Archive for January, 2011

Download the latest copy of the Muslim Marriages Bill 2010. The Bill has been approved and recommended by the SA Law Reform Commission and adopted by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Download here: Muslim-Marriages-Bill-2010-.doc

It is your duty as a Muslim to send your letters of objection to the proposed Bill no later than 15 March 2011.

Objections should be directed to:

Private Bag X81

Pretoria 0001


Fax: 086 648 7766




Support the Islamic cause!


Imaam Abu Hanifah narrated from Abdul Kareem that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who plays chess is as if he washes his hands with the flesh (blood) of a pig.”(Kitaabul Aathaar)

In Vol. 1, page 483 of Al-Jaamius Sagheer, it is mentioned: “It is unanimously Makrooh (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi) to play backgammon because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever plays nard (backgammon) is as if he has dyed his hands in the flesh and blood of a pig.”

According to the Ahnaaf (Hanafis), playing with chess is also Makrooh Tahrimi (sinful and prohibited). Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that once when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) passed by a group of people playing shatranj (chess), he commented: “Allah curses one who plays with this (i.e. chess).”

In Badaaius Sanaa’i it is mentioned: “It is narrated from our Sayyid, Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) that he said: ‘Shatranj (chess) is the gambling of the Ajamis (non-Arabs). It is narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Everything which diverts you from the thikr of Allah is gambling.”

The following appears in Sharh Fathul Qadeer: “According to us (i.e. Ahnaaf) chess is not permissible., and so is it according to Imaam Ahmad (Bin Hambal). Verily it has been said that (the game of) nardasheer is in fact shatranj (chess).”

In Tabyeenul Haqaaiq it appears as follows: “Playing with chess, backgammon and every sport is not permissible because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Every sport of man is haraam except three: a man’s play with his wife, his training his horse and practising with his bow.” Once Ibn Umar passed by a group playing chess. He did not make Salaam to them, and he commented: ‘What are these idols to which you are so devoted?’ “(It is prohibited also) because it generally prevents one from Jamaa’t Salaat and from the thikr of Allah Azza Wa Jal, hence it is haraam just like nardsheer (backgammon). And about nard, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘He who plays with nardsheer is as if he has dyed his hand in the flesh (blood) of a pig.’ Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Daawood and Abu Musa narrated it. Maalik, Ahmad and others besides them narrated: ‘Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘He who plays with backgammon , verily he has sinned against Allah and His Rasool.’

Rejecting the conditional permissibility on the basis of benefit, which some Fuqaha have contended, it is mentioned in Tabyeenul Haqaaiq: “With regard to its benefit which has been mentioned (by some), it is overshadowed. Consideration is for the dominant element in the matter of haraam. What, are you not aware of Allah’s statement (in the Qur’aan): ‘Their (i.e. liquor and gambing’s) sin is greater than their benefit. Thus, consideration has been accorded to the dominant element with regard to it being haraam……..Permitting it (chess) is in fact aiding shaitaan over Islam and the Muslimeen……..It has been narrated that once Hadhrat Ali passed by a group playing chess. He did not make salaam. When he was asked for the reason, he said: ‘How can I make salaam to people who are devoted to idols?’ It has also been narrated that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) struck them on their heads.”

In Al-Bahrur Raa-iq it appears as follows: “Playing chess, backgammon and every sport are not permissible by virtue of the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasalam): ‘Every sport of the son of Aadam is haraam except three – a man’s play with his wife; training his horse and practising with his bow.’ Imaam Shaafi has said that chess is permissible without gambling, and if it does not interfere with any incumbent obligation……However, the proofs against him are the numerous mash-hoor Ahaadith. We have omitted narration of these Ahaadith here because they are so well-known. In Al-Muheet is mentioned that it is Makrooh (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi) to play with chess and backgammon….”

In Majmaul Anhaar it is mentioned: “It is haraam to play with backgammon or chess.” In Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar it is mentioned: “It is Makrooh Tahrimi to play backgammon. Similarly (it is Makrooh Tahrimi) to play chess.”


Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) who is among the most prominent authorities of the Shaafi’ Math-hab states in his Sharhul Muslim (Commentary of Muslim Shareef): “Our Math-hab regarding chess is that it is Makrooh.” Makrooh here means Makrooh Tahrimi which refers to a forbidden and sinful act. In practice it is just as haraam. However, there is a technical difference between Makrooh and Haraam as far as belief is concerned. But for all practical purposes they are the same.

Imaam Nawawi further says: “Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmad said that chess is Haraam. And, Imaam Maalik said that it is worse than nard (backgammon).

In the Maaliki kitaab, Al-Istithkaar, the prohibition is stated as follows:

“Hasan said that nard (backgammon) is the gambling of the Ajamis. With regard to shatranj (chess), the Ulama have unanimously proclaimed that playing with it is qimaar (gambling), hence not permissible To accept wealth and to consume it is (in fact) gambling with it. It is not halaal. Imaam Maalik and his Ashaab (the Maaliki Fuqaha) have unanimously said that playing with backgammon is not permissible and also with chess. The shahaadat (testimony) of a habitual player of chess is not permissible. Imaam Abu Hanifah and his Ashaab said that playing with chess and backgammon is Makrooh (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi). Imaam Shaafi’ said: ‘I regard as Makrooh playing backgammon because of the Hadith. Regarding playing chess, although we abhor it (i.e. regard it Makrooh), its condition is lighter than playing with backgammon. …..Ishaaq Bin Raahwiyah said: ‘When one plays with backgammon or chess without qimaar (i.e. gambling with money) and with the intention of sharpening the wits, then (too) it is Makrooh. However, in this situation his testimony will not be refuted. But, Laith Bin Sa’d said that chess is more evil than backgammon. There is no goodness whatsoever in it. One who plays with chess, his shahaadat (testimony) is not permissible.’

Although Ibn Shuhaab disagrees with Laith Bin Sa’d on the inadmissibility of testimony issue, Imaam Maalik’s (rahmatullah alayhi) ruling is absolute on prohibition and the evil of chess. In Al-Istikhaar this prohibition is mentioned as follows: “Yahya said: ‘I heard Imaam Maalik saying: ‘There is no goodness whatsoever in chess and in other games besides it. I have heard him (Imaam Maalik) stating that playing with chess is Makrooh, and he enumerated it among the things which are baatil. (In support) he recited the Qur’aanic verse: “Besides Haqq what is there other than Baatil?”

It should now be abundantly clear that despite the technical differences of the Fuqaha all Four Math-habs unanimously abhor chess and brand it unlawful.


BY Hadrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi

“Some claim that chess is permissible according to Imaam Shaafi’ (rahmatullah alayh), hence those who indulge in chess will be following the ruling of Imaam Shaafi’. Know that it is not permissible to abandon the Math-hab of your Imaam, which is based on the Qur’aan and Hadith, and to act in terms of the Math-hab of another Imaam. To follow the Math-hab of another Imaam without dire need is to follow the desire of one’s nafs. This is not permissible. If there had to be such permission (i.e. to flit from Math-hab to Math-hab on the basis of whim and fancy), the Deen will become a great sporting event.

Regarding the claim that Imaam Shaafi’ (rahmatullah alayh) permitted chess, this was his first view. Even for its permissibility he had stipulated several conditions, e.g. indulgence in the game should not interfere with any duty or with Salaat; it should not become a habitual occupation; there should be no abuse, taking oaths, etc. Today these conditions are not observed.

Besides this, is the fact of Imaam Shaafi’s retraction of his view of conditional permissibility. It is mentioned in Nisaabul Ihtisaab that Imaam Shaafi’ (rahmatullah alayh) had retracted his earlier view. It is therefore not permissible for anyone to perpetuate his first view of permissibility and utilize it as a shield for indulgence in chess. In his Sharah Muslim, Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) says that according to Imaam Shaafi’ (rahmatullah alayh) playing chess is Makrooh (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi).

In his Sharhul Muslim Imaam Nawawi states: “Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmad say that chess is haraam. In fact, Imaam Maalik said that it is worse than the game of nard (backgammon) and more destructive than gambling. Whoever plays chess and backgammon has immersed his hands in the blood of swine.”

Imaam Ahmad said: “The similitude of a person who performs Salaat after having played backgammon is like a man who makes wudhu with pus and the blood of swine, then performs Salaat.”

Hadhrat Abu Musa Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) said: ‘Only a sinner plays chess.” “Chess is falsehood, and Allah does not love falsehood.” (Baihqi in Shu’bul Imaan)

Playing chess is haraam. If it is accompanied by gambling, it is unanimously haraam according to all Math-habs. If unaccompanied by gambling, the prohibition is with some difference of opinion. However, according to the Ahnaaf it is haraam even without gambling. According to others it is Makrooh. Makrooh here means Makrooh Tahrimi which is a prohibited practice.

Everyone is aware of the degree of absorption in these games. Indulgence in these games leads to neglect in worldly duties and Salaat. Disputes, abuse and even fighting are consequences of these games. There is no doubt that these games are haraam.

  • Chess is Makrooh (prohibited and sinful) – Hanafi Math-hab
  • Chess is Haraam – Hambali Math-hab
  • Chess is Haraam – Maaliki Math-hab
  • Chess is Makrooh – Shaafi’ Math-hab

“Chess even without gambling is idle sport (futility), and this is haraam on the basis of Allah’s statement (in the Qur’aan): ‘What, do you think that We have created you in idle sport?” (It is also haraam) because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Every sport of the Mu’min is baatil.” (Nisaabul Ihtisaab)

“Playing chess is haraam by virtue of the narrations of the Sahaabah and on the basis of correct qiyaas.” (Nisaabul Ihtisaab)

“He who plays backgammon is as if he has dyed his hand with the blood of swine.”(Hadith)

“Chess is worse than backgammon.” (Imaam Maalik)

“Chess is Makrooh (prohibited) according to Imaam Shaafi.” (Imaam Ghazaali)

“Legalizing chess is to aid Shaitaan over Islam and the Muslimeen.”(Tabyeenul Haqaaiq)

Sourced: Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa

In 2001, the Islamic identity undertook a complete transformation to represent oppression and terror. A bearded man in the Islamic dress (kurta or thaub) is now an instant bomb threat. The veil is an object of torture, oppression and imprisonment. The Islamic identity has been reduced to something vile, reprehensible and abhorrent.

What many people do not understand (Muslims included) is that the Islamic identity is an integral part of Islam. What many Muslims have forgotten in their search for a ‘unified Muslim Ummah’ is that by abandoning that which was intended to unite, it will be very difficult to remain united.

In so far as women are concerned (and herein lies the greatest obstacle), Islam is quite clear in the requirements of Hijaab. The Hijaab is not just a long, rectangular or square piece of cloth used to cover the head. When a woman practises Hijaab, she is practising an act of concealment. Islamically, this is what has always been required of her.

I have always been amused at the amount of women who usually complain with respect to the Hijaab. They usually offer the excuse that it is a man’s duty to be in control of his natural instincts and practise self-control. What is unusual for me is the finality with which it is usually said. It’s as if to say, ‘Well, that’s that then, let’s get on with it!’

Had this instruction not been Divinely decreed, I would definitely harbour the same sentiment. Who knows His creation better than the Creator? If it was in the nature of a man to be in full control of his desires, women would not be expected to conceal their most precious gift which is their beauty. As is often expected of those living in the twenty-first century, we firmly believe that ours is the most humane existence. Ours is a time wherein we have people of understanding, intelligence and sanity. Almost all traces of barbarism and savagery have been eliminated and eradicated from the world in which we live. In this lies the assumption that man has reached a stage of almost intellectual and moral perfection.

Therefore the notion of a man not being able to control his desires is seen as archaic and biblical. The so-called modernist prances about in this fantastical garden of freedom. In drawing the curtain of advancement, intelligence and seeming morality over the eyes of Muslim, the modernist Muslims have eradicated the need for a woman to practise the concealment of her beauty. Islam has become more about who you are, not the way you look.

These notions are expected, especially when a person would like find proof to fuel his/her ideologies. This is a perfect example of such ideology: ‘Islam does not require a woman to wear the veil’. There have been many literary works detailing the explanation of the requirements of Hijaab according to Islam. It is each woman’s choice to act upon whichever part of Islam she would like to put into practise. However, it is not the prerogative of each and every Muslim woman, or otherwise, to change the ruling of Islam as she/he sees fit purely because the ruling does not accommodate his/her lifestyle.

The sad reality is that it is neither in the nature of a woman to want to control her desires either and so we have the situation we’re in today. We have women all over the world who insist that the veil or the headscarf is by no means a part of Islam, but rather a concocted symbol of backwardness thought up by some misogynistic and over-bearing Islamists. For those women who have chosen to adopt this view, through contemporary reinterpretation of Qur’aanic texts, rejection and manipulation of ahaadeeth, they have found ‘evidence’ in support of this.

In recent times, many Muslim women have adopted the stance which supports the idea of ‘modest dressing’. Whilst there surely may not be anything outwardly objectionable to such a statement, the problem lies with the definition of ‘modest’. For some, wearing calf-length skirts may be modest; for others, modesty may be embodied in loose-fitting clothing; the newer generation would regard a pair of skinny jeans paired with loose-fitted mid-thigh length blouse still within the range of ‘modest’. So how exactly is the term ‘modest’ defined? Whose definition do we accept etc.?

Islam has given women the solution to ‘modest’ clothing. In Islam, the ‘jilbaab’ is the embodiment of modesty. It is the covering of a woman’s beauty. It is the protector of her chastity. This is Islam’s gift to women, a gift which has been Divinely decreed. It is the gift of the garb. A garb which protects, conceals and empowers the woman who chooses to cover herself with it.

And so it is at this other end of the spectrum where we find those who choose to become objects of concealment. They are those who do not find themselves compelled to do so but rather wanting to do so and in doing so, are fulfilling that very important part of their Deen which many women today are just unable to fulfill.

They are not oppressed; they are not prisoners; they are not backward or uneducated. They simply have not chosen to live life the way you do and in this decision, you have taken it upon yourself to lift their veils, contract their clothing and risk their modesty. This is not empowerment. It is just plain ignorance.

Muslim men have, through the years, fallen prey to this type of ideology. In labeling the Islamic dress for men as ‘cultural’, Muslim men have found their excuse for not practising on the ‘Hijaab’ that is required of them. The practises have all been restricted to certain times, ‘Holy’ days or when the occasion calls for it.

In opting to be without a beard which is fist-length, reading salaah without a hat (topi), walking around with clothing below their ankles etc. smacks of a distinct desire to not want to incorporate the practises of an Islamic identity. This may as well be a contributing factor for Muslim women favouring to abandon the idea of an Islamic dress code altogether attributing its practise to Muslim male dominance and hypocrisy.

But Muslim men also have requirements which they are required to fulfill with respect to their dressing. This is not only an area which affects women or is aimed at women alone. A man observing ‘modesty’ and concealment in his dressing is just as important as a woman observing modesty and concealment in her dressing.

Apart from the obligatory Aurah which must be concealed at all times, a man’s clothing must not be tight fitting so as to reveal the shape of his body parts e.g. tight fitting jeans, pants or shirts which accentuate muscles, physique etc. and serve to to advertise the male form, not unlike the figure-hugging clothing usually worn by women. To say that men are completely immune to vanity would be just untrue. Men have become ensnared in dressing according to what the media and fashion houses around the globe portray as ‘fashionable’. Just as many women have become enslaved by the fashion industry, so too have many men begun living their lives according to the dictates of Paris and New York Fashion Week.

It should be apparent that the idea of observing Islamic dress is very important to the Muslim, whether male or female. We should not be hiding behind the excuse of ‘terrorism’ in abandoning that which is meant to unite us. As for those who continually sing the song of unity, this would be a good place to start. If you do not act like a Muslim, behave like a Muslim and most importantly, look like a Muslim and embrace the Islamic identity in its entirety, how can you ever aim to achieve unity?

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 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.

Part Five of a detailed analysis of the errors of Quraysha Ismail Sooliman (5 years studies at Darul Uloom Pretoria, Freelance Journalist and Political Science Honour’s Student, University of Pretoria)

We reproduce hereunder an extremely detailed discussion penned by The Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa in response to the final section of the article titled, ‘The Conclusion: Now each has the knowledge to decide’


The writer states:

(1)   “According to the Shaafi’i scholar, al-Jurjani, it is mustahab for both men and women. The Shaafi’ also give preference to older women attending and not to the young.”

Our Comment: Al-Jurjaani, in fact all of the Shaafi’ Fuqaha aver that Eid Salaat is Sunnat for men and women. None of them claimed that it is Waajib for women. Indeed they were extremely ‘bold’ to come up with their ‘contradiction’! So, while the dumb aunt is at pains to foist her Waajib view, she produces the statement of Al-Jurjaani who explicitly states ‘Mustahab’. It is most unintelligent to back up a Waajib view with the statement of a Faqeeh who says that it is Mustahab.

The writer states:

(2)   “Al-Imam Zakariya Mohideen bin Sharf an-Nawawi (Allah’s mercy on him) said in his book Al-Majmoo: Umm Atiyyah mentioned in the two authentic (hadith books Al-Bukhari and Muslim). “The Prophet (May Allah bless and grant him peace) instructed the menstruating women to be present on the day of the Eid (procession) and to withdraw from the praying (area).”

Our comment: Firstly, no one has ever refuted the existence of this Hadith. Every single Faqeeh and Aalim from the time of the Sahaabah down to the present day acknowledge the validity and authenticity of this and similar other Ahaadith. But NO ONE, not a single Math-hab, has understood this Hadith or any other Hadith to mean that Eid Salaat is Waajib on women as this lamentable dumb woman is propagating.

Secondly, while she  cites this narration from Imaam Nawawi’s kitaab, Al-Majmoo’, her silence is deafening regarding the laws of the Shariah which Imaam Nawawi who was one of the foremost authorities of the Shaafi’ Math-hab, states in Al-Majmoo’, the very kitaab from which she  quotes the narration to bolster her absolutely baatil waajib view. In Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 5, page 6, Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) records the following statement of Imaam Shaafi’ (rahmatullah alayh): “Those on whom it is Waajib to attend Jumuah, it is also Waajib to attend Eid.” The Shaafi’ Fuqaha interpret this statement variously.

However, in terms of the appparent meaning of the text, the ‘Wujoob’ of attending Eid Salaat is on those  on whom it is Waajib to attend Jumuah Salaat. Now according to the Shaafi’ Math-hab who are the people on whom it is Waajib to attend Jumuah Salaat?  Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) states in this regard: “Jumuah is not Waajib on a woman on the basis of the Hadith of Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) who said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Jumuah is obligatory on the one who believes  in Allah and the Last Day except a woman, a traveller, a slave and an ailing person.” (Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 4, page 350)

Even this woman has no option but to accept that Jumuah is not Waajib on females. Imaam Shaafi’ thus  ruled that the ‘ wujoob’ of attending the Eid Salaat devolves only on those  on whom Jumuah is Waajib.

Reconciling Imaam Shaafi’s view (of Eid Salaat being Waajib) with the official view of the Shaafi’ Math-hab, namely, Eid Salaat is Sunnatul Muakkadah (not Mustahab and not Waajib), Imaam Nawawi states in his Al-Majmoo’, Vol.5, page: “Our Ashaab (i.e. the Fuqaha of the Shaafi’ Math-hab) said: ‘This (statement of Imaam Shaafi’) does not have a literal meaning. If the apparent  meaning  of the text is taken, it follows that Eid is Fardh-e-Ain on everyone on whom Jumuah is obligatory. (But) this is in conflict with the Ijma’ of the Muslimeen, hence interpretation (of Imaam Shaafi’s statement) is imperative. Abu Ishaaq said: ‘Eid (Salaat) is obligatory (in the category of)  Mandoob for him on whom Jumuah is compulsory.” Mandoob in this context means Sunnatul Muakkadah. Clarifying this, Imaam Nawawi states: “Verily, according to us (Shaafis) it (Eid Salaat) is Sunnatul Muakkadah, and this is also the view of  Maalik, Abu Hanifah, Daawood and the Jamhoor Ulama.” (Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 5, page 6)

Thus in terms of the Shaafi’ Math-hab, the lady’s ‘waajib’ theory is thoroughly debunked. Imaam Nawawi’s citation of the Hadith of Umm-e-Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) holds no substantiation for the corrupt  ‘waajib-on-woman’ view which the lady is propounding.

The dumb lady is also guilty of  perpetrating chicanery since she quotes from  Imaam Nawawi’s  kitaab, Al-Majmoo’, Umm-e-Atiyyah’s Hadith, but she dishonestly refrains from quoting the sharah (commentary and explanation) of the Hadith which Imaam Nawawi presents. After  recording the Hadith of Umm-e-Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha), Imaam Nawawi states:

“Imaam Shaafi’ and  (his) Ashaab (rahmatullah alayhim) said: ‘It is Mustahab for ghair thawaatil hay-aat women to be present for the Eid Salaat. However, regarding thawaatil hay-aat women their presence (for Eid Salaat) is Makrooh (i.e. it is forbidden). This is the (view) of the Math-hab (i.e. Shaafi Math-hab), and it is Mansoos  (the categorical and explicit ruling).”  And this is the absolute ruling of the Jamhoor. Imaam Raafi’ narrated that it is not Mustahab for women to emerge (for going to the Eid Salaat) under any circumstances. The  proper view (of the Shaafi Math-hab) is the former.

When they (the hags) emerge (from their homes to go to the Eid Salaat), their emergence  with  shabby clothes is  preferred. And, they should not wear (such clothes) which will advertise them. It is preferable that they clean themselves with  (only) water. Perfume is Makrooh for them. All of this is applicable to such old hags who are not desired (i.e. they are not a source or cause of mischief). But, regarding young women and women of beauty and women who are desirable (to men), their presence is Makrooh (i.e. forbidden) on account  of the fear of fitnah for them and with them.”  (Al-Majmoo’, Vol.5, page 13)

The following facts emerge from this discussion:

  • The lady committed chicanery by citing the Hadith in Al-Majmoo’ while concealing the commentary.
  • Eid Salaat is not Waajib for women, young or old.
  • If  all the strict conditions are observed, then it is permissible for  very old aunts and grandmas who will be shabbily dressed hags on the  occasion  to attend.
  • It is not permissible for young and attractive women, even if dressed shabbily, and even if all conditions are fulfilled, to attend Eid Salaat.
  • While the woman of the Waajib view maintains the blanket permissibility, nay compulsion, for all women of whatever class and make to attend, the Shaafi’ Math-hab from which she  abortively attempts to extravasate support,  harshly refutes her position.

Furthermore, the Shaafi’ Fuqaha subsequently prohibited even the hags from attending. Explaining  who the thawaatul hay-aat women are, Imaam Nawawi states: “They are  (such women) who are desired because of their beauty, hence their presence (at the Eid Salaat) is Makrooh.”

The writer states:

(3)   “According to Ahmad ibn Naqeeb al Misri in his book ‘Umdatih Salik’ Eid Salaat is  sunnat-muakkadah for all.”

Our comment: Here too, the aunt acts unintelligently. She claims that Eid Salaat is Waajib on women, but cites an Aalim who says that it is Sunnatul Muakkadah. Also, the Salaat  being Sunnatul Muakkadah according to the Shaafi’ Math-hab is not  a licence for women to attend the Eidgah. Although Eid Salaat is Sunnah  for  even females according to the Shaafi’ Math-hab,  Shaikh Shahabuddin  Abul Abbaas Ahmad Bin Naqeeb does not specifically affirm this fact in his Umdatus Saalik. He only states: “It is Sunnat-e-Muakkadah.” He does not say in Umdatus Saalik that it is Sunnatul Muakkadah for women. The aunt has injected her opinion into Umdatus Saalik.

Furthermore, the aunt again is guilty of chicanery, for she conveniently ignores what is said in Umdatus Saalik regarding females attending the Eidgah. On the very same page, just a few lines below the Sunnatul Muakkadah ruling, Shaikh Ahmad Bin Naqeeb sates: “The presence of such women who are not desirable is preferable (and they too should come) without perfume and without adornment.”

Elaborating on ‘undesirable women’, the following is mentioned in the commentary of Umdatus Saalik: “Women who are not desirable because of old-age or ugliness/foul-smelling. But (if they attend) then they (i.e. the smelly hags) should attend without perfume and without adornment.”

Then Ibn Naqeeb  furthermore says in Umdatus Saalik regarding female attendance: “It is Makrooh (i.e. forbidden) for desirable women to attend.” The commentary adds: “Totally forbidden with or without adornment.”

This dumb aunt who appears to be addicted to chicanery, shamelessly deletes the texts which are relevant to female attendance, yet she audaciously  cites the kitaab and the author in the vain hope that no one will detect her pettifoggery.

The writer states:

(4)   “According to the Maaliki’s – As-Sheikh Abu Umar bin Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Abdul Barr An-Namri (May Allah be pleased with him) said in his book Al-Kaafi fie fiqh Ahl-Madinah in the chapter of Prayer of the two Eids: “It is alright for women to be present or witness the prayer of the two Eids”

Our comment: Again she tenders a view in which there is not a vestige of support for her Waajib theory. The Maaliki Faqeeh, Abdul Barr’s statement: ‘It is alright’ cannever be cited as a basis  for Eid Salaat being Waajib on women.  Again, the dumb aunt is guilty of chicanery and dishonesty. She quotes partially from the kitaab, Al-Kaafi –  only that portion from which she tries to eke out a semblance of support for her corrupt waajib view. The statement of Sheikh Abdul Barr Namri which negates the ‘alright’ factor, and which she conveniently deletes, is:  “Their (i.e. women’s) abstention from being present (at the Eidgah) is more preferable to me on account of what has developed among the people regarding exhibition (by females).”          (Al-Kaafi, Page 78)

This is a clear indication of the negation of the aunt’s waajib theory. Her deletion of this portion of the statement is tantamount to chicanery.

The writer states:

(5)  “Al-Qadi Abul Waleed Mohammad bin Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Rushd Al-Qurtubi said in his book Bidaaya-tul Mujtahid wa ni haa-yatul Muktasid which mentions the four Imams (Abu Hanifa, Maalik Bin Anas, Mohammed bin Idris As-Shaafi and Ahmed bin Hanbal) and various other juristic schools of thought … Under the chapter of the two Eid prayers: “The distinction is made in the Prophetic tradition between the ruling of the Eid and the Friday congregational prayer and on that it confirms that the  Prophet (May Allah bless and grant him peace) instructed the women to attend the Eid congregations and not for the Friday congregational prayer…”

Our comment: The rambling of the dumb aunt clearly displays her bankruptcy in the sphere of daleel (Shar’i proof). Firstly, the question being discussed is not the ‘distinction’ between Eid and Jumuah in relation to women’s attendance – permissible or not.

Secondly,  nothing of what she has rambled above supports her contention of wujoob, namely, Eid Salaat is waajib on woman. None of the illustrious names she has  dragged into her argument is of the view that Eid Salaat is waajib for women  and/or attending the Eidgah is waajib for them. They all spell out unambiguously that Eid Salaat is an obligation on only those on whom Jumuah Salaat is compulsory. Thus, Qaadhi Ibn Rushd Qyrtubi states in this very kitaab, Bidaayatul Mujtahid from which the aunt has  selectively quoted:   “With regard to (Jumuah) being compulsory, it is compulsory on the one in whom exists the aforementioned conditions for the Wujoob of the Salaat, and in addition another four conditions of which two are unanimous….  The two unanimous conditions are thukoorah (i.e. to be a male) and saht (health). Thus Jumuah is unanimously  not Waajib on  a woman nor on the sick.”

Ibn Rushd Qurtubi further comments  in Bidayatul Mujtahid: “They (the Fuqaha) differ with regards to those on whom Eid Salaat is obligatory. Note: Obligatory in this context is Wujoob of the Sunnah (This is the majority view. Wujoob here does not been  the technical classification). Thus a group (of Fuqaha) say that both the resident and the traveller should perfom Eid Salaat. This is also the view of Shaafi’ and Hasan Basri. Hence Shaafi’ said: ‘Verily, the village dwellers, and those on whom there is no Jumuah should perform Eid Salaat, and even a woman should perform it in her home.” (Bidayatul Mujtahid, page 158)

The inclination of Ibn Rushd Qurtubi and of the Shaafi’ Math-hab is clearly established by the statement: “even a woman should perform it (Eid Salaat) in her home”. According to the Shaafi’ Math-hab jamaa’t is not a requisite for the validity of Eid Salaat. Everyone, be  it male or female, and wherever he/she may be, should perform Eid Salaat.

This reference too does not assist in any way whatsoever the dumb aunt’s waajib theory. The ‘distinction’ she refers to is totally unrelated to the classification of the Salaat itself. The fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not instruct women to attend Jumuah Salaat, but did do so with regard to Eid Salaat, and even menstruating females were ordered out, testifies that the objective for this instruction was NOT Salaat. It was something else. Explaining the reason for this instruction in the initial phase of Islam, the following appears in Fataawa Tatarkhaaniyyah as well as in other kutub: “Their khurooj (coming out from their homes to the Eidgah) was only to increase the number of the Muslims. It is mentioned in the Hadith of Umme Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha): ‘We women used to come out with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in both Eids, even the menstruating women.’  It is obvious that a woman in haidh does not perform Salaat (nevertheless, she was ordered to attend)’ Thus we learn that the purpose for women coming out (in the early stage) was to increase the gathering of the Muslims.”

This purpose has outlived its utility. Added to it is the prevalence of  fitnah. Hence the Fuqaha of all four Math-habs have prohibited women from attending the Musjid or the Eidgah for any Salaat whatsoever.

Numerous kutub of Fiqh mention the names and views of all four Imaams. The mere mention of their names by the miserable dumb aunt provides no substantiation for her wujoob figment. Nowhere in Bidayatul Mujtahid is it stated that any of these Imaams contended that Eid Salaat is waajib on women. Thus, in this quotation she acquitted herself deceptively, attempting to peddle the idea that the author of Bidayatul Mujtahid, the four Imaams , as well as other ‘juristic schools of thought’ propagated the wujoob theory. But this is manifestly false and misleading. None of them claimed that Eid Salaat is Waajib for women.

The writer states:

(6)   “Eid salaat is according to the Hanbali scholar Abu Hamid mustahab for both men and women, and in an attribution to Imaam Ahmed it is permissible not mustahab.”

Again there is absolutely no support for her contention that Eid Salaat is waajib for women. She has been at pains to create the wujoob impression. But each time she  presents a quotation which is in diametric contradiction of her wujoob idea.  This Hambali reference debunks her belief.  She does not even cite the reference for this statement which  she attributes baselessly to one ‘Abu Hamid’.

Furthermore, we truly pity the dumb aunt. Since she lacks  academic expertise in Shar’i Uloom, her rambling simply exhibits her confusion. She  does not understand what she picks up from her surfing the internet. Just  look at the concoction she attributes to the Hanaabilah (the followers of the Hambali Math-hab). She states very explicitly: “Eid salaat is according to the Hanbali scholar Abu Hamid mustahab for both men and women, and in an attribution to Imaam Ahmed it is permissible mot mustahab.” It has been said that ‘a little knowledge is dangerous’. This applies to secular knowledge. In so far as Shar’i  Knowledge is concerned, ‘A little knowledge is fatal.’ It is fatal for  that person’s Imaan.

The Hambali Faqeeh, Ibn Haamid (not Abu Hamid) never said that  “Eid Salaat is mustahab for both men and women” nor did any Faqeeh attribute to Imaam Ahmad the view that Eid Salaat “is permissible not mustahab.” The aunt’s  incredulous audacious claim boggles the mind. If we were not convinced of the aunt’s ignorance, we would have accused her of slander against Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh) and against all the  Hambali Fuqaha, for not a single one of them had contended that Eid Salaat is Mustahab/Permisible for both men and women.

We do understand that due to the miscreant dumb aunt’s Nuqs fil Aql (Intellectual Deficiency) as stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  she could not comprehend what she had read of the Arabic text, or perhaps her handler, Mr.Wadee from the Saudi embassy had again mistranslated for her what  is recorded in all the kutub of the Hanaabilah. Let us now cite what the Hambali Math-hab has to say regarding the category of the Eid Salaat.

(a) Ibn Qudaamah,  who was among the foremost  Hambali  authorities, states in Al-Mughni, Vol.2, page 232:   “There is nothing wrong in women  emerging (from their homes) on the day of Eid to go to the Musallaa (Eidgah). Ibn Haamid said: ‘That is Mustahab.” ……..Al-Qaadhi said: ‘The apparent  meaning of the statement of Ahmad (Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal) is that it is permissible, not mustahab.”
The khuroojun nisa (emergence of the women) is mustahab according to Ibn Haamid, and permissible according to Imaam Ahmad. These views pertain to khuroojun nisa, not to the Eid Salaat.  As far as the Eid Salaat is concerned, the ruling of the Hambali Math-hab is Fardh-e-Kifaayah. Thus, it is mentioned in Al-Mughni, Vol.2, page 223:  “Eid Salaat is Fardh alal Kifaayah. If the people of a city  unite in its abandonment, the Imaam should wage war against them.”

(b) In Al-Ansaaf, Vol. 2, page 396 (also a Hambali kitaab), it appears:  “It (Eid Salaat) is Fardh alal Kifaayah: This is the Math-hab  which is the majority of the (Hambali) Ashaab has adopted. Al-Hawaashi said: ‘This is the Math-hab (i.e. the official view of the Hambali Math-hab).’ Zarkashi said:  ‘This is the Math-hab (then he supports this view by citing more than 15 Hambali kutub).”

(c) In Al-Uddah Sharhil Umdah, page  107, it is said:  “Eid Salaat is Fardh alal Kifaayah.”

(d) Al-Muqni’, page  43, states:  “The Salaat of the two Eids is Fardh alal Kifaayah. If the people of a city unite to abandon it, the Imaam shall fight them.”

(e) It appears as follows in  Kash-shaaful Qinaa’: “The Salaat of both Eids is a Shar’i injunction on which there is consensus. It is Fardh Kifaayah…”

The dumb aunt has confused  the khurooj of women with the Eid Salaat. It should also be noted that in terms of the Hambali Math-hab  the permissibility of khurooj is governed by the many very strict conditions which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had instructed, but which are no longer observed. The  severity of the condition of  ‘shabbiness’ negates the possibility of  women in this age submitting to all the conditions which had  regulated their emergence in the early stage of Islam.


One of the conditions stipulated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was: “They should come out being tafilaat (i.e. dirty, untidy, shabby and smelly).” Elaborating on the meaning of ‘tafliaat’, the Shaafi’ kitaab, Al-Muhath-thab states: “They should refrain from perfume and become like tafilaat. They (tafilaat) are (such women) who are smelly. Tafilaat do not use perfume (at all), hence they emit a detestable stench.”

Can the aunt honestly pledge that the women who are today so eager to attend the Eidgah with males are prepared to first reduce themselves to stinking hags  who will forthwith extinguish the carnal desires and lusts of the fussaaq and fujjaar who support them in their misguided attempts to gate crash into the Eidgah and Musjid? Did the dumb aunt and her cohorts actually stink when they went to the sham ‘eidgah’ in Lenasia where they stood  almost together with the men  in total conflict with every condition imposed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?

This one condition of  first becoming smelly and stinking will be adequate to constrain every woman of this age to veto the idea of going to the Eidgah. No woman in this age  will come to terms  with this condition, viz., to be  shabby, smelly and stinking in the public. Yes, we can understand  that nowadays women choose be become ‘tafilaat’ within their homes, but when they parade outside to attract gazes, they perpetrate prostitution of charms. In such circumstances, Ibn Hajar Haitami, the 8th century Shaafi’ authority  said that only a GHABI (MORON) will promote female attendance at the Musjid/Eidgah.

The writer states:

(7)   “As-Sheikh Burhanodien Abu Ishak Ebrahim bin Mohammas bin Abdullah bin Moeflih Al-Maqdasi Al-Khanbali in his book Al-Mudoo Sharh Al-Mukni in  the chapter of the prayer of the two Eids…”It is alright for women to attend the Eid (congregation) but they should not use perfume and dress seductively or wear makeup and mix with men…”

Again here is no support for the miserable dumb aunt’s wujoob idea.  Being ‘alright’ is far from being waajib. Furthermore the ‘alrightness’ is severely curtailed by a host of stringent conditions which women of today will never observe. Even the  fussaaq men of today will not be pleased to have a congregation of smelly, stinking hags nearby.

The dumb aunt also seems to have a penchant to reproduce a kilometre of lineage when citing a name. It is best if she  terminates the chain of lineage  with Nabi Aadam (alayhis salaam). We suspect that this penchant is motivated by the desire to create awe in readers. They say the bulkier the turban and the longer its tail, the idea of    greater ‘knowledge’ will be created.

(8)   Citing another one kilometre lineage, the aunt says:

As-Sheikh Abu Mohammad Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Qudaamah Al-Maqdasi said is his book Al-Mughni: In the Chapter of (No problem for women attending the place of Prayer on the day of Eid). Ibn Hamid said: “It is recommended/preferred (to attend the Prayer.)”

We have already explained  what is mentioned in Al-Mughni. See above, No.6. Here we shall say what the problem is. The problem  now is that the aunts and the grandmas refuse to emerge  shabbily, smelly and stinking. Even the hags desire to display themselves as young girls.  When this problem disappears, and the smelly hags abound, then the fatwa shall be reconsidered.

This ‘problem’ did not exist during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and  Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), hence  the permission was not abrogated. But, no person of intelligence and honesty will deny the  existence of the ‘problem’ of extreme fitnah in our times. The  thought of being ‘smelly’ in public for the purposes of attending the Eidgah is absolutely abhorrent to all women  in this age.  Women, even the poor and destitute ones, nowadays ensure that their armoury of  cosmetics, perfume, deodorants, sprays, aphrodisiacs, creams, scented soaps, powders, lotions, shampoos, potions and an array of other  substances of fragrance remains well-stocked. And, all these substances of abuse are reserved for outside-the-home occasions, haunts and jaunts. We, however, have to concede that they do have a sound rationale for their  stock of  items of substance abuse with which they feel constrained to fumigate their  bodies which perennially emit foul stenches due to all the SANHA and MJC haraam ‘halaal’ certified rotten, stinking, diseased, cancer-producing carrion chickens and halaalized pork substances such as ham cheese, etc. which they devour. Such   rotten substances most assuredly result in the emission of foul stenches from the human body. We therefore presume that the ladies feel compelled to invest in their huge stocks of   substances of abuse to temporarily suppress them from being ‘Tafilaat’ (shabby, smelly hags).

This profile of today’s women which we have presented here is mild compared to the profile depicted by Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh). Everyone who has some  knowledge of  Islamic history will know the elevated rank which Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) occupied in the firmament of the Auliya. But, we baulk at this juncture and shall refrain from presenting his depiction of  the reality of  Tafilaat for fear of some aunts  hauling us  to the gender court. Maybe sometime in the  not too distant future we shall apprize readers of the description of women made by Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh), and which is nothing but the Haqq.

(9)   Citing  the Hanafi authority, Imaam Sarakhsi, the miscreant aunt states:

“According to the Hanafi’s: 1. Sheikh Abu Bakr Mohammad Bin Abi Sahl loes Sarahgsiyi (Allah mercy on him) says in his book Al-Mubsoot: “It is not for women to go out for the two Eids but it was already allowed for them (women) concerning that. However today it is definitely detested referring to the teenage (female) youth as it is decided that they should remain at their homes, not to attend due to any form of infatuation, seduction etc.. And when prayer is performed in the Mosque and the menstruating (women) is present they should remain at the door and this chapter”

We have reproduced the  misguided dumb aunt’s  text verbatim. Someone who presents such an atrocious translation, both from the Arabic and English perspective, should be whipped for delving in the mater of Shar’i  law. She even corrupts  the name of this illustrious Imaam who is among the highest-ranking Hanafi authorities. The following is a decent translation of the passage from Al-Mabsoot which the dumb aunt has aborted so hideously:

“Khurooj (to go out) in both Eids is not for women. Verily, in this matter (i.e. attending Eid), they used to be allowed. However, today, verily I detest it, i.e. for the young ones among them (women), for verily they have been commanded to remain permanently (qaraar) in (their) homes, and they were prohibited from khurooj (emerging out) because  in it (khurooj) is fitnah.”

It appears that the ‘translation’ of  Imaam Sarakhsi’s statement was  passed off to the dumb aunt by some stupid  fellow  in the Saudi embassy who, on the dumb aunt’s own admission, did the corrupt translation from I’laaus Sunan, resulting in the fabrication of bunkum to Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thaanvi.  The problem which the miserable dumb apa faces is that while she is hopelessly deficient in understanding the Arabic kutub, the Saudi translator is hopelessly deficient in the English language, hence the atrocious abortion perpetrated by both entities of deviation.

Besides the mutilation of the translation, the dumb granny committed unpardonable chicanery. Consider the following facts of her chicanery:

  • There is no reference to teenage youth in Al-Mabsoot. The term as-shawaabb means young women, and ash-shawabb are not confined to teenage girls. All those females who are not aged hags and who hold sexual attraction come within the scope of ash-shawaabb.
  • Imaam Sarakhsi does not say: “it is decided that they should remain ay their homes”. He says: “..most certainly, they were commanded to remain permanently in (their) homes”. He refers to the command of qaraar fil buyoot stated in the Qur’aanic aayat which orders women to remain resolutely in their homes and not emerge out.
  • Imaam Sarakhsi does not say: “…not to attend”. He states very clearly in the text which the errant apa cited: “They (women) have been prohibited from khurooj”.
  • The dumb lady making an interpolation, adds:  “And when prayer is performed in the mosque and the menstruating (women) is present they should remain at the door and this chapter”   What she means by ‘this chapter’ in the context of the interpolated statement is a stupid mystery.  This statement is nowhere in the entire chapter on Eid Salaat in Al-Mabsoot. She must have aborted it from another chapter and annexed it to the text which she aborted from Al-Mabsoot.

Furthermore, Imaam Sarakhsi emphatically states that it is not permissible for women to attend the Eid Salaat, and that their emergence for this purpose has been prohibited, and that the Qur’aan commands them to remain resolutely inside their homes. How can the aunt be so stupid to present the views of Imaam Sarakhsi in substantiation of her utterly baseless theory of wujoob?

The writer states:

(10)     “After citing the view that maintains distinguishing between a young woman and an old lady, Shaykh Zafar says: “This is the Zhahir al-Riwaya from our Hanafi scholars.” After citing the view that maintains that it is makruh he said: ‘This is the position of the latter Hanafi scholars because of corrupt times.”

The position of total prohibition which Allaamah Zafar Ahmad states in the text which the aunt cited partially and selectively, is not confined to the Hanafi Fuqaha. The Makrooh (prohibited) position stated by Allaamah Zafar Ahmad reads as follows:

“Verily it is Makrooh. Tirmizi has narrated it from Thauri, Ibn Mubaarak, and it is also the view of Maalik and Abu Yusuf. Ibn Qudaamah has narrated it from Nakh’i and Yahya Bin Saeed Ansaari. And this view has been adopted by Mutakh-khiroon Mashaaikh of the Hanafiyyah because of the corruption of the  times”.

Her selective citation is motivated by the desire to mislead and create confusion. She very conveniently overlooks THE CONCLUSION of Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thaanvi, in refuting the view of Shaukaani, which he sums up the entire women and Eid Salaat discussion as follows:

“……..Tahaawi said: “Verily the khurooj of women to Eid (the Eidgah) was in the early phase of Islam, for the purpose of swelling the assembly (of the Muslimeen). Thereafter it (i.e. women’s khurooj) was abrogated.” (This is Imaam Tahaawi’s ruling which Shaukaani refuted. But Allaamah Zafar Ahmad, rejecting Shaukaani’s arguments, states:)

“I say:  The following narrations which we have mentioned earlier in the section, ‘Prohibition of women from attending the Musaajid’, support  the view of Imaam Tahaawi:

  • The narration of Umm-e-Humaid, the wife of Humaidis Saaidi
  • The Marfoo’ narration of Umme Salmah, i.e. ‘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; her Salaat in her house is better that her Salaat in her neighbourhood Musjid.’
  • Aishah’s narration: ‘Verily, if Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had seen what women had introduced after him, he would have prohibited them from the Musjid just as the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited.’ Narrated by Muslim

The collection of Ahaadith indicates that women were initially instructed to attend congregational (Salaat) and Eid Salaat. Later Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) exhorted them to perform Salaat in (their) homes, and he said: ‘Verily her Salaat in her bait is better than her Salaat in my Musjid.’ However, he did not resolve on prohibition (for women) to attend congregational (Salaat). This is the interpretation for the narration of Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu an hu) regarding their khurooj after the conquest of Makkah.

Then the Sahaabah, after Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), prohibited them because of the fasaad (corruption) of the age. The statement of Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) indicates  this. There is no doubt that Aishah is greater than Umm-e-Atiyyah. (Furthermore) Ibn Mas’ood used to expel women from the Musjid on Fridays, and he would say: ‘Get out and go to your homes. That is best for you.’ Tabraani narrated it, and its narratprs are authentic/reliable. In fact, he (Ibn Mas’ood) would take an oath, and emphasize his oath (and say): ‘There is no better Musallaa or a woman than her bait (room/home).’ We have already explained this fully earlier.

Hence, those who hold the view of total prohibition of women’s khurooj, have not refuted the Ahaadith with corrupt opinions (as averred by Shaukaani). On the contrary, they have confined it to the noblest of the ages, namely, the age of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by virtue of the dalaalat (indication) of the authentic Ahaadith, and the statements of the most senior Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). (I’laaus Sunan, Vol. 8, pages 107 and 108)

It is thus conspicuous that there is absolutely not the slightest shred of support for the dumb aunt’s view of wujoob.

(11)   Then the poor lost soul vacillating in the vagaries of her jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance), doubt and confusion presents the ludicrous view of the Saudi government sheikh Ibn Uthaymin. Stating Ibn Uthaymin’s stupid attribution to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), she writes in her concoction:

“Sheikh Ibn Uthaymin writes: ‘The third saying is that it (Eid Salaat) is Fardu Ain (compulsory on every individual) and  that it is compulsory on all Muslims that they pray the Eid Prayer, and whoever doesn’t is a sinner, and to that (saying) went Abu Haneefah and Sheikhul Islam ibnu Taimiyyah chose it…”

We do not accept Ibn Uthaymeen or any other Saudi government scholar to be authorities of the Shariah. These government stooges had signed the baatil ‘fatwa’ to empower the Saudi regime to allow  the  holy land of Arabia to be polluted with American troops, and to stage the first invasion of  Iraq from Arabian soil. Qardawi too was among the treacherous who had signed this haraam ‘fatwa’ which enabled  Bush, senior, to land  kuffaar troops in the Land of Hijaaz, and from there invade, attack, pillage and plunder the Land of Iraq.  So, Uthaymeen’s stupid view should be assigned to the dirt bin.

The stupid aunt alleges that Uthaymeen’s ‘research’ had established that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) Eid Salaat is Fardh-e-Ain. Any true Scholar of Islam will scoff and mock at this gross stupidity. Uthaymen’s ‘research’ is downright stupid and extremely defective. Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah), in fact all four Math-habs, do not hold the Fardh-e-Ain view.  Only a buffoon will ignore the rulings of the all the Fuqaha of a Math-hab and latch on to some ludicrous obscurity to propound a view of his nafs.

Allaamah Zafar Ahmad in I’laaus Sunan clarified that Shaukaani had erred in making this preposterous attribution to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). These quacks masquerading as scholars are too blind and dumb to understand the contradictions which stem from their own miserable nafsaani views.  On the one hand the dumb woman will say that Imaam Abu Hanifah and the early Hanafi Fuqaha distinguished between young and old women. In other words, Imaam Abu Hanifah allowed old hags to attend the Eidgah, but prohibited the young women. The logical conclusion of this distinction is that Imaam Abu Hanifah denied all the young women from executing an obligation which he claimed (in the dumb woman’s imagination) to be ‘Fardh-e-Ain’.

Further, the dumb aunt tries to mislead unwary and stupid people of her ilk with Ibn Uthaymeen’s fallacious Fardh-e-Ain exposition. It should be well understood that Ibn Uthaymeen himself did not ascribe to the view that Eid Salaat is Fardh-e-Ain on women not on men. This Saudi sheikh generally followed the Fiqh of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal. Generally in Fiqh, all the Saudi sheikhs are Hamablis. According to the Hambali view, Eid Salaat is Fardh alal Kifaayah, and that too for only men. This has already been explained earlier on.

The alleged attribution of the Fardh-e-Ain view to Ibn Taimiyyah is also false.  If Ibn Uthaymeen had indeed contended this view, then it testifies further for the deficiency of his research. Ibn Taimiyyah himself states: “..We have preferred (the view) that the Eid Salaat is Waajib alal A’yaan (Waajib on everyone) as is the statement of Abu Hanifah and others.”

(Fataawa Ibn Taimiyyah, Vol. 23, page 161) This thoroughly debunks what the dumb woman has attributed to Ibn Uthaymeen. The factual position is that  neither Imaam Abu Hanifah, nor Ibn Taimiyyah, nor Ibn Uthaymeen  held the view that Eid Salaat is Fardh-e-Ain.

If Ibn Uthaymeen had indeed made this claim in  Mustaqni as the miscreant apa claims, then he must have merely narrated  what someone else has said hence, the aunt  states: ‘Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen writes: ‘The third saying: Is that it is Fardu Ain…..”

Furthermore, when all the Hanafi Fuqaha refute the Fardh-e-Ain attribution to Imaam Abu Hanifah, then what value  can the confounded stupid view of Uthaymeen and the  ludicrously dumb woman have? This view is absolutely fallacious.

(12)                       Trying to eke out capital for her baatil, the dumb grandma states:

“Hazrat AbuBakr, Umar and Ali (RA): Eid salaat is waajib on men and women (Subul-Alsalaam; page 135) Then she poses the silly question: “Can anyone be so bold as to contradict 3 of the Khaliphs-AbuBakr, Umar and Ali Ra? As all 3 have stated that Eid salaat is waajib for women.”

Firstly, in response to her silly question, we say:

  • Yes, millions have been “so bold to contradict 3 of the Khaliphs”. Assuming that her contention is correct, then the first one to contradict was the third Khalifah, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). She says ‘3’, but there were 4 Khulafa-e-Raashideen.
  • All Four Imaams  of the Math-habs ‘contradicted’ this hallucination of the dumb woman, for none of them contended that Eid Salaat is Waajib on men as all references prove.
  • All the innumerable Fuqaha down the long corridor of Islam’s 14 century history ‘contradicted’ the imagination attributed to the three Khalifahs. None of these Fuqaha held the view that Eid Salaat is Waajib for women. On the contrary, they prohibited females from Eid Salaat.

That there is no Math-hab which holds the view that Eid Salaat is Waajib for women is more than adequate proof for the  fallacy of the Wujoob theory propounded by the dumb woman. All the translations she has presented have been provided by her handlers at the Saudi embassy, hence the conspicuous atrocity in these English renditions, exactly Saudi style.

Secondly, the author of the kitaab Subulus Salaam was a very late-comer on the stage of Shar’i Uloom. He completed his kitaab in  the year 1164 Hijri, that is about 268 years ago. All Math-habs reject the wujoob theory which this author  allegedly attributes to the three Khulafa. In reality he made no such claim as  the dumb aunt has hallucinated. This is explained  further on.

Thirdly, the technical classification of the Ahkaam into  Fardh, Waajib, Sunnatul Muakkadah, etc. was unknown to the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. The science of classification of Ahkaam is a much later development, long after the demise of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.

Fourthly, Subulus Salaam is nowhere in the category and class of the Kutub of the Mutaqaddimeen and Muta-akh-khireen Fuqaha. Any view/statement of Subulus Salaam which is uncorroborated by the official view of the Math-hab is unacceptable. Thus, the wujoob for women view stated in this kitaab is set aside as baseless.

(13)                       The dumb aunt then lists the views of Sheikh Bin Baz, Sheikh Ibn Jibreen and Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen. These are all modern-day Saudi government scholars. No significance can be attached to their views. They are in conflict with the official view of the Shariah in terms of all four Math-habs. Furthermore, even these government scholars are of the view that  the permissibility is encumbered with a host of strict conditions. Minus the conditions, it will obviously not be permissible for women to attend the Eid Salaat even according to these liberal Saudi government scholars.

Even the Saudi government is unable to impose the strict conditions on women nowadays. Everyone who has gone for Hajj or Umrah can testify to the total breakdown of Hijaab in both Harams. The scenario of intermingling is appalling and haraam. All the conditions pertaining to dress, adornment, perfume, audaciousness, intermingling, being smelly, etc. are totally missing with the Saudi regime being helpless to create Shar’i order.

Furthermore, the new metamorphosis which Saudi Arabia is currently undergoing at the command of America with regard to ‘gender equality’, has widely opened the doors  for  a deluge of  fitnah and fasaad – immorality, vice and corruption.  Thus, to speak of permissibility of women attending the Eidgah in the prevailing corrupt and immoral scenario, is to speak absolute rubbish.

(14)                       The dumb apa also cites Sheikh Albani. This is another modern-time deviate who was not even a qualified Aalim. He holds no rank in Shar’i Uloom. His views are worthless.

(15)                       Sheikh Muhammad Salih Munajjid, the owner of a website is a present day  scholar who may not be cited to refute what the Shariah has propagated  since the past fourteen centuries.

(16)                       Dr.Wahbi al Zuhaily, Sheikh Faraz Rabbani, Anwar al Awlaki, Naeila Ackbarali, and Mufti Ahmed Yar Khan Naeemi whom the dumb apa cites are all non-entities in relation to the illustrious Sahaabah, Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, and the Fuqaha of both eras. It is downright stupid to introduce these non-entities into this discussion.

At this juncture we must emphasize that we did not introduce a single one of our senior Ulama and Muftis into this discussion. In fact, for the support of our  proclamation of the Haqq on this issue we did not lean on a single one of our  illustrious Akaabireen such as Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi and the  dazzling  galaxy of  the great Auliya and Ulama of the Indo-Pak sub-continent. We have restricted our evidence to non-Indian, non-Pakistani and non-Deobandi Ulama to shut the mouths of the deviates, mudhilleen, zindeeqs, and dumb characters masquerading as ‘scholars’. Whenever they are bereft of dalaa-il –and they are always bankrupt in this regard – they resort to emotion and irrationally  refute the views of the Shariah merely on the basis that  the proclaimer happens to be a senior among the Ulama of Deoband.

Now that we have refrained from citing our Akaabireen, we reject with contempt the stupid woman’s attempt to foist the views of  today’s non-entities on us. The views of the non-entities are  decrepit, short-sighted and in conflict with the principles and tenets of the Shariah. We are just not interested in the nonsensical views of the modernists and the liberal muftis and sheikhs. Argument must necessarily be confined to Dalaail-e-Ar’ba-ah (the Four Sources of the Shariah), and the rulings of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha in general.

There are no Mujtahids alive. No one has the right to  tear out a Hadith from the kutub and  submit it to his/her stupid opinion for  formulating a law. There is no room in the Shariah for transforming the  Shariah from the   form it  had during the Khairul Quroon (the Three noblest Ages of Islam) to any new form conjectured by the copro-soiled brains of deviates and miscreant sheikhs and muftis, and by dumb women quacks and cranks masquerading as ‘mujtahids’.

(17)                       Citing the view of Mufti Naeemi, the dumb aunt  states:

“Additionally, there is the well-known position in the Hanafi madhab that it is disliked for women to attend the mosques for fear of the fitna that this might cause. This is a ‘contextual’ fatwa if we may term it thus -a perfectly legitimate one but one that responds to conditions that exist in society at a given point in time. If these conditions change, the fatwa can change. As Deobandi school Mufti Muhammad bin Adam al-Kawthari reflects: “If we were to apply this context to the modern era – where women are all over the market areas, shopping malls, shopping centres, streets and roads – it seems unfair to completely shun them  from entering the Mosques. As one scholar of piety and knowledge once said: “We don’t mind women frequenting the most disliked places in the sight of Allah which are the bazaars, but we have a major problem with women coming in the most beloved of places in the sight of Allah, which are the Mosques.”

The short-sightedness of the scholars who made the aforementioned comments is scandalous. They blurted out ghutha without reflecting. Let us dissect and demolish the bunkum which the above passage contains.


(a) The ‘well-known position’ of the Hanafi Math-hab is PROHIBITION, not mere ‘dislike’. This position is shared by the other Math-habs as well – by all the Math-habs. This position is based on solid and sound Shar’i dalaa-il. These arguments are presented in several books written on this subject by different Ulama. For brevity’s sake, we reproduce here the fatwa of the Shaafi’ Math-hab stated by Ibn Hajr Haitami, the 8th century Shaafi’ authority:

“No one will hesitate to prohibit women (from the Musaajid/Eidgah) except a ghabi (a moron), who is a jaahil (ignoramus), who lacks intellectual discernment of the subtleties (principles, objectives and spirit) of the Shariah……The correct verdict is CATEGORICAL TAHREEM (i.e. it is haraam for women to go to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa, and this, in a nutshell is (the position) of our Math-hab (Shaafi’).”

– Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyyatul Kubra

This was declared in the 8th century. Only morons, buffoons,  cranks and quacks venture to offer a contradicting  corrupt ‘fatwa’ in this  present age in which fisq, fujoor and fitnah have multiplied a thousandfold.

(b) The ‘contextual’ fatwa: Undoubtedly, rulings do change with changing circumstances. But, first the proponents of female emergence and exhibition should prove that the conditions have indeed changed sufficiently to warrant another ‘contextual’ fatwa. The initiation of the fitnah which led to the ban, was already established during the age of the Sahaabah. Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and the other senior Sahaabah which include Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhum) and the whole body of the Sahaabah had unambiguously confirmed this.

Thereafter, in each subsequent generation the Fuqaha confirmed the worsening scenario of the fitnah. The kutub of Fiqh are replete with confirmation of the deteriorating morals of both men and women. If anyone in this age is so dense in his/her brains to contend that the situation has been restored to the state of piety which had prevailed during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he can only be the worst moron or a munaafiq whose objective is to destroy the Deen.

Far from the circumstances having changed for the better, the conditions are incrementally changing for the worse.  Vice, immorality and fisq and fujoor of the worst kind are on the rise. The Shariah thus demands the reinforcement of the 14 century prohibition which had banned women from the Musaajid. Thus, the ‘contextual’ fatwa argument is a red herring presented by a short-sighted Mufti who has failed to understand the operation of the principles of the Shariah and the dangers concomitant to changing a fatwa which was prompted by such conditions which today exist to a greater degree than the scenario which had originally spawned it.

(c) The argument of women prowling all over the show is devoid of Shar’i substance. If women prowl the public malls and streets prostituting their charms, it is not grounds for allowing them to extend their fitnah into the Musaajid which are the last bastions of piety which still remain standing in this Ummah. The proponent of this view will agree that it is haraam for women to make khurooj from their homes for prowling in the bazaars, and that the husbands who permit their wives to come under the scope of Allah’s la’nat (curse) are described in the Hadith as ‘dayyooth’. Is it intelligent, Islamic and permissible to extend this haraam and la’nat into the Musjid simply because the dayyooth husbands and fathers are unable or unwilling to institute steps to arrest the downward slip into the abyss of immorality?

The brains which advocate extension of the haraam activities to the Musaajid because the female-prowling in the bazaars cannot be prevented due to male imbecility and desensitization of Imaan suffer from coprophilic tendencies and the type of ghabaawah (intellectual density)  mentioned by Ibn Hajr  Haitami As-Shaafi’.

The solution for the prowling of females in bazaars is to remedy this rot and decadence with ta’leem. The decadence cannot be cured by opening up more avenues for prowling. Opening the Musaajid for females serves to only entrench their khurooj and prowling.

(d) The comment: “We don’t mind women frequenting the most disliked places……..” is most unbecoming for an Aalim who possesses correct understanding and true Ilm. Only zindeeqs, munaafiqeen, fussaaq and fujjaar ‘don’t mind’ their womenfolk prowling in the malls and the bazaars. Those who are firm on the original Prohibition of women attending the Musjid absolutely abhor women in bazaars and malls. The Molvi Sahib who ventured this stupid argument in a bid to scuttle the fourteen century Shar’i prohibition, is too dim to understand the principles of the Shariah. He has no right to comment. Just as we “mind women frequenting the Musjid”, so too do we mind, in fact to a greater degree, women frequenting the bazaars. The mufti’s argument holds no water and is dismissed with contempt.

(e) The comments of Tirmizi quoted by the dumb aunt confirms 100% that the ‘contextual’ fatwa stays in place. His comments further reinforces the stand of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of all Math-habs, and there is absolutely no consolation and no support for the haraam bunkum stupid theory of wujoob propounded by the miscreant  apa.

(18)                       The statement of  Umm-e-Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) alluded to by the  dumb lady does not override the fatwa of Hadhrat Aishah Siddiqah (radhiyallahu anha) – a fatwa which Hadhrat Umar and all the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), and all the Fuqaha of all Math-habs upheld and followed from the beginning to this day. Only wayward sheikhs and molvis, plus dumb modernists of the zindeeq category reject the Fatwa of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha). Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thaanvi has explained the statement of Umme Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) in his Ilaaus Sunan. Her statement is Mansookh (aborogated), and the dalaail for  such abrogation are  crystal clear, but blind dumb aunts are incapable of  comprehension. A Mujtahid of the calibre of Imaam Tahaawi stated that the fatwa  of Umm-e-Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) is mansookh.

The miscreant, dumb woman is truly wallowing in compound ignorance. When the Sahaabah and the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  structured the prohibition on Hadhrat Aisha’s fatwa,  then who is this  non-entity of this belated  era in close proximity to Qiyaamah to set herself up to challenge  Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha)? Her contumacy is indeed mind boggling. But then  Nuqs fil Aql (mental deficiency) is her natural attribute. This attribute has been further compounded with her arrogance and women’s lib. tendencies acquired from western sources.

The fact that the Fuqaha have prohibited women from Eid Salaat is more than adequate to satisfy the Muqallideen. The Muqallideen have no right to  fabricate  laws on the basis of  their opinion and their whimsical interpretation of Ahaadith. No one in this era has the right to structure masaa-il on the basis of Ahaadith. That was the function solely of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.  If the Shariah was open for abortion and mutilation in the way this dumb woman is perpetrating, then by this time Islam would have been an emasculated  culture eviscerated  of its truth and reality. It would have been an unrecognizable  empty shell just as today  Judaism and Christianity have absolutely no  resemblance to the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) respectively. The Qur’aan and Sunnah have blocked the avenues for interpretation by morons.

(19)                       To crown her pettifoggery, the dumb aunt cites in her support one clown and moron, Waris Mazhari of Deoband, who totters on the brink of kufr and shirk. The love for Hinduism which this ghabi cherishes constrains one to believe that he must be consuming the urine of the holy cows of Hinduism, hence he encourages Muslims to amalgamate themselves with Hindus and participate in their customs and festivals of shirk. She will not heed the fatwas of all the illustrious Ulama of Deoband, but swiftly quote in her favour a pseudo mushrik who is currently promoting the emergence of Muslim society into Hinduism. He distinguishes between the shirk of the Mushrikeen of Arabia and the shirk of the Hindus of India. In his warped, stercoraceous, convoluted brains, the shirk of the Hindus is lighter and acceptable, hence he encourages Muslims to dress like the Hindu Mushriks and attend their festivals of shirk where ‘holy’ cow urine is doled out as ‘tabarruk’, and which may soon be ‘halaalized’ by the carrion outfits. And cranks such as this Waris character cited by the dumb aunt.

Only insane characters expect Muslims to base Shar’i masaa-il on the views of a pro-mushrik coprophile such as this miserable Waris Mazhari  ghabi. The dumb aunt labours under the silly notion that since this mushrik moron hails from Deoband, the Ulama here will be awed by the mention of his name and link. This ghabi, to say the least is a perfect epistatis sample who has eviscerated himself of his Imaan by his embrace of the mushrikeen of India. There is no need for an academic rebuttal of the copropilic views which the ghabi has tendered on the issue of women and the Musjid.

(20)                       This ghabiah aunt has now to some degree understood the abject weakness of her claims and arguments, hence she has attempted to shift her goal post.  All along – in her criticism of the Radio Mufti’s fatwa stating that it is not permissible for women to attend the Musjid, she was promoting the idea of female attendance to the Musaajid. Now suddenly she makes a U-turn and says:

“The article is specific about Eid salaat and I am in no way advocating for women to attend the 5 daily prayers…”

Her Nuqs fil Aql is instrumental in this about turn. She has clearly advocated Musjid attendance in her article. Thus she presented the Ahaadith in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) granted permission for women to attend the Musjid for the daily five Salaat. The entire debate hinges on the 5 daily Salaat with the Eid Salaat being an ancillary or a secondary issue, whose prohibition is based on the very same dalaa-il which prohibit women from the Musaajid.

Anyone who has any doubt regarding her U-turn should browse through her response to the Radio Mufti’s fatwa. Her statements advocating that females attend the Musaajid are as follows:

* “As stated above, the Prophet has given a specific instruction – Do not prevent your women from attending the mosque – hence, if women want to attend they can do so and there should be facilities for them”

* “…and it again proves our point, the prophet SAW allowed women to attend conditionally, so why is Mufti saying women can’t go, when the prophet SAW said women can go.”

* “Finally, the Prophet SAW kept the door open for women to attend the mosques, so this door should be kept open, especially in the case of reverts and mussafirs.” The stupid aunt can’t even spell ‘musaafir’, yet she is supposed to be a ‘Freelance Journalist and Political Science Honour’s Student of the University of Pretoria’. Despite her silly secular qualifications her English grammar is horrible. Furthermore, her ‘5 years studies at Darul Uloom Pretoria’ has not sufficiently qualified her to even understand and translate what she  reads in the Arabic books of the Shariah.  Due to her appalling deficiency in this department, she made a hash and trash of several translations, and ascribed fabrications to Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thaanvi because she did not understand what is written in I’laaus Sunan.

Since her 5 year stint at the Pretoria Darul Uloom could not equip her with the ability to understand and translate the Arabic kutub, she was compelled to make do with the ludicrous translations offered to her by her Saudi handlers.

(21)                       Now on what basis has this dumb granny decided to refrain from advocating that women attend the Musjid for the five daily Salaat when she so intransigently and stupidly claim that the permissibility mentioned in the Hadith is extant? Why has she decided to withdraw her vigorous campaign from her advocacy of females attending the Musjid for the five Salaat, and why does she stupidly cling to her campaign regarding Eid Salaat? Just as there is Hadith command for the Eid Salaat, so too is there for the 5 daily Salaat. What then has constrained the dumb apa to create this distinction? Why this inconsistency and self-contradiction?

(22)                       The dumb woman says:

“…and the opinions of the Khaliphs are in Thaanvi’s book also…”

Let she make known what are those opinions of the Khaliphs which she alleges are in ‘Thaanvi’s’ book. Nowhere in I’laaus Sunan is it mentioned that according to the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, Eid Salaat is Waajib for women. This dumb woman appears to fabricate brazen lies for want of facts and evidence.

(23)                       The dumb aunt states:

“By the way, 3 ulema from the Jamiat in a private consult with more than 10 females and their spouses admitted that it is absolutely permissible for women to attend the Eid salaat as long as they satisfy the conditions, and they also stated that if the conditions are satisfied, no one can stop women from attending the mosques. They however are afraid to publicly announce this!”

The NNB Jamiat (the Fordsburg outfit to which the dumb aunt refers) consists of morons just like this ghabiah. The cranks in the NNB Jamiat’s office are not ‘ulema’. Their promotion of the condom-zina world cup haraam games is an adequate commentary of the satanism which this miscreant clique of molvis practice. They have become notorious for legalizing almost every immorality and haraam act by portraying the evil with an Islamic hue. Their stupid and haraam fatwa on the issue of female exhibition and attendance at the Eidgah. stated clandestinely according to the dumb woman, is devoid of Shar’i substance. These NNB Jamiat ghabis are responsible for having caused great harm and ruin to Islam in this country. They are leading unwary and stupid Muslims into Jahannum with their corrupt, haraam fatwas of nafsaaniyat. No importance can be attached to  their bunkum view of the issue.


(24)                       The glaring evidence staring the dumb aunt in the face, has compelled her to at least acknowledge that there existed extremely severe conditions for the permissibility of women attending the Musjid or the Eidghah.  Only a mad person or a zindeeq or munaafiq or a fool wallowing in compound ignorance (Jahl-e-Murakkab) is capable of contending that the strict conditions which accompanied female attendance at the Musjid in the initial phase of Islam, no longer apply  today in this immoral age.

Are women prepared to transform themselves into Tafilaat to qualify for attending the Musjid/Eidgah? Besides the other several strict conditions, let the aunts, grannies and the hags consider just this one condition. Is the dumb aunt who  so stupidly has embarked on her Saudi-inspired  women’s lib. campaign, prepared to be a ‘smelly hag’ as  the Fuqaha have explained?  We don’t know if this dumb aunt has already become a ‘smelly hag’. Perhaps she has abandoned all her western cosmetics, deodorants, sprays, and fumigating  substances in preparation for the emission of  pungent and stinking odours to qualify herself for attending the mock ‘eidgah’ this coming Eid. But she should understand that one ‘smelly hag’ is not sufficient for the revocation of the Fatwa of Prohibition.

We advise the dumb aunt to rather  embark on a campaign to convince the westernized  modern women who emit  stenches of zina which are the effects of all the haraam and filthy  kuffaar cosmetics they apply and wander into the public sector,  of the virtues of  ‘smelly hags’. She should induce women to first acquire the attributes of  ‘smelly hags’, for this is the very first imperative prerequisite before we could ever subject the Fatwa of Prohibition – the so-called ‘contextual’ fatwa –  for revocation.


(25)                       The incumbent conditions which  encumbered the permissibility during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are as follows:

(i) Women must appear as smelly hags

(ii) They must be covered with very large, shabby jilbaabs which conceal even their heads, leaving open only one eye. The haraam fashionable abayas and burqahs  are not jilbaabs. It is haraam for a woman to come into the public donning these fashionable garments.

(iii) At the Eidgah they should be  at the rear of the men. The separating gap between the men and women should be so large that if the Imaam recites the khutbah without the mike, they would not be able to hear the recitation.

(iv) There should be absolutely no intermingling at the Eidgah nor on the way in and way out.

With regard to these conditions, it has to be emphasized that the requisite of ‘smelliness’ is of primary importance. While the other conditions too are absolute, the absoluteness of being a ‘smelly hag’ has greater emphasis since this condition is pivotal for neutralizing the shaitaaniyat and carnality of the fussaaq and fujjaar males.

The revocation will not apply to young women even if they come within the purview of the concept of ‘smelly hags’. In other words, even if they should  resemble ‘smelly hags’ and cultivate  the  ‘smelly’, stinking attribute they will not be permitted to attend the Eidgah. for this distinction between old smelly hags and young women despite their adoption of ‘smelliness’ is so entrenched and confirmed that there can be no revocation of fatwa in respect of them.

Lest the advocates of women’s lib. accuse us of degrading women, we reiterate the exposition of  Tafilaat given by the renowned Shaafi’ authority, Ash-Shaikhul Imaam Az-Zaahid Al-Muwaffiq Abi Ishaaq Ibraaheem Bin Ali Bin Yoosuf Al-Fairoozabaazi Ash-Shiraazi (rahmatullah alayh), in his  highly-placed kitaab, Al-Muhath-thab:  “They should emerge in the state of Tafilaat, i.e. without  perfume ( and without all the haraam western  cosmetics, sprays, deodorants and the like). That is, they must abandon perfume, and become in the state of tafilaat. And they are ‘muntinaat’ (i.e. stinking women). Tafilaat do not apply perfume (this covers all forms of cosmetics), hence a detestable odour is perceived from them.” (Al-Muhath-thab, page 119) The analogy of the stench emitted by a stinking mouth is given.

(In compliance with the dumb’s aunt’s penchant, we too have added the Tail of Lineage to the name of this illustrious Shaafi’ authority).

The root word of ‘muntinaat’ is ‘natn’ which means “to stink, to have a bad odour’, e.g. of decayed meat, especially such as the nauseating smell emitted by the rotten carrion chickens certified ‘halaal’ by SANHA and MJC.

Should  the dumb aunt and her 10 cohorts who were in a secret meeting with the NNB Jamiat clique decide to form a committee to promote ‘stinkiness’ for the aunts, apas and sundry women, then serious consideration  could be applied to the ‘contextual’ fatwa.

Just this one primary condition regulating permissibility is ample for retaining the Fatwa of Prohibition until the end of time, for there is not the slightest likelihood of women in this era ever conforming to the tafliaat, stinking, smell hags’ condition.

It is important to sound a warning at this juncrure. Before women take umbrage, understand that the Tafilaat concept  has not been fabricated by us.  It is Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had ordered to be tafilaat when  they have to emerge from their homes. Condemnation of  the Tafilaat injunction is at the peril of destroying one’s Imaan.


(26)                       The attribution of wujoob to Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhum) is incorrect, deficient and subject to interpretation. In this regard, the dumb apa states:

“All three have stated that Eid Salaat is waajib for women.”

The aunt contends to have acquired this ruling from the kitaab, Subulus Salaam. However, there is no such ruling/narration in this kitaab nor in any other kitaab.

We have already drawn attention to the extreme deficiency in the understanding and comprehension of the Arabic kitaabs by the dumb aunt. Her citation from Subulus Salaam is further testimony for her gross deficiency in this field and for her advanced degree of Nuqs fil Aql. If after having studied for five years at a Darul Uloom, the aunt remains so dumb as to make a hash of the Arabic ibaarat (text), what then should be said about her implied claims of ‘ijtihaad’?

What appears in Subulus Salaam is the following: “The Hadith is a daleel for the wujoob of their ikhraaj (i.e. taking them out from their homes to attend the Eidgah). In this matter (of  ikhraaj of women to the Eidgah) there are three views. The first is that it is waajib, and this has been said by the three Khulafah, viz., Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali (radhiyallahu anhum).”

This discussion in Subulus Salaam pertains to the emergence of women from their homes to attend the Eidgah. The mas’alah is not the wujoob of Eid Salaat. It is the issue of  wujoob of emerging from the homes to attend the Eidgah, and on this issue there are three views according to the author of  Subulus Salaam. These are entirely two different, distinct issues as different as heaven and earth. But the dumb apa has slipped into the quagmire of the confusion spawned by her Nuqs fil Aql and her  arrogance and ignorance, the effect of her smattering of knowledge which is fatal for her Imaan.

In the history of Islam, from the  era of the Sahaabah to this day, no one has opined  that Eid Salaat is waajib for women, not even the Saudi government scholars.

Elaborating the very same issue, Ibn Hajar Asqalaani states in his Fathul Baari-Sharah Bukhaari in the exposition of the Hadith of Umm-e-Atiyyah (radhiyallahu anha):

“In it (this Hadith) is the Istihbaab (preferability/being Mustahab) of the emergence of women to attend  both Eids whether they are young or  not…… Verily the Salf (Pious Predecessors) differ in this regard. Iyaadh has narrated its wujoob (i.e. the wujoob of khurooj, not wujoob of Salaat) from Abu Bakr, Ali and Ibn Umar (not Hadhrat Umar, the Khalifah).  (However) that which has dawned on us (the Shawaafi) from Abu Bakr and Ali is that which has been narrated by  Ibn Abi Shaibah and others from them (Abu Bakr and Ali), viz. ‘It is the right (haqq) of every woman to khurooj (emerge from the home) towards both Eids.’ It has also been narrated by way of Marfoo’ Hadith:  ‘There is nothing wrong with it (i.e. with their khurooj).’ This has been narrated by Ahmad, Abul Ya’la and Ibnul Munthir…… The statement, ‘haqq’ has the possibility of wujoob as well as  emphasized Istihbaab. Ibn Abi Shaibah has also narrated that Ibn Umar would take  to both Eids whomever he could from his family. This (however) is not explicit (to establish) wujoob. In fact, prohibition  has also been narrated from Ibn Umar. (in other words, he had also prohibited his family from attending the Eidgah). Thus there is the possibility of both views. Among them (the Fuqaha) are those who have interpreted it (the Hadith) to mean Nudb (Mustahab). Among the Shaafi-iyyah, Jurjaani, and  among the Hanaabilah, Ibn Haamid have adopted  this view (Istihbaab). But Imaam Shaafi’ has  explicitly stated in  (his kitaab) Al-Umm  the exception of young women (from this rule). He said: ‘I prefer the attendance at the Eid Salaat of the ajaaiz (old  smelly hags)…..”

An entirely different scenario emerges from this discussion – totally at variance with what the dumb apa contends. The salient facts of this elaboration are:

(a)  THE PRIMARY ISSUE On this issue the dumb woman has conspicuously displayed her ignorance. The primary issue of dispute is the wujoob of khurooj, not the wujoob of Eid Salaat on women as the dumb aunt has understood.

(b) The  Khulafa’ never contended that  Eid Salaat is waajib for women. There is not a shred of evidence for this erroneous claim.

(c) The attribution of the wujoob of khurooj to Hadhrat Umar, the second Khalifah is incorrect. In Fathul Baari, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah and Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq attribute the specific Hadith to only Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhuma). The narration reads: “Abdullah Ibn Umar would take out whomever of his family he was able to the two Eids.” However, this narration is contradicted by another Hadith also recorded in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah, which states: “Verily, Ibn Umar would not take out his womenfolk to the two Eids.”

In terms of a well-known Fiqhi principles, when two narratives contradict each other and reconciliation is not possible, both will be set aside. However, in this case a reconciliation can be effected.  It is probable that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would take his family to the Eidgah prior to the enactment of the Prohibition, and subsequent to the Prohibition, he abstained from his earlier action.

(d) Neither of the two Khalifas mentioned the word, ‘waajib’. Both used the term ‘haqq’. The narrations are:  “Abu Bakr said: “It is the haqq of every woman…”; “Ali said: “It is the haqq of every woman..” Haqq’ in this context means ‘entitlement’, i.e. they are entitled to emerge to go to the Eidgah. It does not mean that it is compulsory on them to go. The compulsion was confined to the command issued by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) during his time. After the demise of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), no one commanded them to make khurooj. Thus, in the initial period after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) their attendance remained in the category of ‘entitlement’. Later, with the ascendancy of  fitnah this entitlement was abrogated as is evidenced by the views of all the Fuqaha, none among them contending wujoob. On the contrary, the enactment of prohibition, whether applicable to only young women is irrelevant. The very enactment of prohibition affirms the abrogation of even ‘entitlement’.

It is inconceivable that the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of all Math-habs, and for 14 centuries would issue the Fatwa of Prohibition in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah – and we are not speaking of the Ulama of the Indo-Pak sub-continent. We have left them in the state of hibernation for the purposes of this debate concerning the dumb apa and the deviated modernists who cherish an inveterate animosity for the illustrious Akaabir Ulama-e-Haqq of the Indo-Pak region.

The rulings of the Four Math-habs regarding the obligation of Eid Salaat is as follows:

Hanafi: Waajib on only those males on whom Jumuah Salaat is Fardh. Wherever the conditions for the validity of Jumuah are lacking, Jumuah will not be Fardh for even the males of that area.  On Fridays, Zuhr  remains Fardh for women.

Maaliki: Sunnatul Muakkadah on all those on whom Jumuah is Fardh, hence Eid Salaat is only for men.

Hambali: Fardh alal Kifaayah on those on whom Jumuah is obligatory. Women are thus excluded from the obligation of Eid Salaat.

Shaafi’: Sunnatul Muakkadah on both men and women, with the exhortation for women to perform the Eid Salaat at home, since Jamaa’t is not a condition for the validity of Eid Salaat in the Shaafi’ Math-hab.

It is appallingly ludicrous to propagate that Eid Salaat is waajib for women when the entire Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah to this day had never ever held this baatil view of wujoob. The dumb aunt implies that billions of women during the past 14 centuries have  been trapped in the Kabeerah (Major) sin of  having abandoned  a Waajib obligation.

(e) The pivotal blunder of the dumb grandma with regard to her citation from Subus Salaam is that she had miserably failed to understand what she read. While the text states clearly wujoob of  khurooj, she understood this to mean wujoob of Eid Salaat.  We advise her to  do a further 5 year stunt at the Pretoria Darul Uloom.

(27)                       Despite the Ahaadith indicating wujoob of khurooj during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the entire Ummah has unanimously abstained from this decree after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is clear proof that the decree of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was also ‘contextual’, and this is confirmed by the Fatwa of Prohibition being endorsed by Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha).

In Musannaf  Ibn Abi Shaibah as well as in other Hadith kutub the following is reported about Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu):  “Ali said: ‘It is the right of every woman to come out  to go to both Eids.’ And, he (Hadhrat Ali – radhiyallahu anhu) would not allow them (the women)at all to emerge (khurooj) for anything except for the two Eids.”

The dumb woman had cited this Hadith partially.  The  second  part in which it is mentioned that besides the Eid Salaat, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would not allow women to come out for any other Salaat, in fact, for anything else, was conveniently  deleted by the dumb granny, or perhaps she is  simply ignorant of it.

This action  of prohibition of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was despite his awareness of  the permission women had enjoyed during the time of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to attend the Musjid daily. So while Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood, Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Hadhrat Aishah and the  vast concourse of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) upheld the Prohibition despite their awareness of  the Ahaadith of permissibility, the dumb, misguided  aunt  stupidly comments that no one has the right to  prevent women from the Musjid. She is too stupid to understand the operation of the Usool (Principles) of the Shariah.

Furthermore, the concession Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) allowed  for Eid Salaat has also been abrogated in later years by the Fuqaha on the basis of the Usool of the Shariah Fancy and personal opinion did not operate in the formulation of Ahkaam. The Fuqaha were the Guardians of the Deen. Every fatwa issued by them is the product of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.


Muslimality would like to remind its readers that we are not affiliated to the organisation of ‘The Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa’ or any other organisation for that matter. We feel it is necessary to reiterate this as we have found many readers having a penchant for dismissing anything published by this organisation specifically.

Do remember that if you have any objections academically, we would welcome your views together with the necessary and substantiating Islamic proof.

This concludes Part Five of the detailed and academic response to ‘The Conclusion’ by Quraysha Ismail Sooliman

Read Part One, Part Two and Part Three of The True Conclusion:

The following comment was forwarded to Muslimality via a Muslimality reader. We would like to first inform the author of the comment that he/she is most welcome to contact us directly in order to submit comments on articles we publish. The comment in question is regarding a series of articles published by Muslimality entitled, ‘The True Conclusion’. Read it here:

The comment follows:

what makes this the “true Conclusion”. Allah says: فلا تزكوا أنفسكم> Do not praise yourselves. هو أعلم بمن التقى> He (Allah) knows best who is most pious.
This further proves my comment that these so called “Ulama” seek evidence to prove their own opinions correct and NOT to seek the truth.
Today they will attack Quraishah, tomorrow they will attack Umme Atiyyah RA. It is becoming more clear that these so called Ulama are not calling to the deen of Muhamad SAW but rather to their own warped ideology.

– submitted by a Muslimality reader

1. Emotional rant No 1 by the commenter

We would like to ask you what makes the initial article worthy of being called a conclusion in the first place? Has the writer categorically stated the views of most of the Sahaabah at least? Has the writer even bothered to open a single book in penning the so-called “conclusion’ as named by herself? What has given the writer the right to insinuate finality on the matter?

We have clearly proven that the writer has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the Arabic language,the principles of Fiqh & Hadeeth etc. We care very little for the titles of articles, however when an unqualified individual intentionally misquotes & misleads the Muslim Ummah makes statements of Shariah proclaiming with bold finality “now each has the knowledge to decide” we definitely do take umbrage. We do not have much time to waste on such useless rants so please answer the following query:

Please indicate to us how the naming of the article makes the academic argument weaker in any way?

In any event, your understanding seems to have halted after reading the title, ‘The True Conclusion’. Have you even read Quraysha Ismail Sooliman’s article, ‘The Conclusion: Now each has the knowledge to decide’? Did you perhaps forget to read the first line of the series of articles published by Muslimality?

When you have taken the time to understand the message contained in both articles, Muslimality will endeavour to educate you further

2. Your translation reads “Do not praise yourselves”

Do please inform us where this translation originates from. We can clearly prove the fact that this is another emotionally charged statement clearly lacking any academic substance.

Do inform us how the word praise is extracted from the wording of the aayah in question. We have clearly proven that the vast majority of those who support such deficient “scholarship” have no understanding or mastery of the most basic step towards the attainment of true scholarship i.e Arabic. You seem to be clearly proving our point.

Let us assume however that your translation is correct, where have we praised ourselves? Is your ego hurt that much by the fact that we have entitled our refutation “The True Conclusion” that you now resort to misquoting Aayaat of Qur’aan?We see no need to attach our “qualifications” to articles we publish nor do we desire any sort of praise from the creation.

Let us assume once again that we have praised ourselves, how on earth does that detract from the clear-cut academic proofs we have presented?

3.Your comment reads ” This further proves my comment that these so called “Ulama” seek evidence to prove their own opinions correct and NOT to seek the truth.”

When have we labeled ourselves as Ulama? What do we benefit from enforcing our own “opinions”? Another emotional rant to which we shall pay no heed. Please refute our statements with academic truths.

How do you advocate the seeking of the truth when you respond with nothing but emotion? Is it a psychological truth which you are in search of? Have you mastered the basic sciences of Shariah? Why the Ulama-bashing? Is it something you usually do when confronted with factual evidence?

4. Your comment reads “Today they will attack Quraishah, tomorrow they will attack Umme Atiyyah RA. It is becoming more clear that these so called Ulama are not calling to the deen of Muhamad SAW but rather to their own warped ideology.”

We have pointed out clear-cut academic errors in an article posted on a variety of public platforms. When a smear against the Shariah is made in public it will be replied to in public. We have not in any way attacked Quraisha, what we have attacked is the misquoting,fabrications & half-truths which the article penned by her is replete with.

We are Muslims, we do not attack Sahaaba. More emotional rants from your side which serve to do nothing but further confirm the fact that nobody has anything academic to say on this matter.

We advise you to respect the name of Nabi Muhammad SallAllahu alaihi wa Sallam and type out the Durood in full. TYPING “SAW” IS DISRESPECTFUL TO NABI SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WA SALLAM. One who quotes aayat (albeit with manipulated translations) should pay attention to this.

We are not calling to our own “ideology”, we are merely presenting the truth. The clearest proof of the fact that we have presented the truth is that you have managed to respond to an academic argument with nothing but emotion. Please do prove us wrong academically.

We have written well over 18-20 pages thus far,replete with solid academic proof and you come up with this? You cannot be serious.


The Muslimality team would like to notify its readers with respect to the article, ‘The True Conclusion’

Alhamdulillah, we have received feedback from Quraysha Ismail Sooliman and have responded accordingly. As of our reply, we have been unable to receive any sort of further communication from her regarding solid, academic proof in support of her article. Muslimality will no longer be accepting or responding to emotionally charged comments in so far as ‘The True Conclusion’ is concerned, as we feel this to be an utter waste of time and resources.

Other comments have been made by various individuals, some who have corresponded with us directly and others who have preferred to air their views via other platforms. Due to the fact that the internet, by nature, is highly anonymous, we will be responding to comments posted together with the names supplied by the poster/author, bearing in mind that another individual may be posting under the author’s name.

Muslimality does not have the resources to verify whether the details (name,surname,location etc) supplied by posters are actually correct or not.

If there are any discrepancies, please feel to contact Muslimality via our Contact Form or email us directly:

This document answers the erroneous claims made by Al-Albani in his book, “Sifah Salah-al-Nabee”. It is span across two posts, this post is the second, Insha’allah.Continued from Part 1.

The Abrogation of Performing Prayer Sitting: Behind a Sitting Imam

Al-Albani stated in ‘Sifah Salah an-Nabee’ (pg. 4):

“He (Peace be upon him) prayed sitting during the illness of which he died. He also prayed sitting on another occasion before that, when he was injured, and the people behind him prayed standing; so he indicated to them to sit, so they sat (and prayed). When he finished, he said, You were going to do as the Persians and the Romans do : stand for their kings who sit. So do not do so, for the Imam is there to be followed : When he makes ruku, make ruku, when he rises, rise, and when he prays sitting, pray sitting (all of you).” (See Sahih Muslim, 1/824, pg. 227, English ed’n).

The above statement made by al-Albani seems to indicate his lack of knowledge about the Hadiths on this rare issue; or to be safe we may say that again he has given us half of the ‘story’. According to Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (Rahimahullah), the above command is concerned with the earlier period when the present mode of prayer was made obligatory. The Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) stressed this point with a view to effacing out of the minds of his people the undue respect and reverence which the neighbouring people of Persia and Rome showed to their kings. They kept standing before them in all humility and dared not sit down before them. The Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not approve of this type of respect which is against the dignity of man. He, therefore, in contravention of the practises amongst the Romans and the Greeks, ordered them to sit down when the Imam was sitting and not to observe this type of ceremonious respect. But when the sense of human dignity and equality took hold of the minds of the Muslims, then this practise was abrogated and the Muslims were permitted to say their prayer standing behind a sitting Imam, when there is no valid reason for it, as standing in prayer is part of prayer and it should not be abandoned in normal circumstances (Hujjatullah-al-Baligha, vol. 2, pg. 27, quoted in the English translation of Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, fn. 633, pg. 227).

The proof against al-Albani’s opinion is found in the Sahih collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim; and it is of greater authority as evidence than the Hadith quoted by al-Albani. I say: so much for al-Albani giving his followers the most authentic Sunnah, when he himself has contradicted the authentic Sunnah by not realising that his opinion has been clearly abrogated by a later practise of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)! Imam Muslim has a chapter heading titled: ‘The Imam is authorised to appoint one as his deputy when there is a valid reason for it (for example, illness or journey or any other), and if an Imam leads the prayer sitting as he cannot do so standing, his followers should say prayer standing provided they are able to do it and there is an abrogation of saying prayer sitting behind a sitting Imam.’ (see Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, pg. 228, English ed’n).The actual Hadith that proves our point is found in a long narration reported from Ubaidullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba (Rahimahullah) from Aisha (Allah be pleased with her); the most important part of the Hadith is as follows: “Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) was leading the people in prayer. When Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) saw him (the Prophet, peace be upon him), he began to withdraw, but the Apostle of Allah (Peace be upon him) told him not to withdraw. He told his two (companions) to seat him down beside him (Abu Bakr). They seated him by the side of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said the prayer standing while following the prayer of the Apostle (Peace be upon him) and the people said prayer (standing) while following the prayer of Abu Bakr. The Apostle (Peace be upon him) was seated.” (for full Hadith see Muslim, 1/832, pg. 228-229 and Bukhari, 1/655, pg. 371-372)

NB – Imam Bukhari (Rahimahullah) said, “The Imam is appointed to be followed. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) in his fatal illness led the people in prayer while he was sitting (and the people were standing)….” (see Bukhari vol. 1, chapter 51, pg. 370, English ed’n).

Imam al-Bukhari (Rahimahullah) also quoted Imam al-Humaidi (Rahimahullah) as saying: “The saying of the Prophet (Peace be upon him): ‘Pray sitting, if he (Imam) prays sitting’ was said in his former illness (during his early life) but the Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not order them to sit. We should follow the latest actions of the Prophet (Peace be upon him)” (see Bukhari, 1/657, pg. 373).

Finally, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi said in his footnotes to Sahih Muslim (vol. 1, footnote 632, pg. 226): “According to Imam Awzai and Imam Malik, this mode is essential in offering (i.e according to al-Albani’s opinion). Imam Shafi’i and Imam Abu Hanifah (as well as al-Bukhari, Muslim and many others) are of the opinion that it is not advisable to say prayer sitting behind an Imam who has not been obliged to say prayer in a sitting posture due to illness or some other reason…” But according to Shams al-Haqq Azimabadi in Awn al-Ma’bood (1,233-234), Imam Malik does not allow anyone to lead the prayer sitting! (see Abu Dawood, vol. 1, fn. 266, pg. 159 English ed’n).

Going into Prostration (Sajud): Hands or Knees First?

Al-Albani is of the firm opinion that when one goes into Sajdah, he or she should place his hands onto the ground before his knees. He stated in ‘Sifah Salah an-Nabee’ (pg. 52): “He (the Prophet, peace be upon him) used to place his hands on the ground before his knees.” Then al-Albani said in the footnote of the same page (pg. 52, fn. 2): “Ibn Khuzaimah (1/76/1), Daraqutni and Hakim, who declared it Sahih and Dhahabi agreed. All the Ahadith which contradict this are inauthentic. This way has been endorsed by Malik, and similar is reported from Ahmad in Ibn al-Jawzi’s al-Tahqeeq (108/2). Also, al-Marwazi quoted with a Sahih isnad, Imam al-Awzai in his Masaa’il (1/147/1) as saying: ‘I found the people placing their hands before their knees.’ Then al-Albani continued on the same page: “He used to instruct likewise, saying: When one performs Sajdah, he should not kneel like a camel, but should place his hands before his knees” (related by Abu Hurayra, see Abu Dawood, 1/839, pg. 215 English ed’n).

Al-Albani has quite categorically claimed that the Ahadith which prove that one should place one’s knees down before one’s hands are all ‘Inauthentic’ according to his ‘classification’ standards. But as usual when there seems to be ‘contradictory’ Ahadith, al-Albani fails to tell his readers that many other scholars of Hadith and even the Mujtahid Imams like Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i (Allah’s mercy be upon them) are indifference to his view of placing the hands on the ground before the knees!

In fact Sayyid Sabiq said in Fiqh-us-Sunnah (vol. 1, pg. 151): “Most scholars prefer that one place his knees on the floor before his hands. Ibn al-Mundhir related this from Umar (ibn al-Khatab), an-Nakhai, Muslim ibn Yasar, Sufyan al-Thauri, Ahmad (ibn Hanbal, according to one of two views reported from him), Ishaq (ibn Rahwaih) and other jurists including Ibn al-Mundhir himself. Abu at-Tayyeb said that most jurists agree with this. Ibn al Qayyim (al-Jawziyya, the disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah) said: ‘When the Prophet, upon whom be peace, prayed, he would place his knees (on the floor) before his hands, then his hands, his forehead and nose. This is what is authentic and has been related by Shuraik from Asim ibn Kaleeb on the authority of his father from Wa’il ibn Hajr (Allah be pleased with him) who said: I saw the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, while prostrating, place his knees (on the floor) before his hands. Upon getting up, he would raise his hands before his knees. I never saw him do otherwise.’” (see Abu Dawood, 1/837-838, pg. 215).

Sayyid Sabiq then gave the opinion of Malik, al-Awzai, Ibn Hazm and Ahmad (according to his other opinion) whose opinions coincide with al-Albani’s.

The Hadith from Wa’il ibn Hajr and Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with them) can also be found in the English translation of Mishkat- ul-Masabih (see vol. 2, no’s 898-899, pg. 172) where it says: “Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388/998; Rahimahullah) said that the tradition of Wa’il ibn Hajr is more sound than this (i.e the Hadith of Abu Hurayra) and it is also said that it is an abrogated one (i.e the Hadith of Abu Hurayra). Also the author of Awnal-Ma’bood (vol 1, 311-312), Shams al-Haqq Azimabadi said in his commentary to Abu Dawood; after quoting the opinions held by some scholars that the hands should be placed before the knees: “But al-Khattabi is of the opinion that the tradition of Wa’il ibn Hajr is better established because it is supported by several other sound traditions (which have not been quoted by al-Albani). Ibn Khuzaimah (a Shafi’i scholar of Hadith, d. 311/924; Rahimahullah) observes that the tradition of Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) has been abrogated. He reports a tradition on the authority of Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas (Allah be pleased with him): We used to place our hands (on the ground) before our knees, but later on we were commanded to place our knees before our hands!” The Hadith of Wa’il ibn Hajr is also found in Imam Tirmidhi’s Sunan, where Imam Tirmidhi said that the Hadith was Hasan Gharib (see Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 2/268, edited by Ahmad Shakir). The author of Awn al-Ma’bood also said: “Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i and Ahmad (according to his second view) maintain that one should place his knees before his hands. And this seems to more convenient (see Sunan of Abu Dawood, vol. 2, fn. 383-384, pg. 215 English ed’n).”

Taraweeh Prayer: 8 OR 20 Rak’ahs?

In a handout by al-Albani’s followers in England, by the title “Some common questions answered” (dated October 1990), there appeared the following question and answer (No. 22):

(a) Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reports that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) never prayed more than 8 rak’aats in Taraweeh, so how come nobody disapproves of 20?

(b) Is it true that Umar (Allah be pleased with him) introduced it?

Ans. 22

(a) As regards the Taraweeh prayer – people agree that the Sunnah of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and the best way is 11 rak’aats. As regards any addition – then this is DISAPPROVED of and DECLAREDASA BID’AH (A bad innovation) by Shaykh al-Albani and by a few earlier scholars – that being reported from Imam Malik, Ibn ul-Arabee and as-San’aanee (see Salat-ut-Taraweeh of Shaykh al-Albani).

(b) It is not true that Umar (Allah be pleased with him) either prayed or ordered 20 rak’aats. Rather he ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b to lead the people with 11 rak’aats (al-Muwatta 1/137, with a Sahih Isnad).

I do not wish to go into much detail on this issue, but Insha’Allah a separate publication is what is really required, to show which opinion is the most correct. But any way it should be said that the vast MAJORITYof the scholars of Hadith, Fiqh, and even the four Mujtahid Imams are in agreement that 20 rak’ahs are the most appropriate, followed by 3 rak’ahs of Witr, and this is also the opinion of the Imam of the “Salafiyya”, Ahmad ibn Taymiyya!

First, it should be said that the Hadith reported from Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) about 11 rak’ahs is not at all to do with Taraweeh, according to the majority of scholars, but in fact concerns the number of rak’ahs of TAHAJJUDprayer! The Hadith in question is as follows:-

Narrated Abu Salama ibn Abdur Rahman that he asked Aisha (Allah be pleased with her), “How was the prayer of Allah’s Apostle (Peace be upon him) in Ramadan?” She replied, “He did not pray more than eleven raka’at in Ramadan or in any other month. He used to pray four raka’at – let alone their beauty and length – and then he would pray four – let alone their beauty and length – and then he would pray three rak’aat (witr).” She added, “I asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Do you sleep before praying the Witr?’ He replied, ‘O Aisha, My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep.’” (Bukhari, 3/230, English edn)

According to the author of “Fatawa Rahimiyyah”, Mufti Abdur Rahim Lajpuri (vol. 1, pg. 275); in his defence of 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh: “The commentator of al-Sahih al-Bukhari and the erudite traditionist, Shaykh Shamsud-Din al-Kermani (d. 786 AH; Rahimahullah) said: ‘In the Hadith (above), the Tahajjud prayer is meant. Abu Salama’s question and Hadrat Aisha’s answer concerned the Tahajjud.’ He adds further: ‘If the Tahajjud prayer is not meant, then this tradition will be at variance with the tradition that states that the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) led twenty rak’ahs each for two nights, and in the case of such clash the tradition of twenty rakah’s which is affirmative (muthbit) shall have precedence because according to the principles of Hadith, the affirmative takes precedence over the negative (naaf)” (vide: Al-Kawakib ud-Durari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, pg 155-156). I say, does this not mean that people who perform 8 rak’ahs of Taraweeh, should pray 20 rak’ahs instead? Since according to the principles of Hadith (as affirmed by al-Albani), “The affirmative takes precedence over the negative in certain cases.”

A great fact that should also be noted by the reader is that the Imam’s of Hadith have placed the Hadith from Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) under the section of Tahajjud prayers, which indicates their belief that the Hadith applies to Tahajjud only. The Imam al-Muhaddithin al-Bukhari (Rahimahullah) has placed the Hadith from Aisha under at least two sections of his Sahih, first under the section of ’21: The Tahajjud Prayer at Night’ (see Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, chapter 15, no. 248, English ed’n) and then under the section of ’32: The Book of Taraweeh Prayers’ (see Sahih al-Bukhari, 3/230, pg. 128 English ed’n). This means that Imam Bukhari believed that the prayer mentioned by Aisha was that of Tahajjud only, and since the Tahajjud prayer is performed also in Ramadan, then Imam Bukhari also quoted the same Hadith under ‘The book of Taraweeh prayers’, but Allah knows best. Imam Muslim (Rahimahullah) has also placed the Hadith from Aisha under the Tahajjud prayer section (see Sahih Muslim 1/1607, pg. 356, English ed’n). Also Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) has placed Aisha’s Hadith under the Book of Tahajjud (see Al-Muwatta, Book 7, section 7.2, no. 9, pg. 5, English ed’n). The Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) has also placed the same Hadith under the chapter ‘On the number of Rak’ahs of the prayer at night (Tahajjud)’ (see Abu Dawood 1/1336, pg. 351, English version). Even Imam’s Tirmidhi and Nisai (Allah’s mercy be upon them) placed Aisha’s Hadith under the Tahajjud section (see Tirmidhi, vol. 1, pg. 58 and Nisai, vol. 1, pg. 154). Even one of the most prominent Imams of the ‘Salafiyya’, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya placed the aforementioned Hadith in the section of Tahajjud prayers in his book Zaad al Ma’ad (vol. 1, pg. 86)!

Mufti Abdur Rahim said about Aisha’s Hadith: “And if this tradition may have been quoted in some book under the devotions of Ramadan along with the Taraweeh. Like the taraweeh, the Tahajjud, too, is a prayer of Ramadan, and because of this affinity, it can be mentioned along with the Taraweeh (as Imam Bukhari did). Hence, supposing it may have been mentioned in some book, it cannot be made thereby a categorical argument. ‘When uncertainty creeps in, the argument is falsified.’ Moreover, Hafiz al-Hadith Imam Qurtubi’s (d. 671/1273; Rahimahullah) statement regarding this Hadith (of Aisha) should not be overlooked that, ‘many a man of knowledge considers the aforesaid Hadith mudtarib (i.e. confounded).’” (vide: Imam Ayni in his Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 2, pg. 187).

In short, the aforesaid report is in no way a proof for eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh. In contradistinction to this, as regards the twenty rak’ahs the Companions Consensus (Ijma-as-Sahaba) has taken place over the approval of Ibn Abbas’ Hadith (about 20 Rak’ahs being performed by the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him) and practically the majority of Ulama have accepted it.” (Fatawa Rahimmiyah vol. 1, pg 276-277).

Although Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) had said: “He did not pray more than 11 Raka’at,” we also have reports from her that the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) also prayed more than 11 Raka’ats! The proof for this was given by her in another narration involving Abu Salama ibn Abdal Rahman (Rahimahullah). Abu Salama asked Aisha about the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), she said, “He observed 13 Raka’ahs (in the night prayer). He observed 8 raka’ahs and would then observe (three rak’ahs of) witr and then observe two raka’ahs sitting (nafl prayer), and when he wanted to bow he stood up and then bowed down, and then he observed two raka’ahs in between the Azan and Iqama of the dawn prayer (i.e. fajr).” (See Sahih Muslim 1/1603, pg. 357 and also al-Albani’s Sifah Salah an-Nabee, appendix 7, pg. 110). So does this not mean that the ‘Salafiyya’ should perform 13 Raka’ats of Taraweeh in Ramadan?

Now, the statement ‘the best way is 11 rak’aats’ is only the opinion of a small group of the ulama, in fact there are more than 50 opinions to say that the best way is 20 rak’ahs according to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) practise! What is more interesting to note is that the four great Mujtahids, Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (Allah’s mercy be upon them) are in agreement that the Taraweeh consists of twenty Rak’ahs. The statement that Imam Malik approved of eight Rak’ahs needs to be proved, most likely this ascription was made to him because he quoted the Hadith which is used to prove eight Rak’ahs of Taraweeh in his al-Muwatta (see Muwatta, 6.2, no. 4, pg. 48) by a small group of scholars. Although Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) quoted this Hadith in his book, it has no bearing on what his actual opinion and practise was, on the contrary Imam Malik believes in thirty-six rak’ahs of Taraweeh (i.e. 20 Rak’ahs and 16 rak’ahs of extra nafl prayers, see later for the official verdict of the Maliki Madhhab)! Also the Hadith which seems to prove 11 Rak’ahs of Taraweeh (including three rak’ahs of Witr) in Imam Malik’s Muwatta has been explained away by many other convincing arguments.

Recently I came across a booklet by the title, “Is Taraweeh 20 Rakaats?” (Published by Madrasah Arabia Islamia, Azaadville, South Africa, author unknown). In this booklet the Hadith quoted from the Muwatta of Imam Malik (Rahimahullah), about 11 rak’ahs of Taraweeh (including three Witr) was quite eloquently analysed.

The actual Hadith in question was related by Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi, who related from his teacher Imam Malik, who related from Muhammad ibn Yusuf, who said that as-Saaib ibn Yazid said, “Umar ibn Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tamim ad-Dari (Allah be pleased with them) to watch the night in prayer with the people for eleven rak’ahs. The reciter of the Qur’an would recite the Mi’in (a group of medium sized surah’s) until we would be leaning on our staffs from having stood so long in prayer. And we would not leave until the approach of dawn.” (see above reference in al-Muwatta).

It was stated in the aforementioned booklet (chapter 7, pg. 20), after quoting the above narration, “If we analyse the chain (Isnad) of this Hadith, we notice that Muhammad ibn Yusuf narrates from Saaib ibn Yazid. Muhammad (ibn Yusuf) has 5 students and the narration of each student differs from the next (i.e. the text of the Hadith is different from each student). The five students are:

    • (1) Imam Malik(2) Yahya ibn Qattan 

      (3) Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad

      (4) Ibn Ishaq and

      (5) Abdur Razzaq

Their narrations are as follows :

    (1) Imam Malik says that Umar ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tamim Dari to perform 11 rakaats. (What practise occurred thereafter is not mentioned, nor is Ramadaan mentioned).(2) Yahya ibn Qattan says that Umar made the people gather with Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tamim Dari and both of them began performing 11 rakaats. (Hadrat Umar’s command is not mentioned, nor is any mention of Ramadaan made). 

    (3) Abdul Aziz (ibn Muhammad) says that we used to perform 11 rakaats in the era of Umar. (Neither is the command mentioned, nor is Ubayy ibn Ka’b or Ramadaan mentioned).

    (4) Ibn Ishaq says that we used to perform 13 rakaats in Ramadaan during the era of Umar. (Neither is the command of Umar mentioned. Instead of 11 rakaats, 13 are mentioned).

    (5) Abdur Razzaq says that Umar gave the command of 21 rakaats. (In this narration 21 rakaats are mentioned instead of 11).

Besides the narration of Imam Malik (Rahimahullah), 11 rakaats can not be established from the other narrations. Due to this difference, the narrator Ibn Ishaq gave preference to 13 while Ibn Abdal Barr al-Maliki preferred 21 (from the narration of Abdur Razzaq). Therefore this narration is Mudtarib (A Hadith that is transmitted in different manners, so that the contents of each transmission differ, and it is not possible to give preference to any particular transmission) with regards to the number (of rak’ahs) and hence unacceptable.

The above was an analysis of Muhammad ibn Yusuf’s narration via Saaib ibn Yazid. Now let us examine the narration of Yazid ibn Khaseefah via Saaib (ibn Yazid), which is mentioned in the Sunan al- Kubra of al-Bayhaqi (vol. 2, pg. 496): Abu Zi’b narrates from Yazid ibn Khaseefah, who reports from Saaib ibn Yazid that the people used to perform 20 rakaats in the month of Ramadaan during the era of Umar.

Imam Nawawi, Iraqi and Suyuti (all three were great scholars of Hadith) amongst others have accepted the authenticity of this Hadith (see Tuhfatul Akhyaar, pg. 192 and Irshaadus Saari, pg. 74, (by Imam al-Qastallani]).

Muhammad ibn Jafar (another narrator in the chain) has quoted the statement from Yazid (ibn Khaseefah) as Abu Zi’b (had). This narration is mentioned in Marifatus Sunan of al-Bayhaqi. Allamah Subki and Mullah Ali al-Qari have stated in Sharh Minhaaj and Sharh Muwatta respectively that the chain of narrators of this Hadith are correct. (Tuhfatul Ahwazee, vol.2, pg 75).

From the above narration we can clearly see that both the students of Yazid (ibn Khaseefah), unanimously narrate the fact that during Umar’s (Allah be pleased with him) era 20 rakaats was the standard practise. On the contrary, the 5 students of Muhammad ibn Yusuf quote Saaib (ibn Yazid) differently.

In such a situation the correct approach would be to rely on the narration of Yazid ibn Khaseefah. However the Ahl al-Hadith (another name for the “Salafiyya”) have unjustly discarded this narration and adopted the doubtful one of Muhammad ibn Yusuf, which has differing versions. This goes against the principles of Hadith.” Here ends the quote .

Another Hadith that is used by the protagonists of eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh has been related by Jabir ibn Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him): “The Prophet (Peace be upon him) led the people in prayer during Ramadan with 8 rak’ahs and the Witr. We gathered in the Mosque the following night hoping that he would come again. We remained waiting till the next morning (until he came out). The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, ‘I feared that the Witr may become incumbent on you.’” (related by Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi in Qiyamul-Layl, pg. 90, al-Tabarani and Ibn Hibban – see below for the actual Hadith)

The above Hadith has been analysed by Shaykh Abdur Rahim in his “Fatawa” (vol. 1, pg. 278-9) with the conclusion that the Hadith is Daeef. The Shaykh said: “The strange thing about this Hadith is that its chain of authorities (Isnad) is not trustworthy. Please examine the statements of the Imams of this science concerning the narrators of this chain. In this chain one narrator is Ibn Hameed Razi, about whom the opinions of the great and august critics of Hadith are as under:

    • (1) ‘He is weak.’ – Hafiz al-Dhahabi (see his Mizanul I’tidal, vol.3, pp. 49-50)(2) ‘He narrates many disowned (munkar ) Hadiths.’ – Ya’qub ibn Shaybah 

      (3) ‘He is objectionable.’ – Imam Bukhari

      (4) ‘He is a liar.’ – Abu Zur’ah

      (5) ‘I testify that he is a liar.’ – Ishaq Kausaj

      (6) ‘He narrates Hadiths about everything; I have not seen a man bolder than him vis-a-vis God.’ – Sauleh Jazrah

      (7) ‘By God! He is a liar.’ – Ibn Kharash

      (8) ‘He is not reliable.’ – Imam Nisai

Now, about the second narrator, Ya’qub ibn Abdullah Ash’ari al-Qummi:-

    • (1) ‘He is not strong.’ – Daraqutni (see Mizanul I’tidal, vol. 3, pg. 324).

About the third narrator, Isa ibn Jariyah:-

    • (1) ‘He has had disowned (munkar) Hadiths.’ – Ibn Ma’een(2) ‘His Hadiths are disavowed.’ – Nisai 

      (3) ‘His Hadiths are rejected (matruk ).’ – Nisai

      (4) ‘His Hadiths are disavowed.’ – Abu Dawood – synopsis

      (5) ‘He is counted among the weak.’ – (see Mizanul-I’tidal, vol. 2, pg. 311, by Hafiz al-Dhahabi).” Here ends the quote.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Rahimahullah) has reported a similar narration to the above Hadith in his Bulugh al-Maram min Adillat al-Ahkam (no. 396, pg. 159), on the authority of Hafiz Ibn Hibban (Rahimahullah): “Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah (Allah be pleaed with him): Allah’s Apostle (Peace be upon him) prayed during the night in Ramadan; the people waited for him on the next day, but he did not come out; and he said, ‘I feared that the Witr might be enjoined on you.’” Note the above narration does not even state how many rak’ahs were performed by the Prophet (Peace be upon him)!! The above two Hadiths can not be used as justifiable proof in favour of 8 rak’ahs of Taraweeh on their own.

Al-Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) has in fact quoted a Hadith which proves the performance of 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh in Ramadan; and that is as follows:-

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yazid ibn Ruman said,”The people used to watch the night in prayer during Ramadaan for 23 rak’ahs (i.e 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh, followed by 3 rak’ahs of witr) in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab.” (vide: al-Muwatta, 6.2, No. 5, pg. 48, English ed’n)

Although the above Hadith is Munqati (a link is missing in the chain) and has thus been declared to be Daeef by some scholars (including al-Albani), it never the less has been used as proof. Besides, the Hadith has been given a full Isnad (chain) by either Imam Ibn Abdal Barr al-Maliki (d. 463/1071; Rahimahullah) or Shaykh Muhammad Habibullah ibn Mayabi ash-Shanqiti (Rahimahullah), in their thorough research to complete all the chains of transmission (Isnad) which have an incomplete chain; as found in the Muwatta of Imam Malik!

In fact the latest edition of the English version of al-Muwatta (translated by A. A. at-Tarjumana and Yaqub Johnson) says (pg. xxxiv): “Ibn Hajar (al-Asqalani) said, ‘The book of Malik is sound by all the criteria that are demanded as proofs in the mursal, munqati (two types of Hadith which have a missing link) and other types of transmission.’ Then as-Suyuti followed what Ibn Hajar said here; and said, ‘The mursal Hadith in it are a proof with him (i.e. ash-Shafi’i) as well because the mursal is a proof with us when it is properly supported. Every mursal in the Muwatta has one or more supports as will be made clear in this commentary (i.e. Suyuti’s commentary on al-Muwatta called Tanwir al-Hawalik). It is absolutely correct to say that the Muwatta is sound without exception.’

Ibn Abdal-Barr collected together all the mursal, munqati and mu’addil Hadiths in the Muwatta and said that the total number of Hadiths in the Muwatta which do not have an Isnad are sixty one. He stated that he found the isnads of all of them in other sources with the exception of four Hadiths. The erudite scholar of Hadith, Shaykh Muhammad Habibullah ibn Mayabi ash-Shanqiti says in Ida’a al-Halik that he had found witnesses for these four Hadith and he then mentioned these witnesses. He said, ‘Some of the people of knowledge made these isnads complete.’ He mentioned from Ibn Abdal-Barr that there was no munkar(rejected) Hadith in the Muwatta, nor anything fundamentally refuted.”

In the light of what the erudite scholars of Hadith have said above, we may emphatically state that the apparently ‘munqati’ Hadith from Yazid ibn Ruman has a complete Isnad; hence it may be used as a proof, since Imam Ibn Abdal-Barr has said that there is, “No munkar Hadith in the Muwatta nor anything fundamentally rejected.” Hence, many scholars of Hadith and Fiqh have used the above Hadith as a proof in favour of 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh.

The quote from “Some common questions answered,” also claimed that, “Rather he (Umar) ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b to lead the people with 11 rakaats.” I say, this is half of the truth, since it is clearly stated in al-Muwatta :”Umar ibn Khattab ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b AND Tamim ad-Dari ….(see Muwatta, 6.2, no. 4, pg. 48)!!

Al-Albani has said that if anyone performs more than 11 rak’ahs of Taraweeh, then he or she is basically committing a Bid’ah (a very bad innovation)! We seek refuge in Allah from such a disgusting statement! Since this tantamountally means that the foremost Imams of the saved sect (al-Firqat an-Najiyyah) of Ahl-al-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah have been committing a gross innovation (Allah forbid). Al-Albani seems to be implying that the venerable Companions (may Allah be pleased with them and increase their rank), the four great Mujtahid Imams (Allah’s mercy be upon them), as well as the foremost scholars of Hadith and Fiqh of the last 1400 years have ‘innovated’ the practise of 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh, if considered in the light of penetrative elaboration, implicitly and covertly! What alternative conclusion can one derive, if the “Albani Madhhab” says, “As regards any addition (to 11 rak’ahs) – then this is disapproved of and declared as a bid’ah by ‘Shaykh’ al-Albani?”

I ask you, are the so called “Salafiyya” in the true path of the original and true Salaf-as-Salihin (the pious predecessors of the first three generations of Islam), when they have declared the practise of 20 rak’ahs to be a bid’ah, even though the Salaf have been reported to have practised 20 rak’ahs?

The actual Hadith which states that the Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) performed 20 rak’ahs of taraweeh has been reported by Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him). He said, “Verily, the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) in the month of Ramadaan, used to perform 20 rak’ahs and the witr prayer (afterwards) without congregation.” (Reported in al-Sunan al-Bayhaqi, vol.2, pg. 496, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kabiri of Imam al-Tabarani, Ibn Aadi in his Musnad, and by Imam Baghawi in his Majmua-as-Sahabah )

Although some scholars have declared this Hadith to be Daeef on its own, it does not mean that it should be whole heartedly rejected; since Daeef does not mean Maudu (fabricated). Please refer to the next section on Daeef Hadiths, and when they are acceptable to scholars for further elaboration. The Hadith related from Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) is supported by many other narrations coming from great Companions like Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masood…(Allah be pleased with them all), as well as their successors (Tabi’in). Besides, some of the scholars of Hadith have even declared some weak Ahadith to be Sahih, if it has a firm basis. It was stated in the book “Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Maja,” (pg. 131, by one of the leading “Salafi” Shaykhs in Britain, Suhaib Hasan): “Shafi’i also recognises a weak Hadith as authentic (sahih) if it is found to be accepted by the whole Ummah (see al-Sakhawi: Fath al-Mugith). But he does not accept Malik’s view of restricting the practise to the people of Madinah. According to the later scholars of the Hanafi school like Ibn al-Humam, a Hadith will be declared Sahih, if it is supported by the practise of the Ummah (see Abdal Rashid Nu’mani: Ma tamusu ilaihe al-Haja, pg. 18). Among traditionalists, Tirmidhi often remarks, after quoting a less authentic Hadith: ‘It is being practised by the people of learning (Ahl al-Ilm).’ Suyuti deduces: ‘It indicates that the Hadith is supported by the sayings of the people of learning. More than one scholar has said that a Hadith is declared Sahih if supported by the sayings of the people of learning, even if it lacks a proper Isnad (see Suyuti: al-Ta’aqubat, folio 20).”

As stated above, the great research scholar (Muhaqqiq) Hafiz Kamal ibn al-Humam (d. 861/1457; Rahimahullah) had actually said: “One of the factors from which the authenticity of a Hadith is known is that the learned (Ulama) may conform to it, which is a proof of its being sound (vide: Fath al-Qadir, vol. 3, pg. 349).

There are many quotes from scholars which prove a near universal juridical acceptance of 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh, but I content myself by quoting a select few from some of the foremost scholars of the Ahl-as-Sunnah, as well as the Imam of the “Salafiyya” (when it suits their whims and desires), Ahmad ibn Taymiyya.

(1) Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449; R.A.)

The Hafiz of Hadith, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has reproduced from Imam Rafi’i (Allah’s mercy be on him): “For two nights the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) led twenty rak’ahs of prayer each night; on the third night the people gathered but the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not come out. Then the next morning, he told the people, ‘It so occurred to me that it would be made obligatory for you, and you would not be able to discharge this obligation.’” After reproducing this tradition, Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: “All the traditionalists (Muhaddithin) are unanimous about the soundness of this report.” (see Talkhis al-habir fi takhrij ahadith al-Rafi’i al-Kabir, vol. 1, pg. 119, by Hafiz ibn Hajar).

(2) Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH; Rahimahullah)

It was stated in Fayd ul-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (by Shaykh Anwar Shah Kashmiri): “Imam Abu Yusuf (Rahimahullah) asked Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahimahullah), ‘Did Hadrat Umar (Allah be pleased with him) have any compact from the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) for 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh?’ The Imam replied, ‘Hadrat Umar was not one to invent on his own; certainly he had some proof with him for this!’” (also found in Maraqi ul-Falah, pg. 81, by Imam al-Shurunbulali and Bahr ur Ra’iq, vol.2, pg. 66, by Imam ibn Nujaim al-Misri).

(3) Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892; Rahimahullah)

Imam Tirmidhi said: “Umar, Ali as well as other Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) and Sufyan al-Thauri, Ibn al-Mubarak and Imam al-Shafi’i (Allah’s mercy be upon them), all believed in 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh, and Imam Shafi’i has stated that he had seen the people of Makkah saying 20 rak’ahs (see Sunan al-Tirmidhi, vol.1, pg. 99).

(4) Imam Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH; Rahimahullah)

It was written in the most authentic book on Maliki Fiqh, al-Mudawwanah (vol.1, pg. 193-94), by Qadi Sahnoon (Rahimahullah): “Ibn al-Qasim said, ‘The rak’ahs (of Taraweeh) with witr are 39.’ Imam Malik said, ‘This is what the people have agreed upon from amongst the predecessors, and the people have not stopped doing it.’” (For an explanation of why it was 36 rak’ahs see the quote below from Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri).

(5) Hafiz Ibn Humam (d. 861/1457; Rahimahullah)

Allamah Ibn Humam asserts that it has been established from genuine authority that the Companions and their Successors (tabi’in) used to say twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh during the auspicious time of Umar (Allah be pleased with him); this authority of Yazid ibn Ruman has been reported from Sa’ib ibn Yazid that, ‘during Umar’s auspicious time we used to say twenty rak’ahs.’ The genuineness of this authority has been verified by Imam Nawawi in the synopsis (see Fath al-Qadir, vol.1, pg. 407 and Nasb-ur-Rayah, vol.1, pg. 294, by Hafiz al-Zaylai). Hafiz Ibn Humam also said in Fath al-Qadir (vol.1, pg. 470): “At last unanimity was formed on 20 rak’ahs of prayer and this alone is in succession.” This last statement has also been said in similar words by Ibn Taymiyya in his Minhaj us-Sunnah (vol.2, pg. 224).

(6) Imam Ata ibn Abi Rabah (Rahimahullah)

The august successor (Tabi’in) and Mufti of Makkah in his time said: “I have seen the Companions, and other people in Makkah saying 23 rak’ahs, including the witr.” This report is Hasan (good). (see Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, pg. 406, Fath al-Bari, vol.4, pg. 219, of Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Qiyam ul-Layl, pg. 91, by Imam Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi).

(7) Imam Muwaffaq al-Din Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620/1223; R.A)

The Imam of the Hanbali’s in his time, Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, said in his book al-Mughni (vol.1, pg 803): “There has been the Companion’s consensus (Ijma-as-Sahaba) on 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh.”

(8) Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (d. 1352 AH; Rahimahullah)

It was stated in his published lecture, Tirmidhi al-ma’ruf ba-Arfa’sh-Shazzi (vol.1 pg. 329) :” Not even one of the the four Imams believes in less than 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh; the practise and belief of the majority of the Companions was also this. Imam Malik (Allah’s mercy be upon him) believes in more than 20 rak’ahs; he is positive that they are 36. According to Imam Malik’s practise only 20 rak’ahs of Taraweeh will be said in congregation, but the general practise and method of the citizens of Madinah was that during the brief rest interval (after every 4 rak’ahs), when the Imam sat down after 4 rak’ahs, they used to perform 4 more rak’ahs. The men who said the Taraweeh in the sacred mosque at Makkah, used to circumambulate (tawaf) the Ka’ba during this brief recess. The people of Madinah, naturally, could not circumambulate the Ka’ba and hence, instead, they used to perform 16 rak’ahs more (in total) during these brief recesses.”

(9) Imam al-Ayni (d. 855/1451; Rahimahullah)

Allamah Ayni wrote in his Sharh al-Bukhari: “The number of rak’ahs in the Taraweeh is twenty. Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmed (Allah’s mercy be upon them) assert the same thing. Their proof is the report which Bayhaqi has, with genuine authority, narrated from Sa’ib ibn Yazid. The great Companions, including Umar, Uthman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), as also the revered Successors (Tabi’in), used to perform twenty rak’ahs.” Then he said: “The most excellent and the most advisable course to conform to is that of the Holy Prophet’s and his (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) Companions (practise).” (Umdat ul-Qari Sharh-al-Bukhari, vol. 7, pg. 178).

(10) Hafiz Taqi-ad-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya al-Hanbali (d. 728/1328)

He has said in his Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya (vol.1, pg. 191): “It has been proven without doubt that Ubayy ibn Ka’b (Allah be pleased with him) used to lead the Companions, during Ramadan, for 20 rak’ahs and 3 rak’ahs of witr. Hence it is the principle (maslak) of most of the Ulama that this is the Sunnah, because Ubayy ibn Ka’b led 20 rak’ahs of prayer in the presence of the Muhajirin (the emigrants) and the Ansars (the helpers) and not a single Companion repudiated it!”

So please ask yourselves: “Who are the ‘Salafiyya’; are they the people who conform to the way of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him), his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all), and their successors (this includes the four Mujtahid Imams, Allah’s mercy be upon them) consensus on 20 rak’ahs, or is it the likes of al-Albani and his followers?”

May Allah guide them.


Part Four of a detailed analysis of the errors of Quraysha Ismail Sooliman (5 years studies at Darul Uloom Pretoria, Freelance Journalist and Political Science Honour’s Student, University of Pretoria)

The writer states the following hadith:

Hadith no. 1

from the narration of Umm Attiyyah she said:

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)] and

Hadith no. 2

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 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]

Our Response:

We shall begin the response to ahadith number 1 and 2 by delving into the errors which the writer had previously committed in an article titled, “What is Imaam Abu Hanifa’s verdict regarding the Eid salaat for Women?”In the aforementioned article, the writer erroneously chose to cite certain parts of the explanation of Allaamah Zafar Ahmed Thanvi rahimahullah and in so doing, gravely distorted the meaning of I’laa us Sunan with respect to the verdict of the Hanafi Madhab on the issue of women attending Eid Salaah.

The following is a rendition of the writer’s understanding of what is mentioned in I’laa us Sunan as well as the actual translation as stated by Allaamah Zafar Ahmed Thanvi rahimahullah in I’laa us Sunan. We urge all readers to verify the translations themselves by consulting the relevant texts i.e. I’laa us Sunan Juz 8 Pg 102-110

The writer states:

In I’laa al Sunnan, [Hanafi scholar] Thufr Ahmed Thanvi from the Indo-Pak sub-continent, makes two distinctions regarding the Eid salaat. Firstly, he affirms that the Eid salaat is Fard Ain from the Quranic Verse 2:185.

With regard to the Fardh-e-Ain claim, Allaamah Zafar Ahmad states the following:

Allaamah Shaukaani said: “Haadi, Qaasim and Abu Hanifah have deducted from Rasulullah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam)’s command for all people to come out (and go) to the Musallah (Eid Gah) for the Eid Salaat that Eid Salaat is from among the Fardh Ain (injuctions). (Allaamah Zafar comments): In this (claim) there is an error because, verily, Abu Hanifa did not say anything other than Wujoob (i.e. Eid Salaat is Waajib).”

Allaamah Zafar Ahmad dismisses the Fardh Ain claim attributed to Imaam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah and clarifies that Allaamah Shaukaani had erred in making this attribution to Imaam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah.

Affirming that Eid Salaat is Waajib, Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Rahimahullah says in I’laa us Sunan Juz 8 Pg 102/103 under the caption “The Wujoob of the two Eid Salaat”:

“Allaamah Aini says in Al-Umdah: On the basis of Allah’s statement: ‘And, you should recite the Takbeer of Allah according to the way He has guided you…’Eid Salaat is Waajib. It has been said that the meaning (in the aayat) is Salaatul Eid, and the command is for Wujoob…When this narration is added to the previous narrations, the effect is unanimously Wujoob…The reason for the (view of) Wujoob is continuity (on Eid Salaat) of Rasulullah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) without omission as is stated in Hidaayah…and also because Eid salaat is among the Sha-aair of Islam, hence it is Waajib…Salaatul Eid being Fardh Ain is in conflict with Ijma’”.

The write then states:

He further adds regarding the hadith of Umm Attiyah: ‘I (Thufr Thanvi) say that in this hadith there is clear evidence that it is compulsory for Eid salaat on the ladies and so it indicates also the compulsion on men. There is some difference of opinion however amongst the scholars who say it is mustahab. Regarding the hadith of the Sister of Abdullah ibn Rawaha RA, she narrates that the prophet SAW said: ‘The coming out is compulsory on every sane women’- (Ahmad) [and in some narrations] ‘I mean in the two salaats of Eid’- (Tabarani) [This hadith is problematic, because of an unknown tabi’i narrator, but according to the Usool of the Hanafi’s it is totally acceptable]. From this, he says, it is the right of ladies to go out for Eid salaat, and this is the instruction also of Qadi Iyyad who narrates from Abu-Bakr, Ali & Abdullah ibn Umar (Radiallah Unhum Ajmaien). And abi Shaibah, who also narrates from AbuBakr and Ali that they said: ‘It is the right of every sane lady to go out for the two Eids’.

The correct translation of Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi rahimahullah’s statements is as follows:

“I say: In it (i.e the Hadith of Umm Atiyyah) there is the indication on the wujoob of women emerging for the two Eid Salaat. This, the indication on it being Wujoob for men is to a greater degree. Whilst the obvious application (of the command in the Hadith) is WUjoob, it has been abrogated (made Mansookh) in so far as women are concerned on the basis of the daleel of the Hadith of Umm Humaid, Umm Salmah, the statement of Aishah, Ibn Mas’ood and others as has already been mentioned.”

Basically, the statement of Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi is initially discussing the right which women had enjoyed during the time of Rasulullah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam and that that right was abrogated by the Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum.

The writer alleges that Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi states:

There is some difference of opinion however amongst the scholars who say it is mustahab.

Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi actually states the following:

“Verily, the Aimmah have differed (on the issue of) the emergence of women for the two Eids (and this difference is encapsulated) in five views.”

The five different views mentioned by Allahmah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi rahimahullah are:

1.      Mustahab

2.      Tafreqah

3.      Jaaiz Ghair Mustahab

4.      Makrooh (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi)

5.      The Right of Women

With respect to the no. 5, this condition, as stated by Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi, has been made Mansookh (abrogated).

Regarding the view of it being Makrooh, Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi says, “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.

It should now become crystal clear to the reader that what the writer had falsely attributed to Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi rahimahullah is totally baseless.

We will now proceed to produce a detailed explanation of Hadith number 1 and 2.

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?” (Al Kanzul Mutawari 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.’ ’’ (Al Kanzul Mutawari Juz 6 Pg 192)

The Chapter on: “If she does not have a jilbaab”

“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.” (Al Kanzul Mutawari Juz 6 Pg 194-195)

The following is a detailed explanation of the word ‘jilbaab’ and its usage and understanding in Shari’ah:

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

Imaam ibn Kathir mentions in the commentary of this verse in his famous Tafsir Juz 6 Pg 481, “Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala is commanding His Messenger sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam to command the believing women, especially his wives and daughters, to cover themselves with their jilbaab in order to distinguish themselves from the women of ignorance (jahiliyyah). And a jilbaab is a covering which is used over and above the veil(scarf, hijaab etc). This has been mentioned by Ibn Mas’ood radhiAllahu anhu, Qataadah rahimahullah, Hasan al Basri rahimahullah, Sa’eed bin Jubayr rahimahullah and Ibrahim an Nakha’i rahimahullah and many others.

Al Jauhari has mentioned that the jilbaab is that which a woman is wrapped in completely. Ali bin Abi Talha narrates from ibn Abbas radhiAllahu anhu, ‘Allah has commanded the believing women that when they leave their homes for a legitimate Shar’i need to cover their faces from above their heads with the jilbaab and they will leave exposed one eye.’

Imaam Mohammed bin Sireen mentions, ‘I asked ‘Abeedah about the statement of Allah (Yudneena alayhinna). So he covered his face and his head and left exposed his left eye.’

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.’’

Allaamah Suddi has mentioned, ‘There were mischief makers amongst the people of Madinah who used to come at night when it used to become dark in the pathways of Madinah, waiting for the women. The houses of the inhabitants of Madinah were small and constricted sow hen it was night, the women would come out to fulfil their needs so these mischief makers would wait for the women to come out and when they saw a woman with a jilbaab, they would say, ‘This is a free woman, stay away from her!’ and when they saw a woman without a jilbaab, they would say, ‘This is a slave.’

Mujaahid rahimahullah has mentioned, ‘They would wear a jilbaab and it would be known that these are free women so no wrongdoer would try and harm or interfere with them in any way.’”

In Tafsir Qurtubi Juz 14 Pg 243, “Ibn Abbas radhiAllahu anhu has mentioned, ‘ (A jilbaab is) that a woman covers herself to such an extent that nothing is exposed except one eye to see with.’

Tafsir al Qurtubi Juz 14 Pg 244: “Abu Hurairah radhiAllahu anhu has mentioned regarding women who wear thin clothes, ‘They are the ones who are clothed but naked.’

A group of women from Bani Tameem entered upon Aishah radhiAllahu anha and they were wearing thin clothes so Aishah radhiAllahu anha said, ‘If you are true believers then this is not the clothing of believing women and if you are not believing women, then enjoy.’

Umar radhiAllahu anha has mentioned, ‘What prevents a Muslim woman, who when she leaves her home for a valid need, from leaving covered in coarse(unattractive) cloth so that she is hidden to such an extent that nobody knows who she is until she return to her home?’

Imaam al Qurtubi mentions, ‘And together with this dressing, the companions of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam prevented the women from the Masjid after the death of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam.’”

In Tafsir ibn Abi Haatim Juz 12 Pg 3, it is mentioned, ‘Sa’eed bin Jubayr radhiAllahu anhu has mentioned, ‘It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to be seen by a stranger except that she has upon her a head veil (all-encompassing piece of cloth) over and above her face-veil, scarf etc.’

Ikraamah radhiAllahu anhu has mentioned, ‘She will cover herself with the Jilbaab so that not even a bit of her neck will be seen.’

In Tafsir Ruhul Ma’ani Juz 16 Pg 223 it is mentioned, ‘A jilbaab is that which completely covers a woman from top to bottom as narrated by Ibn Abbas radhiAllahu anhu.

A jilbaab is also defined as ‘every cloth which a woman wears over and above her general clothing’.

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

Tafsir Abi Sa-ood defines the jilbaab as follows: “Al-jilbaab: Is a cloth bigger than the khimaar(headscarf) but smaller than the ridaa’ (shawl). A woman covers her with it from on top of the head. It is said that it is the shawl. It is every garment with which women conceal their faces and their bodies when they emerge(from their homes) for needs.”

Imaam Qurtubi states in his Al-Jami li Akhaamil Qur’aan: “Since it was the practice of the Arab women to leave their faces open like slave-girls, and this would invite the gazes of men, Allah and His Rasool ordered them (women) to hang down (irkhaa’) the jalabeeb over them when they intend to emerge for their needs. Ibn Abbaas and Ubaidah Salmaani said that it covers a woman so much that only her one eye remains exposed to enable her to see.”

In Lisaanul Arab, the Jilbaab is defined as follows: “Jilbaab is bigger than khimaar(the long head-scarf) smaller than ridaa’(the outer shawl). The woman conceals with it her head and breast.”

These are just a few of the very many explanations of ‘jilbaab’ presented by the true scholars of Islam, the sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum, the Fuqaaha, muhadditheen and mufassireen. It is evident from the authoritative texts quoted that the ‘jilbaab’ is a pre-requisite for Muslim women leaving the home. It is also quite clear that the ‘jilbaab’ is a piece of material which is unattractive and covers a woman from head to toe to such an extent that none of the features of her body parts are discernible to the onlooker.

The following is narrated in Fiqhul Islami Juz 2 Pg 1390

“The Hanafi and Maaliki Fuqahaa have agreed that there is no permission for young women to go out for Jumu’ah, Eid or any other salaat because of the command in Surah Ahzab verse 33 and the command to remain is a prohibition from moving (out of the home) and it is because their leaving the home is a source of fitnah and fitnah is haraam and what leads to haraam is haraam.”

We have explained the position of elderly women already. It must be noted that whilst there previously was a distinction between old women and young women, in our era there is no distinction and all women fall under the same ruling i.e. of impermissibility.”

Hadith number 1 and 2 will Insha Allah be discussed in Part 5 as well where we explain the juristic implications of the ahadeeth as well as the principles relating to practising on ahadeeth.

This concludes Part Four of the detailed and academic response to ‘The Conclusion’ by Quraysha Ismail Sooliman

Read Part One, Part Two and Part Three of The True Conclusion:




This document answers the erroneous claims made by Al-Albani in his book, “Sifah Salah-al-Nabee”. It is span across two posts, this post is the first, Insha’allah.Moving the Finger in Tashahhud

With reference to al-Albani’s recently translated book “The Prophet’s Prayer described from the beginning to the end as though you see it (Sifah Salah-al-Nabee)”, al-Albani claimed (pg. 66):

“Further, the Hadith that he would not move his finger does not have an authentic Isnad, as I have explained in Daeef Abi Daawood (175).”

But when I looked this Hadith up in the English Translation of the Sunan of Imam Abu Dawood (1/984, pg. 252) I found that Abdallah ibn al-Zubair (Allah be pleased with him ) said:

“The Prophet (Peace be upon him) used to point with his finger (at the end of tashahhud) and he would not move it.”

But lo and behold, this very Hadith has not been listed In “Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan“, by his followers; which means to the user of this list that this Hadith is acceptable to them, and is either of the rank of SAHIH or HASAN to the user of this list! Imam Muslim (Rahimahullah) also reported Ibn al-Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) narrating from his father: “That when the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) sat for supplication, i.e. Tashahhud, he placed his right hand on his right thigh and his left hand on his left thigh, and pointed with his forefinger, and placed his thumb on his (middle) finger, and covered his knee with the palm of his left hand.” (Sahih Muslim, 1/1202, English ed’n.)

According to the Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi’i Madhhabs, one should not continuously make supplications with the fore-finger. It is written in the English translation of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, by As-Sayyid Sabiq, (vol. 1, pg. 157, i.e. the Salafi book of Fiqh): “Wa’il ibn Hajr (Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) would place his left palm on his left thigh and knee. He would place the end of his right elbow upon his right thigh and would then close his right hand, forming a circle. In another narration it states, he would make a circle with his middle finger and thumb and point with his index finger, and (Wa’il) saw him moving it to make supplications (related by Ahmad).” Explaining the Hadith, al-Bayhaqi (Rahimahullah) says, “The implication of ‘he would move it’ is that he would point with it, not that he would continue to move it.” This would be in agreement with the narration of Ibn az-Zubair (Allah be pleased with him), who reported, “The Prophet (Peace be upon him) would point with his finger while supplicating, and he would not move it.” This is related by Abu Dawud with a Sahih chain. An-Nawawi also mentioned it.

(NB – Both Imams al-Bayhaqi and Nawawi were great Shafi’i scholars of Hadith who followed this Hadith of Ibn al-Zubair, besides so many other scholars of Hadith).

Now, there is also a footnote (no 11) by the translator Jamal Zarabozo who said, “In his notes to Mishkat al-Masabih, al-Albani has discussed the Hadith of Wa’il ibn Hajr and of Ibn az-Zubair. He said that the first Hadith has a Sahih chain. The narrators of the latter Hadith (i.e of Ibn al-Zubair) are all trustworthy. Muhammad ibn Ijlan (a narrator in the chain going back to Ibn az-Zubair) has some weakness due to his memory, but his memory was not so poor as to drop to the rank of hasan (a good Hadith). Therefore, the statement recorded by Sabiq that the chain is Sahih is incorrect (i.e only if you accept al-Albani’s classification of Hadith); The important words in the latter Hadith are, ‘and he would not move it.’ According to al-Albani this addition is irregular and rejected (shadh and munkar).”

And I Say: “al-Albani’s followers have not said that it is shadh and munkar in their Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan !”

Again referring to Fiqh-us-Sunnah (vol. 1, pg. 158), Sabiq says: “According to the Shafiyyah, one points with the finger only once, when saying ‘except Allah’ in the statement bearing witness. The Hanafiyyah raise the finger in the denial part of the Statement (there is no God) and put it back down during the confirmation part (except Allah). The Malikiyyah (see below for the Maliki view) move the finger to the left and to the right until they finish the prayer. The Hanbaliyyah point with the finger every time they mention Allah, as a reflection to the oneness of Allah, and they do not move it.”

Another two Hadith on this issue have been related by Imam Muslim (Rahimahullah) in his Sahih: “Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported that when the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) sat for the tashahhud he placed his left hand on his left knee, and his right hand on his right knee, and he raised his right finger, which is next to the thumb, making supplication in this way, and he stretched his left hand on his left knee. Another version on the authority of Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) says: When the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) sat for the tashahhud, he placed his left hand on his left knee and placed his right hand on his right knee, and he formed a ring like (Arabic number 53) and pointed with his finger of attestation. (Also) Ali ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Mu’awi reported: Abdullah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) saw me playing with pebbles during prayer. After finishing the prayer he forbade me (to do it) and said: Do as the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) used to do. I said: How did Allah’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) do? He said that he (the Messenger of Allah) sat at tashahhud, placed his right palm on the right thigh and closed all his fingers and pointed with the help of the finger next to the thumb, and placed his palm on his right thigh.” (Sahih Muslim, 1/1203-4, English ed’n)

Imam Ibn Abi Zaid al-Qairawani (d. 389 AH; Rahimahullah) who is famed with the title ‘little Malik’, gave the view of the Maliki Madhhab in his al-Risala (pg. 31) in the following words: “At the time a worshipper reads the tashahhud, that is the tahiyyah, he places his hands on his thighs. He then folds the fingers of his right hand, but he leaves his index finger unfolded and pointing forward with its side pointing towards his face. There are differences of opinion about the interpretation of the state of the finger. Some believe that, keeping the finger still signifies that Allah is one God. Those who shake it consider it a club with which to ward off the Satan. I consider that the interpretation of that is that it reminds the worshipper that he is in the state of prayer, and that moving the finger shall prevent him from forgetting himself. The worshipper then places his left hand on his left thigh with the palm downwards, he must not move it nor point with it.”

Finally, it is written in the English translation of Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik – {This book gives the Shafi’i Madhhab’s views} (The Reliance of the Traveller, by Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, d. 769AH/1368 CE; Rahimahullah, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, pg. 142, f8.44): “One does not move it while it is thus raised (Shaykh Umar Barakat said in his commentary to Umdat al-Salik: following the Sunnah from a Hadith related by Abu Dawud. It is offensive to move it here, though some hold that it is recommended, the evidence for which is also from the Sunnah, in a Hadith related by Bayhaqi, who states both Hadiths are rigorously authenticated (Sahih). Precedence is given to the former Hadith (i.e of Ibn Az-Zubair), which negates moving the finger, over the latter Hadith, which affirms it, because scholars hold that what is sought in prayer is lack of motion, and moving it diminishes one’s humility). (I say: al-Albani’s comment on the Hadith of Ibn al-Zubair: ‘Even if it were authentic, it is negatory, while the Hadith above is affirmatory: the affirmatory takes precedence over the negatory, as is well known among the scholars’ [see pg. 66 of Sifah Salah an-Nabee] is of no consequence to what most of the Fuqaha (Jurisprudents) have said from amongst the Hanafi, Shafi’i and Hanbali scholars, but his opinion is only supported by the Malikiyyah, so do not be confused). The Prophet’s moving it was merely to teach people that it was permissible (and Shaykh Abdal-Wakil Durubi said: ‘As it was the Prophet’s (Peace be upon him) duty to distinguish for his Community the acts that were offensive from those that were unlawful, and he was given the reward of the obligatory for doing such offensive acts’). Moreover, Bayhaqi says that the meaning of ‘moving it’ in the latter Hadith is simply raising it, so there is no actual contradiction).”

From the above discussion we may briefly say in summary that al-Albani labelled the Hadith of Abdallah ibn al-Zubair as being DAEEF according to what he said in ‘Sifah-Salah an-Nabee, (pg. 66), but his followers have not labelled it as being DAEEF in ‘Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan’!! Also according to Jamal Zarabozo’s quotation from al-Albani’s checking of Mishkat ul-Masabih, this same Hadith was of the rank of HASAN, and not DAEEF as he had said in ‘Daeef Abi Dawood (no 175)’; is this not a grave contradiction? We should rather accept the checking of such great memorizers of Hadith like the Imam’s Bayhaqi and Nawawi (Allah’s mercy be upon them).

Allah knows best.

The Placing of Hands

With regard to the placing of the hands below the navel in Salah (see Sifah Salah an-Nabee, appendix 4, pg. 102-103, English ed’n), al-Albani has declared all the Hadith that reached him on this issue to be Daeef, due to the presence of the narrator Abdar-Rahman ibn Ishaq al-Wasiti al-Koofi. This may be true due to what the scholars of Hadith have said, but he has either overlooked the fact that there are many other Ahadith which order the placing of the hands below the navel, or has deliberately not bothered to mention them to his readers who are usually unaware of this fact! Al-Albani claims on page 12 of the same book : “To place them on the chest is what is proved in the Sunnah, and all that is contrary to it is either Daeef or totally baseless.” But he contradicts himself on page 102-103 of the same book by saying: “What further points to its weakness (i.e. the Hadith of Abdar-Rahman ibn Ishaq) is that contrary to it has been narrated on the authority of Ali (Allah be pleased with him) with a better Isnad: the Hadith of Ibn Jareer al-Dabbi an (from) his father, who said, ‘I saw Ali holding his left arm with his right on the wrist, above the navel (I say: The statement above the navel, does not mean on the chest, but literally above the navel and below the chest, since this is the opinion of the Shafiyyah scholars like Bayhaqi, Nawawi, Muslim and so on) – this Isnad is a candidate for the rank of HASAN; Baihaqi (1/301) firmly designated it to be Hasan, and Bukhari (1/301) designated it with certainty while giving it an abridged, ta’leeq form.”

Is this not a clear contradiction from within the same book? And this is not all my dear reader…

Al-Albani claimed that it was found in Bukhari (1/301), but when I examined the Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 1, Chapter. 6, no. 707, pg. 396, English ed’n), I did not find this narration of Ibn Jarir al-Dabbi (Allah be pleased with him), but instead a Hadith from Sahl ibn Sa’ad (Allah be pleased with him) who said: “The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer.” Abu Hazim said, ” I knew that the order was from the Prophet (Peace be upon him).” [see also Muwatta of Imam Malik, section 9.15, no 50, pg 70, English trans’n by A. Abdarahman and Y. Johnson for a very similar narration]. According to the author of Ja’al Haqq, Shaykh Ahmad Khan, there is not even one Hadith in the Sahih collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim which specify where the hands should be placed!

Now you have just read above that al-Albani classified the Hadith of Ibn Jarir al-Dabbi to be HASAN, but when I found this very Hadith in the Sunan of Abu Dawood (1/756, pg. 194, English ed’n) and cross referenced it to the list, “Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan.” I found that his followers listed it as being DAEEF!! Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) said after relating the Hadith from Ibn Jarir al-Dabbi: “Sa’id ibn Jubair narrated the words: ‘above the navel’. Abu Mijlaz reported the words: ‘below the navel’. This has also been narrated by Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him). But that is not strong.” The latter quote is one which al-Albani failed to mention in “Sifah Salah an-Nabee!”

Note also that al-Albani said with regard to the placing of the hands on the chest (see Sifah Salah an-Nabee, pg. 12, in the footnote):

“In fact, Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwaih acted on this Sunnah, as Marwazi said in ‘Masaa’il (pg 222): ‘Ishaq used to pray witr with us…. he would raise his hands in qunoot, and make the qunoot before bowing, and place his hands on his breast or just under his breast.’”

But when Iread the footnote to Abu Dawood’s Sunan (vol. 1, pg. 194, fn. 345, English ed’n), I noticed that the author of Awn al- Mabood (1,275), Shams al-Haqq Azimabadi, claimed that both Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi and al-Hafiz Ishaq ibn Rahwaih (one of Imam al-Bukhari’s teachers) held the position that the hands should be folded below the navel! In his Sahih Muslim sharif-Mukhtasar Sharh Nawawi (vol. 2, pg. 28, fn. 23), Wahid az-Zaman (a late scholar of the ‘Salafiyya’ in Pakistan) also affirmed that the Imam’s Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Ishaq ibn Rahwaih and Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi (Allah’s mercy be upon them) all used to place their hands below the navel! So who do you think is quoting correctly, al-Albani or al-Azimabadi and az-Zaman?

Here is the full quote from Abu Dawood’s Sunan:

“The question of folding hands in prayer below the navel is disputed amongst the jurists. According to Abu Hanifah, Sufyan al-Thawri, Ishaq ibn Rahwaih, Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi (I say: others who held the same view include the Mujtahid’s like Ibrahim al-Nakhai, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaybani, Zufar ibn Hudayl and many other scholars, Allah’s mercy be upon them), the hands should be folded below the navel. This tradition is followed by them (I say: it is not just this tradition which lends support to placing the hands below the navel, but others as well). According to al-Shafi’i, the hands should be placed below the chest (I say: this is also the opinion of Imam Muslim, according to the chapter heading used by him: ‘The placing of the right hand over the left hand after the first takbir in prayer below the chest and above the navel and then placing them opposite the shoulders in prostration’ -see Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, pg. 220, English ed’n). Al-Nawawi says that this is the view of the majority of the jurists (this may have been in Imam Nawawi’s day, but it is well known that through out the centuries of Islam in aggregate, most of the Ulama as well as the common folk have been placing their hands below the navel, by Allah’s decree and will). Two statements have been attributed to Ahmad ibn Hanbal (see al-Albani’s Sifah Salah an-Nabee, footnote on pg. 51). According to the third view ascribed to him he does not give any preference to any of these two views. One has the choice of placing the hands. Malik is also reported to have held two different views. According to the second, he held that one should leave the hands in their natural position without folding them. One should not fold them placing one on the other.”

NB- The most authoritative position of Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) has been recorded in al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, by Qadi Sahnoon (d. 240 AH). This book contains the most authentic positions of al-Imam Malik and his illustrious disciples, namely Imam ibn al-Qasim and Imam ibn Wahb. Qadi Sahnoon recorded the declarations of Imam Malik directly from Imam ibn al-Qasim, hence there is no real doubt in my mind that whatever has been recorded in this book is the Madhhab of al-Imam Malik, and usually the amal (practise) of the people of Madinah in his day. In al-Mudawwana (vol. 1, pg. 75-76), Imam Malik has been recorded to have said, “Putting the right hand on the left in salah, I have no knowledge of it in the compulsory (fard) prayer, it is thus disliked (makrooh). But in the supererogatory (nafl) prayer there is no harm (in folding the hands), it is left to the individual to decide.” This statement from Imam Malik is a strong proof against those who claim that Imam Malik only prayed with his hands at his sides, after he received a severe beating (see The Evolution of Fiqh, pg. 70, by A.A. Bilal Philips)!

Al-Albani has only ‘checked’ six Hadith which allow the placing of the hands below the navel (see his ‘Sifah’, pg. 102, Appx. 4). But there are more than 6 other Hadith (which allow the placing of the hands below the navel) which he has not bothered to mention/check; may be he has not come across them! One of such Hadith is very similar to what al-Albani mentioned in “Sifah Salah an-Nabee,” pg. 11: “We, the company of Prophets, have been commanded to hasten the breaking of the fast, to delay the meal before the fast, and to place our right arms on our left arms during prayer [from Ibn Hibban and Diyaa’, with a Sahih Isnad according to al-Albani]. The version I have is related by Sayyidina Ali (Allah be pleased with him): “Three things are from the habits of Prophethood: To hasten the breaking of the fast, to delay the Sehri (pre-fast meal) as late as possible, and to place one’s right hand on top of the left hand below the navel (transmitted by Hafiz Ibn Shaheen).”

To finish, As-Sayyid Sabiq quoted Imam Tirmidhi (Rahimahullah) as saying in Fiqh-us-Sunnah (vol. 1, pg 132): “Knowledgeable Companions (Allah be pleased with them all), their followers and those that came after them believed that one should put his right hand over the left during prayer, while some say above the navel and others say below the navel.”

Raful-Yadain : The Raising of Hands in Prayer

Another point I wish to raise concerns the long disputed issue of raising the hands in prayer (salah). It is a well known fact that al-Albani and the generality of people amongst the ‘Salafiyya’ have made a mountain out of a molehill, and have brewed a storm in a tea cup with regards to this issue, such that many of them are bold enough to accuse those who do not raise their hands in Salah (i.e. after the initial raising called Takbir-Tahrimah) of not following the Sunnah, as well as going to the disgusting length of openly detesting and despising those who do not raise their hands after the first Takbir!

I must also admit that among those who do not raise their hands in the subsequent stages of Salah, usually the ignorant people have accused those who raise the hands in the other stages of Salah to be ‘Wahabbi’s!’ This is due to ignorance and pride of both sides, which usually stems from the lack of knowledge of the opinion of our great Mujtahid Imam’s, and the Ahadith based evidences used by the research scholars in their respective defence of either raising or not raising the hands in the other stages of Salah. Our brothers and sisters who accuse those of raising the hands in the other stages of prayer should ask themselves: “Were the great Imam’s like al-Shafi’i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (Allah’s mercy be upon them) Wahhabi’s?” I pose this question because it is well known that both of the latter named Imam’s used to practise Raful-Yadayn after the initial Takbir, besides many other Companions and successors (Tabi’een), may Allah be pleased with them all!

It is a well known fact from the Mutawateer Ahadith (a report of a large number of narrators whose agreement upon a lie is inconceivable) available to us, that the Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) used to raise his hands when pronouncing the initial Takbir in Salah. Sayyid Sabiq stated in his Fiqh-us-Sunnah (vol. 1, pg 129): “Says Ibn al-Mundhir, ‘All scholars agree that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) raised his hands at the beginning of his prayer.’ Commenting upon this report, Ibn Hajar (al-Asqalani) says, ‘The Prophet’s raising his hands at the beginning of his prayer has been narrated by fifty companions, including the ten who were given the tidings of Paradise.’ Al-Bayhaqi related that al-Hakim said, ‘I do not know of any Sunnah other than this one which is accepted by the four rightly guided Khalifahs, the ten companions who were given the tidings of Paradise, and other Companions scattered across many lands.” (NB-In my own experience, the only people I have met who do not raise their hands in any stage of the Salah have been the remnants of a Kharijite sect called the Ibaadiyah, nor do they fold their hands in Salah).

Now, the difference in opinion stems on the question of whether the raising of the hands is necessary in the other stages of Salah, like when going into Rukoo, standing up from Rukoo, in between the prostrations (sajdah) and when standing up for the third rakah in Salah…

Al-Albani said in “Sifah Salah an-Nabee, pg. 42, fn. 4″: “The raising of the hands is reported as Mutawateer from him (Peace be upon him), as is the raising of the hands on straightening up after Rukoo. It is the Madhhab of the three Imams Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmad, and of the majority of scholars of Hadith and Fiqh. Imam Malik practised it right up to his death, as reported by Ibn Asakir (15/78/2). Some of the Hanafi’s chose to do it, among them Isam ibn Yusuf Abu Asamah al-Balkhi (died. 210 A.H.), a student of Imam Abu Yusuf, as has been explained in the introduction.”

I wish to say to the bias of al-Albani, “You have quoted a portion of the truth correctly, but have also blundered in one of your opinions!” It is absolutely true that the great Mujtahid Imams like al-Shafi’i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (Allah’s mercy be upon them) recommended the raising of the hands in the other subsequent stages of Salah, but it is a mistake to say that the great Imam of Madinah, Malik ibn Anas (Rahimahullah) “practised it right up to his death” as al-Albani claims, by quoting from Imam Ibn Asakir (a Shafi’i scholar of Hadith, and a staunch defender of Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari, he wrote a work entitled ‘The Exposure by al-Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari of Mischievous untruths, d. 571 AH; Rahimahullah).

For the real and authoritative view of Imam Malik and his followers, one must study the books written by the Maliki Madhhab, and then quote their opinions! I say this due to the sensible advice given to me by one of my friends in a written communication. He said:

“One lesson you should learn from all this is not to, for example, take Hadith from someone who is mainly specialized in Fiqh or some other subject, or take Hanafi dalils (evidences used to give legal verdicts) from someone who is not a specialist in the Hanafi madhhab’s methodological bases and evidences, or take a Hanbali scholar’s word about some ruling in a different madhhab, or take Hadith knowledge from scholars who make large numbers of mistakes, and so on. In general, one does not take an accounting problem to a shoe salesman.”

For the most authentic view and stance of Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) and his disciples please refer to the appropriate title and discussion later, but as for what al-Albani quoted from Imam Ibn Asakir (Rahimahullah), then I say the authenticity of this report needs to be checked, since al-Albani has failed to classify it himself in his “Sifah Salah an-Nabee,” (does this not mean that he wants his readers to ‘blindly’ accept his verdicts?), and even if Hafiz Ibn Asakir’s reference proves to be Sahih, then there is no doubt in my mind that this statement coming from Imam Malik must be rejected in favour of the real position of Imam Malik himself. The statements that I shall be quoting in favour of Imam Malik’s authoritative opinion, comes directly from his most famous disciples, where as the reference coming from Ibn Asakir as given by al-Albani, was recorded well over 300 years after the death of Imam Malik (NB- Imam Malik passed away in the year 179 AH; while Imam Ibn Asakir was born in the year 499 AH)!

As you have read above al-Albani stated that the Imam’s Shafi’i and Ibn Hanbal (Allah’s mercy be upon them) performed Raful-Yadayn, but one should also know that on the other hand, the great Mujtahid’s amongst our Pious-Predecessors, like Abu Hanifah, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Ibrahim al-Nakhai, Alqama, Aswad (two famous disciples of the great Companion Abdallah ibn Masood), Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaybani, Sufyan al-Thawri and many other Ulama (Allah’s mercy be upon them all) did not perform Raful-Yadayn, except in the initial Takbir, based on many sound chains of narration! So you may now ask: “Why the difference of opinion?”

The answer to this small problem is simple; it is only due to preference given to the derived Ijtihad of the available Ahadith on this subject, by individual Mujtahid’s of the highest scholarly rank, and not that of the laity amongst the general masses of this Ummah. Since many a scholar has said that it is impermissible to derive legal verdicts from the Qur’an and Sunnah, if one is not qualified to do Ijtihad (see the section on Taqleed), but conversely, what do we see today (see later)? The Imams who held the view that Raful-Yadayn is unnecessary, besides the initial Takbir, have based their views from many authentic Ahadith coming from the Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim), as well as directly from the great Companions (May Allah be pleased with them all).

The fact of the matter is, that in their view the practise of performing Raful-Yadayn in the other stages of prayer have been abrogated, and hence unnecessary in performance. Contrary to this, Imam’s like al-Shafi’i, Ibn Hanbal…. believe it to be desirable to perform Raful-Yadayn, and in their view the practise has not been abrogated. Consequently, many of the well known and wise research scholars have said that one’s Salah is correct and acceptable by the practise of either mode! So please do not fall into the abyss of ignorance, by accusing and abusing each other of performing Salah incorrectly, since it was not generally the way of our foremost Mujtahid’s of the pious generations (see the discussion between Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifah and Imam al-Awzai later)!

Al-Albani has said that some of the Hanafi’s like Shaykh Isam ibn Yusuf al-Balkhi (Rahimahullah) chose to perform Raful-Yadayn because he did not know the evidence of his Imams who held the view that Raful-Yadayn was unnecessary after the initial Takbir (See “Sifah Salah an-Nabee, pg xvii,” and also “The Evolution of Fiqh, pg. 126″, by A.A. Bilal Philips). I find it strange that Shaykh Isam ibn Yusuf did not know the evidence for not performing Raful-Yadayn, since by simple logic one can deduce the fact that he must have seen his two main Imams (Muhammad al-Shaybani and Abu Yusuf) not performing Raful- Yadayn, and hence he must have been curious enough to ask his Imams for the evidence they used for not performing Raful-Yadayn! What seems more apt in a situation like this, is to say that probably Shaykh Isam ibn Yusuf felt that the evidence for performing Raful-Yadayn was more convincing to him, than the converse evidence for not performing Raful- Yadayn, and Allah knows best.

One lesson which can be learnt from this incident, is that if Shaykh Isam ibn Yusuf was a Mujtahid within the Hanafi school, then like all other Mujtahid scholars it is incumbent on him to follow his own Ijtihad, even if it has at times contradicted the founder of the Madhhab he belonged to. Thus, Shaykh Isam had to follow his own Ijtihad. The proof for what I have just said has been agreed upon by most of the scholars who were specialized in the fundamentals (Usool) of Islam. For example, it is written in the book “Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence”, by Mohammad Hashim Kamali (pg. 370): “The Ulema of Usul are in agreement that the Mujtahid is bound by the result of his own Ijtihad. Once he has deduced the ruling on a particular issue which is founded in his true conviction and belief, he may not imitate (Taqleed) other Mujtahids on that matter regardless as to whether they agree with him or otherwise. For the Mujtahid, the conclusion that he reaches is tantamount to a divine command which he must observe. It is therefore unlawful for him to abandon it or to follow anyone else in respect of it. But if he had not rendered his own Ijtihad on an issue which is not urgent, and he has time to investigate, then according to some ulema he may imitate other Mujtahid’s. However, the preferred view is that he must avoid taqleed, even of one who might be more learned than him. Only the ammi (layman/non-Mujtahid’s) who is incapable of Ijtihad is allowed to follow the opinion of others.” (The above author has quoted from Imam Ghazzali’s Mustasfa, vol.2 pg. 121; Imam Amidi’s Ihkam, vol.4 pg. 204 and from al-Kassab’s Adwa, pg. 119).

The above quote clears some of the misconceptions held by some people on the role of Mujtahid’s in Islam. For example, some people who try to refute the Taqleed of the Mujtahid’s, bring forward examples in which the disciples of the four main Imams contradicted the Ijtihad of their Master’s on certain points. These people should always remember that if a disciple contradicts the opinion of his master, then this is the result of the natural prerogative bestowed upon him, when he attained the high and honourable grade of Ijtihad. There is a well known story related from the great Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH; Rahimahullah), who said: “I follow the book of Allah, and if I find no solution there, I follow the Sunnah of The Prophet (peace be upon him). If I find no solution in either the Qur’an or the Sunnah, I follow whichever of the pronouncements of the Sahabah I prefer, and leave whichever I wish. If there is a pronouncement on a particular matter by any of the Sahabah, I would not adopt any other made by any other scholar. But, if I found a solution only in the opinions of Ibrahim (al-Nakhai), al-Shabi, Ibn Sirin, Hasan al-Basri, Ata (ibn Abi Rabah) or Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib (they were all Mujtahid’s), I would make Ijtihad just as they did.” (vide: “Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami,” pg. 64, by Taha Jabir al-Alwani, who reported this account from Tarikh Baghdad, vol. xxxi, pg. 368, al-Intiqa of Ibn Abdal Barr, pg. 142, and Mashayikh Balkh al-Hanafiyah, pg. 190).

This report exemplifies the prerogative of a Mujtahid, as well as why Shaykh Isam ibn Yusuf may have held different opinions from his Masters. I must stress, the above discussion only refers to those who can perform Ijtihad, and not to those who are unable to fulfil the conditions recognized by the scholars of Usool for carrying out the duties of a Mujtahid. Those who are not Mujtahid’s are bound to the opinions of qualified Mujtahid’s, and this is Taqleed.

Al-Albani said in ‘Sifah Salah an-Nabee’, (pg. 105-6): “About raising the hands on going into Ruku and rising from it, many Ahadith have been narrated from the Prophet (Peace be upon him): they are actually mutawateer in the eyes of the scholars; in fact, raising the hands with every takbir is proven on his authority in many Ahadith; whereas not raising the hands is not authentically related from him except once via Abdallah ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him), but this is not suitable for putting into practise, for it is naaf (negatory). It is firmly established, in the eyes of the Hanafi’s and others, that the muthbit (affirmatory) takes precedence over the naaf (negatory); this is even when the affirmatory is on its own, let alone the case when it is a multitude of narrations, as in this issue! On the basis of this principle, and in the absence of anything contrary, this renders it binding on them to adopt the raising of the hands, and not to stick zealously to the Madhhab after the establishment of proof. However, it is a pity that only a handful of the earlier or later ones have adopted it, so much so that not raising the hands has become a land mark for them!”

The above quote shows the limited and superficial knowledge of al-Albani, in the evidences used by the Hanafi scholars for not performing Raful-Yadayn! It is true that the Ahadith confirming Raful-Yadayn are Mutawateer, but what the reader should also know, is that not performing it has also come down to us in a Mutawateer way! In fact there are more than 50 Ahadith proving the converse of what the “great scholar,” al-Albani holds, as well as those who bolster his claims!

Al-Albani claims that not raising the hands has come to us authentically only, “once through Abdallah ibn Masood, but this is not suitable for putting into practise.” To which I reply, why should it not be possible to put into practise the Hadith related by the great Companion Ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him)? Did he (Allah forbid) lie or fabricate from the Prophet (Peace be upon him)?

Please do not forget that there are many other authentic Ahadith to back up the opinion of the Hanafi’s (and Maliki’s)! Al-Albani only explains this Hadith of Ibn Masood away by bringing in the jurisprudential principle of, “the affirmative takes precedence over the negatory”, but his argument is fallacious in this case, since I have already said that the Hanafi’s believe that the performance of Raful-Yadayn has been abrogated by many other Ahadith, hence the above principle is inapplicable in this case! He claims the Hadith from Ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him) has been only related authentically once. I say this is incorrect, and only due to his ignorance of all the available routes (Asanid) coming from Ibn Masood. As far as I know he has not listed the Hadith of Ibn Masood to be Daeef, in his checking of Imam Abu Dawood’s Sunan, since his followers have not recorded it in their, “Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan”.

The Hadith in question is from Alqamah (Rahimahullah), who said: “Abdallah ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him) said :’Should I pray in the way the Apostle of Allah (Peace be upon him) had performed it?’ He said: ‘He prayed, raising his hands only once.’” [Abu Dawood, 1/747, pg. 193, English ed’n]. Since it has not been listed in the above mentioned publication, this means that the above narration is either Sahih, or at least Hasan to the user of the list.

Note also, according to Shams al-Haqq Azimabadi, in his book Awn al-Mabood (1,272-73), the above Hadith was regarded to be Hasan by Hafiz Ibn Ma’een (Rahimahullah), and it is well known that Imam Tirmidhi (Rahimahullah) rated it to be Hasan (see Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 2/257, pg. 40-41, edited by Ahmad Muhammad Shakir).

The above Hadith has been related from Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifah (Rahimahullah), through an absolutely SAHIH chain (all the narrators given below were well known Mujtahid’s and absolutely truthful), and here it is: Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahimahullah) has related to us from his teacher, Imam Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (Rahimahullah), who related from his teacher, Imam Ibrahim al-Nakhai (Rahimahullah), who related from his two teachers Imam Alqamah and Imam Aswad (Allah’s mercy be upon them), the two distinguished pupils of Ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him), who related from Ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him), who related from the Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim). The reference for this is given after the discussion between Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam al-Awzai (Allah’s mercy be upon them), please see below. So my dear reader, I have just proven to you that the Hadith from Ibn Masood has come to us authentically, through at least two authentic routes, as given above. Can you now believe in al-Albani’s assertion that it has only come through one authentic narration?

As for al-Albani saying, “However, it is a pity that only a handful of the earlier or later ones (i.e. Hanafi’s) have adopted it, so much so that not raising the hands has become a landmark for them!” I say this statement is due to his ignorance, lack of scholarly deduction and knowledge of the principles and proofs held by the Hanafi’s! He claims that it has become a “landmark”, for the Hanafi’s only! I say, “O ‘Shaykh’, have you not contradicted yourself by admitting that others besides the Hanafi’s do not raise their hands in Salah in the same book?” Here is al-Albani’s admission that it is not just the Hanafi’s who have made it a “landmark”; he said in “Sifah Salah an-Nabee,” (footnote to pg 91): “The Ibaadiyyah have distorted this hadeeth: their scholar Rabee’ has related it in his unreliable Musnad with a different wording to justify their view that raising the hands with takbeer invalidates the Prayer! That wording is false, as I have explained in ad-Da’eefah (6044).”!!! This by Allah, is a grave contradiction from within the same book, and tantamount to his admission that besides the Hanafi’s, the Ibaadiyyah sect do not also raise their hands! In fact we have on record some scholars who initially used to perform Raful-Yadayn, but later on in their lives they stopped performing it altogether, except for the initial Takbeer; when they had taken into account all the arguments and evidence. Two of such great scholars are as follows:-

(A) Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH; Rahimahullah):

He was a Mujtahid in specific issues (Mujtahid fi al-Masa’il) and also the famous author of the work ‘Al-Aqeeda al-Tahawiyya’ (The Muslim Belief According to al-Tahawi), which has been translated into English by two different organisations, and many other works on Hadith. He was originally a Shafi’i scholar who gained mastery in Shafi’i Fiqh from his famous uncle Imam al-Muzani (Rahimahullah) [mentioned in Sifah Salah an-Nabee, pg. xvi], who was the famous disciple of Imam al-Shafi’i (Rahimahullah). But later in his life he joined the Hanafi school and hence stopped performing Raful-Yadayn indifference to the Shafi’i view of performing it. Imam Tahawi lived in a time when most of the Hadith had been collected (after Bukhari, Muslim etc), hence he had an ideal opportunity to sift through the Hadith on Raful-Yadayn and he came to the conclusion that Imam Abu Hanifah’s (Rahimahullah) view point was more convincing to him, and in this regard he quoted some Hadiths negating the practise of Raful-Yadayn in some of his works.

(B) Imam Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin (d.1252/1836; Rahimahullah):

He was also originally a Shafi’i scholar who changed his school and became the foremost Hanafi Imam of his time. Hence he also changed his original opinion of performing Raful-yadayn, to not performing it. His most famous work is ‘Hashiya Radd al-Mukhtar’. Al-Albani has quoted from him in ‘Sifah Salah an-Nabee’ (pg’s viii, xvii).

The View of Imam Malik and his Madhhab on Raf-ul-Yadayn

I have already quoted the opinion of al-Albani with regard to his quotation from Imam ibn Asakir. Al-Albani has claimed that Imam Malik used to perform Raful-Yadayn right upto his death. But this is in direct contradiction to what has been related from Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) by his famous disciple, Imam ibn al-Qasim. The foremost book of the Maliki Madhhab in terms of Fiqh is a book called ‘Al-Mudawwanah’ (A Book of Legal Cases).

It is a recension of Qadi Sahnoon (Rahimahullah), containing his questions, answered by Imam Ibn al-Qasim (Rahimahullah). These answers repeat the literal words of Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) by occasional personal interpretation of Ibn al-Qasim himself. It is written in “al-Mudawwanah”, (vol. 1, pg. 71): “Imam Malik has said that he does not know of Raful-Yadayn being done in any Takbeer, even when going into (Rukoo) or rising from it, except in the Takbeer Tahrimah (the initial Takbeer), then ibn al-Qasim said that in the opinion of Imam Malik the performance of Raful-Yadayn was Daeef (a weak practice).”

The diligent reader may have noticed that Imam Malik has quoted two Hadith which seems to support the practice of performing Raful- Yadayn, in his celebrated al-Muwatta! The Hadith quoted is as follows, “Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah from Abdullah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to raise his hands to the level of his shoulders when he began the prayer and when he raised his head from ruku he raised them in the same way, saying, ‘Allah hears whoever praises him, our Lord and praise belongs to You.’ He did not raise them in sujud (prostration).” Also, “Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to raise his hands to the level of his shoulders when he began the prayer and when he raised from the ruku he would raise them less than that.” (see Muwatta section 3.4, no. 17 and 21, pg. 27, trans. by A. Abdarahman and Y. Johnson). The above Hadith has also been related by Imam’s Bukhari and Muslim in their respective collections, besides many other books of Hadith with slight variations in wording and description.

The above Hadith has been one of the main proofs used to prove the performance of Raful-Yadayn by some great scholars. But, the Hanafi and Maliki schools put forward some of the following arguments to explain their contention.

The Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) reported a Hadith very similar to the one above, he said that Imam Nafi said on the authority of Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) that when he began his prayer, he uttered the Takbeer (Allah is most great) and raised his hands; and when he bowed (he raised his hands); and when he said: “Allah listens to him who praises Him,” (he raised his hands); and when he stood up at the end of two rak’ahs, he raised his hands. He (Ibn Umar) traced that back to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). Abu Dawood then said: “What is correct is that the tradition reported by Ibn Umar does not go back to the Prophet (may peace be upon him).” Abu Dawood then said: “The narrator Baqiyyah (found in the Isnad) reported the first part of this tradition from Ubaid Allah and traced it back to the Prophet (may peace be upon him); and the narrator al-Thaqafi reported it from Ubaid Allah as a statement of Ibn Umar himself (not from the Prophet). In this version he said: ‘When he stood at the end of two rak’ahs he raised them up to his breasts. And this is the correct version.” Abu Dawood then said: “This tradition has been transmitted as a statement of Ibn Umar (and not of the Prophet) by al-Layth ibn Sa’ad, Malik,Ayyub, and Ibn Juraij; and this has been narrated as a statement of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) by Hammad ibn Salamah alone on the authority of Ayyub. Ayyub and Malik did not mention his raising of hands when he stood after two prostrations, but al-Layth mentioned it in his version. Ibn Juraij said in his version: I asked Nafi, “Did Ibn Umar raise (his hands) higher for the first time?’ He said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Point out to me. He then pointed to the breasts or lower than that.’” (see Sunan Abu Dawood, 1/740, pg. 191, English ed’n).

Now, the Hadith related by Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) stated that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) “used to” perform Raful-Yadayn; although Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) quoted this particular Hadith it does not necessarily mean that he himself, as well as Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) performed Raful-Yadayn! In fact we have to remember that Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (Peace be upon him), “used to” perform Raful- Yadayn. I say this because we have many other Ahadith which have been related from Abdullah Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) himself which prove that he did not always perform Raful-Yadayn, as well as indicating that the Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) himself stopped performing Raful-Yadayn; but Allah knows best! Here follows a few of these Ahadith from Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him):-

(A) The Imam of Hadith, Abu Awaanah (Rahimahullah) related in his “Sahih” (vol. 2, pg. 90) from Sufyan ibn Uyayna, who related from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who related from Salim ibn Abdullah, who related from his father Abdullah ibn Umar, who said: “I saw the Prophet (Peace be upon him) raise both his hands up to the shoulders when starting Salah, but he did not raise his hands when going into rukoo, or when rising from it; not even between the prostrations (sujud).”

(B) The Imam of Hadith and teacher of Imam al-Bukhari, Abdullah Ibn Zubair al-Humaidi (Rahimahullah) related in his “Musnad” (2/614, pg. 277) from Sufyan ibn Uyayna, who related from Ibn Shihab al- Zuhri, who related from Salim ibn Abdullah, and he from his father Ibn Umar: “I saw the Prophet (Peace be upon him) raise both his hands at the beginning of Salah up to his shoulders, but when going into Rukoo and when raising his head from rukoo he did not raise his hands, not even between the prostrations.”

(C) The Hanafi scholar of Hadith, Imam Yusuf al-Zaylai (d. 762 AH; Rahimahullah) quoted in his book “Nasb ar-Rayah” (vol. 1, pg. 404), a narration from Abdallah ibn al-Kharraz, who related from Imam Malik, who related from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, and he from Salim ibn Abdallah, who related from Ibn Umar, who said: “The Prophet (Peace be upon him) raised his hands when beginning Salah, and he never repeated again.”

(D) The two well known scholars of Hadith, Imam Tahawi and Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (Allah’s mercy be upon them), related that Imam Mujahid (the disciple of Ibn Abbas; Allah be pleased with them) said: “I prayed many times behind Ibn Umar, but he raised his hands only once at the beginning.” (see Ja’al Haqq, pg. 55, by Mufti Ahmad Y. Khan)

These four narrations give strong evidence in favour of the Hanafi and Maliki views that Raful-Yadayn has been abrogated. So now ask yourselves, “Can the opinions of al-Albani be relied upon, if he does not base his opinions from the books of the Hanafi and Maliki Schools, plus the proofs used by them for not performing Raful-Yadayn?”

Now, I leave it to you to decipher for yourself, why certain Imams decided to perform Raful-Yadayn and others not to; but before I finish on this issue let me relate to you a famous incident that took place between the Imam’s Abu Hanifah and al-Awzai (Allah’s mercy be upon them) of Syria, when they met in Makkah. The purpose of the following debate is to show that even though the two great Imams had different narrations to prove their particular opinions, they did not abuse or despise each other in the derogatory way that some of us have become accustomed to! Insha’Allah, we should respect each others opinions, if it has a sound basis from the sources of the Shari’ah.

Imam al-Awzai said, “Why do you not raise your hands just before rukoo and after?” Imam Abu Hanifah replied, “There is no recorded word or action of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), to authenticate this (any longer).” “How so”, replied al-Awzai, “When al-Zuhri has reported this to me on the authority of Salim and that of his father (ibn Umar) who said that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) used to raise his hands at the beginning of the Salah and before and after rukoo?” Abu Hanifah also reported, “Hammad related to me through Ibrahim, through Alqamah, through al-Aswad, and through ibn Masood, that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), only raised his hands at the beginning of the Salah and did not repeat this action again.” Al-Awzai then suggested that his authorities were more reliable than those of Abu Hanifah, who countered, “Hammad was more knowledgeable than al-Zuhri, and Ibrahim was more knowledgeable than Salim. And if Ibn Umar is to be credited as a Companion of the Prophet, then al-Aswad has many merits. And the merits of Abdullah ibn Masood speak for themselves.” At this, al- Awzai remained silent. (Vide: ‘The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam’, pg. 59-60, by Taha Jabir al-Alwani; also see ‘Imam Abu Hanifah: Life and Work’ pg. 66-67, by Shibli Numani). This incident has also been recorded with slight variations by Hafiz Ibn al-Humam in his ‘Fath al-Qadir’, and Shah Waliullah Dehlawi’s ‘Hujjat Allah al-Baligha’.

Allah knows best.


27 Zil Hajj 1431 – 6 December 2010
The following is a verbatim reproduction of a letter which a concerned Muslim Sister sent to The Majlis.

“Assalamu alaikum
I hope this message finds Moulana in good health.
An Imaam from Saudi was hosted at the Jaami Masjid in Roshnee for Esha Salaah.
I was partially surprised to hear from my husband that Mohammed Wadee (employee of the Saudi embassy) was instrumental in bringing him over here despite it not being an arranged stop. Mohammed Wadee was described by Qari Naeem Choonara (he handles the events usually when a Saudi Imaam is involved at the Masjid) as a “dear friend”.
It seems the Saudi embassy is bringing these Imaams over to spread the message of ‘so-called’ unity. The advantage they have is that most, if not all, of our Masjid committees bow down to any of the embassy’s wishes. The message he propagated was “We call to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah only”; “We are one Ummah and should not let anything divide us”; “We should oppose anyone who tries to bring about divisions” etc.
I find this to be a trend as almost a dozen Saudi Imaams have been to Johannesburg in the past 12 to 14 months. Using the Imaams as a front, the embassy has managed to get into every single Masjid, Deobandi, Tableeghi etc. It seems the Saudis have now found a way to get their message into every single Masjid in the country. Mohammed Wadee was clearly described as a member of the religious attaché, hence it is clear that he has been tasked with the religious infiltration of South African Muslims.
This Saudi Imaam was hosted at the Newcastle Darul Uloom Jalsah where Mufti AK from CII was present and Moulana Shabbier Saloojee. Would this not signify tacit approval from some of South Africa’s leading Muftis as Mohammed Wadee and co. were “sub-guests” so to speak of the Mufti.
Whilst I am not implying the Imaam to be a salafi because I do not know anything about him, my husband heard these statements himself in the Masjid. His message had many Salafi tendencies and hidden Salafi messages.
I would really appreciate Moulana’s input on this situation as I feel this is leading to great problem. In Houghton, I have noticed that they are building a Masjid completely funded by the Saudis so I can only imagine to what end they are intent on building this large Saudi sentiment. Surely, there must be some devious plot to turn South African Muslims away from a protected Deobandi/true Islam mindset to a Salafi mindset.
Elsewhere, in Durban I had heard of Fatima Asmal and her plan to establish a Madressah for children to begin in the year 2011. The Madressah will be headed by Moulana Khalid Yacoob. The Madressah is aimed to digress from the “indoctrination” of the normal Madressah system and will teach children love instead of fear for Allah. According to Asmal, she says:
“The madrasah aims to be different in that:
* teachers will work towards instilling a love and consciousness of Allah into children as opposed to a fear of Jahannam
* teachers will work towards encouraging children to understand what Islam requires of them as citizens of South Africa – i.e. knowledge transmitted will be CONTEXT-BASED, and issues like respect for other race groups will be focused on
* teachers will teach children to respect differences of opinion and discourage them from becoming judgemental and self-righteous
* teachers will not insult secular education institutes, and will do their utmost to accommodate the schedules of children who attend such institutes wherein they are required to participate in extra-curricular activities”
The Madressah will be hosted around the corner from Jamiat KZN’s plush new offices. It is insulting that nobody is doing anything constructive to counter this issue. South Africa has such a large network of Aalims and Moulanas, most of whom are sleeping whilst these people are actively engaged in promoting their sadistic ideologies.”

The un-Islamic Saudi regime, gasping in the throes of its impending demise, is desperately struggling to assert its hegemony over the global Muslim Ummah. The feverish activity of despatching PROs all over the world to whitewash the dark and sinister faces of the so-called custodians of the Holy Cities in a bid to garner support for its commissions of gross violations of the Shariah is doomed to failure, for the greater part of the Ummah is not blind to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a lackey and surrogate of the U.S.A. imperialist butcher.
It is American pressure which has constrained the Saudi regime to disfigure and mutilate its Founding Islamic Constitution with the objective of ultimate abrogation of the Shariah which until a couple of years ago was the Law of the country, albeit not correctly applied. The establishment of the kuffaar, immoral, co-ed university in Jiddah; the breaking down of the Gates of the Shariah to allow the women’s deluge into the public domain in emulation of the Ya’jooj and Ma’jooj who will break through the crumbling Barrier of Zul Qarnain (rahmatullah alayh); the clipping of the wings and the extraction of the teeth of the Department of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar; the surreptitious opening up the Haram zone for the kuffaar; the physical destruction of the mountains and Cities of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah; the destruction of the Holy Relics of Islam; the demolition of Auqaaf Musaajid; the transformation of the birthplaces of Islam into immoral holiday resorts which will soon vie with Paris and New York; the total commercialisation of the Hajj; in short the effacement of all signs of Divine Islam, are the stepping stones leading to the satanic objective of the evisceration of Islam of its Soul, and substituting original Islam with a docile, barren concept devoid of the teachings and spirit of the Islam which the Sahaabah had transmitted to the mankind from which had grown the true Ummah of Islam. The shaitaani conspiracy is to impose on the Ummah an American-spawned ‘islam’, – an illegitimate brainchild of the kufr interfaith movement of which Saudi Arabia has been placed in charge by its American master.
The fact that in the past 12 to 14 months about a dozen Saudi Imaams/Sheikhs had visited South Africa testifies for the Saudi agenda, namely, to establish its hegemony – to achieve the subservience of the Muslim community to Saudi dictates. Saudi Arabia is aware of the large scale dissatisfaction which the Muslims of the world in general harbour for the American sponsored Saudi regime. The regime is therefore despatching its ambassadors to all countries in the exercise of winning support for its tottering regime.
Dollars play an important role in this exercise. The dollars are securing the allegiance of even ulama and modernists. Payment and perks in different forms are the dangling baits which attract the Ulama-e-Soo’ who are prepared to betray Islam and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The Saudi exercise is not a pure Salafi crusade. Salafi’ism has split into two opposing camps. Those who adhere to the pure teachings of Islam despite subscribing to some corrupt beliefs, and the immoral, westernized, anti- Sunnah Saudis who are spearheading anti-Islamic movements such as the interfaith movement, the orientalist ‘Islamic’ studies departments of kuffaar universities and the anti-Jihad movements spawned by the U.S.A.
The Salafis of the Saudi regime are of the second group. They are thoroughly westernized and anti-Sunnah. They are anti-Math-hab in general and anti-Hanafi in particular. They are swiftly transforming the desert landscape into haunts of fisq and fujoor. However, political expediency and the realization of their impending doom have constrained them to adopt the Shiah doctrine of Taqiyah (Holy Hypocrisy). They now speak the tongue of the Shiahs. They call for ‘unity’, hypocritically asserting that ‘we are one Ummah’, yet they suppress and hate the non-Salafi Ummah. Today, tens of thousands of Saudis, including thousands of Ulama are languishing in the jails, dungeons and torture facilities of the Saudi regime. Their crime was only the proclamation of the Haqq of Islam. A member of a Muslim Human Rights organization states:
“Saudi Arabia proclaims that it is governed by the “Shariah”. It is estimated that currently Saudi Arabia has over 40,000 “security related” prisoners detained in their prisons. These are all Ulama and practicing Muslims imprisoned simply because they are perceived by the Kingdom as a “security threat.
Some of Saudi Arabia’s “security prisons” are also located within the boundaries of the Haramain. The detention facility in Madinah Al Munawwarah which holds approximately 1000 detainees is close enough from the Haram Sharif that the Adhan and Salah of Al Masjid Al Nabawi can be heard inside the prison. I have personally visited this facility.
I feel that it is important that Saudi Arabia’s imposturous use of the “Shariah” to disguise their un-Islamic actions is exposed. This is particularly so when their actions are in fact in sharp contrast with the Shariah by which they profess to govern.
The Ulama-e-Haq in the Arabian Peninsula who speak out are arrested, tortured and are imprisoned indefinitely or are disappeared forever. This has been happening for several decades and the Saudi rulers feel particularly secure due to the silence of our Ulama around the world. They are getting away with their crimes under the guise of being “Custodians of the Holy Mosques” and torch bearers of “Islam” and the “Shariah”.
I feel that until Scholars from outside Saudi Arabia condemn them for their injustices, these injustices in the name of Islam will continue to occur unabated. The innocent Ulama in Saudi jails will languish in prisons and more and more will be imprisoned. I feel that the silence of our Ulama against the injustices of Saudi Arabia is aiding the Saudi government to carry on with what they are doing and this is tantamount to complicity.”

The Ulama of South Africa, and in particular of the Madaaris, should hang their heads in shame for their disgusting conduct of flirtation with the Saudi regime. They have betrayed Allah, His Rasool, the Ummah and Islam. In the presence of Hajjaaj Bin Yusuf, the tyrant, Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh) declared:
“Verily, Allah has taken a pledge from the Ulama that most certainly they should declare the Haqq to the people, and not conceal it.”
All the Ulama who support the Saudi regime with their silence and flirtation are guilty of violating this sacred Pledge which is an integral constituent of the Office of Waraathat-e-Ambiya (the Office of being the Representatives of the Ambiya).
The Saudis should free all those Brothers who are being tortured in their dark , evil facilities. Only then will they have some justification to speak on the topic of unity. There can be no unity with American surrogates who execute the vile conspiracies of the evil kuffaar intent on destroying the Ummah or enslaving it in order to pirate away the natural resources of the lands of Islam.
The Madaaris in South Africa are rendering a terrible disservice to Islam and the Ummah by hosting and honouring the anti-Islam Saudis. It is indeed most disgusting for the Hanafi Madaaris to honour and host the modernist Saudi bid’atis despite being aware of the anti-Hanafi Math-hab stance of the Saudis. That Saudi Arabia is a surrogate of America is no secret. Every Muslim of intelligence is aware of this incontrovertible fact. Yet, the perks the Saudis offer have succeeded to secure the prostration of the Ulama of the Madaaris. These Ulama too have become active cogs in the evil conniving Saudi machinery of destroying true Islam.
Regarding the Sister’s comment, ‘the devious plot to turn South African Muslims away from a protected Deobandi/true Islam mindset’, the reality is that the new era Deobandi ulama themselves are diverting Muslims from the Sunnah which our Akaabir of Deoband had championed since the inception of Daarul Uloom Deoband. There remains extremely little of the original Deoband Mindset in the so-called Deobandi Madaaris of South Africa. They all have fallen prostrate in humiliation to lick the boots of westernism. The Saudis are merely providing additional impetus for this pernicious revolution initiated by the Ulama of the Madaaris.
The most disturbing aspect of this dismal scenario is the gross failure by the Madaaris Ulama of understanding the immense danger to the Deen of their obsequious flirtation with the ambassadors of the Saudi regime. The objective of the American inspired Saudis is to assign true and pristine Islam – the Islam of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – to museum archives, and to fabricate a new-look ‘islam’ which will be islam in only name, but bereft of the Soul and Sunnah of that Islam in which the Ummah has hitherto believed.
The new-look ‘madrasah’ being contemplated in Durban is another shaitaani ploy of the American-orientalist inspired modernist zindeeqs, munaafiqs and murtadds to dig up the foundations of Qur’aanic Islam. The name ‘madrasah’ for the proposed institution of kufr is a massive deception of the devil. The contemplated institution is never a Madrasah. It will be an appendage of Shaitaan-in-Chief – Iblees, Laeen. Muslims should beware. Those who still have true Islam at heart should refrain from casting their children into this satanic snare which will divest them of their Imaan. The indoctrination by the shaitaani institution camouflaged in the hues of a ‘Madrasah’ will paralyze and ultimately eliminate the Imaan of the children entrapped in the snare of the Devil.
It is the Waajib obligation of the Ulama in Natal to take cognizance of this poison to be injected into the Imaan of pupils.
We commend the Sister for her insight and her correct appraisal of the Saudi menace. May Allah Ta’ala increase her in Firaasat.