[Concealed or Exposed?]

The term ‘mastooraat’ is a misnomer in relation to female tableeghi groups. The apt designation for such female groups is makshufaat which means females who are exposed or revealed or on display. The mere donning of an outer cloak does not make a woman mastoor (concealed, hidden from the public gaze). At the outset, we must clarify that the term makshufaat in this context is not being used with a pejorative connotation nor in an objugatory sense, nor do we imply sarcasm. We are merely saying that a spade is a spade. It is wrong to say that a spade is a spoon. The erroneous appellation appropriated for female-khurooj groups is due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of mastoor in the Shar’i sense.

As far as the Shariah is concerned, Masturaat are such women who are totally and completely hidden from the public gaze. A woman who emerges into the public even with burqah is no longer mastoorah. On the contrary, she becomes makshufah (exposed). The Satr of a person is called such because it is totally hidden, hence it is mastoor. Whilst a portion of the human body will be validly mastoor if covered by garments, the woman in relation to Hijaab will not be mastoorah with only garments if she emerges into the public. The term is of relative significance. Different things are mastoor in different ways. Narrating a Hadith, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said that when a woman ‘emerges from her home, then shaitaan casts surreptitious gazes at her’.

Whilst inside her home, she was validly Mastoor, protected from the gazes of the shayaateen. Once outside the home precincts, she becomes makshuf for the devils prowling around. There are two types of shayaateen: shayaateenul jinn (jinn devils) and shayaateenul ins (human devils). Outside her home, despite her burqah she becomes makshuf (exposed) to both categories of devils. Although the degree of exposure of a burqah-clad lady outside her home is greater to the jinn devils, the fact remains that she is exposed (makshuf) to even the human devils.  When Hadhrat Saudah (radhiyallahu anha) had emerged at night to answer the call of nature, she was fully covered with a jilbaab which could comfortably conceal two women.

Nevertheless, from the size of her body, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) recognized who she was. The cloak was not adequate for qualifying her for the designation of mastoorah. The fact that a woman is recognized as a woman from even her outer-garment negates the mastooraat designation. Explaining the concept of mastoor, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Women have no share in khurooj (from their homes), except in cases of need.” They have no share in emergence. Emergence transforms the mastoorah into a makshufah. Furthermore, the Qur’aan Majeed in commanding: “Remaining resolutely in your homes…” explains the meaning of mastoorah who is one who remains resolutely within the home.

Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) explaining the first category of Hijaab which makes woman a mastoorah, said: “The normal general rule of Hijaab is total seclusion. In this category the woman has to necessarily remain within the home environment and expose nothing of herself, not even her garments.” Thus, she is not allowed to emerge from the home for any activity which the Shariah has neither imposed on her nor described it as a haajat (need). Confirming the meaning of mastoor, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described woman as Aurah, i.e., she has to be concealed in entirety from the gazes of ghair mahaareem. Since the women of the Tableegh Jamaat are out of their homes, on the streets, and in all public places where fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar abound, the appropriate appellation for them is Makshufaat jamaat.




Please study this fatwa (which I am sending) of Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) on the issue of women going on Tableegh journeys. I have read your book explaining that Ladies Tableegh Jamaat is not permissible. However, the Ulama associated with the Tableegh Jamaat hold the view of permissibility. Please comment on the Fatwa.


After perusing the fatwa of permissibility issued by Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) on the question of females undertaking journeys for purposes of tableegh, we comment as follows:

With respect to the Honourable Mufti Sahib (rahmatullah alayh), we have to say that his fatwa is pure raai (personal opinion) unsubstantiated by any Shar’i daleel (proof). For a fatwa to enjoy the force of the Shariah, dalaail of the Shariah are imperative. The Shariah is not the product of personal opinion. The recent Fatwas issued by the senior Ulama of Darul Uloom Deoband, which prohibit females tableegh jamaat are of Shar’i worth and significance in view of the Shar’i evidences which the Honourable Muftis have provided for their fatwa. The same cannot be said of the fatwa of Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) for want of Shar’i dalaa-il.

The other Muftis who have endorsed the fatwa have simply endorsed a personal opinion. The number of Muftis endorsing a personal opinion does not add Shar’i lustre or force to the fatwa. In fact, it is improper to even describe a personal opinion as a fatwa. The Honourable Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan Sahib says in his fatwa:

“The objective of the Tablighi Jamaat is to learn and strengthen our deen and encourage others to do the same. Towards the propagation of this ambition, long arduous journeys too are undertaken. Just how men are in need of learning and strengthening their deen, on the same token, women too are in need of it. Generally the facilities are not accommodated for in the houses. Thus travelling to places as far as London accompanied by a mahram, taking into cognizance all the boundaries of the Shariat and without stepping on the rights of anyone, would be allowed in the Shariat.”

This is the fatwa. However, it is bereft of Shar’i proofs. It therefore lacks Shar’i force. Not only does it lack Shar’i force, it is also in conflict with the clear Nusoos of the Shariah as encapsulated in the Qur’an, Sunnah and the 14 century Ta-aamul of the Ummah. Let us now examine the ingredients in the aforementioned opinion.

(a) The pursuit of the Objective is permissible in only ways and means which are valid and permissible in the Shariah. Regardless of how beneficial a methodology may appear for the propagation of the Deen, if it is in conflict with the Shariah, it will be haraam to adopt it. On the basis of this principle, television, photography, videos and the like are haraam for utilization in the propagation of the Deen no matter how ‘great’ the benefit may appear to those in whose opinion such methods are permissible.

Similarly, regardless of the benefits which some Muftis discern in females undertaking journeys for the sake of tableegh, the method is in conflict with the Shariah, hence it is not permissible for women to globe-trot even with their mahrams for the sake of tableegh. Tableegh to the masses is not a Waajib duty for females, nor is it Mustahab, hence it is extremely short-sighted to draw them out of the homes, exposing them to the public and subjecting them to arduous journeys in which it is in this era IMPOSSIBLE to observe Shar’i Purdah (Hijaab).

Purdah is not restricted to the cloak and the face-veil. These items of dress are simply a dimension of Purdah. The primary Purdah for women in terms of the Qur’aan, Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Ummah, is confinement within the holy precincts of the home. Whilst the Honourable Mufti Sahib has explicitly stipulated for the permissibility the condition: “taking into cognizance all the boundaries of the Shariat and without stepping on the rights of anyone”, he has overlooked the irrefutable fact that in our time it is impossible to abide by these conditions, and NO ONE abides thereby. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

‘Safar (journey) is a portion of the Fire.”

A journey should not be undertaken unnecessarily. Since tableegh to the masses is not Waajib for females, it is not permissible to emerge from their houses, exposing themselves to all and sundry – to fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar – in flagrant violation of the Qur’aanic prohibition:

“And remain (glued) within your homes and make not a display (of yourselves) as the exhibition of Jaahiliyyah.”

Emerging from the home, be it with abaya (a semi-jilbaab) and niqaab, for something which is not Waajib, is not permissible for women, for in so doing they will come within the scope of the Qur’aanic proscription.

How is it possible for women venturing to far off places necessitating public transport to abide by Shar’i Purdah? They mingle with fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar males and females in overcrowded airports, airport buses, planes, etc. They have to stand in long queues for passport checking, luggage checking, custom checking, and subjected to fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar males checking and viewing them. It is not always that females are available to examine, view and check the burqah ladies. In fact in Saudi Arabia male immigration louts order women to open their faces to enable checking. They have to line-up together with males in the same lines. They sit in airport lounges crowded with the most immoral elements of the world. In the planes, they line-up in the queues to visit the toilets. We have observed Muslim ladies standing immediately behind men and vice versa in the toilet queues. We have seen with our own eyes, a Muslim lady coming out of the plane toilet while a male is right in front of the queue staring at her. Is this hijaab? What has happened to the haya of the burqah-bibis?

There is a total breakdown of Hijaab nowadays on journeys. The Tablighi brothers who maintain that their womenfolk along the journey are in ‘purdah’ are guilty of a massive canard. They dwell in self-deception. There is no true Purdah for women who mingle with all and sundry at airports, in the planes, in public transport, etc. The idea that the burqah/abaya and the veil are the be all of Hijaab is a delusion and has cultivated in the minds of Muslims a totally inaccurate concept of Hijaab. In addition to the abandonment of Hijaab is the disruption of Salaat, and the consumption of the haraam and mushtabah food of the airways served by the hands of faajiraat and kaafiraat. But these violations no longer have significant meaning to even those who purport vociferously that they are in the ‘Path of Allah’.

(b) The virtues and importance of propagating the Deen are not denied. The method adopted for this objective is rejected since it is in conflict with the Shariah. The Sahaabah were well aware of the virtues and importance of propagating the Deen. In fact, during their era such propagation was imperative. It was the first age of Islam and the Deen had to be compulsorily spread and taken to the non-Muslim people of the world. Yet, they did not deem it necessary to initiate a mass women’s movement to propagate the Deen to the non-Muslim females who also were in need of the Deen just as their menfolk were in need. But, nowhere in the 14 century long history of Islam was a women’s mass movement created.

The isolated cases of females accompanying their husbands, not on tableegh missions, but on first degree Jihad campaigns, may not be cited as a basis for the current women’s movement which the Tableegh Jamaat has created in conflict with the Shariah. In fact, there are Nusoos to confirm Rasulullah’s opposition to even the isolated cases of females going with their husbands in Jihad. Once when he saw a woman with her husband on a Jihad campaign, he reprimanded her. When one of his wives sought permission for participation in Jihad, Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that women’s Jihad is Hajj.

There was a greater need to teach women in the early days because all who came to Islam were non-Muslims. But, the method devised by the Sahaabah was for the menfolk to teach their women. This is the original and the only system of the Sunnah for the ta’leem of females.

(c) “The same token” mentioned in the aforementioned opinion existed even during the time of the Sahaabah as well, and it existed in every age. The argument that the ‘facilities’ for ta’leem ‘are not accommodated for in the houses’ is incorrect. What prevents all the men who participate in tableegh jamaat activities, teaching their womenfolk? Why have the Tableegh Jamaat departed from the age-old Sunnah methodology (Tareeqah) of Ta’leem for women? Why does the Jamaat not also concentrate on the ‘home facilities’ to which Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan refers? A man spends years in Tableegh activities, travelling around the country and the globe, but he is unable to teach his womenfolk! In fact, he is unwilling, and his unwillingness stems from lack of understanding the objectives and priorities of Tableegh. Allah Ta’ala commands in the Qur’aan Majeed: “O People of Imaan! Save yourselves and your families from the Fire.”

The method of saving is Ta’leem and Tarbiyat – teaching the Shariah and moral training. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Every one of you is a shepherd, and every one of you will be questioned about his (or her) flock.” It is the Waajib obligation of the males in the house to impart Ta’leem to their womenfolk. But, not only do they grossly neglect their homes, they are not even aware of their obligation since this issue does not feature in the syllabus of the Tableegh Jamaat. It is hideously corrupt to expect women from another locality or another country to come and teach the womenfolk who are the responsibility of their husbands and fathers.

What exactly is meant by the lack of accommodation in the houses? This is extremely ambiguous, in fact baseless. The men have to create the necessary ‘accommodation for the necessary facilities’ in their houses. The Tableegh Jamaat should highlight this accommodation feature to its members and impress on them the imperative importance of cultivating the accommodation in their houses. If the menfolk are able to create the ‘accommodation’ for males outside their homes, why can they not create it in their own respective homes for their beloved ones?

In which way did this ‘accommodation’ exist in the houses during the time of the Sahaabah and during the Khairul Quroon era? There is the Waajib need to revive that method which had been imparted to the Ummah by the Sahaabah, but which method the Ummah has today abandoned. It therefore, devolves on those who purport to be in the Path of Allah to revive the Sunnah method, and not fabricate a new method which in addition to being bereft of Islamic spirit and ethos, is in conflict with the Nusoos of the Shariah.

It is not possible “to take into cognizance all the boundaries of the Shariat” when women emerge from their homes, especially for participation in a mass movement. When women emerge from their homes, the Hadith tells us that shaitaan lies in ambush for her. He will most assuredly manipulate her for spreading fitnah. Women’s mass movements are the innovations of the western kuffaar. The boundaries of the Shariat in this context are not restricted to wearing the cloak (and that too, defective cloaks) and the face-cloth. The very first boundary of the Shariat which the women violate is emergence from the home to participate in mass activity which Islam has not imposed on them in any degree whatsoever. Their Tableegh is confined to their flock – their children at home.

(d) Entrusting children to the grandmother while the mother departs on a tableegh mission in a distant country for which she has not been created, is abhorrent in the extreme. This advice is indeed shortsighted to say the least. Allah Ta’ala has bestowed the Amaanat of children to the mother, not to the grandmother. The grandmother is an emergency option. It is hideously abnormal for the mother to abandon her little children and embark on globe-trotting to make tableegh to others. This advice is in diametric conflict with the Hadith: “Every one of you will be questioned regarding your flock.” It is indeed cruel for a mother to abandon her little children and to dwell in the deception that she has discharged her maternal obligation by casting her flock to their grandmother. There is a vast difference between a mother and a grandmother. Furthermore, her abandonment of her flock is more reprehensible in view of tableegh to the masses not being her obligation. The Shariah does not call on her to embroil herself in a mass women’s movement for conducting mass tableegh. We respectfully say that the Honourable Muftis have grievously erred in their personal opinion for which they lack any Shar’i substantiation.



In expressing his view on female participation in mass tableegh which requires undertaking of journeys, Hadhrat (rahmatullah alayh) said:

“The delicateness of this work with regards to women increases considerably. Women should never be brought to open gatherings when there is a possibility of no observance of purdah. Instead, a day should be stipulated when the women from nearby homes gather at a concealed place within their area to do ta’leem. It should begin by men informing their womenfolk of what they hear in the Ijtimas, da’wat, ta’leem, etc. In this way, Insha-Allah, their mind-set will begin to form in a short span of time.”

So much is perfectly correct. There is no objection to this. However, the reality is that the gatherings of the ladies are not held at concealed places. The concealed place is the exception while the public place has become the norm. This is the natural consequence of any mass women’s activity and of emergence from the home. In Durban at one large Musjid, when bayaans take place, women converge in droves, driving cars shamelessly. They shamelessly take up the parking lots allocated for the musallis of the Musjid. Ulama have explained to us that they have to lower their gaze in shame for the women protruding from their vehicles. They think nothing of pulling up their vehicles next to males. They strut to the women’s section regardless of the staring eyes of the males whose purity of heart becomes contaminated by the arrival of these shameless women clad in mock burqahs.

At the main Musjid in Malabar Port Elizabeth, the ladies jamaat sometimes have their programme at a house directly opposite of the Musjid’s main entrance. They commence their programme during the afternoon. They fill the Musjid’s parking space with their vehicles and shamelessly strut to the opposite house. When musallis arrive for Asr Salaat, some of the cars of the ladies are still blocking the parking spaces. Without any vestige of haya (shame) they jaywalk into the parking space and concerned males have to retreat into Purdah whilst these be-sharam (shameless), be-haya (immodest) tableeghi aunts stroll to their cars. Regardless of the takleef (inconvenience) they cause the musallis, it is of no concern to them. They labour under the hallucination of having accomplished a great feat by shamelessly leaving their homes, shamelessly parking their vehicles in the Musjid’s parking lot and shamelessly returning to retrieve their vehicles in full view of the arriving musallis.

Thus, the talk of ‘concealed places’ and observance of Purdah by women who destroy their modesty with frequent emergence and participation in group activities, be it tabligh, are devoid of substance, are uttered for self-deception and to soothe the conscience. and to convey the idea that everything is in order when in reality, the basis is corrupt. Allah Ta’ala has moulded woman for the home-role, not for the street-role. Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf Kandelwi’s advice that tableegh should be initiated by men at home, imparting ta’leem to them, is the only correct and Sunnah method.

The accretion of the mass women’s movement is a bid’ah fraught with dangerous moral consequences which will yet be seen in the future. However, the advice of sending out women’s jamaats on journeys is most certainly baatil. It is a huge error. Even great Ulama err. The criterion is always the Shariah which is the product of the Qur’aan, Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Ummah. Women’s tableegh jamaat is in conflict with all three Sources of the Shariah. The ‘fatwa’ of permissibility does not proffer even a single Shar’i daleel. Taqleed of unsubstantiated raai (opinion) is not valid.



Hadhrat Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) is reported to have said:

“When any query regarding tabligh comes to the Darul Uloom then I personally answer it. I don’t give it to any other mufti because I am unaware what answer would be given.”

Indeed this attitude is highly erroneous and disturbing. It is expected that the Muftis staffing the Ifta Department of Darul Uloom Deoband are highly qualified and accomplished Ulama who have all the qualifications to issue fataawa on the principles of the Shariah. The statement of Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan, if correctly narrated, registers a vote of no-confidence in the Ifta’ Department of Darul Uloom. This is manifestly unjust and incorrect. In view of his bias for the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat, his fatwas cannot enjoy genuine credibility because on his own admission, he will answer the istifta’ (question) with a preconceived bias which constrains him to refute the istifta’ even before having studied the contents. Since other Muftis of the Ifta’ Department will subject the istifta’ to the scrutiny of Shar’i dalaa-il, they are better poised to present a fatwa unadulterated with bias.



Another spurious argument tendered in favour of women’s tableegh jamaat journeys is:

“The Ulama and pious people together with their womenfolk undertake optional Haj and Umrah trips travelling with planes, trains, buses, etc. in the presence of many strange men, yet no problem is perceived therein. Thus no problem should arise with regards to ladies Jamaats as well since its manifest benefits are apparent.”

This argument is invalid for several reasons:

(i) The primary premises (maqees alayh) in this syllogism is itself corrupt and in need of a Shar’i ruling. It is not a principle nor an absolute Shar’i permissibility. It is therefore improper to seek a ruling for ladies tableegh journeys on the basis of this corrupt primary premises. It simply lacks the viability for being the Maqees Alayh.

(ii) What is the Shar’i basis and dalaa-il for claiming that optional Hajj and Umrah are permissible for women in the current scenario of fitnah and fasaad? There is no valid Shar’i basis for claiming permissibility for these female journeys in these times of immorality and fitnah.

(iii) The averment that “no problem is perceived” with these optional Umra journeys, is arbitrary and incorrect. On the contrary, we maintain the same attitude and state the same ruling for women going for optional Hajj and Umrah in the current era of fitnah.

(iv) What the Ulama and pious people of this age are doing is not necessarily permissible nor does it constitute Shar’i daleel. Numerous Ulama are embroiled in flagrant acts of fisq and fujoor. The personal deeds and misdeeds of the Ulama and pious people do not constitute Shar’i daleel, and may not be cited as such, especially in the present age of laxity and indifference towards the Shariah displayed by even the Ulama and pious people.

Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrated that Allah Ta’ala sent Wahi to Nabi Yusha’ (alayhis salaam) that He would soon be destroying the 60,000 inhabitants of a certain city. Among these inhabitants were 20,000 Auliya whose A’maal (righteous deeds) were as the deeds of the Ambiya. Extremely perplexed, Nabi Yusha’ (alayhis salaam) supplicated to Allah Ta’ala: “O Allah! That you will destroy the disobedient ones is understandable. But why will You destroy even the Auliya.” Allah Ta’ala revealed to Nabi Yusha’ (alayhis salaam) that these Pious Men became complacent with the evil of the masses. They became so desensitized as a consequence of mingling and fraternizing with the transgressors that the villainy of their misdeeds departed from their hearts. As a result of this attitude, they abstained from Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar, hence the punishment has become halaal for them as well.

Therefore, understand well, that the deeds of the Ulama and the pious people, especially of this corrupt era should not be presented as daleel for any activity which is in need of a Shar’i ruling. We are aware of Ulama and Muftis who visit the beachfronts with their womenfolk during the kuffaar holiday seasons. They savour their nafs and gratify their bestial lusts by feasting their eyes on the mobs of bikini-clad faajiraat and kaafiraat. Neither these Ulama nor their womenfolk any longer possess any haya. What type of a wife is the woman who can tolerate to be with her molvi husband at the beachfront where naked women parade in profusion? The Honourable Muftis should present solid Shar’i dalaa-il. The deeds of the Ulama and pious people of the time are not among such proofs of the Shariah. In short, it is not permissible in this age for women to go for Nafl Hajj and Umrah. It is not permissible to commit haraam for the sake of acquiring a Nafl act.



Some Molvi Sahib annotating the fatwa of Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) wrote:

“In our Fiqah, the fatwa is given on the view of Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh) on matters pertaining to Qadha and Waqf, not on the view of Imaam A’zam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) despite him being the Ustaadh. Mufti Mahmood Gangohi and Mufti Muhamad Yusuf Ludhyanwi are Tabeeighi members.. …”

(The annotation is incomplete on the fatwa copy sent to us.) Nevertheless, the purport of this comments is to convey the idea that just as the fatwa on Qadha and Waqf matters is generally given on the view of Imaam Abu Yusuf, so too the fatwa on Tableeghi issues should be the fatwa of the Tablighi Molvis.

This averment is laughable. The Molvi Sahib who has made this comment has failed to understand the issue pertaining to Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh). Fatwa on his view applies to issues in which he had greater knowledge. For example, a Mufti who has expertise in the capitalist system of banking, shares, trade and commerce, is in a better position to issue fatwa than his Ustaadh who lacks such knowledge. His fatwa will not run counter to Mansoos Ahkaam as do the fatwas of the Tablighi Molvis.

Consider the example of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). His knowledge supersedes the combined knowledge of all the Ulama of our day. Nevertheless, there were many new developments of which he lacked expertise, hence he could not issue fatwa on such questions. Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) explained to us that when the question of shares was posed to Hadhrat Thanvi, he consulted with a trader in Saharanpur. The poor trader explained what he thought shares are. His explanation conveyed to Hadhrat Thanvi that shares were a valid Shirkat (Partnership) venture. Thus, on the basis of this misconception, Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said that shares are permissible. However, when Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) studied the explanation which we had prepared, he was 100% in agreement with our view of hurmat, that shares are haraam.

In fact, when Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) read our explanation, he too issued an unambiguous fatwa of impermissibility. But, the compilers of Fataawa Mahmoodiyah, deemed it appropriate to perpetrate Kitmaanil Haqq (Concealment of the Truth) by conveniently either destroying that fatwa or placing it in the archives where no one will come to know of it. In their clouded opinion it was appropriate not to include this particular Fatwa of Hadhrat Mahmoodul Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) in Fataawa Mahmoodiyah. Anyone interested in the Fatwa, may write to us.

But as far as the Tableeghi Molvis are concerned, their fatwas on their own activities are clouded with bias and short-sightedness, hence it is preposterous to contend that other Ulama who possess greater insight and are unbiased and look at things objectively in the light of the Shariah, and who are aware of all the ins and outs, advantages and disadvantages of the Jamaat, lack the ability for issuing fatwa on Tableeghi issues. If the Tableeghi Molvis find any flaw in our views, they should pinpoint our errors. It serves no good purpose to merely harp monotonously on the benefits of the women’s mass tableegh jamaat without answering the Shar’i dalaa-il which are proffered for the prohibition.

It is quite palpable that in view of the females jamaat promoters lacking Shar’i dalaa-il coupled to their inability to respond to the Shar’i dalaa-il the opposition proffers, they resort to side-stepping and ignoring the dalaa-il which impugn their stance. A refutation is valid only if it also counters and rebuts rationally with dalaa-il the arguments of the adversary. An article which skirts and ignores the dalaa-il of the adversary is not a valid refutation. It is simply an essay stating the views of the writer. There are benefits in everything, even in eating pork, consuming liquor and gambling. But such benefits cannot be cited for repealing and cancelling any Shar’i hukm. What the Tableeghi Jamaat Molvis are guilty of is abrogation of Mansoos Ahkaam, and this is haraam and intolerable. Such Qiyaas which is in conflict of Nass-e-Shar’i is not valid.

The view of a senior Mufti minus Shar’i dalaa-il is essentially raai – his personal opinion which carries no Shar’i weight. It may not be imposed as a Shar’i Hukm. It is essential to understand that a Fatwa is in fact the Law of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It is not personal opinion. There is absolutely no resemblance between women’s emergence for undertaking journeys in the midst of fitnah and fasaad for tableegh activities which are not Waajib for them, and the Qadha and Waqf issues which Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh) had to rule on. During the era of Khairul Quroom, Qadha and Waqf were in the evolutionary stage which comported with the Shar’i concept of Ijtihad which was then in vogue. Qadha and Waqf related to an evolving Shar’i corpus of Ahkaam which was in the formative stage. But all of the Fatwas of Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh) were structured on the Shar’i Usool evolved by Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) on the basis of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith.

It is simply an issue of new developments with which Imaam Abu Yuisuf had to deal with, hence precedence is given to his rulings. But, by this time, every mediocre Molvi is also fully acquainted with every iota pertaining to the Tableegh Jamaat. There is nothing new today in the Jamaat. On the contrary, whilst the Jamaat may be on the incline quantitively speaking, in Shar’i terms it is actually on the decline. The manifest sign for this fact is the ghulu’ which has set into the Jamaat at all levels. In the rulings of Imaam Abu Yusuf there were no factors of hurmat. On the other hand, journeys of females are accompanied by a number of exceptionally evil, haraam factors. A Mufti who fails to see and understand these glaring Asbaab-e-Hurmat should desist from issuing fatwa on this specific issue of females undertaking journeys.

Next: Tableegh Has Never Been a ‘Need’ That Permitted Women Emerging

Back to Contents