CAMEL HUMP BUN HAIR

camel hump bun hair4.4

 

The sudden upsurge in the new “hijabi” trend amongst Muslim females is both
unfortunate and disturbing. This trend involves making a large bun in order to attract
attention to oneself, sometimes using hair clips to create a big camel-like hump on the
head. This is not only a deception but also a form of Tabarruj (a woman’s making a
wanton display of her beauty) which is contradictory to the rules of hijab and a
destructive sin in the Sight of Allah.
Nabi sallaahu alaihi wasallam said:
“There will be in the latter part of my Ummah scantily dressed women, the hair on the
top of their heads like a camel’s hump. Curse them, for verily they are cursed.”
(Muslim & At-Tabrani)
“There are two types of people from the inhabitants of Hell whom I have not seen: men
in whose hands are whips like the tails of cattle, with which they beat the people, and
women who are clothed yet naked, those who incline towards others and cause others
to incline towards them, whose heads are like the humps of camels. They will neither
enter Paradise nor smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from
such and such a distance.” (Muslim)

Niqaab & Modesty

Modesty, JamiatKZN & Mufti Ebrahim Desai

IS THERE A VALID DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE NIQAAB???
RESPONSE TO JAMIATKZN & MUFTI EBRAHIM DESAI
QUESTION – Some people argue that a woman does not have to conceal her face from the gazes of Ghair Mahram men. They cite the following view of the JamiatKZN:
It is compulsory for her to cover her entire body from head to toe with the exception of her hands, feet and face in front of strange (nonMahram) men. This is irrespective if strange men are present on one’s property/house/yard or strange men have a ‘view’ into one’s property/house/yard. (Maraaqil Falaah 1/91)

Is there a valid difference of opinion on the issue of women covering the face? If this
is true then why do Muslims go through so much effort and difficulty to cover their
faces if it is not a Sharia requirement?
(Ghair Mahaareem: All males except those with whom nikaah is not permissible.)
RESPONSE
Allah Ta’ala commands: “O Nabi! Say to your wives, your daughters and the
women of the Believers that they draw over them their Jilbaabs (outer-cloaks).
That (i.e. covering themselves with Jilbaabs) is the least (minimum requirement
which they should adopt) so that they be recognized (as respectable and
honourable ladies) and not be molested (by evil men)”. – (Surah 33, Aayat 59)
Commenting on this Aayat, Allamah Abu Bakr Jassaas says: “In this verse is the
indication that young women have been commanded to conceal their faces from
strange males when they emerge (from their homes).” [Ahkaamul Qur’aan]
Innumerable Fuqaha, Mufassireen, etc. have stated that this Aayat refers to women
covering the face. According to all four Math-habs, women must conceal their faces
from Ghair-Mahram men. Here are a few quotes from the four Mathaahib:

 Hanafi Math-hab: “It is mentioned in Al-Muntaqaa that women will be
prohibited from exposing their faces so that it does not lead to Fitnah. And in
our era, it is Waajib to prohibit them (from exposing their faces) – in fact it is
Fardh due to the preponderance of Fasaad.” [Majma’ul Anhur] The
Honourable Faqeeh was speaking about 400 years ago. Today, it is much
worse! The Wujoob of females covering their faces appears in innumerable
Kutub.
 Maaliki Math-hab: “And verily the two (i.e. face and palms) are not Aurah,
even though it is Waajib to conceal them (i.e. the face and palms) due to the
fear of Fitnah.” [Jawaaahirul Ikleel – Haashiyaa Saawi & other Maaliki Kutub]
 Shaafi Math-hab: “Yes, that woman who is certain of the gaze of a strange
man falling on her, it is incumbent upon her to cover her face from him (i.e.
the Ghair-Mahram man). Otherwise (if she does not conceal her face), then
she will be assisting him towards Haraam. Thus, she will be committing a sin.”
[Tuhfatul Muhtaaj] The Wujoob of females covering their faces is mentioned
in Nihaayatul Muhtaaj and many other Shaafi Kutub as well.
 Hambali Math-hab: “And the face is Aurah outside Salaah as far as gazes
(of ghair-Mahram men) are concerned just like the rest of the body.” [AlIqnaa’ and other Hambali Kutub] In fact, Imaam Ahmed Bin Hambal has
mentioned that even the finger-nail of a woman is Aurah (i.e. it is Waajib to
conceal). What then should be deduced regarding the face???
The scope of this article precludes us from presenting all the Qur’aanic Aayaat,
Ahaadeeth, names and quotes of the authorities of the Shariah which prove that
women should cover their faces. The Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, Fuqaha of the four
Math-habs, Muhadditheen, Mufassireen, etc. have mentioned that it is Waajib upon
women to conceal their faces from ghair-Mahram men. Their consensus is sufficient
for the sincere seeker of the truth.
HIGHEST DEGREE OF HIJAAB
A Mu’min strives for the highest degree of Hijaab. When speaking about modesty,
then the highest degree of Hijaab should be expounded on. Allah Ta’ala commands:
‘And (O Women!) Remain firmly in your homes.’ (Surah 33 – Aayat 33)
Women must remain at home. They may not emerge from their homes
unnecessarily. It is known as Hijaabul Ash-Khaas Bil Buyoot which means that a strange man (Ghair Mahram man) will not see the woman at all to the extent that he
does not see her even with her clothes on. Since he does not see her at all, her face,
palms and her entire body is automatically concealed from him.
This is the highest level of Qur’anic Hijaab (Purdah) commanded in at least two
Aayaat and proven by several Ahaadeeth. There are at least 24 Ahaadeeth which
substantiate the Shar’i Law that women must remain glued to their homes and they
may only emerge from their homes for necessities deemed imperative by the
Shariah – not so-called necessities which human minds fabricate.
The command is for women to be glued to their homes – not an exposed yard or the
outside of one’s home which exposes a woman to passing traffic. It is not permissible
for the man’s wife and/or daughter to emerge from their homes into their exposed
yards even for the sake of relaxation. This is because they are exposing themselves
to Ghair Mahareem for no valid reason which is shameless.
A woman may not emerge from her home without valid Shar’i reason even if she is
covered from head to toe. The Burqah, Niqaab, Jilbaab, etc. are not a license to
emerge from the home without valid Shar’i reason.
2. When a woman emerges from her home for a reason deemed imperative by the
Shariah, the Jilbaab is a requirement. This vital Qur’aanic injunction may not be
omitted. The masses should be given Ta’leem pertaining to the Jilbaab.
Women wearing pyjamas, exposing their hair, the bodily shape and/or also exposing
their faces to Ghair Mahrams, are indeed shameless. Part of modesty is for a woman
to cover her face as well. Read carefully the following articles:
1. The Indisputable Wujoob of The Niqaab
2. Menk & The Female Pilot.
3. More Hijaab Articles
MARAAQIL FALAAH – THE MISUNDERSTOOD TEXT
In regards to a woman, it is compulsory for her to cover her entire body from head
to toe including the face with the exception of her hands and feet in front of strange
(non-Mahram) men. JamiatKZN quoted “(Maraaqil Falaah 1/91)” as a reference
that it is not compulsory for her to cover her face in front of strange (nonMahram) men.

Since the text is misleading, it is necessary to elaborate. The text of Maraaqil Falaah is as
follows:
“ومجيع بدن احلرة عورة إال وجهها وكفيها” ابطنهما وظاهرمها يف األصح وهو املختار
Translation: “And the entire body of a free woman is AURAH except her face and palms
– the front and back (of the face and hands) according to the most authentic view and this
is the chosen opinion.” [Emphasis ours]
The Mas’alah mentioned in Maraaqil Falaah pertains to Aurah – not Hijaab. Even the
Qur’aan explains the Mas’alah pertaining to Aurah (Satr). This is not disputed. We agree
that the face is not included in the Aurah (Satr) of a woman. However, as far as Hijaab is
concerned, a woman must cover her face. The references to prove that women MUST cover their faces in front of Ghair Mahrams are innumerable.
Why did they omit the Sharah (commentary) on this Mas’alah mentioned by Allamah
Tahtaawi Rahimahullah on the issue of a woman exposing her face?
قوله: “إال وجهها” ومنع الشابة من كشفه خلوف الفتنة ال ألنه عورة
Translation: “And the young woman is prohibited from exposing her face due to the
fear of Fitnah – not because it is Aurah.”
There is a need to ask the JamiatKZN and Mufti Ebrahim Desai: Is there Fitnah
when women expose their faces to Ghair Mahrams?
Since there is Fitnah, why does the JamiatKZN claim that there is a difference of
opinion when it is acknowledged that unveiling is a cause of temptation for men
and women?
In the article they sent to the brother, the following is what Mufti Ebrahim Desai
mentioned:
“Unveiling has a number of disadvantages. Some of them are as follows:
1. It is a violation of the Quran and Hadith;
2. It shows woman’s weakness in belief;
3. It is a cause of temptation for men and women;
4. It strips off her modesty that is an integral part of Faith;
5. It subjects her to adultery and sexual harassment (especially now in Egypt with
the vaginal kit, adultery has become so easy. Had all the women been veiled, the
government would not have so much difficulty in trying to outlaw this kit);
6. It hurts her dignity and feelings and it stains her chastity;

7. It prompts woman to take part in commercial advertisements and films as a
showpiece and a source of enjoyment for the viewers.”
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
Firstly, there is a difference between Hijaab and Aurah. We are discussing Hijaab
here – not Aurah. Secondly, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Fuqaha
whether the face of a woman is included in her Aurah or not. Thirdly, whilst we agree
that a woman’s face is not Aurah; her face has to be concealed from Ghair Mahrams
due to Hijaab. Fourthly, there is no valid difference of opinion as far as Hijaab is
concerned. Those who claim that there is a difference of opinion amongst the Fuqaha,
should send their dalaa-il for scrutiny. When a person requires a Shar’i Masalah,
then the Masalah is obtained from the Kutub of the Fuqaha. Referring directly to
Qur’aan and Hadeeth for deriving Masaail, is the function solely of the Mujtahideen.
It seems as if the JamiatKZN realized that they committed a huge blunder in their
newsletter. The following statement of Imaam Shaafi’ (Rahmatullahi Alaih) should
be salutary: “Whenever I put forward Shari’ Hujjat (Evidence from the Shariah) in
regard to any mas-alah to someone and he accepted it, honour for him in my heart
grew.”
IT IS INCUMBENT (WAAJIB) UPON WOMEN TO COVER THEIR FACES IN FRONT OF GHAIR MAHRAMS. THERE IS NO VALID DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THIS ISSUE!
IT WOULD BE EXCELLENT IF ‘MUFTI’ EBRAHIM DESAI AND THE JAMIATKZN PUBLICLY CLARIFY THIS ISSUE! IN FACT, THIS IS NECESSARY. MAY ALLAH GUIDE THEM AND US. AAMEEN

Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape

YOUR BELOVED DAUGHTER

YOUR DAUGHTER, DON’T RUIN THEIR HAYA

After Imaan, the greatest and most precious attribute of the Muslim female is her Hayaa (modesty and shame). While hayaa is intrinsic with feminity in general, its perfection co-exists only with Imaan. It is therefore, impossible for a non-Muslim female to possess the same degree of hayaa as her Muslim counterpart whose nature has not been corrupted by the kufr influences of western culture. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Hayaa is a branch of Imaan.” This treasure of hayaa incrementally decreases with the increase of the attributes of kufr. When hayaa is lost, its opposite, viz. shamelessness/audacity fills the vacuum. Shamelessness has reached its lowest ebb in western civilization which has by far surpassed even barbarians and asses in its exhibition of immorality and lewdness.

Muslim females of this era have also become the victim of the onslaught of western lewdism and shamelessness to such an extent that even the females who don niqaab lack the hayaa which Islam advocates for them. The niqaab has become an outer façade of deception. Most females who don niqaab nowadays treat it as a deceptive symbol to project the image of piety while in reality almost all of their natural Imaani hayaa has been extinguished.

The fundamental problem is the failure in the home. From the very inception, parents miserably fail to develop the natural attribute of hayaa of their daughters. In fact, parents are instrumental in the destruction of the hayaa of their daughters from a very tender age. The quality of hayaa, like all other natural attributes of excellence, has to be developed, nurtured and nourished until it attains its degree of perfection. It is for this reason that the Shariah commands the inculcation of Hijaab from a very early age.

According to Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh), a girl should adopt Purdah for the ghair mahram males of the family (cousins, brothers-in-law, etc.) from the age of seven years, and for outsiders from the age of six years. True purdah – that is, Purdah of the heart – cannot be achieved instantaneously and simultaneously with the advent of buloogh (maturity). The Hijaab dress, niqaab, concealing the hair and arms introduced to a girl only at the advent of buloogh is adopted as a social imposition without her understanding the value of Hijaab. The girl nurtured in the western cult of shamelessness, feels the sudden imposition of Hijaab at the age of buloogh to be claustrophobic, burdensome and even loathsome. While she will adopt Hijaab as a consequence of social pressure and norm of her ‘pious’ family, inwardly she rebels against the concept of Hijaab which Allah Ta’ala has decreed for females.

The development of hayaa and adoption of hijaab have to be inculcated and ingrained in girls from the cradle. However, since parents themselves lack understanding of the Islamic concept of Hijaab, they sow the seeds of aversion for Hijaab in their little daughters. They achieve this dastardly feat by cladding their infant daughters with kuffaar western garments. In so doing they betray their hidden preference for the ways and styles of kufr. They may have adopted an outward display of hijaab due to social considerations, but their hearts are bereft of hijaab, hence it is seen that most Muslim parents have no qualms in dressing their little girls like prostitutes, with tight-fitting pants and skin-tight tops. The girl’s hair is perpetually exposed. She is allowed to mingle with boys and outsider males.

She is allowed to ruin all vestiges of natural and Imaani hayaa by peddling a bicycle. It is thus seen that the muraahiq (near to buloogh) daughters of even Ulama are furiously peddling bicycles. Shaitaan has succeeded in his plot of deception. He has managed to deceive even the Ulama with talbees-e-iblees logic – “she is riding the bicycle in an enclosure which conforms to Hijaab standard”. This type of deceptive argument is whispered into the hearts of pious parents to achieve the satanic objective of ruining every vestige of a girl’s natural hayaa.

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed females who ride horses, such admonition was not the product of his whim and desire. The Qur’aan Majeed states: “He (i.e. Muhammad) does not speak of desire (whim and fancy). It (i.e. whatever he says) is Wahi revealed to him.” Thus, the Muslim lady who drives a car should not labour under self-deception that she is observing Hijaab simply because only her two eyes are on exhibition while her nose, cheeks and lips are concealed by the semblance of niqaab she dons behind the steering wheel. She should remember, and make constant thikr behind the steering wheel of the fact that every second she is under Divine La’nat. The plethora of arguments fabricated to justify her exploits behind the steering wheel and the surreptitious exploits of her eyes and heart from behind the flimsy ‘niqaab’, have no validity in the Shariah. The fact that she is able to steer away the vehicle in a public swarming with fussaaq and fujjaar of a million persuasions, is adequate evidence for her audacity bordering on immorality in terms of the Islamic concept of Hayaa. A woman behind a steering wheel is a mal-oonah (accursed) in the same class as the mal-oonah in the saddle.

A little girl – a five and six year old – who is allowed to ride a bicycle, ruins her natural hayaa. To display tomboy antics on the bicycle – to peddle furiously – requires audacity. Audacity is the opposite of hayaa. The little girl, instead of her hayaa being developed, and instead of her being schooled in greater hijaab as she grows, her natural shame is neutralized by acts of self-expression. Whereas Islam commands Ikhfa’ (Concealment) for its female adherents, parents nurture their little daughters in Izhaar (self-expression) and audacity by encouraging and aiding them with dress, mannerisms and activities which only promote abandonment of hayaa.

The programme of developing the hayaa of girls requires that they be clad with Islamic attire from infancy. Western lewd styles are absolutely haraam for even little girls. All aspects of Hijaab, barring the niqaab, should be incumbently inculcated in little girls from infancy. Hijaab should become an inseparable constituent of the morality of Muslim females. If parents adopt the proper Islamic concept of Hijaab for their little daughters, the girls will feel ‘naked’ even if an arm is momentarily bared in the presence of a non-Muslim female.

The hair of a female is extremely delicate. Hijaab applies to a greater degree to her hair than to her face. A female’s exposed hair attracts even spiritual and unseen calamities and curses. Allah Ta’ala is The Creator. He knows why He has ordained that not a single hair of the female should be exposed. While evil beings such as the jinn and shayaateen are attracted by the female’s exposed hair, the pious celestial beings such as the Malaaikah (Angels) cherish a natural abhorrence for a female whose hair is exposed. Therefore, the Malaaikah of Rahmat do not frequent a home where the females habitually wander around with their hair exposed, and this applies even if there are no ghair mahaareem males present.

Parents should treasure the amaanat of children and not ruin the hayaa and akhlaaq of their daughters and sons with the mannerism of the western cult of immorality in which self-expression is an emphasised demand while Islam teaches the exact opposite. And of vital importance to understand and never to forget is that secular school, especially the so-called ‘islamic school’, is the last nail in the coffin of the girl’s hayaa.

FEMALES AT THE HELM
Allah Ta’ala, commanding women, says in the Qur’aan Shareef:

“And remain (glued) within your homes, and do not make an exhibition of yourselves like the displays of jaahiliyyah (the times of ignorance of the mushrikeen era).”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Never will prosper a nation who assigns its affairs to a woman.”

The domination of the kuffaar and the fall of the Ummah in prostration at the feet of the kuffaar, have disfigured the intellectual process of Muslims. The thinking of Muslims has become subservient to kuffaar ideologies, especially western kuffaar culture. What is enlightenment to the west, is accepted and adopted as an incumbent requisite of life. Minus the ‘progressive’ attitudes of the western cult, Muslims see no progress.

One of the most dehumanising aspects of western culture is its cult of immorality which hinges on female exposure, female exhibition and prostituting the female body. There is no sphere of western life which is devoid of the preponderance of female exhibition. In emulation of the western kuffaar cult of libertinism, Muslims too have adopted this vice of female exhibition. Following in the footsteps of the western shayaateen, Muslims of all walks of life, including the so-called religious sector, are portraying their adoption of the western cult of female exhibition with Islamic hues. People of the Deen are justifying female emergence, female exhibition and female participation in public activities by presenting deceptive ‘Islamic’ arguments.

While the Qur’aan vehemently proscribes female emergence from the home, we find in this era Ulama, the Madaaris, the Khaanqahs and the Tabligh Jamaat – all Deeni institutions – advocating the diametric opposite of the Qur’aanic prohibition. Thus, women are encouraged in their droves to emerge from their homes to participate in Salaat in the Musaajid, so-called Thikr and so-called Tableegh in public places. So-called deceptive shaitaani ‘separate’ facilities are supposedly arranged to cater for the droves of women who have been encouraged to violate the Qur’aanic prohibition. While the Sahaabah had unanimously forbidden women to leave their homes for performing Salaat in the Musaajid, the modern molvis, sheikhs and muballigheen sneer at the Qur’aanic injunction and have resolved to do the very opposite. By their devilish conduct they imply that the Qur’aanic command has been abrogated.

By their vigorous advocacy of female emergence, they rebelliously disregard the explicit Qur’aanic prohibition, the Ijma’ (Consensus) of the Sahaabah and the Ijma’ of the Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s history. It is only in this century that the liberalized ulama reeling under western influence, have legalized female emergence and actively encourage them to follow in the footsteps of their western counterparts. A direct consequence of the corruption which have contaminated and derailed the Ulama, are the outdoor female activities such as:

ÆAttending secular educational institutions

ÆAttending the Musaajid

ÆAttending public halls for lectures and evil wedding functions

ÆAttending thikr programmes

ÆParticipating in Tabligh Jamaat activities.

ÆManaging shops

ÆGirls Madrasahs

Most of these outdoor activities which are in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, have been awarded Shar’i licence by misguided ulama who have strayed from Siraatul Mustaqeem. Thus, even Shaikhs of Khaanqahs invite females to come out of their homes to attend their thikr sessions; Ulama entice them from their homes to attend madrasahs, and the Tabligh Jamaat folk take women out of the homes to wander around on tableegh programmes. All these outdoor activities are presented to the women as acts of ibaadat, while in reality these are acts of deviation which open up the doors of fitnah. These Deeni personnel have destroyed the natural hayaa which Allah Ta’ala has endowed womenfolk. Self-exhibition has ruined their modesty, and has made them audacious.

The concept of gender-equality is nothing other than female exhibition to gratify the inordinate carnal lusts of the male ‘master’. Allah Ta’ala has created woman for only the home role. She has no share in outdoor activities which are the domain of the man. The consequence of elimination of the natural role of women is the collapse of the Islamic culture of morality which was handed to the Ummah by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The more this cult of female exhibition is promoted, the greater will be the fitnah in the community. There can never be prosperity in the Muslim community when women vie with men outside the precincts of the home.

emulating the kuffaar

Question: Is there any encompassing rule to determine whether something is Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar wal fussaaq) or not, especially with regards to clothes, eating, etc.?

ANSWER

There is no comprehensive principle regarding Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar. The times and norms play a prominent role. Also, the wijdaan and baseerat of the Aalim of Haqq is important for determining this issue.

To correctly understand the mas’alah of Tashabbuh, there are three essentials: Ilm, Ikhlaas and Baseerat. Baseerat is the effect of Taqwa. Minus Taqwa, one’s ikhlaas will be contaminated. This contamination will eliminate Baseerat. The importance of Baserat could be understood from Imaam Abu Hanifah’s fatwa on the impurity of Maa-e-Musta’mal (used water). With his Baseerat he observed the spiritual filth in maa-e-musta’mal, hence his view is the strongest on this issue.

Without Ikhlaas and Baseerat, the view on an issue will be the emotion of the mufti maajin (a moron ‘mufti’ whose ‘fatwas’ are the products of his bestial nafs). Consider the example of western clothes. To which extent does Tashabbuh apply? The mufti maajin who himself may be wearing western fashionable dress styles will argue that the dress has become universal (aam) and there is no longer any religious connotation attached to it, e.g. the tie, hence it is permissible to wear shirt, pants, jeans, skippers, ties and all the miserable artefacts of shaitaan and his western progeny. Just imagine the level of jahaalat and mental convolution of even Ulama who argue that the satanic bermuda pants monstrosity is permissible simply because it is below the knees.

The baatini corrosion has blighted the intellectual perception so thoroughly that the mufti maajin fails to realize that a dress such as the bermuda pants is a pure western kuffaar fashionable dress item just recently introduced. Even prior to it assuming the decrepit and apodalic attribute of being aam, the maajin character proclaims it permissible simply on just one count, namely, the covering of the knees. Well, your wife’s ijaar and her burqah offer greater concealment of satr than the bermuda pants, and at the same time it is Tashabbuh bil Muslimah (emulation of a Muslim female), which rationally is better than Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. Notwithstanding this fact, Tashabbuh bil Muslimah is also mal-oon (accursed). Thus, to a greater degree will a male who adopts kuffaar dress be mal-oon because of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar.

However, the Mufti who focuses on the Aakhirat and who understands the maqsood (objective) of life on earth, ruminates with his Baatini (Spiritual) Heart and asks: Why does a Muslim want to wear shirt, pants, jacket, jeans, T-shirts and ties and strut about with a bared head, when Islamic dress is available, and when millions of Muslims are wearing such dress by which one can recognize from a mile away that the person is a Muslim? Careful reflection will convince one that there is the thief, shaitaan lurking in his nafs or it is the deception of his nafs which constrains him to proffer the ‘aam’ argument.

Since his nafs craves to don kuffaar garments because it is stylish and appealing to the desire, and it blends suitably with the kuffaar environment in which we live, he presents spurious arguments to justify such kuffaar dress. Little does he realize that in so doing he is according preference to kuffaar dress over and above Islamic dress which is easily available to him. This attitude thus confirms the element of Tashabbuh in kuffaar dress.

Someone may raise the argument that items such as jerseys, socks, shoes, raincoars and other necessary items of dress which all of us wear, are also of western origin. Does Tashabbuh apply here too? The response to this ishkaal (conundrum) is as follows:

Yes and no! At times it will be Tashabbuh and at times it will not be. In our environment and the circumstances in which Muslims work and live, these items are necessary. There is no suitable Islamic substitute for these items of dress. The idea of Tashabbuh is furthest from the mind. In this scenario the argument of the dress being universal is valid. Nevertheless, this still precludes such of these items which have entered society as the latest fashions. It also precludes footwear on whch appears logos and the like.

But, in a different setting such as India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, they are perfectly at home with a chaadar (shawl) thrown around the shoulders. They are comfortable in it and it does not interfere with their activities. Thus, for Muslims in those lands the element of Tashabbuh will be even in jerseys, and to a degree even in the type of shoes which we wear in the western world. The type of jooties worn in India and Pakistan suit them well although it is unsuitable for us here due to the flimsiness of the shoes and due to the feminine appearance.

A daleel for us is the amal of Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh). After he became the Qaadhi and he had to do considerable walking, he changed his style of shoes and adopted the style of the Ajam. When someone objected, he explained that because of the toughness of these shoes he has adopted them.

In conclusion: In our environment, shirts, suits, ties, jeans, T-shirts and the like are Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar without the least doubt, and furthermore it borders on kufr because it is preferred over Islamic dress which is readily available. Preferring a kuffaar style over an Islamic style is a major sin of kufr proportions.

Regarding the practice of eating from tables and eating with knives and forks, the element of Tashabbuh is too glaring for the need to cudgel brains for the determination of the Shar’i Hukm. The argument of its ‘permissibility’ on the basis of this practice having become universal is contemptuously baatil. Abandonment of the Sunnah is haraam whether it is abandoned by a few or by the entire population. After fourteen centuries of the Ummah eating on the floor, suddenly the table and chair practice becomes ‘halaal’ on the decrepit and deceptive basis of ‘universality’. If this has to be accepted as a standard ‘principle’ for abrogation of Shar’i and Sunnah practices, the same fate which has destroyed the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (allayhis salaam) will mangle and mutilate the Sunnah which this Ummah of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has followed since the inception of Islam.

Those who have adopted tables and chairs for eating, after abandoning their original Sunnah practice, are hovering on the brink of kufr for having preferred a kuffaar practice over and above the Sunnah practice. Those who have been eating in western style since birth, whilst not perpetrating haraam as the former group, nevertheless, are under Waajib obligation to abandon the kuffaar style and to adopt the Sunnah style. If, after having been made aware of this essentiality, they refuse, then they will be guilty of the haraam practice of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. And, Allah knows best.

The importance of wearing a topi

Q: I had always been taught that the topi is the crown of a believer and part of the Sunnah attire. However, I was recently told by a close friend that the topi is not part of the Sunnah attire and has no basis in Deen. It was merely worn in the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) as a traditional dress. Is this true? Similarly, I would like to know whether the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) wore the topi at the time of Salaah.

A: Wearing the topi is a Mubaarak Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and a salient feature of Islam. In every era of Islam, commencing from the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), special importance and significance was afforded to the topi. It is reported in authentic Ahaadeeth that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) wore the topi.

During the Khilaafah of Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the kuffaar began wearing topis and turbans in order to deceive the Muslims and receive the same recognition in society which was afforded to the Muslims in the Islamic state. When Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) perceived this, he immediately prohibited them, and drew up a constitution which was governed by the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). He enshrined in the constitution the distinguishing characteristics and salient features of Islam and thus prohibited the kuffaar from adopting these codes of conduct. Similarly, he prohibited the kuffaar from adopting the Islamic attire and from wearing the topis and turbans of the Muslims.

It is reported in the Hadith of Bukhaari Shareef that the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) performed Salaah with their topis.

قال الحسن كان القوم يسجدون على العمامة والقلنسوة (صحيح البخاري، باب السجود علي الثوب في شدة الحر 1/56)

Hazrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) said, “The Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) would make sajdah during Salaah on their turbans and topis.”

And Allah Ta’ala (الله تعالى) knows best.

إن أمير المؤمنين عمر رضي الله عنه في الصحابة رضي الله عنهم ثم عامة الأئمة بعده وسائر الفقهاء جعلوا في الشروط المشروطة على أهل الذمة من النصارى وغيرهم فيما شرطوه على أنفسهم أن نوقر المسلمين ونقوم لهم من مجالسنا إذا أرادوا الجلوس ولا نتشبه بهم في شيء من ملابسهم قلنسوة أو عمامة (قاله ابن تيمية رحمه الله في كتابه اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم وقال بعد نقل الحديث رواه حرب الكرماني بإسناد جيد 1/363)

حدثنا ابن جريج قال أخبرني نافع أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما كساه وهو غلام فدخل المسجد فوجده يصلى متوشحا فقال أليس لك ثوبان قال بلى قال أرأيت لو استعنت بك وراء الدار أكنت لابسهما قال نعم قال فالله أحق أن تزين له أم الناس قال نافع بل الله فأخبره عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أو عن عمر رضي الله عنه قال نافع قد استيقنت أنه عن أحدهما وما أراه إلا عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال لا يشتمل أحدكم في الصلاة اشتمال اليهود من كان له ثوبان فليتزر وليرتد ومن لم يكن له ثوبان فليتزر ثم ليصل (شرح معانى الآثار 1/259)

Answered by:

Mufti Zakaria Makada

Checked & Approved:

Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

OUR ROTTEN, CORRUPT SOCIETY

OUR ROTTEN, CORRUPT SOCIETY

INVITING ALLAH’S ATHAAB

An eye-opener for Muslims, is the following lament of a Sister from the U.K.

“Assalamu Alaykum,

Regarding the fatwa issued by 17 scholars in Pakistan on Travelling without a Mahram and the response by The Majlis, I have some thoughts on this as a female living in the West (UK), second generation who always saw women living in the UK as females who went out, shopping, work, etc etc. It was all normal to me as I did not grow up with knowledge on this subject. Islam was very foreign to me in terms of masaail. However at that time there was no open mixing between the learned and unlearned. People kept within the limits to a great extent. When I was a teenager, not that long ago, this changed.

I have witnessed married scholars, muftis groom girls many years younger than themselves. Whilst Islam permits polygamy and the age difference isn’t an issue, they did not have the right intention as they continued to groom these girls without directly going to their fathers and asking for their daughters hand in marriage despite being in contact with the father.

They would use their knowledge of deen as a way of grooming these girls, talking daily, putting down their first wives and second wives to the teenage girls. This didn’t just happen in front of me but all over the UK. Some of these scholars commit zina with these girls and then use the leverage of exposing the girl if she goes to expose him due to their status in the community. People will believe him and not the naive teenager. Seeing this over and over, created a very choking environment for me. I alerted the elders many a time but despite them agreeing the evidence was there, nothing was done.

These scholars audaciously come in front of the families of the teenager and befriend them. They have no shame at all. It is very difficult for these girls to understand that one day they will have their own true loving husband because these scholars have no intention of marrying them and just stringing them along and doing whatever they can do to them in that time. So many have not been exposed because it would hurt the future of the unmarried girl. It is like they are stuck in this foggy environment where they cannot see right from wrong (we could go into the effects of fluoride here but this can be researched separately).

The 17 scholars state that time has changed so the fatwa needs modernising. Yes times have changed, they are worse. Taqwa has left. Openly sinning is the norm. Shame has left.

I enrolled and taught at different Islamic schools and madaaris and it is so easy for Shaitan to make the male and female teachers commit haraam because the parents are not around, families are not around. In the UK we have ‘safe’ means of travel in general, buses and trains and plenty of places to meet up with the opposite gender. Unfortunately there are teenagers who have had an abortion because they found themselves in the position they preached against, whether a normal every day Muslim or a student of knowledge. It’s happening in all scenarios. It’s not just the molvis and apas and madrasah students. It’s even those who are deendaar people who would never think of themselves to commit zina but have and as Muslims we should, in this day and age, absolutely accept every single advice of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that Shaitan is the third party no matter how strong you think you are. The modern times makes it so easy for Shaitan to push us. The opportunities are there, the hotels are there, the travel options are there. One finds themselves saying it is haraam and the next second Shaitan has swept us off our feet in a situation we do not want to be in yet this brain fog stops the male and the female from leaving.

The Majlis has quoted several news articles regarding Islamophobia all over the world including the UK. In the UK people generally spread the news of a recent attack on Muslim women in their own areas and I know there are hundreds of more incidents that could have been added from the UK alone. Niqabs are being pulled off frequently but most of these are not reported. The women in that area are afraid to the extent they don’t talk about it. The answer would be to stay home but going back to my opening sentences, we are so used to going out and about despite now having the deeni knowledge we once didn’t have but then we are afraid of the consequences. We have to admit that trying to be progressive is of no use as when these muslimahs report it to the police or the supermarket then they are told there is nothing we can do. We can’t expect protection of Allah Ta’ala when we go against His Deen.

Despite all of the above, there is a change in society now. The knowledgeable deeni people are being replaced with a fresh new wave of Muslims, reverts and those Muslims who had no knowledge their entire lives but are now turning to Allah azza wa jal in hope and fear. People I would not have imagined wanting to fully practise the Deen of Allah azza wa jal are now turning to Him. After seeing the negatives above, this is very refreshing.

I cannot fathom how 17 scholars came to such a ruling because I am just one random person with very little experience and I have seen in the Haram Shareef men talking to young girls openly just like you witnessed decades ago. I have seen the stares from the young males in front to the young girl a few feet behind during tawaaf of the Ka’bah. This was a few years ago and now fitnah is worse and more open to be seen by all.

I do not need to be a mufti to see that it is unsafe for women to emerge. Recently two 14 year olds were attacked in the UK on a bus. They had friends with them. They were approached by a woman telling them to take their hijab off. I remember my teen years, we would go out on the bus and teenage Muslim girls seem to be louder than non Muslim girls. Loud giggling and cackling. I was quite shy as a teen but I was still out and about as it was the norm. It was only when I started to hang around with the non-Muslims at school did I learn proper adab and that you can be calm and respectful. I didn’t understand what the muslimahs were trying to prove by acting that way. It was very depressing. I am not saying these 14 year olds were doing that but only a 10 year old kid came to their rescue and he was attacked for doing so. The muslimahs were brutally attacked and the male who was with the attacker blocked anyone from helping the teenagers. In such an open environment I don’t see how he blocked others from helping except that this is a wake-up call from Allah Ta’ala. But instead of Muslim females acknowledging this, they protest and rant at the ‘injustice’ – that no one is helping them.

My understanding of life as a female in the west in 2020 in that we need to go back to the basic rulings of Islam from ancient books and go through each ruling one by one and act on them. We need to shun modern rulings because Allah Ta’ala is very openly telling us this is not the way. We need to accept our role and it isn’t a regressive one. This role protects us from abuse of the men outside, it means all those teenagers, now full UK adults will have no regrets of being groomed and abused. It means that mothers can concentrate on the tarbiyah of their children. It means we can complete all our qazas which majority of people in the UK have due to the schooling system instead of going to all the Islamic talks and wasting time. It means we can then catch on when a scholar makes an odd statement and not follow him blindly. If a scholar says a female can be an aalimah, hafizah and gain a degree at university then perhaps he has some things going on in his life in conflict with Deen such as attending mixed events himself because even if this aalimah sticks to her study at university and prays Salah in the Salah room, the males on the other side of the cloth still manage to gain opportunity to talk to her and make her feel worthless.

I could write an entire book on the issues that women face, the grooming, the attacks but it will not achieve anything because a muslimah needs to accept that the rulings of the early Fuqaha are Islam and this is the only way that she will find protection and ease of heart in this world. She can still have a business from home, she can still study, she can do anything within the comforts of her own home in this day and age. There are many arguments these females are putting forward to justify their need to go out but they are not valid because generally what they mean is they do not put trust in Allah and are putting trust in modernism to save the Muslims. But it isn’t working out . We’ve had all of these years of modernism, where has it got us? We can be modern. We can take the good and leave that which causes harm. This is the balance Islam provides but not accepting that the harms in the dunya are as a result of our own misconduct is something we need to work on.

From my experience, the people who spout corrupt fatwas are participating in the corruption themselves. They may only be a little into it but not realising the effects it can have on the Ummah.

Reading the examples in your book, gave me many flashbacks of the things I and other females have witnessed. It is only Allah Ta’ala’s fazl that I and other females in the west are still on the path of Islam as the roads we have tread upon were very far from Him. May Allah azza wa jall forgive us all and allow us to feel content on the rulings of the fuqaha so that we can enjoy eternall bliss in Jannah. Ameen. Wassalam (End of the Sister’s letter)

COMMENT

The ‘scholars’ to whom the Sister refers are in reality shayaateen (devils) in human bodies or men with the hearts of wolves as mentioned in the Hadith. They are Iblees-incarnate. They plunder the hayaa (shame and chastity) of females who are vulnerable due to their natural attribute of nuqs fil aql (intellectual deficiency). Taking gross satanic advantage of such vulnerability these devilish molvis and sheikhs gratify their zina lusts without any semblance of Imaani conscience or fear for Allah Azza Wa Jal.

These scholars of lust and agents of Iblees are the primary cause for the ruin and destruction of the Ummah. They are the worst kind of traitors in the Ummah. Under subterfuge of their outward Islamic appearance they perfidiously perpetrate heinous and scandalous crimes of zina and concupiscence. It is difficult to believe that such scoundrels as described by the Sister have any Imaan.

Further, the reality on the ground – the real dangers to which Muslim females outside the home have to be confronted with, at the very minimum testifies to the colossal ignorance of those muftis who have the temerity to issue corrupt and stupid fatwas legalizing the haraam act of women travelling without mahrams. In fact, it is haraam in our day for women to venture out of their homes to attend to even needs within the neighbourhood. In these times of fitnah and fasaad it is incumbent for a mahram to accompany a woman when she desires to visit even a next door neighbour for a valid reason. These muftis who disgorge stupid zigzag fatwas are described as mufti maajin by the Fuqaha. They are moron muftis who are adept in the art of stupid and devious interpretation for abrogating Shar’i ahkaam which have come down in the Ummah from the era of the Sahaabah. These moron muftis are in the satanic game of fabricating a new shariah to appease the modernist zanaadaqah.

Be exceptionally weary of the muftis of this age. A sincere Muslim will not become enmeshed in the tentacles of deception of the maajin muftis, if he consults his heart, for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.”

20 Jamadul Awwal 1441 – 16 January 2020

Are You a Man Who Menstruates?

Kharshah bin al-Hurr narrated:

I saw Umar bin al-Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) while a young man passed by him, who had his lower garment hanging (below his ankle) and he was dragging it. So he (Umar) called him and said:

“Are you one who menstruates?”

He replied

O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, does a man menstruate?”

He (Umar) replied:

So what is the matter with you having your lower garment (trousers) hang down upon your feet?” (ie. only women are permitted to do so)

Then he (Umar) called for a knife, gathered the hem of his trousers and cut what was below the ankles.

Karshah (the narrator) said:

It is as if I (can still) see the threads (from the professionally amputated trousers) trailing upon his heels.”

(Recorded in the Jaami’ of Sufyan ibn Uyayna. Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrates a shorter version of this incident with a Saheeh chain.)

ﻭﺃﺧﺮﺝ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺧﺮﺷﺔ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﺭﺿﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻣﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺘﻰ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﻞ ﺇﺯاﺭﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺠﺮﻩ، ﻓﺪﻋﺎﻩ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ: ﺃﺣﺎﺋﺾ ﺃﻧﺖ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﺎ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﺤﻴﺾ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﻠﺖ ﺇﺯاﺭﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﻣﻴﻚ؟ ﺛﻢ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺑﺸﻔﺮﺓ ﺛﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺇﺯاﺭﻩ ﻓﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ اﻟﻜﻌﺒﻴﻦ، ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﺮﺷﺔ: ﻛﺄﻧﻲ ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ اﻟﺨﻴﻮﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺒﻴﻪ. ﻛﺬا ﻓﻲ اﻟﻜﻨﺰ

Niqaab, Burqah And Khimaar

Niqaab, Burqah And Khimaar

INTRODUCTION

A lesbian-type, moron Kaafirah belonging to the Gay-Lesbian temple in Cape Town has written an article loaded with pure stupidities to deny the Islamic law pertaining to Hijaab. In her flotsam drivel she made her best stupid endeavours to debunk the validity of the Jilbaab/Burqah, Niqaab and Khimaar (headscarf). In her satanic attempt she has succeeded in only displaying her stark ignorance and the density of her copro-brains.

Her arguments consist of only compounded rubbish which evokes the mirth of all and sundry – of even such modernists whose brains have not been convoluted by the gay-lesbian-homosexual cult.

 

Although the rubbish which the moron Kaafirah has disgorged does not warrant an intelligent response, we have nevertheless deemed it appropriate to refute her rubbish which may influence such ignorant Muslims who have lost their Imaani bearings. The discussion which follows is for the benefit of ignorant Muslims who may have been cast into doubt by the stinking effluvium discharged the moron Kaafirah.

Niqaab Burqah and Khimaar