Posts Tagged ‘Muslimality’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Is the Nikaah no longer valid?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allah عز وجل says in the Holy Qur’an:


وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَى

 


فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ هِيَ الْمَأْوَى

 

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

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

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a hadeeth:

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

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

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

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


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


Source:

http://www.contentsoul.com/

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

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

books1

First:

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

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

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

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

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

When you see not but beauty in their blemishes

And their appendages, then beauty from you is hidden

Second:

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

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

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

Third:

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

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

He (High is His Eminence) said,

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

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

Every son of the dunya has a purpose and an aim

And verily my purpose is good health and free time

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

By which there is for me in the Gardens a station

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

Sufficiency is enough for me in the deceptive dunya

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth:

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

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

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

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

Fifth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixth:

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

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

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

Nur al-Idah bi ‘l-Isbah, pp. 5-6

About the author:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After some much needed rest and relaxation, I find myself overwhelmed by interactions with individuals who are either grossly immature or are in dire need of Sharma’s personal development and self-help seminars. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that rational and intelligent adult(I am in no way implying that kids are not rational considering I know many children and teenagers who could give these ‘old bags’ some much needed advice on how to at least act mature) homo sapiens could indeed conduct themselves in so many demeaning ways.

I remember when I was a little kid that being nasty was a very ‘ugly’ thing to do (I quote my Mother). We’ve all had our bouts of nastiness to the unfortunate kid in the playground but some of us never truly grow out of it and this is really disconcerting. For instance, I’ve already had somebody try to discredit the Muslimality website by trying to pass some chain mail or the other saying that Muslimality supports Banks (FNB, in this case) because he(or she) happened upon an advert on the Muslimality Contact Form/About Us Page. I’m hoping that said reader still reads our articles so that the following explanation might help: Muslimality is hosted on wordpress.com and so, we have no direct link to the adverts being displayed when GoogleAds detects your IP address, establishes that it belongs to a South African and thereafter displays the appropriate ad for the person viewing the page.I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding on your part but please feel free to visit our site again.

You see, I hate having to do that. It makes me feel like some nursery or primary school teacher having to call the rotten apple to the front of the class and make a lesson out of him for the rest of the kids. Which brings me to my next point: Bad Mouthing. Whilst this trait is not extremely common amongst the foundation phase, it is very much evident during high school where teenagers have truly made an art out of sensationalism, slandering and large scale smear campaigns to deal with competition, outcasts or the poor little souls whom they have decided to take revenge on.

It would be most untrue of me to say that these are traits most people outgrow by the time they have reached adolescence or that these are traits practised upon only by women. This type of behaviour has become a big part of adulthood and is definitely not gender-based. It is also not restricted to exclude religion. Of late, I have come across many a smear campaign targeted at those institutions or individuals who are assumed to be ‘backward’,oppressive, misogynistic ‘chilla wallas’ etc. Facebook, Twitter and many other social networks have made it possible for people all over the world to air their views to a large audience, who is only more than ready to read and believe. This is starting to sound just like high school…only worse!

I have often heard individuals who are parents to toddlers confess that when their kid decides to throw a tantrum, the most effective quick-fix is to join in the tantrum. I can only begin to imagine the horror of seeing a parent kicking and screaming next to their equally kicking and screaming 3 year old on a supermarket floor. Nursery school and foundation phase teachers often resort to ‘a few raps across knuckles with a ruler’ to return a class of rowdy kids to peace and quiet. Of course, with adults this is not possible and so one has to seek alternative methods of showing disapproval to keep the peace.

The best way to deal with matters such as these is to contact the person and have a good chat about what the issues at hand are. This does not work very well, especially in circumstances where the result infinitely outweighs the means to getting to the result. There are other options which are subject to certain conditions and are more effective.

One such instance resulted in approaching the problem with the age-old system of hierarchy. This means if a person is being considerably troublesome via any medium, you seek to solve the problem via the puppet-masters(the person/s who has considerable leeway in said troublemaker’s life e.g. employers,father,mother,grandfather,teacher etc.) but this method only results in a light rap across the knuckles and in no time, the troublemaker is on the loose yet again.

The option which I particularly favour is to face the troublemaker with the truth. The truth holds far greater value than any opinion of any person. By examining the truth of your existence, the purpose of your existence, any vile comments, lies or slander committed against you and intended to reach you will never affect you more than what any other form of useless speech is supposed to affect you. It is a truth deep within yourself, a truth meant to strengthen your core and a truth designed to keep you steadfast. It is the truth of your religion, the truth of Islam and if you are steadfast in holding on to the truth of Islam, no amount of child’s play, mockery or gossip (aimed purely at testing your resolve) will change the truth of who you are, what you are and everything you stand for as a Muslim.

Islam does not require change, It changes us…

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

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

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


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

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

Mr.T.N.Matibe

Private Bag X81,Pretoria 0001,

or faxed at 086 648 7766,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Source: Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa

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

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

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The writer states:

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following facts emerge from this discussion:

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAFILAAT

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DISSECTION AND DEMOLITION

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

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

– Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyyatul Kubra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(22)                       The dumb woman says:

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

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

(23)                       The dumb aunt states:

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

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

THE CONDITIONS

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

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

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

THE EIDGAH CONDITIONS

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

(i) Women must appear as smelly hags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WUJOOB AND THE KHULAFA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comment follows:

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

– submitted by a Muslimality reader

1. Emotional rant No 1 by the commenter

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

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

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

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

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

2. Your translation reads “Do not praise yourselves”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslimality

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

The writer states the following hadith:

Hadith no. 1

from the narration of Umm Attiyyah she said:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded us to bring them (women) out on (Eid) al-Fitr and (Eid) al-Adha, and to bring out adolescent girls, menstruating women and virgins, but the menstruating women were to stay away from the prayer, but were to witness goodness and the gathering of the Muslims. I said: “O Messenger of Allah, what if one of us does not have a jilbaab?” He said: “Let her sister lend her a jilbab.” [Al-Bukhaari (324) and Muslim (890)] and

Hadith no. 2

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

Our Response:

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

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

The writer states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The write then states:

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

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

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

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

The writer alleges that Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi states:

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

Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Thanvi actually states the following:

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

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

1.      Mustahab

2.      Tafreqah

3.      Jaaiz Ghair Mustahab

4.      Makrooh (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi)

5.      The Right of Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Al Kanzul Mutawari, the following explanation appears:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surah Ahzab Verse 59

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

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

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

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

Ibn Abi Haatim mentions, ‘On the authority of Umm Salmah radhiAllahu anhu, she said, ‘When this verse was revealed (yudneena alayhinna), the women of the Ansaar came out…and upon them were black clothes which they were wearing.’’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is narrated in Fiqhul Islami Juz 2 Pg 1390

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


 

 

PREFACE
All praise be to Allahu Ta’ala. Peace and blessings be on His final Messenger, Sayyidina Muhammad. Auspicious salutations be on his pure Ahl al-Bayt (people of the Prophet’s House) and on all his just and devoted Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all); and last but not least praise be upon the glorious pious predecessors (Salaf as-Salihin) and their successors who are the Ahl-as-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah (People of the Sunnah and Community) of the four existing schools of Sacred Law (Fiqh).

O you who believe! What you are about to read is of dire importance to the believer who accepts the authority of the Noble Hadith, second only to the Holy Qur’an al-Karim. I here present to the open minded believer an exposition of the mistakes and contradictions of probably the foremost Hadith Shaykh of the ‘Salafiyya’ sect, by the name of Shaykh Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albani. I was asked by some brothers on the status and rank of al-Albani, and fearing the declaration of Allah’s Messenger (Peace be upon him):

“He who is asked something he knows and conceals it will have a bridle of fire put on him on the Day of Resurrection” (Sunan Abu Dawood, 3/3650, English ed’n);

I decided to compile this short work. Let me stress at the outset, this work was primarily compiled to correct some notions held by al-Albani and secondarily the “Salafi” sect; hence the last part of this work has been entitled: “and Other Important issues.”

This short piece of work has been edited and abridged from the four volume set which emphatically and clearly outlines al-Albani’s mistakes, contradictions, slanders and even lies in the honourable and sacred Islamic Science of Hadith (Uloom al Hadith), by the well known scholar, Al-Shaykh Hasan ibn Ali al-Saqqaf (may Allah reward him for his effort) of Amman, Jordan; from his work entitled: “Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat” (The Clear Contradictions of al-Albani).

Shaykh Saqqaf is a contemporary Shafi’i scholar of Hadith and Fiqh. His Shaykh’s include Hashim Majdhub of Damascus in Shafi’i Fiqh, Muti’ Hammami in estate division, Muhammad Hulayyil of Amman in Arabic Grammar, and he has been given written authorization (Ijaza) in the field of Hadith from one of the greatest Hadith scholars of our time – Shaykh Abdullah Muhammad al-Ghimari (may the Mercy of Allah be upon him) of Tangiers, Morocco [born 1910 C.E; died Feb. 1413/1993 C.E]; an ex-Professor of Hadith at Al-Azhar University, author of nearly 150 works, his late brother: Ahmad ibn Muhammad (Allah’s mercy be upon him) was a great Hafiz of Hadith, (see later for the definition of Hafiz of Hadith). Shaykh Ghimari has declared in one of his published Fatwa’s that al-Albani is an innovator (mubtadi) in Islam, (al-Albani has criticised Shaykh Ghimari’s classifications of Hadith in some of his works; but then contradicted himself in others – see the quotes from Shaykh Saqqaf later). Shaykh Saqqaf presently teaches a circle of students in Amman and has published over forty five books and treatises on Hadith, tenets of faith (Aqeeda), Fiqh and heresiology.

So as to enlighten the reader who is unaware of al-Albani’s status, the following is a short biography as given in the inside back cover of the English translation of al-Albani’s booklet by the title ‘Adaab uz Zufaaf‘ (The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding) as published by his followers in England (viz.: “Jami’at Ihyaa Minhaj al Sunnah”) :-

  • Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albani was born in the city of Ashkodera, capital of Albania in 1914 CE. While he was young his parents migrated with him to Damascus, Syria. From an early age he became fascinated by the science of Hadith and thereafter spent his time devoted to seeking knowledge. In later life he was given Professorship of Hadith at the Islamic University of Madinah. He is well known to students and scholars for his knowledge and writings. He has many well known students and has visited places through out the Middle East and Europe. He was forced to migrate from Syria to Jordan. He has been of enormous service to the Prophetic Hadith, taking great pains to check and sort out the authentic from the weak and fabricated narrations. He has produced many pamphlets and books, some of them running into many volumes – on topics of great importance to the Muslims – and has fully checked many of the famous books of Hadith – the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah, along with Suyooti’s huge “Jami-us-Sagheer” and “Mishkat-ul Masabih”. He is the foremost scholar of Hadith and related sciences of this age.”

It is this last statement which is highly far-fetched, and it is the predominantly imaginary belief of his misguided followers in certain parts of the world. Since only Allah knows who is the “foremost scholar of Hadith and related sciences of this age.” I say this because there are others who may well be the ‘foremost scholar’. One thing that may be noticed from the above biography, is that al-Albani does not seem to have been given any authorization (ijaza) in Hadith from any recognised scholar of Hadith. I have read other biographies and asked some of his supporters in England to give me the name of al-Albani’s Hadith Shaykh; but to no avail. It seems that al-Albani “taught” himself the science of Hadith by spending many hours in the famous library of Damascus – al-Maktabatuz Zahiriyyah. In the biography written in the preface of the English edition of his work – “Sifah salah an-Nabee“, it was also stated that he was: “influenced by articles in ‘al-Manaar’ magazine.” The last named magazine was edited by the notorious freemason – Muhammad Rashid Ridah (d.1935 CE)!

Al-Albani has not made a handful of forgivable errors, but rather well over 1200, which are only forgivable if he himself admits and corrects his mistakes by repenting in front of the People of Knowledge, as well as the sincere believers who may have been relying on his ‘classifications of Hadith’. The selected contradictions from “Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat” have been derived for sake of brevity from volume’s one and two only, and whenever the symbol * is indicated, this corresponds to the original reference to the Arabic edition. The reader should also remember that whenever anything appears in brackets, then these are usually my words and not that of Shaykh Saqqaf. It should also be said that Volume 1 of the original contains 250 ahadith, in which al-Albani has said Sahih (an authentic Hadith) in one of his books and then contradicted himself by saying Daeef (a weak Hadith) in another of his books, or similar mistakes and contradictions. Volume 2 contains 652 Ahadith of the same description as the above, or similar contradictions in individual rijal (biography of a Hadith narrator) of the Sanad (the chain of transmission of a specific Hadith) of the Hadiths in question. In some instances (e.g. Vol.2, pp. 63-64), Shaykh Saqqaf shows how a Hadith narrator is ‘trustworthy’ when al-Albani wants to use a Hadith to prove something, but becomes ‘untrustworthy’ when in a Hadith used by the person al-Albani is arguing against; an extremely embarrassing mistake for anyone of any scholarly integrity. These books by Shaykh Saqqaf have already done much to pull the rug from under ‘Salafiyyism’ in Jordan and even in ‘Saudi’ Arabia, where the first volume alone has seen no less than SIX reprints in a single year alone! These books are extremely hot property that any ‘Salafi’ (or anti-Salafi) who reads Arabic will want to buy. I ask you, how many times does an inept student of Hadith like al-Albani have to contradict himself before he ceases to be of authority? Can you find even ten such contradictions in the works of the traditional memorizers of Hadith (Huffaz), those who had memorized at least 100,000 Ahadith with their sanad’s? The great scholars like Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’i, Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja, al-Nasai, Daraqutni, Hakim, Asqalani and so on . . . . Allah’s mercy be upon them. The discerning believer should know that al-Albani has not in his memory anywhere near a 100,000 Ahadith in his memory, in fact as far as we know there is no one who is a Hafiz of Hadith today! If there is, we say please come forward and prove it, and only Allah knows best!

During the course of examining various Hadiths, Shaykh Saqqaf compared them to the written opinion of al-Albani. Eventually Shaykh Saqqaf began a compilation of al-Albani’s mistakes. He came across contradictions, supposition, inadequate research and the blatant perversion of sayings quoted from the great scholars of Islam. He was especially worried by the fact that many students and members of the youth who do not have enough or no knowledge are simply not bothering to investigate the Hadiths classified by al-Albani, are being misled into blind ignorance; even though these very people are the one’s calling staunchly and vociferously for the complete abandonment of taqleed (usually translated as “blind following” by the opponents, but in reality it is the following of qualified and verified scholarship of a Mujtahid Mutlaq [an absolutely independent scholar of the highest calibre] like the Imam’s Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’i, Ibn Hanbal (Allah’s mercy be upon them) and the like, as well as the scholars who adhered to and promulgated a particular school of fiqh [Madhhab] for the greater part of Islam’s history; taqleed in simple language is the following of one of the four existing schools of fiqh). These people seem to contradict themselves, as well as displaying hypocrisy when they go around making it a priority to attack the followers of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i or Hanbali schools of Sacred Law; even though they themselves are practising taqleed of an individual(s)!

Bearing in mind the Hadith reported by Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim):

  • Whoever sees an evil, he must prevent it with his hand, and if he has no power for this action, then he should prevent it with his tongue, and if he cannot do this, then he should at least consider it a vice in his heart, and this is a very low level of one’s Iman (faith).” [see Sahih Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Nasai – as recorded in Targheeb Wa’l-Tarheeb by Al-Hafiz Mundhiri, d. 1258 C.E; Rahimahumullah],

and even more explicitly from Imam al-Darimi (Rahimahullah) who reported Ziyad Ibn Hudair (Rahimahullah) saying:

  • Umar (Allah be pleased with him) said to me: Do you know what can destroy Islam?” I said: “No.” He said: “It is destroyed by the mistakes of scholars, the argument of the hypocrites about the book (of Allah), and the opinions of the misguided leaders.” (see Mishkatul Masabih, 1/269, Trans. A.H. Siddiqui).

We took the liberty to forewarn and guide the many sincere believers who are turning to their faith from blundering into miscomprehension and wrong by translating selectively from Shaykh Saqqaf’s books.

In order to safe keep today’s youth from falling into heresy, Shaykh Saqqaf has embarked upon a quest to expose such a person who considers himself to be among the great scholars of Hadith like, Imam’s al-Bukhari and Muslim (Rahimahumullah), to the extent that one of his deluded followers considered him to be in the rank of the Amir al-Mu’minin fil Hadith, Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ahmad Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (the Shafi’i Imam who authored the most famous commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari and many other books, d. 852/1449 C.E; Rahimahullah).

As for Shaykh Saqqaf, the respected reader may get the impression that he has an uncompromising demeanour in some of his comments made straight after he exposes an error of al-Albani. I make no apology for his style of exposition, since many Allah fearing scholars have been uncompromising in the past when it comes to enjoining the Good and Forbidding the Evil as has been prescribed in the Qur’an and Sunnah (e.g. in the refutations against the heretical sects like the Khawarij, Mu’tazila, Shi’ah . . . . ), so long as it forewarns the general masses from accepting the falsities of the heretics and other like minded “scholars”. May be Shaykh Saqqaf considers al-Albani to be an innovator, just as his late teacher – Shaykh Ghimari (Rahimahullah) considered him to be. There are many Hadith which command us to detest the Heretics. For example, Ibrahim ibn Maisara reported Allah’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying:

  • He who showed respect to an innovator he in fact aided in the demolishing of Islam.” (Bayhaqi – see Mishkatul Masabih, 1/189, English ed’n).

I hope the esteemed reader will read this short piece of work with vigilance and an open mind, especially those who have been loyal readers and supporters of al-Albani’s books and decrees. I sincerely hope that this work will be of great benefit to all who read it and pray that Allah accept it as a good deed done purely for His pleasure. I would also like to thank all those brothers who assisted me in the compilation of this work, especially to the brother who supplied me with Shaykh Saqqaf’s books.

May Allah forgive us for any shortcomings and errors. Amin.

AL-ALBANI’S WEAKENING OF
SOME OF IMAM BUKHARI AND MUSLIM’S AHADITH.

Al-Albani has said in “Sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahaweeah, pg. 27-28″ (8th edition, Maktab al-Islami) by Shaykh Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi (Rahimahullah), that any Hadith coming from the Sahih collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim is Sahih, not because they were narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, but because the Ahadith are in fact correct. But he clearly contradicts himself, since he has weakened Ahadith from Bukhari and Muslim himself! Now let us consider this information in the light of elaboration :-


SELECTED TRANSLATIONS FROM VOLUME 1

No 1: (*Pg. 10 no. 1 )

Hadith: The Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) said: “Allah says I will be an opponent to 3 persons on the day of resurrection: (a) One who makes a covenant in my Name but he proves treacherous, (b) One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price (c) And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him, but doesn’t pay him his wages.” [Bukhari no 2114-Arabic version, or see the English version 3/430 pg 236].

Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 4/111 no. 4054″. Little does he know that this Hadith has been narrated by Ahmad and Bukhari from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No 2: (*Pg. 10 no. 2 )

Hadith: “Sacrifice only a grown up cow unless it is difficult for you, in which case sacrifice a ram.” [Muslim no. 1963-Arabic edition, or see the English version 3/4836 pg. 1086].

Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 6/64 no. 6222.” Although this Hadith has been narrated by Imam’s Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nisai and Ibn Majah from Jaabir (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No 3: (*Pg. 10 no. 3 )

Hadith: “Amongst the worst people in Allah’s sight on the Day of Judgement will be the man who makes love to his wife and she to him, and he divulges her secret.” [Muslim no. 1437- Arabic edition].

Al-Albani claims that this Hadith is DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/197 no. 2005.” Although it has been narrated by Muslim from Abi Sayyed (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No 4: (*Pg. 10 no. 4 )

Hadith: “If someone woke up at night (for prayers) let him begin his prayers with 2 light rak’ats.” [Muslim no. 768]. Al-Albani stated that this Hadith was DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 1/213 no. 718.” Although it is narrated by Muslim and Ahmad from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him)!!

No 5: (*Pg. 11 no. 5 )

Hadith: “You will rise with shining foreheads and shining hands and feet on the Day of Judgement by completing Wudhu properly. . . . . . . .” [Muslim no. 246].

Al-Albani claims it is DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/14 no. 1425.” Although it has been narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No 6: (*Pg. 11 no. 6 )

Hadith: “The greatest trust in the sight of Allah on the Day of Judgement is the man who doesn’t divulge the secrets between him and his wife.” [Muslim no’s 124 and 1437]

Al-Albani claims it is DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/192 no. 1986.” Although it has been narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Abu Dawood from Abi Sayyed (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No 7: (*Pg. 11 no. 7 )

Hadith: “If anyone READS the last ten verses of Surah al-Kahf he will be saved from the mischief of the Dajjal.” [Muslim no. 809].

Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/233 no. 5772.” NB- The word used by Muslim is MEMORIZED and not READ as al-Albani claimed; what an awful mistake! This Hadith has been narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Nisai from Abi Darda (Allah be pleased with him)!! (Also recorded by Imam Nawawi in “Riyadh us-Saliheen, 2/1021″ of the English ed’n).

No 8: (*Pg. 11 no. 8 )

Hadith: “The Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) had a horse called al-Laheef.” [Bukhari, see Fath al-Bari of Hafiz Ibn Hajar 6/58 no. 2855]. But Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 4/208 no. 4489.” Although it has been narrated by Bukhari from Sahl ibn Sa’ad (Allah be pleased with him)!!!

Shaykh Saqqaf said: “This is only anger from anguish, little from a lot and if it wasn’t for the fear of lengthening and boring the reader, I would have mentioned many other examples from al-Albani’s books whilst reading them. Imagine what I would have found if I had traced everything he wrote?”

AL-ALBANI’S INADEQUACY IN RESEARCH (* Vol. 1 pg. 20)

Shaykh Saqqaf said: “The strange and amazing thing is that Shaykh al-Albani misquoted many great Hadith scholars and disregards them by his lack of knowledge, either directly or indirectly! He crowns himself as an unbeatable source and even tries to imitate the great scholars by using such terms like “Lam aqif ala sanadih“, which means “I could not find the chain of narration”, or using similar phrases! He also accuses some of the best memorizers of Hadith for lack of attention, even though he is the one best described by that!” Now for some examples to prove our point:

No 9 : (* Pg. 20 no. 1 )

Al-Albani said in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 6/251 no. 1847″ (in connection to a narration from Ali): “I could not find the sanad.”

Shaykh Saqqaf said: “Ridiculous! If this al-Albani was any scholar of Islam, then he would have known that this Hadith can be found in “Sunan al-Bayhaqi, 7/121″ :- Narrated by Abu Sayyed ibn Abi Amarah, who said that Abu al-Abbas Muhammad ibn Yaqoob who said to us that Ahmad ibn Abdal Hamid said that Abu Usama from Sufyan from Salma ibn Kahil from Mu’awiya ibn Soayd who said, ‘I found this in my fathers book from Ali (Allah be pleased with him).’”

No 10 : (* Pg. 21 no. 2 )

Al-Albani said in ‘Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/283′: Hadith of Ibn Umar ‘Kisses are usury,’ I could not find the sanad.”

Shaykh Saqqaf said: “This is outrageously wrong for surely this is mentioned in ‘Fatawa al-Shaykh ibn Taymiyya al-Misriyah (3/295)’: ‘Harb said Obaidullah ibn Mu’az said to us, my father said to me that Soayd from Jiballa who heard Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) as saying: Kisses are usury.’ And these narrators are all authentic according to Ibn Taymiyya!”

No 11 : (* Pg. 21 no. 3 )

Hadith of Ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him): “The Qur’an was sent down in 7 dialects. Everyone of its verses has an explicit and implicit meaning and every interdiction is clearly defined.” Al-Albani stated in his checking of “Mishkat ul-Masabih, 1/80 no. 238″ that the author of Mishkat concluded many Ahadith with the words “Narrated in Sharh us-Sunnah,” but when he examined the chapter on Ilm and in Fadail al-Qur’an he could not find it!

Shaykh Saqqaf said: “The great scholar has spoken! Wrongly as usual. I wish to say to this fraud that if he is seriously interested in finding this Hadith we suggest he looks in the chapter entitled ‘Al-Khusama fi al-Qur’an’ from Sharh-us-Sunnah (1/262), and narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (no. 74), Abu Ya’ala in his Musnad (no.5403), Tahawi in Sharh al-Mushkil al-Athar (4/172), Bazzar (3/90 Kashf al-Asrar) and Haythami has mentioned it in Majmoo’a al-Zawaid (7/152) and he has ascribed it to Bazzar, Abu Ya’ala and Tabarani in al-Awsat who said that the narrators are trustworthy.”

No 12 : (* Pg. 22 no. 4 )

Al-Albani stated in his “Sahihah, 1/230″ while he was commenting on Hadith no. 149: “The believer is the one who does not fill his stomach. . . . The Hadith from Aisha as mentioned by Al-Mundhiri (3/237) and by Al-Hakim from Ibn Abbas, I (Albani) could not find it in Mustadrak al-Hakim after checking it in his ‘Thoughts’ section.”

Shaykh Saqqaf said: “Please don’t encourage the public to fall into the void of ignorance which you have tumbled into! If you check Mustadrak al-Hakim (2/12) you will find it! This proves that you are unskilled at using book indexes and the memorization of Hadith!”

No 13 : (* Pg. 23 )

Another ridiculous assumption is made by al-Albani in his “Sahihah, 2/476″ where he claims that the Hadith: “Abu Bakr is from me, holding the position of (my) hearing” is not in the book ‘Hilya’.

We suggest you look in the book “Hilya , 4/73!”

No 14 : (*Pg. 23 no. 5 )

Al-Albani said in his “Sahihah, 1/638 no. 365, 4th edition”: “Yahya ibn Malik has been ignored by the 6 main scholars of Hadith, for he was not mentioned in the books of Tahdhib, Taqreeb or Tadhhib.”

Shaykh Saqqaf: “That is what you say! It is not like that, for surely he is mentioned in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib of Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (12/19 Dar al-Fikr edition) by the nickname Abu Ayoob al-Maraagi!!

So beware!

FURTHER EXAMPLES OF AL-ALBANI’S CONTRADICTIONS

No 15 : (* Pg. 7 )

Al-Albani has criticized the Imam al-Muhaddith Abu’l Fadl Abdullah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghimari (Rahimahullah) for mentioning in his book “al-Kanz al-Thameen” a Hadith from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) with reference to the narrator Abu Maymoona: “Spread salaam, feed the poor. . . .”

Al-Albani said in “Silsilah al-Daeefa, 3/492″, after referring this Hadith to Imam Ahmad (2/295) and others: “I say this is a weak sanad, Daraqutni has said ‘Qatada from Abu Maymoona from Abu Hurayra: Unknown, and it is to be discarded.’” Al-Albani then said on the same page: “Notice, a slapdash has happened with Suyuti and Munawi when they came across this Hadith, and I have also shown in a previous reference, no. 571, that al-Ghimari was also wrong for mentioning it in al-Kanz.”

But in reality it is al-Albani who has become slapdashed, because he has made a big contradiction by using this same sanad in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/238″ where he says, “Classified by Ahmad (2/295), al-Hakim . . . from Qatada from Abu Maymoona, and he is trusted as in the book ‘al-Taqreeb’, and Hakim said: ‘A Sahih sanad‘, and al-Dhahabi agreed with Hakim!

So, by Allah glance at this mistake! Who do you think is wrong, the Muhaddith al-Ghimari (also Suyuti and Munawi) or al-Albani?

No 16 : (* Pg. 27 no. 3 )

Al-Albani wanted to weaken a Hadith which allowed women to wear golden jewellery, and in the sanad for that Hadith there is Muhammad ibn Imara. Al-Albani claimed that Abu Haatim said that this narrator was: “Not that strong,” see the book “Hayat al-Albani wa-Atharu. . . part 1, pg. 207.”

The truth is that Abu Haatim al-Razi said in the book ‘al-Jarh wa-Taadeel, 8/45′: “A good narrator but not that strong. . .” So note that al-Albani has removed the phrase “A good narrator !”

NB-(al-Albani has made many of the Hadith which forbid Gold to women to be Sahih, in fact other scholars have declared these Hadith to be daeef and abrogated by other Sahih Hadith which allow the wearing of gold by women. One of the well known Shaykh’s of the “Salafiyya” – Yusuf al-Qardawi said in his book: ‘Islamic awakening between rejection and extremism, pg. 85: “In our own times, Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani has come out with an opinion, different from the consensus on permitting women to adorn themselves with gold, which has been accepted by all madhahib for the last fourteen centuries. He not only believes that the isnad of these Ahadith is authentic, but that they have not been revoked. So, he believes, the Ahadith prohibit gold rings and earrings.”

So who is the one who violates the ijma of the Ummah with his extreme opinions?!)

No 17 : (* Pg. 37 no. 1 )

Hadith: Mahmood ibn Lubayd said, “Allah’s Messenger (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) was informed about a man who had divorced his wife 3 times (in one sitting), so he stood up angrily and said: ‘Is he playing with Allah’s book whilst I am still amongst you?’ Which made a man stand up and say, ‘O Allah’s Messenger, shall I not kill him?’” (al-Nisai).

Al-Albani declared this Hadith to be Daeef in his checking of “Mishkat al-Masabih, 2/981, 3rd edition, Beirut, 1405 A.H; Maktab al-Islami”, where he says: “This man (the narrator) is reliable, but the isnad is broken or incomplete for he did not hear it directly from his father.”

Al-Albani then contradicts himself in the book “Ghayatul Maram Takhreej Ahadith al-Halal wal Haram, no. 261, pg. 164, 3rd Edn, Maktab al-Islami, 1405 A.H”; by saying it is SAHIH!!!

No 18 : (* Pg. 37 no. 2)

Hadith: “If one of you was sleeping under the sun, and the shadow covering him shrank, and part of him was in the shadow and the other part of him was in the sun, he should rise up.” Al-Albani declared this Hadith to be SAHIH in “Sahih al-Jami al-Sagheer wa Ziyadatuh (1/266/761)”, but then contradicts himself by saying it is DAEEF in his checking of “Mishkat ul-Masabih, 3/1337 no. 4725, 3rd Ed” and he has referred it to the Sunan of Abu Dawood!”

No 19 : (* Pg. 38 no. 3 )

Hadith: “The Friday prayer is obligatory on every Muslim.” Al-Albani rated this Hadith to be DAEEF in his checking of “Mishkat al-Masabih, 1/434″, and said: “Its narrators are reliable but it is discontinuous as is indicated by Abu Dawood”. He then contradicts himself in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/54 no. 592″, and says it is SAHIH!!!

So beware o wise men!

No 20 : (* Pg. 38 no. 4 )

Al-Albani has made another contradiction. He has trusted Al-Muharrar ibn Abu Hurayra in one place and then weakened him in another. Al-Albani certifies in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 4/301″ that Muharrar is a trustee with Allah’s help, and Hafiz (Ibn Hajar) saying about him “accepted”, is not accepted, and therefore the sanad is Sahih.

He then contradicts himself in “Sahihah 4/156″ where he makes the sanad DAEEF by saying: “The narrators in the sanad are all Bukhari’s (i.e.; used by Imam al-Bukhari) men, except for al-Muharrar who is one of the men of Nisai and Ibn Majah only. He was not trusted accept by Ibn Hibban, and that’s why al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar did not trust him, Instead he only said ‘accepted!’”

So beware of this fraud!

No 21 : (* Pg. 39 no. 5 )

Hadith: Abdallah ibn Amr (Allah be pleased with him): “The Friday prayer is incumbent on whoever heard the call” (Abu Dawood). Al-Albani stated that this Hadith was HASAN in “Irwa al-Ghalil 3/58″, he then contradicts himself by saying it is DAEEF in “Mishkatul Masabih 1/434 no 1375″!!!

No 22 : (* Pg. 39 no. 6 )

Hadith: Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) used to say : “Do not be hard on yourself, otherwise Allah will be hard on you. When a people were hard on themselves, then Allah was hard on them.” (Abu Dawood)

Al-Albani stated that this Hadith was DAEEF in his checking of “Mishkat, 1/64″, but he then contradicts himself by saying that this Hadith is HASAN in “Ghayatul Maram, pg. 141″!!

No 23: (* Pg. 40 no. 7 )

Hadith of Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her): “Whoever tells you that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) used to urinate while standing, do not believe him. He never urinated unless he was sitting.” (Ahmad, Nisai and Tirmidhi )

Al-Albani said that this sanad was DAEEF in “Mishkat 1/117.” He then contradicts himself by saying it is SAHIH in “Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 1/345 no. 201″!!!

So take a glance dear reader!

No 24 : (* Pg. 40 no. 8 )

Hadith “There are three which the angels will never approach: The corpse of a disbeliever, a man who wears ladies perfume, and one who has had sex until he performs ablution” (Abu Dawood).

Al-Albani corrected this Hadith in “Sahih al-Jami al-Sagheer wa Ziyadatuh, 3/71 no. 3056″ by saying it was HASAN in the checking of “Al-Targhib 1/91″ [Also said to be hasan in the English translation of ‘The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding, pg. 11]. He then makes an obvious contradiction by saying that the same Hadith was DAEEF in his checking of “Mishkatul-Masabih, 1/144 no. 464″ and says that the narrators are trustworthy but the chain is broken between al-hasan al-Basri and Ammar (Allah be pleased with him) as al-Mundhiri had said in al-Targhib (1/91)!!

No 25 : (* Pg. 42 no. 10 )

It reached Malik (Rahimahullah) that Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) used to shorten his prayer, in distances such as between Makkah and Ta’if or between Makkah and Usfan or between Makkah and Jeddah. . . .

Al-Albani has weakened it in “Mishkat, 1/426 no. 1351″, and then contradicts himself by saying it is SAHIH in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/14″!!

No 26 : (* Pg. 43 no. 12 )

Hadith: “Leave the Ethiopians as long as they leave you, because no one takes out the treasure of the Ka’ba except the one with the two weak legs from Ethiopia.” Al-Albani has weakened this Hadith in his checking of “Mishkat 3/1495 no. 5429″ by saying: “The sanad is DAEEF.” But then he contradicts himself as is his habit, by correcting it in “Sahihah, 2/415 no. 772.”

An example of al-Albani praising someone in one place and then disparaging him in another place in his books

No 27 : (* Pg. 32 )

He praises Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-Azami in the book ‘Sahih al Targhib wa Tarhib, page 63′, where he says: “I want you to know one of the things that encouraged me to. . . . which has been commented by the famous and respected scholar Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-Azami” . . . . And he also said on the same page, “And what made me more anxious for it, is that its checker, the respected Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-Azami has announced. . . .”

Al-Albani thus praises Shaykh al-Azami in the above mentioned book; but then makes a contradiction in the introduction to ‘Adaab uz Zufaaf (The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding), new edition page 8′, where he said: “Al-Ansari has used in the end of his letter, one of the enemies of the Sunnah, Hadith and Tawhid, who is famous for that, is Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-Azami. . . . . For his cowardliness and lack of scholarly deduction. . . . .”

NB – (The above quotation from Adaab uz Zufaaf is not found in the English translation by his supporters, which shows that they deliberately avoided translating certain parts of the whole work).

So have a glance at this!

SELECTED TRANSLATIONS FROM VOLUME 2

No 28 : (* Pg. 143 no. 1 )

Hadith of Abi Barza (Allah be pleased with him): “By Allah, you will not find a man more just than me” (Sunan al-Nisai, 7/120 no. 4103).

Al-Albani said that this Hadith was SAHIH in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 6/105 no. 6978″, and then he astonishingly contradicts himself by saying it is DAEEF in “Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, pg. 164 no. 287.”

So beware of this mess!

No 29 : (* Pg. 144 no. 2 )

Hadith of Harmala ibn Amru al-Aslami from his Uncle: “Throw pebbles at the Jimar by putting the extremity of the thumb on the fore-finger.” (Sahih Ibn Khuzaima, 4/276-277 no. 2874)

Al-Albani acknowledged its weakness in “Sahih Ibn Khuzaima” by saying that the sanad was DAEEF, but then contradicts himself by saying it is SAHIH in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 1/312 no. 923!”

No 30 : (* Pg. 144 no. 3 )

Hadith of Sayyidina Jabir ibn Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him): “The Prophet (Peace be upon him) was asked about the sexually defiled [junubi]. . . can he eat, or sleep. . . He said :’Yes, when this person makes wudhu.’” (Ibn Khuzaima no. 217 and Ibn Majah no. 592).

Al-Albani has admitted its weakness in his comments on “Ibn Khuzaima, 1/108 no. 217″, but then contradicts himself by correcting the above Hadith in “Sahih Ibn Majah, 1/96 no. 482 “!!

No 31 : (* Pg. 145 no. 4 )

Hadith of Aisha (Allah be pleased with her): “A vessel as a vessel and food as food” (Nisai, 7/71 no. 3957).

Al-Albani said that it was SAHIH in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/13 no. 1462″, but then contradicts himself in “Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, no. 263 pg. 157″, by saying it is DAEEF!!!

No 32 : (* Pg. 145 no. 5 )

Hadith of Anas (Allah be pleased with him): “Let each one of you ask Allah for all his needs, even for his sandal thong if it gets cut.”

Al-Albani said that the above Hadith was HASAN in his checking of “Mishkat, 2/696 no. 2251 and 2252″, but then contradicts himself in “Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/69 no. 4947 and 4948″!!!

No 33 : (* Pg. 146 no. 6 )

Hadith of Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him): “If you want to fast, then fast in the white shining nights of the 13th, 14th and 15th.”

Al-Albani declared it to be DAEEF in “Daeef al-Nisai, pg. 84″ and in his comments on “Ibn Khuzaima, 3/302 no. 2127″, but then contradicts himself by calling it SAHIH in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/10 no. 1448″ and also corrected it in “Sahih al-Nisai, 3/902 no. 4021″!!

So what a big contradiction!

NB- (Al-Albani mentioned this Hadith in ‘Sahih al-Nisai’ and in ‘Daeef al-Nisai’, which proves that he is unaware of what he has and is classifying, how inept!)

No 34 : (* Pg. 147 no. 7 )

Hadith of Sayyida Maymoonah (Allah be pleased with her): “There is nobody who has taken a loan and it is in the knowledge of Allah. . . .” (Nisai, 7/315 and others).

Al-Albani said in “Daeef al-Nisai, pg 190″: “Sahih, except for the part al-Dunya.” Then he contradicts himself in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/156″, by saying that the whole Hadith is SAHIH, including the al-Dunya part. So what an amazing contradiction!

No 35 : (* Pg. 147 no. 8 )

Hadith of Burayda (Allah be pleased with him): “Why do I see you wearing the jewellery of the people of hell” (Meaning the Iron ring), [Nisai, 8/172 and others. . .]. Al-Albani has said that it was SAHIH in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/153 no. 5540″, but then contradicts himself by saying it is DAEEF in “Daeef al-Nisai, pg. 230″!!!

No 36 : (* Pg. 148 no. 9 )

Hadith of Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him): “Whoever buys a carpet to sit on, he has 3 days to keep it or return it with a cup of dates that are not brownish in colour” (Nisai 7/254 and others).

Al-Albani has weakened it with reference to the ’3 days’ part in “Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, pg. 186″, by saying: “Correct, except for 3 days.” But the ‘genius’ contradicts himself by correcting the Hadith and approving the ’3 days’ part in “Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/220 no. 5804″.

So wake up (al-Albani)!!

No 37 : (* Pg. 148 no. 10 )

Hadith of Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him): “Whoever catches a single rak’ah of the Friday prayer has caught (the whole prayer).” (Nisai 3/112, Ibn Majah 1/356 and others). Al-Albani has weakened it in “Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, no. 78 pg. 49″, where he said: “Abnormal (shadh), where Friday is mentioned.” He then contradicts himself by saying SAHIH, including the Friday part in “Irwa, 3/84 no. 622 .”

May Allah heal you!

AL-ALBANI AND HIS DEFAMATION AND AUTHENTICATION OF NARRATORS AT WILL!

No 38 : (* Pg 157 no 1 )

KANAAN IBN ABDULLAH AN-NAHMY :- Al-Albani said in his “Sahihah, 3/481″ : “Kanaan is considered hasan, for he is attested by Ibn Ma’een.” Al-Albani then contradicts himself by saying, “There is weakness in Kanaan” (see “Daeefah, 4/282″)!!

No 39 : (* Pg. 158 no. 2 )

MAJA’A IBN AL-ZUBAIR :- Al-Albani has weakened Maja’a in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/242″, by saying, “This is a weak sanad because Ahmad has said: ‘There is nothing wrong with Maja’a’, and Daraqutni has weakened him. . .”

Al-Albani then made a contradiction in his “Sahihah, 1/613″ by saying: “His men (the narrators) are trusted except for Maja’a who is a good narrator of Hadith.”

An amazing contradiction!

No 40 : (* Pg. 158 no. 3 )

UTBA IBN HAMID AL-DHABI :- Al-Albani has weakened him in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 5/237″ by saying: “And this is a weak (Daeef) sanad which has three defects. . . . the second defect is the weakness of al-Dhabi, the Hafiz said: ‘A truthful narrator with hallucinations’”.

Al-Albani then makes an obvious contradiction in “Sahihah, 2/432″, where he said about a sanad which mentions Utba: “And this is a good (hasan) sanad, Utba ibn Hamid al-Dhabi is trustworthy but has hallucinations, and the rest of the narrators in the sanad are trusted.” !!

No 41 : (* Pg. 159 no. 4 )

HISHAM IBN SA’AD :- Al-Albani said in his “Sahihah, 1/325″: “Hisham ibn Sa’ad is a good narrator of Hadith.” He then contradicts himself in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 1/283″ by saying: “But this Hisham has a weakness in memorizing”

So what an amazement!!

No 42 : (* Pg. 160 no. 5 )

UMAR IBN ALI AL-MUQADDAMI :- Al-Albani has weakened him in “Sahihah, 1/371″, where he said: “He in himself is trusted but he used to be a very bad forger, which makes him undependable. . . .” Al-Albani then contradicts himself again in “Sahihah, 2/259″ by accepting him and describing him as being trustworthy from a sanad which mentions Umar ibn Ali. Al-Albani says: “Classified by Hakim, who said: ‘A Sahih Isnad (chain of transmission)’, and al-Dhahabi went along with it, and it is as they have said.”

So what an amazement !!!

No 43 : (* Pg. 160 no. 6 )

ALI IBN SA’EED AL-RAZI :- Al-Albani has weakened him in “Irwa, 7/13″, by saying: “They have said nothing good about al-Razi.” He then contradicts himself in another ‘fantastic’ book of his, “Sahihah, 4/25″, by saying: “This is a good (hasan) sanad and the narrators are all trustworthy.”

So beware !!!

No 44 : (* Pg. 165 no. 13 )

RISHDIN IBN SA’AD :- Al-Albani said in his “Sahihah, 3/79″ : “In it (the sanad) is Rishdin ibn Sa’ad, and he has been declared trustworthy.” But then he contradicts himself by declaring him to be DAEEF in “Daeefah, 4/53″; where he said: “And Rishdin ibn Sa’ad is also daeef.” So beware!!

No 45 : (* Pg. 161 no. 8 )

ASHAATH IBN ISHAQ IBN SA’AD :- What an amazing fellow this Shaykh!! Al-Albani!! Proves to be. He said in “Irwa al-Ghalil, 2/228″: “His status is unknown, and only Ibn Hibban trusted him.” But then he contradicts himself by his usual habit! Because he only transfers from books and nothing else, and he copies without knowledge; this is proven in “Sahihah, 1/450″, where he said about Ashaath: “Trustworthy”. So what an amazement!!!

No 46 : (* Pg. 162 no. 9 )

IBRAHIM IBN HAANI :- The honourable!! The genius!! The copier!! Has made Ibrahim ibn Haani trustworthy in one place and has then made him unknown in another. Al-Albani said in ‘Sahihah, 3/426′: “Ibrahim ibn Haani is trustworthy”, but then he contradicts himself in “Daeefah, 2/225″, by saying that he is unknown and his Ahadith are refused!!

No 47 : (* Pg. 163 no. 10 )

AL-IJLAA IBN ABDULLAH AL-KUFI :- Al-Albani has corrected a sanad by saying it is good in “Irwa, 8/7″, with the words: “And its sanad is good, the narrators are trustworthy, except for Ibn Abdullah al-Kufi who is truthful.” He then contradicts himself by weakening the sanad of a Hadith where al-Ijlaa is found and has made him the reason for declaring it DAEEF (see ‘Daeefah, 4/71′); where he said: “Ijlaa ibn Abdullah has a weakness.” Al-Albani then quoted Ibn al-Jawzi’s (Rahimahullah) words by saying: “Al-Ijlaa did not know what he was saying .”!!!

No 48 : (* Pg. 67-69 )

ABDULLAH IBN SALIH : KAATIB AL-LAYTH :- Al-Albani has criticised Al-Hafiz al-Haythami, Al-Hafiz al-Suyuti, Imam Munawi and the Muhaddith Abu’l-Fadl al-Ghimari (Allah’s mercy be upon them) in his book “Silsilah al-Daeefah, 4/302″, when checking a Hadith containing the narrator Abdullah ibn Salih. He says on page 300: “How could Ibn Salih be all right and his Hadith be good, even though he has got many mistakes and is of little awareness, which also made some fraudulent Hadiths enter his books, and he narrates them without knowing about them!” He has not mentioned that Abdullah ibn Salih is one of Imam al-Bukhari’s men (i.e. used by al-Bukhari), because it does not suit his mode, and he does not state that Ibn Ma’een and some of the leading critics of Hadith have trusted him. Al-Albani has contradicted himself in other places in his books by making Hadiths containing Abdullah ibn Salih to be good, and here they are :-

Al-Albani said in “Silsilah al-Sahihah, 3/229″ : “And so the sanad is good, because Rashid ibn Sa’ad is trustworthy by agreement, and who is less than him in the men of Sahih, and there is also Abdullah ibn Salih who has said things that are unharmful with Allah’s help!!” Al-Albani also said in “Sahihah, 2/406″ about a sanad which contained Ibn Salih: “a good sanad in continuity.” And again in “Sahihah, 4/647″: “He’s a proof with continuity.”

NB- (Shaykh Saqqaf then continued with some important advice, this has been left untranslated for brevity but one may refer to the Arabic for further elaboration).

By the grace of Allah, this is enough from the books of Shaykh Saqqaf to convince any seeker of the truth, let alone the common folk who have little knowledge of the science of Hadith. If anyone is interested for hundreds of other similar quotes from Shaykh Saqqaf, then I suggest you write to the following address to obtain his book Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat (The Clear Contradictions of al-Albani).

THE IMAM AL-NAWAWI HOUSE
PO BOX 925393
AMMAN
JORDAN

[The cost for volume 1 is $4.00 US plus shipping and the cost for volume 2 is $7.00 plus shipping].

Allah knows best.

HERE ENDS THE QUOTATIONS FROM SHAYKH SAQQAF

This has been just 48 selected contradictions from the works of al-Albani, as derived by Shaykh Saqqaf. During the course of my own research into al-Albani’s works which have been translated into English by his followers in England, I myself came across some startling errors. I was given some publications coming from his supporters in England [Jami’at Ihyaa Minhaaj al-Sunnah]; one by the title: “Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan (according to Shaikh al-Albaanee, No’s according to the English Translation of Professor Ahmad Hasan, published in 1411/1991 C.E.)”, and the other by the title: “Daeef Ahadith of an-Nawawi’s Riyaad-us-Saaliheen (according to the checking of Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albani, No’s according to the English Translation of S. M. Madni Abbasi)”.

I found some serious contradictions when I cross-referenced the above named publications; but I content myself by quoting just two of the contradictions, so that a round figure of fifty errors is achieved! Besides these errors there are others which will be displayed in the following pages, from the one who claims to be giving us the most ‘authentic’ Sunnah through his ‘classifications of Ahadith’! The main aim in carrying out the latter exercise is for the benefit of those believers who do not and can not read the Arabic works of al-Albani for one, and secondly to give the opportunity to any doubting “Thomas”; who may or may not be one of al-Albani’s supporters at the time of reading this short exposition, to actually go along and check the references I have quoted from (mainly in English). By doing this, Insha’Allah, all doubts about the authenticity of this exposition will be alleviated and the hearts of those who doubt may become content! Allah knows best.

No 49 :-

Hadith: Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported the Apostle of Allah (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) as saying: “Allah and His Angels bless those who are on the right flanks of the rows (in prayer).” [See Sunan Abu Dawood, 1/676 pg. 175, English ed’n and Riyadh-us-Saliheen, 2/1094 pg. 548].

When I checked the authenticity of the above Hadith by using the list “Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan“, it was not counted amongst the daeef ones, which means to the user of this list that the above Hadith is SAHIH (or at least HASAN) according to the checking of al-Albani!

But, when I found the same Hadith in Riyadh-us-Saliheen, it was declared to be DAEEF by al-Albani. The actual words used by the author of “Daeef Ahaadith of an-Nawawi’s Riyadh-us-Saliheen“, was:- “Al-Albaanee brings a long note. . . . . . The wording (‘upon those on the right rows’) is Shaadh or Munkar – the correct narration being : (‘upon those who join the rows’) – see Mishkaat, no. 1096, ‘Daeef Abi Daud’, no.153. . .”!!!

NB- al-Imam Nawawi (Allah’s mercy be upon him) said that the above Hadith has been cited on the terms of Imam Muslim by Imam Abu Dawood (see the above reference in ‘Riyadh’).

No 50 :-

Hadith: Abu Umamah (Allah be pleased with him) says that the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: “A person who did not take part in jihad or failed to equip a fighter, or did not look well after the family of a fighter, would be severely punished by Allah before the day of judgement.” ( Abu Dawood, 2/2497, pg. 693 and Riyadh-us- Saliheen, 2/1348, pg. 643)

When I checked the authenticity of the above Hadith by using the list ‘Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan’, it was not listed as being DAEEF, hence it has been declared to be SAHIH (or at least HASAN) in al-Albani’s checking of Abu Dawood! But when I found the above Hadith in Riyadh-us-Saliheen, al-Albani declared it to be DAEEF. The actual words used by the author of ‘Da’eef Ahaadith of An-Nawawi’s Riyaad-us-Saaliheen’ was: “Its isnad contains al-Waleed ibn Muslim-a-mudallis – and he has used ‘an’anah here (‘from. . .’). See ‘at-Ta’leeq-ur-Ragheeb’, 2/200.”

NB- Imam an-Nawawi said that the above Hadith has been related with a Sahih isnad, besides that, according to Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaoot’s checking of the above Hadith in his edition of Riyadh-us-Saliheen, the above Hadith is not daeef (this information has been derived from another publication of ‘Jami’at Ihyaa Minhaaj al- Sunnah, by the title “List of daeef ahadiths in Riyaad-as-Saliheenaccording to Shuaib Arnaoutt,” but as for the lists authenticity, I say: it needs to be checked). I leave you to decide whose checking you will adopt.

Now that I have quoted you 50 mistakes of al-Albani in Hadith, I wish to delve into some rather important issues of fiqh, especially by comparing al-Albani’s declarations with the views of other authors! For the record let me say at the outset, that most of the opinions that I will be quoting from al-Albani are sound and acceptable to one school of fiqh or another. But if the reader may sometimes get the feeling that I have inclined too much towards one particular school, then I have only done so to defend other sound and acceptable views which have been and are still being practised by large sections of the Ummah, indifference to the views of al-Albani and others. To all of us, more than one view should be acceptable if a Mujtahid has used his personal reasoning to extract a ruling from the sources of the Shari’ah; since this was the attitude of the glorious Salaf as-Salihin (pious predecessors of the first three generations of Islam), may Allah be pleased with them all. But as for al-Albani and the generality of his supporters they have adopted the tactless way of ejecting/criticising all other ways ‘unacceptable’ to their deductions from the Qur’an and Sunnah as you shall see below.

Allah knows best.

Sourced: http://jaamiahamidia.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/al-albani-unveiled/

Salafism and modernism are quickly gaining momentum in and around the Islamic world. Whilst many may agree that the views held by either group would be in direct contrast with each other, I beg to differ. A new brand of Salafism has emerged, showing us that the generic off-shoot combining salafi core principles with a modern ‘Islamic’ mix may well be a force to be reckoned with.

This generic mutant force has slowly crept into the world of the orthodox Muslim and is threatening the existence of the soon-to-be-extinct traditionalist follower. How, or why you ask? Well, my thinking is that this mutant force knows that the goal is ultimately what matters. It is no easy task to break down 1400 years worth of solid Islamic grounding and so the mutant force is keen on increasing its numbers rather than a total traditionalist-madhab-following mutiny.

Salafis have always maintained that their way is that of the ‘salaf’ (i.e. the pious predecessors) but I have noticed a re-branding of sorts, a change in direction if you must, of a salafi-modernist group intent on breaking down every little piece of Islam in the name of Islam and unity. The concept is catchy, I’ll give them that. It’s something like this:

Firstly, we break down the traditionalist core. The focus is no longer on smaller, meaningless issues. Whatever is in your control is a ‘small issue’. This would include: Islamic dressing, apparel, the hijab, the beard, music etc. Whatever is not in your direct control is an issue. For example: saving the people of Palestine, Islamic unity, peace and prosperity, gender equality etc.

Secondly, we unite and conquer. It does not matter whether our belief structure differs, if you give me a platform to spread my beliefs, I will align myself with you.

Thirdly, destroy all structured forms of belief. If you can read it and understand it yourself, you do not need to follow anybody. Moulanas/Muftis/Molvis/Mullahs who force you to follow a Madhab are evil. Madressahs finding their roots via a Deobandi framework are evil. Scholars from India who cannot speak English are uneducated, dumb or silly; in fact, anything remotely Indian is backward and oppressive, misogynistic and cruel.

Some would say overactive imaginations, arrogance perhaps or maybe a severe inferiority complex resulting from the chance that perhaps someone out there knows a whole lot more than you do and of course since you know how to Google, read a couple of translated works on an Islamic Science, this naturally would qualify you to become a scholar in your own right.

In this lies the danger of a true blindness. The traditionalists have fallen asleep only to wake up in a world where Muslims enjoy the integration of halaal and haraam, where everything is subject to debate and opinion and where anything goes. Naturally, all Muslims should be worried, right? The answer is no. There are very few Muslims who find this to be a problem. In any event, why would they?

The modern salafis are serving them guilt-free Islam on silver platters; and it’s working. The effect of labeling and judging has worked in reverse and those who call for the preservation of a true Islam MUST be labeled extremists or fundamentalists, crazy and oppressive. This is the modernist-salafi core. So where does modernism fit in? This aspect is a bit tricky to explain but I do hope you’ll bear with me.

A modernist thrives on a ‘non-judgmental’ and unified approach. Confrontation is a total no-no and moderation is key. Salafis have been able to implement these aspects quite effectively into their strategies. Basically, a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim so as far as the Salafis are concerned, there is no place for sectarianism or the following of Madhaahib in Islam. We are all Muslim and a Muslim does not judge.

Now that’s all well and good up until you come to a point where the stark reality smacks you in the face: There can be no Islam without judgment. Muslims are in a constant state of judgment. That is the purpose of our test in this world. We have to constantly re-evaluate our actions, perfect what is required of us as living and practising Muslims in the hope that we will pass the most important test we spend our whole lives preparing for. In order to pass the test, how can there not exist judgment? The Qur’aan judges, Allah Ta’ala judges, Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam passed judgment, the Shari’ah passes judgment, the Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum passed judgment and the most noble and illustrious Scholars, Qaadhis and Jurists passed judgments.

But the notion of not being able to judge is a perfect shield for those who do not want to be judged.

The modern salafis also combine the non-judgmental approach in other areas of modern issues affecting Muslim. An apt example which comes to mind is the issue of Islamic apparel. Most modern Salafis belief that items such as a thaub are purely cultural and some even contest the validity of hijab. Other examples include religious entertainment such as the permissibility of musical instruments or the hosting of concerts/events attended by both males and females. Again, the main objective is to spread their word. These aspects tie in to modern salafi principles such as practicing moderation, keeping the ultimate goal in sight and increasing alliances.

Are we on a path to a new modern Islam? The answer is yes. The mutant salafi force emerging to break down the pillars of Islamic belief are creeping in from all angles and are picking away at the very foundations of Islam. They are emerging in their numbers and by branding the true followers of Islam as extremist fundamentalists, they serve as nothing more than a crusade against the vestiges of traditional Islamic beliefs.

May Allah guide us and protect us all

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

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

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