Miscellaneous Contemporary Issues

Question:

In the Hadith it is reported that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “With every bell is a shaitaan.” Please elaborate.

Answer:

The prohibition of a bell in Islam is when it is used for amusement, pride or other un-Islamic purposes. If it is used for a good purpose then its use will be permissible. This is stated in the authoritative Kitaab, MUHEET of Imam Muhammad (rahmatullahi alayh).

Question:

The Ulama in Saudi Arabia have issued a fatwa claiming that Qur’aanic verses used as ringtones in telephones is haraam. Please comment.

Answer:

The Saudi fatwa pertaining to ringtones is correct. It is not permissible to misuse the Aayaat of the Qur’aan. The purpose of the Qur’aan Majeed is Tilaawat and Hidaayat. The Fuqaha have explicitly ruled that it is not permissible for a person who guards a camp, for example, to wake up people for Salaat, etc. by reciting Takbeer/Tasbeeh. The intention of reciting Tasbeeh is to praise Allah Ta’ala. It may not be used to wake up people or for anything else. The Qur’aan Majeed may not be used as an alarm to alert people. The same ruling apply to Athaan clocks. The use of the Athaan in alarm clocks is also not permissible. Using the Qur’aanic verses as ringtones in phones is highly disrespectful of the Qur’aan Majeed.

Question:

A man left his cigarette in our house and when I saw it I destroyed it so that when he comes to ask of it he wont get it in order to prevent him from that sin. Was I right to do that?

Answer:

Destroying the haraam cigarettes was not sinful.

Question:

I recorded the following questions and answers from Radio Channel Islam. Please comment on the :

Answer:

“(1) Q. A lot of people benefit from organ transplants. Is it permissible to write in one’s will that one’s organs may be used for transplanting after one’s death?

Answer: According to the Fiqah Academy that is based in Jeddah, they have passed the verdict that organ transplanting is permissible with certain conditions, e.g. if it is used as a last resort, for example, and there is no transaction involved of buying and selling, and it is not just for money-making; and for example another condition is that the chances of that person’s recovery and success of the operation are quite good. So when all these conditions are fulfilled then organ transplant is permissible. Hence if you write it in your will, it will be permissible.”

COMMENTS OF THE MAJLIS

The radio has not presented a stitch of Shar’i evidence for the permissibility of the haraam act of human organ transplantation. Since the man sitting behind the radio veil has no Islamic substance to present for his view, he clutched at a passing straw like a drowning man. He presents a warped and an Islamically unsubstantiated opinion of some semi-modernist academy in Jeddah. Indeed it is most surprising to say the least, that in this so-called `enlightened’ age of intellectual progress (or retrogress) when renunciation of the sacred and Waajib Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen has become fashionable, the radio chap expects Muslims to make Taqleed —blindly follow— some semi-modernist group of shaiks and maulanas sitting in air-conditioned offices in corrupt Jeddah – the headquarters of Anti-Taqleedi’ism. Whenever the liberal molvis who lack Shar’i dalaa-il, cannot present Shar’i evidence for their liberal views, they scurry into the camp and into taqleed of some academy of liberal molvis and shaikhs’ whose basis for verdicts is personal opinion, not the Shariah.

The opinion stated by the radio is baatil (baseless), in conflict with the Shariah and in conflict with the Fatwa of the Akaabir (Senior) Ulama. Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (rahmatullah alayh) has written a treatise on the evil and hurmat (prohibition) of human organ transplantation. Reproduction of all the Shar’i proofs for the prohibition of human organ transplantation is beyond the scope of these pages. Insha’Allah, a booklet will have to be prepared and published on this subject so that the Shar’i evidence for the prohibition can be set out clearly and convincingly. Meanwhile the following factors will suffice in refutation of what radio channel `islam’ propagates:

* The Fiqh Academy of Jeddah is not a repository of Shar’i Daleel. It cannot be cited in opposition to the Fataawa of the Akaabir Ulama who were glittering Stars of Uloom, who presented solid Shar’i arguments for their verdicts.

* Not a single statement made in the radio’s talk on the subject represents Shar’i daleel.

* The radio has ignored or is blissfully unaware of the Shar’i evidence underlying the prohibition of human organ transplantation.

* It is haraam to bequeath any organ of one’s body for any purpose whatsoever. It is haraam to include such evil bequests in one’s will.

* The `verdict’ they passed in Jeddah has no Shar’i validity. No one is under any Shar’i obligation to accept the verdicts of the academy nor is it permissible to make taqleed (follow blindly) the academy of Jeddah.

* If the liberal molvis wish people of knowledge to attach any credibility and significance to their views, they should present Shar’i arguments – solid Shar’i evidence from the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the works of the Classical Aimmah and Fuqaha, not the liberal and unsubstantiated opinions of scholars of this age. We are not the muqallideen of any present-age liberal scholars. Their arguments which are in conflict with the Inviolable Shariah are therefore rejected and dismissed as utterly baseless.

Human organ transplantation is HARAAM.

The second question put to radio channel islam is:

“Is it halaal to drink Coca Cola?”

The channel’s answer was: “To drink Coca Cola is totally permissible. However, if a person looks at it from all perspectives and we say that it is harmful towards health, and it is something that is not good for a person’s health for now and the future, that all is a different issue. From fatwa point of view that is 100% halaal. In fact yesterday I was looking at Ahsanul Fataawa and I found this fatwa there also, that someone asked Mufti Rashid Ahmed (rahimahullah) that they have alcohol in it and so forth. He gave the same answer we gave many times that this alcohol is a miniscule percentage and whatever, and when the coke is sort of formulated and everything, so then that is not alcohol that the Qur’aan has made haraam or the Hadith or the Sunnah. Therefore the Ulama of India and Pakistan, the Arab World – all of them consider it to be halaal.”

(We have reproduced the question and answer verbatim with all its linguistic and grammatical atrocities as presented to us by the questioner.—The Majlis)

THE MAJLIS COMMENTS:

Firstly, the molvi sahib concedes that this drink is injurious for the health and body. He accepts that it is harmful. The factor of `harm’ is termed dharar in the terminology of the Fuqaha. Dharar is also a factor of prohibition. Eating a pure substance like sand is not permissible on account of the factor of dharar. Poison, in spite of being taahir (pure) is haraam on account of dharar.

Secondly, the molvi sahib appears to be unaware of the meaning of `alcohol’. He perhaps is not aware that every alcohol is an intoxicant, and Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wasallam) said that every `muskir’ (intoxicant) is haraam. Regardless of the classification of the alcohol, the common factor of `sukr’ (the intoxicating agent) is common to all forms of alcohol. While the legal and Shar’i consequences of different types of alcohol vary, it does not follow that alcohol is halaal for consumption.

Thirdly, the argument of the quantity being `miniscule’ is baseless. It is in conflict with the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who said: “Whatever in big quantity intoxicates, its little quantity too is forbidden.” Thus, the `miniscule’ argument is stupid and untenable.

Fourthly, what is stated in Ahsanul Fataawa is not binding on us or on any one. Ahsanul Fataawa is not in the category of the works of the Fuqaha of former times. Each fatwa of Ahsanul Fataawa is subject to examination, criticism and verification. The particular fatwa on Coke, is the opinion of the venerable Mufti Sahib (rahmatullah alayh). His degree of investigation is inadequate and inconclusive for presenting a final word on the Coke issue.

Fifthly, the views of the contemporary Arab Ulama and even of contemporary liberal Pakistani Ulama are all suspect and products of liberalism. We cannot attach much significance and respect to the `fataawa’ of men who appear on television, run corrupt radio stations, violate laws of Hijaab, are lax on pictures, project the voices of females, attach little importance to the dress-styles of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and incline to the liberal ways of the western kuffaar in general. The words and views of such Ulama are of little significance. And, when unbacked by Shar’i daleel, are to be rejected and dismissed as products of their whims and fancies. Their great weakness which exposes the shallowness of their learning and understanding is that whenever they are bereft of Shar’i arguments and whenever they are unable to rationally and academically neutralise the arguments of their adversaries, then they run to the taqleed of liberal molvis and shaikhs operating under the facades of academies of modernism such as the Jeddah academy. They seek to awe and impress others with the names of `prominent’ personalities. But men of Ilm are not awed by names, especially if such names represent liberals of this age – liberal scholars who are weak in the presentation of Shar’i dalaa-il. They present generalities as their basis in the same way as ignorant modernists subject Qur’aanic aayaat and Ahadith to their personal interpretation based on whim and fancy. Also, the relationship which the liberal scholars have with government establishments is a curse. Such relationships exercise their baneful effects and influences on the `fataawa’ of the `academy’ scholars.

Sixthly, if the alcohol in Coke is not of the haraam category, then by the same token the alcohol in whisky, vodka, ship-sherry, gin and beer is also not haraam. The alcohol used in soft drinks is ethanol which is the very same alcohol used in the varieties of liquor which at least to this day the liberal molvis and shaikhs still say is haraam. But, they are opening the avenue for proclaiming liquor to be halaal. Tomorrow that day MUST come when the liberal scholars will proclaim liquor halaal. They will simply give it another name and fabricate some fanciful and devious `academic’ and technical arguments to bamboozle the masses and to satisfy the establishment (i.e. fussaaq governments and the wealthy).

If a `miniscule’ (one or two drops) of whisky is added to a cup of tea or to a glass of water, do these liberals say that it will remain halaal? If ethanol-containing whisky or vodka in miniscule quantity is haraam, then why should ethanol-containing soft drink not be haraam despite the miniscule amount? If Laager and Barbican Beer which contain ethanol have to be haraam, why not soft drinks which also contain ethanol, albeit in `miniscule’ quantity or in a quantity lesser than the quantity in whisky and vodka?

Seventhly, the radio mufti sought to awe people by citing the majority. But `majority’ is not a Shar’i daleel. The majority of modernist and liberal scholars of this age carries no Shar’i weight. People of intelligence are not awed by such arguments intended to impress the masses. What is needed, is Shar’i evidence, not the names of the muftis of this age.

Eighthly, the radio mufti was extremely diligent in citing Ahsanul Fataawa in substantiation of his desire and opinion regarding coke, but he ignores the very same Ahsanul Faraawa on the question of human organ transplantation. Surely the radio mufti could not have missed seeing in Ahsanul Fataawa a 20 page discussion in which the venerable Mufti and author of Ahsanul Fataawa very emphatically and categorically declares HARAAM human organ transplantation. In this regard, Ahsanul Fataawa states: “Twenty two years after my treatise (on organ transplantation), ten bulky articles on this topic came to my notice from different countries. Among these, eight had applied much pressure on the pen in a bid to prove that organ transplantation is halaal. But, not a single argument in these writings is substantiation for the claim (of permissibility). In fact, all the arguments are so baseless, that they are not worthy of attention……….”

The liberal molvis are in fact bereft of Shar’i basis and dalaa-il. They are freelancers or more appropriately, like the holy cows roaming about freely, eating from this one’s basket and that one’s basket. The liberals extract the views which appeal to their fancies. They will take a certain Mufti’s view if it suits them. But if the same Mufti’s view on another question is unpalatable to their liberal tastes, then they will search for another Mufti’s view which is acceptable to them. An example of this type of despicable and un-Islamic exercise is what the radio mufti has done. For declaring coke halaal, he cites Ahsanul Fataawa. But for the question of organ transplantation, he runs to the Jeddah academy because Ahsaanul Fataawa is too uncompromising in its emphasis on prohibition of organ transplantation. May Allah Ta’ala save the Ummah from such `learned’ people who make a mockery of the Deen and expose the Imaan of the masses to kufr.

(3) Q. “What is the significance of kissing one’s thumbs and rubbing it on the eyes when the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) name is called during the Athaan?

A. Allamah Sakhawi (rahmatullah alayh) in his kitaab, Al-Maqaasidul Hasanah, has discussed this issue and he has written that it is mentioned that Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), when the Muath-thin used to take the name of Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would kiss his thumbs and then rub it on his eyes. He says after that: “This hadith is not authentic.” However the Ulama have written that if a person does this with the intention of ilaaj (for cure), then it is permissible. We should not do it with the intention of Sunnah or take it to be compulsory, for then that would not be permissible.”

THE MAJLIS COMMENTS:

The answer given by the radio is misleading and incorrect, especially when the prevalent belief and attitude of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah are that this practice is Sunnah, in fact Waajib. When the narration is said to be unauthentic, then why does the radio mufti desire to peddle it in this time when the practice is a salient feature of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah. It appears that the radio mufti is eager to curry favour with allegments of people, hence this radio channel entertains a wide variety of opinions even haraam opinions. It is therefore not surprising that this radio caters for homosexuals, gays, rapists and what not.

It is despicable for a mufti to seek acceptability and permissibility for a practice on the basis of weak and unauthentic narrations which none of our Classical Fuqaha and Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen had entertained. In fact, inspite of all our Akaabir Ulama being fully aware of these spurious narrations, they have branded this practice as bid’ah. The radio mufti should at least know and understand that when even a Sunnat and a Mustahab act become a salient feature of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah or when it is elevated to a higher status than that conferred to it by the Shariah, then such practice has to be branded bid’ah notwithstanding its istihbaab (meritorious)status.

It is also peculiar that the radio mufti has entirely ignored Ahsanul Fataawa with regard to this issue. As far as the coke issue is concerned, the radio mufti had sought to eke out capital and support for his view from Ahsanul Fataawa. But when Ahsanul Fataawa refutes the radio mufti’s liberal views, the latter ignores it. Let us see what Ahsanul Fataawa says about the thumb-kissing practice:
“Since the general public has given it a status higher than Sunnat, regarding it to be incumbent, hence those who do not practise it are criticized, it is therefore necessary to refrain from it.”
(Ahsanul Fataawa)

Those who are adherents of this practice, believe it to be Sunnah and they have spread much controversy in this regard. The radio mufti cannot be unaware of this. Furthermore, he will be aware that all those Ulama whom he considers to be among the Akaabireen do not condone it. He will be aware that none of the Fuqaha propagates this practice. It is a spurious act. Instead of answering the question in the way in which the senior Muftis have done, the radio mufti demeans himself by his abortive attempt to satisfy the bid’atis and curry favour with them. This is not the attitude of the Ulama-e-Haqq. The public should not be misled with dubious logic and devious arguments which the great authorities of the Shariah do not entertain.

Question:

The Ghair muqallideen say that the Hadith does not prohibit the game of chess. The Hadith states `nard’, not chess. Nard, they contend, is backgammon. Please explain.

Answer:

Ghair Muqallideen (those who refute the Four Math-habs) are ignorant. While they do not follow any of the Four Math-habs of Islam, they make taqleed of their desires and opinions. Their claim regarding chess and `nard’ displays their ignorance and their inability to understand Ahadith. They lack in entirety in the knowledge of the Usool (Principles) which govern the laws of the Shariah.

Even the Ghair Muqallideen believe, at least until now, that whisky, vodka, gin and the numerous brands of liquor available, are all haraam. But neither the Qur’aan nor the Ahadith mentions any of these liquors. The Qur’aan prohibits `khamr’ (grape wine), not wine made from other substances. On the basis of the stupid arguments of these ignoramuses, all forms of liquor which are not khamr should be lawful. Whatever cause renders khamr haraam, renders all forms of liquor haraam. Similarly, whatever cause renders nard (backgammon) haraam, to a greater degree applies to chess. Thus, there is no dispute among the authorities of the Shariah regarding the prohibition of chess. Furthermore, some Hadith narrations explicitly mention chess (shatranj) as well.

Question:

In Muslim countries Arabic and Urdu newspapers in which are printed Islamic articles, even Qur’aanic verses and Ahadith, are used as wrapping paper. Later these papers are discarded as waste and even trampled on. Is it permissible to wrap parcels with such newspaper?

Answer:

It is sacrilegious and haraam to wrap items with such paper. The sacred words of Allah are insulted and their sanctity disgracefully violated. The degree of disrespect which Muslims show to the Qur’aan and the Holy Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is deplorable and borders on the confines of kufr.

Question:

What is the Shariah’s ruling on Athaan clocks? When the alarm rings at the set time, the athaan plays on the clock.

Answer:

Such clocks are not permissible. It is not permissible to use the Athaan as an instrument to wake up one. The Athaan is a Thikr, and the purpose of Thikr is to gain Allah’s proximity. To use Thikr for any purpose for which it is not intended by the Shariah, is not permissible. Such clocks should not be used as alarm clocks to wake up people.

Question:

Is cloning permissible?

Answer:

This technique is permissible in plants and animals. Human cloning is haraam.

Question:

Is human cloning permissible?

Answer:

Human cloning is not permissible. It is a shaitaani act which comes within the scope of the Qur’aanic aayat (No.119 Surah An-aam): “(Iblees said): “Most assuredly I shall mislead them, give them false hopes, and I shall command them to pierce the ears of an’aam (cattle, etc.), and assuredly, I shall command them and they will change the khalq (creation) of Allah.” Whoever takes shaitaan as a friend besides Allah, verily he has fallen into a great loss.”

Taghyeer li khalqillaah (changing Allah’s creation) is a shaitaani act which is haraam. Whether the change is externally or internally, it remains haraam. External acts of taghyeer are filing the teeth, tattooing the body, adding false hair to one’s hair such as wigs, etc. Inspite of these external acts of taghyeer being reversible, they are haraam. Cloning brings about an internal change in the personality of the person. Such taghyeer is worse than the external taghyeer. Certain acts of taghyeer to animals, e.g. castration, are permitted by Allah Ta’ala Himself, hence it will be incorrect to present this as an argument to legalize taghyeer in a human being because such taghyeer is prohibited by Allah Ta’ala. An exception made by the Shariah cannot be cited in negation of a Shar’i law.

Question:

What is the Shariah’s ruling pertaining to the registration of copyrights to prevent others from publishing the book?

Answer:

Copyright is not permissible.

Question:

Some learned people say that it is permissible for women to cut their hair. Please comment.

Answer:

Some learned people also say that pictures of animate objects are permissible; television is permissible, haraam meat of the kuffaar is permissible; dressing like the kuffaar is permissible. Some learned men proclaim many haraam things to be permissible. In fact, some learned men, even so-called muftis of this age, actively propagate against Taqwa. They say that this is not an age of taqwa, thereby opening up the avenue of haraam and implying the abrogation of Rasulullah’s warning against participation in doubtful things. Do not heed what these modern and liberal and tin-topped or plastic `mujtahids’ of this age say. They do not know whether they are coming or going. They are squint-eyed and look at the Shariah and its ahkaam with oblique vision. Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) said that total blindness is better than the oblique vision of a squint-eyed man. May Allah Ta’ala save the Ummah from the glut of ulama-e-soo’ which proliferate the Ummah. It is haraam for women to cut their hair. It is a kabeerah sin for them to cut their hair. The la’nat of Allah and His Malaaikah descends on a woman who imitates the kuffaar and who imitates men by cutting her hair.

Question:

There is much controversy regarding animal gelatine. Most of the Ulama in South Africa say that animal gelatine made by even kuffaar is halaal. It is claimed that in the process of making gelatine, the haraam substances undergo a total transformation, hence become halaal. Please comment.

Answer:

While there is a principle of total transformation in the Shariah, it is utterly baseless to claim that this principle applies to the process of gelatine-manufacture. Gelatine which is made from animal hides used as the raw material, is in fact the product of all the impurities which are extracted from the haraam skins by the kuffaar. But those who have been duped into believing that total transformation (tabdeel maahiyat) occurs, labour under the wrong notion. The claim that most Ulama say that this filthy and impure substance is halaal may be true. But we can state categorically that most Ulama in South Africa are unaware of the process of gelatine-manufacture. A couple of them have done an investigation and have come to grossly erroneous conclusions. They have no Shar’i grounds for proclaiming gelatine halaal. The few who have made their defective investigation, then publicised their findings and their erroneous fatwa. Nowadays, you follow blindly the organisation to which you have offered allegiance. Regardless of the errors and blunders of the organisation, the members, even if they are Molvis, support the official stand of the organisation. But this should not be the attitude of Ulama. Ulama should speak on the basis of Knowledge. But there is a great dearth of sound Shar’i knowledge among the ranks of even the Molvis of this day. On account of the defective knowledge, they have no option other than to fall in line with what their chief says, whether right or wrong. In fact, these muqallideen of baatil are unable to distinguish between right and left. The majority falls in this category. On the other hand, the Ulama-e-Haqq will always be a small minority right until the Last Day. About this small minority, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“There will always be a group of my Ummah who will fight on the Haqq. Those who oppose them and those who refrain from aiding them will not be able to harm them. They (the Group of the Haqq) will remain dominant until the Day of Qiyaamah….”

The criterion of the Haqq is not majority. The Haqq of the Deen is based on Shar’i Dalaa-il. It has nothing to do with numbers and with howling and screaming.

Q. Is it not a better option to condone the Muslim-operated radio stations despite their many wrongs? Is it not the lesser of the evils? At least there is some goodness in these radio stations. Were it not for these Muslim radios, many Muslims would listen to the non-Muslim radio stations or even watch television. Please comment.

The principle of the lesser evils has been grossly misunderstood. This principle operates only when there is no third lawful alternative. If a man is on the verge of death due to starvation, he is allowed to consume sufficient haraam food to save himself only if there is absolutely no halaal food available. But if there is a third lawful option, then the principle of the lesser of the two evils does not apply. In the matter of these shaitaani radio stations, the third available alternative is a Waajib (compulsory) one. And that is Abstention.

In otherwords, it is Waajib to refrain from listening to these evil radios which not only make a mockery of the Deen, but actively foster fisq and fujoor (evil and immorality). Thus, it is seen that they allow modernists with kufr beliefs, the Ahl-e-Bid’ah, Shiahs, homosexuals, gays, and sodomists to air their views and to make tableegh of their cults of kufr. Music, simulated music, emulation of the kuffaar, singing nonsensical songs, nafsaani competitions, projecting females and their voices to inflame the nafsaani and carnal passions of males, organizing shaitaani braaivleis functions at which intermingling of sexes takes place, charging haraam fees for participating in haraam functions, etc., etc. are among the evil and haraam activities of these radio stations.

The harm by far outweighs any semblance of good superficially portrayed by these appendages of Shaitaan. There is absolutely no scope for permissibility to listen to these radios and to support them in any way. The principle of the lesser evil cannot be even remotely applied to the shaitaani radios.

Q. Are nazams with thikr in the background permissible?

Such nazams (songs) and using thikr for such nafsaani entertainment are haraam. The purpose of thikr is not entertainment. Thikr is the highest act of ibaadat for which Allah Ta’ala has created us. It is despicable to abuse Allah’s Name in this contemptible nafsaani manner. Shaitaan is adept in the art of deceiving people under Deeni and ‘ibaadat’ guises.

Q. Are copyrights, patent rights and similar kinds of rights called intellectual property permissible in Islam? Is it permissible to trade in such rights?

These are all baatil ‘rights’. It is haraam to trade in these kuffaar rights.

Question:

Is the creation of music without musical instruments permissible? There is something new called ‘rap album’ which a Muslim radio is promoting. The audience gets the distinct impression that the songs are sung with the accompaniment of musical instruments. But the rap-singer creates the music with movements of his tongue. Some songs have a touch of R&B and some are of ballad style. Is it permissible to listen to such songs sung with this new kind of music?

Answer:

Listening to these songs of fisq and fujoor sung by fussaaq and fujjaar is haraam even without music. The R&B and the ballad styles are decidedly the styles of the kuffaar and immoral fussaaq. Imitation of such haraam styles is haraam. Music is haraam regardless of the method used to create it. It is a shaitaani practice.

Shaitaan is using these faasiq singers to sow hypocrisy in the hearts of Muslims. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that music creates nifaaq (hypocrisy) in the heart in the same way as water causes seeds to grow in the soil. The singer who creates his music with movements of his tongue, sings with the tongue of shaitaan who according to the Hadith blows into his (the singer’s) nostrils.

These shaitaani radio stations are in the field to promote every evil and they are increasingly inclining to immorality. They flourish by appealing to the base desires of the nafs. May Allah Ta’ala destroy these accursed channels of shaitaan.

 

Q. Is it permissible to go to the toilet with a cell phone in which the Qur'an Majeed or portions of it have been downloaded? A senior Mufti from India has given the fatwa of permissibility if the phone is switched off. Since no texts of the Qur'aan Shareef are visible on the screen it is permissible. The Mufti Sahib basis his fatwa on a ruling found in the Fatawa Kutub that if the name of Allah Ta'ala or Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is engraved on a ring, then it is Mustahab when entering the toilet to cover the ring with one's sleeve. Please comment.

A. We agree with the Mufti Sahib’s view of permissibility, but not with the basis on which he has structured his view. In fact, the basis appears wrong and baseless to us. Firstly, the fatwa of permissibility to enter the toilet with a ring on which Allah’s Name is engraved is itself the subject of attack. It is not permissible to enter a toilet with any material on which Allah’s Name, Rasulullah’s Name or Qur’aanic verses are inscribed, engraved or written. It is highly disrespectful to do so. This impermissibility relates to normal circumstances. We are not considering here an abnormal occasion when circumstances constrain one to enter the toilet while having such holy material on one’s body. For example, the official Ruling of the Shariah is the prohibition of haraam medicine and remedies. This prohibition is not cancelled by the mas’alah of Tadaawi bil haraam (medication with haraam) because such haraam medication applies to abnormal and compelling circumstances. The same reasoning applies to the consumption of pork and haraam food in general.

We are presently discussing a normal situation. It is not permissible to enter the toilet with material on which Allah’s Name is written. The claim that it is permissible normally and that the only requirement is to cover it, even with one’s sleeve, and that such covering is Mustahab is devoid of Shar’i basis. If by ‘mustahab’ the Mufti Sahib intended the Fiqhi classification, then we believe that he has erred. Technically Mustahab applies to such acts for which there is express mention of it in the Sunnah. For awarding the act of covering with the sleeve the Mustahab status, the Mufti Sahib needs to present a basis from the Sunnah. On the other hand, if the term has been used in its literal sense to mean ‘preferable’ or ‘good’ or ‘advisable’, then too we do not agree. If a person is constrained to enter the toilet with a ring on which Allah’s Name is engraved, then it will be Waajib to properly cover and conceal it.

This is the best in a bad situation beyond one’s control. It is unacceptable that a person sits semi naked in the toilet relieving himself of his load of najaasat with Allah’s glorious Name exposed, and that covering the Glorious Name is only preferable, not obligatory. Furthermore, how will the ring be covered by the sleeve when the hand will be in operation in the Istinja process? The water-jug has to be handled. The suggestion to cover the ring with the sleeve is incongruous.

A better basis for the Mufti Sahib’s fatwa of permissibility with which we agree, is a covered Ta’weez in which is written a Qur’aanic verse or Allah’s Name. The Mashaaikh say that it will be permissible as long as it is properly covered. Although an objection could be raised here as well, nevertheless, it appears more logical. The Holy Name is also properly covered than in the sleeve act. The most logical basis for the permissibility is the human being himself. A Haafiz has the entire Qur’aan in his head/ heart. With the whole Qur’aan within him, he enters the toilet. The same applies to the Qur’aan Shareef inside a cell phone. Just as the Qur’aan is neither in the verbal nor written form in the human head, so too is it with the cell phone. And Allah knows best.

 

Question: An Islamic Television has a regular feature of girls qiraa’t where the girls are filmed. Most adverts have women. In fact, in one of the adverts the lady is at a hair salon and her hair is exposed. Cartoons for children depict the stories of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). There is music as interludes. Please comment on this Islamic Television which is being promoted by even Ulama.

Answer: Firstly, understand well that there is no such creature as “Islamic’ television. Television is a pure shaitaani medium. It is haraam to describe a television station with the term ‘Islamic’. The appropriate designation is Television Shaitaan or Dajjaal’s Eye. The haraam acts and antics you have mentioned are not surprising. The television is a medium of zina. It portrays and promotes zina. Those whom you call ‘ulama’ who are promoting Dajaal’s Eye, are not Ulama. They are munaafiqeen and zindeeqs. They masquerade as Muslims and as Ulama whilst they are the agents of Iblees. If the operators of Dajjaal’s Eyes profess to be Muslim, they have become murtads with their cartoon depiction of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam).

Q. Are webcam and skype permissible?

A. Webcam and skype are haraam. Regardless of the method of picture production, all pictures of human beings and animals are haraam. It is not permissible to install such equipment.

 

Q. I have decided to give up watching television. The television set I have was given to me by a relative. Can I return it to him or sell it to a non-Muslim?

A. It is not permissible to sell the television to even a non-Muslim, nor is it permissible to give it back to your relative. Anything haraam must be destroyed. When wine was declared haraam, the Sahaabah immediately dumped all their wine into the street drains. Those who had large stocks for selling destroyed it in the desert. The only option is to destroy the television set.

 

Q. Is it permissible to listen to only good programs broadcast by these shaitaan radio stations?

A. Since these radio stations propagate anti-Islamic ideas and practices under the guise of Islam, it is not permissible to listen to them, especially Radio Shaitaan which is the organ of the NNB Jamiat, and which fosters zina and teaches how to manipulate condoms for zina purposes. Not so long ago, it had a lengthy ‘bayaan’ on this zina issue. The discussion was between the so-called ‘Muslim’ female broadcaster and a non-Muslim male who was teaching her how to use a condom. This devil’s radio is too evil and immoral. But it operates under the name of Islam. Thus ignorant people are deceived and tricked into believing that whatever rubbish and haraam they broadcast is permissible in Islam.

 

Q. Does television affect wudhu?

A. Viewing television is haraam. It is Mustahab to renew wudhu after committing a sin.

 

Q. Is it permissible to impose the Shariah on others in a non-Muslim country?

A. In a non-Muslim country, the Shariah cannot be imposed on others. One can only offer advice and admonition. Force may not be employed to impose any aspect of the Shariah on anyone in a kaafir land. If there is a conflict between the Shariah and the laws of the kaafir land, one should endeavour one’s best to act in accordance with the Shariah if this is possible. If not possible, one should abhor the haraam act in one’s heart. For example, taking photographs of people is haraam. However, the government enforces identity cards on the citizens. Since one has no option on this issue, one will not be sinful for taking a photo for the purposes of obtaining an identity document. Besides this, there are other aspects of conflict where the Muslim in a non-Muslim country has no choice but to submit.

 

Q. Is it permissible to spread the Deen by means of television?

A. It is haraam (not permissible) to utilize a haraam method for propagating the Deen. It is an insult to the Deen to employ a measure which the Deen prohibits.

 

Q. Since it is not permissible to make pictures in any way because it amounts to imitating the creation of Allah Ta’ala, will this prohibition also apply to recording? A voice is also the creation of Allah.

A. The laws and rules of the Shariah are not the products of our logic and opinion. They are the effects of Allah’s Command. It is permissible to record voices and to draw pictures of inanimate objects. Although trees and mountains are also the creation of Allah Ta’ala, nevertheless, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicitly allowed drawing pictures of inanimate objects. Since the Shariah explicitly allows pictures of other aspects of Allah’s creation, the prohibition may not be extended to voices, and other aspects of Allah’s creation.

 

Q. Are pictures of only faces and small pictures permissible?

A. All pictures of animate objects, big or small, or only showing the face are haraam. Only if there is compulsion by the government, e.g. identity pictures, licence pictures, pictures on stamps, money and the like, will one not be committing a sin.

 

Q. Why will it not be permissible to listen to even Qiraat of the Qur’aan on the radio station which The Majlis has dubbed ‘Radio Shaitaan’?

A. We have answered this type of question in several issues of The Majlis. We had also published lengthy articles on Radio Shaitaan. If Shaitaan should recite the Qur’aan, it will not be permissible to listen to his recitation. Similarly, Radio Shaitaan is a tool of the devil. Whatever little good the devil presents, is a trap. It is like the bait on a fishing line which appears delicious to the fish which gets hooked on the line to lose its life.It is not permissible to listen to even the seemingly ‘good’ that a treacherous rebel against Allah Ta’ala disgorges. On earth there is no Muslim-owned radio station which is so thoroughly evil as Radio Shaitaan, the satanic agency of the NNB Jamiat (No Name Jamiat of Fordsburg). Its filth and immorality is worse that the immorality of kuffaar radios. With kuffaar radios everyone understands the position. But Radio Devil vomits its filth under Islamic guise. It is a very potent snare of Iblees La-een (the Accursed Devil).

 

Q. It occurs occasionally that Zaid’s neighbour leaves his Wi-Fi open. The neighbour pays a fixed monthly fee for his Wi-Fi. He has unlimited gigabytes available to him. Is it proper for Zaid to use of those gigabytes when his neighbour’s Wi-Fi is left open? Or should he first obtain consent?

A. Although the gigabytes are unlimited and use by others will not monetarily prejudice the one paying for the unlimited bytes, experts say that it would slow down the transmission process. When others use the internet, the speed is affected. Zaid therefore has to first obtain consent from his neighbour. However, if it is known that the Wi-Fi has been left open for use by others, then it will be permissible to use without prior permission Presently the only factor of which we are aware which makes incumbent permission from the payer, is interference with the speed. If any expert is aware of any other factors which could be added to this one element, we shall appreciate to be apprized thereof.