Loud Zikr

Posted: August 15, 2011 in Contemporary, Sourced

The issue of Loud Zikr IN CONGREGATION in the masjid & its permissibility or lack thereof is one which the Ulama of Shariah have written much about.Muslimality has received many queries from individuals who are unsure as to the Shar’i ruling on this issue and so, in an effort to simplify the issue the following points must be noted:

1.  This is an issue upon which one finds VALID differences of opinion.

2. We act upon the view held by Hazrat Shaikh Moulana Zakariyya Saahib (Rahimahullah) & explained by his khalifa Moulana Abdul Hafeez Makki Daamat Barakaatuhum in his detailed work on this issue. This work has been translated into English. Readers may refer to Moulana’s research on this issue.

There are also many authentic Ulama who are of the view that loud zikr in congregation in the masjid is impermissible.This is a valid view as they have presented authentic proof for their statements. The Shariah demands that a VALID view be respected.

3. Silent zikr is superior to loud zikr.

4. Loud zikr in the masjid must not disturb any other persons sleep or ibaadah.

5. Those who engage in loud zikr in congregation in the masjid (whilst fulfilling all the required conditions) cannot deem their method of zikr to be the only correct one. The same applies to those who engage in silent zikr.

Should Allah Ta’ala bless us with the opportunity, we will publish an article explaining this issue in great detail.

Advertisements

We reproduce hereunder an article penned by Quraisha Sooliman.Prior to providing our comment,Muslimality would like to remind Quraisha that we are still waiting for a refutations/response/answer to our articles exposing the glaring errors & copious amounts of flaws,not to mention blatant plagiarism,misquoting of Ahaadith etc.

We find it quite strange that you conveniently ignore our detailed expose of your erroneous article & rush off to pen yet another similarly flawed & rather ludicrous “explanation”. We are still waiting for a response to “The Conclusion” which you had written.

The public may view these articles together with our responses,here :

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/the-true-conclusion-part-1/

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/the-true-conclusion-part-two/

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/the-true-conclusion-part-3/

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/the-true-conclusion-part-four/

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/the-true-conclusion-part-five/

The most recent attempt by Quraisha is listed hereunder :

Bismillahirahmaan Araheem

Dear brothers and Sisters in Islam,

  • The Eid Salaah for All Campaign is not [as has been portrayed by some] an effort to split the Muslim community or cause divisions. The divisions already exist, and NOT because women are claiming their Islamic rights whilst acknowledging the accompanying responsibilities that go with these rights. What has been made permissible for the women cannot be made impermissible by the men simply because we as Muslims don’t know how to be united or we cannot agree that other stronger opinions exist beyond ours.
  • Secondly, women attending the Eid Salaah is NOT a uniquely South African concept where ‘modernists, feminists, apologetics, western-inspired’ Muslim females are ‘leading Muslim women astray’. The reality is that women from all over the world have always been attending the Eid salaah and continue to do so to this day.
  • Additionally, it is NOT South African ‘modernists, feminists, apologetics, western-inspired’ women who have ‘encouraged or permitted’ ALL these Muslim women the world over to attend the Eid salaah, but in fact, it is an accepted ibadah the world over and it is thus accommodated and encouraged by the relevant Ulema, Scholars and Religious Bodies in all these countries.
  • Thirdly, South African scholars who have prohibited women from attending the Eid salaah [some have even passed fatwas saying it is haram because the woman must NOT LEAVE HER HOUSE AT ALL] ironically ‘allow’ women to attend Islamic fundraisers in a facility that does not have the sanctity nor sacredness of a mosque. Also, they encourage women to attend their talks and discussions and women are also encouraged and permitted to read the taraweeh salaah in certain mosques. Then suddenly, on the day of Eid, they make it haram for women to attend the Eid salaah! There is no hadith that commands women to attend the taraweeh salaah, but there are many ahaadith that COMMAND women to attend the Eid salaah [see below].
  • Fourthly, the same individuals who claim that women coming out to these places [a mosque or Eid Gah wherein every self-respecting Muslim male and female knows and regards as a place of prayer and worship and hence reveres with respect and humility] is a fitnah. They say that women should stay at home, yet the same individuals when they have weddings, have men and women gathered at a central location, with separate facilities. In these functions, women are encouraged to come out and attend [and note, it is not the NIKAAH, and often neither is it the WALIMA but the wedding reception] and it is KNOWN that the women come out to these functions dressed up fashionably and/or modestly. So how is it that at these occasions, women are not a source of fitnah, but only in the most sacred of places, the mosque, they are a source of fitnah? And how is it permissible for women to come out to talks, taalims, weddings and fundraisers and the taraweeh salaah but it is haram for them to attend the Eid prayer in the mosque or the Eid Gah?
  • Fifthly, the reality and the truth is that Muslim women have always been attending the Eid Salaat from the time that the Prophet Muhammad SAW commanded them [see below ahaadith] till now: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded us to bring them (women) out on (Eid) al-Fitr and (Eid) al-Adha, and to bring out adolescent girls, menstruating women and virgins, but the menstruating women were to stay away from the prayer, but were to witness goodness and the gathering of the Muslims. I said: “O Messenger of Allah, what if one of us does not have a jilbaab?” He said: “Let her sister lend her a jilbab.” [Al-Bukhaari (324) and Muslim (890)]      &

 From Umm Attiyyah she said: That certainly the messenger of Allah SAW would gather the women of Ansaar in a house and he would send Umar ibn al Khattab to us, so he would stand at the door and he would greet and we would reply to his greeting, and he said: ‘ I am the messenger of the messenger SAW to you all, and he, [Muhammad SAW] commanded us with the two Eids, that the menstruating women and the baaligha free women come out in them two (the two Eids)’ [from AlMughnie, page 264 from the hadith in Abu Dawud, in Baab Khuruj Nisaa fil Eid, from Kitaab ul-Salaat]

  •  Sixth, there is NO SINGLE PERIOD NOR MOMENT IN HISTORY FROM THE LIFETIME AND ULTIMATE DEMISE OF THE PROPHET SAW TILL NOW THAT CAN BE QUOTED AS A PERIOD IN WHICH WOMEN WERE PREVENTED FROM ATTENDING THE EID SALAAT IN EITHER MAKKAH, MADINAH, EGYPT OR ANY OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA COUNTRIES THAT WERE THE FIRST REGIONS OF THE WORLD WHEREIN ISLAM SPREAD [again for emphasis, this discussion is NOT about the 5 daily prayers, it is about the Eid salaah]
  • Finally, the aim of the Eid Salaah for All Campaign is NOT to force anyone to go for the Eid Salaah. We simply wish to make Muslim men and women aware of the benefit and virtue of attending the Eid Salaah in keeping with the command of the Prophet Muhammad SAW and in keeping with the PRACTISE of ALL FOUR OF THE KHALIPHS- Abu BAkr, Umar, Uthman and Ali [RA]. At the same time, we want Muslims to stop labelling women who attend the Eid Salaah  and the men who give them permission to do so by carefully providing for their needs, as ‘modernists, feminists, apologetics, western-inspired, orientalists and fitnah makers’. This is not in keeping with the etiquette of the Shariah which has certainly allowed for differences of opinions, and further it is inappropriate for such scholars to claimthat all of the names of the ulema, scholars and sahabah as listed below who have GIVEN WOMEN THE PERMISSIBILITY TO ATTEND THE EID SALAAT PROVIDED THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS OF HAYA, are wrong, that they do not have sufficient knowledge of the deen or that they are misled [This is the comment and argument that has circulated from the time that we began this campaign to detract from the reality that Eid Salaah is being performed by Muslim women the world over and that the majority of the most learned and respected ulema in the world, both alive and deceased have said that it is permissible. Some local individuals have focused on personality smear campaigns and distractions, looking at people and personalities, at identities and sects rather than looking at the TRUTH and at the REALITY- The REALITY is that women attend the Eid Salaah and they have Shariee’ backing and authentication for it and no-one who has knowledge of the hadith and the seerah and the way things were done during the time of the Prophet SAW and thereafter during the reign of the 4 Khaliphs can say any different, as these are the ultimate sources of the deen after the Quraan Kareem] [again for emphasis, this discussion is NOT about the 5 daily prayers, it is about the Eid salaah]

 

 To substantiate here are the opinions of revered scholars, sahabah and Khulafa(RA). Please note this is NOT OUR opinion or fatwa, it is the direct opinion of the scholar mentioned, hence the attribution: Also note, that all the listed below exhort women to keep the shariee’ requirements expected of them when they leave the house for any necessity or reason in terms of dress, modesty, humility etc:

Hazrat AbuBakr, Umar and Ali (RA): Eid salaat is waajib on men and women [do not be misled by the common mistruth that Umar RAprevented women from attending the salaah. This is a lie, he only tried to discourage his wife and to do this, he used distracting tactics because he could not outright forbid her as he knew he could not force her to do something which the Prophet SAW had made permissible for women: ‘Do not prevent your women from attending the mosque if they seek your permission to do so’ (Sahih Muslim). However, the discussion at hand is NOT about the 5 daily prayers but it is SPECIFICALLY about the Eid salaah].

Sheikh ibn Uthaymeen: Eid salaat is waajib on men and women

Sheikh ibn Taymiya: Eid salaat is waajib on men and women

Sheikh bin Baz: It is preferred for women to attend the Eid salaat

Sheikh ibn Jibreen: It is commanded for women to attend the Eid salaat

Sheikh Albani: It is commanded for women to attend the Eid salaat

Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Ibn ‘Umar RA used to take whoever he could of his household out to the Eid

Sheikh Muhammad Salih- al Munnajjid (well known Islamic jurist and owner of the well known website ‘Islam Q&A’&author of many Islamic books): Eid salaat is waajib on men and women

Sheikh Waris Mazhari(editor of the New Delhi based Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’Association of the Deoband Madrasa): Mulsim women must be encouraged to attend the Eid salaat

Dr Wahbi al Zuhaily (Senior Hanafi scholar: Damascus,Syria): It is permissible for women to attend the Eid salaat and theyCANNOT be prohibited

Sheikh Faraz Rabbani: There is nothing disliked about praying in the mosque for women

Imaam Anwar al Awlaki: Women should not be prevented from attending the mosque

Hanafi Scholar Naielah Ackbarali : Women are rewarded for their attendance of the Eid salaat

Mufti Ahmed Yar  Khan Naeemi (respected Hanafi scolar): Recommended that since women come out for all reasons these days then there is no reason anymore to stop the women from attending the mosque as this is a destination that earns the greatest good

Muslim women in Cape Town and parts of Gauteng also participate in the Eid Salaah. Alhumdullilah, Allah be praised for blessing us with these men who honour our dignity, who uplift our virtue and who nourish our spirituality. These facilities specifically cater for the women attending the prayer and afford them the respect and dignity they deserve as the Ummah of Muhammad SAW. Jazakallah Khair to all these brothers and mosque committee members. 

Sincerely

Quraysha Ismail Sooliman

Muslimality comment:

At the outset,we must state that you set consistently low academic standards for yourself,and then fail to achieve them. The domain of Islamic academic research is clearly one which all should enter with caution. Nonetheless, as your statements regarding the Shariah have been made in public, we will respond publicly.

Words in bold are the author’s:

Bismillahirahmaan Araheem

Dear brothers and Sisters in Islam,

  • The Eid Salaah for All Campaign is not [as has been portrayed by some] an effort to split the Muslim community or cause divisions. The divisions already exist, and NOT because women are claiming their Islamic rights whilst acknowledging the accompanying responsibilities that go with these rights. What has been made permissible for the women cannot be made impermissible by the men simply because we as Muslims don’t know how to be united or we cannot agree that other stronger opinions exist beyond ours.

We find it hard to believe that some “men” have made haraam what is actually halaal, because Muslims don’t know how to be united. What does the emotional song of unity have to do with an academic issue? The Shariah will be defended & preserved whether or not your notion of “unity” is preserved. This statement is totally devoid of even a shred of academic substance.

  • Secondly, women attending the Eid Salaah is NOT a uniquely South African concept where ‘modernists, feminists, apologetics, western-inspired’ Muslim females are ‘leading Muslim women astray’. The reality is that women from all over the world have always been attending the Eid salaah and continue to do so to this day.

We care very little if this “concept” as you call it originates in S.A or not. Are you asserting that if women all over the world have always been attending Eid salaah, then such an action becomes part of Shariah?How does the actions of women all over the world show you proof of permissibility?  Are we now to look at what women all over the world are doi9ng in order to learn Deen? We are truly sorry,but we take our Deeni knowledge from those who took it from Nabi Muhammad alayhis salaatu was salaam himself.This statement is totally devoid of even a shred of academic substance.

  • Additionally, it is NOT South African ‘modernists, feminists, apologetics, western-inspired’ women who have ‘encouraged or permitted’ ALL these Muslim women the world over to attend the Eid salaah, but in fact, it is an accepted ibadah the world over and it is thus accommodated and encouraged by the relevant Ulema, Scholars and Religious Bodies in all these countries.

We will be discussing these “Ulema, Scholars and Religious Bodies” further on.

  • Thirdly, South African scholars who have prohibited women from attending the Eid salaah [some have even passed fatwas saying it is haram because the woman must NOT LEAVE HER HOUSE AT ALL] ironically ‘allow’ women to attend Islamic fundraisers in a facility that does not have the sanctity nor sacredness of a mosque. Also, they encourage women to attend their talks and discussions and women are also encouraged and permitted to read the taraweeh salaah in certain mosques. Then suddenly, on the day of Eid, they make it haram for women to attend the Eid salaah! There is no hadith that commands women to attend the taraweeh salaah, but there are many ahaadith that COMMAND women to attend the Eid salaah [see below].

We have explained in our response to “The Conclusion” that South African scholars or any other scholars for that matter are not legislators of Shariah.We have clearly mentioned the Shar’i injunctions which apply to women leaving their homes in all cases,fundraisers  & taraweeh included. We maintain the Shar’i views of impressibility of leaving the home in all these instances. Perhaps you should ask the Ulama who permit such things for valid Shar’i proof?

We will be discussing the ” many ahaadith that COMMAND women to attend the Eid salaah” further on.

  • Fourthly, the same individuals who claim that women coming out to these places [a mosque or Eid Gah wherein every self-respecting Muslim male and female knows and regards as a place of prayer and worship and hence reveres with respect and humility] is a fitnah. They say that women should stay at home, yet the same individuals when they have weddings, have men and women gathered at a central location, with separate facilities. In these functions, women are encouraged to come out and attend [and note, it is not the NIKAAH, and often neither is it the WALIMA but the wedding reception] and it is KNOWN that the women come out to these functions dressed up fashionably and/or modestly. So how is it that at these occasions, women are not a source of fitnah, but only in the most sacred of places, the mosque, they are a source of fitnah? And how is it permissible for women to come out to talks, taalims, weddings and fundraisers and the taraweeh salaah but it is haram for them to attend the Eid prayer in the mosque or the Eid Gah?

Our comment above is sufficient response to this paragraph. We do however,beg to differ on the point that “every self-respecting Muslim male and female knows and regards as a place of prayer and worship and hence reveres with respect and humility”. The conduct of Muslims in the Haramain is sufficient proof of the fact that not every Muslim respects the sanctity of the Masjid.However we digress, this point,in fact this entire paragraph  has nothing academic about it. Kindly ask the Ulama who invite women to fundraisers etc. for their valid academic Shar;i proof.

Fifthly, the reality and the truth is that Muslim women have always been attending the Eid Salaat from the time that the Prophet Muhammad SAW commanded them [see below ahaadith] till now: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded us to bring them (women) out on (Eid) al-Fitr and (Eid) al-Adha, and to bring out adolescent girls, menstruating women and virgins, but the menstruating women were to stay away from the prayer, but were to witness goodness and the gathering of the Muslims. I said: “O Messenger of Allah, what if one of us does not have a jilbaab?” He said: “Let her sister lend her a jilbab.” [Al-Bukhaari (324) and Muslim (890)]  

We will mention the same response we had supplied (to which you have still note responded) last Eid. We quoted the author of I‘laa us Sunan whom you blatantly misquoted the last time.

“Verily, Tirmizi has narrated it from Thauri, Ibn Mubaarak, and it is (also) a statement of Imaam Maalik and Abu Yusuf. Ibn Qudaamah has narrated it from Nakh’i and Yahya Bin Saeed Ansaari. I (Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi) say, ‘And it is this view which the Mutak-khiroon Mashaaikh of the Hanafiyyah have adopted because of the corruption of the times.’

At-Tahaawi said: ‘Verily, the emergence of women (from their homes) to go to the Eidgah was during the early epoch of Islam for the purpose of (displaying) the abundance of the (Muslim) population. Then afterwards it was abrogated…I (Allaamah Zafar Ahmad) say: ‘What Tahaawi has said is substantiated by the narration of Umm Humaid, the wife of Abi Humaid Sa’di and the Marfoo’(narration) of Umm Salmah: ‘The Salaat of a woman in her bait is better than her Salaat in her hujrah. Her salaat in her hujrah is better than her salaat in her house, and her salaat in her house is better than her salaat in the Masjid of her people.’ His (Imaam Tahaawi)’s view is also substantiated by what has been narrated from Aishah: ‘If Rasulullah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) had seen what the women had introduced after him, then most certainly he would have prevented them from the Masjid just as the women from the Bani Israeel were prevented.’ Narrated by Muslim.

The combination of the Ahaadith indicates that initially women were ordered to attend Jamaat (salaat) and Salaatul Eid. Then Nabi (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) exhorted them to perform Salaat at home. However, he did not categorically prohibit them from being present at Jamaat Salaah…Then after Nabi (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) the Sahaabah prohibited them because of the fasaad (corruption) of the age as is indicated by the statement of Aishah (radhiAllahu anha). Undoubtedly, she (Hadhrat Aishah) is greater than Umm Atiyyah. Ibn Mas’ood used to expel women from the Masjid on Fridays. He would say (to the women): ‘Get out, and go to your homes which are best for you.’ He would take an oath with much emphasis that there is no better place of Salaat for a woman than her room.

Thus those in general have adopted the view of it being Makrooh for women to emerge(and to go the Musjid) to not reject the Saheeh Ahaadith with corrupt opinion (as SHaukaani has erroneously asserted). On the contrary they have restricted the Ahaadith to the noblest age of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam, and with the statements of the illustrious Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum. It is not hidden that the prohibition applies to only women. Thus, the Wujoob remains for men as usual. It is thus established that the Salaat of the two Eids and going to (perform) it is Waajib on men, and this is the objective.

In Al Kanzul Mutawari, the following explanation appears:

“It has been authentically narrated that Aisha radhiAllahu anha said:“If Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam saw what the women have now started doing, he would have prevented them from the Masjid like how the women of Bani Israeel were prevented.”

If the situation had changed so much in the time of Aishah radhiAllahu anha then what would be the case in today’s age where corruption has engulfed the elderly and the young?”  (Juz 6 Pg 188)

“Qadhi Iyaad mentions that this was in the beginning of Islam and this was specific to Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam (lecturing of women). Allaamah Kirmaani has mentioned, ‘Ibn Battaal has mentioned, ‘His (i.e. Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) going to the women and lecturing to them is specific to him (Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) according to the Ulama because he is in the position of a father to the women and the Ulama have reached consensus on this fact that the lecturer will not deliver a separate lecture for the women nor will he cut off his lecture and complete it by the women.’ ’’ (Juz 6 Pg 192)

PLEASE INFORM  US HOW MANY WOMEN WEAR THE JILBAAB MENTIONED IN THE HADITH.DO ALSO TAKE SOME TIME TO EXPLAIN THE AHAADITH CLEARLY INSTEAD COPYING & PASTING AS PER YOUR USUAL METHODOLOGY

“Explanation of “Jilbaab”: It is a cloth which covers the entire body or it is a wide length of cloth which covers the chest and back of a woman (front and back) to such an extent that she appears totally concealed and wrapped up.” (Juz 6 Pg 194-195)

Sixth, there is NO SINGLE PERIOD NOR MOMENT IN HISTORY FROM THE LIFETIME AND ULTIMATE DEMISE OF THE PROPHET SAW TILL NOW THAT CAN BE QUOTED AS A PERIOD IN WHICH WOMEN WERE PREVENTED FROM ATTENDING THE EID SALAAT IN EITHER MAKKAH, MADINAH, EGYPT OR ANY OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA COUNTRIES THAT WERE THE FIRST REGIONS OF THE WORLD WHEREIN ISLAM SPREAD [again for emphasis, this discussion is NOT about the 5 daily prayers, it is about the Eid salaah]

We will explain these periods of prohibition once you respond to our explanation of the Hadith quoted above. We see no point in providing detailed academic answers to someone who cannot understand the language in which theses proofs are found i.e. Arabic.

  • Finally, the aim of the Eid Salaah for All Campaign is NOT to force anyone to go for the Eid Salaah. We simply wish to make Muslim men and women aware of the benefit and virtue of attending the Eid Salaah in keeping with the command of the Prophet Muhammad SAW and in keeping with the PRACTISE of ALL FOUR OF THE KHALIPHS- Abu BAkr, Umar, Uthman and Ali [RA]. At the same time, we want Muslims to stop labelling women who attend the Eid Salaah  and the men who give them permission to do so by carefully providing for their needs, as ‘modernists, feminists, apologetics, western-inspired, orientalists and fitnah makers’. This is not in keeping with the etiquette of the Shariah which has certainly allowed for differences of opinions, and further it is inappropriate for such scholars to claimthat all of the names of the ulema, scholars and sahabah as listed below who have GIVEN WOMEN THE PERMISSIBILITY TO ATTEND THE EID SALAAT PROVIDED THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS OF HAYA, are wrong, that they do not have sufficient knowledge of the deen or that they are misled [This is the comment and argument that has circulated from the time that we began this campaign to detract from the reality that Eid Salaah is being performed by Muslim women the world over and that the majority of the most learned and respected ulema in the world, both alive and deceased have said that it is permissible. Some local individuals have focused on personality smear campaigns and distractions, looking at people and personalities, at identities and sects rather than looking at the TRUTH and at the REALITY- The REALITY is that women attend the Eid Salaah and they have Shariee’ backing and authentication for it and no-one who has knowledge of the hadith and the seerah and the way things were done during the time of the Prophet SAW and thereafter during the reign of the 4 Khaliphs can say any different, as these are the ultimate sources of the deen after the Quraan Kareem] [again for emphasis, this discussion is NOT about the 5 daily prayers, it is about the Eid salaah]

 To substantiate here are the opinions of revered scholars, sahabah and Khulafa(RA). Please note this is NOT OUR opinion or fatwa, it is the direct opinion of the scholar mentioned, hence the attribution: Also note, that all the listed below exhort women to keep the shariee’ requirements expected of them when they leave the house for any necessity or reason in terms of dress, modesty, humility etc:

Hazrat AbuBakr, Umar and Ali (RA): Eid salaat is waajib on men and women [do not be misled by the common mistruth that Umar RAprevented women from attending the salaah. This is a lie, he only tried to discourage his wife and to do this, he used distracting tactics because he could not outright forbid her as he knew he could not force her to do something which the Prophet SAW had made permissible for women: ‘Do not prevent your women from attending the mosque if they seek your permission to do so’ (Sahih Muslim). However, the discussion at hand is NOT about the 5 daily prayers but it is SPECIFICALLY about the Eid salaah].

We do not wish to misled by any false statements , as such please do tell us which authoritative academic work which you yourself have read has proof that the Khulafaa mentioned such statements or passed such rulings. We cannot be expected to believe you merely because you quote famous personalities. On the topic of lies, we must mention that you have made no retraction of your false statements in “The Conclusion”.

Until you have proof of these statements we will not even bother commenting.

Sheikh ibn Uthaymeen: Eid salaat is waajib on men and women

Which mazhab does the Sheikh follow? Where is the proof of his statement & where is his proof for such a ruling?

Sheikh ibn Taymiya: Eid salaat is waajib on men and women

Where is this statement mentioned? Sheikh ibn Taymiyya mentioned many other rulings which are unique to him.Do you agree with these? Which mazhab did he follow? Was he a Mujtahid?

Sheikh bin Baz: It is preferred for women to attend the Eid salaat

Please supply us with the original statement of the sheikh(in Arabic) together with his proof.

Sheikh ibn Jibreen: It is commanded for women to attend the Eid salaat

Please supply us with the original statement of the sheikh(in Arabic) together with his proof.

Sheikh Albani: It is commanded for women to attend the Eid salaat

Please supply us with the original statement of the sheikh(in Arabic) together with his proof.Please respond to the following as well – https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/al-albani-unveiled/

Which mazhab did he follow? Was he a Mujtahid?

Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated that Ibn ‘Umar RA used to take whoever he could of his household out to the Eid

Please supply us with the original statement of the sheikh(in Arabic) together with his proof.

Sheikh Muhammad Salih- al Munnajjid (well known Islamic jurist and owner of the well known website ‘Islam Q&A’&author of many Islamic books): Eid salaat is waajib on men and women

Please supply us with the original statement of the sheikh(in Arabic) together with his proof.

How does owning a website & being famous make him or anybody else a proof of Shariah?

Sheikh Waris Mazhari(editor of the New Delhi based Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’Association of the Deoband Madrasa): Mulsim women must be encouraged to attend the Eid salaat

Please supply us with the original statement of the sheikh together with his proof. Does being editor of a newspaper automatically qualify him to comment on Shariah? Since when did being associated to Deoband become any sort of proof in Islam?

Dr Wahbi al Zuhaily (Senior Hanafi scholar: Damascus,Syria): It is permissible for women to attend the Eid salaat and theyCANNOT be prohibited

Wahbi? Are you serious?

Sheikh Wahbah Zuhaily states in his voluminous al fiqhul islami that he is a Shafi’ee. Has he changed mazaahib? Where is the proof of this? Where is his proof for such a statement?

Sheikh Faraz Rabbani: There is nothing disliked about praying in the mosque for women

Where is the sheikh’s original statement recorded? Where is his proof?

Imaam Anwar al Awlaki: Women should not be prevented from attending the mosque

Where is the sheikh’s original statement recorded? Where is his proof?

Hanafi Scholar Naielah Ackbarali : Women are rewarded for their attendance of the Eid salaat

Where is the sheikha’s original statement recorded? Where is her proof?

Mufti Ahmed Yar  Khan Naeemi (respected Hanafi scolar): Recommended that since women come out for all reasons these days then there is no reason anymore to stop the women from attending the mosque as this is a destination that earns the greatest good

Mufti Naeemi is respected by Barelwi individuals only. In any event,where is his proof for saying such a thing? Nonetheless we are highly doubtful of him being a hanafi for many reasons :

This “respected scholar ” advocates meelad,urs, 40 day ceremonies etc. We have much proof these from his own writings. In fact we will be more than willing to supply you with his works once you respond to our questions & requests for basic proof.

Where are his works on hanafi fiqh? Do his convoluted beliefs have proof from the hanafi mazhab?

Muslim women in Cape Town and parts of Gauteng also participate in the Eid Salaah. Alhumdullilah, Allah be praised for blessing us with these men who honour our dignity, who uplift our virtue and who nourish our spirituality. These facilities specifically cater for the women attending the prayer and afford them the respect and dignity they deserve as the Ummah of Muhammad SAW. Jazakallah Khair to all these brothers and mosque committee members. 

Sincerely

Quraysha Ismail Sooliman

We appeal to you & all Muslims to uplift your “virtue” & “spirituality” by learning about Islam before speaking about Islamic matters.Do you understand the source-language of the Shariah i.e. Arabic?We know nothing about travel agencies for examples,hence we do not comment on matters of ticketing,flight reservations etc. Likewise, those who cannot understand the intricacies of Deen need not comment on Deen.

The brothers & committee members are advised to first study Islam. Islam is not based on emotions & random statements attribute to famous people. We await the “many” ahaadith proving the stance advocated by the writer as well as the proofs for the statement of both the scholars & non-scholars quoted.

Muslimality


Over the past week, Muslimality has been met with harsh criticism over the recent Riaad Moosa parody fiasco. Muslimality has always maintained that critics are welcome to submit criticism & objections of pieces featured on the Muslimality blog as long as such submissions are substantiated with and accompanied by valid, authentic and academic evidence.

Our response to the Riaad Moosa fiasco was no different. The responses were and still are open to any valid criticism. Sadly, the vast majority of those who see no problem with the parody video have been unable to submit a single shred of evidence for their support of the parody. With everyone, from Supersport presenters to Saudi Embassy employees jumping on the band wagon to offer their take on the issue, Muslimality has yet to see a single response supporting the parody whilst being substantiated with simple, basic evidence from the Shari’ah. As Muslims, the actions we carry out and the choices we make are all evidenced by the Shari’ah. Our point is simple: Anyone can support the parody. This is their choice and so long as they can find a Shari’ah reason to validate their support, they are free to make open statements regarding their support and/or feelings.Likewise, any person who does not wish to support the video or wishes to speak out against it is welcome to do so as long as he/she has Shar’i proof.

One of the most common arguments which pro-parody judges have seen fit to whine about, constantly harping on about and quoting ahadeeth totally out of context and void of any authentic commentary was, “WHY DID YOU NOT ADVISE RIAAD MOOSA IN PRIVATE?YOU ARE GOING AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM”, “YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF HADEETH”, “YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT SUNNAH MEANS” blah blah blah. We have allocated ample time for the retraction of such ludicrous statements and now wish to set part (a very big part) of the record straight.

Upon contacting Riaad Moosa via Twitter and ASKING HIM to contact us VIA EMAIL so that we could have advised him in private despite him slurring the Sunnah in public. Riaad Moosa then asked us to place our response on HIS Facebook page. We declined and offered to publish it on our blog rather; to which he asked, “What’s the blog addy?” An excerpt of the Twitter conversation is reproduced in the picture appended to this article.

We now request the various judges, whiners and commentators who saw fit to ‘judge’ Muslimality’s response without proper research of the matter at hand to please review the conversation we have referred to and explain to us WHY our response was made in public. Strange, isn’t it? Nonetheless, even though we hate to say, “We told you so,” we care very little for amassing brownie points and proving ourselves right with such small matters such as these. The bigger issue and greater matter is that of the degradation of Shari’ah and Sunnah on a PUBLIC scale.

Once again, if there is any Shar’i evidence proving our response to be incorrect, kindly forward us such evidence and we will gladly effect amendments. Until then, save your comments and baseless theories for some other blog.

Sincerely,

The Muslimality Team

فليقولوا ما يقولوا انت من ارجو رضاه

The good doctor, Mr Riaad Moosa has posted a response for the team here at Muslimality over on his website and Facebook page. The first thing to catch my eye when reading his piece was this line or admission asit were:

“I am not qualified to respond with Shariah proof,…”

I have quoted this to illustrate a very important aspect of Islam which many Muslims have taken for granted. You see, when you get to that point, a response of any sort should immediately cease. You are admitting that you have NO knowledge of your subject matter and yet, unbelievably you still would like people to read your ‘opinion’ (albeit a very ill-informed one by your own admission). I do not care for the intricacies of medical science. I have no qualifications in that field. Naturally, I respect whatever a professor’s opinion is on the impact of new cancer medication on a patient suffering from cancer purely because he is QUALIFIED to speak or comment on such matters.

So whether you’re a doctor or a lawyer or a chartered accountant, your opinion and your feelings matter very little in the field of Islamic academics. You could sing from the rooftops proclaiming the benefits of drinking wine or eating pork and a thousand other Muslims could support you and practise it themselves but numbers and opinions without valid, authentic Shar’i proof mean absolutely nothing really.

The necessity to mention this situation is indicative of the fact of the growing number of Muslims who resort to ‘winging – it’ when it comes to Islamic matters because they happen to read or hear somewhere that ‘Islam is easy’. It is quite unfortunate that we now have hoards of Muslims screaming ‘over-sensitivity’ when the reaction to a mockery of the Sunnah is harsh.

This is also indicative of the growing trend to take our religion from some of the most ridiculous sources. For example, Moosa mentions in his response the example of Maher Zain, Yusuf Islam etc.to illustrate that music may be permissible. For the newer generation, this may as well suffice as ‘proof’. But has it honestly come to this? We begin taking religion from laymen? Have we stopped looking at the four sources of Shari’ah? So we disregard the four sources of Shari’ah simply because there are people alive today whose actions somehow count as a proof in Shari’ah that music is permissible?

These people are not out Prophets, they are not illustrious Fuqahaa, they are not Sahaabah, they are not acting with Divine guidance. Their actions, words, opinions or comments are not and cannot be used as a proof in the Shari’ah. More of that later…

As you know, every action is judged by its intention.

It has become common to quote ahaadeeth when it suits us. Therefore, we have decided to devote as much of this article as possible to relay all the necessary ahaadeeth affecting this situation. It is unfortunate that many have read only that part of the hadeeth which you cite and now use it as a scapegoat for their actions. Do allow yourself to read the commentary to that hadeeth prior to citing it as an example for your actions.

You say that it is important to publically denounce anything thought to denounce Shariah. I accept that.

Great. Now that you accept that that is important, we can move on in this rebuttal. However, we would just like to make a few things clear. The Sunnah makes up the Shari’ah. It is one of the four sources of Shari’ah. A beard as described in the ahadeeth is a Sunnah, therefore that beard as described in the Sunnah is a part of the Shari’ah. Therefore keeping a beard as described in the Sunnah is both part of the Shari’ah and part of the Sunnah. You may consult any Aalim or Mufti to explain to you the many ahaadeeth available on the beard, the description of the beard etc. Time permitting, I will make all those ahadeeth available to you. You may find the views of Fuqaaha and the four Imaams in any authentic works of Fiqh. The most authentic and fully explanatory being those written in Arabic.

Again, we will reiterate (it seems from your response you have not adequately understood our explanation),we do not care whom you decide to parody. What was disturbing about your parody was the fact that you had chosen to relay an idea, movement or thought to the public, whether Muslim or non-Muslim i.e. that the beard should have or could have been removed in the name of freedom.

After so much persecution faced by our Muslim brothers in countries where they are not allowed to wear beards, your comment (through song, jest, mockery, parody etc. is STILL a comment nonetheless) that the shaving off of the beard will lead to freedom is done in poor taste. Would you consider acting out a parody for our sisters in France to remove the Niqaab in the name of freedom? Whether or not you used Osama bin Laden makes no difference to us. We really couldn’t care less but it was the words that you used and the message put across to the public which was highly offensive to followers of the Sunnah.

There are Muslims in this world who would die for the right to be able to practise Islam fully; Muslims who stick so dearly to the Sunnah that they defy governments and laws to be able to do this and in that they have found freedom but you claim freedom in the absence of the beard? What kind of message are you sending to the masses? Like I said, defending Osama bin Laden is not the aim, defending the Sunnah is. We are not concerned with his actions, his decisions, his innocence or lack thereof. We are concerned with the way in which you took an aspect of Osama bin Laden (i.e. his wearing of the beard) and relayed the absence of such an aspect amounting to freedom. Do you understand the difference? It is a very BIG difference.

Obviously you would have had to research your subject matter prior to writing those three lines, which you may have done but not sufficiently.

Muslims are overtly defensive and tend to have disproportionate reactions to relatively minor problems

These minor problems you speak of may be ‘minor’ to you but you have chosen to forget the thousands of Muslims who do not see the mocking, the degradation and flippancy of the beard as ‘minor’. This flippant attitude towards the Sunnah has become commonplace amongst many Muslims and such parodies only serve to fuel that sort of ideology. If you were to devote some time to learning about the Sunnah, you would probably see for yourself the importance of the Sunnah in the life of a Muslim.

There is a clear hadeeth which states:  When the two messengers of Kisra (Khusru – the Persian King) came to Rasulullah Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, they had long moustaches and shaved beards. Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam turned his face away in disgust and asked them, ‘Who commanded you to do this (despicable deed)?’ They replied, ‘Our Lord, (i.e. King)’ At this, Rasulullah Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam mentioned, ‘But my Lord has commanded me to lengthen my beard and shorten my moustache.’ (Tabaqaat ibn Sa’ad vol.1 pg.147; Taareekh Tabari vol.2 pg.267-266; Bidaaya wan Nihaaya)

So a person who encourages somebody (even though he may have passed away), in your opinion and after reading the above hadeeth, what is the status of such a person according to the hadeeth? Is he/she a person who commands others what his/her Lord has commanded otherwise? Remember that Rasulullah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam chose to turn his face away in disgust of NON-BELIEVERS, so what of Muslims then?

Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said, “Adhere compulsorily to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my rightly -guided Khulafa.” There are numerous examples which may be cited to illustrate the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Khulafa. If the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Khulafa was to wear a beard (and it was), how can you sing in your parody ‘advising’ Osama to shave it!?! Where is the disconnection from the Sunnah? Where is the connection to Al Qaeda? The beard is a part of the Sunnah of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam and if you agree that Osama bin Laden was, in fact, a Muslim then how can you advise a Muslim to shun the Sunnah in exchange for ‘freedom’?

Every aspect and sphere of the Sunnah is conservative and it is this holy conservatism which influences Muslims who are keen to lead a life under the Umbrella of the Sunnah. Our Qur’aan is traditional, our Sunnah is traditional, the Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum whom we revere are conservative. In fact, their conservatism was such that once Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh), reprimanding his disciples, said:

“If you had to see the Sahaabah, you will brand them as madmen and if they had to see you, they would have branded you as kaafir.”

We take great offense to the mockery and flippancy of the Sunnah. That is the way of the Muslim. In the hadeeth it states, “Whoever amongst you sees anything objectionable, let him change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not even able to do so, then with his heart, and the latter is the weakest form of faith.”

Firstly, I need to categorically state that anyone taking my silly rhymes seriously must have absolutely no sense of humour. Just remember these are jokes

Islam has never stated that laughter is haraam. Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam preferred smiling to laughter but would jest with children nonetheless. The problem arises when a joke, jest or unusual idea/image is a direct mockery of the Sunnah. The Sunnah is what Muslims do and should hold dear to them. If a non-Muslim mocks the Sunnah, it is understandable. He does not know any better, he does not possess Imaan in his heart. What of the Muslim? The one who should hold on tightly to the Sunnah? Should we be mocking the Sunnah? Should we be treating the Sunnah with such flippancy? It’s all in the name of harmless fun right? A joke is a mockery is a degradation and in this case is a degradation of the Sunnah.

It is downright offensive when (as a joke) you imitate a man clothed in Sunnah attire with a Sunnah beard dancing to music. The Prophet sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam warned against dancing and singing. Your parody is acted out by you. Wearing of Sunnah attire and engaging in dancing and singing for the sole purposes of entertainment is directly in contradiction to the Sunnah. Whoever does it, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is and will be in error. Partaking of music and dancing has been made forbidden by Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam. We explain this point in great detail later in the article with adequate proof.

You may not have intentionally meant to offend in such a way but your execution did offend, degrade and mock the followers of the Sunnah. It degraded the Sunnah to an object of barter for freedom with freedom being the more desirable of the two.

Those lines ‘why didn’t you shave, you could have been free’ are not messages to Muslim people that they should shave. It is not my amendment proposition to the Shariah. It is purely a humorous observation that Osama didn’t seem to try to disguise himself while in hiding. In my mind I’m picturing CIA agent walking past a beardless Osama because he doesn’t recognise him without the beard – hence Osama would get away. It’s just a silly funny picture. Also if Osama did shave is beard at any point to avoid capture, this in my view is not an indictment on him. He may have done so, who knows. He was on the run from the U.S. Remember, we have a very practical religion. Muslims are even allowed to eat the Haraam flesh of swine if one is starving. Are you telling me that it is Haraam to for Osama to disguise himself without a beard to avoid capture? I am not making a comment about the beard as part of the Sunnah. It’s purely a joke about an Osama disguise – and it’s funny because it is an image of Osama that is unusual. Like it’s a funny image to see Helen Zille toing toing. Like me telling you the Dalai Lama has a twitter account (true. I follow him.). It’s a funny image. I doubt many Muslim people with beards, after watching my sketch, are going, ”Let’s get the shaving gel.” Don’t make my joke more than it is.

Perhaps a good re-reading of those lines should be in order.The ‘Why didn’t’ alludes to the fact that it did not happen. Again, an illustration of how you have missed the point completely. The offence is not based on the fact that the parody is centered around Osama bn Laden. We really couldn’t care less whom you decided to base it on. The fact still remains that you used the words, ‘Why didn’t you shave? You could have been free’. In saying, ‘we have a practical religion’ does not excuse the fact that this religion and its strong elements are being mocked, stripped of its dignity and reduced to flippancy for a good laugh!?!

Please go back to the hadeeth regarding the Persian missives and the disgust Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam showed at the absence of a beard. Islam stresses the keeping of a beard and its practicality arises when we are told exactly how long the beard should and whether or not we may trim the beard. That is the practicality of Islam i.e. its practicality being for the one who chooses to learn, understand and incorporate its practicality to the letter and not just ‘wing-it’ as many of us are prone to do in this day and age.

We hardly have knowledge of the sources of Shari’ah, cannot speak the language of Allah Ta’ala, cannot speak the language of our Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam (whom we claim to be our beloved) and yet we sing the ease and practicality of Islam, a religion most of us have been born into but yet only still know the basics of!?!?

If you or anybody else would like to poke fun at Islam, do so after you have studied your subject matter properly. In this way you are guaranteed not to step on anyone’s toes or offend any…what were those words again…hmmm ahh yes ‘overtly defensive’ Muslims.

As far as having beard in the video goes, I just thought that if I am going to parody an Al Qaeda Internet video, I’m going to dress myself in a manner resembling them.

It was just your unfortunate luck that you chose to parody an organisation whose manner of dress resembled the Sunnah. Again, let me remind you of the fact that we do NOT care which organisation you choose to parody. You may illustrate them in any manner you wish but you CHOSE to bring the Sunnah into it when you copied the Sunnah dress i.e.  the Beard and the Kurta (thowb) for Osama and a burka clad person to illustrate a female voice. Again let me reiterate the implication of your decision to include the illusion of a woman in a burka: How is a woman in a burka related to the parody of Al Qaeda? Sure you may have used it to aesthetically tie in to the song you chose but that has no bearing on Al Qaeda. Therefore your parody is not centered around Al Qaeda only.

Now to the crux…If your parody included a ‘woman’ or the illusion of one by using Simmi then why choose a burka? Prior to this aayah being revealed in the Qur’aan:

Surah Ahzab Verse 59

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا

The verse clearly states the command for women to cover themselves over and above what they were already using to cover themselves. So how exactly were the women dressing prior to the revelation of this verse? This should have been included in your research prior to making this video and including a man to wear the burka, dancing and singing along in your parody. If your research did not point to the fact that the burka was a salient feature of the dress of the sahaabiyaat prior to the revelation of the aayaah regarding the Jilbaab, your research sorely fell short. You also chose a black burka to further illustrate your parody. Unbeknownst to you, the Sahaabiyaat chose the colour black as in the darkness of the night, they would remain unseen, ‘Ibn Abi Haatim mentions, ‘On the authority of Umm Salmah radhiAllahu anhu, she said, ‘When this verse was revealed (yudneena alayhinna), the women of the Ansaar came out…and upon them were black clothes which they were wearing.”‘

Do bear in mind also that it was by your decision (as you have accepted full responsibility of the video) to allow a man to dress as a woman and let me remind you that according to the hadeeth, a man who imitates a woman is cursed, albeit in jest or otherwise. It is unfortunate that we allow such basic Islamic rules and laws to slide and even more imperative that people point out such things to us prior to commencing such acts in direct contradiction to the Shari’ah. The act becomes more heinous in nature because the ‘shemale’ in question chose to depict a ‘Muslim woman’ dancing and singing in your parody and this is highly reprehensible in terms of the Sunnah and an insult to every Muslim woman who has chosen to wear the burka.

Your reference to Zulu dress makes no sense unless you can prove that the Zulu people are commanded in their religion to dress a certain way. Same goes for the Amish, Jewish, Sikh etc. people. In Islam, men are commanded to lengthen their beards and trim the moustaches (refer back to the ahadeeth). In any event, this excuse does not abscond a person from encouraging or making statements which are contrary to what Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam states that Allah Ta’ala Himself has commanded.

We reiterate that these views are not of our own opinion. We only relay the opinion of the Shari’ah, Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam and in this case, the opinion of Allah Ta’ala Himself. If anybody has any view that is contradictory to this view, you are advised to take it up with your Creator as He commanded it.

Also I need to draw your attention to the fact that Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal may have been wearing something very similar to what I was wearing in the sketch as well. The Quraysh used to bury their daughters alive. They weren’t doing this wearing jeans and t-shirts.

The ‘may’ in your statement illustrates the fact that you’re unsure regarding this. As Muslims, Muslim scholars, students of Deen etc. we do not take our religion from the likes of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab. We derive our religion from the four sources of Shari’ah as you already may know. It is unfortunate that once again your research may have cut you short…Allow me to elucidate with a few ahadeeth:

Hazrat Umme Salma (RadiAllahu Anha) narrates that Nabi (SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) preferred the Kurta over all other types of clothing.

Hazrat Abu Hurairah (RadiAllahu Anhu) reports that Nabi (SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) would begin with the right side when wearing his Kurta.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RadiAllahu Anhu) reports that lengthwise, the Kurta of Nabi (SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) would be above his ankles while the sleeves would reach upto his fingers.

Hazrat Anas (RadiAllahu Anhu) says that the sleeves of the Kurta of Nabi (SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) would be upto the wrists.

Shu’ba reports that he met Muhaarib Ibn Dinaar. He was riding a horse on his way to the court for a case. I asked him about this (the above) Hadith? He replied that he had heard Ibn Umar (RadiAllahu Anhu) saying that Nabi (SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “He who wears excessively long clothes (which flow below the ankles) due to pride, Allah Ta’ala will not look towards him (with mercy) on the day of Judgement.”

These ahadeeth are for your own reference and serve to illustrate the fact that the Kurta or thowb as worn by Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam is NOT a cultural dress as is believed by many Muslims today. It is SUNNAH.

There are numerous examples of the Kurta as worn by the sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum and the Tabieen. The descriptions go into much more detail but the idea is the same. The Kurta worn by Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam is SUNNAH. Therefore a parody used in jest or mockery is done in bad taste when the parody uses a man clad in the Sunnah clothing which is proven beyond a doubt to be SUNNAH.

Your mention of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab is meaningless since: 1. You are not entirely sure what they did, in fact, actually wear. 2. You have no idea whether their dress was in accordance to the Sunnah (in which case it would still be reprehensible to mock their dress!) or not 3. It was common practise among the Arabs to wear the sleeves over the hands and wear their robes long so that they drag on the floor, hence the prohibition of allowing the trousers or clothing to be worn long 4. It is mentioned in the ahadeeth above that Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam preferred the kurta over all other types of dress. Is it possible that there may have been other types of dress available during that era? Perhaps not a jeans and a t-shirt but you would have to delve deeply into the commentary of this hadeeth and many similar ones to discern the probability and description of other types of clothing worn by the Arab men during the time of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam.

Again, if you had simply researched the subject matter correctly, you would have come across these glaring facts.

Please feel free to supply us with your email address and we will send you copies of articles from time to time on Fiqh, Aqaa’id, Tafseer and many other Islamic sciences which Insha Allah will be of great benefit to you.

Having stated the above, I would like to once again say that I was ONLY sending up AL Qaeda. It was in no way my intention to comment, albeit indirectly, on Islam or the Nabi (SAW).

You may not have intended to do so but the illustration of facts preceding this correctly state that you HAVE commented and in  very negative way on the Sunnah of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam by alluding to his Sunnah in your parody.

The Nikaab was used because in the original Puff Daddy “I’ll be missing you video,” Faith Evans (the Notorious BIG’s wife) sings that part. I couldn’t have used a western female outfit to parody this section. That would have also been criticised as well, and it would have been inaccurate. We decided not to use Parda as I thought people would find that too objectifying. We therefore settled on Burka and I got brother Simmi Areff to play that part because he had the best singing voice.

The use of even a man to portray a woman in a burka was unnecessary and had no bearing to the Al Qaeda themed parody. You were not forced to use or portray a man/woman with a burka and yet you still chose to include it. This already points to the fact that the parody was not only centered around Al Qaeda but had a very strong Muslim undertone to it which is quite understandable since Al Qaeda are Muslims, are they not? Or do they just choose to dress like that for the heck of it? Or is it because those are strong elements of Islamic identity which you have chosen to include in a parody using un-Islamic elements (singing – we’ll get to that, dancing,flippancy to the beard etc.)

If you say ALL forms of music is Haraam, I believe that is a debatable topic. There are numerous Muslim Musicians – Zain Bhika, Sami Yusuf, Yusuf Islam, etc.etc. I am no scholar though, so I’ll accept the fact that you believe playing any form of music is a mockery. I respect your view; although, I do not share your view. Once again, I must say, I’m just being honest about what I truly believe.

Firstly, a view is a view is a view unless you have facts to substantiate or prove your view.  Until then, it remains but a very ill-informed opinion which is a very big problem when you don’t actually have the proof to substantiate what you believe. There is no monopoly on knowledge. We are all free to learn and knowledge regarding Islam is not reserved for any person or group of people. The use of the ‘I’m no scholar’ excuse has ben used too often to excuse the facts that we are not making an adequate effort to actually understand and learn the Deen we so dearly hold close to us.

The fact that there exists numerous musicians (even if there exists a million or a billion), it doesn’t change Shari’ah. Numbers or majority doesn’t influence the swaying of Shari’ah. In the first battle of Islam, the Battle of Badr, the Muslims were in stark minority with the Kuffaar outnumbering the Muslims. Were your analogy to hold, the Muslims would have been in a sore minority and therefore been wrong in their beliefs since there were SO many to outnumber them.

Lastly, these musicians and their actions do not point to permissibility. They are not our God, they are not Ambiyaa, they are not Sahaabah, they are not even Fuqahaa! We do not take our religion, our deen from them. To even mention their names as some sort of validation regarding the permissibility of music is an insult to thousands of fuqahaa who have spent their lives in the pursuit of knowledge and bringing that knowledge to people who do not even bother to gain wisdom from that knowledge. It is a disgrace to mention them in light of the ahadeeth which are available that clearly denounce music.

Abu Umamah radhiAllahu anhu reported that the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Sell not singing girls,nor buy them,nor train them, and their price is unlawful.” In accordance with this, the following Qur’anic verse was revealed:’And of men there are those who purchase frivolous conversation.”

Jaber RadhiAllahu anhu reported that the Prophet sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said, ‘ Song generates hypocrisy in the heart as water grows crops.”

Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan: “And, whatever the Messenger present to you,take hold of it. And, whatever he forbids you, abstain(from it).”

Said the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam: “Verily Allah Ta’ala sent me as a mercy and as a guide unto the worlds. And Allah Azza Wa Jal commanded me with the destruction of musical instrument.”

Said the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam with regard to the signs of the Hour: “And, singing girls and musical instruments will become plentiful.”

Said the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam: “And, there is not a man who raises his voice with singing, but Allah sends two devils – one on either side of him (the singer). Both these devils strike their feet (dancing) until such time that he (singer) maintains silence.”

“Rasulullah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam prohibited two stupid voices – i) the voice of one who cries aloud in funerals, and ii) the voice of a singer.”

“People in my Ummah will consume alcohol and give it some other name. And, musical instruments and singing girls will be performing to them – Allah will curse the earth to swallow them an, of them He will transform into apes and pigs.”

“Rasulullah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam forbade the price of dogs and the income derived by a flute”

In a discussion with the Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum , Rasulullah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said about singing and music:- “Listening to singing and music is sin; and sitting at it is Fisq (Rebellion); and to derive pleasure from it is an act of Kufr.”

Safwaan Ibn Umayyah radhiAllahu anhu says:”We were with the Messenger of Allah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) when Amr Bin Qurrah came to the Messenger (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam). Amr Bin Qurrah said, “O Messenger of Allah!, verily Allah has decreed misfortune for me. I am of the opinion that my sustenance or food is in my Daf (drum) which I beat with my own hand. Therefore grant me permission with regard to singing which does not contain any evil (or songs which are not bad). Rasulullah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) said:

“I do not give you permission fo it. In my sight you have no respect nor am I happy to meet you. O Enemy of Allah! You are speaking a lie. Allah Ta’ala has ordained Halaal Rizq for you, but you have chosen what Allah has made Haram for you. If before this I had forbidden it then I would have definitely punished you. Begone from me and repent. Now hear: After I have warned you if you again indulge in it (music and singing), I will beat you painfully and spoil your looks by shaving your hair; and I will have you ejected from your family; and give the youth of Medina permission to loot your property.”

Hearing this Amr Bin Qurrah left. Allah alone knows the state of extreme shame and disgrace n which he departed. When he left, Rasulullah said: These people are the disobedient ones…”

I think there’s a bit of miscommunication here. Obviously I see a link.

The Al Qaeda members are Muslims after all. Of course there would be a LINK. But saying there’s a link and saying that because of that link, I’m indirectly parodying the other is not fair. There are links between many things, but it does not mean that the linked item can be interchanged with the other. If a table has four legs and an Arabian Stallion has four legs, it does not mean an Arabian Stallion is a table.

The link can be plainly seen by the fact that the Sunnah elements are highlighted in your video. Whether this was unavoidable or not is not the issue. Mockery, jest or anything leading to the flippancy of the Sunnah can and should be avoided. Sunnah dress is not an abstract theory. There is a definitive description of the actual Sunnah dress of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam. If the Sunnah dress is the same dress used by a specific organisation, it does not void the fact that it is a Sunnah and will remain a Sunnah. The same goes for a beard as detailed and described in the Sunnah. It will remain a Sunnah and mockery of the beard which conforms to the Sunnah is still a mockery of the Sunnah.For more on the topic, please consult Sunan At Tirmidhi.

I do not understand. You are saying that if anyone is dressed like the Nabi (SAW), he is seen to indirectly be the Nabi (SAW). You say because I’m parodying Osama, I am parodying the Nabi(SAW). So, by that logic, if an uncle wearing Sunnah garb starts swearing at another uncle during Ramadaan, I cannot criticize him because if I criticize him I am indirectly criticizing the prophet because he is wearing the same outfit as the prophet. This is what I understand by your argument. Please clarify if I am mistaken.

The criticism of what was done is not focused on Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda alone. The criticism is centered around the use of wholly Islamic elements and the flippancy, mockery and jest thereof. You are parodying the SUNNAH by using clear SUNNAH elements in your parody and making stark references to these elements in jest. I hope you understand the difference between what you have inferred and the actual implication.

Using the Sunnah dress and a beard with a she-male in a burkha together with singing,dancing, rap etc. is a clear mockery of the Sunnah elements you chose to include in your parody.

Once again I’d like to state that I’m not ‘reaching a laughable conclusion’ as you put it. With that statement I’m just explaining that it was in no way my intention nor did I ever dream that people would say I meant to insult the Nabi (SAW).

I am not qualified to respond with Shariah proof, I therefore accept all the ‘Valid, authentic, authoritative, academic Shariah proof’ that you brought into the discussion. It’s not necessary to add any more Shariah proof. I accept everything that you have brought with love.

I am only responding to the conclusions that you draw with honesty and a need for greater understanding.

My final point I’d like to state is that you aim to be defenders of the Shariah and by implication the Sunnah, yet your entire essay is steeped in arrogance, and filled with demeaning little jibes with no intention but to belittle me. It is not written with the intention to come to a greater understanding between Muslim brothers and sisters. It is written with an air of superiority with no wish to understand where I am coming from and to advise a change in my behaviour. You have made up your mind about me without even communicating with me. You claim to be defenders of the Sunnah yet your entire piece was the opposite of humility, which I believe was a cornerstone of the character of the Nabi (SAW). I don’t need to requote the numerous unnecessary arrogant statements. You know where they are. The closest to the Nabi(SAW) are those who are close to his character. I’m not going to make a judgement on you as a person, but if your personal character is similar to the character displayed in your piece, I’m not sure that you should be the ones charged with defending the Shariah. I say this with respect and a yearning to be shown otherwise.

If you wish to – as you put it – “take me on a short journey of learning” in further notes, I welcome it.

However, since you are the defenders of the Sunnah and Shariah, please do so in the manner worthy of the Nabi (SAW) or more specifically how you said – [That’s sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam by the way].

May the Almighty grant us all greater understanding and learned people who are interested in actually building the Umma of the Nabi Mugammad sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam, Inshallah.

Best Regards

Dr Riaad Moosa

It is most unfortunate when there is even a need to have somebody defend the Shari’ah, especially to defend it to Muslims themselves! It is even more unfortunate when Muslims are now moving to defend such heinous actions against the Sunnah all in the name of a good laugh. Degradation of society? I would hope so rather than a degradation of love, respect and acknowledgment of the Sunnah – all of which seem to have fallen by the wayside.

On acknowledgment of the parody, we had definitely taken great offense and rightly so to the flippant attitude alluded to the Sunnah in your parody. Our aim is to prevent degradation of the Sunnah and the Shari’ah. Our allegiances lie with Allah Ta’ala alone and the aim is to protect the Deen and keep it in its Pristine and authentic form. We do not support watered down forms of Islam to appease the public. We believe in a stern, straight-forward approach as that adopted by Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam.

If there is anybody who disagrees with the ahadeeth quoted, the fatawa alluded to, this is not our own opinion. This is the opinion of the pristine Shari’ah and you are free to take up your disagreements with those reponsible for formulating the Shari’ah or alternatively, your Creator.

Sincerely,

Muslimality

فليقولوا ما يقولوا انت من ارجو رضاه
Let them say what they want to say, it is Your (Allah’s) Pleasure that I seek…

yes, a refutation to the argument will definitely be written (October 20 2010)

These are the words contained in a comment posted by the writer of said article. Bold statements,requiring an even bolder physical act; preparing,researching and penning the actual promised refutation.

Somehow it is not surprising at all that so many unqualified individuals feel bold enough to loudly announce their intentions to pen scholarly refutations. Where, pray tell are these promised literary works? How do you conveniently present half-truths,blatant lies,sloppy academic work,terribly “researched”  articles and then merely fade away into thin air when the going gets too tough?

To the reader : Please do note the date of the promised refutation and the publication date of our post today.

We have no problem with refutations being penned nor with scholarly articles being written.We have no problem with differing views.We do not claim that one person is always right.We do not believe that any non-Nabi is ma’soom.

Our problems:

1. We have a problem with unqualified individuals speaking on matters of Shariah.

2. Promises of academic refutations not being fulfilled.These promises are usually made in the heat of the moment so “save face” only to be conveniently forgotten later on.

3. We have a problem with blatant lies and half-truths being put forward as academic proof in matters of Shariah.

4. We have a problem when an individual reads a few blogs,googles a few proofs or spends a few years at campus and then considers his/herself worthy of presenting opinions and passing rulings on matters of Shariah.

THE ONLY VIEW WHICH IS VALID IN THE FIELD OF ISLAMIC KNOWLEDGE AND ACADEMIC DISCUSSION IS THAT OF A QUALIFIED AUTHORITATIVE SCHOLAR

NB: Google,Wikipedia,the Net and Campus do not make you a qualified scholar

Original article with promise of refutation: http://muslimmatters.org/2010/10/16/they-dont-have-prayer-the-media-and-eid-for-muslim-women-in-south-africa/

This week brings it with it another bout of madness. It was unfortunate that I had to wake up to the disappointing news of yet another attempt by a ‘professional’ to abuse Islam to further a lop-sided career.

Strong words, I know, but where do we draw the line of comedy. I’ve always enjoyed the occasional laugh but when does it border on being down-right offensive? I remember the throngs of Muslims waiting to pounce on the Danish cartoonist who himself thought the drawings of Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam was his exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression. In fact, many others thought it was funny, even hilarious BUT many Muslims weren’t chuffed at all. They succeeded in getting the Mail & Guardian to not publish the Danish cartoons.

So it really does come as a surprise when Muslims are being rather lenient with ‘comedian’ Riaad Moosa whose latest antics have landed him in hot water with the Muslim ‘extremist’ public. Moosa was featured on the Late Night News show (etv) singing a parody/rap/dance stunt in commemoration of the death of Osama Bin Laden. We pretty much couldn’t care less who he or any other individual parodied, however, if any aspect of anybody’s parody, speech,publicity stunt etc. bears even a slight link to any feature of Islam, salient or otherwise, students of the Shari’ah are obligated to not only point out any errors in such representation but to also publicly denounce these as defamatory and insulting to the Shari’ah.

We go on to reproduce some words from this publicity stunt:

“why didn’t you shave,

you could have been free,

you could have used a Gillette Mach 3”

The Shari’ah has a number of problems with such a ludicrous statement.

1. Such light-hearted reference to a salient feature of Islam i.e. the beard, is not only despicable, but can be authentically proven to be greatly disliked by Nabi Muhammed sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam. We do understand that you are trying to make people smile BUT, by insinuating that one should shun the beard in favour of freedom in a society which supposedly allows one and all to practise their religion is simply short-sighted and definitely in very bad taste.

Secondly, the beard may be seen by many to be a representative quality of Al Qaeda. Whether this is true or not, the beard is a salient feature of Islam. Parodying a person wearing the beard is to parody the Sunnah. Were we to assume that you parodied a person wearing the Niqaab, we would draw the same inference in light of the fact that the Niqaab is also a salient feature of Islam.

Let us take you on a short journey of learning.

2. Making people laugh is your own business and you may do it in whatever way you please except when making them laugh involves even a single aspect related to Islam. You claim to have been parodying Al Qaeda etc. We have no concern for Al Qaeda so you may parody them or any other organisation as much as you like. But let us pause for a moment; if you were parodying Al Qaeda only, why then the appearance of a burqa-clad person in the stunt. Have you not taken cognisance of the fact that this was the dress of the Ummahatul Mu’mineen? How then could you only link your stunt to Al Qaeda when this is in reality a piece of dressing which the Sahaabiyaat diligently adhered to.

3. Incorporating any form of music with the Sunnah dress is simply a mockery of Islam in general and the Sunnah specifically.

Hereunder is the response taken from Riaad Moosa’s website:

“My response  to the feedback of  Late Night News  Osama Song

The song was a parody on an Al Qaeda video. I accept that. That’s what I set out to do. I am sending up  Al Qaeda, albeit in a light way.

In fact, the lyrics of the song are generally sympathetic to Osama and critical of Obama. It is in no way my intention to make an association between our Beloved Nabi (SAW) and Osama bin Laden. I am concerned that people are doing this.

I did not say anything about Rasoolullah in the video and it is not my intention to do so. The Nabi (SAW) was the most perfect of people and for others put words in my mouth and associate the Nabi (SAW) with Al Qaeda is grossly incorrect and wrong.

The video is in no way a comment on religion. People are making too many jumps in association. If I do a parody song on Shrien Dewani in his wedding outfit it does not mean I am insulting Hinduism. I am parodying a Hindu guy who is accused of doing something hectic.

Much like the video. It is purely a parody on Al Qaeda. I accept full responsibility for parodying Al Qaeda. One cannot extrapolate anything more than this.

So please I ask that people don’t bring our beloved Prophet (PBUH) into this debate. I most certainly didn’t.

I will post a more detailed response video shortly Inshallah.”

“It is in no way my intention to make an association between our Beloved Nabi (SAW) and Osama bin Laden. I am concerned that people are doing this.” We find this laughable. With a beard, turban and Sunnah clothing, Osama Bin Laden imitated the Sunnah. How can you then make reference to him, his beard, the shaving off of his beard and not see the link between him and “our Beloved Nabi (SAW)”…[That’s sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam by the way].

In your own words, you mention the adjective ‘beloved’. Allow us to remind you of an Arabic couplet whose translation reads: “And the lover will always live in the obedience of the beloved”

How then does one parody an aspect so dearly loved by the ‘beloved’.

“I did not say anything about Rasoolullah in the video” – You did not need to mention Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam, the Sunnah represents him. Mere sight of the Sunnah infers the lifestyle of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam whether you or anybody else states it or not.

“associate the Nabi (SAW) with Al Qaeda”- We do not care what you have to say about Al Qaeda nor are they the sources of OUR Shari’ah. Neither have we stated them to be representatives of the Sunnah. they are human beings just like everybody else. However, we have a problem with Sunnah aspects being discussed in a parody video. Let it be known that a parody is conducted purely to make people laugh. Since when do we use the Sunnah as a platform for laughter and mockery? Should you run out of jokes and/or new material, we advise you to pick on anything other than the Shari’ah.

“The video is in no way a comment on religion.”- We have no idea how you have reached such an astounding conclusion. Can one discuss a salient feature of Islam or a number of features without such discussion being considered comment on religion. Assuming your video was not to comment, what then is a purpose of a parody?

“If I do a parody song on Shrien Dewani in his wedding outfit it does not mean I am insulting Hinduism. I am parodying a Hindu guy who is accused of doing something hectic.” – This is a ridiculous analogy. The Hindu style of dressing is not the style of dressing commanded by the Creator of the Worlds. The Hindu style of dressing in the Hindu religion is not a style which the Hindu religion emphasizes as greatly as Islam emphasizes the Sunnah style. Islam COMMANDS us to follow the Sunnah diligently. Our Sunnah is NOT a cultural dress nor is it reserved for special occasions, marriages, deaths etc. It is the way we lead our lives and it is the way upon which we can only hope to die.

For your analogy to make academic sense, you would have to prove that the Hindu religion emphasizes the Hindu style of dressing as much as the Shari’ah emphasizes the Sunnah. Shrien Dewani in no way represented the Hindu religion in his dressing. Osama Bin Laden represented the Sunnah in his way of dressing (To our readers: Kindly note that we have no interest in Osama bin Laden’s political ideology, history, innocence or lack thereof as this is not the scope of this article. We will not defend him nor do we accuse him of anything due to the fact that we personally do not know anything of his motives. We are quite well informed regarding the Sunnah though and that is what we are commenting on)

Did Shrien Dewani don the Hindu religious clothing every single day? Did he adhere to it the way we adhere to the Sunnah? No? Then it is indeed quite laughable to try and draw an analogy using him as a point of reference.

Furthermore, should you have parodied Shrien Dewani wearing the Hindu dress and if we assume that Hindus had no objection to it; this has no relevance on the issue of parodying the Sunnah. Why does the supposed Hindu reaction or lack thereof have any bearing on how the followers of the Sunnah should react?

“So please I ask that people don’t bring our beloved Prophet (PBUH) into this debate. I most certainly didn’t.” – We fail to understand how you have reached such a laughable conclusion. Let us state once more:

THE BEARD, THE TURBAN, THE BURKA, THE NIQAAB, THE SUNNAH ARE FULLY REPRESENTATIVE OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WA SALLAM AND WILL ENDURE AS A SALIENT FEATURE OF NOT ONLY HIS MISSION BUT HIS LIFE FOR ALL ETERNITY.

By including even a single aspect of the Sunnah in a video which was made just to kill time, it is YOU who has brought Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam into the issue.  As all comedians are wont to do, you have parodied, mocked, jeered etc. at many individuals, cultures etc. throughout your career. We will once again state, we couldn’t care less who you or any other comedian mocks at, includes in their acts etc. However, if a single aspect of Islam is represented in any way other than the Pristine manner in which it should be, we WILL stand up and voice the opinion of the Shari’ah in defence of the Shari’ah.

We await your response video with great anticipation. Due to the fact that you have taken it upon yourself to step into the domain of Islamic academic discussion by making a direct reference to the Sunnah and Shar’i principles in what can only be deemed a parody of worthless taste surpassed only by ignorance of the subject matter, we request the following:

1. Valid, authentic, authoritative, academic Shar’i proof that your actions on the Late Night News show are perfectly okay in light of the Shari’ah.

2. Clear, simple academic proof that a parody involving the shaving of the beard carried out by a Muslim is permissible in Islam.

3. Valid, academic proof that mockery of the burka falls within the confines of ‘fun’ in Islam.

A simple response to the above three questions would be highly appreciated. A request to readers: We have very little time for sad and emotional rants, ‘freedom of speech’ issues, ‘light-hearted’ banter and fun, open-minded entertainment etc. If you cannot provide us with valid, academic proof justifying the actions we have mentioned, do not even bother contacting us or commenting.

Muslims draw their knowledge of Islam from authentic sources of Shari’ah. We have ample proof that the actions of Riaad Moosa on the LAte Night News show are insulting and highly derogatory, not only to Muslims but to the Sunnah as well. Any rebuttal of this article should carry with it knowledge derived from the sources of Shari’ah. Commentators, writers, actors, famous people etc. are not a proof in Shari’ah.

Sincerely,

Muslimality

Wow! It has really been a while since I last featured a ‘Say What?’ column. Please accept my sincerest apologies dear readers. Let’s get to it then, shall we?

During the past few weeks, South African muslims have been overwhelmed with information regarding the Muslim Marriages Bill (MMB). Whether the information provided by various individuals, organisations, radio stations etc. has managed to create an in-depth understanding of the bill in the minds of Muslims living in South Africa remains to be proven as there still are many Muslims who are fence-sitting in the hope that some great mind will shed clarity, understanding and a way forward with respect to this hotly debated bill.

Those who are in favour of the bill have come out strongly in support of it as the bill is intended for recognition, enforcement, regulation etc. of Muslim Marriages. This may all sound extremely good in theory and in all fairness, why should we not have a bill which can finally regulate Muslim marriages especially those in which there are instances of spousal abuse, violence, neglect etc.?

I suppose that the aforementioned observations had led a select few to think up the ‘brilliant’ idea that is the Muslim Marriages Bill but which had quite unfortunately resulted in what is arguably the least-qualified project committee with regard to Islamic and Shar’i principles.

The main problem I have with the Muslim Marriages Bill (and this should be quite evident to anybody who has taken the time to actually read the bill) is the definition of a ‘Muslim’. It reads:

“Muslim” means a person who believes in the oneness of Allah and who believes in the
Holy Messenger Muhammad as the final prophet and who has faith in all the essentials of
Islam (Daruriyyat Al-Din)

The definition creates a problem for those who proclaim to be ‘Muslim’ but do not fit the definition of a Muslim contained in this Bill. For instance, if a Muslim man and a Muslim woman get married according to this Bill and the man or woman changes his/her beliefs from that as defined in the Bill but still considers himself/herself to be a Muslim, will the marriage be annulled? Is the Nikaah no longer valid?

The Bill cannot define who is/who is not a Muslim and it cannot judge who is/who is not a Muslim. If we allow such a bill to dictate who is and who is not a Muslim, the consequences will be disastrous. There are sects in Islam who claim to be the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah but are in actual fact quite far from it. Who will judge which sect holds the correct view? Do the modernist Muslims hold the correct view? Do the Shia Muslim hold the correct views? Do those who believe that the creation is equal to the Creator hold the correct view? If these groups are not ‘Muslim’ enough for a ‘Muslim’ Marriages Bill, something must surely be amiss.

Those who enjoy singing the same song of ‘living in a secular state’ will understand the fact that it is unfair to declare a certain individual or a certain group of individuals ‘non-Muslim’ on the basis of them not being Muslim enough for a Bill which is meant to represent them. This Bill obviously demonstrates the immense favouritism towards the Sunni-Muslim groups present in South Africa. The fact that the Bill does not adequately cater for the other smaller groups of Muslims and their beliefs is evidence enough to prove that this Bill is quite selfish it its representation of the entire Muslim public of South Africa.

Therein lies the biggest problem for our project committee and the biggest problem for the MMB. It was quite unfortunate of them to have to have chosen sides in a very public matter such as that of the MMB resulting in the Bill heavily favouring (what seems to be) Hanafi Fiqh(jurisprudence). The Bill does not explicitly include the recognition of any of the 4 accepted and recognised schools of Fiqh (jurisprudence) which is in itself questionable since the nature of the issues to arise from marriages would almost always be Fiqhi (juristic) matters.

I tuned in to one of local Radio stations last week(Radio Islam) and had the fortunate experience of listening to the Secretary General of UUCSA (United Ulama Council South Africa) rambling on about why he thought it would be a good idea to ‘engage’ with government instead of outright rejection of the Bill. UUCSA represents seven (wow…SEVEN, I didn’t even know there were that many!) of the countries Ulama bodies. Six out of these seven throw their weight behind UUCSA’s decision of engagement whilst our friends over at Jamiat KZN have adopted the stance of total rejection of the Bill(well done!).

Yes, getting back to UUCSA’s secretary-general (or is it general secretary?), he was explaining the many cases of women’s rights being abused, the cases encountered, the amount encountered etc. and the need for such a Bill to be implemented (not necessarily the current drafted Bill) and the fact that the courts are already ruling in our Muslim marriages whether we subscribe to the Bill or not.

Firstly, no bill which will trample and destroy the Shari’ah will ever be enough to protect the rights of spouses in a marriage. Even if the bill is a hundred percent in full compliance with the Shari’ah, there is no guarantee that the Bill will remain in such a state for the simple reason that in doing so, there are groups of Muslims who will be discriminated against since they will not be classified as ‘Muslim’ under such a Bill; or there will be those who get married as Muslims under the MMB but change their beliefs down the line. These Muslims will not be satisfied with a Bill which does not recognise them or their beliefs because such a Bill would be downright judgmental, discriminatory and completely unfair to those who call themselves Muslim but do not harbour the same beliefs as a Sunni Muslim!

Secondly, if a Muslim woman is unhappy with the ruling of Shari’ah (or finds it unfair), goes to a secular court in search of a more favourable alternative and ultimately receives a favourable outcome totally contrary to Shari’ah, her action has not changed the Shari’ah. Her actions and that of the court have no bearing on the Shari’ah unless she is publicly announcing to the world that the Shari’ah should be changed to allow women more rights, to allow her to divorce her husband, to fine or imprison a man for practising upon a right given to him by Allah Ta’ala etc. Beginning to sound familiar? Ah yes, this is exactly what the MMB will do, isn’t it?

When a bill is called “Muslim Marriages Bill” and its intended purpose is for Muslims, we should be very careful what we put inside that Bill. Many people assume that if certain clauses of the Bill(those UUCSA has issues with) are to be rectified, the Bill will be fully compliant with the Shari’ah. There are clear clauses in the Bill which are in direct conflict with the Qur’aan. There are clear clauses in the Bill which, if accepted by Muslims will most likely take them out of the fold of Islam.’

At this stage, there is no room for partial acceptance or rejection of the Muslim Marriages Bill. There is no room for engagement with government. There is plenty of room to scrap the Bill altogether and start over taking all necessary elements into consideration and being very specific as to which group of Muslims the bill will target.

Polygamy, I suspect, has always and will always be a hotly debated topic especially when it comes to our dear friends and brothers and sisters from the modernist fraternity of Islam. Polygamy has not fared well with them unfortunately with many citing that it has no place in a modern context of the world we find ourselves in blah blah blah. I have had the most unfortunate run-ins with the gender desktop/women’s rights mujaahidaat to know that polygamy has no place in their perfect little worlds of re-interpretation of Qur’aanic texts, gender equality, ponies and flowers(okay that last bit had no bearing on the topic so I apologise, I couldn’t resist!).

You can therefore imagine my lack of surprise when I read that this marvelous Muslim Marriages Bill proposed by the project committee and approved by Cabinet and meant to recognise Muslim marriages in a secular state had the most absurd amount of and utterly ridiculous restrictions on polygamy. A man who wishes to marry a second wife may do so with the permission of the court. If he does without the permission of the courts, he will be ‘guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R 20 000.00.”

How strange that even in Allah Ta’ala’s court a man who takes on a second wife or a third or a fourth wife is not guilty of any offence and already has Allah Ta’ala’s permission to do so. What many pro-MMB supporters have failed to realise is that by subjecting Islam and principles of Fiqh to a system which does not and cannot protect and safeguard this Divine system from Western modification or influence, you allow Islam to be changed and you allow the Shari’ah to be destroyed. The sanctity of Qur’aan is also destroyed together with the Imaan of many Muslims who will opt-in to such a Bill thinking that this Bill is in conformance to Shari’ah.

A man who wishes to take a second wife and does so is well within his rights as a Muslim and he is completely allowed to do this in accordance with the Shari’ah. Those who have a problem with such a right may take it up with Allah Ta’ala. Any women’s rights groups/gender activists who feel that multiple wives is somehow unfair, deeply misogynistic, sexist etc. I suggest that you too take it up with your Creator or alternatively you could think up your own Bill devoid of any association to Islam or Muslims.

As for those 6 out of 7 organisations who have chosen to hide under the umbrella of UUCSA, know this and know this well: Your duties are first and foremost to Islam and the Muslims of South Africa. Your allegiances do not lie with Muslim feminists, with the government of South Africa, Cabinet, the Saudi embassy, any embassy, your own whims and fancies etc. Your allegiances should lie with Allah Ta’ala who has given Muslims enough rights and ample responsibilities. You and your supporters should not attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Muslim public in South Africa in an attempt to curry favour through blind following and undying support. Please remember that your aim/s should never be the success of your organisation or the fact that your organisation exists in the first place. The aim should be the preservation of Islam and the Shari’ah.

If you are not doing this, if you are not concerned with such an aim then the Muslims in South Africa would be better off without your organisation!

The Say What? column featured on Muslimality is meant to inspire, teach, engage debate or simply make you laugh. This column revolves around a variety of issues relating to Muslims in South Africa and Muslims around the world.

Muslimality is pleased to announce that we will now be taking article submissions from anyone who has a passion for writing about true Islam. If you or anybody you know would like to submit an article for publication, kindly email muslimality@gmail.com or submit your piece via our Contact Form

Muslimality reserves the right to edit your submission. Should you not receive a response from us within 7 days of submission, please consider the submission rejected.

Religion and the State, the Case Against the Muslim Personal
Law Bill

Over the past decade, an intense debate has raged within the Muslim community on the
question of legislating Muslim Personal Law (MPL). At its core, the debate implicates can
one reach the “correct” interpretation of religion and who has the legitimacy to render that
interpretation. The rancor has occurred before any law has been passed or any decision
rendered by any court as to what MPL means. The government has now put forward a Bill
for comment.

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It further permits the state to recognise
religious marriages. Under apartheid, Muslims did not enjoy the same degree of legal
acceptance, which resulted in great hardship to Muslims married under Islamic law. Any
attempt to redress this inequity is laudable. There is however a great difference between
redressing this inequity by recognizing Muslim marriages, versus what the MPL Bill
represents namely the state legislating on matters of religious doctrine, with the penalty of
sanctions for departure from the Bill.

The European Court of Human Rights in a number of cases has affirmed that state officials
have a duty to maintain strict neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis religious communities. For
example, in the Moldova case, it ruled that where there is a difference in belief, the role of
the state is not to choose one belief over another. The state cannot assess the legitimacy
of religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed. The court further ruled
that in democratic societies, state measures favoring particular leadership, beliefs, specific
organs of the divided religious community, or seeking to compel the community, or a part of
the community against its will to fall under a single belief, constitutes an infringement of the
freedom of religion even within the same denomination.

Our Constitutional Court has adopted the above position. In Minister of Home Affairs and
Another v Fourie, Sachs J held that “between and within religions there are vastly different
and at times highly disputed views” and “Judges would be placed in an intolerable situation
if they were called upon to construe religious texts and take sides on issues which have
caused deep schisms within religious bodies.”

In medieval times, serious penalties were imposed upon the clergy if they engaged in
any practice, or subscribed to any Canon in opposition to the Kings assent. Catholics
persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Catholics, and within the sects, one sect
persecuted another sect. Each group tried to impose loyalty to whatever religious group
happened to be on top and in league with the government of the particular time and place.
Those who did not show loyalty were fined, cast in jail, tortured, and killed. A Muslim

can opt out of the Bill. On the other hand, the prospect of penalties for departure from
the provisions of the Bill loom ominously which push towards adherence to the Bill. For
example, the Bill mandates under penalty of sanctions that “Any person who facilitates
the conclusion of a Muslim marriage, irrespective of whether that person is a marriage
officer or not, must inform the prospective spouses that they have a choice whether or not
to be bound by the provisions of this Act.” This means, a Muslim cleric who performs a
marriage but believes the Bill is un-Islamic and fails to adhere to these and other provisions
could be penalised for practising their religion differently from the way the Bill prescribes.
Any person that prevents another from exercising rights under the Bill shall be guilty of
an offence and liable to a fine or imprisonment. A mother, who dissuades her son from
marrying under the Bill because she thinks it is un-Islamic, could face the prospect of one
year in jail.

The Bill takes us back to the medieval period of compulsion and coercion with the state
taking sides on religious doctrine. Under the definition and other sections of the Bill, the
state has chosen definitions of various religious terms on which religious scholars disagree.
If a Muslim practices his/her religion in a way he/she honestly feels obliged to practice it,
and if this practice departs from the provisions and definitions in the Bill, this individual is
treated differently from the one that accepts the state chosen definition of religion.

The English philosopher John Locke wrote in the 16th century that religion pertains to the
inward preservation of the mind and the soul, which couldn’t be prescribed by a judge or a
ruler. These ideas influenced the writings of Thomas Jefferson when the US Constitution
was drawn up giving rise to a core idea in western constitutionalism namely, the idea of
a secular state. Under this understanding, the US Supreme Court in a litany of cases has
declared that the government may not place its prestige, authority, and resources behind a
single religious belief. That conclusion was recognized by Justice Ngcobo (now our Chief
Justice) in Prince I where he stated the courts (and by extension the state) should not be
engaged in deciding what is part of a religion, or what is central to a religion.

The German Constitutional Court has repeatedly affirmed that religious organizations have
the right to organize and administer themselves in an independent manner and in terms off
their own understanding of their religion. To rule otherwise would mean that secular laws
would undermine the constitutionally guaranteed right of self-determination of religious
organizations. The German Constitutional Court has also proclaimed that churches have
the power to make binding rules with regard to the credibility of the church and of its
proclamation of what the Gospel requires, what are the essential principles of dogma and
ethics, and what is to be regarded as a violation.

Those that drew up the MPL Bill ignored this consensus in mainstream democracies.
They disregarded the unqualified achievement of the twentieth century that government
cannot dictate religious doctrines. If the Bill becomes law and per chance it is found to
be constitutional, the judges are unlikely to be the most revered of deities. Religious
doctrines brim with complexities, uncertainties and very different disciplining rules and
procedures, which their interpretive community follows. Judges usually do not have insight
into religions and are not schooled in the books such as Genesis, Leviticus or the Islamic
works of Bukhari or Abu Dawud. In interpreting any statute, our Constitutional Court has
told us repeatedly that all laws must be interpreted against the ethos and values of the
Constitution including equality and human dignity. Developing religious law against the

ethos and values of the Constitution is unlikely to resonate well among the religious group
affected and is bound to inflame sectarian differences as exemplified from the experiences
in India.

The rights under Islamic law given to different genders, for example with respect to
(divorce) must be evaluated against the equality and human dignity provisions in our
Bill of Rights. On its face, if a law gives different rights to males and females, this would
constitute unfair discrimination under the Constitution, which could be counteracted only
by reliance on the limitation clause of the Constitution — a burden that has so far proved
difficult to overcome.

There are failings in Muslim marriages, which need to be addressed. There is a perception
that men, for the benefit of men interpret the religion. Women as a group have been short
changed. Constitutionally, the state has the power to make laws of general application
to advance important social interests, which prevent the oppression of any group in
society. Based on concepts of equality (and not interpretation of Jewish law), a divided
United Kingdom Supreme Court (in a highly controversial decision) ruled Jewish law of
matrilineality violates the country’s anti-discrimination laws. The perception of unequal
treatment of women through the denial of a divorce decree “get” and “talaq” occurs in
Jewish and Muslim societies. Recently, the Canadian Supreme Court sought to address
this problem through contract law in the Bruker case, rather than through interpretation of
Jewish scriptures, which the court recognised as completely inappropriate. We need to be
clear. The MPL Bill is not a neutral law of general application to advance general societal
interests. Nor are we talking about contract law to better protect vulnerable women about
their rights. Instead, the Bill prescribes religious conduct and targets Muslims specifically
under penalty of sanctions.

The notion that through “clever” lawyering, and through a mysterious consensus of certain
lawyers and scholars zeitgeist, one can deduce a preferred interpretation of religious law to
socially engineer a group to conform to the twenty first century fundamentally misconstrues
the essence of freedom of religion. Validation of the Bill does not come from counting
heads as to whether a majority supports the Bill. Religion involves the most personal and
sensitive rights on which the state cannot take sides. The sentiments expressed by Sachs
J for a unanimous Court in the Fourie case where he stated it is one thing “to acknowledge
the important role that religion plays in our public life. It is quite another to use religious
doctrine as a source for interpreting the Constitution. It would be out of order to employ
the religious sentiments of some as a guide to the constitutional rights of others. Between
and within religions there are vastly different and at times highly disputed views on how
to respond…” Hopefully, our lawmakers will be mindful of the words of our Constitutional
Court and not embark on an unprecedented project, not found in the main stream of democratic practice.

Source: Professor Ziyad Motala, Professor of Law Howard University, U.S.A.

Allah عز وجل says in the Holy Qur’an:


وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَى

 


فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ هِيَ الْمَأْوَى

 

As for he who fears the standing before his Lord and prevents his nafs from fulfilling its desire, Jannah is his abode.
[Surah Naziaat 79:40-41].

Doing something the halal way is always very difficult and a test in itself, and doing something the haraam way can often be very easy but again this is the test. Doing things the halal way may be difficult initially but in the long-term one will find much barakah (blessings) in the halal option.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a hadeeth:

Hellfire is veiled with desires and Paradise is veiled with displeasures. [Reported by Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmidhi]

This is why the most attractive and easy way is the haraam way.  Deen is difficult and the whole life of a Muslim is one of trials and tribulations. In another hadeeth, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

The world is a prison for the believer and a paradise for the unbeliever. [Reported by Muslim and Tirmidhi].

Thus, believers are jailed and prevented in the world from haraam and disliked desires. When someone gives up on religion because they find it difficult, Shaytaan attracts them with the easy option. We should not give up doing things the halal way and remember Allah tests us often.


[This short excerpt is based on a brothers’ majlis (gathering for spiritual training) held by Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq on 9th February 2002].


Source:

http://www.contentsoul.com/

A collection of words of wisdom and excerpts from the spiritual gatherings of Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq

A Deoband.org article
By Shaykh al-Adab Mawlana Muhammad I’zaz ‘Ali
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

books1

First:

Know, my dear son (Allah give you knowledge and enable you to please Him), that religious knowledge depends on two things:

First: earnestness in acquiring it and severing thought about all that is besides it, since ‘ilm(knowledge) will not give you a part of it until you give to it all of yourself. Make the identifier of the goodness of a thing and its despicability your hindrance to ‘ilm, since your hindrance to a part of ‘ilm or your aversion to it, is despicable whatever it may be, and otherwise it is not [despicable]. Allah’s obligations (fards), His necessities (wajibs), and their supplements from the emphasised practices (mu’akkadat) are exceptions. Hereof, you will see they (the ‘ulama) have agreed that studying books, repeating and revising the lessons, are more virtuous for students than supererogatory acts (nawafil) – what then is your opinion of [acts] besides them?

Second: consciousness and fear (taqwa) of God, imitation of the Sunnah of His Messenger and devotion of all works to Allah. You are more needy of this second [quality] than you are of the first, since you will find many of those who do not fear any besides Allah, given drink upon drink (‘alalan wa nahalan) of the oceans of the sciences and religious knowledge, although they have some deficiency in their earnestness and in staying awake at nights. But you will not find any of the iniquitous (fussaq), those fearless of Allah, even if he tires himself, the proper amount of tiring, and exerts himself to complete exertion, succeed at all thereby. If you find any that contradicts what I said, and you hold a good opinion of him, then that is in accordance to what the enchanting poet said:

The (true) horse is not, but like the (true) friend, rare

Even if they are many in the sight of those who do not participate in war

When you see not but beauty in their blemishes

And their appendages, then beauty from you is hidden

Second:

You must respect the books and teachers, rather all who are superior in knowledge and intelligence even if they are students, because this has a significant impact in adorning the soul with the ornament of knowledge. We have seen many of those acquiring [‘ilm] of whom a good opinion was held at the start of their acquisition [of ‘ilm] and it was sworn that they will be from the ‘ulama and the protectors of thedin (religion), but when they exhibited bad behaviour with the books and teachers, they were deprived of‘ilm and its blessings. You are aware that a small quantity with blessing (barakah) is better than a large quantity without it. Do you believe Qarun is better than one who spends all his wealth for the pleasure of Allah? No, of course not.

Burhan al-Islam al-Zarnuji, in the chapter Ri’ayat al-Ustadh of his book Ta’lim al-Muta’allim, said,

Shams al-A’immah al-Halwani left Bukhara and stayed in one of the villages for some days and his students visited him except Qadi Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Zarnajri, so he asked him when he met him, “Why did you not visit me?” He replied, “I was occupied in the service of my mother.” He said, “You will be granted long life but you will not be granted the splendour of lessons.” And it was so, because he (i.e. al-Halwani) would spend most of his time in the villages and did not arrange lessons for him (i.e. al-Zarnajri). Thus, whoever’s teacher is hurt by him, he will be deprived of the blessing of ‘ilm and will not benefit from it but little.

Third:

Beware, and again beware, of desiring by means of religious knowledge the dunya (the material world), its prestige and its wealth, because the acrobat who plays above the mountains is better than the‘ulama who incline towards wealth, since the former consumes the dunya by means of the dunya and the latter consumes the dunya by means of the din. One of the ‘ulama said,

Purchasing a corpse with musical instruments is lighter [in sin] than purchasing it with mushafs.

He (High is His Eminence) said,

Nor sell My ayahs (verses) for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone. (Qur’an 2:41)

It is incumbent that the goal of your ambitions and the site or your visions is not but to [what is mentioned in] these verses:

Every son of the dunya has a purpose and an aim

And verily my purpose is good health and free time

In order to reach in the science of Shari’ah a degree

By which there is for me in the Gardens a station

So in the like of this, possessors of intelligence should compete

Sufficiency is enough for me in the deceptive dunya

Al-Shafi’i (Allah be pleased with him) sung to al-Rabi’:

My ‘ilm is with me wherever I turn, it benefits me

My heart is its vessel, not the inside of my box (carrying books)

If I am in the house, ‘ilm is in there with me

Or (if) I am in the market, ‘ilm is in the market

Fourth:

Beware of vanity, arrogance and shyness in knowledge because it was said to one of the great ‘ulama,

One of your students served you for years and none strives as much as him in acquiring ‘ilm, yet he did not succeed thereby, and he replied, “Vanity hindered him from ascending to the paths of perfection.”

Hereof, I say that service alone is not sufficient to acquire the objective so long as impediments are not removed. We have seen many of them (students of knowledge) serve the teachers and suffice with that, so they fell into what they brought on themselves, since ‘ilm is loftier than that it should turn to one who does not turn to it. One of the great scholars was asked, “How did you succeed in the sciences?” and he said “I was not embarrassed to ask of that which I did not know, whether the one asked was young or old.” Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad said,

Ignorance (jahl) grazes between shyness and arrogance in ‘ilm.

Fifth:

You must be generous and spend of what Allah has given you of the treasures of knowledge, little or much, because generosity and expenditure is praiseworthy in all matters particularly ‘ilm. We do not know of any possession in this world that is not depleted by spending and is not extinguished by overspending and wasting, besides ‘ilm, because it is like the water of the ocean which does not dry up by one or two gulps, rather its expenditure does not yield but its growth, and overspending and wasting do not occur in ‘ilm.

However, Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he said,

Conveying of knowledge to the non-deserving is like putting necklaces of jewels, pearls and gold around the neck of swine. (Sunan Ibn Majah)

‘Isa ibn Maryam (upon our Prophet and him be blessings and peace) said,

Convey not jewels to swine, for ‘ilm is better than pearls, and one who is not deserving of it is worse than swine.

It was related that a student asked an ‘alim (scholar) about some knowledge and he did not benefit him [with that knowledge], so he was asked “Why did you withhold from him?” He said “Every soil has a seedling and every structure has a foundation.” One of the eloquent ones said,

Every clothing has a wearer and every knowledge has an acquirer.

Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked, “How did you reach what you reached?” He replied, “I was not stingy in benefiting others and I did not shrink from acquiring benefit from others.”

Sixth:

I did not dot (anqut) the book in my first footnote (ta’liq) in Persian relying on the intelligence of the acquirers [of ‘ilm] and the strength of their preparation, and as an exercise for them. Then I found that the matter was difficult for them so I diacritically marked it (a’rabtuhu), but you, Oh piece of my heart and fragrance of my soul, must not rely on what is therein of vowels (harakat) and non-vowelised letters (sakinat) with total reliance, till the nominal subject (mubtada’) is not distinguished from the predicate (khabar) and the verbal subject (fa’il) from the object (maf’ul), and you thus become like those who said,

We found our forefathers worshipping them. (Qur’an 21:53)

Rather, you must rely on what you know from the rules of Nahw and the principles of Sarf because error is possible from many avenues, including the copyist or from the printers, and I do not declare myself innocent either.

Nur al-Idah bi ‘l-Isbah, pp. 5-6

About the author:

Shaykh al-Adab wa ‘l-Fiqh Mawlana Muhammad I’zaz ‘Ali ibn Mizaj ‘Ali al-Amrohi was born in Badayun in the year 1300 AH/1882 CE. He memorised the Qur’an at a young age at Shahajanpur under Hafiz Sharaf al-Din Khan. He then travelled with his father to the rural district of Talhar where he studied Mizan al-Sarf and some Persian books under Mawlana Maqsud ‘Ali Khan al-Shahajanpuri, and was encouraged to continue studying Arabic by his teacher who told him,

The benefit of Allah’s speech will not be complete unless its meaning is understood.

Once he had reached the advanced textbooks on Nahw, he joined Dar al-’Ulum Deoband. Here he studied the first portion of Al-Hidayah under Mawlana Muhammad Ahmad al-Nanotwi (the son of Mawlana Qasim al-Nanotwi), Logic under Mawlana Muhammad Sahul al-Bhagalpuri and other books with other teachers. He then travelled to Meerut to visit some of his relatives and stayed there for four years. There he read the books of hadith besides Sahih al-Bukhari, and studied ‘aqidah, the rational sciences and philosophy under Mawlana ‘Abd al-Mu’min al-Deobandi. At Meerut, he also gained some experience in verifying and printing books. He returned to Deoband and studied Jami’ al-TirmidhiSahih al-BukhariSunan Abi Dawudal-Baydawi, the final portion of Al-HidayahAl-Tawdih and Al-Talwih under Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan. His other teachers included Mawlana Ghulam Rasul, Mufti ‘Aziz al-Rahman al-Deobandi and Mawlana Sayyid Mu’zz al-Din.

Upon completing his education, Shaykh al-Hind advised him to teach at Madrasa al-Nu’maniyyah atBhagalpur where he taught for seven years. Then he taught at a madrasah in Shahajanpur for three years, before moving to teach at Deoband. When he got the opportunity, he benefited from ‘Allamah Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri and Mawlana Habib al-Rahman ‘Uthmani. He taught many luminaries including the first Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ ‘Uthmani.

His published works include marginalia and footnotes to Nur al-IdahKanz al-Daqa’iq, Mukhtasar al-QuduriDiwan al-Hamasah and Diwan al-Mutanabbi in Arabic. He also authored Nafhat al-’Arab, a work on Arabic rhetoric and literature. His interest in Arabic literature and his contribution to Fiqh earned him the title Shaykh al-Adab wa l-Fiqh.

He passed away at Deoband in 1374 H/1955 CE, Allah have mercy on him.

Source: http://www.deoband.org/2010/06/general/guidance/advice-to-students-of-knowledge/