Monday, April 28 2014 Written by Administrator  


Q. A scholar, Mufti Abu Layth has published some very queer views which appear to be in conflict with the Shariah. The following are some of his views:

Please comment on these fatwas.

A. This flotsam disgorged by the jaahil is not ‘fatwas’. This disgorgement of rubbish is in fact the kufr excrement of his nafs. This moron character is a perfect example of the Signs of Qiyaamah. In fact, he is a manifestation of the Truth of Rasulullah’s Nubuwwat. One of the evidences of the Truth of a Nabi is the fulfilment of his predictions. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted the appearance of miniature dajjaals and jaahil ‘muftis’ of the type of this human shaitaan. 

The corruption of the rubbish he utters is so conspicuous and so self-evident to even the layman that it requires no Ilmi (academic) response. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the Aimmah who mislead.” The world today abounds with deviate juhhaal who masquerade as Ulama. About these juhhaal, Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the ignoramuses will refer to them. These juhhaal will issue ‘fatwas’ of jahaalat. They will be astray and lead others astray. 

Never should such juhala be questioned on Deeni issues. In fact, looking at their mabghoodh, mal-oon faces is also fraught with danger to one’s Imaan. They emit a terrible stench of kufr and Satanism.

28 Jamadiyuth Thaani 1435 – 29 April 2014


Q. According to the lawyer, Mr. M. S. Omar, the view of a legal person and the view of the permissibility of transferring haraam money to a Waqf and its changing character therein are views expressed by Mufti Taqi and other senior Ulama. Please comment.

A. We are not the muqallideen of Mufti Taqi or of the other contemporary senior Ulama. We are the Muqallideen of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). Mufti Taqi’s view is his personal opinion unsubstantiated by Shar’i dalai-il. Such opinion is devoid of Shar’i standing and substance. We reiterate that:

(1)  A ‘legal person’ is a legal donkey. It is a fictitious donkey fabricated by capitalism to rob and fraud. There is no concept in Islam such as a legal entity or a legal donkey. A fiction has no reality in the Shariah. 

(2)  A Waqf and a Musjid are not legal donkeys. A Musjid building cannot own anything. A stone has no rights and obligations, and no powers of contracting as the neo-capitalists and slaves of the west propound. The Ulama who propagate these ugly and stupid theories of capitalism have lost their Islamic mental equilibrium. Their minds have become liberalized as a consequence of western mental conlonization, hence they blurt out stupid drivel – drivel such as a legal donkey and drivel such as haraam money becoming halaal if handed to a Musjid/Waqf. Their thinking is indeed putrid and despicable. 

The Hadith states very clearly that Allah Ta’ala does not accept haraam. Yes, the Shariah has opened an avenue for the elimination of haraam, i.e. to eliminate it from one’s possession. The avenues of elimination differ. According to some Ulama it has to be incumbently given to the Fuqara. According to some, it may be utilized for public works as well. But there is no opinion which condones the legal donkey concept or the dastardly notion of  giving haraam money to a Waqf. A Musjid is Waqf. Haraam money may not be used for any of the expenses of the Musjid. 

When Ulama associate, mingle and socialize with capitalist kuffaar, then their Islamic thinking and bearings become blurred. Then they get transformed into scholars for dollars, hence they unthinkingly blurt out just any liberal corruption which is in harmony with the theories and riba practices of the capitalists.


Q. When voting, a coloured ink is applied to the thumb nail. This colour remains on the nail for a few days despite washing. Will wudhu be valid?

A. If it is only ink, it does not form an impervious layer to prevent water. It should be washed thoroughly. The mark will not affect wudhu. Only if it forms an impervious layer as cutex does, will wudhu not be valid. We are not aware of the texture of the substance. If it is established that the substance remains on the nail  as a non-porous  layer, then it will not be permissible to vote because wudhu and ghusl will not be valid.