All the facilities of the Musjid—the shoe racks,
the water, the taps, the toilets, the towels and whatever else there may be—are
for the free use of all the musallis. No one has a preferential right to use any
of these facilities, not even the contributors/donors. It is not permissible for
any musalli to secure for himself exclusive use of any specific facility of the
Musjid in lieu of a payment. Whoever comes first, has the prior right to the
Waqf facility. Just as payment of a fee/rental cannot secure for one the
exclusive right to sit in a particular spot in the Musjid or use a particular
towel or a particular tap, or use a particular copy of the Qur’aan, etc., so
too is it not permissible to pay money to reserve for oneself the exclusive
right to use any particular shoe-box. All the shoe shelves/boxes are Waqf for
the use of all the musallis. Giving a particular musalli the exclusive right of
using a specific shoe-box infringes on the rights of the musallis who may come
to the Musjid earlier than the one who has paid ‘rent’. Sometimes he may not
even be present in the Musjid. The shoe-box will then remain unused to the
inconvenience of other musallis. Irrespective of the advantages of this system,
it is not permissible since it violates the rights of others and is in conflict
with the rules of Waqf pertaining to the Musjid facilities.
Q. An Islamic radio claims that it is permissible to wear the
trousers below the ankles because this is so according to Imaam Shaafi
(rahmatullah alayh). The Molvi who maintains this view is a Hanafi. Is this
correct?
A. The claim made by the Molvi is erroneous. On the assumption that this is
so according to Imaam Shafi (rahmatullah alayh), then it follows that according
to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), it is not permissible, hence the
Hanafi Molvi had to bypass the ruling of his own Math-hab and cite the view of
the Imaam of another Math-hab. This flitting from Math-hab to Math-hab for no
valid Shar’i reason is not permissible. It is dhalaal (deviation). Only if
there is a pressing need may an experienced and a pious Mufti issue a ruling in
a specific case in terms of another Math-hab from one of the Four Math-habs. But
it is haraam to jump, from Math-hab to Math-hab for sport, futility and to
entertain. The programs of these radios are designed to entertain. They submit
the teachings of the Shariah to nafsaaniyat. By stating that wearing the
trousers below the ankles is permissible according to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah
alayh), the Molvi is guilty of opening up a door of kabeerah sin. Wearing the
trousers below the ankles is a kabeerah sin according to the Hanafi Math-hab and
other Imaams, and according to Imaam Shafi while not a kabeerah sin in certain
cases, nevertheless, it is NOT permissible as the molvi of the radio claims. The
duty of Ulama is Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy anil Munkar. It therefore does not
behove them to encourage Muslims to drift from the Sunnah of Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) especially in this age of immorality and total
immersion in the ways of liberalism of the nude kuffaar. The duty of the Ulama
is to steer Muslims away from the ways and styles of the kuffaar and bring them
closer to the Sunnah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). What really
constrains a Molvi to manipulate technicalities to legalize an act the
overwhelming evidences of the Shariah indicate is haraam and a kabeerah sin? He
should examine his conscience and ask himself if the tareeqah of Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is to be abandonned and shunned in preference of a
kuffaar style simply on the basis of a minority view which the Molvi in fact has
not understood? Our explanation of this mas’alah appears elsewhere in this
issue of The Majlis. And why is it necessary for the Molvi to overlook the view
of his Imaam, Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh)—a view which is thoroughly
supported by authentic Ahadith—and propagate an assumed contrary view? The
only conclusion which a discerning person will gain is that the attemt is to
encourage Muslims to adopt the style of the kuffaar since the style in which
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah wore their trousers is
mocked by the kuffaar. May Allah Ta’ala protect Muslims from the evil effect
of those learned people who suffer from oblique vision and shallow understanding
which cannot fathom the wisdom of the Ahkaam of the Shariah.
Q. Some animals were purchased at an auction. Is it
permissible to make qur’baani with these animals?
A. It is permissible. What exactly has created a doubt in you in this
regard? Your question is not clear.
Q. Some haafiz boys shave their beards. But when Ramadhaan
approaches they grow their beards so that they could lead the Taraaweeh Salaat.
Is it permissible to allow them to lead the Taraaweeh?
A. If they repent and have decided not to again shave their beards, then it
is permissible for them to lead the Taraaweeh Salaat. However, if the intention
is to again shave the beard after Ramadhaan, as is the case with all of these
fussaaq so-called huffaaz, then it is not permissible for them to lead the
Taraaweeh nor is it permissible for anyone to appoint them as imaams to lead the
Taraaweeh.
Q. Can we perform Salaat in a Musjid which has no doors?
A. We really do not understand your question. What relationship do the doors
have with the Salaat? If there is even no building on the Musjid ground, then
too Salaat is proper. The Musjid is the actual land, not the building. If the
entire building is demolished and the ground stands vacant, it will still be a
Musjid, enjoying all the ahkaam (laws) pertaining to the Musjid.
Q. Is it permissible to give Zakaat to a Muslim widow?
A. If the widow is poor and does not own cash, gold and silver equal to
Nisaab value, then Zakaat may be given to her. If she is poor and has no income,
but owns gold or silver jewellery the equivelant of the Zakaat Nisaab (about
R1200), then it will not be permissible to give her Zakaat.
Q. I am residing in a town for the past 15 years. On account
of a disagreement with the mutawallis of the Mosque, I was banned from the
Mosque. I am now not allowed to perform Salaat in the Mosque. Do the mutawallis
have the right of debarring me from the Musjid?
A. We are not aware of the actual circumstances which has led to this
extreme and possibly haraam measure. If you are not guilty of causing fitnah and
problems in the Musjid, then no one has the right to debar you from entering the
Musjid. The mutawallis do not own the Musjid. If the mutawallis have no valid
Shar’i reason for debarring you, then they are guilty of a haraam act. If your
are in fact guilty of having created disturbance in the Musjid or you constitute
a threat or hinderance to the musallis in the Musjid, then repent and inform the
mutawallis of your regret and promise not to repeat your fitnah. If then too
they debar you, they are the followers of Abu Jahl. And, if they debar you on
Jumuah, then the Jumuah of the entire Jamaat will not be valid.
Q. Is it permissible to transfuse the blood of non-Muslims
into Muslims?
A. Blood is an impurity. Normally it is not permissible to use impure
substances for medical treatment. Whether it is the blood of a Muslim or
non-Muslim, the ruling is the same. In an emergency if there is no halaal
medicine/remedy available, it will be permissible to use blood.
Q. Is it permissible for a Muslim to consent for the removal
of parts of his body while he is alive, for transplantation for the benefit of
close relatives?
A. This is not permissible under any circumstances. Organs may not be taken
from even a dead body. Man is not the owner of his body. He may therefore not
give away any parts of his body. If he was the owner of his body, suicide would
have been permissible. The Shariah also prohibits the derivation of any use
whatsoever from parts of the human body.
Q. Can organs of non-Muslims be used in Muslims?
A. This is not permissible under any circumstances.
Q. When is a person pronounced dead in Islam? Organs like the
heart and kidneys are useful if removed while they are receiving adequate blood
perfusion. It is for this reason that when a person is pronounced “brain dead”
with only a machine keeping him alive, the organs are removed. Thereafter the
machine is switched off. What is the Islamic viewpoint of this concept and its
application?
A. Firstly, it is not permissible to remove any organs from the human body,
whether the person is alive or dead. Secondly, the concept of brain dead is
rejected by Islam. It is a concept created to deceive and soothe the minds of
people to enable doctors to slaughter a living person for grabbing his organs.
As long as the slightest blood perfusion takes place, the person is alive, i.e.
the Rooh is still in his body. The machine will ‘sustain’ life only as long
as the time of Maut has not arrived. The Qur’aan categorically declares: “No
person will die but with the permission of Allah at the appointed time.”
