Contemporary Issues

QUESTION: What is the Islamic position on women changing their surname to their husbands after marriage, does this have an Islamic basis? Is it permissible? Please explain.


There is no Islamic basis in this practice. However, in Arab tradition it was a custom to add the fathers name at the end of a child’s name. For example Muhammed bin Abdullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وصحبه وسلم), Aishah bint Abi Bakr, Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Umar ibnul Khattab, Anas ibn Malik etc. (may Allah be pleased with them all)

But, it requires a daleel (proof) for a practice to be deemed prohibited and we don’t find any daleel on this practice to be prohibited hence it is allowed for a woman to change her surname to her husbands.

Allah knows best.   

Answered by Mufti Mohammed Kashif

QUESTION: What is the ruling on saying ‘Shub Diwali’ to Hindus or ‘Merry Christmas’ to Christians?


Greeting non-Muslims on their festivals is not allowed and is strictly prohibited. If someone deems it good (i.e the non-Muslim festival), he is out of the fold of Islam and will have to renew his Shahadah and re-marry, if he is married.

Diwali marks the homecoming of the Hindu God, Ram, to his home after 14 years of exile and Christmas marks the birth of Jesus Christ, who they believe to be the son of God (may Allah forbid).

The Ulama have clearly stated that a Muslim becomes a kafir (disbeliever) if he deems any religious affairs of the Kuffar as good.

The famous book in usool, al-Ashbah Wa al-Nazdha’ir by Imam Ibn Nujaym, in its commentary Ghamz ʻUyūn al-Basāʼir it states;

اتفق مشایخنا ان من رأی امرالکفارحسنا فقد کفر حتی قالوا فی رجل قال ترک الکلام عنداکل الطعام حسن من المجموسی اوترک المضاجعۃ عندھم حال الحیض حسن فہو کافر

“The Scholars have unanimously agreed that if someone deems an act of the disbelievers as good, he is in fact himself committed kufr, so that even if a man says ‘to remain silent whilst eating is good as fire-worshippers do’ or ‘not having sexual intercourse is a good act that they perform (the fire-worshippers)’ he will become a kafir.”

[Ghamz ʻUyūn al-Basāʼir]

Allah knows best.

Answered by Mufti Mohammed Kashif

QUESTION: What do the ‘ulamā` of the noble Sharī’ah say concerning the donation or selling of one’s body parts such as the heart, liver, kidneys, eyes and other limbs, is this permitted? Abdul Sattār Eīdhī donated his eyes and some people say this is permissible and some say it is impermissible. Please kindly mention the correct view.


بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

It is impermissible for a Muslim to donate or sell his organs nor is it in the right of a Muslim that he make a legacy concerning his organs for a loved one or any person after his death. If he did such a thing then this legacy will be invalid and it will impermissible to enact it.

This is because Allāh (Most Transcendent is He), has given honour to the species of human beings as Allāh (Most Transcendent is He) mentions:

“And no doubt, We honoured the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided them with clean things and preferred them over many of Our creations.”

[Surah Banū Isrā’il Verse 70]

It is established from the noble ayah that humankind is honoured and the most noble of creation. Many reasons for this dignity and nobility are mentioned in Tafsīr Kabīr and Rūh al-Ma’āni and other works.

To donate or sell the organs of a human being is in opposition to this honouring. This is because this is the state of animals that they and their body parts are gifted and sold. If any part of the body of a human being was used or sold to gain a benefit then this is open degradation and opposition to the Qur’anically stipulated honouring [of the human being].

As is mentioned in Bada’i al-Sana’i:

“Because the human being with all of his body parts is honoured and taking benefit from a body part separated from him is belittlement of him.”

[Bada’i al-Sana’i Volume 5 page 133]

The impermissibility of benefiting from his body parts is due to the reason of his honour and dignity. As is mentioned in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah:

“Benefiting from the body parts of a human being is impermissible.  It is said because of impurity, and it is said because of his respect and this [i.e. respect] is correct.  Like this it is mentioned in Jawāhir al-Akhlāti.”

[Al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah Volume 5 page 364]

A human being is respected such that, let alone benefiting from his heart, liver and eyes, selling or using just his hair for benefit is also impermissible as is mentioned in al-Bahr al-Rā’iq:

“[The hair of a human and benefiting from it] i.e. It is not permissible to sell it and benefit from it because humankind is respected and cannot be subjected to degradation thus it is not permissible that even any part of a human be subject to degradation.”

[al-Bahr al-Rā’iq Volume 4 page 133]

It is impermissible to sever a human limb even in the state of ikrāh (compulsion):

Many impermissible matters become permissible in a state of compulsion but the human being is respected to such a degree that the severing of the limb of another human being is impermissible for a person even under the state of compulsion, even if that person gives him permission to do so. Just as it is mentioned in Badā’i al-Sanā’i that a whole category of things is mentioned with the title, “that type [of thing] which is not permitted even in the state of compulsion”.

[Volume 7 page 362]

It becomes clear from this that killing a Muslim or cutting any of his limbs in any situation is not permissible even if the one whose limbs are being severed gives the other permission to do so. If a person in a state of being compelled severs another persons limbs then he is a sinner.

Similarly in al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah it is said:

“If he is compelled to cut the hand of a man and that man says ‘I have permitted you to cut, so cut’ and the one giving permission is himself not being compelled then it is not permissible for the person to cut his hand and if he did so he would be sinful.”

[Al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah Volume 5 page 41]

There is no permissibility in eating the limb of a person even in a state of idtirār (extreme necessity)

Even in the state of extreme necessity there is no permission for a person to cut off and eat the limb of a living human being. Even if he were to lose his own life. Even though in the state of extreme necessity eating something harām becomes permissible. As is mentioned in al-Ashbāh wa al-Nazhā’ir:

“A harm is not repelled with another harm, a person in a state of necessity does not eat the food of another person who is also in a state of necessity nor anything from his body parts.”

[al-Ashbāh wa al-Nazhā’ir volume 1 page 255]

Now the objection of those people, who say that to save the life of another person by the action of transplanting a bodily limb from another human being should become permissible, has been answered. Because it is mentioned clearly in the books of fiqh (jurisprudence) that even if there is intense danger to the life of one human being it is impermissible for him to cut and sever the limbs of another human being.

The second matter is that for a Muslim to cut or sever his own limbs and sell or donate them or take out his eyes and donate them and such like is to alter that which Allāh created i.e. it is changing the creation of Allāh which is impermissible and harām and obedience to shaytān.

When shaytān was rejected from the court of Allāh he said to Allāh:

“And I will certainly bid them that they would alter the creation of Allah.”

[Surah Al-Nisā’ Verse 119]

It is mentioned in  al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr:

“It is related from Anas, Shahr ibn Howshab, ‘Ikrimah and Abū Sālih that the meaning of changing the creation of Allāh here is castration, the cutting of the ears and removal of the eyes.”

[al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr Volume 5 page 384]

Also those women have been cursed in hadīth who in trying to beautify themselves bring alteration to the creation of Allāh.

On the authority of Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ūd that he said “Allāh has cursed the females who tattoo others and those who have themselves tattooed, the females who pluck their facial hair and those who create gaps in their teeth for beautification, the ones who alter the creation of Allāh.”

[Sahīh al-Bukhārī hadith 4486]

The third matter is that a human being is not the owner of his limbs. Allāh (Most Transcendent is He) is the Owner of all the body parts of a human being. For this reason a person does not have a choice in dealing with his limbs in a way which is for another human being. We have made clear through the references of al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah and Badā’i al-Sanā’i that if a person gives another permission to cut his limbs such a cutting is impermissible and harām on that person and the giving of permission to do so is also impermissible. This is because he is not the owner of these body parts so how can he give permission?

Is this method of treatment a darūrah (extreme necessity)?

Now if it is said that due to extreme necessity this method of treatment should be allowed just as has been mentioned in ‘Fatāwā Europe’, where the principle is mentioned that “Extreme necessities permit prohibited matters” –

Then this poor slave of Allāh says that to consider this method of treatment as being such an extreme necessity that has effect in making prohibited matters permissible is not correct.

In brief let us mention darūrah (extreme necessity) and the conditions of its effecting [rulings]:

The Definition of Darūrah (extreme necessity): If the doing of an action is necessary to the extent that if it were not done then the loss of any one of the following five matters is a certainty or according to preponderant opinion: Dīn, Intellect, lineage, self or wealth.

As is mentioned in al-Fatāwah al-Ridwiyyah: that five things are those whose protection is from the establishment of the Divine Law; Dīn, Intellect, Lineage, Self and Wealth. Apart from absolute frivolity all actions revolve around these. If an action (also included in this is the leaving of an action in the meaning of abandoning it because it is this [active abandonment] which one is able to do and one is tasked with and not non-action as is mentioned in al-Ghamz and other works) is relied upon for one of these in such a way that without that action this [purpose] would be lost or close to being lost then this is the level of darūrah. Like acquisition of knowledge of beliefs and individual obligations is for the Dīn, like abandonment of alcohol and fornication is for [preservation of] Intellect, like eating and drinking to the extent of maintaining the body is for the Self and like earning and prevention from usurping and other matters is for Wealth.

[al-Fatāwah al-Ridwiyyah Volume 21 Page 205]

This is clear from the books of Fiqh that only that necessity brings about lightening of the rules which is a binding necessity i.e. it definitely presents itself or whose occurrence is preponderant.

Even if this method of treatment definitely presents itself such that there is no option available except through taking it, even then for it to have the effect of darūrah (extreme necessity) the existence of a number of conditions is most necessary which are not found in this.

If those conditions are not present then the establishment of necessity won’t have any effect [on rulings]. From these conditions are these two:

[1] The actualisation of darūrah (extreme necessity) should be immediate, the possibility of necessity presenting itself in the future is not necessity and no consideration will be given to it. Just as the donation of parts is done because a need could arise in the future. Such a possibility is of no consideration nor is this necessity a darūrah


[2] There should be certainty or preponderant opinion that by doing this prohibited action Dīn, life, intellect, wealth or lineage will be preserved. Whereas in this method of treatment transplanting one individual’s organs into another individual’s body, let alone certainty, there isn’t even preponderant opinion. In fact even in unbiased minds doubt has started to occur because new doctors and researchers have considered this method of treatment as unsuccessful because with most patients severe threat of loss of life remains with them because the body begins to reject organs from another body. Thus such a patient is given 20 to 30 pills to take daily by doctors. Also the transplanted organ at the most functions for up to 6 to 8 years at the most. It may fail even before this. When this is the reality then how can this method of treatment be called a darūrah?

Whereas an alternative to this method of treatment is now emerging in which such abominations in the eyes of the Sharī’ah are not present. This is the preparation of the body parts, heart, liver and other than them through cloning of the cells of the patient himself which could be used at the time of necessity.

Alongside the impermissibility of the method of extracting another person’s body parts and making use of them it is a temporary measure. This is not a complete cure for the illness. This is something which its pioneers themselves have accepted. Also how can this be called a cure when it is mentioned in hadith:

“Indeed Allāh has not placed your cure in that which He has forbidden upon you.”

[Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

It should also be remembered that Islām does not grant permission for severing the limbs of a deceased Muslim and making use of them. This is because that which harms a living person then a deceased person is also harmed by it. The one who cut the limbs of a deceased Muslim then it is as though he cut the limbs of a living Muslim. Just as is mentioned in hadith:

On the authority of Sayyidah ‘A`ishah that the Messenger of Allāh (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him said:

“The breaking of the bones of the deceased is like the breaking of his bones whilst he is alive.”

[Sunan Abū Dāwūd hadith 3207]

Analogy, upon the legal case of the Hanafī school that if a living child is in the womb of his deceased mother then the Ahnāf give fatwā upon the cutting of the mother’s stomach for the extraction of the child, is false. This is because here on one side is definite benefit because by doing this the child’s life will be saved definitely or according to preponderant opinion. Whereas in transplanting organs saving the life of the other is not definite because the whole science of medicine is indefinite. Secondly in the legal case mentioned no limb is being cut off to benefit from it rather the child is being extracted. Whereas in the case of transplantation the purpose of severing the limb is only to benefit by it. For this reason how can it be allowed to analogise this with that?

The fourth matter is that saying the selling of human organs is allowed is the opening of a door to many evils. Poor people will be prepared to sell their organs to fill their stomachs and the kidnapping of people to extract their organs for the purpose of selling will begin which will be difficult to stop.

When this matter has been established from so many angles that a Muslim’s donating or selling his organs is impermissible and harām then to make a legacy concerning it is to make a will for an impermissible act. Thus if a person makes a will for the donation of his organs or his eyes then this legacy which is opposed to the sharī’ah is invalid and it will not be acted upon in any way.

It is stated in Bidāyah:

“A legacy with disobedience is invalid due to its enactment necessarily entailing endorsement of disobedience.”

[Al-Hidāyah Volume 4 page 689]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

QUESTION: What do the respected Scholars of Islam say regarding the following issues affecting the Muslims of United Kingdom - It is said “Islam is a religion that treats its women unfairly and without equal rights.”The examples that are given include: 1. “Islam encourages arranged marriages and the woman have no choice who she can and cannot marry. If she says no or wishes to marry somebody else it usually leads to honour killings.” 2. “Islam allows a man to beat his wife. This encourages Muslim men to physically and mentally abuse their wives.” 3. “Islam does not allow a husband and wife to walk side by side, and instead a woman should walk behind her husband.” 4. “Islam does not allow a woman to study or work, instead she must stay home at all times and be a housewife.” 5. ”Islam orders that Women be segregated from the men whereas men are allowed to freely mix with the opposite gender.” Could you please clarify, correct or explain the statements above and give an insight to the rights and roles of a woman in Islam, for the benefit of both non-Muslims and also Muslims who may have doubts regarding such matters in their Religion.


as-Salaamu alaykum wa-Rahmatu’Llaahi wa-Barakaatu-Hu

It is said “Islam is a religion that treats its women unfairly and without equal rights.”

The statement “Islam is a religion that treats its women unfairly and without equal rights”has two predicates conjoined to present a single argument; women are inferior according to Islaam.

The first question we must ask is, is the difference in rights seen as unfairness, or paraphrased, are women deemed to be treated unfairly due to them having different rights to men?

Anyone who argues that men and women are absolutely equal in every sense of the word is misguided. A simple question, can men give birth and can women impregnate? There is a difference biologically, a difference that no one can deny. As for other forms of differences, such as, differences in opportunities and day to day living, these must be elaborated and examined contextually. We cannot make a judgement that an entire religion is misogynistic in teaching and approach, especially when a sizeable portion of the religion’s jurisprudence is derived from a woman.

The word “equality”, meaning the quality of being the same in value or status, is a word which many people advocate in the modern world without realising or fully comprehending what they are demanding. The very same people argue that religions overall fall short in equality and specifically the religion of Islaam. The truth is, in Islaam, the equality between men and women exists with respect to certain aspects of life, whilst in other aspects, to the onlooker, there is inequality. No one ever claimed Islaam is a religion of equality. Islaam is a religion of justice and there is justice in all aspects for men and for women. What is the difference between equal rights and just rights?

There is the famous image of the difference between equality and justice shown below:-

To reiterate, Islaam is a just religion, just to the woman in all purity of the word and just to the man in all purity of the word. This justice is seen through all the rulings of Islaam. Take for example the ruling of zakaat (giving alms to the poor). The rich are taxed 2.5% of their annual savings, whilst the poor receive charity and are exempt from paying this tax. Equality would dictate that the rich and the poor are equally taxed.

Equality implies there is no difference between men and women. Justice, however, means giving the man and the woman exactly what he or she is entitled to.

The noble Quraan states:-

“Indeed, Allaah decrees the commands of justice and kindness, and giving to relatives, and forbids from lewdness, evil and rebellion; He advises you so that you may pay heed”.

[Kanzul Eemaan 16:90]

Even in the past, there were many who like today, argued about equality as opposed to fairness through justice. And this is an argument that will always exist. I reiterate, equality is necessary when equality should exist, however, justice should exist in all spheres of life.

If we proposed a civil engineer is given the equal opportunity to operate on an ill patient’s ailing heart, next to the world’s leading heart surgeon, the suggestion would be written off as ludicrously preposterous. We see justice, ahead of equality, in various aspects of our life and have accepted them as unquestionable norms without realising. Take for example, the priority seating in buses and trains for the elderly, pregnant and disabled. Equality would dictate that they too should struggle to find a seat or stand during crowded times of commute – but this would be viewed as immoral and unethical.

There are numerous examples as such, where inequality is necessary and equality is immoral and unethical. The same argument exists for Islaam, there is equality when necessary and differentiation when necessary but justice in all cases.

With respect to women and men, Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“Men are in charge of women, as Allaah has given one of them more than the other, and because men spend their wealth for the women”.

[Kanzul Eemaan 4:34]

The Arabic word qawwam, used for the men, comes from the root word iqamah. According to ibn Katheer, this means one degree higher in responsibility, not one degree higher in superiority.

And Allaah knows best.

1) “Islam encourages arranged marriages and the woman have no choice who she can and cannot marry. If she says no or wishes to marry somebody else it usually leads to honour killings.”

A prerequisite to elaborating the above mentioned statement is the knowledge of the difference between religious and cultural practices. Initially, we ask the questions; are arranged or autonomous marriages commanded or prohibited by Islaam? Further, are ‘honour’ killings universally found amongst all Muslims irrespective of their location or are ‘honour’ killings isolated to a particular location irrespective of the religion of the population?

Statistically, we find the vast amount of ‘honour’ killings, approximately 1000 per year, take place in the subcontinent irrespective of religion. The violence and in many cases killing, is based on culture. This statement can be expressed confidently as nowhere in the Islamic religious text can any commandment be found justifying any form of violence or killing under the pretext of honour or lack of it. Rather, we find Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“whoever kills a human being except in lieu of killing or causing turmoil in the earth, so it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”.

[Kanzul Eemaan 5:32]

There is no honour in killing. Historically, we find laws permitting killings are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passions’.

With regards to marriage, a woman has the right to marry whomsoever she desires on condition of equality in belief. She can even marry her ex-husband if she so desires for Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“O guardians of such women, do not prevent them from marrying their husbands if they agree between themselves in accordance with Islamic law”. 

[Kanzul Eemaan 2:232]

According to Imaam Abu Haneefah  (رضي الله عنه), a virgin woman has the right to independently dispose of her wealth and property; likewise she has full autonomy in marriage. It is not permissible for a parent or guardian to object without a justified reason. The Prophet ﷺ warned unnecessarily objecting to a legitimately good proposal will be a means for tribulation and widespread corruption upon the earth.

It is also necessary to know the difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage. Unfortunately, especially in the west, these two terms have become synonymous to oppression. Let it be known, an arranged marriage which is consensual is not equal to a forced marriage. In Islaam, there are many traditions which emphatically demonstrate the validity of a marriage is conditioned upon the consent of the bride. Parents do not have the authority to compel their son or daughter to marry. The parents’ role in marrying off their children is manifested in giving good counsel. The final say in this matter belongs to the son or daughter themselves.

To kill a child due to a difference of his or her desire to marry or not to marry is abhorrent.

And Allaah knows best.

2) “Islam allows a man to beat his wife. This encourages Muslim men to physically and mentally abuse their wives.”

Those individuals who attempt to present Islaam negatively will ignore the innumerable verses from the Quraan and examples found in the words of the Prophet ﷺ calling for good treatment of the spouse. Infamously, they will present a single verse without understanding the contextual meaning nor studying the exegesis presented by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ dearest companions, who were not Islamic apologists appeasing the west, but rather preached the Islaam that was taught to them directly by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

The verse that is presented by the antagonists, Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“and the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them”. 

[Kanzul Eemaan 4:34]

The Arabic word ‘wa-driboohunna’ which translates to ‘and beat them’, instantly has alarm bells ringing. Beat them means, if advice and discontinuing marital relations do not produce the desired results, Islamically, it is permissible to discipline the wife. This, in no way, means to beat the wife severely. The companion Jaabir (رضي الله عنه) said that the Prophet ﷺ said during the Farewell Hajj; “Fear Allaah regarding women, for they are your assistants”. Al-Hassan al-Basri and several others in explaining this verse emphasised this beating is not violent. Non-violent beating is an oxymoron which Abdullah ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنه) explained; “it is beating using a twig like toothstick (miswaak) which is traditionally no lengthier than a hand span”. Only an imbecile would claim to be a Muslim and beat his wife, or claim to be a non-Muslim and say Islam promotes female violence. The reason why they are imbeciles? They choose to take the literal meaning of an ambiguous phrase over the many explicit verses and traditions calling upon love, harmony and justice between spouses. Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“and deal kindly with them; and if you do not like them, so it is possible that you dislike a thing in which Allaah has placed abundant good”.

[Kanzul Eemaan 4:19]

Further the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه و سلم) explicitly said, “The best of you are those who are the best to their wives.” This statement along with other similar statements, are the foundation highlighting it is absolutely unlawful to abuse a wife, injure her, or insult her dignity.

And Allaah knows best.

3) “Islam does not allow a husband and wife to walk side by side, and instead a woman should walk behind her husband.”

Once again, this is a cultural issue as opposed to a religious dogma which is adhered to. There is no ruling in the Quraan or the Prophetic tradition which specifies how a married couple should walk when together.

In some cultures, the man is seen walking ahead due to pride. In other cultures, the woman is seen walking ahead due to safety. We also find, in some cultures, both husband and wife are seen walking adjacent to one another, with or without love.

We find in authentic traditions the Prophet of Allaah ﷺ when mentioning the merits of his first wife, Sayyidah Khadeejah (رضي الله عنها), said, “she believed in me when no one else did; she accepted Islaam when people rejected me; and she helped and comforted me when there was no one else to lend me a helping hand.” When the Prophet of Allaah presented Islaam to the public, it was his blessed wife, who stood by his side. The narrator of this tradition is the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ other beloved wife, Sayyidah Ayesha (رضي الله عنها) – the wife the Prophet raced with twice, on the first occasion she was ahead and won, and the second occasion he ﷺ was ahead and won.

There is an unreferenced attribution to the daughter of the Prophet ﷺ, Sayyidah Faatimah (رضي الله عنها), she would walk ahead of her husband, Sayyidunaa ‘Ali (رضي الله عنه) so to ensure no other man steps in her footprints but her own husband.

And Allaah knows best.

4) “Islam does not allow a woman to study or work, instead she must stay home at all times and be a housewife.”

The Prophets “leave no inheritance” save knowledge. The ones who successfully inherit this knowledge are referred to as scholars. One of the greatest inheritor of this knowledge was the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ wife, Sayyidah Ayesha (رضي الله عنها). She was one of the most prolific narrators with over two thousand traditions and further a vast amount of jurisprudence is derived from her narrations.

The role of the woman differs to that of a man. Idealistically, the man is presented as the breadwinner, whilst the woman as the homemaker. Islaam does not explicitly prohibit a woman from studying or working, but rather, places conditions for both sexes that the work or study environment must be free from vice moreover free from the precursors to vice.

Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“And remain in your houses and do not unveil yourselves like the unveiling prevalent in the times of ignorance”.

[Kanzul Eemaan 33:33]

The Arabic word ‘qirna/qarna’ is derived from al-qaraar which means to settle or rest. Those individuals who force their women to remain within their homes have taken this verse out of context. Looking at the previous verse and the one after, one will see these group of verses are advice for the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم). Naturally, the Muslim women as a whole view the Prophet’s wives as role models and thus imitate them – falsely believing to remain in the house at all times is necessary. The command is not contextually absolute but rather it can be understood that a woman’s role is within the house and she should not unnecessarily spend time away from it. There are a thousand and one reasons a woman may leave her home, if the verse is to be taken as absolute, she would be sinful for leaving the house in any circumstance, for example, even to perform hajj.

And Allaah knows best.

5) “Islam orders that Women be segregated from the men whereas men are allowed to freely mix with the opposite gender.”

This is incorrect. The warning and prohibitions found within the Quraan and Sunnah are equal for both men and women. The regulations related to male-female interaction are essential to the very soundness of human civilisation. If ignored, they threaten the very fabric of its survival. Islaam is a complete way of life and also presents rules and regulations for the social order of life. The rules and regulations of segregation have been established in Islamic Law to remove the possible causes which may breed corruption. Prevention is better than cure; Islam discourages free and unbridled contact between men and women in order to check the consequences of undesirable impulses.

Allaah says in the Quraan:-

“And do not approach adultery – it is indeed a shameful deed; and a very evil way.”

[Kanzul Eemaan 17:32]

The verse is a prohibition aimed at both sexes wherein Allaah did not say, ‘do not commit adultery’, but rather he said, ‘do not approach adultery’. Islaam removes the precursors to sin and this is true for both male and female, as can be found in the commands of Allaah:-

“Command the Muslim men to keep their gaze low and to protect their private organs; that is much purer for them; indeed Allaah is Aware of their deeds. And command the Muslim women to keep their gaze low and protect their chastity.”

[Kanzul Eemaan 24:30-31]

So we see, Allaah equally regulates the men and women in such matters.

And Allāh knows best.

Answered by Ustadh Abu Dihh’ya Asid Shafait

Checked by Shaykh Naveed Jameel

QUESTION: What do the scholars and muftis of the mighty Shari’ah say regarding this matter: if such a woman who is married and her husband is earning, and she is able to make do [with it], then is it permissible for such a woman to work in a place where non-Mahram men are present?


بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

It is not suitable for such a woman to work, however if five conditions are fulfilled then it will be permissible;

My master A’lā Hazrat the Imām of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the reviver of the religion, al-Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him with mercy) states, “here there are five conditions”:

  1. The clothes should not be so thin such that the hair of the head or the wrist etc. or any part of the sitr [that what is necessary to cover from the body] is visible
  2. The clothes should not be so tight or close-fitted such that they make the shape of the body [i.e. the raising of the chest or the roundness of the calves etc.] apparent [such as is the case in wearing jeans etc.]
  3. No part of the hair, neck, belly, wrist or calf should be visible
  4. She should not be alone with a Non-Mahram for even a moment
  5. There should be no possibility of fitnah occurring in her staying there or travelling there and back

If these five conditions are found then there is no harm, but if any one of them is not found, then taking up employment and it’s like is Harām”.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah, Volume 22,pg 228]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad

QUESTION: What is the status of Jesus in Islam? How are Muslims’ beliefs different to that of Christians?


All praises belong to Allāh, the Creator Most Sublime Who is Uncreated, the One without equal, the One Who begets not and nor is He begotten, the Independent above all that is falsely ascribed to Him, Who has blessed us with the bounty of Islām and made us from amongst the Muslims. Infinite salutations, peace and blessings be upon all Messengers of Allāh, specifically the final Prophet, Our Master, Muhammad Mustafa (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), upon his purified family, his esteemed companions, and whomsoever follows in his blessed footsteps until the last day.

Jesus Christ (may the peace of Allah be upon him) known as Eesa in Arabic, has been mentioned by name no less than twenty-five times within the Qur’ān and also many times with honorific epithets across fifteen chapters. Nearly two billion Muslims religiously believe the Prophethood of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) independent of any Christian missionary or church coercing them to do so. The belief in the Prophets of Allāh is an integral article of faith in Islām. The denial of any established Prophet mentioned in the Qur’ān results in disbelief and renders one outside the fold of Islam.

This is clear in the famous tradition (hadith) of the angel Gabriel (upon him peace) when he asked the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, “Tell me about Islam.” The Prophet ﷺ replied, “It is that you testify that there is no god but Allāh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh,” and he ﷺ went on to mention the pillars of Islam. Then the angel Gabriel (peace be upon him) asked him about belief and he ﷺ said, “It is that you believe in Allāh, His Angels, His Books and His Messengers.”

[Sahih Muslim]

Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is of great significance in both Islām and Christianity. However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger. Primarily, know that both the Qur’ān and the Bible are viewed as the word of God by their respective religious adherents. The Qur’ān was revealed by Allāh to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and memorised and recorded in his lifetime. The Bible or the New Testament contains four biblical narratives covering the life and alleged death of Jesus (peace be upon him), however, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica none of the sources of his life or work can be traced to Jesus (peace be upon him) himself.

The Muslims accept Jesus Christ (peace be upon himself) as one of the esteemed Messengers of Allāh. The overwhelming majority of Christians, who are Trinitarian, do not accept him as only a messenger per se but attribute divinity to him.

The Qur’ān says in reference to the status of Jesus (peace be upon him) as a Messenger:

ما المسيح ابن مريم إلا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل وأمه صديقة كانا يأكلان الطعام انظر كيف نبين لهم الآيات ثم انظر أنى يؤفكون

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food (as other mortals do). Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

[Qur’ān 5:75]

Muslims reject he was divine. Divinity necessitates being independent and not being contingent. Humans are dependent on food in order to live. Allāh Most High explains in the Qūr’ān that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a messenger just like those who came prior to him, both he and his mother ate food – God is not dependent upon food.

يا أيها الناس أنتم الفقراء إلى الله والله هو الغني الحميد

O mankind, you are those in need of Allāh, while Allāh is the Free of all need, the Praiseworthy.

[Qur’ān 35:15]

Both the Muslims and the Christians believe that the mother of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was a chaste and pious woman. The Muslims believe she was raised in the temple of the prayer under the care of the prophet Zechariah (upon him be peace), her uncle. She was not married before, during or after the period of her pregnancy. The Christians believe however, although she was a virgin, she was married to a man named Joseph during her pregnancy.

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

[Matthew KJV 1:18].

The Qur’ān explains the same event differently, Allāh Most Sublime says:

قالت رب أنى يكون لي ولد ولم يمسسني بشر قال كذلك الله يخلق ما يشاء إذا قضى أمرا فإنما يقول له كن فيكون

She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” [The angel] said, “Such is Allāh; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.

[Qur’ān 3:47]

So the Christians believe Mary was married to Joseph and became pregnant. Joseph believing she had committed infidelity intended to divorce her but was convinced otherwise in a dream  “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost”. The Muslims’ belief is similar yet significantly different to the Christians in this respect. In the Qūr’ān we learn, the physical presence of an angel in human-form frightened Mary. Mary was informed not to worry as the angel had only come to give her glad tidings of the birth of a son, Jesus (peace be upon him). Mary remarked “how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” It was impossible for her to be pregnant considering she was pure in every sense of the word, in contrast to the Christian belief that she was married with a husband.

Now Jesus (peace be upon him) being born without the intervention of a father /male is one of the fundamental premise for the Christians to argue that his father is God. The Qur’ān negates this with the simplest of arguments:-

إن مثل عيسى عند الله كمثل آدم خلقه من تراب ثم قال له كن فيكون

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allāh is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was.

[Qur’ān 3:59]

The Christians universally accept Adam (peace be upon him) as the first man, existing without any parents, as mentioned in Genesis. The question arises what is a greater miracle, Jesus to have no father or Adam to have no father and no mother? The Christians however, by the same measure do not consider Adam as the son of God or Divine, although by their logic he would have the greater right.

The first miracle of Jesus according to the Bible is when he turned water into wine at the wedding reception in Galilee. The Muslims in comparison believe he spoke whilst in the cradle as Allāh has mentioned in the Qur’ān:-

قال إني عبد الله آتاني الكتاب وجعلني نبيّا

[Jesus] said, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allāh. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.”

[Qur’ān 19:30]

Both Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) performed many miracles which ranged from healing the blind, curing the lepers and even reviving the dead. The significant difference between both faiths is that the Christians use these miracles to further prove that Jesus was the son of God as well as the incarnation of God, but the Muslims believe these miracles were performed by the will and permission of God and not independently by Jesus. They are signs which are gifted by God to His Prophets and Messengers whereby strengthening them in delivering the message of God.

The Trinitarian Christians use the miraculous birth of Jesus and his many miracles to argue he is divine, separate from God yet part of God, although God is “one” He is also “more than one” and Jesus who is God is also the son of the Heavenly God — Along with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost), together, they are referred to as “the Trinity” or “the Godhead.”

Islam is a pure monotheistic religion and the Qur’ān emphatically warns:

يا أهل الكتاب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وكلمته ألقاها إلى مريم وروح منه فآمنوا بالله ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلاثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله إله واحد سبحانه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allāh and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allāh is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as Disposer of affairs.

[Qur’ān 4:171]

Muslims believe in the Absolute Oneness of God, Who is free of human limitations, needs and wants as aforementioned. He has no partners in His Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate from His creation. To say Jesus is the son of God or God is blasphemous and Islam rejects this. Allāh has further said in the Qur’ān:

لم يلد ولم يولد

He (Allāh) neither begets nor is born

[Qur’ān 112:3]

And He further said in the Qur’ān:

ما كان لله أن يتخذ من ولد سبحانه إذا قضى أمرا فإنما يقول له كن فيكون

It is not [befitting] for Allāh to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.

[Qur’ān 19:35]

With regards to Jesus (peace be upon him) dying and subsequently resurrecting, this is a core Christian belief it relates to the entire notion of atonement of the initial sin. According the Christians, Jesus died for the sins of mankind upon the crucifix, this belief is fundamental to the Christian faith. Without accepting this, the Christians do not believe one can attain salvation. Although this belief is not stated explicitly in the primary source texts of the bible, it has become the very core of Christendom.

Muslims categorically reject this as Allāh has said in the Qur’ān:

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شكّ منه ما لهم به من علم إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allāh .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

[Qur’ān 4:157]

To conclude, there are three miracles, Muslims believe, that the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was uniquely given; his miraculous birth, his ascension to heaven and his second coming. All of these miracles were gifted by Allāh. The Christians also attest to the above mentioned miracles using the bible, however, in addition to this, they believe he died upon the cross and subsequently resurrected. They perceive these miracles as proof of his divinity. With the exception of his crucifixion and death, both religions are in harmony with regards to all the other miracles.

And Allāh knows best.

Answered by Ustadh Abu Dihh’ya Asid Shafait
Checked by Shaykh Naveed Jameel

Question What is the verdict of the Learned Scholars of the Dīn and the Muftīs (Learned Scholars of Shariah) regarding the following mas’alah (legal case), in our country England lots of cities use recycled water i.e. water from the gutters and the pipes is cleaned and returned through water-pipes back to homes. Are Wudu (ablution) and Ghusl (purificatory bath) with such water valid?


بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

According to our research the recycled water supplied to homes in England is Tāhir (pure) and Mutahhir (purifying). Wudu (ablution) and Ghusl (purificatory bath) performed with this water will be valid this is because I have researched and seen the water recycling system here. Initially dirty/impure water is collected from the cities, then at water treatment plants the water is cleaned using many different chemicals. This cleaned water is then sent directly to fields [agricultural land], factories and rivers and the like. Homes however are indirectly supplied i.e. before supplying it to homes this water is pumped into rivers, seas, or the ground. Water is then extracted from rivers or ground wells, filtered and supplied to homes just as is clear from this diagram:

This happens in America [the details in the above diagram], also here in England water is recycled in this manner. The recycling system of one of London’s water companies can be understood from the following diagram:

In this system water is also cleaned and pumped into the river. This is the same process and system used by the water company supplying water to the city from which the original question has come from (Derby). Now we will take a look at it’s detailed ruling.

When impure (najis) water is collected from gutters and cleaned at water treatment plants it remains impure (najis). However when it is subsequently pumped into rivers or the sea for the supply of households, it has become a large amount of water (mā’ kathīr) and by mixing with flowing water it too becomes flowing water (mā’ jārī). Flowing water or a large body of water does not become impure when an impurity mixes with it, unless the effect of the impurity i.e. its colour, smell or taste becomes evident. In regards to a huge amount of water the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ has stated:

إِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَاهِرٌ إِلَّا إِنْ تَغَيَّرَ رِيْحُهُ أَوْطَعْمُهُ أَوْ لَوْنُهُ بِنَجَاسَةٍ تَحْدُثُ فِيْهِ

“A large amount of water is pure except if it’s smell, taste or colour changes due to an impurity occurring in it.”

[As Sunan Al Kabeer vol. 1, page 33 Hadith no: 1273]

It is stated in al-Durr al-Mukhtār:

وَيَجُوْزُ(بِجَارِوَقَعَتْ فِيْهِ نَجَاسَةٌ وَ) جَارِىْ (هُوَ مَا يُعَدُّ جَارِيًا) عُرْفًا (إِنْ لَمْ يُرَ) أَىْ يَعْلَمُ (أَثْرُهُ) فَلَوْ فِيْهِ جِيْفَةٍ أَوْ بَالَ رِجَالٌ

It is permissible to perform Wudu (ablution) with flowing water even if an impurity has fallen into it. The water will not become impure until the impurity changes the colour, smell or taste of the water, even if there is a dead animal in the water or many people have urinated in it.

[al-Durr al-Mukhtār and Radd al-Muhtār Kitābut Tahārah]

Re-cycled water is like normal clear water and the colour, taste or smell of the river is not affected by it. Secondly, if the recycled water has the colour, smell or taste of impurity, even then, due to the fact that it is a small quantity of water (mā’ qalīl), the river’s water will not be effected. The principle is that if an impurity changes the qualities of flowing water i.e. the water’s colour, taste or smell then the flowing water would become impure. Such impure water will become pure when so much pure water mixes with it that it causes the impurity to be carried away or causes its taste, colour and smell to become like normal water.

Just as it has been mentioned in Bahāre Sharī’ah:

Flowing water, wherein if a blade of grass is placed it should carry it away, is pure and purifying. If any impurity falls into it, it will not cause it to become impure, as long as that impurity does not cause its colour, taste or smell to change. If some impurity causes its colour, taste or smell to change, then it is regarded as being impure. This will now only be regarded as pure water after the impurity settles and the original qualities of the water re-appear, or if such an amount of water is added into it, which carries the impurity away (i.e. it flows away); or if the colour, taste and smell of the water normalises. If something which is regarded as pure caused the colour, taste or smell of flowing water to change, then Wudu and Ghusl with this water is still permissible, as long as the water does not become changed to another substance.

[Bahāre Sharī’at vol 1 part 2, under the explanation of water rule no 5 page 33]

It has become established then that in such a recycling system wherein water after being cleaned is supplied to homes after having been pumped into the sea, rivers, lakes or underground, that water is pure and purifying.

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mohamed Raza Qadri

QUESTION: What is the verdict of the Learned Scholars of the Sacred Sharī’ah regarding the following issue; I have just read on the package of the Flucloxacillin capsule that it contains gelatine (pig fat). Is it allowed to consume this capsule as it is an antibiotic that works against infections? Questioner – Amir Attari from Derby England



بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم


الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب


It is not permissible to consume this medication because it contains gelatine (pig’s fat). The pig in its entirety is Najis (impure), for this reason leaving this medication is necessary and any other medication should be used. There are numerous types of pain killers available in the market. If this particular medication has to be taken, then it is also available in a form that is without gelatine, its name is Flucloxacilin suspension.


Whereas the pig in it’s entirety is Harām and Najis (impure).


Almighty Allah جل جلاله states:


“The flesh of swine, for it is indeed filth.”


[Sura Al Anaam verse 145]


The swine (pig) is impure and Najas al-‘Ain (absolutely impure in its entirety) and every part of it is forbidden and impure.


It is mentioned in the famous book of Hanafī Fiqh al-Hidāyah:


“The entire swine (pig) is impure, because in the divine injucture of Almighty Allah جل جلاله the pronoun [it] points back to the pig because of it being close [in mention].”


[Al Hidāyah Bāb Al Mā’ul Ladī Yajūzu Bihil Wudū vol 1 page 125]


It is mentioned in ‘Ināyah (the commentary of Hidayah):


“Besides the flesh of the pig every other aspect of it revolves between being harām and not harām (forbidden) i.e. there is possibility of both situations, but due to caution every part of it has been mentioned as harām as the pronoun in ‘it is indeed filth’ returns back to the thing being annexed to [in: ‘flesh of swine’].”


[Al ‘Ināyah Shar Hidāyah vol 1 page 127]


It is mentioned in Fatāwā Hindiyyah:


“Every part of the pig is impure.”


[Al-Fatāwā Al Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Tahārah vol 1 page 24]


It is mentioned in Bahāre Sharī’ah:


“The flesh, bones and the hair of the pig, even if it is slaughtered, all are major impurities.”


[Bahāre Sharī’at part 2 vol 1 page 913]


When every part of the pig is impure and forbidden, then its fat or tissue is also forbidden and that in which any part of the pig is included in is also forbidden. Let alone mixing it, if any part of it touches any liquid then that liquid becomes impure, just as it is stated in Fatāwā Hindiyyah:


“If any completely impure thing such as a pig falls into the water, then the water becomes impure, even if it were to be removed immediately and it’s mouth were did not touch the water.”


[Al Fatāwā Al Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Tahārah vol 1 page 19]


If alcohol is mixed in a medication and there is preponderant opinion that one will be cured and besides this medication there is no other medication available, then some of our scholars in this case have permitted it but they excluded the pig from this scenario. Just as it is mentioned in Radd al-Muhtār:


Imam Hamawī رحمة الله عليه relates that it is not permissible to use the flesh of the pig in medication even though there is likely to be a cure.


[Radd al-Muhtār Bāb Furū’ Tadāwi bil Muhrim vol 2 page 118]


واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم


کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری


Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri


Translated by Mohamed Raza Qadri

QUESTION: Is it permissible to enter sporting or any other competitions where you have to pay an entry fee and are eligible for prize money if you get to certain stages of the competition? If you don’t win you lose your entry fee. Questioner: Ashraf from UK



بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم


الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب


If the participants pay the fee and the winner will get the money, then it is impermissible to participate in such competitions as it is gambling.


However, if they pay the fee for the services to the person who is not a competitor and he gives them any kind of prize, then this is fine. But they should abide by the rulings for these games or sports.


واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم


Answered by Muftī Syed Owais Ali