|
Post by Deoband on Jul 15, 2019 21:59:29 GMT
200 MILLION MUSLIMS ENCIRCLED BY AN OCEAN OF RAVENOUS HINDUS
The Writing is on the Wall
A highly respected Indian MP posted on her Facebook page:
“There is only one solution for them [Muslims] Hindu brothers should make a group of 10 and gang rape their [Muslim] mothers and sisters openly on the streets and then then hang them in the middle of the bazaar for others to see.”
Although she's had to be told to take a little break from her duties, at least temporarily, to save the party's international image, her sentiments are widely shared amongst the members of the ruling party, whose ruler, Modi, had actually enacted that advice during his days as governor of Gujrat, possibly as a taster for what he intends for the entire country in the future.
For India's 200 million muslims trapped amidst an ocean of ravenous Hindus, and also for Muslims all over the world where anti-Islamic parties are becoming more and more popular with each passing day, the writing is on the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jan 22, 2019 23:30:20 GMT
THE LAMENT OF HAZRAT MAULANA ASHRAF ALI THANWI REGARDING WOMEN'S SINFUL EMERGENCE
Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahmatullah alayh), regarding whose status as a Mujaddid (mujaddid-e-millat) there is general agreement amongst the Ulama of Deoband, states in Beheshti Zewar:
“The attendance of women in all types of functions is not permissible (na-jaaiz). Other than (attendance at) functions, women have become so shameless that they think nothing of emerging from their homes using just any excuse. Whenever they have a desire, they leave the home to visit friends or the sick or to go and congratulate someone on some happy occasion …..
Due to much corruption it is not at all proper for women to emerge from their homes and move around here and there. The only permission they have from the Shariah is to occasionally visit their parents and other mahram relatives. However, as far as the other relatives are concerned, women may visit them once or twice a year. Other than this, it is not permissible for them to go elsewhere carelessly as has become the practice. Neither should they visit relatives nor participate in marriage functions nor in functions of sorrow nor visit the sick nor go to wish and congratulate anyone.
In fact, if there happens to be a wedding function then it is not permissible for them to go to even the houses of their mahram relatives. If a woman emerges from her home with the permission of her husband, then he also becomes a sinner just as she is a sinner. Alas! Nowhere is this Law of the Shariah (Hukm) observed. Of greater lament is that people do not even consider female emergence to be sinful. On the contrary, they believe it to be permissible. Ponder! All the corruption in society is the consequence of this practice (of women emerging out of their homes to attend functions and gatherings). It is imperative to abandon this (evil) practice and to do Taubah (repent)."
It is most significant and revealing of the times we are living in that despite the evil of women's Haraam emergence having become infinitely worse since Hazrat Maulana Thanwi's lament above, there now exists an almost total silence on this disease which today has reached pandemic proportions. One can only wonder what the lament, shock and horror of Hazrat Maulana Thanwi and of the other Akaabir Ulama of Deoband would have been if they were able to witness the far more degenerated state of the Muslim women of this era.
Of significance too is the fact that despite the deluge of Kuffaar ideologies, including the evil of feminism, engulfing the entire Ummah, the Akaabir of Deoband, almost uniquely, held firmly and rigidly onto this particular aspect of the Deen, as they did also to other teachings of the Deen which had already started becoming Ghareeb (strange, forlorn, unpalatable) during their era, precisely in conformity with numerous prophecies of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regarding the Ghurbah (strangeness) of the Deen as we approach closer to the last Hour. It is a further sign and testament to their status as a Jama'ah (group) of Mujaddids (renewers of the original teachings of the Deen) and Muhaqqiqs (verifiers) whom Allah Ta'aala had tasked with keeping the Sunnah alive - a reality also attested to in detail by unbiased authorities from the Arab lands such as Allamah Kawthari and Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah.
Refer to the work, "The Prohibition of Women Attending Gatherings and Public Lectures" by Mufti Kifaayatullah (available on Google) and other similar works of the Akaabir for a detailed refutation of the modernists and feminists of their era who were attempting to override the Law of the Shariah pertaining to women's emergence. It is noteworthy that today even many of those who claim to be followers of the Akaabir of Deoband are now employing the very same arguments first used by the modernists and feminists which were refuted in detail by that noble Jama'ah of Mujaddids.
Hazrat Maulana Thanwi's emphatic assertion, "...All the corruption in society is the consequence of this practice (of women's Haraam emergence)" pertains not only to clearly discernible societal evils such as the widespread occurrence of zina, the wholesale neglect of the household upon which the structure and well-being of society rests, the emergence of generations of dysfunctional children and child-like adults, and innumerable other ills - but it also applies to the epidemic onset of spiritual emptiness, depression, other mental illnesses, and even suicides, which in previous eras used to be exclusively associated with Kuffaar societies.
While the pious woman of the Salaf, and of all eras until these worst of eras, used to readily attain spiritual fulfilment, contentment and tranquillity in the comfort of her own sanctuary, whilst only carrying out her menial duties and engaging the rest of her time in zikrullah, the modern woman is unable to attain even a semblance of such priceless bestowals from Allah Ta'ala, despite exerting an endless cycle of toil, effort and massive expenditure, involving daily emergence from her home, frequent outings and trips, and even regular Kuffaar-style holidays to the furthest corners of the Earth, as part of an insane pursuit for an elusive mirage of happiness which in reality aggravates her addictions self-perpetually, and is the underlying cause of the numerous mental Illnesses she inevitably contracts.
Remember that a natural corollary to Rasulullah's (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophecies regarding the end of times is the Ummah falling under the same rut as the Muslims of Banee Israaeel who were condemned in the Qur'an for their Haraam Taqleed of their Shaykhs, Muftis, and Maulanas (Ruhbaan and Ahbaar) in matters which clearly contradicted the Shariah - a reality that cannot be manifested more vividly than the phenomenon clearly visible today of rulings conveyed by the Fuqaha authentically and consistently throughout the long stretch of 1400 years, and even by the Akaabir Ulama of recent times, only to be suddenly and irrationally deemed to be non-applicable by the scholars of these worst of eras.
May Allah enable us to accept wholeheartedly the pure and pristine teachings of the Deen as conveyed authentically by the Fuqaha, regardless of how hard it becomes for our lowly desires to submit.
May Allah Ta'ala enable us to implement such teachings in our daily lives, and thus become eligible for the reward of fifty men from the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) as promised in authentic Ahadith for those who hold fast to the Deen when it has become Ghareeb (strange, forlorn, unpalatable).
And finally, may Allah Ta'ala grant us the spiritual strength to propagate such teachings of the Deen and thus contribute to averting the Azaab (punishment) of Allah which currently the Ummah is being subjected to in the form of Kuffaar domination and the imposition of brutal tyrants, which are described in authentic Ahadith to be a direct consequence of forsaking Amr bil Ma'roof wa Nahy anil Munkar (enjoining good deeds and prohibiting wrong-doing). Ameen
THE QURANIC COMMAND FOR WOMEN TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE HOME: In Surah Ahzab, Allah Ta'ala issues the following categorical command which applies to all women:
"And remain firmly in your homes and do not display your finery as women used to do in the Days of Jahiliyyah." [33:33]
We provide here a small glimpse into the Tafseer of this verse by the authoritative Mufassirs (interpreters) of the Qur'an which is in stark contrast to the prevalent 'Tafseer' given nowadays by modernist and feminists masquerading as 'scholars'.
Amongst the most authoritative and widely accepted Tafseers of the Qur'an for nearly a thousand years, Tafseer Al-Qurtubi states that this command of Allah Ta'ala applies to all women, that there are countless other evidences that support this command, and that women must not venture outside without Hajaah - a real necessity:
"This command applies to all Muslim women even if it was the only proof in this regard; Nevertheless, there are countless commands and evidence proving that the Muslim woman should remain firmly within her house and refrain from leaving it without a necessity."
Al-Qurtubi also mentions that when A’isha (radhiyallahu anha) recited this verse, she wept with such a weeping that her entire khimaar became wet due to her regret over emerging out of her home, even as a relatively older woman, in her attempt to reconcile and prevent war between two groups of Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum). Al-Qurtubi adds that when another wife of the Prophet, Sawdah (radhiyallahu anha) was asked why she did not perform the Hajj or the Umrah along with her sisters, the virtuous lady replied:
‘I have already performed the Hajj and the Umrah. As for now, Allah has commanded me to stay in my house.’
She remained in her home till the day of her death, when her lifeless body was buried in Medina.
See Tafsir al-Qurtubi (14/179) and other authentic Tafseers
Such reports of the pious women from the Salaf never being seen outside their homes until the day of their Janazah when they are brought out wrapped up in their burial shrouds, are not uncommon.
Allamah Ibnul Hajj al-Maliki, in his Madkhal, whilst emphasizing the rarity of women's emergence as commanded by the Shariah, narrates the following statement of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen:
"A woman has three times of coming out (from her home) in her lifetime: one to the house of her husband when she is handed over to him; one for the death of her parents and one to her grave." (al-Madkhal)
The modernists and feminists today who selectively quote the initial attendance of women at the Eidgah, during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh wasallam), ignore the fact that the very same narrations corroborate the fact that many of the women did not even possess Burkahs, thus indicating that they would not come out at all. Furthermore, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) advised the one without a Burkah to use the Burkah of her sister. The Shafi'i Faqeeh, Allamah Ruwyaani (410 - 502H), explains, "the two of them enter together the Jilbaab of one of them". (يدخلان معا في جلباب إحداهما) Unlike the slimline costumes going under the name "Burkah" today, the Burkahs of the noble Sahabiyyah (radhiyallahu anhunna) were large and baggy enough to contain two of them.
Also of note and ignored by the modernists is the fact that the Sahabah (radiyallahu anhum), the Four Imams, and other major Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, had all begun imposing severe restrictions on that initial permission, thus setting a clear precedent for a complete prohibition based on the widespread failure of women to meet the essential and non-negotiable pre-conditions for attendance set by none other than Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself. The Fuqaha explicitly state the simple logical rationale that when a woman is prohibited from the mosque, to a greater extent will she be prohibited from other places such as gatherings for lectures.
One of the reasons behind Allah's explicit command for women to remain at home is the fact that the woman is Aurah (to be concealed in entirety) as stated in numerous Hadiths of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Just one narration is the following Hadith reported by Hadhrat lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallaahu anhu) who said that Nabee (Sallallaahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) said:
“The woman is Aurah (must be concealed in entirety); whenever she emerges from the home, shaytaan surreptitiously pursues her (lies in wait).” (Tirmidhi – Saheeh)
Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said:
“Women have no share in emerging (from their homes) except in emergencies (i.e. genuine needs defined and explained by the Fuqaha)” (Tabaraani — Mu’jamul Kabeer)
Regarding Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicit declaration that the woman is Aurah, the first and primary level of concealment is confinement to the home. Hence, in an authentic variant of the above Hadith found in the Musannaf of Abi Shayba, Hazrat Ibn Mas'ood (radhiyallahu anhu) issues the following emphatic command:
“Keep the women confined (احبسوا) to the home, for indeed the woman is Aurah (must be concealed in entirety). Verily, when a woman emerges from her home, shaytaan surreptitiously pursues her and says to her: “You will not pass by any [man] except that he will be attracted to you.”
Note the verb and command tense used by Hazrat Ibn Mas'ood (radhiyallahu anhu) in this Saheeh narration - literally "imprison" - to emphasize the obligation on the men's part to ensure that their womenfolk remain confined indoors.
Imam Bayhaqi narrates the following hadith which is corroborated by authentic variants in other Hadith books such as al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani:
"Asma’ bint Yazeed Al-Ansaariyyah (radhiyallaahu ‘anha), a Sahaabiyyah from the Banu ‘Abdil Ash-hal clan, once approached Rasulullah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) while He (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was seated among the Sahaabah (radhiyallaahu ‘anhum) and addressed Him (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) in the following words:
“May my father and mother be sacrificed for you! I have come to you as a representative of all women. May my life be sacrificed for you! Every single woman, in the east and west, whether she has heard that I will come to you or not, will have exactly the same question as myself. Verily Allah Ta'ala has sent you with the truth to men and women. We brought imaan in you and in Allah Ta'ala who deputed You.
• We, the women, live with restrictions and limitations.
• We do not leave the confines of our homes.
• We allow you to fulfil your needs with us, and we bear your children.
• You, the men, have been favoured by your being able to attend the jumu‘ah salaah and other salaahs in congregation.
• You are able to visit the sick and be present at funerals.
• You perform hajj after hajj and even more virtuous than that is your fighting in the path of Allah Ta'ala. When any of you men leave your home to perform hajj or ‘umrah or to guard the borders of the Islamic territories, it is none other than us women who protect your wealth for you. We sew your clothes for you. We raise and care for your children.
Do we not have a share in your reward O Rasulullah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam)?”
On hearing the complaint of this woman, the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) turned his face towards the Sahaabah (radhiyallaahu ‘anhum) and asked,
“Have you ever heard a woman ask a question regarding her deen more excellent than the question of this woman?”
The Sahaabah (radhiyallaahu ‘anhum) replied,
“O Rasulullah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam)! We never imagined that a woman could be inspired to ask a question of this nature!”
The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) turned back to her and said,
“Return, O woman, and inform all the women you represent that for you to display excellent conduct with your husband, seek to keep him happy and try your utmost to comply with his ways will equal all the deeds you mentioned.”
Asma’ (radhiyallahu ‘anha) was so delighted to hear this, that as she walked away she continued to exclaim “Allahu Akbar!" and "La ilaaha illallaah!"
The authentic variant narrated by al-Bazzar actually mentions that a woman's mere confinement (qa'ada) in her home is sufficient for her to acquire the greatest of bounties - the same reward as that of the Mujaahid in the path of Allah.
More quotes of the Fuqaha and the Salaf-us-Saaliheen to come here insha-Allah
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jan 2, 2019 22:28:28 GMT
Here is one example of an application by Allamah Abdul Hayy al-Laknawi of this ruling transmitted by the Hanafi Fuqaha, pertaining to some practices and beliefs of shirk that had become prevalent amongst the common people (who all have their "ulama" such as the likes of Ahmad Raza Khan):
Question:
What do you say (may Allāh ۢMost High have mercy on you) regarding the issue that is prevalent in our lands amongst the common people that in times of calamity and dire need, they call out in asking for assistance from the prophets and saints from afar believing that they are ḥāḍir & nāẓir and that whenever they implore them they are aware, and in turn, supplicate for them in the fulfilment of these needs? Is this permissible or not? Explain, and be rewarded.
Answer:
He grants direction to what is correct: In reality, such belief in the prophets and saints being ḥāḍir and nāẓir, and at all times are aware of our calling out to them even from afar is shirk, since it entails belief in ‘ilm al-ghayb for other than Him Most High, and this belief is shirk. This is because this characteristic is from those exclusive to Allāh (Great is His Grandeur), which no other being can have partnership with Him in. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘One marries without witnesses, saying: I make Allāh, His Messenger and the Angels witness, he disbelieves, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb.’ [1] Further, it states in Bazzāziyyah: ‘About this our scholars have said: Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing have committed disbelief.’ And Allāh knows best.
This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Powerful Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (Majmū‘at al-Fatāwā p. 344-5)
[1] The jurists also state that if one were to say the angels on their shoulders are witness to their marriage, they will not become disbelievers “because these angels are never absent from them.” (al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī, 7:407; see also: al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah, 2:288) Hence, shirk and kufr is in affirming knowledge of something to a being that is not proven that they have acquired.
(Translated by Mufti Zameelur Rahman)
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Dec 23, 2018 8:54:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Dec 19, 2018 10:31:25 GMT
BARELWIS AND WAHHABIS - TWIN MUJADDIDS OF TAKFEER The Mujaddid of Takfeer, Ahmad Ridha Khan, declaring as *no takfeer* hundreds of millions of Muslims who associate themselves with the school of Deoband OR have any sort of ties with them, states explicitly and unambiguously in his Fatawa Africa:“The final appeal to the Muslims in regards to the Deobandis. Those who do not call them kafir, those who pay respect to them, those who bear in mind any teacher-student, family or friendship ties are also from among them and are kafir like them. They shall be tied together with one rope on the Day of Reckoning.” (p. 115)Even Barelwis who doubt the *no takfeer* status of the Deobandis are also *no takfeer* according to this Mujaddid of Takfeer – a concept known as chain-takfeer. Ahmad Ridha Khan re-iterates his Fatwa of mass-takfeer and chain-takfeer in numerous places in his works, in which he groups the Deobandis with such groups as the Qadiyanis. To cite just one example out of many, the following Fatwa states unambiguously that anyone who does not consider all Deobandis as *no takfeer*, or even doubts that they are *no takfeer*, becomes *no takfeer* himself:“Nadhir Hasan Dehlawi, Amir Ahmad Sehaswani, Amir Hasan Sehaswani, Qasim Nanotwi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi and all of their adherents, followers, devotees and those who praise them are through the consensus of notable scholars kafir. And those who do not consider them to be kafir and doubt their kufr are also, without doubt, kafir.” (‘Irfan-i-Shari‘at, part 2, p. 29; also see Malfuzat, part 1, p. 115)Hundreds of millions of Muslims in whose lineage is a Deobandi or one who doubts that they are all *no takfeer*, are illegitimate children according to this Mujaddid of Takfeer:“Likewise, the Wahhabis, the Qadiyanis, the Deobandis, the humanists, the Chakralwis are all apostates (murtad), in that whoever their males or females marry in nikah from the people of the entire universe—regardless of whether they are Muslim, originally kafir, an apostate human or absolute animal—then this [nikah] will only be absolute falsehood (batil) and pure adultery (zina) and the children will be illegitimate (wald al-zina).” (Malfuzat, part 2, P. 105 of the Lucknow print and p. 100 of the Lead Press, Karachi)According to the Fatwas of mass-takfeer of this “Mujaddid”, the Barelwis should verify first whether or not those who slaughter their meat doubt that the Deobandis are *no takfeer*. If the slaughterer happens to be a Deobandi, or follows them, or praises them, or even doubts the *no takfeer* status of the Deobandis, then the meat is absolutely impure (najis), carrion and completely haram:“Answer: The slaughtered animal of a woman is permissible when she is able to carry out the slaughter properly. The slaughtered animal of a Jew is halal when slaughter is done with the name of the Most High, likewise [this is the case] if someone is truly a Christian and not an atheist Humanist like the general Christians of nowadays in that the slaughtered animal of a Humanist who claims Islam is carrion and not halal. The one who claims Christianity, the Rafidi, the Tabra’i, the Wahhabi Deobandi, the Wahhabi Ghayr Muqallid, the Qadiyani, the Chakralwi and the Humanist, all of their slaughtered animals are absolutely impure and firmly carrion and haram even if they recite the name of Allah a hundred thousand times and behave in a god fearing and pious way because they are all apostates…” (Ahkam-i-Shariat, part 1, p. 68)Such Fatwas of mass-takfeer and chain takfeer bear a distinct resemblance to those of the other great Mujaddid of Takfeer of the recent age, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Since Wahhabis are second only to the Shiah in the chameleon-like art of Taqiyyah (holy hypocrisy and deception) it is worth citing here the true non-Taqiyyah Fatwa of the Wahhabis in regards to the Ash’aris, who along with the Maturidis, have constituted virtually the whole Ummah for the past thousand years. The Wahhabi authority, Shaykh Abdur Rahman ibn Hasan, the direct grandson of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab states in a Wahhabi gospel known as, “ad-Durar as-Sanniyah”:“This group which affiliates itself to Abul Hasan al-Ashari, describes the Lord of the Worlds with attributes of a non-existent and inanimate being…They deny the Oneness of Allah in Godhood, and permit the Shirk which Allah does not forgive (i.e. Shirk Akbar)…and they deny the oneness of His attributes by negating (them). So the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah and their followers have well-known publications in refutation of this obstinate, Kaaafir group…” [ad-Durar as-Sanniyah]
[Excerpts from ReliableFatwas]
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Dec 1, 2018 11:46:04 GMT
The following point, not covered in the article posted above, will be elaborated in more detail in future insha-Allah:
"While the Jumhoor (vast majority) Fuqaha - those whom the Barelwis deceptively claim to follow - have unequivocally declared the Kufr of one who holds such an abominable belief, a fringe minority have proffered an excuse to avoid having to do Takfeer on the one who holds this belief. Furthermore, even this weak view narrated only by a fringe minority, which exonerates the perpetrator only of exiting Islam, relates to the knowledge of just the one solitary Nikah attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), not the detailed leafy and grainy knowledge of billions and billions of Nikah, upon which the Gustakhi Barelwis make Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) perfections dependent.
Since in the Barelwi “deen" an abominable act on which there is allegedly an ikhtilaaf on its Kufr, translates into permissibility or even commendability, we shall demonstrate the weakness and questionable origins of this view later. For now, we quote Allamah Ibn Abideen (Shaami), who was one of the minority of Fuqaha to relate the weak view, alongside the view of the Jumhoor Fuqaha who unequivocally declared as Kaaafir the holder of this belief regarding just the one Nikah. We quote directly from the very work he referred readers to when citing the weak view, which demonstrates that even those few scholars who narrated the weak view, also agree that the Barelwi Aqeedah is pure, unadulterated Kufr:
"That which is exclusive to Allah Ta'aala is only knowledge of all [matters] and knowledge of the keys of the ghayb referred to in His (Ta'aala) saying: Verily, with Allah is knowledge of the Hour, and He sends down rain, to the end of the verse. The outcome of this explanation is that one who claims knowledge of ghayb in one matter or several will not become Kaaafir, and this is the subject-matter of what is mentioned in Rawdah; while the one who claims its knowledge in all matters becomes KAAAFIR, which is the subject-matter of what is found in its source [i.e. Sharh al-Wajeez of al-Rafi'i]....As for that [knowledge] which does not relate to it in either of the two ways from unseen things (i.e. non-beneficial knowledge that does not relate directly to the Prophetic mission such as the knowledge of billions of Nikah or even just the one), from the totality of which is the timing of the commencement of the Hour, He will NEVER disclose it to anyone, while an explanation of its timing infringes on the legislative wisdom around which the orbit of risālah revolves." [Majmoo'at Rasaa-il Ibn Aabideen]
"All matters" clearly refer to the knowledge referred to in the verse cited which unambiguously pertains to the creation only, the detailed knowledge of which, leaf and grain, is explicitly ascribed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by the Barelwis.
Regarding the Fatwa issued by Imam Abul Qaasim as-Sufi al-Mutakallim, it is worth that in ALL the early authoritative Fatwa manuals, and even in most of the later ones (e.g. Nisaab ul-Ihtisaab explicitly states that there is no ikhtilaaf), no ikhtilaaf on this particular issue is cited, while in the very same chapters, multiple other beliefs or statements are often listed regarding whose Kufr there exists an Ikhtilaaf. For example, regarding the anthropomorphic statement, “Allah is looking from the throne“, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah states that this is Kufr (with no attention paid to the intention of the utterer) “according to the majority” i.e. a minority refrained from doing Takfeer for this crime. Perhaps now some stupid Halafi (Hanafi influenced by Salafism), in the manner of the Barelwis, will now take that as a full endorsement of his anthropomorphic views since a minority of Hanafi authorities have refrained from doing Takfeer.
In any case, we shall demonstrate that the weak view, which exonerates the one who holds this deviant belief regarding just the one solitary Nikah (NOT billions), is absolutely Marjooh and Ma'doom (non-existent) according to the principles of the Hanafi Madh-hab which are delineated by Allamah Ibn Aabideen himself in his Sharh Uqood Rasm ul-Mufti."
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Nov 26, 2018 14:26:48 GMT
ILMUL GHAYB AND THE KUFR OF BARELWIS The extreme deviance of the Barelwis and the crooked lie of their deceptive claim of being authentic adherents to the Hanafi Madh-hab and the generality (Jumhoor) of the Fuqaha, are exposed thoroughly by their attribution of detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of “everything that was and everything that will be” to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).This belief is summed up, in very clear terms, as follows by their arch-idol, Ahmad Raza Khan: “It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of everything from the first till the last. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun) has been shown to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. Great knowledge has been encompassed by the Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allah. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge.” (Inba al-Mustafa, p.486)To illustrate better what is meant by the detailed knowledge of “every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness”, let us consider the example of a Nikah (wedding). According to this perverted Barelwi creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses the knowledge of every single one of the billions of Nikah that had ever taken place in the past, is currently taking place, and the billions more that are due to take place in the future.Furthermore, according to this twisted creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses not only the knowledge of the general arrangements of each and every Nikah, but also every single paraphernalia attached to each Nikah, from the food items, the guests, the clothes worn by the guests, to every other minute detail connected to the Nikah, even the detailed knowledge of each and every leaf that falls in the vicinity of the Nikah and the detailed knowledge of each and every grain that is consumed during the Nikah.The leafy and grainy detail of the knowledge attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is made clear in unambiguous terms:“From all of the above (i.e. all that has occurred and all that will occur – including obviously every single Nikah) not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet….It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail.”Similar statements affirming detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of everything to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as opposed to a summary overview (ijmaali) of all significant events relevant to the creation, can be found in other books of Ahmad Raza Khan such as ad-Dawlat ul-Makkiyyah, Khaalis ul-I’tiqaad, al-Malfooz al-Shareef, and also in the books of other arch-idols of the Barelwis such Jaa al-Haq and Shane Habeebur Rahman of “Hakeem ul-Ummat” (The quack doctor of the Ummah), Ahmad Yaar Khan.Now compare and contrast this belief, O Barelwi worshippers of Ahmad Raza Khan, against THE Fatwa of the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding a person who attributes to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of a single and solitary Nikah for which there is no apparent means for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to gain the knowledge of.
The Hanafi Mujtahid from the 5th Century, As-Sadr ush-Shaheed Husam ud-Deen, who was the senior teacher of numerous other pillars of the Hanafi Madh-hab, including the famous authors of al-Hidaayah and al-Muheet al-Ridawi, narrates the following ruling from his pious predecessors:من تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله و رسوله لا يجوز لأنه نكاح لم يحضره الشهود، وحكى عن أبو القاسم الصفار أن هذا كفر محض لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله يعلم الغيب وهذا كفر“Whoever marries a woman, taking Allah and his messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as witnesses – it is not permissible because witnesses are not present for the Nikah. It is related from Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar that this is Kufr Mahd (pure, unadulterated disbelief that expels a person from Islam) because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb) and this is Kufr.” [Al-Waaqi’aat, page 70 of the manuscript]
Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar as-Soofee (326H) was a Hanafi Mujtahid with only three links between himself and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh). This fatwa has been accepted and transmitted in every age by the Hanafi Fuqaha. The very same Fatwa or similar versions to it were accepted and quoted approvingly by the early Fatwa manuals which constituted the Hanafi Madh-hab such as al-Fataawa ul-Walwaalijiyyah (Vol. 5, pg. 422), Khulaasat ul-Fataawa (Vol. 4, pg. 385), al-Muheet ul-Burhaani (Vol. 7, pg. 407), al-Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyyah (Vol. 6, pg. 325), al-Fusool ul-Imaadiyyah, al-Multaqat (pg. 244), Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan (Vol. 2, pg. 517), and other authoritative texts.
Again, compare and contrast the statement, “this is pure Kufr because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb)”, accepted by all these early Fuqaha, with the Barelwi Aqeedah as exemplified by another one of their arch-idols, Muhammad Umar Icharwi, who commits the greatest act of Kufr and Gustakhi (demeaning Allah and his Rasool sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by making Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophethood wholly dependent on an attribute exclusive only to Allah Ta’aala:
“For the Prophethood to be valid it is necessary that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows ALL OF THE UNSEEN.” (Miqyase Hanafiyyat, p. 385) Continued here:reliablefatwas.com/ilmul-ghayb-and-the-kufr-of-barelwis/
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Oct 12, 2018 18:12:08 GMT
QUESTION Please offer some advice on the following scenario. We are seeing the beginnings of change in the mentality of the UK non-muslim population. Although they dislike the burka, they tolerate it. However, the niqab is something that politicians have openly insulted, with no apology and have been supported surprisingly by previously very quiet non-muslims up and down the UK.They voice opinions such as it being a security risk as helmets and balaclavas and other face veils are not allowed in public. So currently their hate for it is based on some justification. From their point of view, it is a fair comment and they cannot understand why there is discrimination. You either allow all face coverings in public or ban them, there’s no in-between.However I am worried as my sisters and mother wear the niqab. May Allah protect them but I am undecided as to what to do moving forward.1) Do you have any advice as to what I should do when it comes to my mother and sisters who wear niqab?2) Are you aware of any valid response I can give when it comes to niqab being a security risk, inability to see the face and ultimately laws in the UK which ban helmets and other face coverings but allow the niqab?ANSWERIn the final analysis everything is the decree of Allah Ta’ala. The Shariah orders women to remain at home and not leave the home precincts without pressing and valid reason.Most Muslim women, all over the world, regard the Niqaab as a licence to wander and prowl in public places. In view of this abandonment of true Hijaab – Hijaab of the heart – Allah Ta’ala has decreed the current anti-Hijaab attitude in non-Muslims. But, Muslims themselves are the cause for this attitude of the non-Muslims. It is merely the consequence of Muslim disobedience and transgression.In view of the hatred for Hijaab displayed openly by non-Muslims, it is hoped that Muslim women will come to their senses and remain indoors to avoid being insulted outside in the streets.Your mother and sisters should remain indoors. Only if there is a real need should they venture outside. They should not go to shops, supermarkets and the like. The menfolk should see to the needs of the home.If there is a real and valid need for them to emerge from the home, they should continue wearing their Niqaab as long as they are not exposed to physical violence.You will not be able to convince non-Muslims regarding the necessity of the niqaab. Just make dua.If Muslims abandon their rebellious transgression and revert to the Sunnah, Allah Ta’ala will change the attitudes of the kuffaar.[Answered by Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai]“ISLAMOPHOBIA” THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION With the steady and perfectly natural increase of “islamophobia”, oppression, plunder, pillage and genocide of Muslims in Burma, India, Palestine, China, Chechnya, Syria, and almost all over the world, countless self-appointed and so-called experts and scholars have come crawling out offering a whole variety of “solutions” conjured up from their whims, most of which are utterly bereft of Quranic and Sunnah basis.Since many of these so-called “experts” and “scholars” are themselves drowning in sins, even committing the infinitely worse crime of halaalizing many of those sins, they are all extremely averse to mentioning the ONLY solution to the plight of the Burmese Muslims and the plight of oppressed Muslims the world over.Perhaps a feeble whisper, or even a murmur or two on this Quranic solution may be heard extremely feintly from a few of these self-appointed “experts”. However, on the whole these self-appointed “experts” excel in the art of deflecting attention from the actual problem since they all know very well, deep inside, that they form an integral part of the root-cause of the tyranny of brutal rulers and Kuffaar domination which NONE other than Allah Ta’ala has currently imposed upon the whole Ummah.Contrast the crank ‘solutions’ blabbered on perpetually by the self-appointed “experts” of today with the ONLY solution prescribed by Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri, one of the great students of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) – a solution that has been authentically transmitted and re-iterated by countless Fuqaha and Ulama-e-Haqq (true scholars) throughout the ages. (See Adab al-Hasan al-Basri of Ibn al-Jawzi, ash-Sharee’ah of Imam al-Ajurri, and other early books recording the statements of the Salaf).Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri (rahmatullah alayh) states that sincere repentance and rectification of ourselves and each other, are the only solutions to the oppression inflicted by a brutal rulership, and that any other so-called “solution”, such as those prescribed by the crank “experts” of today, will only make matters worse:“The Oppression of Kings (i.e. governments and rulers) is from the Punishments of Allah Ta’ala. The Punishment of Allah Ta’ala cannot be warded off with swords. Verily, safety (from Allah’s punishment) and warding it off are (possible) only by means of Dua, Taubah, Inaabat (turning to Him with repentance), and by eliminating sins. Verily, when the Punishment of Allah is confronted by swords, it (Allah’s Punishment) becomes worse.” (Adab al-Hasan al-Basri)Once when the people were complaining about the severe oppression of the ruler, Hajjaaj, Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) responded:“Verily, Hajjaaj is Allah’s Punishment. Therefore, do not (try to) ward off Allah’s punishment with your hands. On the contrary, submission and humility are obligatory on you, for verily, Allah Ta’ala said: “Verily, We have afflicted them with punishment. However, they did not submit to their Rabb nor did they become humble.” (Ahmad, Ibn Abi Dunya)The Qur’anic verse quoted by Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri, “…they did not submit to their Rabb, nor did they become humble” refers to the Muslims’ stubborn refusal to recognise and acknowledge their sins, to repent sincerely and wholeheartedly, and to rectify themselves, in similar manner to the crank “experts” of today whose “solutions” are satanically designed to deflect attention from their own sins and the sins of their flock which are the root-cause of Allah’s Punishment currently enveloping the whole Ummah.Hadhrat Talq Bin Habeeb (Rahmatullah alayh), another luminary of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen states:“Save (yourselves) from the Punishment with Taqwa. If you are obedient to Allah Ta’ala, then you can hope for the mercy of Allah. If you abandon disobedience to Allah Ta’ala, Allah’s Athaab will be warded off.” (Ahmad, Ibn Abi Dunya)Taqwa entails abandoning all Haraam and Mushtabah (doubtful) matters. But, today the word “Taqwa” tends to elicit violently allergic reactions, especially from these cranks masquerading as experts and scholars.In vivid contrast to the “solutions” blabbered on by these so-called “experts”, ALLAH TA’ALA declares Taqwa and Sabr as the solution for defeating the never-ending plots of the Kuffaar enemies of Islam:“If you adopt Sabr and you adopt Taqwa, never will their (i.e. the Kuffaar) plot harm you at all. And indeed, Allah is ever-encompassing of what they do.” (Surah Aal-e-Imran)Spiritually barren Muslims who are averse to this Quranic solution, and who are unable to appreciate the infinite wisdom contained in this and other similar verses of the Qur’an, should introspect deeply within themselves, accept the immeasurable damage sustained by their crassly materialistic and sinful lifestyle, and engage in frequent Muraaqabah (reflection) on the One who grants and snatches away Dominion and Power at will, in order to remedy the chronic spiritual cancers which have engulfed their severely diseased hearts.‘Sabr’ in the context of this verse means complete submission to Allah Ta’ala, repentance, self-rectification and obedience. Allah Ta’ala, the All-Powerful, will then create the circumstances for either the change of the hearts of the rulers, substituting oppression with justice, or He will eliminate the oppressors and tyrants.Once when a group of people came to Hadhrat Hasan Basri during times of great oppression and anarchy, he advised them with the same Qur’anic solution as follows:“Remain within your homes and lock your doors. Wallaah! If people had to adopt Sabr when oppressed by their Sultan, Allah Azza Wa Jal will soon eliminate the oppression. However, when they resort to the sword (i.e. rebellion), they are assigned to it [i.e. Allah abandons them to their swords].” (Ash-Sharee’ah of Imam al-Ajurri)Today, the catastrophic events that have transpired recently in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Arab Spring etc. are testimony to the fact that Allah’s Punishment only becomes worse, if the root-cause of His (azza wa jal) Punishment are not dealt with adequately. As long as the Ummah fails to adopt and propagate fervently the ONLY solution as prescribed by the Qur’an and Hadith, and as encapsulated in the aforementioned advices of Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri, Hadhrat Talq bin Habeeb, and countless other luminaries throughout the ages, NEVER will the Ummah be able to extricate itself from the reign of brutal tyrants, Kuffaar domination, frequent floods, droughts, earthquakes and other natural disasters which have been dispatched most deservingly upon this flagrantly sinful Ummah by NONE other than Allah Ta’ala, the Most Just.THE UMMAH WILL ONLY PROGRESS IF THE MUSLIMS BEGIN RE-DIRECTING THEIR ANGER AND FRUSTRATION AT THEIR OWN SINS FIRST AND AT THE INFINITELY WORSE CRIME OF HALAALIZATION (TRANSFORMING HARAAM INTO HALAAL) PERPETRATED BY THE “SCHOLARS” (i.e. EVIL SCHOLARS) OF TODAY, WHICH ARE THE GREATEST CAUSES FOR ALLAH’S IMPOSITION OF THE MOST BRUTAL OF TYRANTS UPON THIS UMMAH.We end here with the advice and command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), who in stark contrast to the crank experts of today, explicitly declares that the imposition of brutal tyrannical rulers is a direct result of our terrible failure to rectify ourselves and each other:“Enjoin people towards righteous deeds and prohibit them from wrong-doing (i.e. breaking of Allah’s sacred Laws as clarified by the Salaf-us-Saaliheen and upheld by the Fuqaha for 1400 years). Otherwise, Allah will place in authority over you the worst of people amongst you (e.g. Burmese Monks, Bashar Assad, Sisi, Modi, Tramp, etc). Then the most pious amongst you will do Du’a, but their Du’as will not be answered.” (Authentic Hadith narrated by Tabarani, Bazzar, and many others)]The Qur’anic and Sunnah solution for all Muslim communities who are undergoing naturally increasing levels of “islamophobia”, discrimination, and oppression, which inevitably and eventually always culminates in Andalusian-style genocide, is crystal-clear.“It is only upon us to convey (the Haqq)”
[By a student of the deen]
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 13, 2018 12:11:37 GMT
HOW TO SPOT A FEMINIST QUACK "SCHOLAR" "...Chicanery and deceit are qualities that are ingrained in the disposition of all of these feminist deviate “scholars”. While they harp on about Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) command not to prevent women from the Masjids, they all maintain a spectacularly deafening silence on the pre-conditions which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had set for their attendance.
Scour through the Ghutha (trash) verbage of these feminists who fraudulently claim to follow Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) teachings authentically and one cannot help but notice that every single command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) pertaining to women which does not conform with the Kuffaar cult of life, is vividly conspicuous by its absence.
How many of these feminist deviate scholars expend any effort and how much of their Ghutha (trash) is devoted to exhorting women to emerge only in the state of being “Tafilaat” as explicitly commanded by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? How much of their Ghutha is expended in explaining what “Tafilaat” actually entails according to the experts of the Arabic language? How much of their Ghutha is devoted to emphasizing Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicit command to women to adhere to the edges of the path, as a result of which the noble female Sahaabiyyaat (radhiyallahu anhunna) would scrape their outer garments against the walls? How much of their Ghutha is expended in re-iterating Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicit declaration that a woman who emerges outside smelling of any form of fragrant scent, is an adulteress whose Salaat is rejected until she performs the Ghusl of Janaabah (ritual purification required after intercourse)? How much of their Ghutha is disgorged in expounding on the prohibition of men and women being in close proximity even on the roads, leave aside the vicinity of the most sanctified places in the world? How much of their Ghutha is used to clarify the fact that the noble Sahaabiyaat (female companions) would generally attend the mosques in intense darkness, wrapped up in entirety in their worn-out and tattered outer garments, with none being able to recognise the other, and that they would flee from the mosque immediately after Salaat while the male Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) would remain seated until all trace of the generally elderly women had vanished?
And, how much of their Ghutha is devoted to any of the countless other commands of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which are in complete conflict with, and wholly unpalatable to the values of Kufr which lurk in the inner recesses of their hearts?
The deception and misrepresentation of our Deen perpetrated by such charlatan scholars are made even more acutely conspicuous by the fact that all of the aforementioned commands of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and other similar commands pertaining to women, are violated, en masse, to an epidemic degree never before witnessed by the Ummah.
In reality, it is the hidden disdain (Kufr) for these clear commands of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which do not accord with their Kufr worldview, which constrains them to seal their lips firmly shut whilst simultaneously being able to whine pathetically, with deafening loudness, about a Fatwa of prohibition which was initiated by none other than those who were the closest to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and who understood and submitted to his teachings the best.
In vivid contrast to the Ghutha disgorged in chorus by these feminist deviates, the books of the Fuqaha are faithful to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and replete with all of the aforementioned commands, much of which would naturally be unpalatable today, as indicated by Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophecy that the true Deen will eventually become Ghareeb (lone, isolated, forlorn)....
The fraudulent so-called Hanbalis of this era, both the Salafi and fraudulent “Sufi” varieties, who cite some latter-day Hanbali authorities which contradict this explicit Fatwa of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal issued during the most blessed of eras, NEVER utter even a whisper on some of the prerequisites for attendance mentioned by these latter-day Hanbali authorities, which women today, en masse, utterly fail in fulfilling. Imam al-Buhooti, for example, defines the pre-condition of “Tafilaat” precisely in accordance with the experts in the Arabic language as, “When her smell becomes pungent as a result of leaving out applying fragrance or applying oil.”, and Allamah Qudamah includes as a prerequisite the wearing of old, worn and tattered garments (bizlah). Furthermore, ALL the Fuqaha agree that a necessary pre-requisite for permission for women to attend the Masjid is the absence of Fitnah and Fasaad amongst the vilest of which is free-mixing, which includes when going into and leaving the mosques.
Is there any mosque in the world, or any other public place at which both men and women gather, where the men and women display even the slightest capacity or faintest hope of avoiding the vilest aspects of Fitnah and Fasaad (immoral corruption) to which these Feminist Devils have become thoroughly desensitized and oblivious, such as free-mixing when entering and leaving the public premises, lowering the gazes, women failing miserably in attending as "Tafilaat", in clothes that have been described by the Salaf-us-Saaliheen and Fuqaha with such words as "Bizlah", "al-Atmaar", "al-Ma-aayiz", "Khulqaan", "Khashina Thiyaabiha" (in summary: old, shabby, worn-out, rough clothing), etc. which vividly depict what they really meant by subjective terms such as "Ghair Mutatayyibaat" and "Ghair Mutazayyinaat", and the other necessary and non-negotiable prerequisites for attendance which the noble Sahaabiyyaat (radhiyallahu anhunna) used to fulfil?...
Why do these feminist charlatans even bother with the likes of Allamah Ibn Hazm or Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani when even much of their teachings on this issue would be regarded as misogynistic according to the libertine cult of the West to which these charlatans have fully submitted (tasleem)? Why do these charlatans even bother trawling through our vast tradition, dismissing and mocking the rulings of the Fuqaha on the way, and searching desperately for an anomalous scrap or two that conform closest with the values of Kufr embedded in their hearts, and even then having to distort and mutilate those scraps? Why do they not come out into the open and declare loudly and clearly, “This is my own personal Deen, and that is the Deen of the Fuqaha and the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.”?
The obvious answer is that even these charlatans realise that a great proportion of their market, the masses to whom these charlatans are fully dependent on for money and adulation, still possess the belief that the true Deen is somehow tied to the Salaf-us-Saaliheen and the great Fuqaha of the past, hence the need for them (i.e. the feminists) to scavenge like hungry dogs for the anomalous and erroneous slips of the Fuqaha....
While the narration of Hadhrat Aatikah bint Zayd (radhiyallahu anha) attending the Masjid, and the narrations of other elderly “Tafilaat” cited in a selectively half-baked manner by the feminist fraudsters, poses absolutely no problems for us, they backfire flatly in the faces of these charlatans, and reveal the Nafsaaniyyaat – base desires fully submitted to Kuffaar values – that is the core foundational basis of their entire “Deen”.
On what other basis do these feminist Charlatans have the audacity to even cite Hadhrat Aatikah’s (radhiyallahu anha) presence at the Masjid at the time of the martyrdom of her husband (radhiyallahu anhu), leave aside using it as a Mustadal (proof), when this particular information has reached us only in the form of a disconnected narration, while the authenticity of every other authentic Hadith confirmed and accepted by the entire Ummah, but unpalatable to the Kuffaar, is assaulted on the slightest whimsical basis? On what other basis do these fraudsters reject the fully-connected and authentic narration of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) as it has been understood by the entire Ummah? On what other basis do those fraudsters who concede the authenticity of the narration of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) dismiss the understanding of the galaxy of Mujtahideen and Fuqaha of the entire Ummah regarding it, and proceed instead to scavenge like hungry dogs for an anomalous scrap or two such as the one dropped by Allamah Ibn Hazm which Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani merely regurgitated? On what other basis do these dishonest fraudsters who pounce on the anomalous couple of scraps left for them by Allamah Ibn Hazm and Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, then proceed to ignore, dismiss, and even commit blatant Tahreef (distort) of the rest of the teachings of these two Fuqaha, such as the prohibition of women emerging EXCEPT as “Tafilaat” which Allamah Ibn Hazm defines aptly as “foul-smelling and clothing“? On what basis do these feminist fraudsters ignore the fully-connected and authentic narration of one of the most senior Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), expelling the women from the Masjid and instructing the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and Tabi’een to “Keep them out from where Allah had expelled them from”?
And, on what basis do these quacks ignore and suppress the facts evident from the very narrations that they cite, such as the fact that Hadhrat Aatikah (radhiyallahu anha) was an elderly woman (al-Ajooz) of impeccable piety who would only attend the Masjid as “tafilat“, during times of intense darkness, fulfilling all the other necessary pre-conditions for attendance set by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with absolute perfection, and yet, still, the greatest of men on Earth at the time displayed so much disinclination and Ghairah towards her attendance?...
The Shafi’i authority, Allamah Taqi ud-Deen al-Hisni states that only a Ghabi (a moron suffering from extreme density of brains) would fail to understand the applicability of Hadhrat Aishah’s (radhiyallahu anha) explicit Fatwa for an age in which the pre-conditions for women’s attendance are violated to an infinitely greater degree than the relatively more minor violations that had occurred during the era of Hadhrat Aishah’s (radhiyallahu anha) - a self-evident reality which Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Haythami emphatically declared to be accepted by Ijma' (Consensus) in his age around 400 years ago:
"It has been authentically transmitted from Aishah that she said, “If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had to see what women have introduced, he would most certainly prohibit them from the Masjid just as the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited.’ This then is the Fatwa of Ummul Mu’mineen in the best of ages. Then what should be (the fatwa) in this corrupt time of ours?….And this (difference of opinion regarding women’s attendance) applied to that (early) age. But during this era of ours, not a single Muslim will hesitate to prohibit women except a Ghabi (an ignoramus/moron whose brains are dense) who lacks understanding of the deeper wisdom of the Shariah….The correct ruling is resolutely Tahreem (i.e. it is haraam for women to attend the Musjid). And the Fatwa is according to it.” (Kifaayat ul-Akhyaar)
We add to the above statement that in this worst of eras in which every form of Fitnah, Fasaad, and transgressions of the Shariah is infinitely more glaringly manifest than in Taqi ud-Deen's and Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Haythami's era, not even a Ghabi (an extremely dense and damaged brain cell) would fail to issue a Fatwa of complete and absolute prohibition. It is only a particularly evil specimen from the satanic species known as the Aimmah Mudhilleen (scholars who will drag countless people with them into the depths of Jahannum) who would issue such a Fatwa designed for a non-existent group of women, extinct long long ago, by which the doors are opened for countless women to transgress the Ijma’ of ALL the Fuqaha of the Ummah including even the likes of Allamah Ibn Hazm, that minus the fulfilment of a whole host of stringent pre-conditions set by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself, women must be barred from attending the Masjid..."
Excerpts from "Women, Mosques, Eidgah, and the Deception of the Feminist Fraudsters"
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 4, 2018 18:05:06 GMT
Can the Ulama here honestly and justly say if the above is a correct representation of what Hafiz Ibn Hajar As Qalani is saying? The portion quoted above: حديث أبي قتادة رفعه " إني لأقوم في الصلاة " الحديث وفيه " فأتجوز في صلاتي كراهية أن أشق على أمه " وقد تقدم شرحه في أبواب الإمامة ، قال ابن دقيق العيد : هذا الحديث عام في النساء ، إلا أن الفقهاء خصوه بشروط : منها أن لا تتطيب ، وهو في بعض الروايات وليخرجن تفلات قلت : هو بفتح المثناة وكسر الفاء أي غير متطيبات ، ويقال امرأة تفلة إذا كانت [ ص: 407 ] متغيرة الريح ، وهو عند أبي داود وابن خزيمة من حديث أبي هريرة وعند ابن حبان من حديث زيد بن خالد وأوله لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله ولمسلم من حديث زينب امرأة ابن مسعود " إذا شهدت إحداكن المسجد فلا تمسن طيبا " انتهى . What Hafiz ibn Hajar himself says in the introduction to fath Ul bari: "قَوْله وليخرجن تفلات التفل بِفَتْح الْفَاء الرَّائِحَة الكريهة وَالْمرَاد أَن لَا يتطيبن يُقَال هُوَ تفل أَي غير متطيب "Regarding his (saw) saying 'let them go out tafilaat: tafal is an unpleasant odour. But the sense intended here is that they should not apply perfume. If one says 'He is tafil' it means he is without perfume"." Why do the following Imams not mention foul smelling? Ibn Qudama writes: وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : { لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله ، وليخرجن تفلات . يعني غير متطيبات } . رواه أبو داود ...but they may go out (to the mosque) while they are tafilaat, meaning that they not be wearing perfume. Where does Imam Nawawi say tafilaat means foul smelling? Here he writes: قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( لَا تَمْنَعُوا إِمَاء اللَّه مَسَاجِد اللَّه ) هَذَا وَشَبَهه مِنْ أَحَادِيث الْبَاب ظَاهِر فِي أَنَّهَا لَا تُمْنَع الْمَسْجِد لَكِنْ بِشُرُوطٍ ذَكَرَهَا الْعُلَمَاء مَأْخُوذَة مِنْ الْأَحَادِيث , وَهُوَ أَلَّا تَكُون مُتَطَيِّبَة , وَلَا مُتَزَيِّنَة , وَلَا ذَات خَلَاخِل يُسْمَع صَوْتهَا , وَلَا ثِيَاب فَاخِرَة , وَلَا مُخْتَلِطَة بِالرِّجَالِ , وَلَا شَابَّة وَنَحْوهَا مِمَّنْ يُفْتَتَن بِهَا , وَأَنْ لَا يَكُون فِي الطَّرِيق مَا يَخَاف بِهِ مَفْسَدَة وَنَحْوهَا . وَهَذَا النَّهْي عَنْ مَنْعهنَّ مِنْ الْخُرُوج مَحْمُول عَلَى كَرَاهَة التَّنْزِيه إِذَا كَانَتْ الْمَرْأَة ذَات زَوْج أَوْ سَيِّد وَوُجِدَتْ الشُّرُوط الْمَذْكُورَة , فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا زَوْج وَلَا سَيِّد حَرُمَ الْمَنْع إِذَا وُجِدَتْ الشُّرُوط . "From this hadith and other ahadith like this it appears that women should not be prohibited from the masjid, but with conditions that the scholars have mentioned and which are deduced from ahadith and these are: 1) She should not wear any perfume..... There's no conundrum or secret behind the meaning of the word "tafila". Check all the Arabic dictionaries, both classical and modern. It's simple and obvious meaning is "stinky".
Thus, your question regarding Imam Nawawi or the countless other scholars who narrate the Hadith requiring women to be "Tafilaat" amounts to:
"Why didn't Imam Nawawi define "stinky" to be "foul-smelling""?
The Fuqaha and the experts in the Arabic language do expound further in saying that "She stank as a result of not applying fragrance".
The next installment of the article will cover in detail what the terms "Tafilaat", "Sayyi-atur Reeh", "Natinur Reeh", "Mutaghayyarutur Reeh", "al-Bizlah", "Khashshi Thiyaabihi", "Ghair Mutatayyibah", "Ghair Mutazayyinah", and other similar terms mean according to the Fuqaha and the linguistic experts, who use all such terms interchangeably and synonymously.
|
|