WHAT DOES THE SHARIAH SAY REGARDING THOSE WHO LEFT BEHIND A LEGACY OF BAATIL, KUFR, FISQ, NIFAAQ AND ZANDAQAH???
Allah Ta’ala states: “We fling the Haqq on Baatil. Then it smashes its (i.e. Baatil’s) brains out. Then suddenly it vanishes.” (Surah Ambiyaa – Aayat 18)
Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “This Ilm (of the Shariah) will be borne by the pious of every successive generation. They (the Ulama-e-Haqq) will drive away from it (this Shariah) the interpolations of the deviates, the falsehood of the false-mongers and the interpretations of the ignoramuses.”
At the outset, it should be clearly understood that this article specifically refers to Mudhilleen (i.e. those who mislead the Ummah). Obviously, this circular does not refer in the least to all the deceased. The issue being discussed is whether a person who misled the Ummah, may be criticized after his death – not all dead people!
Recently, two famous Mudhilleen had perished in South Africa. Both had died of ‘Covid’ and both promoted vaccination. Since the Ulama-e-Haq condemned them even after their death, their supporters took offence at the condemnation and the followers of the Mudhilleen started to cite Ahaadeeth that the deceased should not be reviled and only the good of the deceased should be spoken about.
Unfortunately, many of the defenders and students of the Mudhilleen, despite them being graduates of some famous Darul Ulooms, have not been able to utilize their common sense notwithstanding the fact that they spent so many years studying Fiqh and Hadeeth at their respective Darul Ulooms.
What proof does a person, especially a Madrasah graduate, require to understand that the Mudhilleen may be disparaged even after their deaths just like how they were condemned whilst they were living? Nevertheless, take note of the following points:
1. No one says that it is permissible to speak ill of dead people in general terms. Speaking ill of the dead is impermissible. However, there are exceptions. In fact, in some cases, it is Waajib to criticize the dead person, such as exposing the deviate who poses a threat to the Deen or Imaan of the masses.
2. The issue is not just about picking out faults or running down a dead person. This is obviously pointless and the Shariah condemns such futile acts. The issue is about those who are misleading the Ummat. It is Waajib to inform the Ummat about their deviation so that others do not fall into deviation.
3. Many of these dead Mudhilleen such as Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai have propagated and written Baatil. They are a danger to the Imaan of the masses as will be explained further on Insha Allah. It is perfectly permissible to condemn the deviations of Al-Baani Salafi, Ibn Hazm Zaahiri, Ibn Taimiyyah, Ahmed Raza Khan, Moudoodi, etc. etc. All such deviates are criticized, despite them being dead! Whilst they are dead, what they propagated and publicized is not ‘dead’. Their publications and recordings are widely available. Thus, it is Waajib to respond and refute their drivel and all the Baatil which they disseminated to the masses whilst they were alive.
4. The science of Jarah and Ta’deel is a clear daleel (proof) for mentioning the ills and exposing the Baatil opinions of the Mudhilleen for the sake of protecting the Deen. There is Ijmaa’ (consensus) on the permissibility of mentioning the jarah (criticisms) which were hurled upon the majrooh raawis (narrators who were criticized) despite them having passed away hundreds of years ago. Those who are citing Ahaadeeth in defence of Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai, should reflect upon their folly and do some soul-searching before misinterpreting Ahaadeeth in the wake of defending the proponents of Baatil and the Mudhilleen.
5. If Ulama remain silent and do not expose the dead Mudhilleen, they will be conducting themselves like dumb Shayaateen. From this, one understands how evil, disgraceful and how much more worse it is to praise such Mudhilleen! The silence of the Ulama-e-Haq will cause more Fitnah. The Ahle-Baatil (people of falsehood) regard Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai to be from amongst the Ulama-e-Haq, whereas the reality is the direct opposite. Whilst they are dead, ignorant and misled people are still quoting their upside-down and corrupt Fatwas. It is thus Waajib for the Ulama to speak up against the evil so-called ‘Fatwas’ of the deviates.
6. Even the Fuqaha and Muhadditheen mention in their Fataawaa and Shuroohaat that the Hadeeth which prohibits condemning evil people, is not Aam (universal). Fussaaq, Bid’atis, Munaafiqeen, Zaalimeen, evil people, etc. are examples of those whom may be criticized EVEN after their death.
7. What was the practice of the Salafus Saaliheen in this regard? Let the defenders of Karaan and E. Desai (Askimam) elaborate on the reaction of Hadhrat Hasan Basri Rahmatullahi Alayh upon the death of Hajjaaj!!! This is but one example from many other examples of the Salafus Saaliheen which establishes the Haq. Furthermore, the ‘Akaabireen’ whom they love to quote when they feel like, should not be ignored in this regard. Every single Fatwa Kitaab of the Akaabireen is a ‘daleel’ that even the dead Mudhilleen may be condemned and criticized. What more can we say?
TAHA KARAAN & EBRAHIM DESAI (ASKIMAM)
It is necessary to elaborate on the Baatil opinions of Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai. However, the scope of this article does not allow a detailed analysis of their views. Insha Allah in separate articles and booklets, their views will be refuted Insha Allah. However, some of their main views are mentioned below:
1. Taha Karaan made Haraam what Allah Ta’ala made Halaal. It is perfectly Halaal for a healthy person to go to the Musjid. Due to covid-19, the Masaajid were closed to the extent that even healthy people were debarred from the Masaajid. It is Haraam to close the Masaajid. Thus, Taha Karaan also made Halaal what Allah Ta’ala declared to be Haraam. Karaan even attempted to defend this act of zulm in his scrapbook on pandemics, which is Alhamdulillah currently being refuted in instalments. Yet, it is seen that Husain Kadodia (Askimam deviate) admires the books of Taha Karaan.
2. Taha Karaan went to court to close the Masaajid. According to Ebrahim Desai, Karaan had a good intention. And the intention was to save lives. In other words, Ebrahim Desai was sitting on the fence when it came to uucsa going to court to close the Masaajid! On the one side, Ebrahim Desai did not advocate the closure of Masaajid, but at the same time, he seeks justification for the Kufr of uucsa running to court to close the Masaajid! How sickening indeed!
How can a person justify having a good intention for something which is clearly Haraam? In fact, it is Kufr and Nifaaq. How can a Muslim go to court to close the Masaajid? Besides that, Ebrahim Desai even attempted to defend his fence-sitting antics. Detailed refutations and exposures to save the masses from falling into the traps of the Mudhilleen will Insha Allah be published.
3. Taha Karaan declared the Ulama-e-Haq who were condemning him, to be Khawaarij. Khawaarij are a Kuffaar sect. Whilst Karaan and Ebrahim Desai did not agree that a spade should be called a spade, they were quick to jump to ex-Mufti Taqi’s defence and brand the Ulama-e-Haq as Khawaarij. Khawaarij are not Muslims. In addition, Karaan and Askimam’s E. Desai hurled many other ‘harsh’ words against the Ulama-e-Haq which appeared very sweet to their readers when they utilized such words, but bitter and harsh when the Ulama-e-Haq trashed them with similar words.
4. Their jumping in support of ex-Mufti Taqi was due to Shaytaani distancing in Salaat and the satanic Covid protocols which Taqi was promoting. Both Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai promoted Shaytaani protocols such as masks, ‘social distancing’ in Salaat, vaccination and much Covid drivel. Details on these will be published Insha Allah. Taqi, Karaan and Ebrahim Desai deliberately ignored the practice of the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum during plagues. This is clear-cut deviation.
5. They promoted the atheist contagion theory of Kufr. The attitude of the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum outrightly refutes their contagious views. Furthermore, Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said “Laa Adwaa” (there is no contagion).
6. We find both Karaan and Ebrahim Desai promoting tolerance for Baatil. They also did not expose those who were misleading the masses such as Ebrahim Bham and Co. They never knew the difference between valid and invalid differences of opinion. Hence, their views were clear-cut Baatil on a range of issues.
7. Furthermore, Karaan was a Faasiq. He violated the laws of Hijaab publicly, took photos and allowed himself to be videoed. Furthermore, he was part of the MJC – in fact the head so-called ‘mufti’ of the MJC. Why was he part of an organization, which is drowning in Haraam? It is clear that he regarded all the Haraam to be Halaal. The MJC are notorious for Kufr, Fisq, Fujoor and even Shirk. Karaan even tried to prove that although it is Haraam, but it is not Kufr to make Sajdah to an idol. The fact that a man denies the act of making Sajdah to an idol to be an act of Kufr indicates the Kufr mentality of such a deviate.
Yet, we find many of Ebrahim Desai’s students praising Taha Karaan. Birds of a feather flock together. There are several other issues also concerning Karaan and Ebrahim Desai. Many of their views were Baatil and absolute rubbish.
It is not permissible to speak good of those who dug up the foundations of the
Deen and instituted the process of demolishing Islam. Insha Allah, in upcoming booklets and articles, the relevant issues will be elaborately explained.
It has to be stated that there is tolerance and respect to VALID ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion). Every difference of opinion is not valid, immaterial of who propounds such a view. In this regard, many molvis and sheikhs have been misled. A valid academic difference is a view based on solid dalaail (proofs).
Islam does NOT teach us to show respect and tolerance to Baatil (falsehood) – incorrect opposing views. Valid ikhtilaaf is respected by the Ulama-e-Haq. The Ulama-e-Haq accept valid differences of opinions on many Masaail. But, Baatil is Baatil. People should not expect us to respect and honour Baatil.
The discussion pertains to the Baatil views and baseless opinions of Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai. To claim that the views of closing the Masaajid, satanic distancing and masks in Salaat, banning Musallis with a cough from the Masaajid, legalizing vaccination, photography, Sajdah to an idol, TV, intermingling of the sexes, attending Haraam functions, violating the laws of Hijaab, the Riba so-called Islamic banking, and a host of other Haraam actions, etc. etc. are backed with solid academic proofs, is UTTER NONSENSE! All such views are Shaytaaniyyat.
Valid academic differences on Deeni Masaail are most welcome, but not Baatil and views which promote kufr, especially on Covid-related issues. Indeed, Allah Ta’ala has exposed many Munaafiqeen, Mudhilleen and Zindeeqs with the Covid plandemic. The pen is the sword of the Ulama-e-Haq and it is their Waajib duty to defend the Deen. The Haq cannot be diluted or mixed with Baatil. Can people who went to court to close the Masaajid and those looking for stupid so-called husne zann excuses for them even be considered part of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah?
Allah Ta’ala states: “Who is a greater oppressor than the one who prevents the Thikr of Allah in the Masaajid, and he strives (plots) in its destruction?” (Surah Baqarah, Aayat 114)
Hadhrat Abu Zarr Radhiyallahu Anhu asked: “O Messenger of Allah. Which thing is more fearful than Dajjaal for your Ummat?”
Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam replied: “The Aimmah-e-Mudhilleen (so-called Molvis, Sheikhs, Muftis and Imaams who mislead the masses).” [Musnad Ahmed]
Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Name him so that people are saved from (the Fitnah) within him.”
This is amongst the beautiful advices Imaam-e-Aa’zam, Hadhrat Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah proffered to his illustrious student Imaam Abu Yusuf Rahimahullah. Such people are to be exposed! May Allah save us from the Fitnah of these Mudhilleen, Munaafiqeen and Zindeeqs!
After reading the above, it is indeed ludicrous and downright stupid to present to us Mufti Mahmood Gangohi’s Kitaab on ikhtilaaf and Shaikh Awwamah’s Adabul Ikhtilaaf. Their views are simply not applicable to us. Are all the Baatil opinions of Taha Karaan and Ebrahim Desai valid opinions according to Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan Gangohi and Sheikh Awwamah? Would they agree with Karaan that the Masaajid should be closed during a pandemic to save lives? If not, then would they agree with Ebrahim Desai that a person should have husne zann for Haraam acts? And perhaps if anyone agrees with such Baatil views, then our answer above suffices for them too.