A Mufti in the U.S.A. while acknowledging that the Shariah has prohibited women from the Musjid is of the view that in the present age women are all o

Answer

The advice which the mufti proffers regarding the construction of separate facilities for females at the Musaajid is extremely short-sighted and not permissible. This Deen of Islam was revealed, completed and perfected more than fourteen centuries ago. There is no room for changing the masaa-il of Islam to accommodate deviation and what has been impermissible since the time of the Sahaabah.

Today among the Yahood there remains not a semblance of the Shariah of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam), and among the Christians not a semblance of the Shariah of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). The reason for this total loss of the Shariats of the previous Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) is the policy of subjecting their respective Shariats to an evolutionary process which permits perennial change, distortion, misinterpretation, mutilation and transmogrification of the Laws of Allah Ta'ala. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a licence to interpret and distort the religion in terms of their fanciful reasoning and nafsaani demands.

But, by the fadhl of Allah Ta'ala Islam will not be extinguished because Allah Ta'ala has created a mechanism to protect the originality and pristine purity of this Deen, and that mechanism is the institution of the Ulama-e-Haqq whose obligation is to act as the watchdogs of the Divine Shariah.

The proposal to open up the Musjids or to establish separate Salaat facilities attached to the Musaajid for ladies because they are already wandering in public is a deception of shaitaan. Such deceptions of shaitaan are termed Talbeesul Iblees. Shaitaan approaches 'scholars' – shallow-minded 'scholars' whose hearts and minds are anchored to the dunya, and who submit and make subservient the Shariah to worldly expediencies – such expediencies which are haraam, and grips them in his tentacles. Instead of issuing the Shariah's ruling for the expediency, the endeavour – the haraam endeavour – is to distort and mutilate the Shariah to conform to the development.

Thus, the endeavour is to give recognition and confer permissibility to female participation in public life by twisting the Shariah's prohibition of females attending the Musjid into a confounded 'permissibility' which in reality is a haraam 'permissibility'. It is illogic and haraam to change a ruling of the Shariah simply because women are participating in public life, shoulder to shoulder with males. Our reaction should be the opposite. The prohibition to attend the Musjid should be more emphasized and women should be educated and castigated for their emergence from their homes in emulation of their western counterparts. Their haraam emergence and participation in public life should be condemned regardless of whether they accept or reject. It is downright stupid and not permissible to argue that since women are participating in brothels, we should open up the Musaajid for them for Salaat.

The presence of women in public malls, etc. is not grounds for transforming a haraam practice into a permissible one. On the contrary, the liberal muftis who are trying to make women's emergence acceptable, should rather fulfil their obligation of Amr Bil Ma'roof Nahy Anil Munkar by education and propagation to inform women that their participation in public life in the domain of males is haraam.

If a woman has degenerated to the level of mingling with the opposite sex and participating fully in public life as mentioned by the 'mufti' in his corrupt fatwa, then what prevents her from performing her Salaat in a corner of the mall or in the office where she works or in a corner on the pavement? In fact, we (males) do exactly so. We perform Salaat anywhere in the public if there is no Musjid nearby. Now if a woman acts like a man and emerges from her home to mingle with the opposite sex in public, then she too can perform Salaat in the public as men do.

The entire day she spends in public. Suddenly when Salaat time arrives then she will make it Qadha or forgo it rather than perform it in the public which she has made her 'home'. It is indeed preposterous and unjust to charge the prohibitionsits with extremism for preventing women from the Musjid, when the women are in fact practising haraam extremism by being in public, then aggravating their haraam extremism and sins by abstaining from Salaat and making it qadha simply because there is no Musjid nearby or no ladies facilities. Since they have chosen the haraam practice of public participation, they should perform their Salaat also in the public.

All the arguments in favour of women's facilities are the effects of Satanism. Shaitaan whispers his shaitaaniyat into the brains of moron 'muftis' who have a concept of churning out 'halaal' fatwas from haraam acts. Two haraam acts do not equate to a halaal act. Thus, the act of female intermingling is haraam. The act of women attending the Musjid is haraam. These two cannot be fused into a halaal.

By legalizing women's facilities at Musjids, the practice will become entrenched. It will be become a permanent feature of the Shariah's landscape in the same way as the Yahood and the Nasaara have made all their haraam interpolations integral parts of their respective religions.

The liberal 'muftis' who are acting as the representatives of women in the public, despite acknowledging the reason for the Sahaabah preventing women from the Musjid, believe that it is allowed today when the same dangers have multiplied manifold in this age of immorality. We cannot simply resign ourselves to accepting female intermingling in the public domain. We must and shall continuously castigate their evil regardless even if not a single woman accepts the naseehat of the Shariah. Our obligation is only to deliver the clear Message of the Deen. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta'ala. He guides whomever He wills, and He leaves to stray whomever He desires. Our duty is only to guard the purity of Islam. And, this obligation demands rejection of the new-fangled contaminated, corrupt 'fatwas' of the shallow-minded, modernist 'muftis' who are bereft of Khauf-e-Ilaahi (Divine Fear). It seems that they believe that they are not going to die, hence their audacity in churning out corrupt 'fatwas' which only mislead people further into corruption and moral degeneration.

The errant 'mufti' cites the 'classical' Fuqaha as if the fatwa which they had issued was personal opinion which could be set aside. He acquits himself as if the 'fitnah' which was and is the basis for the prohibition, no longer exists in the present age, hence he subtly attempts to restrict the prohibition with what he describes as "the context in which the Fuqaha were giving such verdicts". Any Muslim of intelligence who has no shaitaani objective will understand that the "context of the Fuqaha" exists today to a far greater degree to warrant an emphasis on the prohibition. Nothing has developed since the era of the "classical" Fuqaha to warrant a relaxation or amelioration in the strict fatwa of prohibition. On the contrary, the fitnah has multiplied manifold.

Arguing in favour of female emergence in conflict with the unequivocal prohibition announced in the Qur'aan and Ahaadith, the liberal 'mufti' says: "The need to emerge out of the house was not like the need we have in today's complicated world." This is utterly fallacious. Zina may not be justified nor mitigated by arguing that the times of our era differ vastly from the time when the prohibition was revealed. Such arguments are satanic. The 'context' is the same. Nothing has happened to the 'context' to justify the forging of a new 'fatwa' on an issue in which the "context" has only worsened. Furthermore, even if the 'context' changes for the better, the prohibition cannever be mitigated or relaxed until the day of Qiyaamah because never is it possible for an age such as the age of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah to be resurrected. The 'fitnah' which had already developed during the age of the Sahaabah and on which basis the prohibition was enacted by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Sahaabah, will not be ameliorated. That fitnah is in a constant incremental state of worsening.

The liberal mufti very ignorantly avers that it is "unfair" to prevent women from the Musaajid in view of them already being all over the show and the market places, etc. Thus, he advocates relaxation of a Shar'i prohibition on the basis of haraam acts perpetrated by women. In other words, he confers acceptance and respectability to women in the streets and market places, hence the doors of the Musaajid should be thrown open for them. The consequence of this stupid, lopsided satanic logic is nothing other than the introduction of the fitnah into our last bastions of piety, namely, the Musaajid. The "scholar of piety" who had advocated this stance, is extremely short-sighted and shallow in his knowledge, hence he ventured this stupid opinion.

This very same logic could be extended to prostitutes in a brothel. In terms of this lopsided logic emanating from warped brains, it follows that the Musaajid should open their doors for prostitutes to perform Salaat since they are already on the streets and in the vice dens plying their haraam abominable trade.

The current 'complicated world' is not valid grounds for women's emergence. In fact, the contrary is valid. That is, due to the evils of the current 'complicated world', the need for women to remain indoors is greater than the need which had existed during the age of the Sahaabah.

He further tries to justify females going to the Musjid by saying: "…at times there may be a genuine need for women to go out to the Mosques, such as when travelling….." This reasoning is deceptive, and another example of Talbeesul Iblees. Firstly, he has been compelled to confess and concede that the need for women to emerge from their houses is restricted to "times of genuine need". Such need had always existed since time immemorial. Despite their emergence during times of genuine need, the prohibition had remained in force for the past fourteen centuries. Womenfolk in our communities had always emerged from their homes when there was genuine need. When this happened, Allah Ta'ala always made arrangements for their Salaat to be performed on time in privacy.

Genuine need is not prowling in the malls, market places and working in factories and offices. Genuine needs are visiting relatives, close friends, etc. They will perform Salaat at the homes of the people whom they visit. If they visit for any other valid reason, they can perform Salaat wherever they happen to be. But, the reality is that there is never a need for qadha, and never such a situation where they cannot find facilities for Salaat. Their necessary emergence is seldom, while in this age, their emergence is an abundance of haraam. And, for this haraam, the prohibition may not be abrogated.

Thus, the stance of those who prohibit women from the Musjid is never 'extreme'. It is tantamount to kufr for branding a Hukm of the Shariah as being 'extreme'. Every ruling of the Shariah is moderate and designed for the welfare and best interests of the Ummah. The miscreant 'mufti' who has branded the Ulama who prohibit women from the Musjid as being 'extreme' is implying that the ruling of the Shariah is 'extreme'. He should repent for such denigration of the Shariah. He plods the path of baatil and dhalaal.