this  with  the  riba  the  bank  charges?  Each  one  of  the parties  is  merely  exercising  his  right.  If  for  argument’s sake  we  assume  the  stupid  postulate  of  the  copro-jaahil  to have  any  validity  then  in  his  example,  the  bank  is  not  the ‘buyer’.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  ‘seller’  of  the  house. Now  the  bank  (the  hallucinated  seller)  is  mandatorily increasing  the  so-called  ‘price’  (i.e.  the  riba)  from  year  to year  depending  on  the  fluctuation  in  the  rate  of  interest. Thus,  the  copro-jaahil  has  inverted  the  mas’alah  of  Quduri in  his  convoluted,  stupid  exercise  of  presenting  the  bank loan  as  a  trade  transaction.

In  a  valid  sale  transaction,  the  buyer  has  the  right  to increase  the  price  at  will.  The  seller  has  no  right  of increasing  the  price  after  finalization  of  the  deal.  Yes, he  has  the  right  to  decrease  or  give  a  discount  at  his  own wish  and  will  without  such  decrease  being  stipulated  in  the contract  and  without  such  decrease  being    customary.

The  Faasiq  sciolist    conveniently  omits  citing  what Quduri  says  about  Qardh,  and  this  appears  on  the  very same  page  from  which  he  has  cited  the  mas’alah  regarding  increasing  and  decreasing  the    price  and  the commodity  by  the  buyer  and  the  seller  respectively. Quduri states:

Every  Dain  which  is  due,  if    the  creditor  stipulates  a   time  (for  its  payment),  it  becomes    Mu-ajjal  (i.e.  it  will only  be  due  for  payment  on  the  stipulated  date),  except Qardh,  for  verily,    fixing  a  time  (for  its  payment)  is  not valid.”

We  have  earlier  explained  that    Dain  is  a  debt  in  a  sale transaction  while  Qardh  is  a  debt  incurred  by  a  loan.

Explaining  the  invalidity  of    fixing  a  time  for  payment  of Qardh, the Fuqaha say:

Verily,  Ta’jeel  (fixing  a  time)  is  not  valid,  i.e.  it  is  not binding.  Thus,  if  at  the  time  of  giving  the  loan,  or thereafter,   a      known    time  is  fixed,  it  will  not   be  valid. The  lender  has  the  right  to  demand  immediate  payment because  Qardh  is  Aariyah  (giving  a  loan  of  an  item)  which is  (an  act  of  (Tabarru’  (kindness/favour),  and  Ta’jeel  in Tabarru’ is not binding.” (Aini and Fathul Qadeer)

The  sciolist  may  check  the  kutub  to  ascertain  what  he  has omitted  by  his  chicanery.  The  Qardh  remains  valid  whilst the  baatil  condition  automatically  falls  away.    

The  other  example  of  paying  the  tailor  one  price  if  he   stitches  the  garment  ‘today’  or  lesser  sum  if  he  prepares  it  for  the  next  day,  also  has  absolutely  no  relationship  to  the bank  loan  scenario.  By  itself  it  is  a  valid  contract  in which  there  is  no  ambiguity  and  no  fluctuation  of  the service  fee  for  stitching  the  garment.  The  amount  is  fixed at  the  time  of  the  deal.  The  price  does  not  fluctuate  in  a limbo  of  ambiguity,  and  it  has  no  truck  with  bank  interest.   There  is  no  ‘differing’  in  the  fee  which  is  arranged  and  agreed  during  the  transaction.  The  analogy  posited  by  the sciolist  jaahil  is  glaringly  fallacious.

The  sciolist  Atabek  has  pivoted  his  baatil  opinion  on  the fallacious  basis  of  a  bank‘s  loan  not  being  Qardh,  and  for its  justification  he  arbitrarily  and  stupidly  claims  that  the loan  cannot  be  Qardh  because  the  bank  restricts  its  used for  a  specific  purpose,  namely,  the  purchase  of  a  property. There  is  absolutely  no  authority    in  the  Shariah  for  this  ludicrous  opinion.  At  most,  it  could  be  ventured  that  the  stipulation  is  faasid.  On  the  assumption  that  it  is  faasid, the  reality  of    Qardh  remains  unchanged.  The  loan  is valid.  Only  the  condition  falls  away.  Thus,  there  is  no transformation  of  the  Qardh  into  Tawkeel.

Neither  is  there  a  stupid  metamorphosis  nor  is  there  a Tawkeel  agreement  isaalatan  (initially),  nor  has  any  such contract  subsequently  come  into  being.  From  whichever angle  the  matter  is  examined,  only  a  Riba  Loan  emerges. But  like  the  mushrikeen  of  Arabia,  this  Atabek  sciolist expectorates:  “Riba  is  like  trade”. Only  he  camouflages this  opinion  of  the  mushrikeen  by  saying “A  bank  loan (with  Riba)  is  Tawkeel.”  Only  a  spiritually  blind  heart  has the  raw  and  kufr  audacity  of  proclaiming  an  interestbearing  bank  loan  to  be  halaal,  dubbing  it  Tawkeel  by nafsaani  hallucination.  May  Allah  Ta’ala  save  us  from corruption  of  the  heart  caused  by  Rijs  divinely  cast  on  the brains, as the Qur’aan Majeed says: 

And,  He  (Allah)  casts  Rijs  (FILTH)  on  those  who    lack Aql.”  (those  who  fail  to  understand  that  the  sun  shines during the day time).

Refuting the Jaahil Atabek Shukurov’s Baatil Fatwa regarding Smoking not invalidating the Fast

By Majlisul Ulama


According to the U.K. Zindeeq, Faasiq, deviate Atabek Shukurov, who has  set himself up as an ‘authority’ of the Hanafi Math-hab,  smoking tobacco and using an inhaler do not  invalidate the fast. This jaahil has  disgorged some absolutely spurious and stupid arguments to bolster his corrupt view which is in  diametric conflict with  the Fatwa of all Four Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah

The Fuqaha of all Four Math-habs have unanimously  ruled that smoking breaks the fast. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, intentionally smoking  during Ramadhaan necessitates the obligations of Qadha as well as the 60 day Kaffaarah. Seeking to overturn the Ijma’ of the Four Math-habs, this modernist Zindeeq exhibits his jahaalat  which confirms that he is ignorant of the Shar’i concept of  Saum. He does not  know even the  proper meaning of Fasting. 

His article of jahl portraying his  jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance), is bereft of even a shred of  Shar’i evidence for his haraam view. He has miserably failed to  cite even a single text from any of  the Fuqaha of any of the Math-habs to bolster his  haraam fallacy structured  on the basis of corrupt personal opinion.  Fasting is an injunction of the Shariah

Fasting  has been ordained for Muslims since the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  Its definition  cannot be re-interpreted  on the basis of  the logic of a copro-jaahil whose brains are  operating within the constriction of the straightjacket of  western  modernity. In his article he has presented absolutely no Shar’i daleel for his haraam view. He abortively attempts to  prove his  baseless view in terms of  analogies which are fallacious.  His fallacies shall, Insha-Allah, be dissected and demolished  further on in this article. 


He who inhales medicine, then  perceives the taste of the smoke  in his throat, should make qadha of  the fast.” (As-Sulaimaaniyyah) 

If water drawn into the nostrils reaches the brains, then qadha is obligatory.” (Al-Khazaanah, narrating from Imaam Abu Hanifah – Rahmatullah alayh) (The same ruling will apply to smoke inhaled intentionally). 

If he  (intentionally)  causes smoke to enter into his throat, his fast is invalidated, regardless of  the type of smoke it may be. Thus, if he brings  the incense close to him and smells its smoke, hence causing it to enter into his throat whilst he  is aware of his fast, then his fast is broken. Whether   (it be the smoke of) oudh, ambar or anything besides these two because it is possible to  refrain from causing  the muftir from entering the stomach. (Muftir is something which invalidates the fast.) Numerous people are oblivious of this fact.”  (Haashiyatut Tahaawi ala Duraril Hukkaam) 

Or he intentionally  causes smoke to enter his stomach or his brain, then the fast is invalidated  because of the presence  of something which breaks the fast. This applies to the smoke of  substances other than ambar and oudh. And, in these two  Kaffaarah also becoming incumbent is not far-fetched. Likewise  (is the ruling) regarding  the latest type of smoking which has been innovated in this age. (i.e. smoking tobacco and cigarettes)” (Maraaqil Falaah)

On this basis, regarding the bid’ah which has been innovated  presently—when it is smoked, Kaffaarah becomes obligatory. We supplicate to Allah for forgiveness and protection.”  (Maraaqil Falaah Sharh Noorul Eedhaah) 

If he causes smoke to enter his throat, the fast is invalidated regardless of the type of smoke even if it is of oudh or ambar whilst he is aware (that he is fasting), for it is possible to  abstain from it.” (Durrul Mukhtaar) 

From this, the ruling pertaining to smoking (tobacco) is  known. In  a poem Ash-Shurumbulaali said in his Sharah  of Al-Wahbaaniyyah: “Its smoker during  the fast, there is no doubt in the fast  being invalidated.”  (Raddul Muhtaar)  

If he inhales medicine and perceives its taste in his throat, he  has to make qadha of the fast.”   (Binaayah) 

If he causes it to enter into his throat, his fast is invalid. Thus if  he inhales  its smoke and causes it to enter into his throat, his fast breaks.”   (Majma’ul Anhaar) 


The reaching of smoke in the throat by burning (something), e.g. oudh, similarly the  smoke from  a boiling pot of food, invalidate the fast just as  the vapour by smoking a pipe.”          (Manhul Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel) 

It is obligatory to abstain from whatever reaches the throat, be it a substance which dissolves or not.”   (Manhul Jaleel) 

“He who inhales smoke or anything besides it whilst fasting, verily the fast is invalidated, for verily, the nose is the upper passage-way reaching the throat. On him is qadha (of the invalidated fast). And if it is during Ramaadhan, then (also) he will be liable for azaab (punishment)  if he  deliberately does so.  …….Al-Lakhmi said: ‘Snuffing is prohibited. The snuffer is able to prevent  it reaching the throat. There is no difference  (of opinion) in the invalidation (of the fast).” 

“What  do you say regarding  a person who smokes during the day of Ramadhaan? Is Kaffaarah obligatory?”  

Answer:  “Yes, Kaffaara is obligatory  if  it reaches in  his stomach………In  Al Mukhtasar  (it  appears):  Regarding  the  smoke  which  (is  acquired)  by  smoking, it  invalidates (the  fast)  because  it  is  a  physical form.  It  reaches  the throat. In  fact sometimes it reaches even the stomach.”

“What  do  you  say  regarding    the  placement  of  smoke  in the  mouth  between  the  lower  lip  and  the  teeth  and  spitting out  the  saliva  tainted  with  it?  Will  the    fasting  person’s fast  be  invalidated,  and  will  Kaffaarah  be  incumbent  if this  was  do ne  intentionally  during  Ramadhaan valid reason?”

Answer:  Placement  of  smoke    in  this  manner  in without the  mouth is  in  conflict  with  the reality  of  fasting  which  is  to withhold  from  the  lusts  of  the  stomach  and  private  organs  from the  rise  of  Fajr  Saadiq  until  the  completion  of  sunset with  an  intention……Its taste  reaches  the  throat,  for  verily, the  brain  derives  enjoyment    from  it  just  as  the  enjoyment of  the  smoke  derived  by  sucking    a  pipe  or  by  snuffing with  it  from  the  nose,  or  (this  described in  the  question)  is  worse.  There  is  no  doubt  in  the  invalidation  of  the  fast and  the   obligation of  the  Greater  Kaffaarah  if  this  is  done intentionally  during  Ramadhaan  without  valid  reason. Fitr  (the  fast  breaking) is  more  confirmed  by it (i.e the smoking)  that  the fitr  resulting  from  oiling  the  head  and the  taste  reaching  the  throat  from  the  pores,  and  (more confirmed)  that  inhaling  the  vapours  from  a  (boiling)  pot (of  food).  This  is  well known  to  the  masses. When  they hear  that someone  saying  that  the  fast  is  not  broken  or that  he  hesitates  in  saying  this  (i.e.  that  the  fast  is  broken), then  they  are    surprised  by  it,  and  they  attribute  such  a statement  and hesitation  to  ignorance  and little  awareness (of  reality).   (Such  as  the  ignorance  of  this  copro-jaahil, Atabek)……… Therefore,  how  is  it  possible  to  aver  that  it does  not  invalidate  the  fast.  Or  to  hesitate  (in  saying it breaks the  fast)?

Abdul  Haqq  has  narrated  in  Tahzeebut  Taalib  from  As Sulamaaniyyah: ‘He  who  inhales medicine  and  perceives its  taste  in  his  throat,  then  most  certainly  his  fast  is broken…….They  (the  Fuqaha)  have  said  that  one  who inhales  vapour  from  a  pot  of  food,  very  his  fast  is  broken, for  verily,  the  vapours  of  food  have  a  physical  form  which strengthens  the  brain.  Thus,  the  resultant  acquisition  is like  that  acquired  by  eating.  It is  not hidden  that  the  mouth is  the  nearer  to  the  throat  than  the  nose  and  the  pores  of the head, and it (the  mouth) is wider than  both………” (Fathul  Ulal  Maalik fil Fataawa  ala  Mathhabil  Imaamil Maalik)

When the vapour of  a  pot of  food reaches  the throat, the fast  is  invalidated  and  qadhaa  is  incumbent.  From  this (i.e. the  same  ruling  applies)  is  the  vapours  of  smoking with a reed (or pipe).

When  the  vapour  of food) reaches bukhoor or  the  vapour  of  a  pot  (of the throat,  then  qadha  become  obligatory because  both  of  them  are  is  physical  body  formed.” (Bulghatis  Saalik li Aqrabal  Masaalik)

Vapours arising from lighting a pipe, and similarly the vapour of a pot—when it reaches the throat, qadha is compulsory. And from this is also with a pipe, etc., for verily, it reaches the throat. In fact (it reaches) the stomach.” (Haashiyah Ad-Dusooqi ala Sharhil Kabeer)  


In Baijurmi: The smoking which has now developed, which is called At-tatun,-May Allah curse the one who has initiated it – verily it is of the evil innovations. Our Shaikh Az-Ziyaadi used to  issue fatwa in the beginning that the fast does not break because at that time he was not aware of its reality. However, when he saw its effect from the pipe with which it is smoked, then he retracted (his earlier view) and issued fatwa that it breaks the fast.”     (I’aanatut Taalibeen) 

And from it (i.e. the things which invalidate the fast) is the popular kind of smoking.”   (Nihaayatuz Zain) 

But, smoking tobacco is excluded (from the things which do not break the fast), for verily, from it physical form is acquired.”   (Bushral Kareem) 

The popular smoking invalidates the fast just as the smoke of a wick.” (Tuhfatul Habeeb ala Sharhil Khateeb)

If the vapour is from the popular smoking of this time, then it breaks the fast.”       (Futuhaarul Wahhaab)  


He who swallows smoke intentionally, his fast is  invalid.”  (Mataalib Ulun Nuha fi Sharhi Ghaayatil Muntaha) 

He who swallows smoke intentionally, his fast is invalid.”         (Kashful Qinaa’ ala Matnil Iqnaa’) 

In the Kitaab, Al-Mausooatil Fiqhiyyah, the following is mentioned:  “The Fuqaha are unanimous that the popular smoking during fasting breaks the fast because it is among the mufttariyaat (the things which break the fast).” 

As his basis for his fallacy, Atabek citing from Hanafi texts, says:     

The red box states that dust particles, smoke, the taste of remedies/medicines and the smell of perfume do not break the fast. This evidence can also be found in the other  authoritative  works  of  the  Hanafis  such  as  Bahe ur Taiq, An Nahr, Fath al Qadir and Wilayah.

It  is  also  to  be  found  in  a large  number  of  Hanafi  texts that  using  a  steam  room  whilst  fasting  does  not  break your  fast.  In  a  steam  room  you  are  breathing  in  water vapour  which also potentially  enters  your oesophagus (food),  with  a  much  larger  volume  or  ‘dose’  of  water  than is given by  an inhaler  (albeit not  pressurized).

The  abovementioned  trash  is  the  only  ‘daleel’  which Atabek  has managed  to  hallucinate  for  his fallacious  view that smoking does  not  break the fast.

Either  he  has  deliberately  and  conveniently  ignored  the explicit  texts  stating  the  breaking  of  the  fast  with intentional  smoke  inhalation  to  be  found  in  the  large number  of  Hanafi  texts,  or  he  is  unable  to  understand what  is  written  in  these  authoritative  kutub  of  the  Ahnaaf and  of  the  other  Math-habs.  The  very  same  kutub  from which  he  has  cited  the  above,  clearly  state  that  intentional smoke  inhalation  breaks  the  fast.  Refer  to  the  references from  the Hanafi texts quoted above.

There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  “red  box”  to  bolster  the trash  disgorged  by  Atabek.  Since  he  is  not  all  that  stupid to  have  understood  the  reality  in  the  “red  box”,  he conveniently  refrains from  presenting  the  translation  of the text from Al-Muheetul Burhaani. The  text  states:

When dust, smoke, the taste of medicine and the fragrance of perfume is perceived in the throat, it does not invalidate his fast because abstention from it is not possible.” 

This refers to the taste, dust, etc. entering the throat involuntarily and of its own accord, not by an act of the Saa-im (Fasting person). This distinguishing factor shall be explained further on. 

Explaining the issue which appears to be an unfathomable conundrum for the deviate Atabek, the Kutub of the Ahnaaf state: 

“It is said in  Al-Burhaan: His fast does not break if dust enters his throat or the effect of the taste of medicine, because it is not possible to abstain from it as is mentioned in Al-Fath. I say that from this stems that when it is  possible to abstain from dust which enters the throat, then the fast will be invalidated if he does so (i.e. if he intentionally  casues it to enter into his throat). Az-Zaylai said: ‘When dust or a fly enters his throat (i.e. of its own accord) whilst he is aware of his fast, his fast does not break because he is unable to prevent this. Thus it resembles smoke (which enters of its own accord, not intentionally inhaled). This (ruling) is according to Istihsaan (application of discretion). However, according to Qiyaas the fast breaks because of a muftir reaching the stomach.  …The reason for (adopting) Istihsaan is the inability to prevent it, hence  it  is  like  the  moisture  which  remains  in  the  mouth after rinsing (the  mouth).

In Fathul  Qadeer it  is  mentioned:  “When  vapour  and  dust enter  the  throat  (of  their  own  accord),  the  fast  does  not break,  for  verily,  abstention  from  their  entry  is  not possible from  the nose  when the  mouth is closed.”  I say: On  this  basis  when  he  causes  smoke  to  enter  into  his throat  regardless  of  the  type  of  smoke  whilst  he  is  aware  of  his  fast,  then  his fast  breaks. Whether  it  be  (the  smoke) of  oudh or  ambar  or  anything  else  because  of  the possibility  of  abstention from  causing a muftir to enter in the stomach. Numerous people are  oblivious  of  this.”

The  deviate  Atabek  conveniently  or  ignorantly  overlooks this  categorical  statement  in Haashiyah  Shurumbulaalui as well  as in all other Hanafi texts.

In Maraaqil  Falaah,  it  is  mentioned:  “…Or  if  he  causes smoke  to  enter  into  his  stomach  or  brain  by  his  intentional action  (then  the  fast  will  break)  because  of  the  presence of fitr………The  same  (ruling  applies) to  the  smoking  (i.e. of  tobacco) which has  been innovated in this  era.”

In Raddul  Muhtaar it  appears  as  follows:  “(The  fast  does not  break  if)  dust  or  a  fly  or  smoke  enters  the  stomach whilst he is  aware of  his fast because of the impossibility to  abstain  from  it.  This  is  in  terms  of Istihsaan. The benefit  (i.e. the  logical  conclusion)  of  this  is  that  if  he causes  smoke  to  enter  his  throat  whilst  he  is  aware  of  his fast,  the  fast  will  break  regardless  of  the whether  it  is  oudh or ambar type  of  smoke   because  of  the  possibility  of abstaining from  it.  Therefore be aware (and ponder) over this as Ash-Shrumbulaali has elaborated.”

Elaborating  on  the  entry  of  dust  or  a  fly  or  smoke  which does not invalidate the fast, it is said in Raddul  Muhtaar:i.e.  It  (the  dust,  fly  or  smoke) with the entered  of  its  own  accord action of the fasting person.

From all the  Hanafi  texts,  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  the Fuqaha  have  made  a  clear  and  categorical  distinction between   involuntary and voluntary inhalation  of  smoke. All  the  Hanafi  kutub  explicitly  mention  that  while involuntary inhalation  of  smoke  does  not  invalidate  the fast,  voluntary  and  intentional inhalation  does  invalidate the  fast.  The  deviate  has  utilized  the  ruling  applicable  to involuntary  inhalation  to  cigarette-smoking voluntary  and  intentional  inhalation  of  smoke   which  is  laden  with harmful  substances  such  as  tar,  nicotine,  etc.  which  end up as solid   formations inside the  body.

In  having  ignored  the  ruling  of  the  Fuqaha  pertaining  to voluntary  and  intentional  inhalation  of  smoke,  and  deceptively  and  stupidly  utilizing  the  ruling  of  involuntary  inhalation  for  extravasating  his  copro-fatwa of  baatil,  Atabek  has  committed  chicanery  and skulduggery.

All  the  Fuqaha  are  unanimous  in  proclaiming  the invalidation of  the Fast  if  the fasting person intentionally inhales smoke.

In  his  three-page  trash  article,  in  more  than  two  pages  he abortively  attempts  to  logically  ‘prove’  that  an  asthma inhaler  does  not  invalidate  the  fast.  His  stupid  ‘proofs’ towards  this  end  have  already  been  refuted  an demolished  in  the  aforegoing discussion.  Towards  the end  of  his  article  of ghutha he  arbitrarily,  without  making even  an  attempt  to  present  any  Shar’i  daleel,  claims  that smoking  cigarettes,  tobacco,  pipe  and  the  like does  not  break  the  fast.  Since  he  is  totally  bereft  of  Shar’i  dalaa’il for  his  haraam  excretion,  he  has  miserably  failed  in  his attempt.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  is  unaware  of  the Consensus  of  the  Fuqaha  on  this  issue,  namely,  mal’oon smoking  invalidates  the  fast.  Smoking  tobacco  is  not  an act  which  has  been  innovated  yesterday.  Muslims  have been  smoking  the  accursed  substances  for  several centuries,  having acquired the accursed practice from  the western kuffaar

As  explained  above,  the  Fuqaha  make  a  clear  distinction between  involuntary  inhalation  o f  smoke  and  intentional inhaling.  Whilst  the  former  does  not  break  the  fast,  the latter  does  invalidate  the  fast.  It  is  indeed  mind-boggling to  believe  that  the  intentional  inhalation  and  consumption of  a  physical  substance  with  all  its  poisonous,  harmful and  haraam  effects  does  not  render  the  fast  invalid.  The deviate jaahil treats  this  serious  issue  with  extreme insignificance.  Lacking  in  fear  for  Allah  Ta’ala  he  is prepared to destroy  the  Ramadhaan  Fasts of  innumerable stupid  Muslims  who  are  addicted  to the  shaitaani  practice of  smoking  in  the  style  of  the  inmates  of  Hell.  He  appears to  have  no  Imaani  idea  of  accountability  and  the assumption  of  the  burdens  of  the  sins  of  others  whom  he is satanically  misguiding.

Indeed  it  is  only  a  brain    deranged  and  destroyed  by the affliction  of RIJS  divinely  inflicted  on  the  followers  of shaitaan  that  fails  to  understand  that  the  intentional inhalation  of  clouds  of  poisonous  smoke  filled  with poisonous  tar,  nicotine,  etc.,  which  gather  and  block  the lungs,  arteries and  the  other    organs  of  the  body  do  not invalidate  the  Fast.  The  inhalation  of  tobacco  smoke which  travels  from  the  mouth  and  nose  down  the  throat into  the  lungs  and  other  organs,  including  the  stomach, causes  all  these  organs  to  rot  with  cancer.  The  throat  rots, the  lungs  rot,  the  heart  rots  the  liver  rots,  the  pancreas rots,  the  kidneys  rot  and  the  rest  of  the  body putrefies.  The smoke enters the brain  and causes it to also rot.

All  substances,  be  it inedible , which  are  intentionally ingested  and  which  reach  the  throat  or  the  brain  or  the stomach, nullify  the Fast. Only zindeeq juhala deny  this Shar’i  reality.  The  Fuqaha  state  that  even  ignoramuses wonder at  the jahl of the one who holds the  view that the intentional  ingestion  of  smoke  via  the  mouth break the fast.

The Fatwa of the Fuqaha, viz., smoking invalidates the Fast,  has not been designed  for deterring people from  this haraam poison as the deviate seeks to convey. The objective of the Fatwa is to save the  Ramadhaan Fasts of  people – stupid people – who may be misled by  moron Haatibil Lail Zindeeq so-called ‘scholars’ who are bereft of  valid Ilm of the Deen.