Archive for the ‘Contemporary’ Category

Loud Zikr

Posted: August 15, 2011 in Contemporary, Sourced

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

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

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

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

3. Silent zikr is superior to loud zikr.

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Muslim Marriages Bill (MMB) which has been approved and recommended by the South African Law Reform Commission and adopted by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is in conflict with the Shari’ah. Hereunder we reproduce some of the flaws of the Bill with respect to the pristine Shari’ah.

Readers of Muslimality are reminded to strongly object to the Bill and submit letters of objection via the following avenues:

Mr.T.N.Matibe

Private Bag X81,Pretoria 0001,

or faxed at 086 648 7766,

or e-mailed to
TMatibe@justice.gov.za no later than 15 March 2011.

(1)  According to the proposed Muslim Marriages Bill, the secular courts will pronounce on Shar’i masaa-il  and issue ‘fatwas’ (decrees) which will be in the light of the country’s constitution and subservient to the laws of the country. Thus, the MMB defining courts says:

“court” means a High Court of South Africa, or a court for a
regional division as provided for in section 29(1B) of the
Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944 (Act No.32 of 1944)”

In terms of MMB, the secular court will take over the functions of the Ulama of issuing Fatwa on matters pertaining to Nikah, Talaaq, Hadhaanah (Custody), Nafqah (Maintenance), etc.  But, according to the Shariah, the decrees of secular courts are not valid and have absolutely no effect. Thus, if a secular court decrees that the Nikah is annulled, then despite the invalidity of such decree in terms of the Shariah, the decree will have legal effect according to MMB, and the Muslim husband will be compelled to accept it.

(2)  Any ambiguity in any ‘Islamic’ provision of MMB pertaining to Talaaq, will be resolved by the courts in the light of the secular Divorce Act, 1979 (Act No.70 of 1979). The final arbiter in all cases will be the secular law, not the Shariah, and not even MMB. Even the smattering of provisions conforming with the Shariah will be incumbently interpreted by the courts in the light of the Constitution, not in the light of the Shariah. Besides the fact that the interpretations of a secular court having no Islamic validity, the courts are all bound to interpret all aspects and provisions of MMB in the light of the godless constitution.

(3)  The courts will be empowered to appoint any person whether male or female, and whether gay or lesbian, non-Muslim or Muslim, to act as
the “Family Advocate”. This appointment will be in terms of the Mediation in Certain Divorce Act (Act No.24 of 1987). The Shariah is
completed extinguished in this process.

(4)   The secular court will be empowered to decree Faskh (Annulment) of a Nikah whereas such annulment is not valid in the Shariah. Faskh
in Islam is valid only if decreed by a Qaadhi or a properly instituted Shar’i Committee (Panchayat) in places where there is no Qaadhi.

(5)  Issues pertaining to Faskh (Annulment of Nikah) will be interpreted in the light of the Divorce Act. Hence, a baatil annulment
which is not valid in the Shariah will be decreed by the secular court.

(6)  Issues pertaining to Nafqah (Maintenance) will specifically be decided in the light of the secular law, not according to the Shariah.
Thus, MMB states:

“maintenance court” means a maintenance court as referred to in
section 3 of the Maintenance Act 1988.”

(7)  The definition of “Muslim” given by MMB is so ambiguous, that it will be the function of the secular courts to decide who is a Muslim.

(8)  The MMB provides for the automatic imposition of its provisions on even Muslims who were married before MMB came into operation.  If a
couple does not jointly elect to be excluded from MMB within 36 months, the Act will automatically apply to the couple. If the husband
wants to be exempted, not his wife, then he will not be granted exemption, and vice versa.

(9)  According to MMB, man and woman have equal status, whereas the Qur’aan Majeed directs: “For men there is a rank above women.” The
higher status of the husband is an obvious truth to all Muslims, male and female, who have any understanding of Islam. But, MMB provides for
the rejection of the Shariah on this issue.

(10)  Nikah under the age of 18 is criminalized. No Muslim under the age of 18 has the right to enter into Nikah, yet fornication is not a crime. Any Imaam/Sheikh/Maulana who performs the Nikah of a boy or girl of the age of 17 years 11 months will be in contravention of the Act and liable to a fine of R20,000 or a lengthy jail sentence. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) performed the Nikah of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) when she was 16 years of age.

(11)  A man who marries a second wife in contravention of MMB is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of R20,000 or a long jail
sentence despite the fact that Allah Ta’ala has granted men the full permission to marry up to four wives.  A man will be allowed to marry
a second woman only if the non-Muslim secular court or the non-Muslim Minister grants permission, and that too if the first wife consents.
The first wife’s ‘consent’ has been specifically engineered to block and cancel polygamy which Islam allows. No first wife will consent to
her husband marrying a second wife.

(12)  The MMB compels Muslims who had concluded Nikahs long before MMB to register their marriages under MMB, unless the parties decide not
to be bound by MMB. If they so decide, they have to apply for exemption in the way prescribed by the Act. Currently, Muslims are not
encumbered with this hardship. They are not criminalized presently if they do not register their Nikahs nor are they required to apply for
exemption under the present Marriages Act which applies to all citizens of the country. But MMB discriminates against Muslim by
singling them out for this hardship.

(13)  If a Muslim male wishes to enter into a second Nikah, then in addition to the requirement of having to apply to a court for permission, he has to incumbently have a written contract which will regulate his property. This too is a haraam encumbrance which MMB imposes.

(14)  An Imaam will be fined R20,000 if he registers a valid Islamic Nikah performed in accordance with the Shariah, if it does not conform to the provisions of MMB.

(15)  Any parent, Imaam, Sheikh, Maulana or any elder who advises their children, students, mureeds or any Muslim in general to abstain
from MMB (i.e. after it has been enacted as law) will be sentenced  to a fine or a prison term of one year.

(16)  The secular Divorce Act will have overriding importance as far as the courts are concerned. The MMB will be subservient to the secular Divorce Act, Maintenance Act, Mediation Act, and other secular Acts.

(17)  MMB obliges the husband to register a Talaaq Baa-in which is an irrevocable Talaaq. The validity of such a Talaaq according to MMB
requires two witnesses at the time of registration whereas Talaaq does not rely on witnesses according to the Shariah.

(18)  In terms of MMB, the husband’s Talaaq Baa-in will not be valid if he did not follow the provisions of MMB. In this scenario the Nikah
will have ended according to the Shariah while MMB holds it valid. The Talaaq will be valid in terms of MMB only if it is served on the wife
by the sheriff of the court whereas according to the Shariah these requisites are nonsense. Talaaq Baa-in is valid and terminates the Nikah without witnesses, without execution by the non-Muslim sheriff of the non-Muslim secular court, and without the other baatil paraphernalia required by MMB.

(19)  If the wife disputes the Talaaq-e-Baa-in despite the husband contending that he had issued such a Talaaq, then according to MMB the Talaaq is not valid. This incongruity is preposterously stupid. Despite a husband issuing Talaaq Baa-in in clear and unequivocal terms, MMB says that it is not valid simply because the wife disputes it. Thus, MMB dictates that the couple should continue a relationship
which according to Islam is adulterous.

(20)   A Talaaq disputed by the wife will be valid according to MMB only if the secular court resolves the dispute and decrees the Talaaq valid despite the fact that the husband states emphatically that he has administered Talaaq Baa-in to his wife.

(21)   The husband is required by MMB to institute court action within 14 days after he has registered his Talaaq Baa-in in the way prescribed by MMB. The application is to obtain a decree from the kaafir court confirming the dissolution of the Nikah by way of Talaaq. Furthermore, the application must comply with the rules of the secular court.

(22)  A husband who does not register his Talaaq Baa-in is subjected to the zulm (cruelty) of a fine of R20,000 or a lengthy jail sentence in Hell’s hole. Just imagine the kufr of this MMB! R20,000 fine or perhaps 5 or 10 years in Red Hell (Rooihell) for not registering a Talaaq!!! This is MMB in action if and when it gets enacted.  (By the way, ‘Rooihell’ is a famous jail in Port Elizabeth). Currently the law does not require Muslims to register Talaaq,
hence the cruelty of the R20,000 fine does not apply.

(23)  While according to the Shariah, a secular court’s annulment decree is invalid, i.e. it is not a valid Faskh, MMB confers this right to the secular court. Thus, while the wife will eternally remain in the Nikah of her husband, she will be conducting an adulterous relationship with another man whom she erroneously believes to be her husband. Her ‘marriage’ to the other man in terms of the Shariah will not be valid, and the children she begets from the adulterous relationship will be illegitimate.

(24)  The ‘faskh’ provision of MMB degenerates into a hilarious stupidity. This stupidity reads:  “…a faskh granted upon the application of the husband…”  This absurdity is indeed laughable and displays the density in the brains of the molvis and sheikhs who had assisted in the drafting of the kufr bill. A Faskh (Annulment) application is made by only a woman , the wife, not by the husband. If the husband wishes to end the Nikah, he only has to pronounce Talaaq. The Shariah does not provide for Faskh application by a husband.

(25)  Khulah, for its validity according to MMB must be registered by a marriage officer, and both the man and woman must appear in front of the officer. The Shariah ordains that Khulah is valid if both husband and wife agree to end the marriage in lieu of the wife paying the husband a sum of money which should not exceed the mehr amount.

(26)  According to MMB, the secular law Acts will apply regarding the welfare of minor children. The interests and welfare of the children will be decided in the light of secular laws, not in terms of the Shariah.

(27)  The court is given the right by MMB to divide the husbands property between the husband and wife on dissolution of the marriage. The court is empowered to effect a division of the husband’s property in a manner which it deems equitable. But according to the Shariah it is haraam for the wife to claim anything of her ex-husband’s assets. She is entitled to only maintenance during the Iddat period. Thus, the husbands wealth will be usurped – grabbed in haraam ways with the decree of the secular court.

(28)  According to the Shariah there is an order of priority to be observed with regard to custody of minor children in the event of dissolution of a marriage. It is haraam to deny custody to the rightful custodian without valid Islamic reason. However, according to MMB, the court has the sole right to assign custody to whomever it desires. Thus Section 10 (3) of the MMB states:

“….award or grant custody or guardianship to any person as the court deems appropriate,
in all the circumstances.”

(29)  According to MMB, the court should consider the report of the non-Muslim Family Advocate concerning the welfare of minor children. Obviously, it cannot be expected of a non-Muslim to be guided by the tenets of Islam. There is massive difference in the Islamic concept of child welfare and the secular, western concept which MMB wants imposed on Muslims.

(30)  MMB stipulates that Talaaq should first take place before a haraam civil marriage contract could be cancelled. This extremely
insidious provision of MMB states:

“…the court may not dissolve the civil marriage by granting a
decree of divorce until the court is satisfied that the accompanying
Muslim marriage has been dissolved.”

What this vile clause means is that if a man wishes to cancel the haraam community of property marital regime, he is obliged to first break up his home. He should issue Talaaq to his wife. The villainy and Satanism of this stipulation are absolutely revolting. Numerous Muslims, due to ignorance, have registered their marriages in community of property. This regime does not allow the estate of the deceased to be distributed in accordance with Allah’s Law of Inheritance. During the subsistence of community of property an Islamic will is not valid.
After they have been made aware of this haraam system, many Muslims seek ways of cancelling the community of property regime. This is possible only by obtaining from a court a decree to annul the civil ‘marriage’. While this is currently possible, MMB blocks this avenue and denies Muslims the right to cancel this haraam system. MMB seeks to achieve this satanic objective by stipulating that the husband in a happy marriage who desires to submit to Allah’s Law of Inheritance should first issue Talaaq to his wife. Only after he has broken up his home, may the court dissolve the civil marriage.  Indeed most evil and insidious is this haraam draconian provision of MMB. In fact, the whole MMB is evil, insidious and draconian.

(31)  Even if the husband has valid Shar’i reasons for refusing to issue Talaaq, MMB empowers the secular court to issue a decree of Faskh (Annulment) to terminate the marriage regardless of the fact that such annulment is invalid in terms of the Shariah. The Nikah remains intact. In this regard, Section 13 (2) of MMB reads:

“In the event of the husband, for any reason, refusing to
pronounce an irrevocable Talaq, the wife to the accompanying Muslim
marriage is entitled to apply for a decree of Faskh in terms of this
Act……”

Despite the husband being fully justified for refusing to issue Talaaq to his errant and misguided wife, MMB empowers the secular court to ‘annul’ the Nikah notwithstanding the fact that such ‘annulment’ has absolutely no validity in the Shariah.

(32)  MMB places the non-Muslim Minister of Justice in full charge of Muslim marriages. In terms of MMB, the Minister has the right to effect changes, make and bend rules and provisions at will and according to his discretion. The Shariah is completely expunged and non-Muslim governmental authorities and secular courts will be in full control of all Muslim marital affairs.

(33)  MMB empowers the Minister to make regulations to imprison Muslims who contravene any of the insidious provisions of this haraam so-called Muslim Marriages bill.

 

Source: Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa

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:
Mr.T.N.Matibe

Private Bag X81

Pretoria 0001

———————————————————

Fax: 086 648 7766

———————————————————

E-mail: TMatibe@justice.gov.za

 

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.”

CHESS – THE CORRECT SHAAFI’ AND MAALIKI VIEW

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.

THE PROHIBITION OF CHESS

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

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.

TAFILAAT

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.

THE DISSECTION AND DEMOLITION

(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.

THE CONDITIONS

(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.

THE EIDGAH CONDITIONS

(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.

THE WUJOOB AND THE KHULAFA

(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:

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

 


 

 

27 Zil Hajj 1431 – 6 December 2010
THE SALAFI CRUSADE
THE SAUDI CONSPIRACY TO ESTABLISH ITS HEGEMONY
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.”

OUR COMMENT
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.

Sourced: www.themajlis.co.za

Part Three 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:

“The Prophet Muhammad SAW said:

‘Do not prevent your women from attending the mosque if they seek your permission to do so’ [Sahih Muslim]”

Our response:

This hadith is stated without authentic commentary provided by authoritative Muhadditheen who spent their entire lives,day and night in the pursuit and preservation of true knowledge.

We provide hereunder some of the statements of the true scholars regarding this Hadith and other Ahaadith which are related:

This hadith appears in Saheeh Muslim Page 183 [Qadeemi].

The chapter is called, “The chapter on women going out to the Masjid when there is no fitnah and she must go out without perfume”.

The commentary of Imaam An Nawawi rahimahullah on this hadith entails the following:

The Ulama have stipulated conditions which are taken from hadith. Amongst other conditions, the following conditions are necessary before a woman is allowed to attend the Masjid:

1.      A woman must not be perfumed.

2.      A woman must not be adorned with jewellery etc.

3.      A woman’s voice must not be heard.

4.      A woman must not wear showy or gaudy clothing.

5.      There should not be any mixing with men.

6.      The woman should not be young.

7.      There should be no fear on the road to and from the Masjid. There should be no fear of any harm, corruption or wrong being committed/ taking place.

[Footnotes of Saheeh Muslim Pg 183, Qadeemi]

The following ahadeeth are recorded in authentic books of hadith and pertain to the issue of women attending the Masjid.

Hadith no. 1: Ibn ‘Umar radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from the mosques of Allah.” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

Hadith no. 2: Abu Hurairah radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from visiting the mosques of Allah, however they ought to go out tafilaat*.” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

*We will explain “Tafilaat” shortly.

Imaam an Nawawi has mentioned that total safety and surety against fitnah is a precondition for the permissibility of women attending the masjid. (Saheeh Muslim Juz 1 Pg 183; Bazlul Majhood Juz 4 Pg 160)

In Laamiud Duraari, it is mentioned that the words “female servants of Allah” is indicative of the fact that permission is based upon the woman being a true slave of Allah (inwardly and outwardly) and not a slave to the world and to her desires. (Bazlul Majhood Vol 4 Pg 161)

Tafilaat is translated as “without perfume” or “without displaying any sort of adornment”. In Qamoos it is mentioned: “For example, a shoulder (of meat or of an animal) which has gone off and whose smell has changed is described as ‘tafil’. (Bazlul Majhood Vol 4 Pg 161)

Ibn Raslaan has mentioned the incident of Zubayr radhiAllahu anhu and his wife Aatika bint Zayd. He did not clearly prevent his wife from attending the masjid because of the hadith. So one day he sat on the road and when she passed him, he pulled her clothes. Thereupon, she stopped going to the masjid. Upon being questioned why, she replied, “We used to go out when people were people.” (Bazlul Majhood Juz 4 Pg 160)

Ibn Hajar has mentioned: “The essence of the speech of Imaam Nawawi and that of Zarkashi is that, if in their going out, there occurs mixing with men in the masjid or on the way or the fear of fitnah is great due to them adorning themselves and going out, IT IS HARAAM FOR THEM TO GO OUT and the right of permission rests with the husband; and it is waajib upon the Imaam or his deputy to stop them (from going to the Masjid). (Bazlul Majhood Vol 4 Pg 161)

Allaamah Baaji mentions: “In it (the hadith) is proof that the husband has the option of preventing his wife and that there is no going out except with his permission.” (Awjazul Masaalik Juz 4 Pg 207)

Hadith no. 3: Ibn ‘Umar radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Do not prevent your women from visiting the mosques; but their houses are better for them (for praying).” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

This hadith is emphasizing the fact that salaah in their (women’s) homes is better for them than salaah in the masjid with Jama’ah because it is more concealing. The second part of this hadith encourages women to read their salaah at home because it is more virtuous, more rewarding and more pleasing to Allah Ta’ala.

We should now ask ourselves as to why would any sane, rational person want to leave something which is more virtuous, more rewarding and more pleasing to Allah Ta’ala for something which is less? If the true aim is the pleasure of Allah, why would anybody prefer to practise upon that act which is less pleasing to Allah? It is mentioned in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah Juz 2 Pg 277: “A woman is to be concealed and the closest a woman is to Allah is when she is in the depths of her home…” Therefore what is the aim when a woman chooses to make salaah anywhere else besides her home?

Abu ‘Amr ash Shaibaani mentioned, ‘I saw ibn Mas’ood radhiAllahu anhu throwing stones at the women, chasing them from the Masjid on the day of Jumu’ah.’ (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah Juz Pg 277)

Allaamah Aini has narrated from Imaam Maalik that this hadith (Hadith no. 3) is understood to refer to very very old women. (Awjazul Masaalik Juz 4 Pg 207)

Hadith no. 4: ‘Abdullah ibn Umar radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Allow women to visit the mosque at night.” A son of his (Bilal) said: “I swear by Allah, we shall certainly not allow them because they will take it as “*daghl”. I swear by Allah, we shall not allow them. He (ibn Umar) spoke to him harshly and became angry at him and said: “I tell you that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Allow them;” yet you say: We shall not allow them.”*Daghl will be explained shortly.

The first part of the hadith places emphasis on permission being granted for women to visit the masjid at night. The commentary of this hadith which is found in Bazlul Majhood states: “Because it is a time when the roads are empty and the time of darkness was the time when the causes of fitnah would decrease.”

Imaam an Nawawi has mentioned “Daghl” refers to corruption, deception and other forms of evil, meaning the women would use this permission to go out as a stepping stone towards great corruption and evil. (Bazlul Majhood Juz 4 Pg. 163).

In Al Kanzul Mutawari, the following explanation appears:

“Imaam Bukhari has named the chapter “Chapter No 556: Women going to the Masjid at night and in galas”

Note: The Muhadditheen went to great lengths explaining the wisdom behind Imaam Bukhaari’s choice of names for the chapters of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari. We reproduce hereunder the following explanation as mentioned in Al Kanzul Mutawaari Juz 5 Pg 448.

“In it (the name of the chapter) is an indication that the permission for women going out is linked to the absence of fitnah in any form at all. When the night and galas were times in which fitnah was non-existent, it was permissible for them to go out in these two times. But when they both become reasons for fitnah as we witness in our error, then even in these two times it is not permissible for women to be present in the Masjid.

Imaam Bukhaari, in restricting the naming of this chapter with the night and the galas in indicative of the fact that he is pointing to the permissibility of women leaving for the Masjid only under the existence of this condition (at night and galas). The vast majority of commentators have mentioned, ‘Imaam Bukhaari is indicating via his choice of naming this chapter that the Ahaadeeth narrated in the chapter are tied to the condition which he has mentioned in the name.’

The overwhelming majority of Fuqaaha have taken the stance that women are to be prevented from going out in this era (general prohibition) because of what we witness (all-encompassing fitnah). Ibn Daqeeq Al Eid has mentioned, ‘This hadeeth applies to all women(but it must be borne in mind) that the Fuqaaha have attached conditions to it (the permissibility of women attending the masjid): She must not be perfumed; She must be dressed shabbily. It must also be borne in mind that whatever fulfils the function of perfume will be in the same category of perfume. The reason for perfume being impermissible is because of it inciting passion so good clothes, jewellery and open adornment would fall into this category, likewise mixing with men.’” ( Al Kanzul Mutawari Juz 5 Pg 448)

“Ibn Al Arabi mentions in the commentary of Tirmidhi, after mentioning the narrations of the Chapter, ‘The original law of the Shari’ah is that it is permissible for women to go out for Salaah and there are many ahadeeth which testify to this and when she goes out, she is to go out shabbily dressed in an unattractive manner as mentioned by various narrations. The literal meaning of the word ‘tafil’ which is translated as ‘shabbily’ is used by the Arabs to denote such a woman whom nobody would be attracted to. And Aisha radhiAllahu anha and Ibn Mas’ood radhiAllahu anhu and other sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum have clearly indicated that women are to be prevented from the Masjid and that they should necessarily stick to the innermost recesses of their homes.

Imaam At Thauri has mentioned, “It is Makrooh for a woman to leave her home and Ibn Mas’ood has also made similar statements. This is the view of Imaam Abu Hanifah and Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak.’

Allaamah Aini has mentioned, ‘The author of Hidaayah mentions, ‘It is highly detestable for women to attend congregational salaah. The word ‘congregational’ encompasses Jumu’ah, Eid, Salaatul Khusoof.

In the emergence of women, there is fear of fitnah which is a platform for haraam and what leads to haraam is also haraam.

Therefore it must be understood that the statements of the Fuqaaha wherein the word ‘Yukraahoo’ (detestable) is mentioned, their intention is Haraam.

With regards to the hadith of Ibn Umar, ‘When your women seek permission from you…’ that is when there is no fear of fitnah affecting them or of them becoming sources of fitnah. That (permissibility) was in their era in contrast to our era as surely corruption in our era is widespread and the corrupted ones are many and the hadith of Aishah radhiAllahu anha substantiates this.

Imaam An-Nawawi has mentioned, ‘There is no place for a woman which is better than her house even if she is very, very old. Ibn Mas’ood has mentioned, ‘A woman is aurah (an object of concealment) and the closest that she can be to Allah is when she is in the depths of her home and when she exits her home, Shaitaan lies in wait for her and Ibn Umar RadhiAllahu anhu used to stand and throw pebbles on women on the day of Jumu’ah expelling them from the Masjid.’ ” (Kanzul Mutawari Juz 5 Pg 450)

In al Kanz ul Mutawaari it is noted that Abdullah bin Umar would stand outside the Masjid on Jumuah and throw pebbles at the women in order to chase them from the Masjid. (Juz 5 Pg.450)

In the same book it is mentioned that Hasan al Basri was asked regarding a woman who took an oath that if her husband is released from prison she would read 2 rak’aat of Salaah in every masjid in Basrah in which Salaah is read. The summary of his reply was “If Umar Radi Allahu anhu found out about her, he would have smashed her head” (Juz 5 Pg 451) (This is also recorded in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah Juz 2 Pg 277)

“Allaamah Aini mentions, ‘If Aisha radhiAllahu anha had to see what the women of this era are doing then she would have voiced even greater objection and her statement was not made very lon after the death of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam. The reason for this greater objection of hers is that the women of her era did not even do one thousandth of what the women of this era are doing.’

That was in the era of Allaamah Aini who died in the year 855 hijri, what then is the condition in our era which is filled with evil and corruption? ” (Kanzul Mutawari Juz 5 Pg 454)

The following is recorded in al Fiqhul Islami Juz 2 Pg 1172

“Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Mohammed have mentioned (Al Kitaab Ma’al Lubaab Juz 1 Pg 83; Fathul Qadir Juz 1 Pg 529; Haashiya Ibn Aabideen Juz 1 Pg 429) , ‘It is highly detestable (Haraam) [we have explained the usage of the term ‘highly detestable’ by the Fuqahaa earlier] for young women to attend Jama’ah.’ Imaam Abu Hanifah has mentioned, ‘There is no problem with an Ajooz (shall be explained shortly) going out for Fajr, Maghrib and Esha due to the fact that Fussaaq (flagrant mischief makers) are sleeping at the time of Fajr and Esha salaah…Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Mohammed have permitted an Ajooz to attend all salaat due to the fact that none would desire them.

The fatawa of the Hanafi Madhab is that it is not permissible for women to attend the Jama’ah even if for Jumu’ah, Eid or a lecture. This is a blanket ruling and applies to all, young and old, during the day and the night. The reason for this is due to the corruption that abounds as well as the mischief that is openly practiced.

The Maaliki view is that if there is any fear of fitnah whatsoever then going out for salaah is not permissible at all for any woman.

Ibn Rushd has mentioned, ‘An Ajooz is a woman who is so old that no man would feel any sexual desire towards her, so much so that she is treated like a man i.e. without any sexual desire whatsoever.’” (In South Africa in the year 2010, there have been numerous instances of elderly, sickly, grandmothers and even great-grandmothers being sexually molested, abused and raped. This bears testimony to the fact that society has become corrupt to such an extent that even extremely old women are seen as sources of sexual pleasure by some individuals and thus the ruling of general impermissibility on all types of women going out for salaah will be established.)

“According to the Shafi’i and Hambali scholars, it is Makrooh for young women, those of attractive appearance to attend the Masjid wherein the men will be assembling for Salaat due to the possibility of fitnah. And the woman will read in her home. It is permissible for the elderly women to leave ‘tafilah’ with the permission of her husband whilst bearing in mind that her house is still better for her.”

Umm Salmah has narrated that Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said, ‘The best place for a woman to read salaah is the depth of her home.’ Narrated by Imaam Ahmad, recorded in Nailul Autaar Juz 3 Pg 131.”

The Shaafi’ authority, Shaikh Sulaiman Bujairmi (rahmatullah alayh) states:

“Women should not attend (the Musjid) whether they are young or old for Jamaat because of the appearance of corruption….. Today the Fatwa is on total prohibition in all Salaats.  This includes Jumuah, Eid, Istisqaa’, and gatherings of lectures, especially the lectures of the juhhaal (ignoramuses) who masquerade as Ulama while their motive is the gratification of lust and worldly acquisition.” – Tuhfatul Habeeb Ala Sharhil Khateeb

Which woman would intentionally shun that which the greatest of all creation (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) has mentioned to be the best?

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

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

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

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

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

A concerned individual has collated video and audio recordings regarding slaughter methods used at abattoirs worldwide.

Due to Rainbow and other poultry abattoirs refusing the general public access to their farms, the individual in question obtained confirmation from Rainbow to the effect that the methods used to slaughter chicken at Rainbow are exactly as those of leading abattoirs worldwide.

We reproduce hereunder SANHA’s supposed rebuttal to the expose regarding poultry slaughter methods.

Muslimality comment:

Muslimality is once again issuing an OPEN invitation and clear request to any individual, scholar or otherwise, not affiliated to SANHA or its affiliates to forward us a clear-cut, authoritative, valid fatwa based on solid, authentic and clear Shar’i juristic principles stating that Rainbow chickens and other battery and broiler chickens certified Halaal by SANHA and the MJC are HALAAL.

Please note that we are not interested in the so-called views presented by those working for SANHA and the MJC nor do we consider opinion-based verdicts as valid in the Shari’ah.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

SANHA’s comments appear within the quotation marks:

A reader forwarded a YouTube video clip on chicken slaughter from an unknown source styling themselves as the chicken truth.

Without forcing our views on any reader, we list our rebuttal and leave it to the discernments of enlightened minds to draw their own conclusion.

From our point of view we firmly believe that the information is fatally flawed and presented with malicious intent on the following basis:-

1. Of what use is the identity of the source? Does it matter who is ‘The Chicken Truth’? Why can you not simply answer the questions?

2. Enlightened minds are still awaiting your responses to the unanswered questions posed by brother Ahmed Laher. If, for some odd reason, SANHA cannot seem to find the questions, please click here.

3. Your failed attempt at inferring that it is only the enlightened who will blindly swallow the vomit spewed out by SANHA is indeed indicative of your lack of solid proof. Hence like so many who wish to just enforce their opinion on the public, you rush to play the emotion card.

4. Irrespective of whether the reader had acted with malicious intent or not, simply answer these questions and we are almost certain that the numerous smear campaigns SANHA constantly wails about, will come to an end.


1. THE WRONG PREMISE

This group’s stated stance is that the issuing of Halal certificates is “foreign to Islam and do not hold any weight”. They further expostulate that “From a Shari (Islamic) point of view, there is no such thing as a Halaal organization. Such organizations never existed in the time of Nabi Muhammed Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam nor in the time of the illustrious Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them. Neither did they exist for 1400 years. These groups probably sprouted up within the last 4 or 5 decades. Based upon Western concepts and frameworks…”

It is impossible for any argument, based on a wrong premise and naked prejudice from the outset, to arrive to the correct conclusion.

Whilst we are not affiliated to, nor are we interested in defending a the points of view of the reader who submitted the videos, we ask you to kindly explain why is it that you, SANHA, are now trying to fuddle the mind of your blind followers by merely stating some concocted principle being quoted out of context. Where, pray tell, are your juristic rebuttals to the FIQH questions posed to you by concerned members of the public?

We have in our possession clear-cut emails from SANHA telling questioners “We do not deem it necessary to offer you an academic response.”

We must also bring to your attention that the individual has not based his entire argument on the point that you mention above. Muslimality has found a solution to SANHA’s woes: SIMPLY RECORD A FULL DAY’S WORTH OF SLAUGHTER ON UNTAMPERED, UNCUT VIDEO AND ALLOW THE MUSLIM PUBLIC TO WITNESS FIRST-HAND WHETHER STUNNING, HOT-DIPPING ETC. IS TAKING PLACE OR NOT. This is what enlightened minds want.

2. Ulama are dimwits

Ulama are the inheritors of the knowledge of the Prophets (Peace be upon them) and have been giving leadership to the Ummah for centuries. They hold the Noble Quraan immutable, the Sunnah (Prophetic Traditions) sacrosanct and accept differences in opinion which are not opposed to or are in conflict with them. Their decisions and edicts are in the best interest of Islam for their respective communities. It is patronizing and ludicrous to the extreme to believe that thousands of Ulama have lost their wits and direction to “have unwittingly legalized these bodies.”

It is frightening to contemplate that hundreds of thousands of people from Halaal bodies to butchers, retailers and communities take direction from Ulama in these matters who according to the faceless Chicken Truth individual/group cannot discern right from wrong, yet they can.

Where and when has the individual stated that Ulama are dimwits? Why again do you wish to play the emotion card?

The usage of the word “unwittingly” does not imply the Ulama are dimwits.Do refrain from such blatant lies.

We also issue an open request to SANHA to please provide us with clear-cut academic proof provided by any authoritative Aalim/Mufti substantiating SANHA’s activities.

3. Anonymity

Whilst this group boldly criticizes and slanders Halaal bodies, the Ulama, producers and the public whilst sprouting Quraanic ayaat, it cowers behind a cloak of anonymity. Surely, if they truly wish to “save the muslims” then they ought to have the courage of their conviction and stand up for their beliefs and engage with all parties?

What can be the vested interest that prevents the writer/s from revealing their identity?

How again does the identity of the individual matter? Does SANHA need someone to sue? Please visit the reader’s website and see the contact us page.

Simply answer the unanswered questions and all these anonymous bodies will leave you alone.

It is strange that you speak of courage yet you run away from simple requests for academic proof!!!


Vested interests? Does the reader want everyone to start getting certified with his halaal certifying body?Must everyone buy chickens from the string of abattoirs he supposedly has waiting to start delivering chickens as soon as the public stop trusting SANHA?

DO NOT INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE!!!FORGET YOUR SORRY EMOTIONAL RANTS AND SIMPLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH THE MUSLIM PUBLIC WANTS ANSWERED.PROVIDE US WITH VIDEO FOOTAGE OF A FULL 24 HOUR SESSION OF CHICKEN SLAUGHTER.

4. Hearsay

The group has failed to attest the information into sworn statements and follow any process that gives the accused the right to call and cross examine witnesses, not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible e.g. hearsay, punishment for perjury, the right to exclude judges on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, the right of appeal etc.

The absence of this renders the information as hearsay and places their work in the realm of fitnah and rumour mongering.

The aforesaid is but another glaring example of the actions of extremists against mainstream Islam.

Please be assured that the processes used in Halaal certified commercial abattoirs are endorsed by mainstream Ulama and all chickens certified / approved by SANHA is undoubtedly Halaal..

We will not provide the Shar’i response to SANHA’s pathetic excuse of sworn statements etc. due to the fact that after contacting SANHA numerous times we have reached the conclusion that they are in fact quite scared of and possibly allergic to Shar’i proof.

Once again we plead with SANHA,forget the side-issues and simply answer the questions the public wants answered.

Extremists?

PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH CLEAR,AUTHENTIC FATWAS FROM THESE MAINSTREAM ULAMA BACKED UP WITH VALID SHAR’I PROOF.

Was Salaam

Yours sincerely
For South African National Halaal Authority

EBI Lockhat
Public Relations Officer

Tel: +27 (31) 207 5768
Fax: +27 (31) 207 5793
Website: http://www.sanha.org.za