8 months ago

Miftah-ul-Janna (Booklet for way to Paradise)

y Islamic scholars. His

y Islamic scholars. His attempt is even worse than that. Quoting the Fiqh scholars’ written statements on ghusl, he dubs them into his personal opinions. For instance, he says, “As is stated in Bahr, it is not obligatory to make water touch places where it is difficult to make it reach.” On the other hand, the statement written in the book entitled Bahr reads: “... parts of the body where it is difficult to make water reach.” Thereby he likens something which one does indispensably to something which one experiences indispensably. Nor is he righteous in his using the statement, “If it would harm a woman to wash her head, then she does not wash her head,” which is written in Durr-ul-mukhtâr, as a proof to show that ghusl made by a person with a filled tooth will be jâiz (permissible, acceptable). The head’s being harmed by contact with water is something on account of a physical illness. The crowning or filling of a tooth is one’s own choice. It is for this reason that the question of whether ghusl made by people with food remains in their tooth sockets will be jâiz is separately dealt with in the book entitled Durr-ul-mukhtâr. The tricks and misdeeds mentioned so far would fall short of describing the wickedness of Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir. He was, for instance, unprincipled enough to attempt to misemploy Islamic scholars as false witnesses for himself by saying, “It is not a requirement (of ghusl) to make water reach below gold and silver crownings and fillings or to wash places under them. Scholars of Fiqh unanimously state that there is a darûrat in the concerned teeth and that it is not obligatory to make water reach parts (of the body) with a darûrat.” None of the scholars of Fiqh in the Hanafî Madhhab said that it is a darûrat to have your teeth crowned or filled. In fact, tooth crowning or filling does not date as far back as the times wherein scholars of Fiqh lived. In the sixty-fourth page of the commentary to the book entitled Siyar-i-kebîr, which he adduces as a proof, Imâm Muhammad Sheybânî ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ is quoted to have said that it would be jâiz (permisible) for a person to replace his fallen tooth with a gold tooth or to fasten his teeth with a gold wire. The book does not make any mention of tooth crowning. It is a trumped-up addendum forged by Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir. Masonic men of religion, people without a certain Madhhab and heretics, who appeared later, had recourse to all sorts of trickery to deceive Muslims and to preach sedition among them. They wrote wrong and subversive articles. Imâm Muhammad Sheybânî) ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated that a tottering tooth could be tied with a gold, as well as a silver, – 72 –

wire. He did not say that it would be jâiz to crown or fill it with gold. Such things have been implanted by Ismâ’îl Hakki and the like. Muftis and other valuable men of religion contemporary with Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir provided answers so as to reveal the truth versus the untrue and beguiling article of which we have presented samples in the previous paragraphs. One of those estimable scholars is Yûnus-zâde Ahmed Vehbî Efendi of Bolvadin, (Turkey.) ‘rahima-hullâhi ta’âlâ’. This deeply learned person with extensive religious knowledge proved that Islamic scholars had been unanimous on that ghusl made by a person with filled tooth socket would not be sahîh. Administration of the periodical entitled Sebîl-ur-rashâd must have been wise to the meagre ruse employed in the jerry-made article written by the Izmirer, so that they deemed it necessary to support the article with further proof by adding to it the fatwâ with the conclusive remark that reads, “... the ghusl will be sahîh,” in the second edition, dated 1329 [1911 A.D.], of the book of fatwâs entitled Majmû’a-i-Jedîda. However, the so-called fatwâ does not exist in the first edition, dated 1299 A.H., of the book. The misleading remark was inserted into the second edition by Mûsâ Kâzim, a shaikh-ul-islâm brought to office by the notorious Party of Union. Hence, the periodical entitled Sebîl-ur-Rashâd attempted to adduce a statement concocted by a freemason as support for an article written by a reformer of Islam. Not a single scholar of Fiqh said ‘darûrat’ about tooth crowning or filling. People who say or write so are either masonic men of religion or Islam’s reformers or people without a certain Madhhab or Islamically ignorant people suborned or deceived by wahhabite heretics, and none other than them. Ahmad (bin Muhammad bin Ismâ’îl) Tahtâwî ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ states as follows in his annotation to (Shernblâlî’s book entitled) Merâq-il-falâh: “When you (join a jamâ’at and) follow an imâm (conducting the namâz in jamâ’at and) who is in one of the other three Madhhabs, the namâz you perform (behind that imâm) will be sahîh with the proviso that something that nullifies namâz according to your own Madhhab should not exist on the imâm (even if it is something that will not nullify namâz according to his own Madhhab) or, if one of such nullifiers exists on him, you should not know about it as you follow him. This is the more dependable qawl (statement, report). According to another qawl, if the imâm’s namâz is sahîh according to his own Madhhab, it will – 73 –

Ramadan Guide
The Way of Prohet Muhammad - pbuh
The Only Way out Guide for Truth Seekers
IIS Alumni Booklet 2016
The Book of (Nikah) Marriage
Conceptual Framework of Zakat
Quran one sheet.pdf - galeuk
Mercy Book eBook Posting - Downtown Islamic Center
Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss Fourth Fascicle
O Son !
Book of Namaz
Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss Fifth Fascicle
Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss Second Fascicle
Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss First Fascicle
Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss Sixth Fascicle
Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss Third Fascicle
Ethics of Islam
The Sunni Path
Belief and Islam
The Proof of Prophethood
Islams Reformers
Could Not Answer
Advice for the Muslim
Confessions of a British Spy and British Enmity Against Islam
Why Did They Become Muslims