Archive for the ‘Fiqh for Women’ Category

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

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


The writer states:

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following facts emerge from this discussion:

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

– Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyyatul Kubra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(22)                       The dumb woman says:

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

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

(23)                       The dumb aunt states:

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

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


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

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

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


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

(i) Women must appear as smelly hags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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:




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:


On Thursday, the 25th November 2010, a Muslim sister interviewed a non-Muslim man on the so-called Radio “islam”. We feel embarrassed to quote in verbatim parts of the shameless discussion on Aids which was forwarded by many outraged Muslims to us. We do so with the greatest of reluctance. Nothing is quoted out of context. The entire recording could be obtained from the Radio station. Hereby follows some snippets of the conversation:

Non-Muslim: “And anal sex, anal sex, you also get it, and oral sex you can also get it. So under sexual intercourse, there are three types: It’s vaginal, it’s anal and it’s oral.”

Radio Shaytaan Muslim sister: “O.K.”

Non-Muslim: “But in actual fact we should be issuing condoms after we have demonstrated but sometimes we just  assume that people they now know how to use condoms. We have got some equipment that look like the man male organ and we demonstrate how to use condoms. You need to expel the air completely. If there is air the condom will make a bubble in front in the tip of the penis, and eventually the condom will burst so I am not saying the condoms are not safe. The condoms are 100% safe but depending on how you use them…”

Radio Shaytaan Muslim sister: “What do you do if in case this happens if you if you realize that the condom must have torn or something, what is immediate what must the person do immediately?”

Non-Muslim man: “You need to, both of you, woman and the man, need to go to the clinic or the hospital and explain to the doctor that the condom burst.”


Nabi Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam said that shame is half of Imaan. Every Muslim will be shocked and disgusted at the above shameless discussion which a Muslim sister conducted on air under the guise of educating the Muslims about AIDS.

Radio “islam” claims that they are the only truly Islamic Radio in the World. Ask yourself: “Is the above shameless conversation consistent with the Haya and modesty which true Islam teaches?”

There was a time where the Ulama of the same Radio station promised that they would never allow women to broadcast their voices. Today, they encourage our sisters to discuss shameless topics with non-Muslim men. They could not find a single male to conduct this shameless interview. No wonder the Ulama are losing all respect. Shaytaan has truly misled them. “And Shaytaan instructs you to be shameless.” (Surah Baqarah. V.268). It is only at the time of Maut that they will realize how Shaytaan duped them and how they displeased Allah Ta’ala.

Radio “islam” wins prizes from the Americans and non-Muslim companies. They are congratulated by Jews such as Rothschild. Why? Because the Non-Muslims know that the harm of the shameless Radio is much more than any true Islamic benefits.

The Jamiat-ul-Ulama based in Fordsburg fully blesses the operations of the Radio Station. They must take full responsibility for this evil and revolting interview which is not an isolated case.

We call upon all the sincere Ulama, especially those who conduct programs on Radio Shaytaan to open their eyes and to publicly distance themselves from this evil Station. Their presence is misleading the Ummah who feel that since Moulana so and so comes on air, everything must be fine. What answer will these Ulama give if Nabi Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam asks them on the Day of Qiyamah why they remained silent when such shameless programs were aired?



“Do not follow in the footsteps of Shaitaan. Verily, he is your

open enemy. Verily, he instructs you with evil and (filthy acts of)

immorality, and that you fabricate about Allah what you know not.”


‘As-Soo’ (evil) andAl-Fahsha’ (filthy acts of immorality), are salient attributes of kufr and Satanism. When ‘Muslims’ have stooped to the sub-baboon level to put on  public exhibit a ‘Muslim’ woman to  discuss filthy acts of sex with a non-Muslim male, to be broadcast to all and sundry, then we know that the time is not distant for the materialization of Rasulullah’s prediction that  men and women will indulge in adultery and fornication like dogs and asses in public streets in full view of passing pedestrians, and no one will have the courage to even say: Do your deed around the corner out of public view.

When a ‘Muslim’ woman can in public have  the degree of shamelessness to interview a non-Muslim man on a topic which perhaps a modest, shameful wife of Taqwa will not venture to broach with her husband in the privacy of the bedroom, then the prevalence of kufr – real kufr – on a large-scale in the Muslim community is confirmed.

It is sickening and most disgusting to contemplate that this vile, kaafir Radio Porno-Shaitaan is the voice of the NNB Jamiat (NO NAME BRAND JAMIAT OF FORDSBURG), and these vile, miserable vermin masquerading as ‘ulama’ have allowed, in fact commanded, a ‘Muslim’ woman to participate in a porno-programme which puts Iblees Laeen to shame. The filth and immorality in which the ‘Muslim’ woman had indulged in her public exhibition is the immoral vomit of the NNB Jamiat which she spewed out on air, contaminating the pure air waves which Allah Ta’ala has created for the benefit of mankind.

These devil molvis of the NNB Jamiat, undoubtedly, are aware of the Islamic methodology when teaching sex masaa-il (haidh, nifaas, etc.) to girls. Despite it being Waajib for the girls to learn these issues, Hadhdrat Maulana Ashraf Ali (rahmatullah alayh) states in Beheshti Zewer:

“If the teacher happens to be a male, then he should not teach these masaa-ol (to the girls). He should either acquire the services of his wife to explain these issues, or (failing this), instruct the (female) pupils to study these masaa-il afterwards by themselves. If the pupils are young boys, then too, he (the teacher) should not teach them these masaa-il. He should only advise them to study these masaa-il at some time in the future.”

But, today we find the NNB Jamiat’s Radio Porno-Shaitaan putting ‘Muslim’ females on public exhibition to discuss filthy, zina acts with non-Muslim males. Every vestige of Imaani Haya has been jettisoned. A ‘Muslim’ woman who was able to muster up the audacity to publicly discuss explicit zina acts of the filthiest kind with a non-Muslim male, cannever be a Muslim. This woman had long ago destroyed her Imaan.  Her act of immoral shamelessness excreted out on the NNB’s Porno-Shaitaan Radio, was her act of self-exposure of her hidden kufr. She had by her abominable, unnatural, immoral zina talk so flagrantly spewed out over the holy airwaves of Allah Azza Wa Jal, simply advertised her hidden kufr in which the NNB Jamiatush Shayaateen had tutored her.


There was a time, some years, ago when these followers of Shaitaan were still a shadow of the  Old Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal, that Molvi Dhorat  emphatically asserted  their  Shar’i stance as follows:  “In order for Radio Islam to adhere to your (i.e. Yield’s) proposal, as outlined, namely presenting female hosts on Radio Islam, Radio Islam would of necessity be required to act in contravention of the Code of Conduct … This is so because Radio Islam would broadcast material in a manner which is offensive to the religious convictions and feelings of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who follow the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (Peace be upon him.  …  Any suggestion to act contrary to the fundamental tenets of Islam will not be acceptable to Radio Islam. Radio Islam is not apologetic about its Islamic principles and will do everything in its power to uphold and further the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community.

In a pamphlet stating its intention of NOT allowing females to broadcast, the Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal, stated: “Moreover, modesty is the essence relating to the prohibition of intermingling of sexes and hijaab. The Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal has no authority to effect any variation to these decrees.”

But today, in the philosophy of the NNB Jamiat or Jamiatush Shayaateen, the concept of ‘modesty’ permits ‘Muslim women to publicly, over the air discuss lewd, immoral filthy, zina issues of satanic abomination with non-Muslim males. The elimination of Imaan follows in the wake of the elimination of Haya, for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Haya is a Branch of Imaan.”

The Qur’aan Majeed commands even the noble Wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to adopt harsh and abrupt tones when the need developed to explain Shar’i masaa-il to even the Sahaabah:  “Do not make alluring (your) speech, (for if you do so), then he in whose heart there is the disease (of carnal lust) will desire.” (Surah Ahzaab)

But today we find followers of Shaitaan masquerading as ‘molvis’ and proclaiming themselves to be Ulama, instructing  ‘Muslim’ women to excrete immoral filth from their mouths over the bounty of airwaves by discussing immoral rot with non-Muslim men.  Indeed, this entire progeny of Shaitaan will hang upside in Jahannum. They will be dragged naked on their faces and cast into the blazing pits of Hell to roast for having advertised immoral filth in the name of Islam. These shaitaani molvis who promote and condone the immoral filth, will have to circumambulate their entrails in Jahannum.

In the early stages when this Devil’s Porno-Radio had deceived the Muslim community by donning an Islamic façade, the NNB Jamiat’s, Molvi Dhorat stated:

“It is true that there are no female presenters that host any particular programme on Radio Islam. The reason for this is two-fold:

i) This is in accordance with Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the prophet (peace be upon him), as will be fully shown.

ii) It is in accordance with the role of woman from an Islamic perspective against intermingling of sexes in preserving the modesty of both men and women. ….. About the voice of a  woman the following is stated in the Quran:  “…and do not speak in soft alluring tones, for then, he in whose heart there is a disease, will lust.” (Surah Ahzaab, aayat 33).

Based on the above Quranic aayat as well as other clear indications of the Sunnah and the jurists of Islam, it is unanimous that the female voice is also subject to the laws of intermingling of sexes and to be concealed. The Jurists book Shaami which is one of the authoritative books of Islamic law states: ‘And, her voice is also satr (to be concealed) according to the most authentic view.”

What has happened to all these holy pronouncements of the NNB Jamiat? Now the voice of woman has become lawful for prostitution. The ‘ulama’-e-soo (vile, abominable molvis of the NNB Jamiat) have surpassed the ulama-e-soo’ of Bani Israeel. The Ulama-e-Soo of Bani Israeel did not stoop the level of the NNB Jamiat molvis who are scraping the very bottom of the barrel of  soo’ and fahsha’.  The Mujlisul Ulama’s book, Betrayal of IslamThe Debacle of Radio Shaitaan explains the haraam somersault of the NNB Jamiat’s molvis. This booklet is available. Write for a copy.

By instructing the ‘Muslim’ woman to perpetrate flagrant zina with the non-Muslim man with her voice, mind and heart, the NNB Jamiat molvis should understand that in the history of Islam they are the very first Shayaateenul Ins (Human Devils) who have opened the door wide for  the commission of actual zina in public. They will yet rue the day they were born on earth.  We register our complaint in the Divine Court.


Issued by: The Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa


Muslimality comment:

Muslimality has contacted Radio Islam and audio copies of this show are available at a cost of R40.00. Please note that Muslimality is not affiliated to any organisation, Mujlisul Ulama or otherwise. Should the supporters, board members or management of Radio Islam feel that this article is an unfair representation of the goings-on at Radio Islam, we cordially extend an open invitation to substantiate the radio’s conduct with valid, authentic Shar’i proof. We have also been informed on numerous occasions that ‘many senior muftis’ have given the fatwa that it is fine for women to be on Radio Islam, recording adverts and voice-overs, presenting shows, calling in and talking unnecessarily with Ulama etc. This article serves as an open request and invitation to the management of Radio Islam to kindly forward us the official fatawa of the aforementioned muftis substantiated with valid, authentic academic proof.

We also request all those who feel Radio Islam has been treated unfairly in this regard to kindly desist from vile and abusive comments and emails and simply provide us with simple, academic proof.

Part Two 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 :

It is in the spirit of this teaching that I have compiled this paper to give all who choose to learn the opportunity to be exposed to as many an opinion as possible from some of the most renowned scholars. If I have written anything that has been a source of harm, I ask for forgiveness and the mistake is from me, and if there is any good, then the goodness is from Allah.


“Some of the most renowned scholars” is actually subject to great contention. We will later on prove that all of the “renowned scholars” are not as renowned or as authentic as the writer would have you believe.

The disclaimer “If I have written anything…” is a ridiculous attempt at displaying some sort of fake humility. You have not bothered to check up a single reference nor have you opened a single book from the very many you apparently quote and you wish to then put up this false placard of a disclaimer as a smokescreen to your ignorance. You have belittled the true knowledge of Deen by merely copying and pasting statements. THE SOURCES OF SHARIAH DO NOT START WITH “WWW”.

We find it insulting to the Shari’a that a person surfs the net and then publishes a “compilation” of unsubstantiated plagiarised “academic proof”. Logic will tell you that no person surfs medical sites and then compiles a document on operating procedure. Why? Because one runs the risk of losing one’s life with such unqualified “research”. Yet when Muslims are being put on the path to losing true knowledge & eventually even their Imaan then all & sundry are suddenly qualified to surf the net and compile “research”.

The  writer states:

The Greatness of the Four Imams can simply be seen by their sayings on Blind Following:

a. Abu Haneefah (Rahimahullaah) – The first of them is Abu Haneefah Nu’maan ibn Thaabit, whose companions have narrated from him various sayings and diverse warnings, all of them leading to one thing: the obligation to accept the Hadeeth, and to give up following the opinions of the Imaams which contradict it (the hadith): “When a hadeeth is found to be saheeh, then that is my madhhab.”[20] and “When I say something contradicting the Book of Allah the Exalted or what is narrated from the Messenger (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam), then ignore my saying.”[27]


These statements have been copied and pasted from together with the footnotes and the footnote numbers.  We urge the reader to follow the link and verify this for yourself.

In the writer’s copied footnotes, the following appears:

“20 Ibn `Aabideen in al-Haashiyah (1/63), and in his essay Rasm al-Mufti (1/4 from the Compilation of the Essays of Ibn `Aabideen), Shaikh Saalih al-Fulaani in Eeqaaz al-Himam (p. 62) & others. Ibn `Aabideen quoted from Sharh al-Hidaayah by Ibn al-Shahnah al-Kabeer, the teacher of Ibn al-Humaam, as follows: “When a hadeeth contrary to the Madhhab is found to be saheeh, one should act on the hadeeth, and make that his madhhab. Acting on the hadeeth will not invalidate the follower’s being a Hanafi, for it is authentically reported that Abu Haneefah said, `When a hadeeth is found to be saheeh, then that is my madhhab’, and this has been related by Imaam Ibn `Abdul Barr from Abu Haneefah and from other imaams.” This is part of the completeness of the knowledge and piety of the Imaams, for they indicated by saying this that they were not versed in the whole of the Sunnah, and Imaam Shaafi’i has elucidated this thoroughly (see later). It would happen that they would contradict a sunnah because they were unaware of it, so they commanded us to stick to the Sunnah and regard it as part of their Madhhab. May Allaah shower His mercy on them all.”

The writer fails to mention that the same book which she “quotes” mentions other information as well. In Haashiah Raddul Muhtar (Juz 1: Pg. 73) it is stated

ونقله أيضا الامام الشعراني عن الائمة الاربعة ولا يخفي أن ذلك لمن كان أهلا للنظر في النصوص ومعرفة محكمها من منسوخها، فإذا نظر أهل المذهب في الدليل وعملوا به صح نسبته إلى المذهب لكونه صادرا بإذن صاحب المذهب، إذ لا شك أنه لو علم ضعف دليله رجع عنه واتبع الدليل الاقوى

We provide a general translation of this excerpt hereunder. The reason for us not providing a word for word translation is due to the fact that certain terms can only be translated together with an elaborate Fiqhi explanation which does not fall within the scope of this small article

“.… And Imam Sha’raani has also narrated this statement from the 4 Imaams. It should not escape or be hidden from (the reader) that this statement refers to one who is capable of deducing laws from the sources of Shariah (The Nusoos) together with possessing the knowledge of the laws which are Muhkam and those which are subject to abrogation. If the (qualified authorities) of the Mazhab look at a proof and act upon it would still be correct for them to be attributed to the Mazhab because it is as if the proof has come from the Imaam of the mazhab himself. This is established by the fact that if the Imaam knew of any weakness in his proof, he would retract it and follow the stronger proof”

We would like to draw the reader’s attention to another excerpt from the very same book which the writer fails to provide.

عن الحافظ ابن عبد البر، والعارف الشعراني عن كل من الائمة الاربعة أنه قال: إذا صح الحديث فهو مذهبي، على أنه في فضائل الاعمال يجوز العمل بالحديث الضعيف كما مر أول كتاب الطهارة، هذا، وزاد ابن حجر في التحفة الاذان والاقامة خلف المسافر.

Haashiya ibn Abideen Juz 1,Pg. 415

We provide a general translation…

“Hafiz ibn Abdil Barr and ash Sha’raani have both narrated from all 4 Imaams, the statement:”If the Hadith is correct then that is my Mazhab” pertains to proving virtues of deeds. It is permissible to act on a weak hadith (to prove the virtue of a deed)…”

Why then has she conveniently seen it fit to omit this alternative explanation offered by the same individuals who she quotes initially? What has happened to her claim of providing as “many an opinion as possible”? Is this not unfairness?

We take great exception to the writer referring disparagingly to ardent followers of Madhaaib as “blind followers”. The writer should pause and reflect over the vast knowledge possessed by these Imaams who compiled their Madhaaib as well as various books on Fiqh and Hadith without access to the internet. It is an insult to the integrity of these upstanding scholars to insultingly refer to their followers as “blind followers”.

To the writer: It would appear from your plagiarism as well as lack of checking proofs that you are one of the most ardent blind followers we have ever come across. Why do you blindly follow posts on forums? Why do you blindly copy and paste references? Why do you blindly copy and paste translations? Why do you blindly attribute ahadeeth to those who have not narrated them?

At this point, it must be noted that we are proud to be “blind followers” of the same A’immah you misquote in order to achieve your own ends. These Ulama compiled their works of Fiqh not by copying and pasting but rather, through commitment, sincerity, dedication, effort and sheer hard work on their part.The knowledge they possessed was not merely book knowledge, rather it was a combination of textual and Divinely-bestowed true unadulterated Ilm.


The writer states:

b. As for Imaam Maalik ibn Anas, he said:  “Truly I am only a mortal: I make mistakes (sometimes) and I am correct (sometimes). Therefore, look into my opinions: all that agrees with the Book and the Sunnah, accept it; and all that does not agree with the Book and the Sunnah, ignore it.”[28]

c. As for Imaam Shaafi’i, the quotations from him are most numerous and beautiful [31], and his followers were the best in sticking to them:. “The sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) reach, as well as escape from, every one of us. So whenever I voice my opinion, or formulate a principle, where something contrary to my view exists on the authority of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam), then the correct view is what the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) has said, and it is my view.”[32] and,  “The Muslims are unanimously agreed that if a sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) is made clear to someone, it is not permitted[33] for him to leave it for the saying of anyone else.”[34]

d. Imaam Ahmad was among the Imaams who collecting the Sunnah and was firm in sticking to it, and he said “ Following[45] means that a man follows what comes from the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) and his Companions;  after the Successors, he has a choice.” 46] and, “The opinion of Awzaa’i, the opinion of Maalik, the opinion of Abu Haneefah: all of it is opinion, and it is all equal in my eyes. However,  the proof is in the narrations (from the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) and his Companions).”[47] And “Whoever rejects a statement of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) is on the brink of destruction.”[48]


The writer has copied these “references” and proofs from

Is this scholarship? Is this an academic article? We will not waste our resources on replying to regurgitated so-called “proof”. We reproduce hereunder an explanation offered by certain Ulama. The following excerpt is not our own explanation, rather it is the opinion of true Ulama.

The viewpoint on this issue as provided by Imam An Nawawi is as follows:

Imam An-Nawawi states:

“What Imam Ash-Shafi’i said does not mean that everyone who sees a Sahih hadith should say “This is the madhhab of Al-Shafi’i,” applying the purely external or apparent meaning of his statement. What he said most certainly applies only to such a person as has the rank of ijtihad in the madhhab. It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imam Al-Shafi’i was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity. And this is possible only after having researched all the books of al-Shafi’i and other similar books of the companions of al-Shafi’i, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them.

This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfil. Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times.”

(Al Majmoo Sharhul Muhaddab Vol 1 Pg 105;  Imaam Taqiuddeen As Subki mentions this in Ma’na Qawlil Imaam al Mutallibi Pg 93)

We do not see it fit to further provide our own comments and research on this issue as the effort and scholarship would in no way be reciprocal.

This concludes Part Two of the refutation of The Conclusion: Now each has the knowledge to decide

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


After discussing the beard and moustache, it is just appropriate that we discuss the Ahaadith and masaail concerning the hair of the head because deficiency and extremism is noted in this matter also. A person should follow the Sunnat pattern as far as his hair is concerned and refrain from those ways which are impermissible.

Khatibi and other scholars state that it was the custom of the Arabs to keep long hair and beautify themselves by it. Shaving of the hair was not common amongst them, In fact at times they considered shaving of the head as an act of fame and the way of non-Arabs. Therefore, it used to be difficult for the Sahabah(RA) to shave their heads at the time of Haj and Umrah . Hence, they used to suffice on Qasr (i.e. trimming of the hair). [Fathul Bari Vol 3 pg 564]

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) therefore gave more virtue on shaving all the hair (i.e. at the time of Haj or Umrah) .There is a greater extent of obedience found in it, as a person subjects himself completely to the laws of Shariah, and accepts it sincerely with a true heart. Those who only trim their hair are keeping some beauty, and a person who shaves his head complete sacrifices this [Ibid].Hence the reward is greater.

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in whose lifestyle is an excellent way for the Muslims always used to keep hair and not shave it. On two occasions only has it been proved that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) shaved his hair – once on the occasion of Hudaibiyah in the 6th year of Hijri and a second time at the occasion of the farewell Haj which took place in the tenth year of Hijiri. Khaaresh bin Umayaw (Radhiallahu-anhu) cut Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam’s) hair at Hudeibiyah and Ma’mar bin Abdullah(RA) at the farewell Haj.

[Fathul Bari Vol 1 pg 274 & Vol 3 pg 564]


Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu-anhu) reports that the hair of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) reached till half the ear.

[Shamaail Tirmidhi pg 2]

In another narration Anas (Radhiallahu-anhu) reports that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)’s hair was not completely curly nor completely straight but it was in between, and it reached between the ears and shoulders.

In a third narration from Anas (Radhiallahu-anhu) it is reported that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam’s) hair touched his shoulders.

[Bukhari Vol 2 pg 876]

Hadhrat Baraa bin Aazib(RA) narrates that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam’s) hair was up to the earlobes. In another narration it is stated that it was near his shoulders [Bukhari Vol 2 pg 876] In a third narration it is stated that the hair was above “Jumma” and below the “Wafra” i.e. it was between the ears and shoulders. Hind bin Haalah (Radhiallahu-anhu) reports that when Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to lengthen his hair it exceeded the earlobes [Shamaail Tirmidhi pg 2]. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) states that the crux of all the narrations is that the long hair reached the shoulders when it was long and that when the hair that was not long, it reached the earlobes.

Hadhrat Baraa bin Aazib(RA) narrates that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam’s) hair was up to the earlobes.

[Fathul Bari Vol 1 pg 258]

Mulla Ali Qari(RA) writes whilst explaining the Hadith of Anas (Radhiallahu-anhu) “the hair of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was up to half the ear”.

“It has been said that most of the hair(or in a few instances when no middle path was made) the hair reached half the ear. Hence, this does not contradict those Ahaadith in which it is stated that the hair reached the shoulders and was lying on the shoulders”

Jamal Wasaail {Commentary of Shamaail} pg 74 Vol; 1]

When the hair of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to grow very long it used to be cut up to half of the ear. The head ends at the bone between the neck and head. Therefore, the hair that was on the neck was cut. In this instance it reached half the ear. Then it grew till it reached the earlobes. Thereafter it grew further till it reached the place between the ear and neck. Finally it reached the shoulders. In this manner there is no contradiction amongst the different narrations. All are correct. To keep one’s hair till the shoulders is proven from an authentic narration of Bukhari Sharif.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) states that at most times Nabi’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) hair reached close to his shoulders. It exceeded this length to such an extent that locks used to be formed and Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to gather it, as it has been stated by Umme Hani(RA) in Abu Dawood and Tirmidhi that when Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) came to Makkah he had four locks of hair. Hafiz Ibn Hajar(RA) states that this happened while travelling when the hair was not groomed. (Allah knows best). In an authentic Hadith of Abu Dawood, Nisaai and Ibn Majah, Waail bin Hujr (Radhiallahu-anhu) states ” When I came in Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presence my hair was long. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “This is bad” I returned and cut my hair. The next day when I came again Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was not referring to you but it is good (that you cut your hair)”.

[Fathul Baari and Abu Dawood Vol 10 pg 360 and Abu Dawood Vol 2 pg 576]

The above indicates that although it is permissible to keep long hair but, it is not preferable.

[Bazlul Majhood Vol 6 pg 77]

The very same explanation (as the above) will apply to the Hadith in which Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is reported to have said that Khuraim Asadi(RA) is a good person if his hair was not long and his trousers were not below the ankles. When Khuraim (Radhiallahu-anhu) heard of this he took a pair of scissor and cut his hair till his ears and lifted his garment up to half of his shin. [Abu Dawood, Mishkaat pg 382]

Hadhrat Sheikh Muhammad Zakaria (RA) explains the Hadith of Umme Hani (Radhiallahu-anha) thus: “For men to have locks on the hair like women is Makrooh”.By locks is meant such locks which do not resemble the plaits of women as Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has himself prohibited that.

[Khasail Nabawi pg 26]

Hence, the meaning of the words that appear in the Ahaadith is that the hair was separated into two, joined and made round, not that the hair was plaited like a womans.

[Dhari aur Ambiya ki Sunnatte pg 94]

It is a very important principle in Shariah that men do not imitate women and vice versa.

It is stated in a Hadith that the curse of Allaah is on those men who imitate women and on those women who imitate men. [Bukhari Vol 2 pg 874]

Hadhrat Ganghohi (RA) states that a person may lengthen his hair as much as he desires, however, to cut a portion of hair and leave another portion is an imitation of the Jews which is Makrooh. To lengthen all the hair equally is not an act of imitating the Jews, nor is it forbidden. Imitating women is when a person makes plaits like a woman’s otherwise it will not be an act of imitation nor will it be Makrooh. (Allah knows best).

[Fatawa Rashidia pg 484]

Doctor Mohammed Abdul Hay(RA), who was the Khalifa of Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (RA) writes in the book ‘Uswae Rasool-e Akram’ (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“The hair of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) reached the middle of his ears. In other narrations it is stated that it reached the ear itself”.

A third narration states that it reached the earlobes. Besides the above it is also stated in other narrations that the hair of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) reached his shoulders or close to his shoulders [Shamaail Tirmdhi].

The deduction from all the above narrations is as follows:

When Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to put oil and comb it, it used to become longer otherwise it remained as it was. Another obvious conclusion is that the length used to increase before cutting it and the length would decrease after cutting it.

It is stated in Mawaahib-e-Ladunya and Majmaul Yihari:

“When the hair of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was not cut for a long period it used to be long, and when it used to be cut it would be short”.

The above also indicates that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to cut his hair not shave it. However, regarding shaving it, he himself states that besides Haj and Umrah, Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never shaved his head.

[Madarij-un-Nabuwwah) Uswa-e-Rasul Akram pg 152]


It is also permissible to shave the head, besides the time of Haj and Umrah, although it is preferable and Sunnat to keep hair in accordance to the practice of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). However, it is not even Makrooh to shave off all the hair as this Sunnat of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is from amongst the Sunnat-e-Zawaaid. As a habit Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to keep his hair not as an Ibaadat, hence it is not Makrooh (detestable) to leave out this Sunnat.

[Check Fatawa Imdadia pg 299 vol 4]

Hadhrat Ali (Radhiallahu-anhu) states that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade women from shaving their hair. [Mishkaat pg 384]. Whilst explaining this Hadith Mulla Ali Qari (RA) states that this Hadith indicates it is permissible for men to shave their heads by taking the opposite meaning (i.e. If it is not permissible for women than it will be permissible for men who are the opposite sex). There is no difference of opinion regarding it being permissible for men shaving their heads.

However, there is a difference of opinion regarding whether the shaving of the head is Sunnah or not. Hadhrat Ali (Radhiallahu-anhu) shaved all his hair and Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) substantiated it by not forbidding him.

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) states:

“Hold fast to my way and the way of my Khulafa”.

On the other hand Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as well as all the other Sahaba used to shave their heads. This means that to shave the head at all times besides the times of Haj and Umrah is regarded as being permissible. This view is correct. [Mirqaat]

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that the hair of Jafar’s (Radhiallahu-anhu) children be shaved after his demise. [Abu Dawood Vol 1 pg 577]. This Hadith proves that it is permissible to shave the head. Similarly this Hadith indicates that children can also keep long hair and in fact they used to keep long hair in the time of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is stated in Bukhari that Ibn Abbas (RA) had long hair whilst he was still a child. Similarly in Abu Dawood it is stated that Anas (Radhiallahu-anhu) had long hair and in Nisaai it is stated that Husein (Radhiallahu-anhu) also had long hair. [Behesi Zewar Pg 967 part 1]

Just as it is permissible to shave off all the hair, similarly it is permissible to shorten the hair on condition that it is shortened equally. The proof of this is the word “Mukhsaareen” in the Qur’aan which means “to shorten”. However, to cut off all the hair and to keep the hair form the head which is in fashion nowadays is not permissible.

[Behesi Zewar Pg 967 part 11]


This is prohibited. Its prohibition is proven from an authentic Hadith:

Ibn Umar (Radhiallahu-anhu) states that a child was brought to Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) whose hair was partly cut and the rest uncut. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Either cut it completely or leave it completely”.

[Muslim Mishkaat pg 380]


When a person keeps long hair according to the Sunnah, then he should keep in mind all the other Sunnats regarding the keeping of long hair.

They are as follows:

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)used to apply a lot of oil to his head, and he used to comb his beard. He also used a head cloth. (A piece of cloth which was placed on the head).It used to get soiled with oil, hence Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam’s) clothes used to become oily. (The narration of Sharhus Sunnah [Mishkaat pg 381) is that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to say that whoever has hair should look after it. [Abu Dawood pg 573]. A person should wash his hair, apply oil and comb it. [Bazlul Majhood pg 71]. The above narrations are regarded as “Hasan”. [Fathul Baari Vol 10 Pg 368]

On one occasion Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw a person whose hair was dishevelled. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) remarked:

“Does he not find such a thing (oil etc.) by which he can gather/straighten his hair”

[Ahmed/Nisaai – Mishkaat pg 375]

Ataa bin Yasaar(RA) narrates that once Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in the Masjid. A person entered whose hair and beard were dishevelled. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) indicated to him to straighten his hair. He then straightened it and came back. Upon which Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) remarked:

“Is this not better than anyone of you coming with dishevelled hair, looking like Shaytaan”.

[Narrated by Imaam Malik-Mishkaat pg 384]

The chain of this Mursal narration is authentic. Jaabir (Radhiallahu-anhu’s) Hadith is in substantiation for the above which appears in Abu Dawood and Nisaai with a Hasan (reliable chain) ). [Fathul Bari Vol 10 pg 367]

Ibn Abbas (Radhiallahu-anhu) reports that before Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) received any command from Allaah Ta’aala, he preferred to act in accordance to the Ahle-Kitaab (Jews-Christians). For example, the Ahle Kitaab never used to make a middle path, but the Mushrikeens (Idolaters) used to. Thus, initially Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never made a middle path initially, but later he used to do so.

[Bukhari Vol 1 pg 503 vol 2 pg 877 and Shamaail Tirmdhii pg 3]

Thus to make a middle path is Sunnat. [Bazlul Majhood Vol 6 pg 76]

Ayesha (Radhiallahu-anha) used to comb Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)’s hair and she used to make the middle path in such a way that the hair used to be divided into two sections from the middle and she used to separate the hair of the forehead towards the two eyes.

[Abu Dawood pg 576 gist of the Hadith]

Abu Qatadah (Radhiallahu-anhu) once asked Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “I have long hair, should I comb it?” Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied “Yes, and look after your hair”. Hence Abu Qatadah (Radhiallahu-anhu) used to sometimes apply oil twice a day (i.e. apply oil and comb it) because of the order of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

[Imaam Malik has narrated this Hadith Mishkaat pg 384]

It is reported in Nisaai Sharif that Abu Qatadah (Radhiallahu-anhu) had long hair. He asked Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regarding it. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied: “Look after it and comb it every day”. [Nisaai pg 291]. Hence combing of the hair every day is proven from this Hadith.

However, Abdullah bin Mughafal (Radhiallahu-anhu) narrates that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has prohibited combing of the hair every day. [Tirmidhi Vol pg 305 and Shamaail Trimidhi pg 4]. Tirmidhi has stated that this Hadith is Hasan and Sahih.

The reason for the above Hadith, according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) is that a person should refrain from attracting a lot of attention to beautify oneself. In another authentic Hadith, Abu Ummah (Radhiallahu-anhu) states that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has said: Simplicity is part of Imaan, [Abu Dawood]. Imaan Nisaai has quoted a Hadith in which Ubaid (Radhiallahu-anhu) reports that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to prohibit beautifying oneself excessively. [Fathul Bari Vol 10 pg 368]. Therefore, the Ulema say that if a person’s hair becomes dishevelled easily then one can comb it every day but if it is not dishevelled then a person should comb it occasionally.

[Gist of Khasaail Nabawi pg 28].


When a person combs his hair he should first make the path of the right side then the left. Hadhrat Ayesha (Radhiallahu-anha) reports the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) preferred this way. [Shamaail pg 4]. Therefore, this is the Sunnat method for woman. The path should be in line with the nose. Today the custom is to have side paths. This is unIslamic.

[Dhari aur Ambiyaa ki Sunnate pg 94].


It is forbidden to trim the hair of the nape. The Fuqaha (jurists) have prohibited it. [Safaaie Muamalaat – Hadhrat Thanwi and Dhari our Ambiyaa ki Sunnate pg 97]. The hair is till half the ear. Below that, is regarded as the neck. The hair of the neck may be cut, not the hair above that. Therefore, it is Makrooh to trim or cut the hair at the nape.

Besides cutting the hair up to the ear, there is no proof that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cut his hair from any other side. Therefore, a person should not cut the hair from any other side – not from the side of the ear nor from the forehead. Now-a-days westerners cut their hair in many different fashionable ways. All these ways are unIslamic, thus one should avoid them.

[Check Dhari aur Ambiyaa ki Sunnate pg 98]

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has mentioned in one Hadith:

The person who imitates others is not from amongst us. Do not imitate the Jews and the Christians. The Jews greet with a sign of the fingers and the Christians with their hands or palms, and they do not cut the hair of the forehead. Cut your moustaches thoroughly and lengthen the beard. Also, do not walk in the Masjid and market places without wearing a lungi (or trousers) under your kurta.

[Narrated by Tabrani at Targheeb wat Tarheeb pg 435 Vol 3]

Saving oneself from imitating others is an important principle in the Shariah. One should be constantly aware of this. In one Hadith it is stated that the person who imitates a nation is from amongst them. [Abu Dawood pg 559]. That one should not imitate others in dressing and appearance is sufficiently emphasized for anyone to understand.


Imaam Muslim, Imaam Tirmidhi and others have narrated the Hadith of Umme Salma (Radhiallahu-anha) wherein she asked Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

“I make the plaits of my hair tight. Should I loosen it at the time of taking ghusl from Janaabat (impurity)?” Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied: “No, it is sufficient that you pour water over your head thrice, then pour water over your body”. [Tirmidhi pg 29]. This Hadith indicates that it is sufficient that water reaches the roots of the hair.It is not necessary to loosen the plaits and wet all the hair.This is the ruling of the Ulema as well.

N.B. From the above Hadith we learn that women at the time of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to keep long hair and plait it. The incident of Hadhrat Ayesha (Radhiallahu-anha) appears in Bukhari Sharif (pg 45) that when she was in Ihraam she used to loosen her hair which indicates that she used to plait it (when not in Ihraam). Many other incidents also prove the above. This is also from where the law of keeping long hair and of plaiting it is derived. Women have been prohibited from shaving their heads. [Nisaai and Mishkaat pg 384]. Even at the time of Haj and Umrah the ruling is that a little bit of hair be cut. It is not permissible to shave it. Also, we learn from the hadith in Bukhari, the woman who imitates a man is accursed, and it is permissible for men to lengthen their hair up to the shoulders and below it also. Thus, if a woman cuts her hair up to the shoulders or below it, it, will amount to her imitating men. This is prohibited and an accursed action. Therefore, it has been mentioned in the books of fiqh that if a woman cuts her hair she will be sinful and worthy of curse.

[Durre Mukhtar with Shami Vol 5 pg 288]

Nowadays, women cut their hair for the sake of fashion and in order imitate non-Muslim women. It is in imitating these women, that this practice has become common amongst Muslim women also. Therefore it is completely forbidden. It is mentioned in a Hadith:

“Whosoever imitated a nation will be from amongst them”.

[Abu Dawood pg 559]

It is of paramount importance that women save themselves from imitating men as well as non-Muslim women, as learnt from the Ahaadith. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed those women who don men’s clothing as well as those men who wear women’s clothing. Hadhrat Ayesha (Radhiallahu-anha) was once asked to rule regarding a certain lady who wore shoes (like that of men). She replied that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed that woman who imitates men. [Abu Dawood pg 566]

The above makes it abundantly clear that it is forbidden for women to cut their hair, to wear clothes like that of males, to wear shoes like that of men and to behave like men.

[Dhari aur Ambiyaa Sunnate pg 96]


It is permissible for an old woman who is a widow, and who does not need to beautify herself due to old age, to shorten her hair a little. There is scope for it. The action (of cutting the hair) of the blessed wives of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) will be analyzed as above. However, it should he remembered that it is only permissible in the above mentioned instance. To do so specially because of fashion, is completely impermissible. Allaah Ta’aala is aware of the deceit within the heart.

[Dhari aur Ambiyaa ki Sunnate pg 97]

Regarding the Hadith in Muslim Sharif in which it is stated that the blessed wives of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to cut their hair, the commentators of Muslim Sharif, Qadhi Ayaaz(RA) and others explain the very same meaning as above (i.e. it is permissible for an old widowed woman who does not beautify herself). Qadhi Ayaaz writes that the Arab women used to tie plaits. The blessed wives of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did so after his demise as they stopped beautifying themselves, hence no longer needing to lengthen their hair. Imaam Nawawi(RA) states that this is the only reason. This action cannot even be imagined during the lifetime of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

[Muslim Sharif with the commentary of Imaam Nawawi pg 148 Vol 1]




‘The Laws of the Beard and the Hair in the Light of the Ahadith‘ By Shaykul Hadith Moulana Fazlur Rahman, Darul Uloom Azaadvile

Part One 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 following article is in response to a paper “compiled” by a “scholar” who has concerned herself with championing the rights for women to be able to choose whether they would like to perform salaah at masaajid or perform eid salaah at the Eid Gah. The purpose of the said paper was to “give all who choose to learn the opportunity to be exposed to as many an opinion as possible from some of the most renowned scholars.

The compiler puts forth certain statements which to the untrained eye (and mind), appear quite convincing and most authentic. However, in our article, we wish to clearly distinguish between the truth and the statements of the writer. It is unfortunate that we have discovered the writer’s affinity for plagiarism as well as an ardent copy and paste frenzy. We urge the reader to follow the links provided and verify where the writer has plagiarised. The writer has failed to check up any references, has even copied the footnote numbers and has not researched a single scholarly work.  Where she could not find references to copy, she has merely made statements without any academic proof.

However blatant misquoting, quoting out of context as well as gross inaccuracies in translation are glaringly apparent. These are all aspects which serve to greatly weaken and insult what is supposed to be an academic article written by a self-confessed “scholar”.

The writer states the following:

Abdullah ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked, “Which people are the best? “ He (peace and blessings be upon him) said,” The best people are those whose tongues are truthful and their hearts are” Makhmun”. They said, “We know the meaning of a truthful tongue, but what is a heart that is Makhmun?” He said, “It’s a heart that is pious and pure with no sin. This heart has no unfairness, no envy and doesn’t hold malice.”

Our response:

The writer has failed to provide the actual Arabic as well as the reference for the opening hadith she uses and upon which she is basing this entire article. We have sourced the hadith and reproduced it hereunder in the original Arabic.

حدثنا هشام بن عمار حدثنا يحيى بن حمزة حدثنا زيد بن واقد حدثنا مغيث بن سمي عن عبد الله بن عمرو قال قيل لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أي الناس أفضل قال كل مخموم القلب صدوق اللسان قالوا صدوق اللسان نعرفه فما مخموم القلب قال هو التقي النقي لا إثم فيه ولا بغي ولا غل ولا حسد

(Sunan ibn Majah Juz 12  Pg 261 – Hadith 4206; Musnad-ush-Shamieen Juz 8 Pg 69)

It must firstly be noted that the writer has displayed her gross lack of academic knowledge by stating the narrator to be “Abdullah ibn Umar radhiAllahu anhu, however the narrator is actually Abdullah bin Amr radhiAllahu anhu who are two distinctly different personalities.

Any student of Hadith who actually bothers to check up the actual Arabic would note this glaring discrepancy proven by the actual text which we have placed above.

Such is the result of regurgitating anything and everything one may come across. We must -state at this juncture that “Google” is by no means an academic resource when it comes to Shari’ah. The writer has copied this incorrect translation verbatim from:

This is one of many such websites which carry the exact same incorrect translation. The site above also offers a reference, albeit incorrect. This is indicative of the fact that they have merely copied these details from someone else. Why then has not a single one of these “scholars” bothered to correct the incorrect translation and reference? Are these “Google” & “Wikipedia” scholars?

Whilst we are all prone to error, a “scholar” makes an effort to check the source as well as translations of all proofs being quoted.

Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Amr RadiAllahu anhum are two distinctly different personalities. We say to the writer,please read Siyar A’laam in Nubalaa, Juz 3 Pg 79 for a little insight into and proof of this fact.

The writer is also advised to read Al Bidaayah wan Nihaayah, Al Isaabah fi Tamyeez As Sahaabah, Usdul Ghaabah for proof of the fact that ibn Umar and ibn Amr are two distinctly different personalities.

Secondly, the writer cannot offer the excuse that the same hadith appears in a different collection with the narration of ibn Umar. The following works have no record of ibn Umar narrating the hadith she claims he narrated. Should anybody find this hadith with the narration of ibn Umar, please do inform us of the reference and we will gladly review our stance on this issue.

The works which do not have any mention of ibn Umar narrating this hadith are:

  1. Saheeh Bukhari
  2. Saheeh Muslim
  3. Sunan Abi Dawud
  4. Sunan Tirmidhi
  5. Nasa’i
  6. Muatta Imaam Maalik
  7. Musnad Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal
  8. Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah
  9. Sunan Al Kubraa – Baihaqi
  10. Musannaf Abdir Razzaaq
  11. Sunan Al Kubraa – Nasa’i
  12. Mustadrak of Haakim
  13. Sunan of Daarimi
  14. Musnad of Humaidi
  15. Sunan of Darqutni
  16. Saheeh ibn Hibbaan
  17. Saheeh ibn Khuzaimah
  18. Musnad Ash Shafi’i
  19. Musnad Abdillah ibn Mubaarak
  20. Ma’rifatus Sunan


Translation of the Hadith

The writer has again displayed her penchant for copying and pasting by copying the translation offered by these websites verbatim. A scholar does not merely accept translations from all & sundry, a scholar checks up the meaning of the word if he/she does not know it.

We draw your attention to the Arabic word بغي which the writer has translated (albeit copied the translation) as “unfairness”. The writer wishes to play on the emotions of the reader by inferring that the Ulama who are propagating the ruling that women not attend the Eid Salaah, are being unfair. In her plagiarised attempt at convincing the public that the Ulama are hiding facts from them, she cannot even prove the translation of the Hadith in her distorted aim to justify her own objectives. She offers no proof for this translation nor the view of any accepted authority of Hadith that unfairness is being implied by this word. Unfairness may be implied by this word in certain circumstances only. The writer in using the translation “unfairness” has departed from the opinion of master linguists of the Arabic language. We will only engage in discussion with the writer on this issue of inaccurate translation once she is able to apprise us of the explanations offered by leading scholars of Arabic. Whilst we do not wish to explain the correct explanation of this word and thereby do the work of the writer for her, we refer her to:

  1. Al Qaamoosul Muheet

a.       Juz 1 Pg 190

b.      Juz 2 Pg 236

c.       Juz 2 Pg 119

d.      Juz 2 Pg 192

e.       Juz 3 Pg 75

f.        Juz 3 Pg 397

  1. Lisaanul Arab

a.       Juz 2 Pg 12

b.      Juz 2 Pg 534

c.       Juz 3 Pg 307

d.      Juz 4 Pg 545

e.      Juz 4 Pg 539

f.        Juz 5 Pg 144

g.       Juz 6 Pg 230

h.      Juz 6 Pg 322

i.         Juz 7 Pg 165

j.        Juz 7 Pg 188

k.       Juz 7 Pg 349

l.         Juz 7 Pg 412

m.    Juz 8 Pg 84

n.      Juz  10 Pg 334

o.      Juz  10 Pg 409

p.      Juz  11 Pg 250

q.      Juz  11 Pg  265

r.        Juz  14 Pg 75

s.       Juz  14 Pg 325

  1. Tahzeebul Lughaa

a.       Juz 1 Pg 142

b.      Juz 1 Pg 227

c.       Juz 1 Pg 265

d.      Juz 1 Pg 363

e.      Juz 2 Pg 67

f.        Juz 3 Pg 104

g.       Juz 3 Pg 105

h.      Juz 3 Pg 210

i.         Juz 5 Pg 17


This concludes Part One of the refutation of “The Conclusion: Now each has the knowledge to decide

The contentious issue of women attending the Eid Salaah has been plaguing some Muslims in South Africa of late. It is imperative that the sources of Fiqh be brought to the attention of the layman or laywoman in this case. There are many groups who would have you believe that it is the Indo-Pak Muslim clerical society who would like to keep you backward and prefer you to be brainwashed. Upon closer inspection however, the notion of brainwashing is rooted very firmly within these “modern-day” organisations.

The following proofs regarding the issue of women attending the Masjid aims to shed light on the subject. Please note that these are not my views but the views taken from Qur’aan, Ahadeeth, Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum and illustrious Fuqahaa.

The Qur’aan

“O Nabi! Say to your wives, your daughters and the women of the Mu’mineen to hang over themselves their jalaabeeb.” (Al Ahzab: 59)

Allah Ta’ala says:”And, remain inside your homes and do not make a display like the exhibition of the times of jaahiliyyah.” (Al Ahzab:33)


Umm ‘Atiyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) 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.”

The first hadeeth clearly states the permissibility of women attending the Eid salaah but we must remember the conditions which were present at the time of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam during this time. The conditions follow:

1st Condition: Women were to attend shabbily dressed or unattractive. Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ” …………. but, they should emerge while they are shabbily dressed.” (Abu Dawood)

2nd Condition: Intermingling was prohibited even outside the Musjid, in a narration in Abu Dawood, the Sahaabi, Abu Usaid Ansaari (radhiAllahu anhu) says that once outside the Musjid men and women had mixed. Nabi (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) then said:”(O Women!) Move back! Verily, it is not permissible for you to spread in the road. The edges of the road are compulsory on you.”

The Sahaabi narrating this Hadith says: “As a result the women would walk so close to the sides that their clothing would brush against the walls (of the houses).”

3rd Condition: Perfume was forbidden. Women who came to Musjid in the early days were not permitted to apply perfume. In this regard Rasulullah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) said:”Any woman who applies perfume and passes by a gathering is like an adultress.” (Tirmizi)

It is naïve to assume that the onus is on the person to ensure that the conditions for attending Eid salaah are met. During the time of the Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum, they had taken it upon themselves to ensure that the women were PROTECTED. They were not discriminating against women, they were not being sexist, misogynists etc. Aisha radhiAllahu anha had said so herself that women would have been prevented from the Masjid if Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam were to see what women had introduced during her time.

So how do these Muslim feminists justify Aisha radhiAllahu anha’s opinion? Or do they see fit to disregard the view of the great Mother of the Believers? The wife of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam?Or is it because this view does not tie in to their perfect world of female liberation? Does this view not tie in to the view of their illustrious jurists like Sheikh Albani, ibn Uthaymeen, bin Baz, ibn Jibreen etc.? They very often cite Aisha radhiAllahu anha when it comes to her willingness to learn and seek knowledge and also when the sahaabah radhiAllahu ahum would go to her in matters pertaining to Fiqh but how little credibility is afforded to her in this matter.

Rasulullah (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam), when giving the initial permission for women to attend the Masjid, he stated what was indeed BEST for them.Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam} said:”Do not prevent your womenfolk from the Musjid, BUT THEIR HOMES ARE BEST FOR THEM.” (Sahih Muslim)

In spite of the fact that it has been narrated from Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam, “Do not stop women from the masjid and their houses are best for them.” This is a clear proof that houses are better for women than the masjid and this encompasses salaah and itikaf and other acts of worship. (Awjazul Masaalik vol 5 pg 462)

Imaam Ahmad has mentioned the wife of Abu Humayd as Saaidi said: “O Rasulullah, I love to read salaah with you.” He said: “I know that you love to read salaah with me and your salaah in the recess of your home is better than your salaah in an open room and your salaah in a room is better than salaah in any other part of your house and your salaah in your house is better than your salaah in the Masjid of your people and your salaah in the masjid of your people is better than salaah in my masjid.”

Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said;”The Salaat of a woman in her bedroom is better than her Salaat in (another) room (of her house), and her Salaat in the innermost recess of her home is better than her Salaat in her room.” (Abu Dawood)

The above ahadeeth confirm that the best place for woman’s salaah is in the innermost recesses of HER HOME. This is the answer to the following question: “Do you know that Musjid al Nabbawi and Musjid al Haraam are MOSQUES- so one should ask these scholars if the home is best for the women, should muslim women pray all their salaat in the hotel rooms when on Umrah as they have said that women must not attend the mosques?”

What we should in fact be asking is, when the above hadith was said by Rasulullah sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam himself, did he not know about the two Masaajid? Was he unaware of the fact that women could attend both these places? And so, despite being aware of the Masaajid in question, Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa Sallam still made a point of saying that the home is the best place for a woman’s salaah.

Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum

Amr Shaibaani narrates that he saw Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Mas’ud (radhiallahu anhu) expelling women from the Musjid on the Day of Juma’.(Majmauz Zawaaid)

Aatikah (radhiallahu anha), the wife of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), explaining her reason for having discontinued her practice of attending the Musjid said: “We used to come out when people were yet people.” (LaamiudDuraari

Arabi in his Sharhut Tirmizi states:”Aishah (radhiallahu anha) and Ibn Mas’ud (radhiallahu anhu} are of the opinion that women should be prevented from the Musjids and that they should necessarily cling to the dark corners of their home (when performing Salaat).”

“Yahya Ibn Saeed narrates from Umrah Binti Abdur Rahman that Aishah (radhiallahu anha) said: ‘If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had observed that which women have now introduced (i.e. after the demise of Rasulullah), he would most certainly have prevented them from attending the Musjid just as the women of Bani Israeel were prevented.”Yahya enquired: ‘What, were the women of Bani Israeel prevented from the Musaajid?’Umrah replied. ‘Yes.’ When Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) finally enacted the prohibition to prevent women from going to the Musjid, they …complained to Aishah (radhiallahu anha). Answering their complaint, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha) said: “If Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had known what Umar now knows (of the condition of women), he would not have granted you permission to emerge (i.e. to leave your homes and come to the Musjid for Salaat).” (Jaamiur Rumooz)

Arabi in his Sharhut Tirmizi says:

“Sufyaan Thauri said: ‘It is forbidden for women to emerge from their homes. Ibn Mas’ud (radhiallahuanhu) said that a woman is an object of concealment and when she emerges shaitaan lays in wait (to create fitnah). Imam Abu Hanifah and Ibn Mubarak also stated this .”

Amr Shaibaani narrates that he saw Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Mas’ud (radhiallahu anhu) expelling women from the Musjid on the Day of Juma’.(Majmauz Zawaaid)


Abu Hanifa has mentioned the salaah area of her home is better than the mosque of her locality. (Bada’ius Sanaa’i vol2 pg 381)

The Hanafi and Maaliki jurists have agreed there is no permission for young women for Jumu’ah and the Eid salaah and/or any other salaah (Al Badaai 1/275, Ash Sharhus Saghir 1/530, Bidayatul Mujtahid 1/211)

Imam Abu Hanifa and his two companions, Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Mohammed state: It is Makrooh for young women to attend Salaah in Jama’ah in totality. Imaam Abu Hanifa has mentioned: An elderly women may attend Fajr, Maghrib and Esha. The Fatawa of the Madhab is that it is reprehensible for women to attend Jama’ah, be it for Eid, for Jumu’ah or a lecture, even if it be for an old lady.

The Maalikiya say: In the event of even the slightest possibility of contravention of shari’ah taking place, it would not be permissible at all for a woman to attend the Masjid. If there is no mischief, her repeated going to the Masjid is highly reprehensible ( Ash Sharhul Kabir 1/335, Ash Sharhul Saghir 1/446)

Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal and Tibraam record the Hadith of Umme-Humaid Sa’diyah who came to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and said:“O Rasulullah! I love to perform Salaat behind you.’ Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied:’I am aware of it. But, your Salaat in the innermost recess of your house is better than Salaat in (other places) of your house…”

Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) says:”The summary of the discussion of Nawawi and Zarkashi is that when intermingling of the sexes prevails whether in the Musjid or on the roads or there is the danger of mischief because of women’s adornment and exhibition of beauty, then it is forbidden for them to come out. It is incumbent on the Imaam or his representative to prevent women from emerging.”(Laamiud Duraari)

Hadhrat Ibrahim Nakhai (rahmatullah alayh) prevented his womenfolk from attending the Musjid. In Nailul Autaar, the following narration appears:”It (females going for the Eid Salaat) is forbidden. This has been narrated by Tirmizi on the authority of Thauri, Ibn Mubaarak. And, this is the view of Imaam Maalik, Abu Yusuf…. Ibn Qudaamah narrated it on the authority of Nakhai and Yahya Ibn Saeed Ansaari. ”

Islam does not require change, it changes us.