Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has prohibited proposing while a proposal is still under consideration. In your case, there is no proposal under consideration. It is therefore legally (in terms of the Shariah) permissible for you to propose marriage to her. She will be married to only the person who has been destined to be her husband in her Taqdeer.

Reincarnation is kufr. It is an irrational and an absurd belief of idolaters.

We only believe that zina, promiscuity and the immoral sub-culture of the West cause Aids and the other filthy diseases. Such diseases are part of Allah’s punishment. We are not aware of President Mbeki’s previous stance nor have we ever heard the three latter names mentioned by you, nor are we interested in their stands and stances. Our interest is in the stance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his illustrious Sahaabah and the noble Fuqaha of the Ummah of the Khairul Quroon era. All other considerations are futility which distract from the goal of life, namely, the Aakhirah.

It is haraam to advertise in such haraam papers. Advertising in such anti-Islam papers is to aid sin and transgression. Such aiding is categorically prohibited by the Qur’aan Majeed.

The money won in a lottery is haraam. The house bought with the haraam money is likewise haraam. Living in such a house is also haraam. The house has to be sold and the money compulsorily given to charity without a niyyat of thawaab.

While the Salaat is valid, there is no thawaab for the Salaat. Furthermore, the culprit is guilty of a major sin by performing Salaat on a haraam musallaa (prayer mat).

It is not permissible to speak to her. Speaking to her briefly is futile. It is a nafsaani deception. Her character and habits cannot be gauged by such brief, artificially adorned statements which she is bound to make during the brief viewing. The system of pre-arranged viewing in vogue is downright bad and insensitive. The viewing should be coincidental without the awareness of the girl. In the event the boy does not fancy her looks, she will no have to suffer the heartache of rebuttal and refusal. People are extremely insensitive in these matters.

The practice of spiritual Bai’ah (or Bay’t) to a spiritual Shaikh is as old as Islam. Salafi’ism is a modern mutant on the Body of Islam. Its a deviated sect which has strayed from Siraatul Mustaqeem. Its claims are bunkum. For more light on this topic read books such as Shariat & Tasawwuf by Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah Khaan (rahmatullah alayh). Books on the subject have also bee written by other Ulama and Mashaaikh and are available in English.

Firstly, even the deviant Salafi writing in his book says: “Could lead to shirk”. He does not say that it (Waseelah) is shirk. Secondly, for the Waseelah to be shirk he stipulates the condition: “if it is believed that Allah needs a human mediator”. Undoubtedly, if a corrupt belief accompanies the mode of dua then it would be shirk. But if there is no such belief, the question of shirk does not arise. In the absence of corrupt beliefs, there is no Shar’i evidence to claim that making Dua with the Waseelah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the Auliya is shirk. A valid and permissible practice cannot be banned on the basis of an assumption such as “could lead to shirk”. Kissing Hajr Aswad and making Tawaaf of the Ka’bah and holding the Cloth of the Ka’bah can also lead to shirk if accompanied by corrupt beliefs. But no one has so far claimed that it is shirk to kiss the Sacred Stone, Hajr-e-Aswad despite the fact of numerous ignoramuses entertaining corrupt beliefs regarding Hajr-e-Aswad.

In order to retain credibility for their refutation of the practice of Waseelah, the Salafis have been constrained to mis-translate the Hadith to which reference is made in the question. See Waseelah artilce for further explanation.

What does the deviate mean by : “sought the prayers of Abbas”? Muhsin Khan, the Salafi translator of Bukhaari Shareef has adopted more shamelessness in presenting the translation of the relevant Hadith. Without batting an eyelid, he shamelessly translates that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had asked Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) to make dua for rain. While we do not deny that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had asked Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) to supplicate for rain, this was after he (Umar) had made his own dua invoking the Waseelah of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). And, this is not stated in the Hadith which the Salafis have mistranslated. The relevant Hadith mentions only Hadhrat Umar’s dua with the Waseelah of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Umar’s dua in this regard is mentioned in our article on Waseelah. T

he Salafi presupposition that the need for a human mediator by Allah Ta’ala is a necessary conception of Waseelah, is devoid of Shar’i substance. It has never been asserted that Allah Ta’ala is in need of a mediator. Undoubtedly, such a belief is shirk. Sins are forgiven when Hajr-e-Aswad is touched. Who forgives the sins? Why are sins forgiven by touching the Sacred Stone? Does Allah Ta’ala need Hajr-e-Aswad to forgive sins? Inspite of Him being independent of all mediators and intercessors, He has commanded that Hajr-e-Aswad be touched and He has instituted the medium of Shafaa’at (intercession) of the Ambiya, Sulaha and Malaaikah. No one denies that ‘taking Waseelah’ is by the permission of Allah Ta’ala. If making dua with the Waseelah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) can lead to shirk, then to a greater degree can touching Hajr-e-Aswad lead to shirk. The deeds of the Ummah are presented twice a week to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The authentic Ahaadith confirm that he makes Dua-e-Maghfirah for the Ummah. So, the bunkum the Salafis propagate should simply be ignored.

This book is unreliable, misleading and deceptive. Muslims should not read the drivel which deviants write. People who lack in proper Deeni Knowledge can be misled by the deceptive arguments, citations out of context and selective references quoted by those who have drifted from the Straight Path of the Salf-e-Saaliheen whose Aqaaid and A’maal today are encapsulated in the Four Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. Distributing books of this nature is to aid the process of digging the foundations of the Deen.

Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was neither the student nor the little brother of the deviated maulana sahib who dared display audacity in his rejection of a Ruling on which there exists the Ijma’ (Consensus) of the Sahaabah and the entire Ummah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. Deviates and mutants have differed with this law of the Shariah, but their difference is of no worth and effect. Three Talaaqs administered in one session while sinful, are THREE Talaaqs which finally and irrevocably terminate the Nikah bond.

Touching the Qur’aan Shareef is not a Qasam (Oath). Nevertheless, it is permissible to touch it for emphasizing the truth of one’s oath.

It is Sunnat to fast on only the 15th Sha’baan. Fasting two days on this occasion is not Sunnat. Fasting two days is Sunnat on the occasion of Aashuraa, i.e. on the 9th and 10th or 10th and 11th Muharram.

Besides the Sunnats of Fajr, the Sunnats of the other Salaat should not be performed at this time. As long as joining the Fajr Jamaat in even the last raka’t is possible, the two raka’ts Sunnat of Fajr should be performed. While the Jamaat is in progress, the Sunnats should not be performed inside the Musjid. It should be performed outside the Musjid or in the section which is not the Musjid proper or right at the back where there is no separate or adjacent section.

It is not part of the deceased son’s estate. The insurance policy is haraam. Only the amount which was paid to the insurance company in the form of premiums, etc. belongs to the father, not to the deceased son. The excess has to be compulsorily given to charity without a niyyat of thawaab.

An Islamic Will is valid provided that one’s marriage has not been registered in community of property. If the blunder of community of property has been committed, it is then essential to get it cancelled. Once it is cancelled, the Islamic Will is valid and distribution of the deceased’s estate in accordance with the Shariah is ensured by the law of the land.

Even a lifetime of separation does not end the Nikah. As long as the husband has not issued Talaaq, the Nikah remains valid. His statement : “Go to your parents”, will be Talaaq only if accompanied by the intention of Talaaq. He should be asked about his intention. If he says that his intention at the time of making the statement was Talaaq, then it will be Talaaq otherwise not. As long as the matter has not been clarified, she cannot get married. Nikah with another man will simply not be valid.

The court or ‘civil’ marriage is not Nikah. The man was living in the state of adultery all these years with the woman since he never had a Nikah performed. The children of this adulterous union are all illegitimate. They will not inherit in the estate of their biological father. According to the Shariah he is not their lawful father. Adultery does not give rise to rights.

There are two types of Waseelah— a lawful Waseelah which precludes any belief of shirk and kufr, and a waseelah which accommodates such corrupt beliefs. The former is permissible, the latter haraam. See page 10 for further explanation.

WASEELAH

The concept of Waseelah which the misguided Salafi sect condemns as Shirk on the basis of the opinion of Ibn Taimiyyah was never correctly understood even by him, less by his blind followers. This brief explanation cannot discuss all the baseless arguments which Ibn Taimyyah and his errant followers have presented for their condemnation of Waseelah. A book shall have to be prepared in refutation of their arguments. Should Allah Ta’ala bestow the taufeeq and opportunity, we shall, Insha’Allah, embark on such a refutation.

ITS MEANING
Waseelah is to supplicate (make dua) to Allah Ta’ala by presenting the auspicious proximity to Allah Ta’ala enjoyed by either A’maal-e-Saalihah (Righteous Deeds) or Pious beings such as the Ambiyaa and Auliya. In simple terms, Waseelah is to make dua as follows: “O Allah! Accept my dua for the sake of Your Nabi…..(or a certain Wali)…..or (a certain good deed).”

Ibn Taimiyyah and his muqallideen (blind followers) brand this form of Waseelah haraam and shirk. His opinion in this regard is baseless. The Sahaabah and all the great Personalities of Islam from the earliest times resorted to such Waseelah and believed it to be perfectly permissible.

In his books, Ibn Taimiyyah has made sweeping, albeit baseless, claims that all the Salf-e-Saaliheen (the Pious Predecessors) of the Khairul Quroon era declared such Waseelah to be shirk. His claims are utterly baseless.

Once when there was a severe drought, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the then Khalifah, supplicated to Allah Ta’ala by the Waseelah of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu), the paternal uncle of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Narrating this fact, Hadhrat
Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“When it used o be drought, then
Umar Bin Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu)
would supplicate for rain through
the medium of Abbaas Bin Abdul Muttalib
(radhiyallahuanhu).
He would say (i.e.make dua):
“O Allah! Verily, we used to invoke the
waseelah of our Nabi to You and You
bestowed rain to us. (Now) we invoke
you by virtue of the uncle of our Nabi.
Therefore, bestow rain to us.”
He (Anas) said:
Then rainwas bestowed to them.”
(Bukhaari)

This Hadith recorded by Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) state with clarity that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would supplicate to Allah Ta’ala through the medium (waseelah) of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). Besides this Hadith, there are many other narrations which confirm the validity of waseelah.

However, the misguided Salafis have attempted to circumvent this authentic Hadith by presenting an erroneous translation. Mr.Mohsin Khan the Salafi who translated Bukhaari Shareef into English, committed errors in both the translation of the Hadih and its commentary. Translating the Hadith, he states:
“(Narrated Anas—radhiyallahu anhu):
Whenever drought threatened them, Umar
bin Al-Khattab (radhiyallaahu anhu) used
to ask Al-Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib (radhi
yallahu anhu) to invoke Allah for rain. He
used to say: “O Allah! We used to ask our
Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You
would bless us with rain, and now we ask
his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah!
Bless us with rain. And so it would rain.”
(Page 285, Vol. 1 Dr.M.Muhsin
Khan’s translation of Bukhaari Shareef)

This translation is incorrect. Nowhere in this Hadith is it mentioned “used to ask”. In this particular Hadith Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) did not ‘ask’ Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) to ‘invoke Allah for rain’. He (Umar), himself, made the dua for rain, hence he clearly supplicated: “O Allah! Through the (waseelah) of the uncle of our Nabi, bestow rain to us.”

Also, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) did not say: “We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain.” This translation is completely wrong. The Hadith states with great clarity that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “We would through the medium of our Nabi supplicate to You…”
The Salafis have conveniently mis-translated this Hadith in their attempt to refute the validity of the concept of Waseelah. This is a blatantly baseless and deceptive way to squeeze out evidence for the baseless claim that Waseelah is shirk.

BASELESS
Stating the Salafi belief acquired from their Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, Dr.Muhsin Khan says in his commentary on the aforementioned Hadith:
“It is of great importance to notice that it is permissible for one to request a living religious person to invoke Allah on his behalf but if you ask Allah through a dead or an absent (person, etc.) then it is not allowed. But it is absolutely forbidden to ask or request the dead for anything, it is regarded as Shirk.” (Page 285, Vol. 1, Translation of Bukhaari Shareef)

Firstly, the Salafis differentiate between (1) asking Allah through a dead person, etc., and (2) asking the dead for something. Regarding No.1, they say that “it is not allowed”. Regarding No.2, they say that “it is absolutely forbidden and it constitutes shirk”.

For this differentiation, the Salafis have neither logical nor Shar’i proof. In fact, the Shariah has not made this differentiation which is based on pure conjecture of the followers of personal opinion. What makes the former “not allowed” and the latter, “absolutely forbidden and shirk”? What is the Shar’i proof for claiming that the invocation through a dead or an inanimate intermediary (Waseelah) is not allowed or haraam? Other than conjecture and personal inference unsubstantiated by Shar’i daleel, the Salafis have absolutely no viable evidence from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith to substantiate their claim.

THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
The Salafis concede the validity and permissibility of Waseelah in relation to the living, but deny it with regard to the dead and inanimate and intangible things. This is apparent from Muhsin Khan’s comment, viz. “dead or absent persons, etc.” For this baseless differentiation there is no Shar’i daleel. If they have any evidence, other than their personal corrupt opinion, they should proclaim it. But inspite of the copious works of Ibn Taimiyyah and others of his kind, there has not been forthcoming from the deviant Salafi sect any Qur’aanic or Sunnah dalail for their baseless claim.
Asking a person to make dua is one thing. Making dua by citing that person as an intermediary is another thing. The concept of Waseelah under discussion excludes the former. Only the latter is the subject of the concept of Waseelah. In so far as the Shariah is concerned this concept of Waseelah applies equally to the living, the dead, inanimate and intangible things. There is ample evidence in the Ahaadith to substantiate this claim. Insha’Allah, this will be done in a detailed treatise on the subject if and when Allah Ta’ala grants us this taufeeq and opportunity.

In brief, the Ahaadith mention with clarity that dua used to be made with the Waseelah of A’maal (righteous deeds) —this is of the intangible kind, and with the Waseelah of living persons as well as with the Waseelah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after his demise. The practise of the Sahaabah is ample evidence for this.

THE CONCEPT
It is essential to correctly understand the meaning of Waseelah to avoid confusion and the charge of Shirk which the Salafis hurl against every kind of Waseelah. In the Shar’i concept of Waseelah the belief is correct, i.e. Dua is made to Allah Ta’ala, not to the living or the dead or to the inanimate and intangible things.

It is understood in this concept that the being which is stated as the Waseelah is not the bestower of the need. Allah Ta’ala has not delegated power of bestowal to the being of Waseelah. He is the Sole Bestower.

By ‘intermediary’ in his concept is meant that the supplicator asks Allah Ta’ala to accept his invocation (dua) by virtue of the close proximity (Qurb) which the being or deed has with Him. In this meaning of Waseelah there is no difference between the living and the dead. The Qurb which the Ambiya and the Auliya had with Allah Ta’ala during their lifetime is the same or even more after their death. This fundamental factor of Qurb-e-Ilaahi is not eliminated nor adversely affected by the incidence of death. The Qurb is not extinguished with Maut, hence the Waseelah of a living person, the validity of which even Ibn Taimiyyah concedes, is equally valid and permissible after his demise.

Undoubtedly, the type of waseelah practised by ignoramuses who subscribe to corrupt beliefs of shirk such as the idea that the power of bestowal is enjoyed by the dead Wali, for example, is Shirk. But this type of waseelah is not the subject of our discussion.

A’MAAL-E-SAALIHAH
Ibn Taimiyyah and his muqallideen the Salafis do concede that it is permissible to invoke the Waseelah of good deeds which are intangible items. This is called Waseelah bil A’maal. The very same rationale which renders this Waseelah lawful, applies to Waseelah bil A’yaan (i.e. invoking the Waseelah of beings). The common factor is Qurb-e-Ilhaahi (Divine Proximity) which is found in both kinds of Waseelah. Thus, the meaning of Waseelah in the Shariah is nothing other than asking Allah Ta’ala to accept one’s dua by virtue of the rank and proximity which the being has with Allah Ta’ala.

Article from:
The Majlis, Vol.15 No.8

MUJLISUL ULAMA OF SOUTH AFRICA
P.O. Box 3393
Port Elizabeth, 6056
South Africa

If by Allah being above His Throne in the seventh heaven is meant that, He, The Most Majestic and Incomparable, is a physical being —Nauthubillaah! — who sits on a throne like a human king, then obviously such a belief is blasphemous and absolutely absurd and baseless. By Allah Azza Jal being above the Throne signifies the seat of Power and Command in relation to created Insaan (man).

It is utterly absurd to assume that Allah Azza Wa Jal is a finite physical structure whose created throne has the ability and capacity to bear Him. A being with physical dimensions can be encompassed by virtue of its finiteness. A physical entity suffers the defect of restriction and limitation. Allah, The Glorious, The Majestic, The Infinite, The Boundless, is far, far above the falsehood which the corrupt interpretations of the Salafis attribute to Him. To conceive the Zaat (Being) of Allah Wa Jal is a total impossibility. The finite created mind cannever conceive and conceptualize the Divine Zaat Who is infinite, uncreated and eternal. What is finite is obviously limited in every aspect, in even its transcendental conceptions and flights of thinking. The created Throne and the Heavens notwithstanding their vastness, greatness and splendour, are all created objects with finite dimensions.

It is kufr to believe that these finite created objects can bear and contain the Infinite, Uncreated and Eternal Zaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal. While the Zaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal defies human comprehension and man’s imagination, He is recognized through the medium of His Sifaat (Attributes), and even such human recognition is extremely limited and defective in relation to the eternal Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala.

We do not know what is the meaning of “more imminent” in the context of your question or in the context of the corrupt beliefs of the deviant Salafis. Furthermore, what precisely do they mean by Allah being “more transcendental”? This comparison between transcendental and imminent (?) has no substance in Islam. What the Salafis are saying is nothing but the product of their baseless interpretation. There is no Qur’aanic or Hadith proof to substantiate their fanciful interpretation. The belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is that Allah Azza Wa Jal is Omnipresent. Confirming this Aqeedah, the Qur’aan Shareef declares: “Whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah.” The claim that Allah is with us in only His knowledge, is not borne out by any Shar’i proof.

While the Salafis castigate any valid Shar’i interpretation of the Mutashaabihaat (Allegorical) verses of the Qur’aan, they resort to wholesale corrupt interpretation to clutch at floating straws in a bid to substantiate their belief of Allah being with us in only His knowledge. The Qur’aan does not say so. The Hadith does not say so. The Ahlus Sunnah does not say so. Only the deviated Salafis with their Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, say so. But all this is baatil.

Our opinion is what Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed: “If you (O Mu’mineen!) have taqwa and adopt sabr, then never ever will their conspiracies harm you in the least bit.”
We believe in what Allah Ta’ala says: “They plot and Allah plots, and Allah is the best of plotters.” We are concerned with the dangerous plots of the nafs, not about the plots and conspiracies of the non-entities you have mentioned. Assuming that the intrigue you have mentioned has any truth in it, then it is all part of Allah’s scheme. Everyone of the persons mentioned by you and all and everything else are cogs in Allah’s earthly machinery.

We should not waste our time and energy in these futilities of the world. The orders of the world, whether it be the so-called “New World Order” and any bygone order or any future order, are all the orders of Allah Ta’ala. And, the order of humiliation which is afflicting Muslims today, is the order of Allah Ta’ala. No one can thwart the Order of Allah Ta’ala. Instead of being concerned with the purpose for which Allah Ta’ala has created us, Muslims have been deflected by Shaitaan from the Straight Path. We are thus grounded in futility. We look at and investigate shadows while remaining blind to realities. May Allah Ta’ala remove this ghaflat from Muslims who amuse themselves with nonsense.

It is not permissible. Ustaadhs should desist from such zulm (cruelty).

The garments ‘cleaned’ by this process remain impure. Salaat with such garments is not permissible.

Islam has left the time of Imaam Mahdi’s appearance in the dark. Islam is silent on this issue. The claims made by people in this regard are devoid of substance. Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Everything that happens in the Holy Cities is not proof of the Shariah. It is unintelligent to cite the errors of the people of the Holy Cities as a basis for a Shar’i argument. Saudi Arabia is governed by a clique of modernist fussaaq. The malpractices which the rulers condone are not the Shariah. The breakdown of Hijaab in the Holy Cities is due to the indifference and neglect of the rulers. Their acts and practices are not the Shariah.

The ‘halaal’ markings appearing on the wrappers of sweets, chocolates and foodstuff in general should be ignored. These ‘halaal’ stamps and labels are worthless. Halaal certification is a money-making racket. Haraam animal gelatine, haraam chickens, haraam pies etc. are all marketed as ‘halaal’. The safety and health of one’s spiritual fibre are ensured by total abstention from sweets and the like.

It is erroneous. The Maulana appears to be a freelancer (ghair muqallid). Hanafis may not combine two Salaat.

It is not permissible. She has to compulsorily spend her iddat in the house which was at one time her marital home. If for some valid reason she is unable to stay in her previous marital home, she should live with her parents or brothers or some other mahram, not with her brother-in-law. This is not permissible.

Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi ( rahmatullah) offered the following prescription: “The way of developing concern and enthusiasm is muraaqabah (meditation). Contemplate on the perishable nature of the world. Meditate on your death and on the everlasting nature of the Aakhirah. Meditate on the reward and the punishment (of the Hereafter and the grave), and on the gifts and bounties of Allah Ta’ala. Join the companionship of the Pious and engage in abundance of Thikr.” To acquire the state of enthusiasm and urge for righteousness, you have to struggle and fight the evil propensities and demands of the nafs. In this way will you succeed. In this world sacrifices have to be made. There is no shortcut for gaining spiritual treasures.

The three Talaaqs are effective. The Nikah has irrevocably ended. She is no longer in his Nikah. Tearing the paper does not cancel the validity of the Talaaqs. Once a husband writes out Talaaq for his wife, it comes into effect whether he hands the written Talaaq to her or not.

Yes, the divorce came into effect immediately the Nikah was concluded. However, the suspended Talaaq which the man had issued applies only once. This has now been executed. If he again performs Nikah with the woman without his wife’s consent, Talaaq will not come into effect.

As long as the tree is not poisonous or harmful, it is permissible for miswaak.

Qur’baani and Aqeeqah are two separate acts of ibaadat which cannot be combined in one animal. Separate animals have to be sacrificed if goats/sheep, and if the animal is a cow/camel, then separate shares in the same animal will be permissible.

Her Qur’baani is valid as long as she was aware and gave her consent before the Qur’baani was made.

According to the Hadith the heart also commits zina. To lust with the heart or mind is zina of the heart. To entertain lustful thoughts of the ex-wife is in the same category as lustful thoughts of women with whom Nikah was never performed. Such thoughts are zina of the heart which is haraam.

There are no special duas or acts of ibaadat for this night.

There is no Sunnat ceremony for this occasion. All ceremonies for naming the baby are bid’ah. On the seventh day the baby should simply be called by a name. Functions and feasting are innovations which have no basis in the Sunnah.

It is preferable that the father recites the Athaan and Iqaamah in the baby’s ears. However, anyone may recite it, even the mother. As soon as the baby has been bathed and cleaned, the Athaan and Iqaamah should be recited in the ears.

The Sajdah is valid.

After a very very long time have we read such claptrap. The comments in the abovementioned statement is truly junk in the literal sense. We are sure that non-Muslim legal experts who read this junk will chuckle and mock at the stupidity of the authors.

Firstly, if there is any danger of the secular courts tampering with the Shariah, it is a presumption while the fact of tampering with the Shariah has already been committed by the MPL mob. Any Muslim who has some understanding of the Shariah will not fail to see the glaring kufr and the blatant tampering with the Shariah in the MPL proposed bill. The molvis and the quasi-molvis have already tampered with the Shariah and are guilty of kufr. Their bill is cluttered with provisions which are in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. They are the last people who should speak about tampering with the Shariah.

Secondly, the secular courts do not tamper with the Shariah. They are not Muslims. They do not speak in the name of Islam. Their obligation is to interpret issues in the light of the secular constitution which is the overriding law in the secular state. Only men soft in the brains will aver that the secular courts will issue verdicts according to the Shariah even if the Shar’i views are in conflict with the secular constitution. No MPL law and no traditional law in this secular state can constrain the courts to issue rulings which conflict with the constitution. It is the imperative obligation of the secular court to interpret traditional religious laws to conform with the constitution. And, if a reconciliation cannot be forged, then the court is bound to simply strike down the conflicting law and rule according to the constitution. The drivel these MPL chaps speak is indeed mind boggling.

Thirdly, the secular courts to this day have never interfered with the religious laws of Muslims who wish their lives to be regulated by the Shariah. The problem arises when the Muslim attempts to tread two different paths at the same time. He registers his marriage in community of property, for example, and at the same time wants his estate to be distributed in accordance with the Shariah. The court in rejecting his Islamic Will is not tampering with the Shariah as the MPL crowd is guilty of. The court merely rules according to the secular law of the country to which it is bound head and foot. If the Muslim does not opt for community of property, the secular non-Muslim court will ensure that his estate is distributed in accordance with the Shariah if he had left an Islamic Will. If a Muslim issues Talaaq in accordance with the Shariah, the secular court does no interfere and declare the ‘unregistered’ Talaaq invalid as kufr MPL does. If a man enters into Nikah in terms of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, the court does not nullify his nikah, least of all fine him R20,000 or sent him to prison for ten years, but kufr MPL proposes exactly such measures of kufr to be enforced on Muslims by the secular court. In short, it is MPL which tampers with and mutilates the Shariah, not the secular courts of the land.

Fourthly, the MPL molvis of the Jamiats in the present day consist of a handful of inexperienced youngsters who lack in proper Knowledge of Islam as well as in experience. They are defective in all respects of the Deen. The one old Molvi Saheb who is insanely pushing the MPL cause has lost or sold his soul to the gender-equality clique. He represents not Islam. He has sold the Deen down the drain. As for the quasi-Muslim priest who happens to be on the MPL committee, he is wholly unqualified. His occupation is to fish through Maaliki literature and search for firewood in the dark. He does no know on what he lays his hands.

Fifthly, the courts are not as stupid as the MPL crowd. The courts cannot and will not ‘develop their own Islamic jurisprudence’. This is real junk which the Jamiats have tendered. The courts are tied down to their own secular jurisprudence which decides issues, not Islamic jurisprudence or some kufr version of it. They have their law of jahiliyyah which overrides all other laws in the land. In short, there is ample room to work within and round the country’s constitution to ensure that Muslims regulate their lives in accordance with the Shariah while this is not possible with MPL legislation because such legislation is kufr legislation presented in the name of Islam. It is kufr because it tampers with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It formulates in conflict with the Divine Shariah.

Sixthly the ‘control’ about which they are speaking is imaginary, misleading and stupid. It is the constitution and the law of the land which have control, not the Shariah. Any aspect of the Shariah which cannot be reconciled with the constitution is struck down and rejected by the secular court. But long before the court does any such thing, MPL kufr proposal has already done it. Truly, it appears that Allah Ta’ala has disfigured the intelligence of those who are pushing the kufr of MPL. May Allah Ta’ala guide our brethren and save us all from such a disaster.

Insha’Allah, the blessing will be gained. We have to fast according to the Islamic dates here in this country. We are not bound to follow the dates of Saudi Arabia.

These are shaitaani acts. According to the Qur’aan the prayers of pagans consisted of whistling and clapping hands around their idols.

Yes, it is true.

Salaat is Fardh at all times, in all circumstances. Whether the journey is by ship, car, plane, etc., it is haraam to forgo it. It is utterly baseless and blasphemous to claim that Salaat is waived on a journey. Even in the plane it is Fardh to perform Salaat. Since these people’s attitude with the Deen is extremely lax And defective, they do not fear to utter such blasphemy.

Yes, this is perfectly permissible in the plane and airport. At one’s destination if there is time and the convenience, the Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat should not be missed on account of laziness.

One who mocks Hijab loses his Imaan. It is kufr to mock at any teaching of Islam. This person has to renew his Kalimah and also his Nikah if he happens to be married.

Martial arts are permissible. But the extras such as nodding the head as a mark of respect and uttering some words or incantations are not permissible. Any act which forms part of the culture of non-Muslims is not permissible. Such tashabbuh (emulation) is haraam.

In a case such as this, it will be said that the bleeding is continuous. The day or two (anything less than 15 days) when there was no bleeding will be considered to be days of bleeding as well. Thus, it will be said that your bleeding was continuous all these months. Your haidh will be the days which were your haidh on the last occasion. Assuming that before this erratic bleeding you had a haidh period of 7 days and these 7 days were the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th. 14th, 15th and 16th of the month, then during the erratic period of continuous bleeding, these same dates as well as number of days will be your haidh period and the rest will be istihaadhah.

If you have no recollection of your last or your normal haidh periods, then regard the first ten days of every Islamic month as haidh and the rest as istihaadhah. It is essential for women to keep a written record of their haidh and bleeding pattern. This is necessary for determining correctly the haidh period during erratic bleeding and continuous bleeding.

The significance is that Allah Ta’ala is The Operator. Every occurrence in creation is by the decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Qur’aan Majeed says: “Not a leaf falls (from a tree) but He is aware of it.” Every atom that moves, does so with the knowledge and direct intervention of Allah Ta’ala. A lesson in the power failure is that Allah Ta’ala can bring powerful empires and great military powers to their knees overnight. Everyone has seen the overnight collapse of the Soviet empire. Just the other day, a hurricane in American sent an armada of 70 sophisticated American warships and a squadron of military aircraft scurrying for safety. They had to abandon their havens and head out for the sea and elsewhere for their safety.

Muslims should ponder! If Allah’s nusrat is with us then no superpower can do anything. Just one wind unleashed by Allah Ta’ala, just one major blackout throughout the country or any other natural calamity is sufficient to wipe out an empire. But Allah Ta’ala is withholding His aid from the Ummah on accont of the treacherous and flagrant disobedience and immorality in which the Ummah is groveling, and the worst of it’s transgressions is the total emulation of the sub-cultures of aliens.

Yes, the fast breaks. It is permissible to break the fast for this reason. Qadha has to be kept.

If you had first reflected (Taharri), then faced the wrong direction, there is then no need to repeat the Salaat. However, if you had simply faced the wrong direction without reflecting and endeavouring to determine the correct direction, then it is necessary to repeat the Salaat.

The normal rules of Custody do not apply in view of the fact that none of you is the parent of the child. The one who provides the maintenance for the child will have the right of custody.

The modern-day Salafis are the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab who is also the Imaam of the Saudi royal clan, yet they have a Mihraab, in fact, three Mihraabs in Musjid-e-Nabawi. Th Saudi-Salafi rulers are famous for demolishing even valid places of Ziyaarat in their fervour for destroying bid’ah, yet they have perpetuated in a grandiose manner the so-called bid’ah of the Mihraab. The Salafi ignoramuses are simply exhibiting their gross jahaalat with gross nonsense.

Many things did not exist during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), nevertheless, such things have become integral parts of Islam. There were no minarets, no tiles, no carpets, etc., etc., in the Musaajid during Rasulullah’s time. In terms of the crooked logic of the deviant Salafis, all these items which adorn the Musaajid should also be bid’ah. The Ummah has enacted consensus on the Mihraab from the age of Khairul Quroon. Besides the deviated modern-day Salafis, the entire world of Islam from the earliest era has accepted the Mihraab as an integral feature of the Musjid. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whatever the Muslimoon regard as good, that is good by Allah.” The Mihraab does not tamper in any way with the Shariah, hence it is not bid’ah.