Mufti Taqi’s fatawa on Pornography on the Internet


http://reliablefatwas.com/honourable-mufti-taqi-sahib-it-is-now-too-late/NOURABLE MUFTI TAQI SAHIB – IT IS NOW TOO LATE!

 

Honorable Mufti, Its too late now!!!!!

[By Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai]

Hadhrat  Mufti Taqi Sahib has issued the following fatwa:

THE PERILS OF THE ONLINE WORLD. LET US STOP DELUDING OURSELVES.

‘One of the major sinful involvement of our era is viewing the sexually explicit material online. May Allah protect us all from it. Ameen!

It is haraam (impermissible) for a person to have an Internet connection and computer devices if he cannot keep himself from viewing these material online.Throw them away!  This is an essential spiritual struggle (mujahidah) to gain Allah’s pleasure.” 26 Ramadan 1437/2 July 2016, Masjid Dar ul Uloom Karachi. (End of Fatwa)

OUR COMMENT

Mufti Taqi Sahib should take the liability of the sins of millions of Muslims for whom he had  widely opened the avenue of pornography by issuing his baatil, corrupt opinion of the permissibility of video and digital pictures of animate objects. He is responsible for the ruin of the Akhlaaq of innumerable juhala Muslims and so-called molvis who are worse than even the juhala.

The one who initiates a fitnah will have to bear the colossal and terrible burden of the sins of all those who indulge in that fitnah which he had initiated. It is now too late for the statement of condemnation of ‘sexually explicit material’. It is now of no effect to say that such porn on the internet is haraam? It is of no benefit to say “Throw them away!” The addicts of pornography will not throw the computers away.

Mufti Taqi Sahib has addicted them to the porn which once upon a time they had not dared to view. May Allah Ta’ala save us from the traps of shaitaan – Talbeesul Iblees.  May Allah Ta’ala save us from the evil lurking in our nafs – evil which the Ulama of the era present in ‘deeni’ hues.

Mufti Taqi Sahib and ourselves are on the threshold of Maut (Death) which is stalking us  every moment. The Qabr calls on us five times a day: “I am an abode of sand! I am an abode of darkness! I am an abode of worms (and scorpions and snakes, etc.)! I am an abode of torment!, etc.”

Muftis who  have deflected the masses from Siraatul Mustaqeem with their baatil, haraam and corrupt fatwas, should  reflect on Maut and the Qabr as all of us are required to do. There is not much time left  for life to end.

Mufti Taqi’s only succour now is to make valid amends by issuing a massive retraction of his baatil fatwa and then go on a campaign to denounce pictography which is the fundamental basis and root of the pornography which he now says is haraam.

Our evil will live and haunt us into the Grave and into Qiyaamah. Reckless production of corrupt/baatil ‘fatwas’ which open the gateway for fitnah, fasaad, fisq and fujoor which are all the stepping stones for kufr, is the height of satanic irresponsibility displayed by the muftis of this era. A Mufti is required to constantly hover between Jannat and Jahannam when he is about to issue a fatwa. And, this has greater applicability when the Mufti Sahib is in the twilight of life, on the verge of meeting Allah Azza Wa Jal. If this is not his attitude, he will be rudely shocked when suddenly Malakul Maut stands in his presence.

The burden of the sins of the masses shall have to be carried by the Mufti who had opened the avenue for fisq and fujoor thereby issuing a halaal certificate for the villainy which Allah Azza Wa Jal has made haraam.

Advertisements

Cell phones and Muslim children


The use of cell phones  by children to swap nude pictures of themselves and to indulge in immoral sexually explicit conversations have become an international craze. The morally destructive consequences of  the cell phone, especially for children, is worst than the Satanism of the television.

According to experts in this field, girls are worse offenders than boys. A report on the cell phone evil states: “Also driving the sexting trend is the increased use of  smartphones, as well as celebrities such as Kim Kardashian, Khanyi Mbau and Paris Hilton having sex tapes and nude pictures of themselves in circulation.”

Aggravating this Satanism is the almost total lack of moral ta’leem in Muslim homes, and the spiritually ruinous effects of so-called ‘Islamic’ secular schools.

In these circumstances, how can it ever be permissible for parents to provide their children with cell phones? For children cell phones are a free licence  for indulgence in fornication, wide-ranging  immorality and sexual perversion.

PHOTOS ARE HARAAM PICTURES IN THE UNANIMOUS RULING OF ALL THE FUQAHA OF ALL MATH-HABS


THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT DAJJAAL’S EYE’S (TELEVISION’S) PICTURES
ARE NOT HARAAM TASWEER (PICTURES) ARE FUSSAAQ OF THE FIRST
DEGREE.

The one who takes photos or gets his photo taken is a Faasiq
& Salaat behind him is Makrooh-e-Tahreemi
According to the fatwa of:
Hazrat Moulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani r.a. (author of I’laa-us-Sunan)
Hazrat Hakeemul Ummat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi r.a.
Hazrat Mufti Shafee’ Saheb r.a. (illustrious father of Mufti Taqi Saheb)
Hazrat Moulana Asghar Husain Saheb r.a.
Shaykhul Fiqh wal Adab Hazrat Moulana i’zaaz Ali Saheb r.a.
Hazrat Moulana Shamsul Haq Saheb r.a.
Hazrat Mufti Mas’ood Ahmad Saheb r.a., Naa’ib Mufti Darul Uloom
Deoband
——-
Moulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani r.a. (author of I’laa-us-Sunan) writes:
The Hurmat of tasweer (pictures/photos) are established from
Mutawaatir Ahaadeth,
and there is Ijmaa’ on it being Haraam.
Explaining that there is no difference between a hand-drawn picture and a
photo taken by a camera, Moulana writes:
“Since making a picture is Haraam, whatever means are invented
whereby a picture is formed will also be Haraam.
Merely by the name changing or by the instrument/method changing, the
Hurmat (non-permissibility) doesn’t go away…
Therefore, those who take photos or who have their photos taken, both
are doing a Haraam act , and are committing a major sin, and according
to some Hadeeth, such a person is a Faasiq and is mal’oon (accursed).
To perform salaat behind such a person is Makrooh-e-Tahreemi,
and to keep such photos in the house or in one’s possession is a sin and
it’s Haraam.
Hakeemul Ummat Hazrat Thanwi r.a. made tasdeeq of the above fatwa
with the words:
“haadhaa huwal haqq, wa maa dhaa ba’dal haqqi il-lad dwalaal”
Ashraf Ali, 23 Rajab 1356 a.h.
(imdaadul ahkaam 4/384)
Hazrat Mufti Shafee’ Saheb r.a. has written:
The Ahaadeeth on the Hurmat of tasweer are so much that if a person
claims that they are Mutawaatir, his claim will in all likelihood be
correct…
To say that a photo (taken by a camera) is not a tasweer (picture) is
badaahat kaa inkaar (like denying the existence of the sun)…
Not to regard a photo as a tasweer is tantamount to making tahreef of
the Nusoos of Shariat (distorting the clear texts of Shariat), which
is another separate grave sin…
It is clear from the above that both, to draw a picture of an animate
object and to take a photo of an animate object, is a major sin…
The one who takes a photo or gets his photo taken is a faasiq…
If there is a pious Imaam (who is not a Faasiq), then to perform Salaat
behind such a person is Makrooh-e-Tahreemi
Muhammad Shafee’, MudarrisDarul Uloom Deoband
3 Sha’baan 1356 a.h.
Al jawaab saheeh – (Hazrat Moulana) Asghar Husain
Al jawaab saheeh – (Hazrat Moulana) i’zaaz Ali, Mudarris Darul Uloom
Deoband
Al jawaab saheeh – (Hazrat Moulana) Shamsul Haq, Mudarris Darul Uloom
Deoband
Al jawaab saheeh – (Hazrat Mufti) Mas’ood Ahmad, Naa’ib Mufti Darul
Uloom Deoband
(jawaahirul fiqh vol.4/pg.62,63 – deoband 1409/1988)
(Maulana M.A.Qaasim)
BY: Jamiatul Ulama South Africa
PO Box 2282, Port Elizabeth, 6056
5July2012

Television and pictures are haraam!


DAJJAL’S EYE

THE PERMISSIBILITY VIEW IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

FATWA BY THE ULAMA OF DARUL ULIM ZAKARIYYA

In the name of All?h, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Respected Ulam? and guides of the Ummah,
The objective of this dissertation in front of you is neither to express our knowledge nor to admonish anyone, but rather, it is only a means of fulfilling our responsibility of “Taw??i bil ?aqq” (enjoining of good) which generally, every Muslim, and more specifically, those who are connected to the knowledge of D?n are bound to. In this regard these few lines are presented to you.
All of us agree that the television, which in this era is a dominant prelude to the Fitnah of Dajj?l and an effective, powerful tool of the devil, the evils of which are innumerable. It plays a pivotal role in inciting evil and shamelessness in people. In short, if wine is the mother of all vice, then without a doubt, the television can be named the mother of all evil. It is also a reality that the anti-Islam forces are utilising it as an effective weapon against Islam and the Muslims. You will therefore see that in countries targeted by these anti-Islam forces in war, first they attack the moral fibre and Im?ni (core belief) qualities of the Muslims there via the media, especially via the television. Then only do they attack this weakened people with their military means.
Television contains photographs, the broadcasting/airing of music and/or video containing images of non-Ma?ram males for females and non-Ma?ram females for males, and these have all been unanimously ruled as impermissible actions. Television without a doubt is a definite means of one becoming involved in those ?ar?m actions. This is one of the reasons why in itself, television should be deemed impermissible. Just as in the original prohibition of wine or interest, Nabi (SAW) deemed the means that assist in consuming wine or interest as deserving of being cursed. The Fuqah? have written in detail with regards to ‘means’ which in brief suggests that the means used to bring forth ?ar?m will unanimously be prohibited as well, if it is on the level of being a certain or most probable cause of dissension. However those means which are rarely the cause of dissension are not considered, as “Al N?dir Kal Mad?m” (the rare is like the inexistent).
Now it needs to be clarified as to which category of means does the television fall? I am of the view that all the scholars and people of intellect are unanimous of it being a means of certain dissension. Its benefits are of a temporary and imaginary nature. At this juncture this principle of the Fuqah? needs to be kept in front of us:
‘Averting evil is preferred over drawing benefit. If evil and benefit clash, averting evil will be given preference because Nabi (SAW)’s concern for abstinence from the forbidden was deeper and more severe than his concern with obeying orders. Nabi (SAW) said: “Abstain from what I forbid you from and do what you can of what I order you to do.” (Al-Bukh?r?, Al-Muslim)’
• Ulam? appearing on television programmes will cause the notion of permissibility to spread amongst the Muslims and the general public will not be able to adhere to clauses and conditions. This will result in televisions being brought into the homes due to a so-called “need”, which tomorrow, will become the adornment of every home. It is clear that the burden will be on the shoulders of those who permitted it.
• Television will become so common that the gravity of its evil consequences will perish totally from the hearts of the people. At present it is seen that at the very least the television is switched off and stored away upon the arrival of an A?lim to a person’s home, or at the approach of the blessed month of Rama??n. This too will not be endured.
• Furthermore, if we examined the countries which have issued a Fatw? of permissibility; we would surely see what destruction the television has caused! People have resorted to incest (adultery with their own sisters and daughters). At present, the plight of three Ulam? has reached me. While browsing the internet for good content, they were led into viewing obscene sites.
• Merely stating that; “if we do not fill the slot, people of falsehood will utilize it to spread more wrong and evil”, is not sufficient to warrant permissibility of television. These channels were previously present and this ‘benefit’ is very limited in comparison to our benefit or harm.
• It is necessary to discard/discontinue a Musta?ab action if it constitutes the incurrence of sin due to a ?ar?m deed. The discarding of a Musta?ab action is in itself not worthy of reproach. Therefore it follows that it is not permissible to reproach someone for omission of a Musta?ab action.
• The Ulam?’s having a difference of opinion amongst themselves with regard to the permissibility or impermissibility of the use of television, causes more disunity and dispersion. This gives an opportunity to some desire-following, fearless-of-the-hereafter type of people to spoil the environment even more.
• Quoting the saying of Im?m Abu ?an?fah (RA) when he said; “A person involved in frivolous activities should be greeted, so that he may become involved in good for that amount of time”, does not warrant permissibility. A Fatw? permitting television will be tantamount to inviting countless people to numerous, even more frivolous activities.
• The argument that we should ‘move with the times’ is not entirely correct. Rather the new means of propagation (here, television) should be completely pure from all objectionable actions and material in order for us to adopt it as a means to propagate our D?n.
• The words and actions of ?a?rat Gangoh? (RA) should also be kept in mind that when it was strongly advocated that a person who was not following Shariah should be made a member of D?rul Ul?m Deoband, he said: “It is a sin to make such a person a member while it is not necessary to run a D?rul Ul?m”.
Even if this advancement seems to be somewhat beneficial to those who advocate permissibility, then too it is certain that the harms outweigh the benefits.
• Certainly the general rule that ‘necessity allows the forbidden to be permissible’ is an accepted law derived from the Qur’?n and A??d?th. The consuming of ?ar?m food items, for example, at the time need falls under the ambit of this very principle. However it is necessary to study the circumstances under which the impermissible will become permissible. This D?n belongs to All?h and He has taken responsibility of protecting it. We are only subject to using the permissible means to teach and propagate it.
• The group spreading and propagating D?n the most nowadays is the Tabl?gh? Jam?t; Did they utilize the television?
• Spreading of falsehood via the television is certain. At most people may derive some beneficial knowledge through it; however the light of Im?n will not spread via this means.
• We also need to ascertain whether we have utilised all the permissible means of Da’wah at our disposal as they ought to be used.
• However much sternness is used in prohibiting the television, in light of the Shariah and intellect is, in fact, less.
• At the most, those claiming permissibility label the use of television as permissible or Musta?ab. Is this then worth creating a divide between groups and within the Ulam? fraternity?
• Some Ulam? viewing video clips on their mobile phones is their own personal action and cannot be used as a Shar’? proof to substantiate permissibility.
• Conditions dictate that in a few years a television will be part of every household. Is not the call of intelligence and wisdom that we keep ourselves pure from that filth?
• Finally, until that time that the television is not cleansed from all types of forbidden actions in Shariah, issuing a Fatw? on its permissibility or allowing participation on its programs is an extremely dangerous step and a grave responsibility, as we are inviting a great burden upon ourselves.
And All?h alone knows best and to Him is our return.
Shabbier Ahmed Saloojee (Moul?n?)
D?rul Ul?m Zakariyya, South Africa
Endorsed by:
Ra??ul ?aqq (Muft?) who added: I feel that Ulam? should abstain from appearing on television.
Mu?ammad Al? (Muft?)
Al?udd?n (Moul?n?)

ISSUED BY: Jamiatul Ulama South Africa, PO Box 2282, Port Elizabeth, 6056
Email: jamiatusa.est1970@gmail.com