Allah Ta’ala says: “And do not confound Haq with Baatil and do not conceal the Haq whilst you are aware (of the Haq).” [Surah Baqarah, Aayat 42]

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah, the Aimmah-e-Mudhilleen (so-called Molvis, Sheikhs, Muftis and Imaams who mislead the masses).”

Question: I am sending you a tweet by Mf Ismail Moosa as well as the response to it. Please do comment on it for the benefit of the Ummah. It seems as if these Askimam characters are way off track. Your input will be highly appreciated.

Answer: Before responding, let us first present the tweet of Mf Ismail Moosa:

“I witnessed those who supported social distancing in prayer & those against it recite the Kalimah and pass away on Friday. I also noticed that Allah blessed those who took the vaccine & those against the vaccine with noble deaths. That is what made me tolerant to both views.” (End of the Askimam Molvi’s stupid principle)

Comment: This type of reasoning is in conflict with the Shariah. Passing away on Friday is not the criteria to determine Haqq and Baatil. Some Murtad so-called Ulama are pro-LGBTQ. Now if such Murtad Molvis die on Friday, then will this Askimam Molvi be tolerant to the pro-LGBTQ view???

A brother aptly responded to Mf Ismail Moosa as follows:

“Regardless of those two issues, this principle of yours (i.e. Mf Ismail Moosa – JamiatNC) is wildly incorrect. Sometimes a person engaged in fisq also recites kalimah and passes away on Friday. That should not make you tolerant of fisq. Many zanaadeeq also pass away on Friday. This is not how it works.”

In an extremely supine attempt to respond to the brother who stated the Haq above, Mf Ismail Moosa baselessly claimed:

“When there is something which is Dhanni, and we have Ulama on both sides, then why can we not use Qaraain such as these?” (Another stupid argument of jahl)

Responding to Mf Moosa’s retort, the brother further states the Haq even more clearly and thoroughly demolishes the baseless opinion of Mf Moosa as follows:

“Tolerance is based on whether it is ikhtilaaf or khilaaf. Initially, you said you determined this hukm based on whether the person died on Friday or not. Now you seem to be saying you already decided these are places of ikhtilaaf, but for some reason you needed qaraain to be tolerant of them?

If this is a place of ikhtilaaf, you should have already been tolerant with or without any further qaraain. I guess place of ikhtilaaf is what you intend by Dhanni, although I hope you don’t consider every ghair qat’i masalah to be a place of ikhtilaaf, otherwise there will be basically no masalah in which you will not be tolerant of haraam. Take music, for example. Fits your criterion of being dhanni and having ulema on both sides. So if a musician recites the kalimah and dies on Friday, will you be tolerant of this kabeerah?”

Before we comment further, an idea of the rot which leaks in the hearts of these Askimam-type ‘Muftis’ for the Ulama-e-Haq who condemn the Ahle-Baatil and the Ulama-e-soo can be understood from the following:

Another person asked: “Can u pls elaborate this? Couldn’t understand.”

In response, Mf Ismail Moosa states: “Was for South Africans. They all understand.”

Another person also queried: “Both died of COVID or something else?”

Mf Ismail Moosa responds: “Dont worry. Meant for South Africans.”

Accordingly, another brother stated: “If death is meant to be it will be. It’s the only guarantee we have in life. If one stands from afar it seems like the argument was just a way of backbiting at the other.”

Further, our comment is as follows:

Before responding, it is salutary to state that these Askimam and Wifaq Molvis, who object to the Ulama-e-Haq’s methodology of condemning the Ulama-e-Soo and exposing the Mudhilleen, are behaving like cowards. Their game is to hint at the Ulama-e-Haq, whilst this is in fact their veiled defence of the Mudhilleen.


The very first baseless argument of Molvi Ismail is that the issue is dhanni, which according to the Molvi is a basis for tolerating Baatil. What the Molvi falsely implies with his dhanni theory, is that a different opinion emanating from another Molvi cannot be condemned as Baatil, but it will be regarded as a valid difference of opinion because it is dhanni. In reality, this notion of Molvi Ismail is absolutely Baatil.

This Wifaq-type Askimam Molvi has indeed lost the path. The basis of a view being valid in terms of the Shariah is solid Shar’i dalaail. Just every differing view on a dhanni issue does not fall under the scope of valid ikhtilaaf. Whilst on a masalah, there could be two valid views, this is not the case in most masaail. Digital photography, music, shaving or trimming less than the Waajib fist-length beard, TV, Kuffaar sports, and innumerable other Haraam acts do NOT have two views. There is only one view on these issues. The opposing view does not fall under the scope of valid ikhtilaaf. Moreover, when the ikhtilaaf is not valid, the opposing view is Baatil. In addition, there is simply no tolerance for Baatil.


The second specious argument from the Dumb Shaytaan ilk is that there are Ulama on both sides. We have been hearing this drivel for more than a decade now. We thought that by now, some sense would have been knocked into the brains of the fence sitters, but unfortunately, the dumb devils and those tolerating the views of the Mudhilleen have sunk even deeper into an abyss of Inaad and satanic tolerance.

The Molvis who are defending the Mudhilleen, fail to realize that even if there are Ulama-e-Haq on both sides, then too it does not necessarily mean that both views are correct. The one view emanating from one group of Ulama-e-Haq could be Haq whereas an opposing view from another group of Ulama-e-Haq could be Baatil.

When this is the case between two groups of Ulama-e-Haq, then why can a difference of Haq-Baatil not take place between the Ulama-e-Haq and the Ulama-e-Soo? In fact, the fight between Haq and Baatil is primarily amongst the Ulama-e-Haq and the Ulama-e-Soo. Very rarely, will one find one group of Ulama-e-Haq trashing another group of Ulama-e-Haq. Genuine Ulama-e-Haq retract their incorrect views.

It is extremely important to note that even the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum criticized one another on Fiqhi Masaail, which were dhanni and which were not issues pertaining to Aqeedah. The Molvi’s research in this regard is very weak to say the least. He seems to be extremely ignorant that even when it came to the issue of a plague, the Sahaabah condemned those whom they felt were in error. They did not present stupid arguments such as ‘the issue is dhanni’, ‘we have Ulama on both sides’ and ‘both Ulama of different opinions are passing away on Friday or dying as Shaheeds from the plague’ which conclusively means that both views are correct as baselessly alleged by Mf Ismail Moosa. Study the following incident:

After the demise of Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah Bin Jarraah (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was the Governor of Shaam and the Supreme Commander of the Muslim army, had died along with numerous other Sahaabah in the Plague of Amwaas, Hadhrat Amr Bin Al’Aas (Radhiyallahu anhu) was appointed the Governor. In his Khutbah, he mentioned: “It (the plague) is rijs (filth, i.e. punishment), therefore spread out.”

Refuting him (i.e. his advice to spread out), Hadhrat Shurahbeel Bin Hasnah (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was a senior Sahaabi, a Scribe of the Wahi of the Qur’aan, and a senior Commander of the Army in Shaam, said: “I was in the company of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while Amr (Referring to Hadhrat Amr Bin Al’Aas) was more astray than my herd of camels. Verily, Nabi (Alayhis salaam) said: “It (the plague) is the Rahmat of your Rabb and the Dua of your Nabi and the demise of the Saaliheen before you. Therefore, remain firm (do not flee panic-stricken), and do not spread out.”

This rebuke of Hadhrat Shurahbeel (Radhiyallahu anhu) was delivered to Hadhrat Amr Bin Al’Aas (Radhiyallahu anhu). On hearing this, he said: “He (Shurahbeel) has spoken the truth.” [This narration is authentic]

The above Hadeeth thoroughly debunks the silly theory of the Askimam Molvi Ismail Moosa! ‘Ulama on both sides’ never means that the issue is automatically a valid ikhtilaaf on issues upon which there is no Ijmaa’ or no Qat’iyat! Millions of Masaail are not the effect of Qat’i Nusoos. Does it mean that every single view of every opposing Aalim should be tolerated simply on such baseless and flimsy grounds? What then will be left of the Shariah???

Difference of opinion is based on proper Shar’i Dalaail. The issues of satanic distancing in Salaat, vaccination and other Covid issues do not come within the scope of valid differences of opinion, i.e. valid ikhtilaaf. Social distancing in Salaat is Haraam. Vaccination is Haraam. Donning a mask in Salaat is Haraam. Music is Haraam. TV is Haraam. Intermingling of the sexes is Haraam. Pictures of animate objects are Haraam. The sanitizers are impure and Haraam, etc. etc. Any other opinion is Baatil and should be flushed down the drain!


Asking a silly question, the Molvi states: “When there is something which is Dhanni, and we have Ulama on both sides, then why can we not use Qaraain such as these?”

One cannot use Qaraain like these because the entire institution of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar will have to be abrogated if this ludicrous stance is adopted. Such reasoning is baatil and unexpected from a genuine Aalim of the Haq.

Baatil is Baatil. There is no tolerance for Baatil. Innumerable people from amongst the Ahle Baatil and even Kuffaar pass away on Friday. The views of Taha Karaan, Ebrahim Desai, uucsa, ctiec, subsa, samnet, imasa, jusa, etc. are Baatil! It is not permissible to show tolerance to Baatil!

The silly arguments of ‘dhanni’ and ‘ulama’ on both sides’ actually mean that Nahi Anil Munkar is not permissible on such Masaail according to the deviates. This is the effect of sciolism, which is found par excellence amongst those who are tolerant to Baatil, Fisq, and Fujoor. Such Molvis have been deceived by Shaytaan! This dunya is the arena for the conflict between Haqq and Baatil. Haqq cannot tolerate Baatil. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam did not show tolerance to Baatil. If the Molvi feels that social distancing in Salaat, closing the Masaajid and vaccination are valid practices according to the Shariah, then he should present the fictitious dalaail to ‘prove’ that they are valid differences of opinion. Then, the Ulama-e-Haq will Insha Allah thoroughly refute his imaginary proofs. Let us await his response…