Eulogies and Funerals

A RESPONSE FOR SPINELESS SCHOLARS FOR DOLLARS

[By Mujlisul Ulama]

A moron molvi, obsequiously seeking to curry favour with the authorities, peddled considerable twaddle in a moronic attempt to justify eulogizing deceased non-Muslims and to participate in their funerals. The eructation of pure ghutha (rubbish and bunkum) in his silly letter of justification of kufr attitudes and practices illustrates the degree of his extravagation from Siraatul Mustaqeem. In his moronic attempt to refute the Haqq of the rules of Allah’s Deen pertaining to eulogizing dead non-Muslims and participation in their funeral services, the moron molvi displayed, at the minimum, his gross jahaalat of the Shariah, and at the maximum, the kufr concealed in his heart.

Eulogizing the dead, even the Muslim dead, be they great Auliya, is frowned on by Islam. In fact the Hadith deprecates eulogizing the dead, and this deprecation is not restricted to dead non-Muslims. It applies to even dead Muslims who were recognized as great Ulama and Auliya. Even for the deceased Ulama and Auliya, the Islamic practice is simple Dua-e-Maghfirah and bestowal of thawaab via the medium of A’maal-e-Saalihah.

Singing eulogies to praise the dead is a futile kuffaar practice. According to the Hadith, when the moron mureeds of a Buzrug/Shaikh sing his praises, it brings grief to the deceased Shaikh because in Barzakh, it is sarcastically said to him: Were you so? The Buzrug is asked if he was truly as great and noble as his moron mureeds are deceptively singing to impress audiences. This is a disease which exists among moron mureeds who revel in such futility.

When fussaaq and kuffaar are eulogized, the Arsh of Allah Azza Wa Jal shudders. According to the Hadith, when such miscreants, be they Muslims, are praised they (those who praise), in reality aid in digging up the foundations of Islam, hence the Divine Throne shudders. In the ensuing pages, we briefly respond to the stupid and egregious defence of kufr customs and practices proffered by the moron molvi

OUR RESPONSE TO THE MOLVI’S GHUTHA

Your e-mail dated 7 December 2013 refers. In response to the drivel stated in vindication of honouring the atheist, our refutation is as follows:

(1) The molvi says:

“The prophet spoke good of Abu Talib.”

Firstly, this miscreant molvi who is in the clique of Scholars for Dollars, whilst an expert at praising and honouring a kaafir – an atheist, does not even know how to refer to Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He simply says ‘the prophet’. Just look at the litany of praises these Scholars for Dollars and other deviates who profess to be Muslims have lauded on the non-Muslim, and compare it with the word ‘the prophet’ used as a reference to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The issue is not about “speaking good” about a non-Muslim. No one contended that it is haraam to speak good about a non-Muslim. The issue is about eulogy – about eulogizing a non-Muslim – about praising and honouring a man who has died as a non-Muslim. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not eulogize Abu Talib. He did not sing the praises of Abu Talib. He did not say that Abu Talib is an inspiration for Muslims. He did not confer on Abu Talib the glowing accolades which Reverend Bham and Darush Shaitaan have done. He did not recite the Kalimah on behalf of Abu Talib to proclaim him a Muslim as the miscreants of the Temple of Quds have done.

On the contrary, he (Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam) shed tears of grief on account of the kufr of his beloved uncle, Abu Talib who had supported him throughout his life. Calling Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to attention regarding his grief, Allah Ta’ala revealed the aayat:

“Verily, you (O Muhammad!)cannot give guidance to those whom you love. But Allah guides whomever He wills. And He knows best who is to be guided.”

Despite his profound love for Abu Talib and despite him being Rasulullah’s uncle, instead of proffering an eulogy on the occasion of the uncle’s death, it was ordered that his body be dumped in a hole. No rites of respect and honour were conferred to him.

Speaking good and eulogizing a kaafir are poles apart. These are two issues as different as Hell and Heaven. Furthermore, whilst speaking good of the virtuous attributes of non-Muslims is permissible, what is the imperative need to even speak good of the attributes of a deceased non-Muslim, especially at this juncture when every moron understands that it is simply climbing on to the bandwagon to either curry favour with the government or out of mortal fear for some phantoms and shadows?

In addition, the talk is not confined to “speaking good”. The verbal flotsam being disgorged is honour and praise in diametric violation of the Shariah and the specific Qur’aanic aayats and Ahaadith which prohibit praying for dead non- Muslims and praising even the living among them. Yet the rascals of the MJC, the rascals of the NNB Jamiat and the rascals of the Temple of Quds have flagrantly expressed ‘duas’ of maghfirat for a professed non-Muslim, for a man who lived the life of kufr and atheism.

The Shariah is explicit in prohibiting dua for deceased non-Muslims regardless who they may be or how ‘good’ they may have been whilst alive. The Arsh of Allah Ta’ala shudders when even a Muslim faasiq is praised. What should we say and understand when a non- Muslim deceased is idolized, deified, and eulogized with a litany of praises and accolades of honour, the likes of which these vile zindeeqs of the MJC, Darush Shaitaan and of the Temple of Quds have not lauded on even Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?

The miscreant molvi should apply his clogged brains and understand that the issue is not speaking good about a non-Muslim. The issue is about honouring and praising a dead non-Muslim in flagrant violation of the Shariah (Qur’aan and Sunnah).

(2) Regarding the molvi’s stupid comments about Najaashi, it should be observed that Najaashi was a Muslim. He will receive a double thawaab because he believed in the Shariats of two Nabis – Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When the Message of Islam came to him, he accepted it. He was not an atheist. He was not a kaafir. The Qur’aan speaks glowingly of him and other true Nasaara who had embraced Islam when the message reached them. The jaahil molvi should study the opening verse of the 7th Juz.

Despite Najaashi having assisted the Muslim Muhaajireen, and having accepted Islam, no eulogy was sung for him in the way in which the zindeeqs masquerading as Muslims are singing

(3) The moron molvi states:

“He had dealings with the Jews of Medina.”

Who has condemned dealings with Jews? Everyone has dealings with the kuffaar every day of his life. When did anyone object or criticize such dealings? Is the blind molvi so stupid as to be unable to distinguish between dealing with the kuffaar and eulogizing their dead and making dua of maghfirat for dead kuffaar?

(4) The moron molvi says:

“He stood out of respect for a Jew’s funeral.”

The density of the molvi’s brains is lamentable. If it is temporarily accepted that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had stood ‘out of respect’, then the molvi may stand when a funeral passes by him.

The convoluted brain of the molvi fails to understand the difference between ‘standing’ and eulogizing. Whilst the former could be based on the Hadith (although this is not the factual position), the latter, i.e. eulogizing a kaafir, is in diametric conflict with the express command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who said:

“When a faasiq is praised, the Arsh of Allah shudders.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah never sang the praises of dead kuffaar even if they were parents. They did not eulogize deceased non-Muslims. The furthest he went was to have stood up only once in his life time. So, if the stupid molvi believes that he is following Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then he may stand once if he bumps into a non-Muslim’s funeral procession. But, to argue validity for eulogizing and honouring on the basis of the standing of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), is absolutely moronic.

Furthermore, the poor lost soul has seen only the Hadith mentioning the standing. He is ignorant of the many other narrations in this regard, and he is more ignorant of the tafseer and the views of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha on this issue. In brief, standing for a funeral is Mansookh (abrogated). Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) castigated those who had stood for a funeral on the basis of the Hadith which mentions Rasulullah’s standing. He had made it clear that it was only a one-time act, and he emphasized that thereafter Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would remain seated.

Of importance is also the fact when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was informed that standing for a funeral was the practice of the Yahood, he commanded the Muslims to oppose them by sitting, not standing.

It is indeed disgraceful when a molvi who should know better presents an apodallic or a legless argument to bolster an act which is akin to kufr, viz., eulogizing a dead kaafir.

(3) “Signing pacts with the Quraish”?

Indeed this moron molvi has glaringly demonstrated his lack of Aql. What relationship is there between signing pacts and treaties with non-Muslims and praising and honouring their dead? And, who did prohibit signing pacts with non-Muslims? Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) said that one should not discuss with two types of persons: a mu-aanid and a ghabi. The former is a person who harbours malice. A ghabi is a naturally dim fellow with a dense brain. The more you try to make him understand, the less he will understand.

This molvi is undoubtedly a ghabi, hence he disgorged pure bunkum in his response. In fact, he may also be a mu-aanid. Where is a treaty and where is the act of eulogizing a dead Muslim? What is the common factor between these two entirely different acts? Whilst Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah and the Ummah always entered into pacts with the kuffaar, the Shariah prohibits explicitly eulogizing dead non-Muslims.

(4) “A kaafir was trusted and he guided….”

Taking assistance from a non-Muslim and eulogizing a dead non-Muslim are two different issues. What is the resemblance? The Shariah does not prohibit the former whilst it does prohibit the latter. This is another display of gross jahaalat by the molvi.

(5) “The list goes on about kuffar interaction.”

The prohibition of eulogizing dead non-Muslims has no relationship with kuffaar interaction. Furthermore, every interaction with a non-Muslim is subjected to the rules of the Shariah. One is not allowed unfettered freedom of interaction with kuffaar in the same way as one will interact with Muslims. Everything is regulated by the laws of Allah Ta’ala. Such interaction permitted by the Shariah is permissible, and such interaction which is disallowed is haraam. Now the molvi should be more specific and enumerate the permissible interactions without casting a blind eye on the haraam interactions. He should further research the kutub, or better, return to Madrasah, to learn what the Shariah says about the specific act of eulogizing dead non- Muslims.

(6) “We need to re-examine our stance.”

Which stance should be reexamined? Do we have to re-examine the Shariah’s stance of prohibiting eulogizing fussaaq and kuffaar, more specifically dead kuffaar? The stances of the Shariah are not the subject for examination and re-interpretation. The Shariah is Allah’s immutable Law.

(7) “We’re taking a political stance.”

The Islam we know and believe in does not allow us to sell our mothers and daughters for just any political stand. The Shariah does not allow Muslims to adopt haraam when formulating a political stand. The political stand must be within the prescribed limits of the Shariah. The ahkaam of the Shariah may not be thrown overboard for accommodating a political stand which is in violation of the Shariah. The molvi’s political stand is simply bootlicking, and is motivated by either fear for shadows or for currying favour.

(8) “This is not a declaration of accepting their religion or religious practice”.

Undoubtedly, it is a practical demonstration of accepting a kuffaar practice in flagrant violation of the Shariah which prohibits eulogizing a dead kaafir. If the molvi decides to eat pork and drink wine for pleasure, he will not be speaking with sanity if he says that he is not accepting the religion of the kuffaar.

There is no need for beating about the bush or for attempting deflecting tactics. We are only saying one thing, and that is that it is haraam to eulogize a dead non-Muslim. It is haraam to make dua of maghfirat for him. It is haraam to say that he will ‘rest in peace’ when this is the prerogative exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It is haraam to recite the kalimah on behalf of a deceased non-Muslim and then hallucinate that he is in Jannautul Firdaus. This is all that we are saying. We are not speaking about dealings, pacts, treaties, interacting, etc. with the kuffaar.

(9) “It is a way of showing solidarity with the fight against oppression.”

 In the first place we say that the molvi is a great kaththaab. The feverish eulogizing is the effect of fear and currying favour. And, even on accepting that the moron wants to show solidarity, it may not be shown in violation of the Shariah. It is haraam to show solidarity in haraam ways. To show solidarity it is haraam to participate in the paganism and kufr of the kuffaar. Solidarity may not be on the basis of the haraam act of eulogizing a deceased non-Muslim. The hallucination of showing solidarity and eulogizing a deceased non-Muslim are two entirely different issues.

(10) “Flowers”:

The molvi’s surprise on this issue reveals his jahaalat. He is blissfully unaware of the simple fatwa of our Akaabireen. The moron should refer to the Fatawa Kutub of our recent Akaabir Muftis to ascertain the prohibition of the custom of funeral flowers. In addition to it being the practice of the Hindus it is also an embedded funeral practice of Christians. Acceptance of a practice of the kuffaar is also kufr.

The molvi should remember the episode of the Shaikhul Hadith whose body was transferred from Jannatul Baqi and thrown into a Paris graveyard like carrion because he had expressed a preference for the Christian practice of abstention from ghusl-e-janaabat. There are many episodes of this kind which superficially may appear trivial but the consequences of which are disastrous in terms of Imaan and the Aakhirah. Such misdeeds are worse than zina and liquor. The practice of funeral flowers is just as haraam as lighting candles. Both are religious acts of the kuffaar.

(11) “Freedom of religion – a better record than all Muslim countries.”

So what? Does this justify perpetration of haraam when one is not compelled to do haraam? What is the relationship between freedom of religion and committing the haraam act of eulogizing a deceased non-Muslim? Is commission of haraam and kufr the price of partial freedom of religion? The state is not conferring a favour on us by granting religious freedom. It is our inherent right and our constitutional right.

(12) “Flowers and bullets”.

This moron molvi’s sensorium is stercoraceously saccated in a stupor of self-induced deception. Let him understand that throwing flowers in haraam style – in kuffaar style is tashabbuh bil kuffaar. Throwing flowers stupidly in emulation of customs which are mabghoodh by Allah Azza Wa Jal will not prevent the bullets. The bullets will be Allah’s punishment. The bullets will come at His command. Nothing will be able to stop the bullets of Allah’s Athaab when the decree is made, least of all the stunts of stupidly throwing flowers. The bullets will be Allah’s Athaab for a grossly disobedient Muslim community who has turned its back on the Deen.

Flower-throwing and eulogizing deceased non- Muslims will not prevent Allah’s Athaab from settling on a fussaaq and fujjaar community. Currying favour in haraam ways will not prevent the bullets. This phase will still come. May Allah Ta’ala save us. May He have mercy on us.

But remember, O Muslims! Remember and understand well that you, in this country, are not a chosen community ensconced in immunity against genocide. Ruminate with your brains specifically focused on Bosnia. Think and derive lesson from the horrendous atrocities perpetrated on Muslims by savage kuffaar mobs in Arakan (Burma), India, Syria and other places – all acts of genocide perpetrated with the active connivance and collusion of the authorities. But in the final analysis, all these acts of horror are Divine Punishment – Allah’s Athaab for diseased, rebellious, fussaaq, fujjaar Muslim communities who have trampled on the Qur’aan and Sunnah in ways which put the kuffaar and even Iblees to shame.

This is the scenario today prevalent in the Muslim community of South Africa. And, the leaders in fisq, fujoor and even kufr are the vile molvis and shaikhs who have sold Islam down the drain for the dunya. They are the Scholars for Dollars!

Don’t worry about kuffaar burning copies of the Qur’aan Majeed. Don’t worry about stupid cartoons drawn by stupid kuffaar to insult Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Worry about the insult and sacrilege you as Muslims inflict on the Qur’aan and on Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). On the Day of Qiyaamah, Nabi-e- Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) will complain in the Divine Court:

“O my Rabb! Verily, my people have taken the Qur’aan as an object to buffet.”

With their kufr attitudes and acts of flagrant fisq and fujoor, Muslims are trampling on the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. They will still pay dearly for such treachery, and they will not have to wait for Qiyaamah to witness and taste the bitter fruits of their villainous conduct. And in the forefront is the vile satanic fraternity of ulama-esoo’ – the Scholars for Dollars.

Our Musaajid, Madaaris, women and children can be protected only by Inaabat iIlallaah – only by obeying Allah Ta’ala, not by currying favour with haraam acts to appease the phantoms – not by Tashabbuh bilkuffaar – and not by singing haraam praises and honouring deceased non-Muslims in gross violation of the Shariah.

(13) The only thing which is permissible in this scenario is a simple message of condolence to the family WITHOUT any eulogy for the deceased. This is the limits of the Shariah. Trespassing this sacred limit leads to Jahannum.

Salaam on those who accept the hidaayat of Allah Ta’ala.

ONLY CONDOLENCE

Observe the limits of the shariah and guard your Imaan-
Condolence and the Shariah

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Make haste with A’maal (Virtuous Deeds) before (you are overtaken by) such a fitnah which will be like a portion of an intensely dark night. A man will be a Mu’min in the morning, and a kaafir in the evening. He will sell his Deen for provisions of the world.”

The community is passing through a phase of intensely dark fitnah which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described as “a portion of an intensely dark night”. The fitnah will be so much convoluted and blended with deception that the masses and even the scholars, especially the ‘scholars for dollars’, will be unable to distinguish between Haqq and Baatil – Truth and Falsehood. The falsehood of even kufr will be portrayed as the Haqq of the Deen.

The subtlety of the villainy and deception of the fitnah will be so confusing that people will be Mu’min in the morning, and kaafir in the evening. Their state will alternate between kufr and Imaan. They will plunge into the mire of kufr without even realizing it. This fitnah will not be any mischief or strife initiated by non-Muslims. It will be fitnah of Muslims themselves, and worst of all, it will be such fitnah which will be concocted by those who are supposed to be the Ulama. This fitnah will be the making of the Ulama-e-Soo’ – the Scholars for Dollars – who will sell their Imaan for worldly and nafsaani objectives. About this fitnah of the Ulama-e-Soo’ – the scholars for dollars – Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“There will dawn an age over the people when the worst under the canopy of the sky will be their ulama. From the ulama will emerge fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

It is this ulama-created fitnah which has cast the Muslim community into confusion. It is this ulama-fabricated fitnah – fabricated for the gains of the dunya and nafs – that has created a scenario in which Muslims vacillate between Imaan and kufr. Whilst the ordinary ignorant Muslims in the community are suspended between Imaan and kufr in which they alternate due to uncertainty, the kufr of the ulama-e-soo’ is confirmed.

The Hadith mentioned above, applies to the ignorant and the unwary who are stagnated in trepidation. But the kufr of the kufr-manufacturers, namely, the ulama-e-soo, is quite palpable. They manipulate the Deen, spinning their narratives of kufr which they attempt to conceal with a ‘deeni’ veneer.

On this occasion of the passing away of Mr. Nelson Mandela, the ulama-e-soo’ and some other modernist juhala are causing great Imaani havoc by flagrantly transgressing the limits of the Shariah in the act of condolence. They have descended into the dregs of kufr with their eulogies. Some of those who are guilty of the eulogies of kufr are Reverend Abraham Bham of the NNBJamiat, Darush Shaitaan (the so-called Darul Ihsaan), the MJC, the Media Network and the Temple of Quds. This last body of miscreants has exceeded all bounds in the perpetration of flagrant kufr, and this is because at heart they are kuffaar Shiahs.

The Shariah grants permission for only condolence, not for obituaries and eulogies. While it is permissible to condole with the bereaved family, composing eulogies is haraam. Making dua is haraam. Presenting funeral flowers is haraam. Participating in funeral and burial services is haraam. It is only permissible to send condolence to the bereaved family – condolence minus any eulogy. Any other act pertaining to funeral and burial service besides condolence, is haraam. This is the limit of the Shariah. Those who transgress the limits of the Shariah, are warned in the Qur’aan Majeed:

“These are the prescribed limits of Allah. Whoever transgresses the limits of Allah, verily he has oppressed his soul.”

“Remember ME (ALLAH), and I shall remember you. Be grateful Unto Me and do not commit kufr. O People of Imaan! Seek aid (from Allah) with Sabr and Salaat. Verily Allah is with the Saabireen.”

“Beware of such a punishment which will not be confined to only the Transgressors among you.” (It will overwhelm even the pious who associate and socialize with the transgressors).

Back to Fatwas on Janazah related issues

One thought on “Eulogies and Funerals

  1. Abu Yahya

    Would have appreciated if RF could edit these article to remove all of the non-academic statement and keeping it purely academic. In this there will be greater benefit.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *