The Majlis Vol 22 No 06

the hukm (decree/ decision/resolution) of Jahiliyyah? And whose law can be more beautiful than the Law of Allah for people who believe with convic- tion (in Allah)." (Aayat 50, Surah Al- Maaidah) Hoosen's Fatwa that the chickens are Haraam struck at the very roots and heart of SANHA, hence this haraam carrion-halaalizing entity has cast aside the Qur'aan and the Divine Shariah to seek aid and succour from the kuffaar BCCSA in diametric conflict with the Qur'an's commands. While the first and foremost grievance of SANHA is the Fatwa of Haraam, the second complaint is that Mufti A.K. Hoosen has labelled the Carrion Cabal, 'scholars for dollars'. The third grievance is that Mufti A.K.Hoosen had likened his student, Yusuf Patel to a kalb (dog). Leaving aside all issues, purely in terms of the Shariah, SANHA has absolutely no grounds for creating this haraam dispute. All three complaints registered by SANHA in the court of its lord, the BCCSA, have no validity in the Shariah. Firstly, it is Mufti A.K. Hoosen's Shar'i right to proclaim SANHA's halaalized chickens to be Haraam carrion. In fact, the Mufti is under Shar'i duress to make the proclamation. Abstention from issuing the Fatwa of Haqq is Kitmanul Haqq (Concealing the Truth). It is also aiding in haraam and allowing the community to consume haraam, diseased carrion chickens by deception. Secondly, it is the right of an Aalim to label carrion-halaalizers as Ulama-e-Soo' (Evil scholars), scholars for dollars, Kilaab (dogs) and Khanaazeer (pigs) because the Qur'aan Majeed and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had described evil scholars with thes e epithets. Either SANHA's carrion 'scholars' are scholars for dollars or they are not. When a Muslim is accused with an evil or labelled with an evil or insulting logo or epithet, the ta'leem (teaching of the Hadith) is that he should reflect and do some soul-searching to fathom the reality of the accusation. If, after sincere meditation he understands that the epithet does apply to him, then he should repent, make Taubah and recite Istighfaar. If after deep and sincere reflection, he is satisfied that the accusation against him is false and slander, then he has no ground for concern. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had explained that in this event the slandered person's sins are effaced, and the slanderer's good deeds are transferred to him (i.e. to the slandered one). Thus, in both cases he has nothing to lose. On the contrary, he stands to gain immensely. Thirdly, the Ustaadh has the full right of likening his treacherous student to a dog. The Qur'aan Majeed compares treacherous and evil scholars to dogs, and the Hadith likens them to khanaazeer (pigs). Thus, this issue is not for a kaafir court to adjudicate. The implications of SANHA embracing the BCCSA are indeed spiritually catastrophic for the Carrion Clique of SANHA. This haraam clique consists of E.B. Lockhat, M.S. Navlakhi and Yusuf Patel. Either they are munaafiqeen concealing their kufr or they are incorrigible morons who are totally bereft of Aql. Hence, they fail to understand the consequences of their BCCSA action. The BCCSA is the hukm of jaahiliyya law mentioned in the Qur'aanic aayat cited above. In bootlicking the kuffaar forum, SANHA has flagrantly and rebelliously rejected Allah's statement in this aayat. Allah Ta'ala asks: Whose law is better than Allah's Law for the Mu'mineen? SANHA's treacherous and rebellious rejection of the Qur'aans resolution forum implies that for them (the Carrion Cabal), the law of jaahiliyyah, viz., BCCSA law is more beautiful and more reliable than Allah's Law. This implication is categorical kufr. Furthermore, Allah Ta'ala states in the Qur'aan Majeed: "Those who do not decide (decree/resolve issues) according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, v e r i l y, t h e y a r e kaafiroon." (Aayat 44, Surah Al-Maaidah) "Those who do not decree according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, ver ily they are zaalimoon." (Aayat 45, Surah Al-Maaidah) "Those who do not decree according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, v e r i l y, t h e y a r e faasiqoon." (Aayat 47 Surah Al-Maaidah) All three terms refer to the kaafiroon. To highlight the villainy of the kuffaar who prefer the law of kufr, Allah Ta'ala describes them as faasiqoon and zaalimoon. These three verses apply to SANHA without ta'weel (interpretation). The applicability is explicit. SANHA has vigorously, flagrantly and treacherously rejected all the Qur'aanic aayaat which command disputes to be resolved by a Muslim forum. Thus, the Qur'aan Majeed states: "If two parties/groups among the Mu'mineen fight/ dispute, then (O Believers!) make peace between them." Despite the fact that SANHA had no valid Shar'i grounds for creating a 'dispute' which is nothing but hallucination of the nafs, Mufti A.K. Hoosen had proposed that Maulana Radhaul Haq Sahib, senior Ustaadh at Darul Uloom Zakariyya mediate and arbitrate the fictitious dispute. Noteworthy is that Maulana Radhaul Haq Sahib is the Ustaadh of both Mufti A.K. Hoosen and M.S.Navlakhi. In addition, Mufti A.K. Hoosen is the Ustaadh of the Kalb, Yusuf Patel. SANHA's entire rubbish case submitted to the BCCSA is based on the affidavits submitted by the Kalb, Yusuf Patel against his Ustaadh, Mufti A.K.Hoosen. Furthermore, it should be noted that SANHA, for its carrion chicken objective, had proclaimed Maulana Radhaul Haq as the Grand Mufti of South Africa. For the purposes of its carrion industry, SANHA had eked out support from the Grand Mufti of S.A. Now, suddenly the Navlakhi clique demotes their Ustaadh, Maulana Radhaul Haq Sahib, stripping him of the Grand Mufti of S.A. title to justify taking their haraam dispute matter to the kuffaar BCCSA. It is of imperative importance for Muslims to reflect on this dastardly kufr plot in which SANHA is entangled. The carrion molvies rejecting their own senior Ustaadh whom they themselves have elevated to the pedestal of 'Grand Mufti of S.A.' They are not interested in a Qur'aanic resolution. They are determined to spill the blood of their Ustaadh, Mufti A.K. Hoosen in the kuffaar BCCSA court, and that too over something which is a non-issue in terms of the Shariah. How can the Muslim community consume these carrion chickens on the word of such a treacherous gang of nimak haraam 'molvies' who may be munaafiqeen? How can Muslims accept the meat and chicken products of the kuffaar to be 'halaal' on the word of men who flagrantly reject the Qur'aan and their senior Ustaadh's arbitration proposal? This issue is not a private argument between SANHA and Mufti A.K.Hoosen. It concerns the entire Muslim community in that this SANHA clique which has now openly displayed its treachery, nifaaq and kufr, is feeding haraam, diseased carrion chickens to the Muslim community. The word of a born non-Muslim has more weight than the word of the SANHA molvies who have betrayed the Deen and the Ummah for gratifying their monetary greed. It truly boggles the mind to contemplate that molvies who claim to be Warathatul Ambiya (Heirs of the Ambiya), groveling like sewer rats, scraping the very bottom of sewer gutters to extract vengeance from an Aalim who is stating the Haqq – that the chickens are Haraam carrion. They scrape the very bottom of sewerage drains, licking the boots of kuffaar forums in their blind rage to seek revenge. If they indeed are Muslims, then we can safely say that 100% of their brain cells have become inoperative in this BCCSA kufr saga initiated by them. If they believe that they are Muslims, they should apply their brains and submit to the Qur'aan and Sunnah, withdraw their haraam kufr BCCSA malafide petition, and submit to the arbitration of their senior Ustadh, Maulana Radhaul Haq. However, it is most despicable for molvies to become so antagonized by an epithet hurled against them that they could even discern the need for arbitration. Did they not ever sit in the company of Mashaaikh? Did their Mashaaikh teach them to react in such kuffaar fashion when criticized or even slandered? It appears that Iblees is their shaikh. Complaints Commission of S.A. (BCCSA) is a government-created body like a secular court. It is a non-Muslim (kuffaar) court for deciding disputes pertaining to radio broadcasting issues. SANHA (South African Haraam Authority) has created a purely nafsaani dispute with Mufti A.K. Hoosen. It is a SANHA-created dispute designed to humiliate Mufti A.K. Hoosen in the kuffaar BCCSA court. It is a case of baying for blood. The objective of this article is to alert Muslims of the type of entity SANHA is so that Muslims begin to realize that they are consuming carrion chickens and carrion meat products halaalized by a clique of men who are either hovering on the brink of kufr or are munaafiqeen masquerading as Muslims. What exactly is the issue of 'dispute'? According to the Shariah there is absolutely no dispute. SANHA, goaded on by ulterior motives, has fabricated a 'dispute' in the light of kufr law – the kufr code of cond u ct of the BC C SA. SANHA's haraam carrion dispute has three ludicrous elements: The primary grievance of SANHA is that Mufti A.K. Hoosen has unequivocally proclaimed SANHA's halaalized chickens to be HARAAM. This was the last straw which broke S A N HA ' s b a c k b o ne. SANHA is prepared to tolerate any other type of criticism emanating from the Mufti. But to proclaim its halaalized carrion to be HARAAM carrion is unbearable and intolerable to the C arrion C abal of SANHA. The Carrion Cabal's only source of livelihood and for living a life of pomp and opulence is the haraam boodle it extracts from those connected to the Carrion i ndus try. Mufti A. K. Is it necessary for Muslim marriages to be recognized legally? Neither is there a legal nor an Islamic need for Muslim marriages to be recognized. Nevertheless, if a Muslim has some mundane or other reason for wanting to register his marriage for the purpose of gaining legal recognition, then it will be permissible. The marriage can be registered by a legally appointed Muslim marriage officer. There will soon be a proliferation of such marriage officers in the field for registering Muslim marriages thereby gaining legal recognition. Before legally registering the marriage, it is of imperative importance, in fact WAAJIB, to enter into a marital agreement called Antenuptial contract which EXCLUDES the Accrual Clause. Adopting any other matrimonial regime is HARAAM. The Antenuptial Contract excluding the Accrual Clause allows for an Islamic Will. All other matrimonial contracts are in conflict with the Shariah in that the Islamic Will is not regarded valid in terms of the kufr law of the country. Q. Is a 42 year old man a mahram for the daughters of his wife by a previous marriage? They are 16 and 12 years old. A. Even an 80 year old male is not a mahram for his wife's daughters from a previous marriage whether they are 16 years, 12 years or 60 years. The prohibition is more emphasized if the man is only 42 years old. The element of fitnah is great. Q. Many criticize your method of admonition. Please comment. A. We understand the wisdom and utility of our method of Amr Bil Ma'roof. The critics are free to criticize. It is their right. We have no argument with them. They should feel free to criticize us. Q. Some critics say that you are not up-to-date with 'fiqhul waqi'. A. We need to be up to date with only what our Fuqaha said and ruled centuries ago. Our critics are adept in talking nonsense. Instead of speaking drivel, they should produce Shar'i dalaai-il to prove our 'error'. Hitherto, they have spoken only drivel. They say this and that without presenting Shar'i proofs for the error of our rulings. It is not sufficient to say that we are not "up to date" with their hallucination of 'fiqhul waqi'. They should present Shar'i dalaai-il to refute what we say. Q. Dr. Naik says that wearing a tie is permissible. A. Wearing a tie is haraam. A person who wears a ties is a faasiq. The modernist character, Dr. Naik does not understand what he blurts out. Q. Is it permissible to wear a Jinnah cap? A. A Jinnah cap is the dress of the Fussaaq. It was the headgear of Jinnah the first governor general of Pakistan. It became a popular headgear in emulation of Jinnah. It is not permissible to wear the dress-styles of fussaaq. Q. Is it permissible to supply building material to a church? A. It is not permissible to supply any building material to a church. It is I'aanat alal Ma'siyat (to aid sin.). Q. A new mode of leasing by the Islamic banks is called Ijarah wa iqtina. At the end of the lease period, the tenant automatically becomes the owner of the property. At the time of entering into the lease, the owner of the property promises to give the property to the tenant. It is similar to leasing of vehicles. Contemporary scholars have sanctioned this deal. A. This form of leasing is not valid in the Shariah. The condition of the promise is faasid. Even if it is written in a separate document as is done in this scheme, the deception does not alter the fact that it is a condition verbally stated in the actual leasing contract. Writing the condition in a separate document is self-deception. The lessor agrees at the very inception that the leased article will belong to the lessee at the end of the term of the lease. So, they are trying to fool people and to soothe their own conscience by imagining that the promise is apart from the leasing contract. Contemporary scholars who agree to this corrupt leasing contract are not authorities of the Shariah. They are modernist liberals who disgorge their personal opinions and give it an 'islamic' flavour with fabricated terms such as iijarah wa iqtina when in reality there is no such concept in the Shariah. Regardless of the promise being unilateral, the irrefutable fact is that it is a binding term of the lease agreement, and this is haraam. The proponents of this baatil ijaarah scheme have not provided a single Shar'i basis for the corrupt ijaarah scheme. Furthermore, 'Islamic' banks are a myth. The promise to sell or give the leased asset to the lessee at the end of the leasing term is baatil. The lessor cannot be compelled to fulfil such a promise, nor is it permissible for him to make such a promise. The view of the promise being binding on the lessor is baatil. Q. Is it permissible to put down a badly injured and sell the meat to a zoo for feeding lions? A. If the animal is badly injured and needs to be killed, the Shariah allows it to be killed by means of Thabah. It must be slaughtered in exactly the same way as a sheep is slaughtered with the Tasmiyah as well. After Thabah, it may be sold to the zoo to feed the lions. If the animal is killed in any other haraam manner, then it will be maitah, hence selling it will not be permissible. Only after Thabah may the animal be fed to other animals. And Thabah includes the recital of the Tasmiyah even if the slaughtered animal is a donkey. Q. Some people say that it is not permissible for a wife to adopt her husband's surname. They say that the Hadith prohibits it. Is this correct? A. The prohibition in the Hadith applies to a person who commits deception. He deceives people regarding his lineage by assuming the surname of someone to whom he is not related then creating the idea that he is the son, etc. of that person. On the other hand, a woman takes on to her husband's surname for the sake of convenience, not for deception. No one is deceived by her new surname. Will it be permissible to say about your wife that "She is the wife of Zaid"? Of course it is permissible. Now instead of saying to everyone that she is "the wife of Zaid", it is said for simplification: Mrs F. Zaid.". This is all what is meant when a woman adopts her husband's surname. She only says that she is the wife of so and so. Q. Some Muftis say that Coke is permissible on the basis of Imaam Abu Hanifah's view. A. There is no longer a need to even argue this simple prohibition in terms of alcohol content. The destruction to health has been overwhelmingly and conclusively established. Coke and all soft drinks cause numerous diseases, hence there is no longer the need for even the alcohol factor for declaring its prohibition. The element of Dharar suffices for its hurmat. In fact Coke's prohibition is more emphasized than the prohibition of eating taahir (clean) sand. Dharar (Harm) is a valid element of prohibition. Q. Are prawns permissible? I am hearing conflicting views. A. For Hanafis prawns and all non-fish sea animals are haraam. We have explained this issue in detail in a booklet which is available. Q. Is it permissible to fish with live bait? A Maulana says that it is permissible because fish do not feel pain. A. Live bait is cruel and haraam. The curses of the tortured animal will settle on the cruel person. It is absolutely baseless to claim that fish do not feel pain. Also, fishing is not permissible for sport or to wile away the time. Q. Is it permissible to wear a kurtah which reaches the ankles when one goes into Ruku', and is it permissible to wear a kurtah which is halfway on the thighs? A. It is not permissible to wear a kurtah which reaches the ankles or below the ankles when in Ruku'. It is also not permissible to wear the obscene female's mini-dress. Q. What is mudhaarabah which the Islamic banks offer? A. Mudhaarabah is a partnership in which the one partner provides the capital investment and the other partner provides the management without any capital investment. The profit will be shared according to the mutual agreement of the parties. It may be any ratio. While banks purport to conduct this type of partnership, they are dishonest. Their ventures are riba transaction which they camouflage with Islamic terminology. Q. A scholar says that it is permissible to eat with knife and fork. A. The 'scholar' is a moron. That is why he speaks such nonsense. It is not permissible to eat with knife and fork. In addition to it being the style of the kuffaar, it is in conflict with the Sunnah, and the Sunnah of licking the fingers and deriving the special thawaab for this act are lost. Only when necessary may one eat with a spoon. The arguments presented for this practice are baseless. Q. Please explain the meaning of Talaqqi bil Qubool. A. We are not a Madrasah. Attend a Madrasah if you are interested in technicalities. We lack the time to delve into a detailed explanation of technical issues. However, Talaqqi bil Qubool briefly means that whatever Hadith narration the Fuqaha have accepted is authentic regardless of the classification of the Muhadditheen. Q. Is it necessary for Muslim marriages to be legally recognized. I don't understand the row on this issue. A. There is no need for legal recognition of Muslim marriages. Modernists, hypocrites and morons clamour for stupid recognition. Q. Is it permissible to slightly bow when greeting – making Salaam? Some Shaikhs allow their mureeds to kiss their hands. Whilst doing so, the mureeds go into a bow. Is this permissible? A. It is not permissible to bow when greeting. It is permissible to kiss the hand of one's Shaikh without bowing. Q. Is it permissible to play board games? A Mufti says that with some conditions these games are permissible. A. All forms of board games are haraam. All such games come within the scope of haraam lahw and haraam games such as chess and backgammon which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described as dipping one's fingers in the blood of a swine. The fatwa regarding board games is incorrect and baatil. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Every sport of the Mu'min is baatil…………." This prohibition is mutlaq (general) and it is reinforced by the stern warning against backgammon/chess. Our book on kuffaar sports adequately explains this prohibition. The arguments presented in the fatwa for the permissibility of board games are akin to the argument: It is permissible to look at the faces of ghair mahram females on condition that you do not look with lust. Regardless of the hallucinated conditions, all board games – all acts of lahw-la'b – are baatil and haraam. Shar'i prohibitions may not be scuttled with self-opined conditions and imagination. Q. Is it true that Allah Ta'ala created also evil? A. What is the mystery in this? Every intelligent child is supposed to understand this simple fact. There is only One Creator, Allah Ta'ala. There are not more than one Creator. Your question should not be difficult to fathom. Who created Shaitaan? Is the Shaitaan not the embodiment of evil? Who created the nafs which is the epitome of evil? Allah Ta'ala has created both good and evil. He gave us Aql (intelligence), willpower and the teachings of the Ambiya to aid and guide us through this worldly life strewn with the thorns of evil which Allah Ta'ala has created to try and test us. Q. Many of the statements of Ibn Arabi appear to be in direct conflict with the beliefs of the Shariah. Salafis brand him out of the fold of Islam. What is the view of the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding Ibn Arabi? A. If we did not know who Hadhrat Ibn Arabi (rahmatullah alayh) was and if it was not for the consensus of our Akaabireen Auliya and Mashaaikh of all ages acknowledging the greatness of Ibn Arabi, then merely on certain of his utterances we would have issued the fatwa of kufr. But when the great Ulama-e-Haqq and Auliya acknowledge that he is a great Wali, then it does not behove us non-entities to hold a contrary opinion. It is best to say that we do not understand many of the mystical statements of Ibn Arabi. Q. What is the Shariah's view regarding participating in funeral and memorial services for non-Muslims? Ulama too have participated in these services held for Mr. Mandela. A. Such participation is haraam. Their reaction betrays their kufr. Here in this country even people who are supposed to be ulama are committing kufr with their 'dua's for the non-Muslim. They fear the shadows of the kuffaar more than fear for even Allah Ta'ala. We are living in times of great fitnah. People will be Mu'min in the morning, then kaafir in the evening, then again Mu'min the next morning, and kaafir in the evening. In this way will they vacillate between kufr and Imaan until many will die with kufr. May Allah Ta'ala save us all from this miserable calamity. Q. Is it permissible to use goldplated cutlery or as ornaments? A. It is haraam to use gold-plated cutlery. It is extremely wasteful to use it as ornaments, hence not permissible. Q. If one's wudhu breaks during the Fardh of Jumuah Salaat after Tashahhud, will one be a Laahiq? A. Even if wudhu breaks in Jumuah after Tashahhud, the musalli should conduct himself as a Laahiq. Q. Is it permissible to write or say alayhis salaam after the name of a Sahaabi who was among the Ahl-e-Bait (the Family of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? A. Since it is a salient feature of the Shiahs to use the invocation of alayhis salaam for their Imaams, etc. it is not permissible to emulate them. If the Sahaabah are from the Ahl-e-Bait, the appropriate invocation will be used for them, namely, Radhiyallahu anhu'. If they are not Sahaabah, then Rahmatullah alayhi will be used. Q. I am shocked at the performance of Bham in the Mandela funeral scenario. He has gone overboard in what you will describe as kufr. His performance has opened my eyes. Is this man who poses as an Aalim still a Muslim? A. There is no need to be shocked any more. The Reverend Abraham Bham has now confirmed that he is not a Muslim, hence his flagrant and shameless participation in kufr. Perhaps he yearns to be resurrected on the Day of Qiyaamah with the idol of kufr he idolizes. Kufr is emerging like dark smoke from all his bodily apertures. Salaat is not valid behind this vile reverend who is a veritable shaitaan in human form. Q. Until what age will a baby's urine be paak (clean)? A. A baby's urine is napaak (impure) from the very day he/she is born. Urine is never paak. Q. What is the need for legal registration of Muslim marriages? A. There is no need for registering one's Nikah. The vast majority of Muslims do not register their nikahs. If you perceive a need to register your Nikah, then opt for the antenuptial contract which EXCLUDES the accrual clause. Q. The roof of the building in which I am a tenant was blown off in a recent storm. Whose responsibility is it to repair the roof? The lease does not mention this type of damage. A. The tenant cannot demand that the landlord repairs the building. He can only cancel the lease and vacate the premises if he finds it unsuitable for his occupation. Regardless of there being no agreement on this type of damages, the landlord cannot be compelled to repair his building nor can the landlord compel the tenant to honour the lease. The tenant has the right to move out. If the landlord desires the tenant to remain, then he has to repair the building. Q. I have seen Hanafis from Afghanistan not extending their forefinger during Tashahhud. Please comment. A. To refrain from extending the finger in Tashahhud is not proper. Nevertheless, it is the practice of a small minority of Hanafis. They are the followers of Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh). He was a great Mujaddid and he had eradicated much of the bid'ah which had existed in the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Almost all the Pathans of Afghanistan, who are all Hanafis, but followers of Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, do not extend their finger. It was the Mujaddid's teaching that it is not Sunnah to extend the finger. This was his research. He was a great person and entitled to his view. Those whom you had seen not extending their fingers are the followers of Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani. Q. I have seen women whose jilbaab drags on the ground. Is this proper? A. The jilbaab should not drag on the ground. It should be below the ankles without dragging on the ground. Q. Is it permissible for a woman to wear Khuffain? A. It is permissible for a woman to wear Khuffain.. Q. A Maulana says that according to Faqeeh Abu Ja'far (rahmatullah alayh) it is Mustahab to have an amaamah on during Salaat, Please comment. A. The Istihbaab mentioned by Faqeeh Abu Ja'far (rahmatullah alayh) is related to THREE garments. It is not specific with the Amaamah (turban). The Qamees (kurtah) whilst also enumerated among the three, is not specifically Mustahab in this context. If instead of Qamees, one dons a shawl, it will fulfil the Istihbaab requirement. If instead of Izaar (lungi) which is also included in the three, a saraaweel (trousers) is worn, the Istihbaab is fulfilled. Thus, if the musalli wears a chaadar, saraaweel and a qalansawah (topi) instead of a qamees, izaar and amaamah, the istihbaab of three garments is still fulfilled. The Istihbaab in the context here refers to THREE items of clothes. It may be any three Islamically permissible items. Q. Is it permissible to buy and sell gold on credit? A It is not permissible to buy or sell gold and silver on credit. It has to be a cash transaction. The payment for the gold/silver jewellery may be effected in any kind of commodity whether stock or currency notes. But it is not permissible to buy and sell gold and silver on credit. Q. Is exchange of currency notes permissible? If yes, how is the rate of exchange to be determined? A. Exchange of currency notes is permissible. Any amount of one currency notes may be exchanged for any amount of another currency. But the deal must be cash. It is riba to sell currency notes on credit in view of the fact that currency notes come within the scope of Thaman. The rules pertaining to the exchange of gold and silver apply to currency notes. Trading on credit with currency notes is not permissible. Q. A man had uttered Talaaq to his wife 9 times. But he continued to live with her. Now after two years, he gave her three Talaaqs. What is the ruling regarding these three Talaaqs and the Iddat? A. The woman and man were living all this time in the state of adultery. There is no iddat for a zaaniyah (a woman who commits zina). The three talaaqs are futile and of no effect. The marriage had ended long ago when he had uttered three Talaaqs. Q. I have heard that there are two views on the question of music. Is there a view which says that music is halaal? A. There are no two views regarding the prohibition of music. There is only one view, and that is music is haraam. We have explained this issue in detail in our book, Sautush Shaitaan (The Voice of Shaitaan). If you want a copy, provide your postal address. Q. Some Ulama say that according to Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) prawns/shrimps are halaal. Is this correct? A. Prawns/shrimps are not halaal according to the Hanafi Math-hab since prawns are not fish. Let us assume that Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) had said that prawns are halaal on the assumption that prawns are fish, then too we shall maintain that prawns are haraam, and that Hadhrat Thanvi had erred. The fact is that Hadhrat Thanvi was not aware of prawns, hence he said the issue will depend on what the experts (the zoologists) say. If prawns are fish, they are halaal, and if not fish, then haraam. This is Hadhrat Thanvi's view. Q. One Imaam of a Musjid says that Imaam Mahdi (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) are both the same person. Even after it was explained to him that these are two different persons, he persists in his belief. Is such a belief kufr? A. Denial of the belief that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) and Imaam Mahdi (alayhis salaam) are two separate persons is kufr. The correct belief should be explained to him. If after the correct belief has been explained, he persists in maintaining his kufr belief, then he will be a kaafir and Salaat behind him will not be valid. Q. Is it permissible to buy and sell websites? A. When 'selling' websites, there is no material commodity being sold. A name is sold, hence buying and selling websites are not permissible. One may pay a company for services, but services not rendered cannot be bought or sold. Q. How can you label women who attend functions to be prostitutes? A. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "A woman who applies perfume and passes by a gathering is like this and like that (i.e. like an adulteress)." Women who parade in public and mingle with males, and deny the requisites of Purdah/Hijaab, are undoubtedly like prostitutes. It is a befitting appellation for them. Q. A family member when invited to a function brings along his own food. He does not eat the food served at the family function. This causes ill-feeling. He believes that the food at the function is haraam. Is his action proper? Should he not eat of the food to keep the muhabbat? A. The family member errs in one respect. He should not bring along his own food when invited to a family function. He should not attend the function if doubtful/haraam food will be served. In the present time, most Muslim homes in fact consume haraam food. All commercially killed halaalized chickens are haraam carrion. Almost all butchery meat is haraam. The family member is therefore justified for abstaining from the food served at the function. His error is his participation in the function and bringing along his own food. "Muhabbat' (love) may not be on the basis of eating haraam food. Q. When I left on a journey for Johannesburg, I was in the state of haidh. I attained purity in Johannesburg. Am I a musaafir in Johannesburg? A. A woman set out on a journey of more than 48 miles while she was in the state of her menstruation. The distance covered by her in her state of menses will not be taken into consideration. The distance of 48 miles necessary to secure for her the concession of Qasr will be reckoned from that point where she attained purification from her menstrual period. Hence, if she attained the state of purity at point A and from A to her destination the distance is 48 miles or more, she qualifies for Qasr Salaat. Q. Is the 'diminishing musharakah' partnership business halaal? A. The hybrid 'diminishing musharakah' concept forged by scholars for dollars for the benefit of the capitalist riba bank is baatil. It is haraam. We have explained in detail, in refutation of this baatil scheme. Q. Is it permissible to give Athaan without topi? A. It is Sunnatul Muakkadah (compulsory) to don Islamic headgear at all times, not only for Salaat. Whilst the Athaan recited by a bare-headed fellow is valid, it is not permissible to allow him to proclaim the Athaan without a topi. Q. Is Salaat with jeans valid? A. Salaat with jeans whilst valid is Makrooh. The thawaab is reduced, and if one habitually does so, it will be sinful. By validity is meant that the Fardh obligation is discharged. Nevertheless the sin of being dressed in a lewd garment of fisq destroys the thawaab and benefits of the Salaat. Q. Is it permissible to pay a person money for having violated a promise? A. Monetary payment for violating a promise is haraam. There is no such payment in Islam. Q. Sometimes money is paid to reserve an item. Is this a valid sale? Does the money become the property of the seller or is it an amaanat in his custody? A. Money paid to 'reserve' an item is part payment of the purchase price. The sale is transacted when the money (part payment) is made. The seller has the right to retain the goods until he receives the full payment. The seller is the owner of the money. It is not an amaanat. Q. Is it permissible to hire a cottage at a holiday resort to spend a few days with the family? The cottages are far apart, so purdah will be maintained. A. You are dwelling in self-deception with the idea that 'purdah' will be maintained' at a holiday resort where all and sundry – kuffaar, fussaaq and fujjaar – stay and frolic. You do not understand the meaning of purdah. In addition to the virtual impossibility of observing correct Shar'i Purdah, it should be understood that holiday resorts are the haunts of fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar. All sorts of vices are committed at holiday resorts. Liquor, zina, music, singing, intermingling of sexes, etc. are the norm. Minus these vices, the place is not a holiday resort. The same filthy – physically and spiritually – beds and utensils will be used. How is it possible for a Muslim to sleep in a bed in which zina could have been committed. Even if the bedding has been washed, it is still mal-oon as is the whole resort. It is an abode for shayaateen, not for Mu'mineen. It is not permissible for Muslims to waste time and money in an evil place. Q. Is it permissible for a Muslim transport company to transport empty liquor bottles to a winery? According to a Mufti, it is permissible, but Makrooh Tanzeehi. And what is the ruling regarding transporting grapes for a winery? The Mufti also says that transporting weapons for the kuffaar is haraam because the weapons will be used against Muslims. A. It is not permissible to transport beer/liquor bottles to a beer/liquor company. The claim that it is permissible is highly erroneous. It is I'aanat alal Ma'siyat (aiding in sin). The opinion that it is not so, is rejected. Common sense is adequate to convince one that transporting liquor bottles to a liquor firm is aiding in sin and transgression. The contention that it is Makrooh Tanzeehi is corrupt and incorrect. Transporting liquor bottles is Makrooh Tahrimi which means HARAAM, the consequence of which is Hell-Fire. It is haraam to transport grapes for making khamr. One does not require great and profound brains to understand this simple issue. When it is known that the grapes will most certainly be used to make khamr, how can such I'aanat ever be permissible? Weapons are just as taahir (paak/ clean) and halaal as grapes. What is the difference? Why is the transport of halaal weapons haraam if these will be used for sin, whilst transporting halaal grapes for the sin is halaal But since it will be used for haraam, its transport is haraam. Similarly, since the grapes will be used for khamr by a winery, its transport is also haraam. Since both the weapons and the grapes will be for sinful acts, transporting them is haraam. Q. Is it permissible to hire trucks to a circus to transport its wares? A. It is not permissible to hire trucks to a circus which is a shaitaani institution in which almost everything from A to Z is haraam. A host of cruelties, immoralities and obscenities are attached to a circus. Q. The Mufti says that it is permissible for us (a Muslim transport company) to transport electrical equipment for a cinema. Is this correct? A. A cinema is a 100% haraam institution. How can it ever be permissible to aid such an immoral haraam institution? Will it be permissible to transport electrical equipment to a brothel? This is such a simple issue which every layman with healthy Imaan can understand. One does not need to be qualified in Knowledge for understanding this prohibition. Regarding such simple issues, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered Muslims: "Seek a fatwa from your heart." Q. Is it permissible to transport children to a zoo? A. It is haraam to take Muslim or even non-Muslim children to the zoo. Such outings are haraam. Q. Is it permissible to hire out posh cars for a matric farewell function? A Mufti says that it is permissible. A. How can it ever be permissible to hire out 'posh' cars for a zina function – a matric farewell haraam function. Is this 'mufti' then so stupid as to be unaware of what takes place at these haraam functions? Q. Pigeons are making a mess in our yard. They have built nests under the roof. Is it permissible to break the nests to get rid of the pigeons? Can I shoot them with a pellet gun? A. As long as there are eggs/chicks in the nest, it will be haraam to break it. It will be zulm. The curse of the pigeons will fall. When the chicks are big and fly away, the pigeons will abandon the nest. Then break it. The moment they begin to rebuild it, break it. Don't give them a chance to build the nest. They will then find another place to build their nest. It is cruel to shoot them with a pellet gun, sling, etc. How will you feel if your home is broken or you are shot at in order to enable others to grab or destroy your home? Q. Is it permissible for a married woman to adopt her husband's surname. I have read an article that says it is not permissible. A. It is permissible for a woman to adopt her husband's surname. In so doing there is no deception and she does not assume her husband's lineage by so doing. It is an adoption for convenience. Instead of saying each time to everyone: "I am the wife of Mr.Abdullah Muhammad", she says for convenience: 'Mrs. Muhammad.'. That is all. The article is salafi drivel. Q. Is it permissible to reserve a place in the first saff by leaving something in a particular spot? A. It is haraam to reserve a place in the Saff. The one who occupies a space first has entitlement to it. It is not permissible to reserve for oneself a specific place in a Musjid. Q. There are several Ahaadith which indicate the permissibility of combining two Salaat. Please comment and explain these Hadith narrations. A. We are not Mujtahids. We are Muqallids of the Hanafi Math-hab. Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and the thousands of Hanafi Fuqaha were well aware of the Ahaadith which you have quoted. The issue of the impermissibility of combining two Salaat was decided and concluded almost 14 hundred years ago. Those who are today, 14 centuries after the event, raking up nonsensical arguments are juhala. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, Jama' Bainas Salaatain is not permissible. Q. Is stunning animals prior to slaughter permissible? A Mufti says that as long as the animal is alive at the time of slaughtering it, the meat is halaal. A. You have mentioned two different issues: (1) The act of stunning, and (2) The status of the meat. Stunning is haraam. Even the honourable Mufti is not 100% certain that the animal is alive after the brutal stunning, hence he says: "... apparently the animals seemed to be alive." It is not permissible to consume the meat of such brutally stunned animals. The whole system of killing from A to Z is haraam. Q. HBZ bank has a Shariah compliant 'forward cover' insurance for currency trading. Is this type of insurance permissible? A. HBZ Bank is worse than even Al-barakah Bank. HBZ openly advertises its interest deals. The 'forward cover' is haraam. There is no shariah-compliant insurance scheme. Q. I want to have a khatm of Qur'aan function when moving into our new house. Is this type of function permissible? A. Reciting the Qur'aan Majeed whether in a new or old house is meritorious. But there is no custom in Islam to organize a khatam to be attended by relatives and friends to grace the occasion of a new house. Such functions are usually merrymaking and are motivated not by a desire for barkat, but by show, vanity and pride. Q. Here in the prison in the U.S.A. all the inmates are given a gift bag of a variety of foods at Christmas time. Many of the items are halaal. Is it permissible for Muslim prisoners to accept these gift bags? Some say that it is not permissible. A. It is permissible to accept the gift bags from the prison. Those who say that it is not permissible are in error. Q. Is duck halaal? What about their webbed feet? A. Duck, geese, turkey, fowl, guinea fowl and all such birds are halaal regardless of webbed feet. The duck should be slaughtered in exactly the same way as a fowl is slaughtered. Some ignoramuses commit the brutal act of slitting the webs before slaughtering the duck. To do so is cruel and haraam. Q. Is it permissible for a woman to wear 9 carat jewellery? A. It is permissible for women to wear imitation jewellery made of any kind of material even 9 carat gold. Only imitation rings are haraam. Rings must be of either gold or silver. Q. What is the meaning of Talaqqi bil Qubool? A. Talaqqi bil Qubool is acceptance accorded to a Hadith by the Fuqaha. When the Fuqaha cite a Hadith as a basis for the formulation of a mas'alah, it signifies the authenticity of the Hadith regardless of them not narrating the Isnaad. The acceptance of a Hadith by the Fuqaha is Talaqqi Bil Qubool, and this confirms the high degree of authenticity of the Hadith.. Q. We are told that a father should make equal gifts to all his children. Please explain this mas'alah which is quite confusing. One child may be in need of something, but not the other children. A. When making gifts, then it is necessary to make equal gifts to one's children. But this equality does not apply to the basic needs of children. For example, one child is in need of shoes whilst the other are not. It does not mean that in this case shoes should be procured for all the children or if they don't need shoes then the value of the shoes be given to them in cash or kind. If one child is in need of medical expenses, it does not mean that that amount of money should be spent on every child. Spending according to their needs is valid. But when giving presents/gifts, then these should be equal. Q. Is it permissible to abstain from medical treatment even if the disease is life-threatening? A. Medicine is not in the same category as food. There is no certitude in medical diagnosis, prescription and opinion. If a person has true Tawakkul, then it is perfectly permissible for him to abstain from medical treatment. In fact it is better for one's health to stay away from these doctors who are unable to diagnose properly. They prescribe drugs with serious side effects. Q. A musallis remembers in his third raka't that he had made only one Sajdah in his second raka't. What should he do? A. On remembering in the third raka't that he had forgotten to make a second Sajda in a previous raka't, he should immediately (that is on remembering) make two Sajdas and repeat whatever he has recited and done since the time he had missed the Sajdah. Then at the end make Sajdah Sahw and complete the Salaat as usual. Q. Over the years, I have accumulated a substantial amount of money which belongs to people who have not claimed their laybyes. There is no hope of finding them. It is quite a large sum. Can I use the money to construct a well or a borehole for the poor in some village? A. Yes, you may use the money for this purpose. Q. In the dispute between Sanha and Mufti A.K. Hoosen, I see that The Majlis is supporting Mufti Hoosen. Does this mean that The Majlis is now supporting Channel Islam? A. The inference you have drawn from our support for Mufti A.K. Hoosen is incorrect. In any of our writings in support of Mufti A.K. Hoosen is there a single statement which conveys support for or acceptance of the radio station? Our support is for the stance of Haqq which Mufti A.K. Hoosen has adopted, not for the radio. Q. A man divorced his wife before even consummating the marriage. How long is her Iddat? A. Since the marriage was not consummated, the woman does not have to observe Iddat (the waiting period). Q. Can a son donate a kidney for transplanting in his mother? A. Neither is it permissible to have an organ transplant nor is it permissible to 'donate' an organ. Q. I am aware that Moulood is bid'ah and not permissible. If the Maulana only gives a lecture on 12th Rabiul Awwal, will it be permissible to attend? A. Functions on 12 Rabiul Awwal are the innovation of the Qabar Pujaaris (Grave Worshippers). Since the Shariah has not fixed this date specifically for lectures, it is wrong, un-Islamic and bid'ah. The fact that there is insistence on attending the 12 Rabiul Awwal talk unsubstantiated by the Sunnah indicates its bid'ah status. If a permissible or even a Mustahab act is elevated above its Shar'i status, then such an act will be classified as bid'ah. It is therefore transgression of the prescribed limits of the Shariah to impose even a permissible practice on a reluctant person. Furthermore, in this era such talks on specific occasions and nonspecific occasions made specific, are given undue emphasis and pressure is applied on people to attend, hence it is not permissible to attend the talk on the night of 12 Rabiul Awwal. Q. According to Islam does the sun revolves around some celestial body or is it stationary? A. According to the Qur'aan Majeed the sun has movement. Whether this movement is rotatory or revolutionary is unknown to us. Allah knows best. The Qur'aan and Sunnah do not deal with the details of such matters. The Qur'aan is the Book of hidaayat, not of mundane sciences. Q. Do we have to perform Salaat on the plane? Is there any difference for men and women? A. Men and women have to perform Salaat on the plane. However, they should repeat the Salaat on landing despite having performed it on the plane. Q. Is it permissible to keep and sell cats? What about black cats? Some say that it is haraam to sell cats. A. It is permissible to keep and to sell cats even if they are black. It is permissible to keep them in the house. They are not in the category of dogs or black dogs. Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) was nicknamed 'Abu Hurairah' (the Father of the Cat) by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) because he was fond of a kitten which he had kept with him. Q. Is it true that aamils work with jinns to combat sihr (magic)? A. Those who claim to be working with jinns are usually fakes and crooks. It is also haraam for a person who has managed to control a jinn to enslave him and to extract any service from him. Q. How should a new Muslim perform Salaat? It takes much time to learn qiraa't, Attahiyaat, Thana, Durood, etc. A. A new Muslim should recite Subhaanallaah three times in every posture. It is Waajib for him to learn as quickly as possible all requirements of Salaat. Q. In some places during the last ten days of Ramadhan, group I'tikaaf programmes are organized. Large numbers of people occupy the Musjid for I'tikaaf. Congregational thikr takes place. Food is provided for the whole group. Durood Shareef majlis also takes place. Here where I am, this question cannot be asked because the mureeds of the sheikh will shoot one down and interpret the question as disrespect for the sheikh. Please clarify in the light of the Shariah whether these group I'tikaaf programmes are permissible. A. The group form of 'I'tikaaf' which has gained momentum where the halqah thikr shaikhs visit and establish bases, has exceeded the bounds of the Shariah and has entered into the domain of bid'ah. In most places the I'tikaaf has been reduced to merrymaking functions whereas I'tikaaf is supposed to be in seclusion and solitude as much as possible. The manner in which these public group I'tikaafs is conducted defeats the objective of I'tikaaf. These functions resemble feasting at wedding gatherings. They have degenerated into bid'ah. It is precisely for this reason that you are unable to pose the query. The wayward mureeds believe that their shaikh's I'tikaaf function is waajib, hence they take offence when questioned. Furthermore, there is no origin in the Sunnah for this practice. These functions also disturb the other musallis and interfere with their freedom and their few minutes of solitude (Nafl I'tikaaf). If Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas'ood (radhiyallahu anhu) had been alive today, he would have expelled all these bid'atis from the Musaajid. Q. My brother who is becoming an Aalim at the Madrasah run by the Fordsburg Jamiat wears chains and bracelets. I advised him that it is haraam for males to wear any kind of jewellery. I told him that my marhoom Ustaadh had said that jewelllery which men wear will become snakes and scorpions on the Day of Qiyaamah. But he rejected what I said and demands proof. What naseehat can I offer him? My second question is that a student can pursue Islamic education at the Madrasah only if he has a matric certificate. This condition is incomprehensible. Please comment. A. Your brother is not becoming an Aalim. He is becoming a Jaahil (Ignoramus). He has completely lost the Straight Path of the Deen because the institution where he is studying is a liberal, modernist 'madrasah' which is teaching a smattering of Deeni knowledge for worldly objectives. The madrasah of the NNB Jamiat is not a Madrasah of the Deen. In fact, admission to that madrasah is dependent on the possession of a kuffaar matric certificate. When the Deen has been made subservient to kuffaar certificates, what type of 'molvis' will such an institution produce. The products of this corrupt 'madrasah' will be liberal hybrids. In the words of the Qur'aan Majeed: "They are neither this nor that. They vacillate in doubt between the two." It is among the signs of Qiyaamah according to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that "The knowledge of the Deen will be imparted for objectives other than the Deen." Narrating a Hadith, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas'ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said that (among the signs of Qiyaamah) will be that "the dunya (mundane objectives) will be pursued with the amal (deed) of the Aakhirah" The NNB Jamiat's hybrid 'madrasah' of jahl is in fact a materialization of this prediction of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The sacred Ilm of Wahi is sullied and besmirched by making it subservient to kufr education. You will not be able to convince your wayward brother regardless of whatever proofs are presented. When his teachers allow him to adorn himself like an hermaphrodite and parade around with feminine jewellery, what can you then expect of him? His brains have already been deranged. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed those males who imitate females and vice versa. If your brother and his teachers are so stupid as not to understand this and what the Fuqaha of all Math-habs have ruled, then they are all lost cases. Your brother appears to be a ghabi – one who is dense in the mind. He is incapable of understanding the truth. Just make dua for his hidaayat. Q. As a student in a Madrasah I was told not to refer to Maulana Ebrahim Bham with the reverend title. But, now what should be my reaction after having observed his participation in the kufr memorial services, etc.? A. It is now proper for you to refer to the gentleman as 'Reverend'. He has flagrantly displayed his hidden kufr. Almost every statement in his vile condolence message is 'kufr'. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "When a faasiq is praised, the Arsh of Allah shudders." Now how much more will the Divine Throne shudder, when such glowing praises and honour are lauded on a kaafir? This wayward reverend has denied flagrantly the Qur'aanic prohibition and the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The miserable reverend has praised the non-Muslim dead more than any praise he may have lauded on Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. He believes that the dead atheist who departed with kufr will wujoobun brighten our lives with roohaaniyat from his grave, hence the shaitaan disgorges the kufr of: "…and he shall remain a source of immense inspiration for generations to come." What inspiration does a Mu'min derive from a dead atheist? For his kufr services, the priest of the NNB Jamiat says: "We shall remain indebted in gratitude to Mr.Mandela for his contribution." Everything his nafs has vomited is kithb, fisq, mudaanahat and shaitaaniyat. These rubbishes are out to curry favour with the kuffaar. They fear the shadows of the kuffaar. That is because there is not an iota of Khauf-e-Ilaahi in their hearts. The same applies to the haraam messages of Daarush Shaitaan, Samnet and the Temple of Quds of Cape Town. They all are birds of a feather. Q. According to some Muftis, it is permissible to donate blood. A doctor asks: What will be done in an emergency? For blood is subjected to a strict process of screening, hence the need for donation. A. We differ with the opinion regarding 'donation' of blood. Under no circumstances is it permissible to donate blood, faeces or urine. In an emergency when there is no medicine/remedy available, not even a haraam medicine, then we are to rely on Dua and resign ourselves to Allah's decree. Tadaawi bil haraam (treating with haraam substances) applies to a haraam substance on hand at the time of emergency. It does not legalize the commission of a haraam act such as 'donating' blood, faeces, urine and pork to be saved in 'banks'. In a state of dire emergency what will the doctors do if the only blood available is contaminated with HIV or other diseases? What will they do if no blood at all is available? Allah's decree will take its course. If suitable blood is not forthcoming, and if there is no other remedy, the doctors advise the family to have the life-sustaining machine switched off and to take their patient home since they are unable to do anything for him. Thus, when no remedy is available, and the patient dies, it should not be the doctor's concern. Maut arrives at its stipulated time as the Qur'aan declares: "No person will die except at the appointed time." Doctors are also required to operate within the confines of the Shariah. Such operation is more important than the baseless idea of a life being saved with haraam medicine. The haraam remedy will not prolong life by one second. In all activities of life, the Muslim should be governed by the Shariah and by his Aqeedah. His belief should be that one dies only at one's appointed time. The purpose of the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is practical application in daily life. The objective of Hadith is not assignment to the kutub (books) after subjection to academic argument and elaboration. In normal everyday life, the commands, prohibitions, advices and admonition of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have to be incumbently implemented. Once a person came from a distant country to study Hadith by Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). On his arrival after a strenuous journey, he was the guest of Imaam Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). During the night time, Imaam Hambal placed a jug of water in his room for the purpose of wudhu for Tahajjud Salaat. In the morning, Imaam Hambal observed that the jug was full of water. It was clear that the guest did not use the water for wudhu. When Imaam Hambal questioned the guest, he (the guest) conceded that he had not performed Tahajjud Salaat. Imaam Hambal asked: "Tell me, why have you come here?" The guest said: "To learn Hadith." Imaam Hambal responded: "Take the road back from whence you have come. You are unfit to learn Hadith." Thus he expelled the person and did not teach him Hadith because he did not perform Tahajjud Salaat. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Whoever imparts knowledge (of the Deen, i.e. higher knowledge at the academic level) to an unfit person, is like one who garlands swines with pearls, diamonds and gold." A person who does not practically implement what he has learnt in the Hadith is unfit to learn Hadith and has been likened to a pig. Such unfit and unqualified persons described as 'khanaazeer' in the Hadith, subvert the commands of the Hadith by misappropriation of the technical definitions, classification and principles discussed in Fiqah. Instead of practising in accordance with the commands of the Hadith, the unqualified juhala mellow, render insignificant and even abrogate the teachings stated in the Ahaadith. For example, technically, an Amr (Command) is to denote Wujoob (compulsion) as well as Istihbaab (being Mustahab or preferable). For example, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded fasting on the 15th Sha'baan, on the 10 Muharram and on some other days. Miscreants who have acquired a smattering of knowledge, abstain from acting according to this command because they say that the Amr is for Istihbaab, not for Wujoob. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed that after wudhu, two raka'ts Tahyatul Wudhu should be performed. Claiming that the instruction is not for compulsion, most people abstain and deprive themselves of the immense thawaab of these two raka'ts. They justify their abandonment with the corrupt argument that to perform this Salaat is Mustahab, not Waajib. Countless commands of the Hadith are summarily abandoned on the basis of a corrupt understanding of the technicalities of Fiqah, which the miscreants cite in justification of abstaining from practical implementation of the instructions of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Jaahil molvies say that there is no need to face the animal towards the Qiblah when slaughtering it because the command in the Hadith is for Istihbaab. All the requisites of the Waajib Islamic system of Thabah are discarded, in fact abrogated for gratifying monetary lusts, and the argument of these requisites being Sunnat or Mustahab is presented in justification for the kufr of abrogation. The purpose of Fiqah is not to derogate the status of the ahkaam ordered in the Hadith nor to adopt a lackadaisical attitude as far as practical implementation is concerned. Mustahab does not mean abstention from ibaadat nor is it permissible to entertain the idea of any teaching being insignificant on the basis of its Istihbaab classification in Fiqah. As far as practical implementation is concerned, every teaching of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is practically compulsory regardless of its classification in Fiqah. To abandon any teaching of the Deen on the basis of it being insignificant since it is classified Mustahab in Fiqah, is called Istikhfaaf which is kufr. There are numerous such teachings in the Hadith which are discarded by people on the basis of the convoluted understanding of their insignificance merely because in Fiqah the classification is Mustahab. This attitude of Istikhfaaf culminates in the ruin of Imaan. Every practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), irrespective of its apparent superficiality, is a Sunnat worthy of emulation, and on which even a person's Najaat (Salvation) in the Aakhirah could be achieved. A person who suffers the misfortune of being deprived from Sunnat practices, should be remorseful and supplicate for taufeeq to observe the blessed Sunnat acts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But never should one mock any Sunnat practice. The consequences for mockery of any Deeni tenet or act regardless of how insignificant it may appear, can be catastrophic, both spiritually and physically, in this world and in the Aakhirah. Abu Salmah, a resident of Basrah (in Iraq) was a notoriously insolent person who derived pleasure mocking Sunnat practices. Regarding this most unfortunate, miserable man, Allaamah Q u t b u d d i n Y o o q e e n i (rahmatullah alayh) narrating from Allaamah Ibn Khalqaan (rahmatullah alayh) said that Abu Salmah was extremely insolent. One day when the virtues of the Miswaak were being explained, Abu Salmah who was also present, derisively commented with extreme insolence and mockery: "I shall use the Miswaak on my anus." He promptly inserted a Miswaak inside his pants and for a few moments held it on his anus. Subsequent to the perpetration of this extremely disrespectful vile act, Abu Salmah was overtaken with extreme pain in his stomach and anus. He suffered for nine months. His stomach became bloated resembling a pregnant woman. In the ninth month he gave 'birth' to a creature. A rat-like creature emerged from his anus. This creature had four legs and its mouth had the appearance of a fish. Four teeth protruded out of its mouth. Its tail was one cubit (about 9 inches/15 cm). The posterior of its body was like a rabbit. On its emergence, this frightful creature let out a terrible piercing scream. Abu Salmah died three days after giving birth to this animal which was his punishment in this world for having insolently mocked the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Whilst perishing, he cried that the creature is killing him. Numerous people in the vicinity saw this frightful animal. Some saw it whilst it was alive while others saw it after its death. "May Allah protect us from such vile insolence and evil mocking of the Sunnah. May Allah grant us a Maut on His Beloved Path (the Sunnah), and may He resurrect us (on the Day of Qiyaamah) with the pious Souls." Al-Bidaayah Wan Nihaayah of Ibn Katheer) This awful episode happened in the year 668 Hijri. Zindeeqs and modernists whose Imaan has been corrupted and deranged with the pollution of westernism and liberalism should take lesson and fear. The Athaab of Allah which will overwhelm them assumes a variety of forms, both exoteric and esoteric. The Divine Punishment consisting of Allah's Wrath and Curse, disfigures both the body and the soul. His Chastisement is commensurate to the crime. Some senior Ulama in Pakistan are fully supporting and promoting the government's brutal policy of enforced immunization of children. Having been assured by some members of the corrupt medical establishment of the hallucinated 's afety' and 'necessity' of vaccination, these Ulama have thrown caution to the winds, and have deemed it meritorious to throw in their lot with a vile kufr government in cahoots with the U.S.A. These Ulama have now become cogs in the diabolical U.S. immunization plot conspired to maim and destroy nations. There exists an avalanche of evidence written and compiled by innumerable scientists and western medical experts which conclusively proves the massive fraud of vaccines, the damage and injury caused to human health by the haraam poisonous potions called vaccines. Thousands of pages of evidence are available, which confirm beyond any doubt the disastrous effects of these fraudulent satanic vaccines and the haraam policy of immunization which vile governments enforce brutally on the illiterate masses. As far as the disaster of immunization is concerned, these Ulama are blissfully ignorant. They have miserably failed to proffer even an iota of Shar'i evidence for their baatil support of the haraam polio vaccination programme currently being cruelly enforced in Napakistan. These Ulama have failed to understand that it is haraam to introduce filth and disease into the body in anticipation of the satanic potion warding off future expected d i s e a s e. R a s u l u l l a h (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Allah has not put the cure of my Ummah in substances which are haraam for them." Vaccines consist of najaasat and poisons. Injecting such satanic potions into the body can never be permissible in terms of the Shariah of Allah Ta'ala. These Ulama have miserably failed to comprehend this simple fact which does not require profound brains and vast knowledge for comprehension. The vaccination programme is a stunning colossal fraud. A current vaccine fraud of massive proportion is a $19 million fraud. The National Institute of Health in the U.S.A. contributed $19 million for a research programme, but they soon realized that "something was terribly wrong with the research". The findings of the health authorities state: "The investigation found that the Respondent falsified results in research to develop a vaccine against human immunodeficiency virus by intentionally spiking samples of rab- bit sera with antibodies to provide the desired results. The falsification made it appear that rabbits immunized with the vaccine induced antibodies capable of neutralizing a broad range of HIV-1 strains." Massive research fraud schemes are perpetrated by the big pharmaceutical companies. It is a massive Mafia operation in which top government officials are involved. The poor Molvis in Pakistan have now allowed themselves to be hoodwinked and bamboozled to support the muck and poison programme of the kufr government of Napakistan. The $19 million vaccine research fraud is the tip of the iceberg of vaccine industry fraud. Two scientists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlowchoski accused some scientists of spiking mumps vaccine with animal antibodies to deceive the world into believing that these poisonous vaccines are effective. It was the fraud that had allowed the peddling of the false claim of the mumps vaccine being 95% effective, "say the scientist whistleblowers". "In reality, the fraudulent Merk mumps vaccine actually contributed to the spread of mumps across America", the scientists explained. "The spread of mumps, of course, results in more people buying mumps vaccines. This is how scientific fraud can produce enormous profits for vaccine companies. In many cases, vaccines actually spread the disease they claim to prevent." This is precisely the cause of the polio epidemic in Napakistan. "The fact that an AIDS vaccine research has now been caught taking bogus AIDS vaccine in precisely the same way Merck scientists say Merk faked their vaccine tests is yet another significant red flag that screams the obvious: The vaccine industry is riddled with scientific fraud. In the vaccine industry, fraud is part of the corporate culture, and it's found in the fraudulent science, drug price fixing, widespread bribery of doctors, the faking of "scientific" evidence and the industry's payoffs to mainstream media in the form of advertising money." The following information should be salubrious for the bamboozled Ulama of Pakistani: "Most vaccines don't work. Flu shots don't prevent the flu. Mumps and measles vaccines actually cause mumps and measles. POLIO VACCINES CAUSE WIDESPREAD PARALYSIS AND POLIO-LIKE SYMPTOMS……… It is also a fact that former Merk scientist Dr.Maurine Hilleman openly admitted on tape that vaccines contained huge numbers of cancer-causing "stealth" viruses. ………..Just to make sure vaccines are as destructive as possible, the vaccine industry makes sure that nearly all vaccines are laced with neurotoxic chemicals…….. When it comes to vaccines, it's all based on fraud. Logic and science are thrown out the window. Efficacy is utterly abandoned. Vaccines never need to prove they actually work. They are accepted as a matter of fact by the followers of the reductionist medical cult known as "western medicine". When it comes to vaccines, the entire medical system has gone stark raving mad, quite possibly because they've vaccinated each other and are quite literally suffering from chronic mercury poisoning which damages the brain. The actions of this fake AIDS vaccine researcher aren't even unusual: they're par for the course. This is how nearly all vaccines get made! It's the only way to make deadly, contaminated genetic cocktails appear to be effective when they really aren't. Take away the fraudulent research and the vaccine industry collapses overnight. If subjected to the scrutiny of rational science, vaccines would almost immediately be d e c l a r e d q u a c k - ery." (NATURAL NEWS) The Ulama in Pakistan have now also been entrapped by the Mafia quacks whose agent is the Napakistani government. It is a massive haraam boodle fraud based on a massive medical fraud in which the health of millions of children is wrecked and ruined. Q. Is it permissible to keep and display the stuffed head of an animal? A Molvi says that according to Mufti M a h m o o d u l H a s a n (rahmatullah alayh), a stuffed animal is not in the hukm of tasweer (a picture). It is said that the head is merely the skin of the animal and a part of an animal. A. Although Mufti Mahmood (rahmatullah alayh) said that a stuffed animal is not in the hukm of Tasweer, he nevertheless maintained that it is not permissible to keep and display such stuffed images. Since he has clearly stated the ruling of impermissbility, there is no ambiguity. The fact is that it is not permissible. However, we disagree with the view that it is not in the hukm of tasweer. Undoubtedly, it is in the hukm of tasweer to a greater degree on the basis of Dalaalatun Nass. The Illat (rationale) for the prohibition of tasweer exists par excellence in images of stuffed animals. What does the Mufti say about statues and ornaments in the form of people and animals made from pottery, metal, glass, plastic, etc.? Are these statues permissible? Most assuredly the Mufti will say that statues of animate objects are haraam even if these are not idols of worship, and kept only as ornaments. On what basis are they haraam? All such images are in the hukm of soerat and tasweer. It is not only mounting and displaying of statues which are haraam. The actual statues are haraam whether displayed or kept enclosed in a box just as pictures are haraam whether displayed or enclosed in a photo album. The prohibition of pictures and statues is not pivoted on their 'potentiality' of leading to idol worship. While this illat had existed, the actual hukm of hurmat is not dependent on the existence of this illat. A greater mansoos illat for the prohibition is Tashaabuh bi khalqillaah. In this context khalqillaah (the creation of Allah) on the basis of other Ahaadith refers specifically to animate objects. It excludes inanimate objects by Sareeh Nass. That the illat for prohibition is not the potential of idol worship is apparent from the fact that millions of people worship trees, stones, stars, and other peculiar inanimate objects. But this illat does not render pictures or statues of inanimate objects haraam. The actual hurmat is established by way of Ibaaratun Nass.The hurmat is not Ma'lool bil illat. Regardless of the purpose, images of animate objects are haraam. Furthermore, Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), in his Sharhul Muslim, Vol.2, Kitaabuz Zeenatwal Libaas, in Baabut Tahreemut Tasweer, has recorded Ijma' on the hurmat of three dimensional images (statues, ornaments and the like) which in the terminology of the Fuqaha are called 'Maa lahu zillun' (That which has a shadow)." The stuffed head was a part of an animal when it was a portion of the living animal. The stuffed head is not a mere skin. It is a perfect image of an animate object which was made by a human being who stuffed the skin and skull to give it its form. Since it is no longer a part of a living animal, it is moronic to say that it is not a haraam image (soerat). It resembles a statue in every aspect. Thus, the fatwa should be that images – three dimensional images which include the heads of stuffed animals, are haraam per se, and are in the hukm of tasweer and soerat on the basis of Ibaaratun Nass to a greater degree than the applicability of the prohibition to pictures in view of the potential illat and the Mansoos Illat existing to a greater degree in three dimensional images than on two dimensional images, i.e. pictures. The honourable Muftis have missed this point and have erred. As long as a person has no intention of reforming himself, the teaching and training of a murshid (guide) will be of no benefit nor will anyone's dua normally be of benefit. Who can be a greater guide and teacher than Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and whose dua can be more acceptable than Rasulullah's dua? His uncle, Abu Talib had profound love for him. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) constantly made endeavours in the hope that Abu Talib would accept Imaan. However, since Abu Talib himself had no intention of reforming, all endeavours were of no avail. Q. According to a Darul Ifta, a court decreed divorce is a valid Talaaq. Please comment on this fatwa. A. The Darul Ifta's answer on the court 'divorce' issue is erroneous. In no circumstances is a 'divorce' pronounced by a kaafir/secular court valid. It is never Talaaq. When a man applies to a kaafir court for termination of the 'marriage', he does so to terminate the haraam marital regime. He applies for cancellation of the legal registration. He does not apply for a Shar'i Talaaq. Only a thorough moron will be so stupid as to apply to a kaafir court for Talaaq and spend thousands of rands in legal fees for something which he can accomplish by simply saying: 'I Talaaq you." Furthermore, a magistrate/ judge is NEVER the wakeel (agent) of any of the parties. Also, his function is to annul the secular registration. He has absolutely no jurisdiction from either the government or from the Shariah to issue a decree of Talaaq to cancel the Shar'i Nikah. The Mufti who has contended the validity of Talaaq if a secular court pronounces a decree of 'divorce' is not aware of the concept of a court, hence he is confused. He has understood that a judge in a court is a wakeel. But this is indeed moronic. Despite a kaafir court's decree, the Nikah remains 100% valid. Q. I was listening to a lecture by a prominent Maulana in which he said: "On a lighter note a boy came to his father and asked him where did we originate from. The father replied: 'From Aadam (alayhis salaam) and Hawwa (alayhis salaam).' He went to his mother who was an academic and asked the same question. She replied that we came from apes according to darwin's theory. The boy now confused came back to his father and told him what his mother said. The father replied: 'I told you from where I came. Coming from apes is your mother's origin." Is this kind of joking allowed in a bayaan? Is it not bordering on kufr? A. Although the Maulana Sahib did not intend kufr, nevertheless, he did not apply his mind when he made this haraam joke. It was extremely improper for the Maulana to have made such a vile joke which in fact is kufr. It makes a mockery of an important teaching of the Deen. Assuming that the child's mother did make such a statement, then she would have become a murtad and the Nikah would have ended. It is not permissible to even joke with kufr. Making such crude and kufr jokes negates the gravity of the kufr of darwin's baboonic theory. The Maulana Saheb had erred in cracking this joke of kufr. Once Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) upon entering the toilet, immediately hastened out. As he had entered, he observed a tiny ink-dot on one of his finger nails. This was the cause for his rush out of the toilet. He had been writing a Deeni article, hence the ink-dot of his pen on his finger nail. This was the degree of adab (respect) he had for Knowledge of the Deen and words linked with Allah Ta'ala. Even one tiny ink-dot stemming from his pen which was employed in writing the Name of Allah Azza Wa Jal, was the subject of honour and respect. What should we now understand from the reckless disrespect, in fact blasphemy, which Muslims commit right inside the Musaajid where such papers and magazines are distributed which find their way into the trash bins and even in sewer drains? The glorious Names of Allah Ta'ala, Qur'aanic aayat and Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are subjected to wanton disrespect and sacrilege. Those responsible for the affairs of the Musjid should not permit the flotsam of magazines – haraam magazines and papers – to be distributed from the Musjid premises. Most of these papers are money-making gimmicks. 80% of the pages are filled with adverts, even haraam adverts. Some of these papers contain haraam pictures, and some propagate clear beliefs of kufr. Yet, the Imaams of the Musjids and trustees, in order to maintain haraam ties with the offenders, adopt silence and permit the sacrilege to be perpetrated in the House of Allah Ta'ala. When Allah's Name and the Deen are subjected to so much disrespect, sacrilege and desecration, the Wrath of Allah Ta'ala and the Curses of the Qur'aan are bound to overtake the culprits. The authorities of the Musaajid should exercise greater care and control. (Continued from Vol. 22 No.5) THERE IS ABSOLUTELY no basis in the Shariah for slapping on the Fleecee (i.e. Rainbow Carrion Company) this haraam extortion of R20,000 per month. ( ii ) The above is not the full story of the fleecing fees. In addition to the monthly haraam fleecing fee of R20,000, mentioned above, SANHA was charging about R15,000 per month inspection fleecing fees seven years ago. Today it should be in the vicinity of R30,000 per month. We fail to understand the grounds on which the 'fatwa' had based its findings and conclusion. It should be noted that the aforementioned R30,000 monthly 'inspection' fees are not for full-time inspectors. The Fleecing Fees are for only THREE inspections conducted a month, and these too, are for a lousy few minutes. The 'inspections' are per se lousy and deceptive – mock and farcical inspections. For just THREE lousy mock inspections, the Fleecee company coughs up R30,000 a month, besides the R20,000 monthly license fleecing fee. The honourable Mufti in his defence of SANHA just did not realize what utter rot and haraam he was supporting and branding 'halaal'. (iii) The greed and gluttony of Carrion Halaalizers are insatiable. The disease pervades every capillary in their bodies. In addition to the huge sum of haraam boodle they extort every month in the name of 'fees', SANHA charges the company R500 monthly 'administration' fleecing fee. Licence fee, inspection fee and administration fee are all the elements of the massive extortion of which SANHA is guilty in accordance with the Shariah. It is haraam fleecing fees compounded with haraam fleecing fees. Zulmat alaa zulmat – darkness piled on top of darkness in Qur'aanic terminology. It is this haraam, satanic zulmat for which the 'fatwa' issues a licence of permissibility. Also remember, that this R500 monthly haraam 'administration' fee was seven years ago. Perhaps it is now R5000 per month. Over the years there must have been a huge escalation in these haraam fleecing fees because in terms of SANHA's agreement with Rainbow, "These fees will be subject to an annual review including the escalation in the salary of the Muslim supervisors." It should now be abundantly clear that there is also a 'supervision' fee which assumes the form of 'salaries' for supervisors. Although the confounded 'supervisors' are actually executing 'services' for the Carrion Outfit (SANHA), the Carrion Chicken Co. is forced to pay the salaries. What then are the licence fees, the inspection fees and the administration fees for? (iv) The saga of the Fleecing Fees has not terminated. There are other fleecing charges involved in this SANHA-operated carrion saga. Besides the aforementioned three mock inspections per month, there is another annual inspection which involves the top brass of the Carrion Outfit. Regarding this inspection, the agreement with Rainbow stipulates that "the costs incurred pertaining to the first (monthly) inspection of each month shall be borne by the LICENSEE (i.e. the FLEECEE). Such costs will include travel and administrative costs and where appropriate (five star hotel) accommodation costs. Travel costs shall be from Johannesburg to Durban economy class." Regarding this mock inspection, the agreement states: "There shall be at least one annual inspection by appointment and conducted by at least two SANHA national executive members…" The company pays all the extortion fees separately for even this inspection. What then are the confounded carcass fee and licence fee? The venerable Mufti Sahib should be ashamed of himself for having endorsed the ridiculous 'fatwa' of his student underling. Where is the simple 'monthly service fee' for which the 'fatwa' issues permissibility? We are confronted here with compound extortion – and much of it is ambiguous since the amounts to be extorted will be calculated in future when the mock inspection transpires. (v) The story of the mock inspection and fleecing fees has still not ended. In addition to the aforementioned 'inspections', there is another inspection about which the agreement states: "Inspections will be carried out at SANHA's discretion at least once per calendar month." The expenses of this inspection is also borne by Rainbow. Since large amounts of money are extorted for each inspection separately, what is the monthly licence fee for? And, what are the carcasses fees for? (vi) The Fleecing Fees extortion racket also provides for the company to pay SANHA's supervisors separately. Although the supervisors are executing services for SANHA, the carrion company pays the salaries of the supervisors. (To be concluded) A Concerned Sister writes: "For about 20 odd years there is an on going aerobics / excercise class here in Roshnee conducted by a 'muslim' woman. I have known about the classes but what I didn't know is that towards the end of every year, the lady that gives the classes has a ladies only party for the ladies who attend her classes and also for any other females who wish to attend. Tickets are sold for the affair. This is how the party goes: It has a different theme every year, eg. this year's theme was "The Great Gatsby" and last year's theme was "The Oscars." The ladies all dress up according to the theme, supper is served and then the floor is open. Music is played and anyone who wishes to dance goes on to the floor and dances. Photographs are also taken for those ladies who wish to pose etc. This was quite a shock to me. I don't know if any of the ulama in Roshnee are aware of this and nor do I know if they (the ulama) have addressed this issue / or have spoken about it in their bayaans. (Generall, women who participate in this type of Satanism are lesbians or have strong lesbian inclinations. They are worshippers of Iblees. –The Majlis) Also last year there were two birthday parties that were thrown here in Roshnee. The one was a 21st party, where the people dressed up to a certain theme. Men and women danced freely with one another, irrespective of whose wife danced with whose husband. The floor was free for all. The other one was a 'sweet' 16 party on the same lines. (Such haraam parties are conducted under supervision of Iblees himself. The brains and hearts of the participants are convoluted with satanic copro-najaasat. – The Majlis) I have also heard that there are a number of muslims in Roshnee who follow the salafis and also some who are sympathetic towards shias. People who you know and even people who are related to you. It is very scary and a great worry." (End of letter) Roshnee is a small township in the Gauteng province of South Africa. It is notorious for its arrogance, deviation, evil and immorality as the aforementioned revelation confirms. Whilst evil and immorality are endemic to the Muslim community world wide, this forsaken township appears to be a special den of Iblees. Even the molvies here perpetrate fisq and fujoor in the Musaajid under cover of 'da'wat/tableegh. They invite faahishah kuffaar females into the Musjid for 'da'wat'. In reality they are victims of Talbeesul Iblees. In this trap of shaitaan they find nafsaani gratification. About these opulent and obese fujjaar, the Qur'aan Majeed says: "When We intend to destroy (the people of ) a town, then we command its affluent ones (i.e. We give them rope on which to hang themselves). Then (they go overboard recklessly) perpetrating (their) fisq therein (such as these vile residents of Roshnee and the Khlovadian fussaaq celebrating their function of Satanism). Thus the Decree (of Allah's Athaab) is confirmed for them. Then we utterly destroy them." From the gyrating faahishaat (immoral women), the extent of lesbianism in the community is shocking. Let them now await Allah' deracinating Athaab which will cast them prostrate into destruction such as the Athaab which overtook the homosexuals of the people of Nabi Loot (alayhis salaam). A Brother writes: "The Kholvad group in South Africa is celebrating their 100 year anniversary. They have arranged a big celebration. Already 2000 X R250 tickets have been sold. It will be free men and women mixed gathering. Meals will be served on tables which are booked. Men and women will sit mixed at the tables. There will be a competition of best dresses. The best dress will receive a prize of a R1,000. These are just a few of the many things which will transpire at this function. I am also a Kholvadian, but I am grateful to Allah Ta'ala - I shall not attend this function. Please comment. OUR COMMENT What is there to comment on this flagrantly haraam zina affair? The dress display is particularly immoral and a typical display of jaahiliyyah – western jaahliyyah. A Muslim does not require Taqwa nor Aql to understand that this function is mal-oon (accursed – Allah's curse is on it), and maghdoob (Allah's Wrath is on it). All participants in this haraam, lewd, zina function will be mal-oon and maghdoob. Every act in the satanic event is vile in the extreme and haraam. Only those who deliberately obliterate their Imaani conscience will exhibit the satanic audacity to participate in this haraam event on which Allah' Curse will settle every moment throughout the entire duration of the immoral function. These miserable specimens of Satanism should hang their heads in shame for squandering perhaps millions of rands in the proposed haraam function when millions of Muslims are languishing in grinding poverty and starvation in many places of the world. Are they blind and deaf to the horrendous suffering of Muslims in Syria which is so much in the news? Can they find no worthy Deeni Cause to which the funds could be contributed to gain Allah's Pleasure? The only rational conclusion which could be drawn from the satanic squandering of wealth in the hideously haraam function is that all the money which will be thrown down the sewer drain is haraam. The earnings of all the participants must necessarily be haraam, hence Allah Ta'ala has snatched away the taufeeq to spend the money in His Path. Haraam money is usually squandered fi sabeelish shaitaan (in the path of shaitaan). We are positive that all Khovadians in South Africa are not so stupid and so evil as to participate in the exhibition of shaitaan. Kholvadians who have the Deen at heart, should execute their Waajib obligation of Amr Bil Ma'roof Nahy Anil Munkar. They should vigorously protest against the proposed satanic function. (Kholvad is a village in India). A Salaat performed after using the Miswaak is rewarded seventy times more than a Salaat without Miswaak.) "Silence is wisdom. Few are there to acquire it." (Luqmaan – alayhis salaam) Examine the formidable list of muck and poisonous ingredients camouflaged by chemical terms and numbers, and you will then be able to understand the 'mystery' underlying the epidemic of cancer, heart diseases, diabetes and a plethora of other maladies which the medical establishment fails to diagnose, and for which viable medical prescriptions are unavailable. The irony and travesty are that this witch's potion of HARAAM is halaalized by the Carrion Halaalizing agencies such as SANHA, MJC, NIHT, etc. This particular poisonous potion whose label appears further is a product of NIHT's haraam halaalization process. Blend". But in South Africa this deception and fraud are allowed. The masses a r e m i s l e d with claims such as "100% Li tchi Juice Blend". In the public mind the 100% des c r i bes t he l i t chi juice. This method of advertising a product is a massive deception which is allowed despite the huge harm it causes to the health. The term: "No Cane Sugar Added", is another stunt to allay the fears of some members of the public who may be a bit more prying. While the product contains large amounts of other types of sweeteners, the absence of cane sugar in no way whatsoever alleviates the poisonous effects of the haraam potion. Stabilizer 412 is the symbol for guar gum. An increasing number of studies have linked this substance with health problems. Anaphylactic shock has also been related to guar gum. One report says: "The use of guar gum in slimming aids is proving to be a controversial area as there are potentially serious health consequences if too much is ingested." Non-Nutritive Sweeteners symbolized by the number E950 is the chemical Acesulphane potassium. The very name is foreboding. Regarding the damage caused by this poison, the experts say: "200 times sweeter than sugar. Possible carcinogen in humans, caused cancer in test animals. Suggested that it is worse than Aspartame or Saccharin. AVOID IT." Experts say that it is definitely linked to cancer. E220 Sulphur Dioxide can cause breathing problems in asthmatic patients. It can also cause gastrointestinal disturbances. E235 Natamycin This muck is produced by means of fermentation. It is thus an alcoholic substance. In the process of its production nitrogen protein is also used. This could be even from pork or any other haraam animal source. The alcohol, methanol is also utilized in the process. This poisonous substance is also an inoculum (disease-causing). The medium of fermentation by which netamycin is produced is detailed and intricate. The non-yeast protein nitrogen is obtained from a wide range of sources such as soya, beef extract, protein hydrolysates (e.g. peptones – a PORK product), etc. This brief explanation should suffice to convince any concerned Muslim that despite the 'innocent' external appearance and litchi 'fragrance' of this NIHT's haraam halaalized drink, it is anything, but litchi juice. This synopsis holds good for all the muck drinks deceptively described '100% fruit juice blend'. The list of ugly-named ingredients should be sufficient to deter Muslims from consuming the haraam poisonous potions which are falsely labeled 'fruit juice'. Again study the list of ingredients of the so-called '100% litchi juice blend'. You will not discover any fruit juice listed. Apple concentrate and litchi puree are not apple juice and litchi juice. For all that we know these substances could be shaitaan's 'urine' halaalized by men chasing haraam boodle in a drunken stupor of greed. The rubbish label states: 'Snack-A-Juice'. What 'juice'. There is absolutely no fruit juice in this witch's potion. The statement is a further diabolical untruth coined to deceive and mislead. Muslims are not supposed to be so stupid as to swallow the falsehood and the lies which manufacturers and the halaalization shayaateen disseminate to promote their haraam, poisonous wares which destroy the physical and spiritual health of people, especially of Muslims. Remember that this expose is not restricted to the haraam litchi potion. It covers all of the artificial drinks which never can be truthfully described as fruit juice. At least in the United States it is illegal to describe a mixture of chemical poisons or a witch's potion as 'fruit juice'. Only a 100% pure fruit juice can be legally marketed as 'fruit juice'. Any blended potion of fruit juices and other ingredients is called "juice cocktail" or "juice drink". It is illegal to describe a mixture, '100% Fruit Juice Blend", or even "Fruit Juice Q. Please comment on the following Fatwa pertaining to laybye sales: "Layaway (lay-by in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) is a way of purchasing an item without paying an entire cost at once. However, rather than taking the item and then repaying the debt on a regular schedule, as in most instalment plans or hire purchases, the layaway customer does not receive the item until it is completely paid for. There is sometimes a fee associated, since the seller must "lay" the item "away" in storage until the payments are completed. If the transaction is not completed, the item is returned to stock and the costumer's money is returned minus a fee. (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ layaway) According to the principles of Islamic finance and economics, the money paid as a deposit by the customer will be regarded as an Amanat (trust) in the hands of the seller and will only be regarded as a payment for the purchased item when the last instalment is paid off. The reason being that when a person places a deposit for an item, he is in essence merely reserving that particular item for himself and not purchasing it. (As Ijaab and Qabool doesn't take place). Thus it will be permissible to purchase an item on lay-by. The following laws will also apply in this transaction: 1. If in the event that the customer decides not to purchase the item his deposit will have to be returned to him. It is an Amanat in the hands of the seller, which on demand must be returned in full. 2. If the customer does not return to pay the instalments until the designated grace period, then the item may be sold to another customer and all deposited monies returned to the original customer. It would however, be preferable to give the original customer a bit more respite and to try and make contact with him, so as to remind him to come and conclude the deal. 3. If the customer does not come to collect his deposit, then the seller is not permitted to give it away in Sadaqah or to any Madrasah. The seller will have to keep the deposit by himself till the owner dies or he comes to collect it. 4. If perchance the customer fails to pay the instalments within the agreed time, then it will not be permissible for the seller to charge him an extra penalty fee. 5. The seller must not use any words of sale such as "the item is now sold to you." The customer merely saying "keep the item for me as lay bye" does not constitute a sale/business contract. 6. The seller is allowed to charge the customer a fee for keeping his money as a trust." A. We disagree with the Fatwa. (1) In commercial transactions, the meaning is the determinant. When a laybye sale is transacted, it is a valid sale. The customer selects an item, and pays part of the price. Both the seller and the buyer understand and believe that it is a sale transaction. (2) The contention: "..when a person places a deposit for an item, he is in essence merely reserving that particular item for himself and not purchasing it, as Ijaab and Qabool doesn't take place.", is incorrect and baseless. Ijaab and Qabool do take place when making a laybye sale. Denying this fact is presumptuous and baseless. It is a denial of reality. Furthermore, there is no transaction in the Shariah whereby one makes a payment to reserve an item. The Shariah does not recognize such a transaction. What is the purpose of the 'deposit'? In point No.1, the Mufti states that the deposit will have to be returned if the customer decides not to take the item. So what then is the maqsood of the deposit? If the customer has the right to ignore the fact of the reservation and demand the return of his money, then by the same token, the trader has the right to ignore the promise of reservation and sell the item at his whim, whenever he wishes. If the transaction is regarded as a promise between the parties, namely, the trader promises to keep the item for the person for three months to make a decision to buy, and the customer promises to buy the item within three months, then this will belong to the moral domain. Paying money or leaving money as an amaanat to secure honouring of the promise is in conflict with the Shariah. In terms of the laybye deal, the promise interpretation is baseless. In addition, the customer makes repeated payments until he has paid the full price. It is thus not merely a promise by the parties. (3) The sale is finalized at the time of the transaction when the deposit is paid. The deposit is part of the thaman (price). The seller has the right to retain possession of the mabee' (item of the sale) until he has been fully paid. This is what happens in a laybye sale. The seller retains possession until the customer has paid the full price. (4) The money which the customer pays for the laybyed item is not an Amaanat. It is the mielk (property) of the seller. The deposit and the subsequent payments made by the buyer are all part of the price which belong to the seller. The subsequent payments are not made for 'reserving' the article, nor is there any system in the Shariah which condones repeated monetary payments for upholding a promise. Both parties understand that the deposit and the monthly payments are part of the thaman, hence all of this is deducted on the invoice from the purchase price. The view that it is an Amaanat is baseless. (5) The customer has no right to unilaterally cancel the sale after its finalization. If the seller agrees to cancel the sale, it will be Iqaalah. But the seller is not under Shar'i obligation to cancel the sale. (6) If the customer does not return within the prescribed time limit to collect his article, then the seller may sell it for its real market value or for more. If he sells it for more than the original price, then all of the excess will be profit for the buyer because it is his property which was sold. The seller is entitled to take only his price, and keep the profit in trust for the buyer. (7) If the buyer does not come to collect his article and after waiting a year, the seller loses all hope of him returning, then the money should be treated like Luktah(lost article found), and given in Sadqah. Since there is no way of establishing the whereabouts of the buyer, it is impractical to hang on to the money lifelong and after one's death for one's heirs to keep the money in trust and so on from generation to generation. After giving the money to Sadqah, if the buyer returns, the seller will have to reimburse him the full amount from his own funds, and he (the seller) will receive the thawaab of the Sadqah. (8) Point No.5 of the Mufti is a denial of reality. In real life, Ijaab and Qabool do take place during a laybye sale. It is therefore meaningless to say that words of sale should not be used. They are in fact being used, hence it is a valid sale. The reality cannot be imagined away. Recently a pious young Bosnian man passed away. He left this world with a clearly visible smile on his face. Even after the ghusl, the smile was on his face. After his demise, his mother saw him in a dream. The young man was in an excellent state of pleasure in a luxurious palace. In the dream he told his mother that Allah Ta'ala had granted him this palace. The mother asked if there was a palace for her as well. The son said that there was for her a more beautiful palace. When she looked at her palace, she saw that it was in darkness. There was no light inside. She asked: "Why is there no light?" Her son pointing to her face, said: That's why?" In other words, since his mother would not wear Niqaab, which symbolized the light for her palace in the Aakhirah, her palace was in darkness. In this dream there is a lesson for those who are averse to Hijaab. Q. In India recently a man raped his daughter-in-law. In response to a question, the Darul Ifta of Darul Uloom Deoband issued the Fatwa that the raped woman is no longer lawful for her husband, and that they should part. Mr.Yawar Baig of India criticized the Fatwa and maintains that the Nikah is valid. Please comment. A. The character, Yawar Baig is a moron. He does not understand what he has blurted out. It appears that he believes himself to be a mujtahid whilst he still struggles at kindergarten level. His opinion is corrupt and baatil. Deoband's Fatwa is 100% correct and the moron's view is 100% baatil bunkum. We have published a detail response which has been circulated on the internet. Musaaharah is the family relationship created by marriage. Hurmat Musaaharah means the prohibition to marry certain persons as a consequence of the ties created by marriage, e.g. a man cannot marry his daughter-in-law if she is divorced froim her son, or a man cannot marry his mother-in-law, etc. Hurmat Musaaharah also comes into existence by zina (fornication) or any act of sexual demeanour as defined by the Shariah. Thus, if a man even touches with lust with his hand any bare part of a woman, then that woman's children and mother are haraam for him. He cannot marry any of them. If such an act is perpetrated with the daughter-in-law, she becomes haraam for her husband. There is no way of undoing the damage. They simply have to separate for ever. When any such misdemeanour occurs, it is Waajib to separate. The woman is not permitted to continue living as the man's wife even if he insists. Husband and wife relationship terminates in the wake of an act of sexual misdemeanour. Whilst Hurmat Musaaharah renders husband-wife relationship haraam, the Nikah still remains intact. The husband is required by the Shariah in such an event to verbally say: "I have left you", or words to this effect. Or he may issue Talaaq. He is under Shar'i compulsion to finalize the separation by terminating the Nikah verbally. The following are the conditions for the creation of Hurmat Musaaharah: 1. The touching must be with bare parts of the body. If a man committed the haraam act of touching his daughter -in-law with lust, but he did not touch any bare part of her body, then Hurmat Musaaharah will not take effect. 2. The girl is 9 years old or more. If she is under this age, then while the act remains haraam and a major sin, Hurmat Musaaharah is not created. The male should not be less than 12 years. 3. Touching the hair on the head with lust with the bare hand creates Hurmat Musaaharah, not so by touching the hair whih hangs loosely. In view of the grave consequences of sexual misdemeanour involving certain classes of close relatives, the Fuqaha of Islam have emphasized the imperative importance of exercizing great caution. Despite marriage not being permissible, the presence of carnal lust is an irrefutable fact. For example, marriage to the daughter-in-law in the event of her husband's demise or divorce, is not permissible nor ever valid. However, if this woman had not married the man's son, marriage with her would have been permissible. This confirms the presence of carnal lust in both. Similalrly, if a person's stepmother had not married his father, marriage with her would have been permissible. The Fuqaha have therefore emphasized that Hijaab of a substantial degree should be observed by such persons. A woman should not be alone with her father-in-law nor a man with his stepmother. Such males are not appropriate mahrams for a journey. Cases of sexual misdemeanour between such persons are not isolated. Innumerable such cases happen. Due to lack of fear for Allah Ta'ala, many simply continue to live together as husband and wife, producing illegitimate offspring. Thus, they destroy their worldly life and their life of the Aakhirah. AMONG THE Sahaabah, Had h r a t A m r B i n S a ' d (radhiyallahu anhu) was renowned for his Taqwa. When the Khalifah, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) desired to appoint him as the governor of Hims (in the Land of Shaam), Ha dhrat Amr Bin Sa'd (radhiyallahu anhu) stipulated that he would not accept a wage for being the governor. Among the citizens of Hims were Christians as well. One day Hadrat Amr Bin Sa'd (radhiyallahu anhu), in an argument with a Christian, said to him: "May Allah disgrace you." On having made this ut-t e r a nc e, Ha d hr a t Sa'd (radhiyallahu anhu) was afflicted with remorse. When he mediated on the issue, he concluded that he had committed an injustice. He could not find in his heart any justification for having uttered the curse. He set off to Madinah. When he was in the presence of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), he said: "If I had not been the governor, I would not have committed this act (of injustice)." He handed in his resignation. HADHRAT AMR Bin Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), the Conqueror of Egypt, had pitched a large tent in close proximity to enemy fortications which he had besieged. The prolonged siege endured for six months. When it was time to depart, he decided to dismantle his huge tent. But before the work of dismantling the tent commenced, he observed that a bird had constructed its nest inside the tent, and was sitting on eggs. He commented: "This bird has taken refuge in our tent." He issued instructions to leave the tent intact until the eggs were hatched and the chicks strong enough to fly away. This was the effect of the mercy which is integral to a perfect Imaan. In a public debate with Shiahs, Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayh), had inflicted a crushing defeat on the Shiah clergy who had engaged him in the debate. The majority of Shiahs of village repented and entered the fold of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. This was indeed a severe and a humiliating blow for the Shiah clergy. The Shiah clergy plotted a scheme to bring disgrace to Hadhrat Nanotwi. The scheme was to fake a janaazah. A young man would be lying in the janaazah. They would ask Maulana Nanotwi to perform the janaazah Salaat. It was arranged that when Hadhrat Nanotwi proclaims the second Takbeer, the lad should jump out of the janaazah and mock Hadhrat Nanotwi. The janazah was brought and the clergy requested Hadhrat Nanotwi to lead the Salaat, but he refused. He explained that the principles of the Salaat of Shiahs and Sunnis differ, hence in terms of their own principles it is not permissible for a Sunni to lead the janaazah Salaat. But, they insisted saying that the Buzrug of one community is a Buzrug of all communities. In view of their appeals and persistence, Maulana Nanotwi agreed. Hadhrat Nanotwi reached the janaazah. On reaching the janaazah, his face clouded with anger. A huge crowd had assembled. His eyes became bloodshot. When he was told to lead the Salaat, he complied. When upon the second Takbeer there was no movement from the janaazah, one of the plotters made a sound as if to alert the boy in the janaazah. But there was no response. On completion of the four takbeers of the janaazah Sal a a t, Hadhrat Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayh) exclaimed with anger: "He will now rise only on the morning of Qiyaamah. " When they opened the janaazah, to their grief and consternation they found the boy dead.. Shiahs began to lament and wail. Numerous Shiahs having witnessed this karaamat, embraced Islam. The clergy was thoroughly humiliated by tis miraculous episode. The Abbaasi Khalifah Mansur harboured great enmity for Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) who was very strident in his duty of Amr Bil Ma'roof Nahy Anil Munkar. In proclaiming the Haqq, he did not spare the Khalifah. When the Khalifah had set off to Makkah for Hajj, he was informed that Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) was in Makkah. Khalifah Mansur ordered him to be arrested and hanged. The gibbet was set up for the execution of Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri. At that time, Hadhrat Sufyaan was in Musjidul Haraam in the company of Hadhrat Fudhail Bin Iyaadh (rahmatullah alayh) and Hadhrat Sufyaan Bin Uyainah (rahmatullah alayh). Well-wishers urged him to go into concealment. Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) went to the Multazam. Standing at the Ka'bah, he exclaimed: "I take an oath by the Rabb of the Ka'bah? Mansur will not be able to enter Makkah Mukarramah." Mansur was in close proximity. He had already reached Jabal Hajoon on the outskirts. As the Khalifah began to move ahead, his horse slipped. Mansur fell and died on the spot. Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) emerged from Musjidul Haraam. He performed Mansur's Janaazah Salaat. In a Hadith Qudsi, Allah Ta'ala says: "He who becomes the enemy of My Wali, I give him notice of war." HIFZ IN 3 DAYS Hadhrat Abul Munthir Hishaam Bin Muhammad As-Saaib (rahmatullah alayh) – died 204 hijri – said: "My uncle always scolded me for not making hifz of the Qur'aan Majeed. One day, feeling very much ashamed of myself, I sat in the house and took an oath by Allah that I would not emerge from the house as long as I have not completed making hifz of the Qur'aan Majeed. By the fadhl of Allah Ta'ala, I completed making hifz in three days." QUESTION: What is the Shariah's ruling regarding holidays during the festive season. Innumerable Muslims go on holidays with their wives and families and stay in hotels on the beachfront and other holiday resort places where lots of Fitnah takes place. They stay in rooms and sleep on beds and cover themselves with linen and blankets of the hotel. Lots of zina takes place in these hotel rooms and on these beds. Lesbians, homosexuals, gays, sexual perverts, etc. stayed and will stay in these rooms and make use of all the facilities. Music plays in the hotel. Liquor and drugs are consumed in these rooms. These hotels have dining rooms and lounges where so much liquor and haraam take places openly. Even pious Muslims and Ulama stay in these homes and sleep on the zina beds. If we try our best to avoid evils and guard our eyes and Salaat, etc. will it be okay to go with our families for holidays and stay at these hotels? ANSWER: The Shariah's Fatwa is palpably discernible in your question. There is really no need for us or any other Muftis to give you a fatwa to apprize you of the Shariah's ruling. This is such a simple issue that you only need to heed Rasulullah's command: "Seek a fatwa from your heart." In another Hadith it appears: "Sin is what agitates your conscience." Some deviates of kufr believe in the concept of a spiritual Jannat and spiritual Jahannum. According to their belief, Jahannum and Jannat in the Aakhirah will be spiritual experiences, not real physical abodes as described by the Qur'aan and Ahaadith, and which is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. The corrupt belief of the deviates is kufr. The concept of a spiritual paradise and hell applies to this worldly life. The existence of a spiritual Jannat and Jahannum on earth is Islamically tenable. The vile, immoral scenario of muck and moral filth which is portrayed in the question is a veritable spiritual Jahannum. How can it ever be permissible to commit spiritual suicide by plunging headlong into a spiritual Hell? Mingling with the kuffaar unnecessarily is not permissible. Going to beachfronts at a time when the place is teeming with kuffaar, fussaaq and fujjaar immorally clad and indulging in a variety of haraam obscenities, is never permissible. Staying in the zina hotel rooms where so much immorality is perpetrated is not permissible. Such rooms are mal-oon and mabghoodh. Once I m a a m A b u H a n i f a h (rahmatullah alayh) ordered a young man to vacate from a chair in which he had just seated himself. Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) explained that a few minutes ago, a lady had occupied that chair. The spiritual germs of ghair mahramiyyat infesting the chair were discernible to Imaam A'zam (rahmatullah alayh), hence he explained that these germs would harm the Roohaaniyat (spirituality) of the young man. It should be noted that the lady who had sat in that chair was a Jilbaab-clad, pure and holy Mu'minah. She was not one of the prostitutes and 90% naked faahishah women prowling the streets and holiday haunts which are frequented by droves of Muslims including members of the ulama-e-soo' fraternity. Now, your Aql will proffer you with the fatwa on the issue of sleeping in the zina beds, covering yourself with zina blankets and staying in zina rooms at zina-fisq-fujoor hotels. Furthermore, understand this issue in the light of the ruling of the Fuqaha that it is Makrooh for a man to drink water from a glass if he knows that a ghair mahram female had consumed water, etc. from it, and the same applies to a woman if a ghair mahram male had used the glass. Booking into these zina hotels when on haraam holiday excursions is not permissible. There is nothing which compels a person to stay in such morally filthy zina hotel rooms. While it is impermissible for all Muslims to stay in such filthy satanic abodes, it is worse for Ulama who should at least have some shame even if they lack adequate Roohaaniyat to spiritually perceive and understand the sin and evil of the mal-oon hotel rooms. A Christian lady who had converted to Islam, whilst she was still a Christian, was a hotel receptionist at a beachfront 5 star hotel in a South African city. After she had converted to Islam, she wrote to us her feelings on this issue. She mentioned that even whilst a Christian she was very surprised and appalled when men with long beards, white kurtahs and turbans booked in at the hotel. She says that the blankets, linen, etc., despite having been washed were used for zina and immorality. The entire environment in the hotel is haraam. Scantily clad kuffaar women and men romping around. Music and liquor in abundance, etc. How is it possible for such holy-looking men to book in at such immoral hotels? This was her question. She further said that she came to the conclusion that they were hypocrites. There was no other way of reconciling their outward appearance with the immoral hotel environment and surroundings which they seemed to enjoy. They were in fact participants in the acts of zina in that world of zina. This is the degenerate level to which even Ulama and the so-called 'pious' have fallen. Their 'piety' is restricted to their outward appearance. But their hearts are soaked with moral filth. It is not permissible to go for holidays to beachfronts and other holiday spots and venues, especially during the official kuffaar holiday periods. One will be labouring in self-deception to believe that one will be able to guard one's eyes, heart and modesty. Or one will be a munaafiq to tender such stupid claims. This is shaitaani deception. It is haraam to go into a haraam and immoral environment to 'enjoy' or satanically enjoy oneself. It is also not permissible to go to such places even if 'fitnahs' are less. It is haraam to go to a place of Fitnah whether the Fitnah is much or less. Q. Please view the article which Mufti Taqi wrote on t h e i s s u e o f p ra w ns (shrimps). Are prawns fish, hence halaal? A. It appears to us that prawn addiction induces prawn hallucination which constrains the honourable Muftis to view this perennial issue irrationally in order to fabricate permissibility by hook or crook. There is absolutely no doubt in the principle which the Hanafi Math-hab has adopted for the hillat (being halaal) of sea animals. There is no ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) among the Hanafi Fuqaha in holding the view that only samak (fish) is halaal.. Whatever samak is, there is unanimity of our Fuqaha that only samak is halaal. To understand the meaning of samak (fish) there is no need for dictionaries nor for zoologists. One only needs to have some sane brains – brains which have not become corrupted by carrion consumption and addiction to crabs and prawns. No person whose brains are not deranged will say on physical viewing that a crab is a fish. If a prawn is 'fish', then a crab too is 'fish'. There is no difference between a crab and a prawn. The basic difference is only in the size of the two creatures. It is meaningless, in fact, moronic to say that a big crab/lobster is haraam and a small crab/lobster (prawn) is halaal. As long as a person is not physically blind and not mad, he will give a 100% correct fatwa if he sees a prawn/ shrimp. Confusion has been created by citing from Hayaatul Haiwaan. Allaamah Dameeri does not say that 'Al-B(P)rawn samakun', nor does he say: "Al-Jheengha samakun." He says: "AR-RUBAYAAN SAMAKUN SAGHEERUN." We fail to unravel the conundrum which says that rubayaan is prawns/ shrimps. From whence did they gain the idea that rubayaan is prawns? Rubayaan is tiny fish which could be sardines or the even smaller than sardine type of fish which people eat in African countries and in Bangladesh. We are not interested in the Shaafi' definition of 'samak'. We are Hanafis and we say that what is not fish to us is haraam. A fish is what our brains and eyes tell us is a fish. The definition of the zoologists while helpful in deciding a sea animal which we have never seen nor are aware of, is not of decisive importance. Thus, if the zoologists, for example, say that whales and dolphins are fish, we shall say that these animals are haraam because our brains and eyes tell us that they are not fish, but are mammals. So what Makhzan says is of no consideration if our brains and eyes issue the ruling that a crab is a crab and not fish. Mufti Taqi Sahib is in error for saying: "In Hayaatul haya-waa it is written that prawns are a type of fish." This is not stated in Hayatul Hayawaan as mentioned above. The word prawns does not appear in the kitaabs, nor the term hjheengah, the Urdu equivalent. What is the daleel for the claim that rubayaan is prawns? No one doubts the reality of prawns simply because of the name. No one says that prawns are not fish on account of the word 'prawn' as implied by Mufti Taqi. We don't say that hake is not fish because of the word hake nor do we negate Red Roman and Marlin being fish on the basis of the terms Red Roman and Marlin, nor do we say that shark is not a fish because of the term shark. We say prawns are not fish because prawns are a kind of crabs (sartaan). Those who say that prawns are not crabs, should devote some time, not to studying the books of zoology, but to physically put a crab alongside a prawn, then compare the two and seek a fatwa from their brains and eyes. That is what Hadhrat Khalil A h m e d S a h a a r a n p u r i (rahmatullah alayh) did. If we see and examine an eel, our brains and eyes will be able to determine whether it is a fish or any other sea animal. Regardless of what has been said about it, our brains and eyes are sufficient to determine what exactly the animal is. We are not in need of the fatwas of the zoologists for this determination. We do not agree with the view that a fish does not have specific characteristics. It simply must have specific characteristics. Some of its characteristics are common to all sea animals, and some are specific to it (i.e. fish). Whatever the characteristics may be, our brains and eyes are sufficient adjudicators to make a determination without the opinions of the zoologists and the guesswork of our Ulama who have issued the fatwa of permissibility without having seen with their naked eyes what a prawn/shrimp is. As for the urf ( custom in vogue) argument, it is a deception. Those communities addicted to consuming prawns, e.g. the Bangladeshi and Gujerati Muslims, have been eating prawns since time immemorial. They consume prawns because they were born into the world of prawns. They simply followed the dietery practices of their forefathers. From birth they discovered every person eating prawns. They eat prawns not because they say that these creatures are fish, but because they grew up eating prawns fully understanding the difference between prawns and fish. Thus, they don't say that prawns are fish. They say that prawns are jheengha and fish is machli. It is only in very recent times that it has been dinned into the ears of people that prawns are consumed because they are fish. If in an urf consuming rats has become an accepted practice or consuming dogs, then such urf will not render rats and dogs halaal on the basis of the argument that dogs are like sheep because a number of characteristics in sheep are to be found in dogs as well. Thus, such consumption of dog meat will not render the canine 'beef' and 'mutton' halaal. The argument that the view of Aimmah Thalaathah (Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi' and Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal – rahmatullah alayhim) has introduced takhfeef (mitigation/extenuation/relaxation in rigidity) on this issue is not valid. Is there takhfeef for Hanafis in bush-rat meat because this is the 'urf' of Maalikis? Is fox-meat tolerable for Hanafis because it is permissible for Shaafis? In short, to understand whether a prawn is a fish or some other species of aquatic animals, simply utilize the bounty of your eyes. You need not sap any energy from your sensorium to understand that prawns, crabs and lobsters are not fish. Was-salaam.