Purdhah and Women’s Clothing

←Back to Fatwa Section and Contents


The Bond of Holy Love
(Maulana A S Desai)



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


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.


Is it permissible for a woman to trim or cut her hair if she covers her head with a scarf?


It is not permissible for women to cut or trim their hair even though the head is covered. According to the Shariah the prohibition of cutting or trimming women’s hair is like the prohibition of cutting the beard. According to the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the dignity and beauty of men is in their beard, and beauty and dignity of women is in their hair.


Is it permissible for a woman to wear a wig?


If the wig does not consist of human hair, its wearing will be permissible under the strict observance of Purdah and the consent of the husband.


Should girls from Deen-conscious homes where due attention is given to Purdah, be sent to a girl’s Madrasah?


Parents who are conscious of the Deen and observers of Purdah, who send their daughters to public madrasahs little realize the akhlaaqi (moral) and mental harm they are causing their daughters. It should not be difficult for them to understand the Qur’aanic prohibition stated in aayat: “And (O women) remain inside your homes…” It should not be difficult for Deeni conscious people to understand that Islam has fixed the home as the abode of females and that unnecessary emergence and participation in public activities are negatory to the natural haya (shame) of girls.

Nowadays, the sprouting up of girls madrasahs has exercised a negative and a detrimental effect on the character and thinking of those girls who happen to be from Purdah Nasheen and Deeni homes. Their vital years which should be spent in the constant company and under the watchful eyes of their mothers are being squandered in the unnecessary and defective pursuit of higher academic knowledge which anyhow, almost all girls are unable to achieve correctly.

Instead of them being preoccupied with the home role – the role of mother and wife which Allah Ta’ala has created for them, they are assigned to unnatural institutions which transform them into rigid and frigid robots. In fact, they emerge from these madrasahs barely understanding their future role in life. What is written in the kitaabs, either remains there or has vanished through the other ear. Hardly does the kitaabi knowledge penetrate the heart. This is more so in these times when institutions and the teachers are bereft of Taqwa and Suhbat of Saaliheen.

The girls manage to remember only what their huqooq (rights) are when they will be getting married. But how to manage a home, cope with the husband, in-laws, etc. is foreign to them. They remain blissfully ignorant of practical house and husband care. These responsibilities cannever be imparted to them by the madrasah whose teachers in most cases are young Aalims, wholly inexperienced and lacking in wisdom and piety.

The responsibilities of the home and the way in which to lead a lifetime with a husband can be acquired only under the tution and supervision of the mother in the home environment, not in a cold, inexperienced institution which has no truck with the home which Allah Ta’ala has made the practical madrasah for girls. As a result of the negative effect of girls madrasahs, it is observed that the girls from these institutions are impersonal, lacking in understanding, unscrupulous towards their in-laws, domineering towards their husbands and demanding of their rights even if it leads to the breakdown of the marriage.

They are adept at citing the Akaabireem Ulama when demanding their huqooq, but entirely ignorant about the advices of these selfsame Akaabireen who have emphasized tolerance and patience to the degree where they (wives) should abandon their huqooq in the interest of the happiness of their home. While the Shariat commands husbands to observe the rights of their wives and warns of severe punishment for violation of the huqooq, it also emphasises that wives exercise restraint and display great tolerance. In fact, the Shariah commands them to patiently accept the injustices of their husbands and not to embark on any way which will lead to the breakdown of the marriage.

Usually the very first and immediate demand of girls who acquired their akhlaaq from a madrasah (not from their homes) is immediate separation from the mother-in-law and father-in-law. They are brutally insensitive to the relationship which their husbands have and had since birth with their parents. These insensitive and zaalim (cruel) madrasah girls adamantly demand and expect their husbands to provide an entirely separate house for them and to practically sever their relationship with their parents.

These girls should understand well that they come within the purview of Allah’s Ia’nat for the wedge which they create between their husbands and parents. Marriage does not mean termination of parental relationship. When a boy marries it does not mean that he has to abandon his parents and become aloof from them at the behest of his demanding wife. In fact, his parents have greater huqooq on him than his wife. While his wife has priority in some rights and affairs, her husband still remains the little child to his parents that he was the day he was born.

Intolerance is a salient part of the character of madrasah girls. Their intolerance is justified baselessly by their presentation of the argument of their ‘huqooq’. It appears that their huqooq is the only item of ‘ilm’ which they remember when they leave the Madrasah. The whole of Nabi-e-Kareem’s Uswah-e-Hasanah which they were supposed to have been taught is either forgotten or not explained to them properly. Demanding one’s rights in the way in which these cold Madrasah girls do is not part of Uswah-e-Hasanah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Rather the opposite is part of the Sunnah, viz., that wives tolerate the injustices of their husband and in-laws and supplicate to Allah Ta’ala for a better change.

Parents should have mercy on their daughters and be more concerned of their future lives. Thy should not seek to reduce their duties by assigning their Purdah Nasheen daughters to cold, impersonal instutions which Islam has never encouraged for females. Mothers should teach their daughters their natural roles in the warmth of the home. It is indeed ludicrous to believe that what the mother refuses to teach her daughter, the inexperienced male teacher in an unnatural institution can teach her by making her read some theory. Allah Ta’ala has commanded firstly the mother, then the father to teach and train their daughter. This command is not directed to a ghair mahram teacher generally bereft of wisdom and taqwa. A girl cannever be moulded into the role Allah Ta’ala has determined for her, by a ghair mahram young Maulana who himself is blissfully ignorant of this role. May Allah Ta’ala bestow good hidaayat to parents to understand the ruin they are causing to their Purdah Nasheen daughters by sending them to institutions, which do not form part of our Islamic heritage.


What type of clothes is a wife allowed to wear in the house? Is it permissible for her to wear the latest non-Muslim fashions and styles to please her husband? Some people argue that since there is no purdah between husband and wife, she can dress in any kind of clothes to please him. Please explain.


Undoubtedly, there is no purdah between husband and wife, and undoubtedly she has to please him with her appearance by adorning herself for him. This too is an ibaadat of high merit for her. But at the same time her first allegiance is to Allah Ta’ala, not to her husband. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prohibited emulation of the ways, styles, customs and appearances of the kuffaar. Those who imitate them become of them. The argument of there being no purdah between them is not valid in favour of adopting kuffaar styles of dress. Nudity in the husband’s presence is tolerable, not kuffaar styles. Relaxing purdah is not a fashion of the kuffaar. The question of emulation does not apply to non-observance of purdah for the husband. It is not permissible for a woman to wear kuffaar styles even in the privacy of her home. Nowadays, women make themselves extremely ugly by parading around in the home with jeans and tops as if they are non-Muslim prostitutes. They must ask themselves: Whom are we imitating with this dress-style? It is haraam to adopt the style of prostitutes, and the argument of pleasing the husband is utterly baseless when it comes to the mas’alah (question/rule) of Tashabbuh (emulating the kuffaar).

According to the Hadith, the Malaaikah of Rahmat do not visit a home wherein the females strut around bareheaded even if there are no ghair mahrams around. If the man has a taste for prostitute charms and styles, the Muslim woman should not demean herself by behaving and appearing like a prostitute. Most women and their husbands are absolutely careless and ignorant of Islam’s lofty moral code. There are Malaaikah accompanying us 24 hours of the day. We must have some shame for these pure beings whom Allah Ta’ala has placed at our disposal—i.e. to protect us against evils. But when we dispense of their services by adopting ways and styles which generate abohorrence in the Malaaikah of Rahmat, they depart from us. A Muslim is not a beast. He has to keep his bestial demands under control and conduct himself with dignity, honour and shame at all times — inside the house and outside. This does not mean that he should be a stranger or a boss in the house. It only means that he has to observe the culture of Islam —the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) —that Sunnah that brings every minute of our lives within its purview—that Sunnah about which the Qur’aan Majeed says: “Verily, for you there is a wonderful (beautiful) code of life in the Rasool (but this pattern is for those) who have hope in Allah and the Aakhirah…..”.


Please explain the spiritual dimension of Hijaab.


Hijaab or Purdah is the Islamic concept and system of modesty and shame. It has its outward (zaahiri) as well as inward (baatini) dimensions just as all the other ahkaam (laws) of the Shariah. Minus the baatini (spiritual or inward) aspect, every law becomes an empty ritual devoid of vitality and true effect. In the present era, while many females have adopted the zaahiri (outward) dimension of Hijaab, they are bankrupt regarding the baatini (inward) aspect. Their hijaab is restricted to partial body-concealment with types of dress which do not measure up to the standard demanded by both the baatini and zaahiri dimensions of Hijaab. The cause for the defective outward display of purdah lies in the defective baatini state. In otherwords, there is no true Purdah – no real modesty and shame – in the heart which is the seat or the source of Hijaab.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:“Hayaa (modesty or shame) is a branch of Imaan.”The receptacle in which Imaan resides is the heart. Just as the source of Imaan is the heart, so too is the heart the repository of all the lofty attributes of Imaan. As long as there is no true purdah in the heart, there will be no true purdah on the body. The zaahiri dimension of purdah will then be a deceptive facade to hoodwink or befuddle either oneself or the people.

According to the Qur’aan Majeed the purpose of Hijaab is moral purification and protection against immoral elements. By means of Hijaab Allah Ta’ala has provided a wonderful safeguard against all agencies of moral turpitude. However, if Hijaab is bereft of its rooh (its baatini dimension)—i.e. it is confined to an outward display. then it will not serve the divine purpose for which it was ordained.

Many of the ‘purdah’ ladies of today will be seen wandering in public places, believing that their hijaab-dress and the ‘niqaab’ which puts their eyes up for public exhibition, satisfy the Qur’aanic system of Hijaab. But they dwell in deception. This deception has constrained them to drive around in cars like males and their kuffaar counterparts. Such women are not in position to restrain their eyes from looking at haraam. Such evil gazes extinguish the baatini dimension – the soul – of Hijaab. The heart is then bereft of Purdah.

True purdah is possible only if there is khauf (fear) of Allah Ta’ala in the heart. When there is khauf of Allah Ta’ala in the heart of a Muslim female, she becomes the embodiment of hayaa (shame and modesty). Her natural attribute of haya will glitter with a Noor which is bestowed to her by Allah Ta’ala. The lesson of true Purdah can be adequately gained from Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anhaa), the beloved daughter of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Once when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked her: “What is best for women”. She spontaneously responded: “That no male sees her nor does she see any male.” So elated was Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with this apt response that he commented: “Faatimah is a piece of my flesh.” In other words, her opinion on this issue was in complete agreement with Rasulullah’s opinion. She said exactly what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had on his mind.

Her modesty was of such a lofty and pure standard that she felt greatly concerned with the type of purdah which will or will not be observed for her dead body. It should be understood that a dead body is not a medium of fitnah. On the contrary, it is a medium of fear and a reminder of Death. Furthermore, the body of a woman is draped in five large sheets which conceal the form of the body thoroughly. Yet she was ‘obsessed’ with a fear that ghair mahram males would see her dead body. It was precisely for this reason that she had made the wasiyyat that her enshrouded body be covered with a Purdah of date palms and that she be buried in the middle of the night with no man other than her husband, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) being present.

Our sisters and mothers should take lesson from the advice and style of Purdah of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). They should understand that their appearance in the public, in supermarkets, in the streets, driving cars and donning a so-called niqaab which exposes the eyes and which defeats the very purpose of wearing a niqaab, are all in conflict with not only the baatini dimension of Hijaab, but also with the zaahiri dimension. May Allah Ta’ala bestow hidaayat to the ladies of Islam.


In this day and age when many Sisters have adopted immodest dress-styles clearly invented by the non-Muslims, what criteria can we use to differentiate between that which is permissible and that which is prohibited?


Generally three factors render a female’s dress haraam . These are: (1) Tashabbuh bil kuffaar, (2) Tashabbuh bir rijaal, (3) Immodest dress. Any one or more of these factors make a dress haraam for Muslims women:

Tashabbuh bil kuffaar means emulating or imitating a non Muslim dress style. All kuffaar styles of dress which come into vogue from time to time fall in this category of prohibition. Even if a new styled dress adequately covers the body and is loose-fitting, it will remain haraam if it is adopted by Muslim females on the basis of it being a new style developed by the kuffaar. From time to time, dress-styles change, especially in this day and especially females styles. When a new-fangled style is introduced, even Muslim women abandon their normal dress and opt for the new style of the kuffaar.

Changing from one style to another is a significant development. It is indicative of a change which has taken place in the mind – in one’s thinking. Why would a Muslim woman abandon an ‘old style’ garment for a new fangled style introduced by the kuffaar? It is abundantly clear that the only reason for adoption of the new style of the kuffaar. is a preference for the ways of the kuffaar. This preference by itself is akin to kufr. According preference to a style or way of the kuffaar and abandoning an Islamic style for this purpose is in fact kufr. Thus, abandonment of an Islamic dress for a kuffaar dress has far reaching and detrimental consequences for our Imaan. It is not something which could be viewed lightly.

Generally, kuffaar dress styles, especially for females , are immoral even if the garment is ankle length and spacious. Consider the present trend of slits in a woman dress. Whether the slits are in front, on the side, on the back of the dress, the motive for creating such slits is immoral and the style is designed for the specific purpose of attracting gazes and arousing carnal passion in males. In short, it is a zina-inviting garb. Indeed, one may ask: ‘ What is the purpose for a dress to have a slit in the back as is the style nowadays? What is the aim of having a long slit in front of the dress? Every stupid person -Muslim or non-Muslim – is fully aware of the shaitaaniyat of these styles. There is no need to dilate further. It will suffice to say that such dresses are haraam. This type of dress is prohibited in view of two of the factors of prohibition – Imitating the kuffaar and immorality. Regarding Tashabbuh bil kuffaar, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever emulates a people, is of them.”

Tashabbuh bir rijaal means emulating or imitating males. In regard to such male emulation, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had invoked the Ia’nat (curse) of Allah Ta’ala on women who imitate men and vice versa. It is Islamically extremely evil for a Muslim woman to don garments which are designed for men or to wear clothing which resembles the dress of males or to adopt garments which are dubbed unisex. These are truly shaitaani-inspired dress styles. It does not behoove a Muslim woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to don such evil and accursed clothing thereby bringing herself in direct line of Allah’s Ia’nat. Just as emulating the kuffaar is haraam so too is emulating males. This prohibition is so serious that Allah’s Ia’nat has been invoked on such females by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Muslim women should, therefore, understand that donning the kuffaar unisex garments is not something to take lightly. This first known being who suffered the curse of Allah Ta’ala was shaitaan himself. Women who imitate males in any way whatsoever, especially in dress style, join the ranks of the Mal’oon people (the accursed ones).

Every type of dress designed to attract attention, especially of females, is immodest and immoral. First in line of immoral and immodest dress is transparent or translucent dress through which the skin and hair are visible or semi-visible. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that on the Day of Qiyaamah numerous women who had worn clothing on earth will be naked. They will be the women who had worn immodest, scanty and immoral dress here on earth as well as those women who wear tight garments which reveal the body-shape. The Ia’nat of Allah Ta’ala and of His Malaaikah descend perpetually on such women.

Many people ask whether it is permissible for married women to wear normally prohibited dress in the privacy of the home for the pleasure of their husbands. Is this permissible? While certain acts which are not permissible in public will be permissible if women do them in the privacy of their homes, it does not follow that this permissibility is a license for all haraam acts as long as done inside the home for the sake of the husband. The husband is not the woman’s creator. Her first allegiance is to Allah Ta’ala. If the husband’s command, order or wishes are in conflict with Allah’s Shariah, obedience to him in such haraam acts and wishes is not permissible.

There is no satr and hijaab between husband and wife. Although it is not dignified Islamically for the spouses to appear in front of one another in complete nudity likes asses, nevertheless, it is not sinful. While it is not sinful for a woman to bare her head in the privacy of her home, the Angels of Mercy do not visit a home wherein the women parade around with their hair exposed. But, this permissibility does not legalize unisex garments even inside the home because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed such women. While scanty and immodest dress for the pleasure of the husband will be permissible in privacy, male clothing will not be permissible even if the husband orders her to dress in such accursed garb. Similarly, garments which are the styles introduced by the kuffaar like the daily changing fashions are also not permissible even in the privacy of the home.

Any kind of dress which is not a specific fashion of the kuffaar, and it embodies the essential ingredients of adequate concealment as advocated by the Shariah, will be an Islamic dress if the community has adopted it or has come down from generation. To abandon such an Islamic style for a new fashion of the kuffaar is haraam.


Is it permissible to wear the immodest dress styles of the non-Muslims designed to lure all and sundry, in the privacy of one’s home, or under one’s Jilbabs?


Many women who don an outer-cloak (jilbaab) when leaving the home precincts, entertain the fallacious idea that they are allowed to wear just any type of dress -unIslamic and kuffaar styles – as long as the dress is concealed by the cloak. Therefore they wear immoral attire such as jeans, tops, dress with slits, etc. In the first place, it is not permissible for Muslim women to purchase and wear such lewd garments even in the privacy of their homes. It has become a habit to justify this un-Islamic dress by alleging that they do so for the sake of their husband. This argument is false and these women know it in their hearts no matter how much they practice self deception. If the un-Islamic dress is for the pleasure of the husband, why do these women don it when they go out of the home? In fact, at home they are shabbily dressed. But when they make preparation to go out visiting, then the first and foremost consideration and effort adorn themselves as best as they can.

Secondly, while there is no purdah between husband and wife, this does not mean that the wife has the license to emulate kuffaar styles. This applies in particular to unisex garments which are cursed. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Ta’ala curses a woman who imitates a man and a man who emulates a woman. This emulation applies to all things, but in particular to dress and appearance. While married women present these stupid argument to deceive themselves, unmarried females do not even have such stupid argument to defend their un-Islamic and haraam attire.


Anklets are bracelets worn around the ankles of women instead of hands, could be made of gold, silver or diamonds etc. is it permissible for women to wear this type jewelry?


The Qur’aan Majeed forbids women wearing such anklets in public. It is permissible only within the confines of the home, not outside.


When a woman wears no scarf and wears a mini-skirt, and at the same time keeps Roza, is her Roza accepted?


Her fast (Roza) is valid, but her acts of not donning the Islamic head-cover and wearing a mini-skirt are abominable and Haraam. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed women who reveal any part of their bodies and he (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has described such women as adulteresses. Although the obligation of the Roza is discharged, the Thawaab of fasting is destroyed by the commission of unlawful acts. A woman has to clad herself Islamically at all times whether she is fasting or not.


Is it permissible for a woman to trim or cut her hair if she covers her head with a scarf?


It is not permissible for women to cut or trim their hair even though the head is covered. According to the Shariah the prohibition of cutting or trimming women’s hair is like the prohibition of cutting the beard. According to the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the dignity and beauty of men is in their beard, and beauty and dignity of women is in their hair.


My husband wants me to cut my hair. Is it permissible for me to do so in order to please him?


For a woman to cut her hair is not permissible, and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Obedience to creation in sin is not lawful.” Hence, it is not lawful for you to obey your husband in this unlawful act.


How is it for women to have their hair uncovered inside the home where there are only mahram males and women?


Although it is permissible for a woman to leave her hair uncovered in the presence of her mahaareem males, it is in conflict with Islamic culture to do so. In fact, it is considered shameless and uncultured. Furthermore, the Malaaikah of Rahmat do not visit a home in which the womenfolk roam about with bared heads.


Is it permissible to perm the hair, i.e. to make curly hair straight or to curl straight hair?


It is not permissible to perm hair. Women should learn to accept their hair and looks the way Allah Ta’ala has created them. They should not ruin their morals by emulating the ways of the kuffaar.


Is it permissible to wear the customary wedding dresses in vogue today?


Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever emulates a nation becomes of them.”

Muslims have drifted so far from the Path of Imaan that they no longer have the slightest inhibition in adopting the kufr styles of Allah’s enemies. Consider the kuffaar custom of bridal or wedding dresses. Today Muslims don such satanic and kufr garments with pride, little realising the Wrath and La’nat of Allah Ta’ala which accompany such garb. The wedding dress of the kuffaar has connotations of shirk and kufr. Regarding this kufr mode of dress, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:

“Liturgical vestments have developed in a variety of fashions, some of which have become very ornate. The liturgical vestments all have symbolic meaning. In the Orthodox Church the liturgical vestments symbolize the wedding garments that enable the liturgists to share in the heavenly wedding feast, the Eucharist. The epitrach?lion, which is worn around the neck and corresponds to the Roman stole, represents the flowing downward of the Holy Spirit. (For a fuller treatment of liturgical vestments, see RELIGIOUS DRESS AND VESTMENTS.)”

(Eucharist means Holy Communion which is representative of Christ’s death o­n the cross as the Christian kuffaar believe.)

Wearing these bridal dresses are therefore haraam akin to kufr.


A Mufti claims that it is not necessary for women to keep their faces concealed with a cloth hung over a cap-like protuberance during the state of Ihraam. He said that those who do so, are acting out of Taqwa. But it is not a requirement of the Shariah that women wear such face-covering during the state of Ihraam. We have always been instructed by the Ulama to the contrary—that it is necessary for women to conceal their faces even during the state of Ihraam although they should ensure that the cloth does not touch the face. Please comment.


The Mufti Saheb has erred in his opinion. All the Akaabireen (Senior Ulama and Muftis) have always ruled that it is necessary for women to conceal their faces even during the state of Ihraam. However, the cloth of the niqaab should not be attached to the face. It should be hung over a protruding cap-like item over the head. This has nothing to do with Taqwa. And, if it is really based on Taqwa, then the instruction of the Qur’aan and Hadith is to adopt Taqwa. Thus, for a Mufti to give the opposite advice is a sign of his spiritual darkness and deviation.

A Mufti who advises people to act in conflict with Taqwa betrays the Amaanat of Ilm which he has acquired. It is a sign of sure dhalaal (deviation). Why should a man of knowledge desire to divert Muslim women from the path of taqwa when the Qur’aan commands Taqwa? There is something sinister brewing in the heart of such a Mufti. A man of Ilm does not embark on the propagation of acts which are in conflict with Taqwa. He, on the contrary, exhorts Muslims to adopt Taqwa because the emphasis of the Qur’aan and Hadith is on development of Taqwa. Besides this, the Fatwa of the Shariah is that women even during Ihraam should conceal their faces. They should only ensure that the Niqaab cloth is not in contact with the face.


In reply to the Mujlisul Ulama’s book on the Female’s Hair, the author of the article which the Ulama criticized in their book, issued his reply, The Hair Rejoinder. Although there is really no Shariah proof in his Rejoinder for this opinion that it is permissible for women to cut their hair, what is disturbing is the fatwa of Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Uthmaani. According to the booklet (A Rejoinder), Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb has endorsed the opinion of the permissibility of women cutting their hair. Please comment on this claim which is causing some confusion.


On the contrary, Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Uthmaani Saheb rejects the baatil opinion of the permissibility of cutting hair for women. Hadhrat Mufti Saheb has no where endorsed the opinion of the deviate who has bent far backwards to make halaal what has been considered haraam in the Ummah for the past fourteen centuries. Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb has issued a categoric rebuttal of the deviate’s opinion. He has been misinterpreted for the sake of eking out support for the baatil opinion.

Q. If a ghair mahraam man makes Salaam to a lady, how should she respond?

She should not respond. She should move away.

Q. Purdah is nowadays worn just as a custom, not as a requirement of Islam.
Women have no respect for the Islamic garb they wear. Women wearing purdah
walk around with knapsacks on their backs. This is fashionable at the moment.
Many wear jeans and t-shirts under their cloaks. Is all this permissible?

A Muslim requires no brains to understand the notoriety and evil of this shaitaani attitude of women who pretend to be pious. Their donning Islamic garb is an outward display of deception. Many women regard their cloaks as a licence for prowling around the streets, the hypermarkets and other haraam places. Their cloaks are a screen for wearing haraam, lewd, kuffaar dress such as jeans and T-shirts. It is in fact haraam for a woman to wear jeans and T-shirts in even the privacy of her bedroom. If her husband wants her to portray herself as a prostitute, then she is under Shar’i obligation to refuse.

But, the truth is that most women perpetrate self-deception by presenting the argument that they are dressing in this haraam manner to satisfy their husbands. The truth is that few —very few—women dress up for their husbands. At home they remain like old hags. But when it is time to go out visiting and shopping, they very enthusiastically attend to adornment and dress attractively and provocatively. They should examine their hearts, and reflect on the following Qur’aanic aayat: “In fact insaan has awareness of his (or her) nafs even though he/she presents excuses.” Allah Ta’ala is aware of the evil in the hearts and the surreptitious glances which are cast from behind the sanctuary of the niqaab.

Q. Is it permissible for females to remove the hair on their arms?

If the hairs are growing abnormally, then it is permissible otherwise not.

Q. Is it permissible for a woman to trim her eyelashes?

It is haraam for her to trim her eyelashes. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) invoked la’nat (curse) on such women.

Q. Some Muslim women in emulation of non-Muslim females keep very long fingernails to which they apply nail polish. Is this permissible?

This evil, filthy practice is haraam for four reasons: (1) It is tashabbuh bil kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar). (2) It is in flagrant conflict with the teaching of the Shariah which orders cutting of the nails once a week. It is haraam to retain the nails for forty days. (3) The nail-polish prevents them from performing Salaat because neither ghusl nor wudhu is valid with the nails covered with this haraam impervious coating. (4) It is a filthy practice. Such nails are a nest for filth and dirt.

Q. Is it permissible for Muslim women to wear pants made of denim fabric?

It is not permissible for even Muslim males to wear such pants.

Q. Many Muslims have male servants in their homes. Is it necessary for the women in the home to observe purdah for male servants keeping in mind the need to be always in communication with them?

Purdah is Waajib. The constant ‘communication’ is an aggravating factor and makes purdah more stringent. In fact, it is not permissible to have male servants inside the home. It should also be remembered that it is Waajib for the males to observe strict purdah for the female servants in the home. Most people are extremely careless in this respect. Many, many cases of moral turpitude occur in this domain.


Modernists claim that Purdah is Indo-Pak ideology. Please give the Shar’i ruling.


The Ummah will accept this claim only if these modernist shayaateen can prove that the Sahaabah, the Fuqaha of the Taabieen age, the Fuqaha of the Tabe Taabieen age, all the Fuqahaa of Ma Waraaun Nahr (Bukhara, Samarqand, etc., etc., and the entire Ummah besides the Muslims of the Indo-Pak subcontinent, were carriers of Indo-Pak identity documents. If they cannot prove this, then let them wallow in their shaitaani jahaalat. If they can prove that the Qur’aan Majeed which forcefully and explicitly propagates Purdah is of Indo-Pak origin, then we can concede the claim made by these morons. If they can prove that the famous Books of Ahaadith and Fiqh were authored by Indo-Pak Ulama and that the Fuqaha of Arabia and all other Lands which were at one time famous for Deeni Uloom, were Indians and Pakistanis, then we can bow our heads to their stupid claim. Even jahaalah (crass ignorance) is supposed to have limits. But it appears that the particular jahaalah of the homosexuals and lesbians of this age is a bottomless pit —an abyss of veritable IGNORANCE. Let us petition Allah Ta’ala to save us from such ruin.


Should Purdah be observed for domestic servants?


Most certainly! Maids and gardeners etc. also fall within the Shar’i category of ghair-mahram, hence purdah should be observed for them. Unfortunately, many people are under the misconception that purdah for domestics and non-Muslims is not necessary. There are many instances of illicit relationships between employers and domestic employees, and bosses with their female staff. This and many other Shar’i transgressions can be avoided if the Shariah is adhered to.


Is it permissible for women’s feet and hands to be exposed when they are out of the home or should they wear socks and gloves?


It is not necessary for them to wear gloves and socks. The hands and feet are excluded from the Satr (that part of the body which has to be compulsorily concealed).


What is the ruling regarding the use of nail polish by women?


Assuming that the nail polish contains no haraam ingredients, then too it is haraam to use this substances since neither ghusl nor wudhu is valid while the nails are coated with this substance which forms an impervious coating on the nails. Nail polish prevents water from reaching the surface of the nail. Besides this, it contains haraam substances such as alcohol.


What is the state of a person’s Imaan who mocks at Hijaab?


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.

Is it true that it is necessary for a woman to wear her watch on her right hand?

She may wear a watch on any hand.

Is it permissible for women to wear imitation jewellery?

All imitation jewellery besides a ring, is permissible for women. Only gold or silver rings may be worn.


Is the use of the Miswaak Sunnat for women as well?


Yes, Miswaak is also Sunnat for women.

Q. I have some clothes which I used to wear in my jahiliyyat days—pants, tops, jeans and dresses not proper for Muslim females. What should I do with these

Give these garments to non-Muslims. It is their style which they may wear. It is not permissible to give these clothes to Muslims.


Regarding the last issue of the majlis there is a hadith regarding a woman not taking off her burqa in any place that is not the home of her husband. What should we take from this hadith? Does it mean that when a woman goes out with her husband and the husband is with the men in one room and the ladies are in another room the wife should still sit in burqa? Does it mean that women that work in hospitals or schools where there is purdah, they still have to wear their burqas while teaching etc.? What should we understand from the hadith?


The fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed the woman who removes her jilbaab in a place other than her home indicates the emphasis of maintaining hijaab. If a woman visits friends and relatives, there is the possibility of ghair mahram male relatives or her friend’s husband accidentally coming within view. This happens often in homes, especially small houses. The ghair mahram’s gaze is sure to fall on her gaudy or adorned dress which she wears under her jilbaab.

The Fuqaha have explicitly ruled that it is not permissible for a man to look at any garment of a woman. Gaudy feminine garments also excite passion in man. For this reason it is Makrooh for a man to drink water from a glass if he is aware that a woman has drunk from it, and vice versa. A man whose eyes accidentally fall on the beautiful dress of a woman even from behind, is sure to be passionately excited. Most men, who lack Taqwa, instead of reciting Ta-awwuz and Wa La Houla, will begin fantasizing about the woman. As it is, his own wife is ‘stale’ for him. Even if he did not see the face of the woman, her dress is likely to influence his heart. It is therefore not permissible for a woman to be careless by removing her jilbaab when she visits other homes. She can remove her Niqaab, but she should not strut about in the homes of other people without her jilbaab. Rasulullah (sallallahu layhi wasallam) said: “A woman advabnces (comes forward) in the form of shaitaan, and retreats in the form of shaitaan.”

In other words, whether a man sees a woman from the front or from behind, shaitaan is ever ready to excite his nafsaani passion. Hence, as far as possible, a woman should not unnecessarily remove her outer-cloak when she is visiting relatives and friends. In the first place, there is no hijaab in the hospitals and schools of today. It is not permissible for women to work in surroundings where they are unable to observe proper Shar’i hijaab. In a truly Islamic state, the authorities will make proper arrangements for correct observance of hijaab in such places where it is essential to have female staff, e.g. females-only hospitals. Furthermore, every law has exceptions. An exception cannot be cited to undermine the general law.


My daughter posed this question to me: How is it possible for a Muslim female to become a gynecologist if secular education is taboo?


It is not Waajib for a Muslim female to become a gynecologist. But it is Waajib on her and Waajib on her parents to ensure that her Imaan and Akhlaaq are safeguarded. Universities are dens of zina and immorality where neither Imaan nor moral character is safe. Hence, it is infinitely superior to remain ignorant of secular sciences in the circumstances. On the Day of Qiyaamah your daughter will not be asked why she did not become a gynecologist. But she will be asked and possibly punished for having ruined her modesty and moral character in the den of zina which they term university.

Q. Is it permissible for a woman to do some business from home? She will deal only with females.

It is permissible. If she is a married woman, she requires her husband’s consent.

Q. Is it permissible to employ a non-Muslim female to work in the qabrustaan (cemetery)?

It is not permissible for women to even visit the qabrustan. To a greater degree will the prohibition apply to them working there. Whether the women are Muslim or non-Muslim it is not permissible.


Question: What is the definition of Hijaab?


Hijaab is the Islamic concept/code of segregation between males and females. Hijaab is also known as Purdah. The burqah and the niqaab are specific items of Hijaab. The first and highest degree of Hijaab prescribed by the Qur’aan Majeed is for women to remain indoors, and

not to venture out without valid reason.

The second degree is to don proper dress which conforms to the Shariah’s Hijaab code when there develops a need to leave the home


All the rules, advices, dress code, mannerism, restrictions and prohibitions of the Shariah pertaining to segregation between males and females constitute the Shariah’s Hijaab code. Hijaab is not confined to dress. Some women labour under the misconception that they are observing Hijaab when they wander in public places with burqah and niqaab whereas they are in violation of Hijaab despite donning the burqah and niqaab.


Q. Is it permissible for me to take my wife to a jewellery shop to select jewellery for herself?

A. If the shop has only female staff then it is permissible. If there are males around, it will not be permissible.


Q. Is it permissible for women to wear colour contact lenses?

A. The purpose of colour contact lenses is adornment and attraction. It deceptively makes the female’s eyes more attractive. The underlying intention is corrupt. It comes within the scope of the Hadith: “A woman who applies perfume and passes by a gathering (where there are males) is like this and like that (i.e. like an adulteress).” Just as the purpose of perfume is to attract the attention of males, so too is it with colour contact lenses. Thus, it is not permissible for women, whether single or married, to wear such lenses and emerge into the public where ghair mahram males will view them. It will be permissible for a married woman to wear colour lenses within the home environment where she will not be exposed to strangers. Adornment and make-up for women are permissible for their husbands. But this permissibility for married women is not a licence for them to emerge into the public with adornment.


Q. A female mayyit has nail polish on her nails. Is it permissible to remove the polish with a polishremover at the time of giving ghusl?

A. Nail polish is haraam. Neither wudhu nor ghusl is valid with nail polish on. It is most unfortunate that a woman dies with this haraam substance on her fingers. It should be removed because the ghusl will not be valid while the nail polish remains on the nails.


Q. Is it permissible for  a married woman to pluck grey hairs from her eyebrows?

A. It is haraam to pluck any hairs from the eyebrows whether married or not. Plucking grey hairs is an aggravated sin. It is motivated by the desire to deceive others. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah’s curse settles on women who pluck their eyebrows.


Q. My husband really likes long hair while I am experiencing severe hair loss. I have used many products and have done a blood test, but to no avail. At a hair salon they fit hair extensions which according to them is not from the root, but attached to your existing hair. Is it permissible for me to have it done for the pleasure of my husband?

A. It is not permissible to fit the hair extensions. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) specifically cursed such women who add to their hair either with real or artificial hair. The curse of Allah and the Angels descends on such women. Remember, that it is not permissible to do something haraam even for the pleasure of one’s husband.


Q. My husband insists that I cut my hair. He says that I am sinful for refusing to obey his wishes. What am I supposed to do?

A. You are supposed to obey Allah Azza Wa Jal. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Obedience to anyone in anything which involves disobedience to the Creator is not permissible.” Your first obligation is to obey Allah Ta’ala. Whenever there is a clash between the wishes of people and the commands of Allah Ta’ala, it is compulsory to obey Allah Ta’ala and to ignore the wishes of others even if they are one’s parents or the husband. It is haraam for you to cut your hair.


Q. I have read in the kitaab, Qudoori, that women need not cover their faces. Wearing niqaab is not compulsory since the face of a woman is not satr. Please comment.

A. Despite what you have read in Qudoori, it is Waajib for women to conceal their faces in public. Your knowledge in this regard is defective. To understand the kutub of the Fuqaha, textual know-how is not sufficient. Something else called Noor-e- Fahm and Baseerat which are the effects of Taqwa are imperative for proper understanding of the kutub. There are many kuffaar who can read and translate the Arabic Hadith, Tafseer and Fiqh kutub better than you and us. But they remain kuffaar. So you remain stupid on account of the lack of Noor-e-Ilm. Thus, you look with squint eyes at the pages of Qudoori, hence your corrupt conclusion.


Q. A friend of mine has put on fake eye lashes. Is this permissible?

A. Fake eye lashes are haraam and comes within the scope of divine Curse.


Q. In the Hadith is mentioned severe punishment and curses for women with camel humps on their heads. What does this mean?

A. The ‘humps’ on women’s heads refer to such hair styles in which the hair is gathered on the head like a camel’s hump. These are kuffaar hair styles. The Hadith brings within its purview all the kuffaar hairstyles which many Muslim women adopt, especially gathering the hair high on the head like a ‘camel’s hump’. They are constantly under the curse of Allah Ta’ala.


Q. Please comment on having hair-style like the hump of a camel.

A. Many women fold, plait and wrap their hair into a huge ball on top of their heads. Severely condemning this lewd hair-style, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) describing a group of Jahannum, said: “(They are) women who whilst dressed are naked; they are astray and they lead (males) astray (with their wiles and charms); their heads are like the humps of Bukhti camels. They will not enter Jannat nor will they smell of the fragrance of Jannat……….” (Muslim) The satanic purpose for adopting this haraam style is to attract the gaze of males. Thus the Hadith says that such women are astray and lead astray the men who gaze at her. Women sporting a ‘camel’s hump’ on their heads are among the accursed ones who are doomed for Jahannum. They will not even be allowed to smell of the wonderful fragrance of Jannat which according to the Hadith can be perceived from millions of miles. Women with these lewd hair -styles should also remember that their Salaat in this condition is not accepted.. The other accursed characteristic of lewd women mentioned in this Hadith by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is ‘nudity despite garments’. Women whose garments are either transparent or tight-fitting are the targets of this castigation. The curse of Allah Ta’ala and of His Malaaikah constantly settles on such women who adopt immoral styles. They are described in the Hadith as a fitnah for themselves and a fitnah for others, that is, for men.


Q. Is it permissible to tattoo any part of the body?

A The Qur’aan Majeed quoting the challenge of shaitaan on the occasion when he was expelled from the heavens, says: “And, most assuredly, I shall lead them (mankind) astray and instil in them false hopes, and I shall most certainly instruct them so that they change the natural appearances of Allah’s creation.’ And, whoever takes shaitaan as a friend instead of Allah, then verily he has incurred a manifest (great) loss.” (Surah Nisaa’, aayat 119) “Changing Allah’s natural creation” in the context of this aayat refers to changing the natural form of man’s creation and appearance. There are a variety of kinds of changing the natural appearances of Allah Ta’ala’s creation which come within the scope of the satanic manipulation mentioned in this aayat. One such form of Satanism is to tattoo the body. Regarding this form of Satanism, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Ta’ala curses those who tattoo their bodies. This Hadith is mentioned in Bukhaari as well as in the other authentic books of Hadith. On the occasion when Allah Ta’ala expelled shaitaan from the heaven, he supplicated for several things. One of the things he asked was for a script. In response Allah Ta’ala said: ‘Your script (writing) will be tattooing.” Other forms of changing the natural creation of Allah Ta’ala are shaving the beard, cutting the beard to less than a fist-length, plucking the eyebrows and eye lashes, plucking out white hairs, taking tablets, etc. to prevent haidh (menses), birth control measures, wearing wigs, etc.


Q. Am Alimah says that it is permissible for ladies to drive cars because women used to ride horses during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. She mentioned some Hadith narrations about women riding horses. Today vehicles take the place of horses. Is her reasoning valid in the Shariah?

A. There are no Mujtahids living on earth today. The age of Ijtihaad ended with Khairul Quroon (the three Golden Ages of Islam). No one has the right to extract Ahaadith from the kitaabs and interpret the narrations to conform to their tastes and corrupt opinions. This haraam exercise, viz., masquerading as a mujtahid, is exceptionally abominable if the opinion seeks to abrogate/ cancel an express ruling of the Shariah, and it becomes worse when that ruling was issued by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself. Regardless of which Sahaabi lady rode a horse and regardless for what purpose she had ridden, the act of the Sahaabi lady does not abrogate Rasulullah’s express prohibition. He said: “Allah curses women who ride horses.” Now extend this Divine Curse to women driving cars, especially in this immoral environment in which women have no true understanding of the meaning of Hijaab. Comparing the isolated incident of a Sahaabi lady riding a horse in the holy, primitive era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the mass and wholesale practice of women driving cars in the present age, is a reflection of the jahaalat of the ‘alimah’ who believes that she has the expertise and qualifications of a Mujtahid. She dwells in gross deception. Those who rip out Ahaadith from the kitaabs are not even aware of the circumstances which had constrained any Sahaabi lady riding a horse. Even today circumstances can make halaal eating pork. But, exceptional circumstances are not the norm. A ruling necessitated by force of circumstances and need is not the normal ruling of the Shariah applicable for all time and for all persons.. There are authentic Ahaadith which state that eating cooked food necessitates wudhu. But no one extracts this Hadith and acts accordingly. Hadith has tafseer, and only the Aimmah Mujtahideen were qualified to interpret the Ahaadith. No one can dream today of reaching the lofty pedestal of Deeni Knowledge of the Aimmah Mujtahideen. Those who claim that horse-riding or car driving is permissible for women speak with their nafs and their opinions are the products of jahaalat. They merely vaunt for ignorance.


Q. A senior Mufti says that it is permissible for women to drive. Please comment.

A. It is not permissible for females to drive. All reasons and ‘emergencies’ cited to justify this haraam and shameless act for women are figments of the nafsaani imagination.


Is it permissible for women to drive vehicles? At times there is no one around to do the errands. Emergencies also develop. In such circumstances will it be permissible for women to drive? A senior Mufti says that it is permissible due to the need. The Mufti says that “it is proved that women amongst the Sahaabah rode camels”, hence driving cars will also be permissible. He cited as proof Al-Bukhari, Vol.1 Page 403, Vol.2 Page 748; Saheeh Muslim Vol.2 Page 218, and Imdadul Fatawa Vol.4 Pages 196/197.

There is not even the remotest reference to women driving even camels in the three references proffered by the Mufti Sahib. The Mufti Sahib has misquoted and misinterpreted the Ahaadith. There is a big difference between “rode camels” and driving cars. The Sahaabiyyah (the females among the Sahaabah) sat on camels behind (i.e. in the back seat) and rode on this means of transport which was driven by the man, not by the woman. Women did not simply jump on the camels, taking the reins into their hands and wandering off alone to prowl in marketplaces or any other public avenues. Contrary to what the Mufti said, on page 197 of Imdaadul Fatawa, Vol.3 which the Mufti presented, it is stated clearly: “The Holy Wives (of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would journey in palanquins. They would not simply wrap themselves up in garments (jilbaab) and ride on camels.” (A palanquin is a small cabin/carriage which four males would carry. A woman would sit inside entirely concealed from the outside world. This cabin would be carried to wherever the lady had to go.) This in fact rebuts what the Mufti has tried to peddle. It never was the practice of the females to ride camels and horses, that is, ‘drive’ the animals or be in the saddle. Yes, when there was the need, they would be passengers on these modes of transport. But they themselves were not the drivers. The Mufti has made confusing statements. He cited the names of the kutub and the respective page numbers without quoting the relevant Ahaadith. But there is no mention whatsoever in these kutub on the pages mentioned by him that women used to be drivers of camels or horses. It just was not the practice. Driving is in complete negation of Hijaab. There is no scope for permissibility for female driving. Almost every requisite of the Shariah’s concept of Hijaab/Purdah is violated when a woman takes to driving. The very initial step in the process is close to zina. The woman when she has to go for her learner’s licence and afterwards for her driver’s licence, is not only exposed to males, but she has to be alone – in privacy – with a male official/tester. She will switch on her armoury of feminine wiles and ‘zina’ paraphernalia to oblige the immoral male officers with whom she has to ‘frolic’ alone in the vehicle while he takes her out for test-driving – driving all along the Road of Jahannum, assisting her to purchase her licence for entry into the Fire with her shamelessness. The feet of a female who drives are extremely  dexterous in making hasty exits from the home in diametric contravention of the Qur’aan’s command for her to remain glued indoors. The public roads abound with Muslim women driving cars like their kuffaar counterparts. The semblance of hijaab – the facecovering – does not mitigate the grave offence they commit. The niqaab does not justify driving. The fact remains that she is in the street where shaitaan and his army prowls, waiting in ambush for her. Hence, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “When a woman emerges (from her home sanctuary), shaitaan lies in ambush for her.” The driving woman is masculinised. Her hayaa (natural Imaani shame and modesty) is in shreds. Men stare at her from their vehicles when they pull alongside at robots (traffic lights), intersections and in parking lots and bays. The mingling with the opposite sex is abundant. Furthermore, such women wander around malls, hypermarkets and even unsavoury venues. They barge out of the home at will. The list of fitnah is long and the consequences are disastrous for a healthy Islamic family life. To aggravate this rot, is the deeni licence which misguided sheikhs and molvis issue to these women. They entice women to attend their lectures and their thikr sessions. Many women, neglect their husbands, children and homes to rush to the ‘bayaan’ driving their cars little understanding that they are under Divine Curse every minute they are outside the home. Some Musjid parking lots teem with these be-hayaa (shameless) females for whom the embarrassed males who still have some shame, have to adopt purdah. One of the greatest fitnahs of our time is females driving. Their audacity has degenerated into immorality. One after the other, every bastion of Hijaab has crumbled with the active connivance of the Ulama-e-Soo’ who have eroded the haya of women with their corrupt and baatil fatwas. Another spurious satani satanic argument presented to justify the lewdism of women is the possibility of ‘emergencies’ developing and there being no man around to attend. Those whose Imaan is on only their lips, not in their hearts, conjecture up such baseless ‘emergencies’ There are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people on earth who have no cars, even men. What do they do when emergencies develop? Female driving is a recent shaitaani craze. Our mothers never drove cars and innumerable males then and even now do not own cars. Emergencies hardly developed, and when they did develop, Allah Ta’ala made arrangements to overcome the problems. What will the women do if at the time of the ‘emergency’, the vehicle is not at home. Perhaps her husband or daughter went off with it. What will she do if during the ‘emergency’ the tyre is flat or the vehicle refuses to start? Innumerable people experience emergencies such as robberies at their homes, businesses or in the streets. Instead of their vehicles aiding them, the robbers take the vehicles along with them or they get robbed while they enter their driveways with their vehicles. Not so long ago, a Muslim lady in Lenasia was overtaken by a heart-rending emergency. Her vehicle was of no help. On the contrary if she did not have a vehicle, the chances of solving the emergency would have been greater. Whilst having meals, her little son choked on some food. The morsel/bone, etc. could not be dislodged. The child was suffocating. This was an emergency. The mother decided to rush the child to hospital. She rushed to the garage, opened the gate, loaded her suffocating child and in haste reversed and knocked down her other 3 year old child who had run behind the car. Frantically she loaded the severely injured child into the car and she madly rushed off with her two critically injured child. On arrival at the hospital, the souls of both children had departed. Both were dead. A Muslim’s problems and emergencies cannot be alleviated or solved by transgression and disobedience to Allah Ta’ala. One should not stupidly and satanically think of the possibility of future ‘emergencies’ and conjecture haraam ways of solving such exigencies. On the contrary make dua for aafiyat (safety) and hifaazat (protection). Obey Allah Ta’ala, submit to the Shariah and repose yaqeen in Him. He will take care of our emergencies as He is taking care of us every second of our life. Just understand well that corrupt fatwas do not change the immutable law of Allah Ta’ala. In such matters, the Mu’min’s conscience is sufficiently qualified to issue the correct fatwa, hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” In this age, the demand of the generation is kufr liberalism, immodesty and irreligiosity. Muftis are aiding and abetting the process of sweeping aside Islamic morality and ethics with their whims and dictates which they portray with Deeni hues. It is about such muftis that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah such Aimmah (muftis, molvis and sheikhs) who are mudhilleen (men who mislead others).” Female driving is Haraam. There is no doubt in this prohibition. You don’t need to be a mufti to understand this self-evident Shar’i truth.



Q. Please comment on the article which argues in favour of female radio broadcasters. Please respond to his arguments.


“If you fear (Allah), then do not speak in alluring tones, for then he in whose heart there is a disease (of lust) will desire…..” – Qur’aan This aayat is in the first instance addressed to the Holy Wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and the Sahaabah. If caution was applicable to the most pious Ladies of Islam in the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), what does a balanced intellect conclude about the females of this corrupt age? If the ‘disease’ had existed in the hearts of the eminent Sahaabah who were at times constrained by circumstances to speak to the Holy Wives from behind a Screen, then what does the intellect of Imaan decree regarding the hearts of the fussaaq and fujjaar of this age? The Deen of Islam which was delivered by Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is more than 1400 years old. Any view which any moron expresses in conflict of the Shariah is of no consequence and is nothing but ghutha (trash/rubbish) regardless of how logical it may appear and irrespective of what narrations are cited to ‘prove’ the corrupt view. Whatever the miscreant has written on the issue of the female voice is ghutha disgorged by a moron. If someone today tells us that cooked food when eaten breaks wudhu or after eating cooked food wudhu is necessary, and to substantiate this view he quotes a number of highly authentic Ahaadith, then too, we shall say that the jaahil speaks trash. In fact, there do exist a number of Saheeh Ahaadith stating that after eating cooked food, wudhu has to be taken. But this is not the Shariah. There is valid interpretation for it. It is haraam for any moron, and haraam for any Aalim of today be he a Shaikhul Hadith or a Shaikhut Tafseer or an Allaamatud Dahr, to dig out Hadith narrations or Qur’aanic verses and on its basis formulate a view which is in conflict with the 1400 century Shariah, then such view will be branded baatil and the product of a deviate who is the victim of mental imbalance. If some ignoramus or even a Shaikhut Tafseer or a Shaikhul Hadith in this belated age in close proximity to Qiyaamah propounds the view that it is permissible to drink camel’s urine and in substantiation of his opinion produces a highly authentic Hadith, then we shall not be guilty of any excess if we label such persons as morons who have become the victims of a shaitaani snare. Brother, remember and understand well, that the Shariah is a closed book. It has been written and it is preserved in Looh-e-Mahfooth. No one can ever change one iota of it with all the logical arguments which brains of corruption can conjecture. Thus, the arguments of the coprocreep who argues in favour of the projection, magnification and exhibition of the female’s voice are pure rubbish. It is demeaning to respond intelligently to ghutha. It is ghutha because it is presented in conflict with the 1400 century ruling of the Divine Shariah. Just for your edification and peace of mind we cite a few well-known masaa-il pertaining to the female’s voice: * If the Imaam makes a mistake in his Qiraa’t, then even if he happens to be her husband and no one else is present, she is not allowed to correct him by saying ‘Subhaanallaah!’ She has to strike her palms just once, not clap her hands. * Men have to recite the Talbiyah during Hajj audibly. Women must recite it silently. * In none of the Salaat is a woman allowed to recite the Qiraa’t audibly. * It is not permissible for a woman to recite the Athaan and the Iqaamah. These are issues linked to her voice. When she is not allowed by the Shariah to recite even the Qur’aan and Tasbeeh audibly, what says your intelligence regarding the alluring, loud voices of the faasiqahs who broadcast and prostitute their voices over the shaitaani radio stations? And, they even interview non-Muslim males who outline to them in vivid detail how to use condoms. Walahoula! Reflect and ponder! These faasiqah females are specially tutored in the science of voice expression – how to speak alluringly in the ‘best’ form to entice males and to ensure that they at least commit zina of the mind and heart. This is their training. This is one of the qualifications for a female broadcaster. On the occasion when Allah Ta’ala expelled shaitaan from the heavens, he (shaitaan) supplicated for tools and traps to aid him in his accursed mission on earth. Allah Ta’ala, granting his supplication said: “Your traps will be women.” One of the wiles employed by women, especially faasiqahs, to enmesh men in their tentacles of fujoor is the alluring voice.


Q. Please comment on women who remain unsatisfied with their true roles and seek to be to be in the public stage.

A. Once when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw men and women walking together in the street, he exclaimed: “O Women! Walk behind the men. It is not permissible for you to walk in the middle of the road. Walk on the sides of the road.” After this command, the females in obedience would practically cling to the sides of the street so much so that their clothing would brush against the buildings. (Abu Dawood) In another Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered: “Put them (women) behind as Allah has placed them behind.” Women who clamour to be on the public stage and who propagate self-expression and rowdyism as these defeminized, masculinized ‘eidgah aunts’, are under the la’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal.


Q. Is it permissible for women to use chemical substances to bleach their skin a lighter shade?

A. Skin bleaching is haraam. It comes within the scope of the prohibition of taghyeer li khalqillaah (changing the creation of Allah) which the Qur’aan attributes to shaitaan.


Q. Please comment on the significance of Hayaa’ (modesty, shame) as an attribute of women?

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Haya is a branch of Imaan.” Haya (modesty/shame) is an integral attribute of Imaan. The healthier the Imaan, the more profound will be the quality of modesty / shame in the Mu’min. While the attribute of haya is common to both Muslim males and females – or should be common – it is the profoundest in Muslim women of Taqwa. In general, haya is a natural attribute of women of all nations and religions. However, extraneous circumstances and ways of life erode modesty and shame. The greatest threat to haya is western education. It utterly destroys every semblance of haya. Concomitant with haya is simplicity and innocence. The Qur’aan Majeed therefore describing Muslim women, says: “Verily, those who slander chaste, ghaafil (simple/ innocent) Believing women, they are cursed in this world and the Aakhirah. For them is a great (terrible) punishment.” (An- Nur, aayat 23) In this verse, pious, chaste Mu’minaat are described with the attribute, ghaafilaat. The word ghaafil refers to a person who is oblivious, careless, unmindful, negligent. In these meanings, the term is not a compliment. But as used in the Qur’aan to describe pious Mu’minaat, it is a compliment and a virtue. The pious Muslim woman who is truly a woman of Purdah, having Purdah in her heart, mind and eyes, and not restricted to the outer effects of the jilbaab and niqaab, is an embodiment of virtue and haya. She is a ‘simpleton’ and innocent, unwary of the immoral sophistication, loudness, audacity and immodesty which the ‘Muslim’ women of today’s secular institutions, denuded of Islamic morality publicly exhibit. ‘Muslim’ women who have been educated in western educational institutions – and females in girls madrasahs are not lagging far behind them – having jettisoned almost every vestige of their Imaani haya, surpass even non-Muslim women in the display of audacity and immodesty. The reason for their vile state of shamelessness from the Islamic perspective is that all moral attributes have opposites. When the one is displaced, there is never a vacuum. The opposite sets in. When haya is eliminated, then immodesty and immorality overwhelm the one who at one stage was a repository of shame and modesty. The immodest woman then puts even males to shame. Muslim men of haya are constrained to adopt greater measures of hijaab to avoid the villainy of the ‘Muslim’ woman who has destroyed her natural and Imaani ‘haya’ . These are the types of women, defeminized and masculinized, who clamour for attending the Musaajid and Eidgah with men. They perennially demand to be shoulder to shoulder with males. Among their shaitaani attributes are an aversion for the home, detestation for domestic duties,  inveterate hatred for Shar’i hijaab, inordinate love for publicity and the public platform, selfexpression, loudness, robust in demeanour, and the desire to compete with males. In brief, they excel in almost everything which is the antithesis of Imaani haya and Muslim womanhood. The quality of shame is such a lofty virtue of the Muslim woman that Allah Ta’ala highlights it in the Qur’aan. Describing the noble and beautiful demeanour of the daughter of Nabi Shuayb (alayhis salaam), the Qur’aan Majeed states: “Then one of the two (daughters of Nabi Shuayb) came to him (Nabi Musa) walking bashfully. She said: “Verily, my father calls you…….” (Al-Qasas, aayat 25) Nabi Shuayb (alayhis salaam) who had no sons, sent one of his daughters to call Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) who at the time was a wayfarer without home. She came walking very bashfully, and with lowered head from a respectable distance, delivered her father’s message. Hadhrat Musa (alayhis salaam) whose haya was profound, requested her to walk behind him at a distance. He told her to take a few pebbles. When he had to turn to the right on the way to the home of Nabi Shuayb (alayhis salaam) of which he was unaware, she was to throw a pebble towards the right, and the same if he had to turn left from the pathway. His haya and purdah dictated that she should not direct him with her voice. This was the lofty degree of haya and hijaab. Now scale the immorality of the so-called Muslim female broadcasters of the Devil’s radio stations on this standard of Haya. Thus, the Qur’aan Majeed makes special mention of the daughter’s haya, describing her walk with the term isthyaa’ which means bashfully. She was an embodiment of pure bashfulness and modesty. Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu): “What is best for a woman?” Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was unable to answer. He said that he would ask his wife, Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). He went home and when he questioned Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha), she responded: “The best for a woman is that no man should see her, and she should see  no man.” When Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) reported this wonderful response to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), his (our Nabi’s) mubaarak face became radiant with pleasure and he delightfully exclaimed: “Faatimah is a part of me.” The haya of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) was so lofty and so wonderful and so profound that her last wish and wasiyyat (bequest) became the Sunnah for all Muslim women until the Day of Qiyaamah. She instructed that on her death, despite the female’s body being draped with six shrouds, a purdah barrier be erected over her body to ensure that no male even  accidentally casts a gaze on her wrapped up body. Furthermore, she instructed that she be buried in the darkness of the night. This was an added measure of purdah dictated by her haya. Six shrouds covering the dead body, but still she ordered the erection of a barrier to conceal even her dead covered body. This Sunnah remains to this day when females are buried and will remain until the Day of Qiyaamah. All these shameless, loud, masculinized females who parade in the public, flaunting themselves to attract gazes and attention should reflect at the treatment which will be meted out to their dead bodies. The Sunnah of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) will be imposed on their dead bodies. Yet, whilst they are alive and when the fitnah is real, and the fussaaq and fujjaar prevail, then these unfortunate females resort to the exhibitions of the era of Jaahiliyyah in flagrant violation if Allah’s prohibition: “And (O women!) remain resolutely within your homes, and do not make a display (of yourselves) like the exhibition of Jaahiliyyah (the pre-Islam era of immorality and ignorance).” It is an incumbent obligation on all Muslim women to constantly reflect on Hadhrat Faatimah’s advice, attitude and actions – her response to Hadhrat Ali’s question; her noble dead body; her six shrouds of the kafan; her instruction to conceal her janaazah with a screen; her instruction to bury her in the intensity of night’s darkness. If Muslim women meditate on this lofty concept of Hijaab presented to the Ummah’s females by the Queen of Jannat, then Allah Ta’ala will brighten their darkened souls and eliminate their spiritual blindness to enable them to understand the folly of their un-Islamic and anti-Hijaab clamours and their rowdyism. The western malady, namely, the inordinate crave for self -expression and exhibition, is the diametric antithesis of the Islamic concept of Haya and Hijaab. While Islam emphasizes haya and hijaab – shame/ modesty and concealment – for its female adherents, the lewd cult of westernism considers immodesty and female exhibition to be virtues and effects of ‘enlightenment’. The Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) as well as other Sahaabah, state: “Woman is aurah (i.e. an object of concealment). When she emerges (from her home), shaitaan casts surreptitious glances at her (i.e. he lies in ambush to involve her and men in fitnah).” Any moron so-called ‘Muslim’ woman who has an issue with this proclamation of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should make arrangements for her abode in Jahannum. Woman, according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah, is always an object of fitnah. This state should not be misconstrued and understood wrongly and satanically. The statement in no way means that woman is evil. It simply means that because of the evil nafs created by Allah Ta’ala in man and woman, both will become embroiled in fitnah – moral turpitude leading to zina, if Islam’s strict code of Haya and Hijaab is not observed. Allah Ta’ala has created woman for the home role, not for the public stage. She moves in conflict and unnaturally when she takes to the public stage and the streets to rub shoulders with men and to compete with them in worldly and secular matters. This is just not the role for which Allah Ta’ala has moulded her. He has cast her into the mould of tinklets so that she remains a genuine female. She is not supposed to become a western masculinized hybrid feminine which displays male tendencies as do these modernist ‘Muslim’ females of the women’s lib. movement. Confirming the natural, weak and tender nature of women, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “…..One who is reared (brought up) in jewellery and who is unable to clearly express (herself) in debates (talks, arguments, disputes, etc.).” (Az-Zukhrif, aayat 18) Allah Ta’ala states in this aayat that a female’s attention is generally focused on jewellery and garments. Her inherent attribute is the inability to be articulate in expression and even in thought. Hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described woman as naaqisul aql (one whose intelligence is deficient). It is the Qur’aan and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who made these statements and observations. The Creator is aware of His creation. The audacity and shamelessness with which the female Phd’s express themselves in male company do not negate what Allah Ta’ala says in the aforementioned aayat nor is the Hadith pertaining to their defective intelligence negated. Despite their audacity, and shameless ways of disputingand debating with men on the public stage, they remain naaqisaatul aql, hence men of intelligence clearly discern all the ghutha (rubbish) which their glib tongues disgorge. The writings of the Phd aunts who profess to be Muslim, conspicuously display their stark jahaalat, lack of understanding of the issues they write on, and their intellectual incoherence. All of this betrays the mental turmoil in which they are buffeted. ‘Muslim’ women who abandon their haya and hijaab in order to march and vie with their fussaaq male instigators who incite the miscreant females to destroy their natural haya, should not befool themselves regarding their ultimate destiny. They dwell under the constant la’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal, and the Hadith has described the terrible chastisements awaiting them in Jahannum. Destruction of Haya is a licence for blanket immorality.


Q. Where is the grave of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha)?

A. There is much uncertainty regarding the location of her grave. No one knows precisely where the grave of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) is. This is the effect of her profound Haya (shame and modesty). According to her directive, she was buried during the night time without any announcement made. Her burial was secretly done. Just as she loved to be concealed during her lifetime, so too does she remain concealed after her demise. After all, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) praising her lofty state of Haya and Hijaab, said: “Faatimah is a part of me.”


Q. Is it permissible to use ‘Halaal’ nail polish?

A. A new brand of nail polish for females, called ‘Acquarella’ is being marketed as ‘halaal’ for use by Muslim women. The reason for the ‘halaal’ label is the contention that this new type of nail polish is not impervious, hence it allows water to seep through on to the finger nails, thus rendering wudhu and ghusl valid. Muslim women who are conscious of the importance of Salaat and ibaadat in general should not be deceived by the ‘halaal’ advertisement attached to this new kind of nail polish. Firstly, the word of just anyone is not acceptable to dispel the prohibition of the Shariah applicable to nail polish. It is haraam and highly irresponsible to accept whatever the manufacturer alleges, then to act on the assurance with the strong probability of destroying such an important ibaadat as Salaat. Secondly, even if it is established beyond doubt that the nail polish is porous, then too it will not be permissible for women even married women, to utilize it in view of the element of Tashabbuh bil Kaafiraat (emulation of non- Muslim women). The practice of applying nail polish is the custom of non-Muslim females. Muslim females who apply such polish are aping the ways of the kaafiraat, and such tashabbuh is haraam. For unmarried women, the prohibition has greater severity. The motive for application of kuffaar-style nail polish is satanic and immoral. Whilst married women may deceptively present the argument of ‘pleasing’ their husbands, remember that pleasing the husband in violation of Allah’s pleasure is Haraam. Tashabbuh bil Kaafiraat is not permissible even at the behest of the husband. It should also be well understood that regardless of the nail polish being porous as is being contended by its manufacturer, it is not permissible to perform Salaat adorned in the manner of kaafiraat. Salaat performed in this way is Makrooh Tahreemi which is a forbidden act. Salaat is too important to be placed on the altar of doubt and destruction. Furthermore, the claim that this substance allows water to seep through is unproven. It is essential that Muslim women do not allow themselves to be beguiled by the assurances of the manufacturer whose claim pertaining to the porous property of the polish is unproven, and even if and when proven, the other factors of hurmat (prohibition) will still apply. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever abstains from shubhaat (doubtful things), verily, he (or she) has saved his (or her) Deen and honour.” “Shun that which casts you into doubt….”


Q. Are the latest types of mendhi designs permissible?

A. These mendhi designs are in emulation of Hindus, hence not permissible. It is not a practice of Muslim women nor are such designs advocated in the Sunnah.


Q. Jamaat brothers’ wives work in the family business with their husbands, fully clad in hijab. Is this permissible with the consent of the husband?

A. Now why did you introduce the Jamaat in your question? The Jamaat does not teach violation of Hijaab. If a member of the Jamaat commits a sin, why do you attribute it to the Jamaat? If a Muslim commits murder, will it be proper to attribute it to Islam? Muslims belonging to the Jamaat, to the Khaanqas, to the Madaaris, etc., all commit sins. It is a severe malady of the nafs which prompts a person to attribute the sins of individuals to the august institutions to which they belong. You should have posed your question without introducing the Jamaat dimension. It is haraam for women to be in the business in violation of Hijaab even with the consent of their husbands. Both the husband and the wife are sinful in committing the violation.


Q. It was reported on a certain radio station that Ash-Shabaab of Somalia has passed a law that the jilbaab of females has to be of coarse cloth. Is this report correct?

A. It is Waajib for the jilbaab of a woman to be shabby, of unattractive colour and coarse. The objective of the jilbaab/burqah is to ensure that the lustful gazes of men are not attracted to females. The types of abayas and burqahs which women nowadays wear outside the home are not permissible. We are not aware what orders Ash-Shabaab have issued.


Q. My relatives do not observe Purdah. Am I justified to refuse visiting them?

A. If your relatives do not observe Purdah, then do not visit them. You have valid justification for refusing to visit them. Explain the reason to them. The Shariah has precedence and preference. First comes Allah’s Law.



Q. Some enlightened scholars say that Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) had taught the seven Fuqaha of Madina. On this basis they say that it is permissible for females to teach males. Please comment.

A. These modernist ‘enlightened scholars’ take things out of context, then add their own interpretations to justify their modernist deviated practices. When it is said, for example, ‘Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) taught the first seven Fuqaha of Madina’, it creates in the mind of the audience the absolutely false idea that Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) had operated a systematic madrasah where males and females would attend and where she would daily impart lessons in academic style. This idea is the furthest from the truth. Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) never taught the seven Fuqaha of Madina nor anyone else in the conventional style of teaching. What used to occur in that era was that people would come from far and wide to the Sahaabah to seek guidance and to hear from them the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They would come individually to the homes of the Sahaabah, and this included Hadhrat Aishah and the other Wives of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). From behind a screen in her hut she would narrate to them what she heard and saw from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). After hearing the Hadith, they departed. They did not camp there to attend daily classes, etc. Her hut, style and methodology were bereft of the zina paraphernalia which accompany the ‘educational’ institutions of this age. This was the system of spreading knowledge in the early stages of Islam. For example, Imaam Bukhaari had more than a thousand Hadith teachers (Asaatizah). This does not mean that he sat in their company and acquired knowledge systematically on a daily basis. What happened was that if someone narrated to him a Hadith, then the narrator was automatically regarded as a teacher although Imaam Bukhaari may have met him only once in his lifetime for a few minutes. The same stupid and misleading impression is created by deviate modernists when they say women participated in Jihad during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). We have explained this in some detail in our booklet, The Ladies Tabligh Jamaat


Q. Is it compulsory to remain at home for 40 days after giving birth even if bleeding stops a few days after birth?

A. It is compulsory for females to remain within the home environment for the entire duration of their lives, not only for 40 days after giving birth. They may emerge from their homes fully clad in Islamic style only for needs and for reasons allowed by the Shariah, e.g. to visit relatives. This law applies whether a woman is in the state of nifaas (post natal bleeding) or not. It is not restricted to 40 days or to the duration of bleeding.



Q. Is it permissible for women to wear anklets made of gold or silver and fitted with precious stones?

A. The Qur’aan Majeed forbids women wearing such anklets in public. It is permissible only within the confines of the home, not outside.


Q. What is the meaning of ‘fitnah’ when it is related to females? What is meant by women being a ‘fitnah’ for men?

A. Fitnah has many different meanings. In the context of intermingling of sexes it means sexual desire and lust. The Qur’aan describes this malady of lust also with the word, “maradh (a disease) in the heart”. According to the Qur’aan, this malady exists in the hearts of all human beings regardless of their piety and status. Thus, the aayat commanding the erection of a screen between men and women if there is a need to speak, is in the first instance directed to the Holy Wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. When it is said that a woman constitutes a ‘fitnah’ for men, it simply means that men will be sexually attracted to her. Hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said to the Sahaabah: “I have not left after me a greater fitnah for you than women.” To block this fitnah, the Shariah has instituted very stringent restrictions which are Waajib to observe. This word is not always utilized in this  context. The Qur’aan Majeed says: “Some of your wives and children are a fitnah.” On this aayat it means a ‘trial’. When wives and children divert a man from the Deen, then they are a fitnah for him.


Q. Is it necessary for a woman to cover her hair when having meals even if there is no ghair mahram present?

A. When eating food it is incumbent on both men and women to keep their heads covered. Even if a man or a woman is alone, then too they should keep their heads covered when eating.


Q. Is it permissible for a woman to go to a gym for physical exercises if there are only females?

A. Sister, Islam prohibits women who are even wrapped in large outergarments, from attending the Musjids. It is prohibited for them to go to the Musjid for even Namaaz. It is forbidden for them to visit even the graveyard. Never will it be permissible for them to attend a gym even if there are only females. A female should do physical exercise within the privacy of her home. Public gyms are places of La’nat (Divine Curse). A qabrustaan (graveyard) is a holy place. It is a desolate abode which reminds a person of his ultimate destination and of the Aakhirah. Yet, regarding women visiting the qabrustaan, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Allah curses women who visit the qabrustaan.” Now what does your intelligence dictate regarding an abhorrent place such as a gym?


Q. Is it permissible for Muslim women to work as nurses in a non-Muslim hospital? Muslim nurses say that it is permissible since they are a service to humanity.

A. It is not permissible for Muslim women to work in a non-Muslim or even a Muslim hospital where they have to attend to male patients. Women who violate purdah in this manner are ignorant of the Deen. They subject the Deen to their nafsaani opinions.


Q. You have mentioned that it is not permissible for women to ride horses. Please explain why it is not permissible. My aunt is an aalimah and she disputed what you had stated. She mentioned about a lady who did ride a horse during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

A. The laws of the Shariah are the products of Allah’s commands which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) delivered to the Ummah. While Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) handed down the laws, he did not explain the reasons. Thus, Allah Ta’ala ordered two raka’ts for Fajr, four raka’ts for Zuhr and four for Asr, and so on without explaining why Fajr has only two and why Zuhr does not have two, etc. Our duty is to state the commands of Allah Ta’ala, not the reasons because the reasons were not explained by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The issue of ‘why’ could be directed to all the thousands of masaa-il of the Shariah. Whatever reasons we or any other Ulama present will be the products of personal opinion which may be correct or erroneous. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Allah curses women on horseback.” In other words the la’nat of Allah Ta’ala descends on women who ride horses. Now why does Allah Ta’ala curse women who ride horses? Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not explain the reason. But, we and you and anyone else may think and present reasons. But the reasons will not be divine. They will be our personal understanding. The Muslim need to know only what Allah’s law is. The ‘aalimah’ is not a mujtahid. She has no right to extract Hadith narrations at random and formulate opinions in conflict with the express command of Allah Ta’ala. When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has clearly mentioned that women on horses are accursed, then it is ludicrous and haraam for anyone to present arguments to dismiss what the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said. Every Hadith has tafseer. It has an explanation and an interpretation. Does the aalimah perhaps know with certitude that riding horses for women is permissible despite Allah’s curse on them? She is in grievous error by citing just any narration to satisfy the nafs despite the conflict. It is the function of the Mujtahid to reconcile conflicting narrations or to present the correct interpretation which will not conflict with the Shariah. Every act of every Sahaabi is not the law of the Shariah. Sahaabah had also erred and had misunderstood certain issues. Sahaabah had also acted without being aware of a law which had been announced. A Sahaabi may have done an act before its prohibition, or done it after the prohibition without the law having reached him/her. It was the function of the Mujtahideen to study and investigate the various Hadith narrations and the Qur’aanic aayaat. It was their function to formulate masaail. The aalimah is in grievous error by acquitting herself as a mujtahid. May Allah Ta’ala save us from such gross and grave error.


Q. A Mufti in America says that due to lack of trust on their womenfolk and due to safety concerns, women should be allowed to attend the Musjid for Taraaweeh. It is neither safe nor advisable for the men to leave their wives alone at home for the long period it takes at the Musjid for Taraaweeh.

A.If the menfolk have no trust in their wives, and if they have so much fear for their safety and chastity in America, then tell them (the males) to perform Taraaweeh at home, not in the Musjid. Tell these men to also remain in Purdah with their wives and perform Taraaweeh at home. Also advise them not to spend 8 hours a day at their shops and work-places because these are ideal times of considerable length for their wives to commit zina and for people to attack them. Tell them never to leave their wives alone at home for any length of time because all of their wives according to American men, are zaaniyah (adulteresses). It does not matter whose view it is. The mufti sahib who issued this ridiculous fatwa is extremely shortsighted. This type of fatwa can be applied to a wide range of issues which will culminate in the mutilation of the Shariah. With their liberal and baseless fatwas they will emaciate the Shariah of Islam in the way that the Yahood and the Nasaara have emaciated and annihilated the Shariats of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). Do you see any semblance of the Shariats of the previous Ambiya among their people? But you will see the whole, pure Shariah of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) intact because of ‘fanatics’ such as us sinful servants who have been appointed to guard this Divine Shariah and to ensure that it remains in its pure state until the Day of Qiyaamah.




Q. Is it permissible for a Muslim female to become a journalist?

A. It is not permissible for a Muslim female to become a journalist because this profession requires exposure and mingling with the opposite sex. Abandonment of haya (shame and modesty) is an incumbent corollary of this profession.


Q. Is it permissible for a married woman to earn? To whom does the money she earns belong?

A. A married woman may work and earn from home or in a purdah-protective environment only with the permission of her husband. It is not permissible for her to work and earn even from her marital home without the consent of her husband. The same rules apply to an unmarried woman. Without the consent of her father she may not work and earn even from home. Whatever she earns is her own property. Neither the husband nor the father can claim her earnings. The modernist deviates and the modernist, miscreant molvis and sheikhs who are lost in a cesspool of jahaalat (stark ignorance), licking the boots of their western masters, obsequiously contend that a wife and her husband have ‘equal’ financial status regarding independence. Thus we see them saying in their kufr MPL bill: “A wife and a husband in a Muslim marriage are equal in human dignity and both have, on the basis of equality, full status, capacity and financial independence, including the capacity to own and acquire assets and to dispose of them, to enter into contracts and to litigate.” This hash has been designed to appease the gender equality mob whose doctrine is atheism and whose practical life is the cult of fisq and fujoor. Mental inferiority has colonized the brains of these miscreant molvis and sheikhs. Whatever rot and bunkum their western masters din into their ears, they lap up like dogs licking their own vomit. The Qur’aan and Sunnah make it abundantly and conspicuously clear that there is no equality between man and woman. The equality doctrine of the gender equality mob is a satanic ploy for legalized immorality, fornication, prostitution and all the immoral and unnatural aberrations stemming from female exposure. With clarity the Qur’aan Majeed expressly states: “For men over them (women) is a rank.” This Islamic concept of the superiority of men is so obvious that any elucidation to substantiate it is superfluous. Only those who have traded their Imaan for the kufr of the West are in denial of Qur’aanic and Sunnah truths.


Just as a father has more dignity than his son, and just as a mother has greater dignity than her children, and just as the elder brother has greater dignity than his younger brother, and just as an elder sister has greater dignity than her younger sister, and just as a mother has more dignity than her son despite him being a male, and just as an Ustaadh has more dignity than his students, and just as a Shaikh has greater dignity than his mureeds, and just as every senior/superior person in Islam has more dignity than every subordinate, so too does the husband have greater dignity than his wife. The superiority of the husband over his wife is vividly and conclusively borne out by Rasulullah’s statement that if he had to order anyone to prostrate for any person, he would instruct the wife to make Sajdah for her husband. This effectively negates the western doctrine of the equality of the sexes. The alleged ‘financial  independence’ of the wife is circumscribed by the husband’s rights over her. She can become financially independent only with the consent of her husband. Even with regard to her own money, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructs her to refrain from using her own wealth without the consent of her husband. Irrespective of her having sole ownership of her assets, she is not entirely free to dispose of such assets without the approval of her husband. Should he instruct her to withhold spending her own wealth, obedience devolves as a Waajib obligation on her. She has absolutely no right to unilaterally enter into any financial contracts with anyone without the consent of her husband. This prohibition has greater emphasis with regard to litigation. Muslims should shake of the encumbrance of mental inferiority and intellectual colonization which their western masters have imposed on them. As followers of Allah’s Creed, we are required to proclaim with great clarity the unadulterated doctrines and tenets of Islam. We owe no one any apology. There is absolutely no need to dilute the pristine pure injunctions of Islam. Almost everything of Islam is repugnant to the West in particular. Let us not care a damn for their repugnance. The claims of equality made by the MPL mob to assuage the kufr brains of the gender equality mob are thus utterly baseless and rejected by Islam.


Q. Women working: This practice due to it being so common has become acceptable. It is not regarded as a munkar (evil). Even Deeni conscious people who are particular with regards haraam and halaal issues fail in this aspect. Also, doctors and dentists, etc. mingle with their ghair mahareem nurses and female secretaries and staff. In the kutub of Ahaadith it is recorded that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “That of the signs of the Hour is that businesses will be expanded so much that the wife will assist her husband in the business.” IN another Hadith it is mentioned: “Men and women will do business together.” Please comment on this lamentable situation.

A. Brother, by the fadhl of Allah Ta’ala, we do comment from time to time on all the evils dominating the Ummah. Rasulullah’s predictions are materializing in front of our eyes. Even the ‘Deeni’ conscious Ulama have extremely far-fetched and corrupt interpretations with which they neutralize the unambiguous statements of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the commands and prohibitions of the Shariah. We are living in times about which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Islam started off ghareeb (forlorn, weak and friendless). Soon will it return to that state of forlornness. Therefore congratulations for the ghuraba (i.e. for those ‘mad’ upholders and proponents of the Sunnah and the Haqq).” It is common knowledge that all those who have female staff are involved in zina of varying degrees. Every argument they fabricate for justifying their haraam acts and for employing female staff is baseless in terms of the Shariah. So many homes have broken up, so many ‘pious’ men have ruined their piety, so many men bring misery into their relationship with their wives because of zina involvement with their female staff, and so many supposedly good and pious ulama have become zindeeqs with their kufr interpretations to justify mingling with female staff. All their haraam attention is focussed on their female staff, leaving hardly any halaal attention for their wives. Brother, the situation is not going to get better. It will degenerate to the abominable level where the ‘leader’ of the Muslims will commit zina in public in the Mihraab of the Jaami’ Musjid in Damascus. The Aalim of Haqq who will raise his voice in protest will be slain. May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on us and may He keep us firm on the Haqq until the very last breath of life.


Q. Is it permissible for a married woman to operate a business?

A. A woman may with the permission of her husband, operate any lawful business from her home or from a place where there will be no contact with males. She may not open a shop in a public mall for example. Without the consent of her husband she may not operate any business even from the home.


Q. Is it permissible for females to hold positions in an organization? Can a woman be a judge? According to some modernists it is permissible.

A. It is not permissible to appoint a woman to any position of Amaanat (trust) or leadership. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Never will a people who hand their affairs to a woman be successful.” “Place them behind in the way Allah has relegated them to the back.” The kutub of Fiqh clearly state the impermissibility of women being judges. This is according to all Mathhabs. The modernists are juhhaal (morons) who neither understand nor accept such rulings of the Shariah which conflict with their nafs. The primary role of woman is the home. Allah Ta’ala has created her and cast her into the domestic mould. Whenever the natural laws of Allah Ta’ala are violated or the roles inverted, the consequences are fitnah, fasaad and immorality.


Q. A Mufti in the U.S.A. while acknowledging that the Shariah has prohibited women from the Musjid is of theview that in the present age women are all over in the public. Therefore separate Salaat facilities at the Musaajid should be set aside for them. He says that the Ulama who are against this are extreme. Please comment.

A. The advice which the mufti proffers regarding the construction of separate facilities for females at the Musaajid is extremely short-sighted and not permissible. This Deen of Islam was revealed, completed and perfected more than fourteen centuries ago. There is no room for changing the masaa-il of Islam to accommodate deviation and what has been impermissible since the time of the Sahaabah. Today among the Yahood there remains not a semblance of the Shariah of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam), and among the Christians not a semblance of the Shariah of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). The reason for this total loss of the Shariats of the previous Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) is the policy of subjecting their respective Shariats to an evolutionary process which permits perennial change, distortion, misinterpretation, mutilation and transmogrification of the Laws of Allah Ta’ala. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a licence to interpret and distort the religion in terms of their fanciful reasoning and nafsaani demands. But, by the fadhl of Allah Ta’ala Islam will not be extinguished because Allah Ta’ala has created a mechanism to protect the originality and pristine purity of this Deen, and that mechanism is the institution of the Ulama-e-Haqq whose obligation is to act as the watchdogs of the Divine Shariah. The proposal to open up the Musjids or to establish separate Salaat facilities attached to the Musaajid for ladies because they are already wandering in public is a deception of shaitaan. Such deceptions of shaitaan are termed Talbeesul Iblees. Shaitaan approaches ‘scholars’ – shallow-minded ‘scholars’ whose hearts and minds are anchored to the dunya, and who submit and make subservient the Shariah to worldly expediencies – such expediencies which are haraam, and grips them in his tentacles. Instead of issuing the Shariah’s ruling for the expediency, the endeavour – the haraam endeavour – is to distort and mutilate the Shariah to conform to the development. Thus, the endeavour is to give recognition and confer permissibility to female participation in public life by twisting the Shariah’s prohibition of females attending the Musjid into a confounded ‘permissibility’ which in reality is a haraam ‘permissibility’. It is illogic and haraam to change a ruling of the Shariah simply because women are participating in public life, shoulder to shoulder with males. Our reaction should be the opposite. The prohibition to attend the Musjid should be more emphasized and women should be educated and castigated for their emergence from their homes in emulation of their western counterparts. Their haraam emergence and participation in public life should be condemned regardless of whether they accept or reject. It is downright stupid and not permissible to argue that since women are participating in brothels, we should open up the Musaajid for them for Salaat. The presence of women in public malls, etc. is not grounds for transforming a haraam practice into a permissible one. On the contrary, the liberal muftis who are trying to make women’s emergence acceptable, should rather fulfil their obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar by education and propagation to inform women that their participation in public life in the domain of males is haraam. If a woman has degenerated to the level of mingling with the opposite sex and participating fully in public life as mentioned by the ‘mufti’ in his corrupt fatwa, then what prevents her from performing her Salaat in a corner of the mall or in the office where she works or in a corner on the pavement? In fact, we (males) do exactly so. We perform Salaat anywhere in the public if there is no Musjid nearby. Now if a woman acts like a man and emerges from her home to mingle with the opposite sex in public, then she too can perform Salaat in the public as men do. The entire day she spends in public. Suddenly when Salaat time arrives then she will make it Qadha or forgo it rather than perform it in the public which she has made her ‘home’. It is indeed preposterous and unjust to charge the prohibitionsits with extremism for preventing women from the Musjid, when the women are in fact practising haraam extremism by being in public, then aggravating their haraam extremism and sins by abstaining from Salaat and making it qadha simply because there is no Musjid nearby or no ladies facilities. Since they have chosen the haraam practice of public participation, they should perform their Salaat also in the public. All the arguments in favour of women’s facilities are the effects of Satanism. Shaitaan whispers his shaitaaniyat into the brains of moron ‘muftis’ who have a concept of churning out ‘halaal’ fatwas from haraam acts. Two haraam acts do not equate to a halaal act. Thus, the act of female intermingling is haraam. The act of women attending the Musjid is haraam. These two cannot be fused into a halaal. By legalizing women’s facilities at Musjids, the practice will become entrenched. It will be become a permanent feature of the Shariah’s landscape in the same way as the Yahood and the Nasaara have made all their haraam interpolations integral parts of their respective religions. The liberal ‘muftis’ who are acting as the representatives of women in the public, despite acknowledging the reason for the Sahaabah preventing women from the Musjid, believe that it is allowed today when the same dangers have multiplied manifold in this age of immorality. We cannot simply resign ourselves to accepting female intermingling in the public domain. We must and shall continuously castigate their evil regardless even if not a single woman accepts the naseehat of the Shariah. Our obligation is only to deliver the clear Message of the Deen. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. He guides whomever He wills, and He leaves to stray whomever He desires. Our duty is only to guard the purity of Islam. And, this obligation demands rejection of the new-fangled contaminated, corrupt ‘fatwas’ of the shallow-minded, modernist ‘muftis’ who are bereft of Khauf-e-Ilaahi (Divine Fear). It seems that they believe that they are not going to die, hence their audacity in churning out corrupt ‘fatwas’ which only mislead people further into corruption and moral degeneration. The errant ‘mufti’ cites the ‘classical’ Fuqaha as if the fatwa which they had issued was personal opinion which could be set aside. He acquits himself as if the ‘fitnah’ which was and is the basis for the prohibition, no longer exists in the present age, hence he subtly attempts to restrict the prohibition with what he describes as “the context in which the Fuqaha were giving such ver- dicts”. Any Muslim of intelligence who has no shaitaani objective will understand that the “context of the Fuqaha” exists today to a far greater degree to warrant an emphasis on the prohibition. Nothing has developed since the era of the “classical” Fuqaha to warrant a relaxation or amelioration in the strict fatwa of prohibition. On the contrary, the fitnah has multiplied manifold. Arguing in favour of female emergence in conflict with the unequivocal prohibition announced in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith, the liberal ‘mufti’ says: “The need to emerge out of the house was not like the need we have in today’s complicated world.” This is utterly fallacious. Zina may not be justified nor mitigated by arguing that the times of our era differ vastly from the time when the prohibition was revealed. Such arguments are satanic. The ‘context’ is the same. Nothing has happened to the ‘context’ to justify the forging of a new ‘fatwa’ on an issue in which the “context” has only worsened. Furthermore, even if the ‘context’ changes for the better, the prohibition cannever be mitigated or relaxed until the day of Qiyaamah because never is it possible for an age such as the age of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah to be resurrected. The ‘fitnah’ which had already developed during the age of the Sahaabah and on which basis the prohibition was enacted by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Sahaabah, will not be ameliorated. That fitnah is in a constant incremental state of worsening. The liberal mufti very ignorantly avers that it is “unfair” to prevent women from the Musaajid in view of them already being all over the show and the market places, etc. Thus, he advocates relaxation of a Shar’i prohibition on the basis of haraam acts perpetrated by women. In other words, he confers acceptance and respectability to women in the streets and market places, hence the doors of the Musaajid should be thrown open for them. The consequence of this stupid, lopsided satanic logic is nothing other than the introduction of the fitnah into our last bastions of piety, namely, the Musaajid. The “scholar of piety” who had advocated this stance, is extremely short-sighted and shallow in his knowledge, hence he ventured this stupid opinion. This very same logic could be extended to prostitutes in a brothel. In terms of this lopsided logic emanating from warped brains, it follows that the Musaajid should open their doors for prostitutes to perform Salaat since they are already on the streets and in the vice dens plying their haraam abominable trade. The current ‘complicated world’ is not valid grounds for women’s emergence. In fact, the contrary is valid. That is, due to the evils of the current ‘complicated world’, the need for women to remain indoors is greater than the need which had existed during the age of the Sahaabah. He further tries to justify females going to the Musjid by saying: “…at times there may be a genuine need for women to go out to the Mosques, such as when travelling…..” This reasoning is deceptive, and another example of Talbeesul Iblees. Firstly, he has been compelled to confess and concede that the need for women to emerge from their houses is restricted to “times of genuine need”. Such need had always existed since time immemorial. Despite their emergence during times of genuine need, the prohibition had remained in force for the past fourteen centuries. Womenfolk in our communities had always emerged from their homes when there was genuine need. When this happened, Allah Ta’ala always made arrangements for their Salaat to be performed on time in privacy. Genuine need is not prowling in the malls, market places and working in factories and offices. Genuine needs are visiting relatives, close friends, etc. They will perform Salaat at the homes of the people whom they visit. If they visit for any other valid reason, they can perform Salaat wherever they happen to be. But, the reality is that there is never a need for qadha, and never such a situation where they cannot find facilities for Salaat. Their necessary emergence is seldom, while in this age, their emergence is an abundance of haraam. And, for this haraam, the prohibition may not be abrogated. Thus, the stance of those who prohibit women from the Musjid is never ‘extreme’. It is tantamount to kufr for branding a Hukm of the Shariah as being ‘extreme’. Every ruling of the Shariah is moderate and designed for the welfare and best interests of the Ummah. The miscreant ‘mufti’ who has branded the Ulama who prohibit women from the Musjid as being ‘extreme’ is implying that the ruling of the Shariah is ‘extreme’. He should repent for such denigration of the Shariah. He plods the path of baatil and dhalaal.

←Back to Fatwa Section and Contents