Islamabad, Tilford, UK, 10 May 2025: A delegation comprising members of the Ishaat (Publications) and IT teams of Majlis Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya Germany had the blessed opportunity to meet Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih Vaa, at Islamabad, Tilford, UK.
Upon arrival, Huzooraa graciously greeted the khuddam and took his seat. The Sadr Majlis Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya Germany, Imtiaz Ahmad Shaheen Sahib, introduced the group.
Counsel on attire during worship
Addressing Sadr Sahib, Huzooraa remarked that he had observed members of the Ishaat team wearing jackets with insignia during the Friday prayers. Huzooraa advised that such attire could divert the attention of some people, both those present and those watching the sermon broadcast on MTA. He counselled that as Friday prayers are a time of worship, attendees should come in plain clothes. They could wear their team jackets or insignia afterwards.
IT team’s endeavours
Following this, a member of the IT team presented a brief report on their activities. These included efforts to modernise the Tajnid system and the Maal reporting system. The team also mentioned they are in the process of developing an Islah mobile application.
Ishaat team’s publications and guidance
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa then spoke with a representative of the Ishaat team, enquiring about the books they had translated or prepared. The representative reported that they had completed work on Mash‘al-e-Rah (Beacon for the Youth), Volumes 1 and 5. He further mentioned the publication of Jami‘ al-Adhkar, a compilation of prayers from the sermons of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa. Huzooraa instructed that if such a compilation of prayers is undertaken, it should be done comprehensively. The representative affirmed this was their aim and indicated that they were also planning to publish a second version or volume.
Question-and-answer session
The khuddam then sought permission to ask questions, which Huzooraa graciously granted.
Refraining from commentary on controversial political issues
A khadim referred to a recent Friday sermon where Huzooraa advised that there is more harm than benefit in certain kinds of commentary on specific issues on social media and thus Ahmadis should refrain from it. He asked for further clarification.
Huzooraa elaborated that his point was that instead of offering opinions on controversial international issues, khuddam should focus on their religious duties. He emphasised that the work of the Ishaat Department and the collective work of the Jamaat is the propagation of Islam. The purpose of the Promised Messiahas, Huzooraa explained, was not to teach politics to the world.
However, Huzooraa acknowledged that sometimes one has to deal with matters beyond this scope. Even in such cases, for publication, he advised that they should select only those points which the Khalifa of the Time has presented or a previous Khalifa has presented and the current Khalifa has endorsed for this era. These specific points could be published.
Regarding other matters of propagation, Huzooraa guided them to focus on the teachings of Islam, messages of peace, love and affection and the beautiful teachings of Islam found in the Holy Quran. He gave the example of Surah Al-Hujurat, which, though pertaining to Muslims, can be applied internationally. In it, Allah the Almighty states that if two nations fight, peace should be made between them. (Surah al-Hujurat, Ch.49: V.10) Once peace is established, there should be no transgression against them, nor should unjust restrictions be imposed, so that peace may be established in the world. Huzooraa stated that this was the kind of matter he was referring to.
Huzooraa mentioned that he had addressed these points many times in various addresses, at peace conferences and in other forums, from which ample material could be found. He suggested that small excerpts from these could be taken and posted on social media. The objective, Huzooraa stressed, is not to incite conflict in the world but to create an atmosphere of peace and whatever efforts can be made towards this should be undertaken.
Furthermore, Huzooraa reminded them of the book ‘Paigham-e-Sulh’ (A Message of Peace) written by the Promised Messiahas, which specifically addressed the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. The Promised Messiahas explained that conflicts arise due to certain issues and counselled how both communities, Muslims and Hindus, should change their attitudes and methods and strive for reconciliation to establish an atmosphere of love.
Huzooraa encouraged the khuddam to extract these kinds of teachings. He added that besides this, there are countless other matters and tasks to be done. If they wished to find them, they could. He remarked that they had formed a large team of 40 individuals with fertile minds, yet they were asking him what to do. Huzooraa affirmed that if one truly wants to work, there is much that can be done. He encouraged them, stating Masha’Allah, they were young and had bright minds and they should put them to use.
Advice from Huzoor’saa experiences
Another khadim requested Huzooraa to share some advice from his own period in Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya or narrate an incident.
Huzooraa responded that every era has its own unique aspects; their era has its own issues and his era had its own. Regarding narrating incidents, he advised them to review the reports they receive. He stressed the importance of creating an understanding within the majalis that their matters will be reviewed with honesty. He further advised them to teach with sincerity whatever they could. These, he said, were the essential things.
As for what advice to give, Huzooraa pointed out that advice is already written in the La’ih-e-‘Amal, i.e., the constitution of Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya, conveyed in sermons and previous Khulafa also gave advice. He noted their mention of translating and publishing the first volume of Mash‘al-e-Rah, which contains advice from Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra to khuddam, along with other references. Following that, they were publishing and translating his own advice. Huzooraa stated that all these matters were covered therein.
He remarked that if one does not want to work, one tends to ask for something new. But, he questioned, what new thing could he tell them? Had they fully acted upon the old advice? He urged them to first assess whether they had implemented the previous guidance 100%. If they acted upon that, they would find a great deal within it. That is what was learned in Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya during his time and that is what they acted upon and articulated. Then there is the guidance of the Khulafa and personal experiences, which he had shared with them. Huzooraa advised them to, at the very least, extract the points from his addresses at the last twenty-two Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya ijtemas and act upon them. He added that when they had, so to speak, earned a doctorate in these matters and this advice and could demonstrate the resulting benefits and changes within themselves, then they could ask what new thing they should do. Conversely, if they had not benefited, they should explain that they were unable to benefit and then ask what they should do. He encouraged them to conduct their own assessments, reminding them that “Hard-working nations harvest history’s lessons.” He urged them to read history and learn from it. Huzooraa mentioned that in his current Friday sermons, he was narrating the history of the Companions or the life of the Holy Prophetsa. Regarding the Holy Prophetsa, Allah has said that he is the ‘Uswa-e-Hasanah’ or the most excellent model. (Surah al-Ahzab, Ch.33: V.22) Therefore, Huzooraa advised them to reflect upon his life and act accordingly.
Utilising IT for the global propagation of Islam
A khadim asked how IT technology could be best utilised to support Huzoor’saa global mission for the spread of Islam.
Huzooraa explained that the Promised Messiahas stated he had two objectives. He advised the khuddam to remember these two things: firstly, to bring man closer to God, meaning to make him realise God Almighty, which will lead him to worship Allah and fulfil His rights. Secondly, to make man fulfil the rights of fellow human beings.
Huzooraa stated that if Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya works on these two points and conveys this message in Germany, then no political party or group, whether right-wing or left-wing, will have any objection against Muslims. Everyone, he said, will realise that the message of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya is very positive and that they should listen to it and act upon it. When these two things are achieved, Huzooraa continued, wars will also cease, an atmosphere of love and affection will be established and the rights of Allah will also begin to be fulfilled. He guided them to take these two objectives and work within their respective fields, whether IT or other departments.
Maintaining regularity in prayer and Quranic study
Another khadim expressed that he tries to offer his prayers and read the Holy Quran, but sometimes finds it difficult to be regular and sought guidance on how to remain steadfast.
Huzooraa advised that one does not find it difficult to eat meals. Waking up for school does not seem difficult; one even wakes up at six in the morning if one has to commute. He pointed out that in winter, prayer time is often around that time anyway.
Furthermore, Huzooraa stated that if one believes in the existence of Allah the Almighty, then one should consider what Allah the Almighty says. He says that if you believe in Him, then obey His commands, which includes fulfilling His rights. Huzooraa addressed the notion that people ask why Allah needs our worship, given He said He created jinn and men for His worship. Allah, Huzooraa explained, provides the answer later: that He has no desire for His worship to be performed, nor does He care about it. This worship is for mankind’s own reward.
So, Huzooraa continued, if a person believes in the existence of Allah, he will also act upon His commandments. And if there is a desire to know who Allah the Almighty is and what His commands are, then to know this, one will read the Holy Quran. Since they might not understand Arabic, they would read the translation. If some matters are not understood even from the translation, they would read the tafsir or commentary. Upon reading these, Huzooraa said, one will come to know the commands of Allah the Almighty.
He advised that just as one has an interest in worldly education, similarly, one should develop an interest in the teachings of the Holy Quran. This, he explained, is a matter of developing interest and setting priorities. If one’s only focus is, for example, to study IT and one sits with it all day, that is not right. Time should be divided properly: time for worldly studies, time for Quranic recitation, time for salat and so on. Huzooraa encouraged the khadim to cultivate this eagerness, which will develop when there is perfect faith in Allah and also the fear that Allah the Almighty will ask about these matters in the Hereafter.
Guidance on the tarbiyat of daughters
A khadim, who mentioned he has three daughters, sought Huzoor’saa guidance on how best to carry out their moral training and tarbiyat.
Huzooraa advised that parents should strive to look after their children and keep asking about their well-being. He noted that children nowadays are intelligent, they study and then they ask questions. He guided that parents should inculcate good interests in them. If parents show their own good example, children will observe it, learn and also ask questions. When they ask questions, their queries should be answered. Huzooraa added that a person can only answer properly if they themselves are acting upon those teachings. Therefore, parents must establish their own good examples for their children. He emphasised that fathers, along with mothers, should have a friendly relationship with both their sons and daughters.
Recognising what is good for oneself
Lastly, a khadim asked about situations where, initially, one does not recognise what is good for oneself, for example, in matters like marriage proposals or other important decisions. He enquired how one can recognise what is truly beneficial.
Huzooraa began by affirming the khadim’s belief in Allah’s existence and His attribute of answering prayers. Therefore, Huzooraa advised, one should pray. However, he clarified that it is not necessary that a dream will be seen, nor does everyone receive ilham; rather, it is a state of the heart, where Allah instils contentment. Thus, when faced with any matter, one should pray for five, seven, or eight days. If it is a significant issue, one should offer nawafil after Isha prayer and supplicate for up to forty days. Afterwards, one should make a decision according to the contentment felt in the heart.
Huzooraa guided that one should pray to Allah the Almighty that if the matter is better for them, He should grant contentment and confidence in the heart. And if it is not better, He should avert the thoughts in their heart regarding it and create a clear feeling of aversion towards it.
This, Huzooraa explained, is a matter of one’s connection with Allah. He observed that people often turn to Allah only for worldly matters when they lack resources, but when they do not have worldly problems, they do not beseech Him earnestly. Whereas, he advised, one should regularly turn to Allah, regardless, praying to attain Him and seeking His help to find the straight path. He encouraged continuous recitation of the prayer “اِہۡدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الۡمُسۡتَقِیۡمَ” (Guide us to the straight path) [Surah al-Fatihah, Ch.1: V.6]. When guidance comes from Allah, then whatever task one undertakes, Allah will direct them towards it and show them that He indeed exists.
Huzooraa cautioned that if a person remains engrossed in doubts and seeks an absolutely clear command from Allah, like a mathematical equation (one plus one equals two), such clarity is not always granted even to Prophets. Even they can sometimes make errors of judgement (ijtihad). So, how can ordinary humans like us expect absolute clarity?
Therefore, Huzooraa advised that even in normal circumstances, one should pray to Allah that, whatever happens, their faith in Allah the Almighty may never waver. This prayer should be offered in ordinary circumstances as well. Then, when such challenging situations arise, Allah the Almighty creates means of comfort and reassurance.
The mulaqat concluded after the question-and-answer session and a group photograph was taken.
I first read Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth in 1999, and I was profoundly captivated. The interpretations presented by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IV, Mirza Tahir Ahmadrh, were astounding and provided profound insights into the contemporary age. One particular translation that stood out to me was of the word hotamah in the following verses of the Holy Quran:
“Nay! he shall surely be cast into the “hotamah”. And what should make thee know what the “hotamah” is? Allah’s fire as preserved fuel, Which will leap suddenly on to the hearts. It is locked up in outstretched pillars to be used against them.” (Surah al-Humazah, Ch. 105: V. 5-10; Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth, p. 613)
“Authentic Arabic lexicons describe hotamah as possessing two root meanings; first hatamah, which means ‘to pound’ or ‘pulverize into extremely small particles’, and the second hitmah, which means ‘the smallest insignificant particle’. Thus, hitmah is the result obtained by breaking something down to its smallest constituents.
“The two meanings just mentioned can rightfully be applied to any extremely minute particle which has reached the limits of its divisible potential. As the concept of the atom had not been born fourteen hundred years ago, the nearest substitute to it could only be hotamah which also sounds intriguingly close to atom. One hardly recovers from the shock of the claim that a time would come when man would be cast in the hotamah when another claim, even more bizarre, comes in its wake.” (Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth, p. 614)
As a former nuclear instrument designer, I approached the last verse with a similar analytical spirit. Observing the development of the most destructive intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by major powers such as Russia and the US, I am reminded of how this verse vividly illustrates the horrors of this energy encapsulated in pillars. These missiles, each holding multiple warheads, serve as a stark reminder of the forewarnings we recite daily. Allow me to provide a couple of examples below.
The pillars of destruction and death
The Russian RS-28 Sarmat, ominously nicknamed “Satan 2,” and the American LGM-30 Minuteman III stand as the most formidable missiles in their respective arsenals, embodying the pinnacle of destructive capability. These intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are designed to deliver nuclear payloads over vast distances with unparalleled precision, serving as pillars of atomic energy poised for the potential devastation of mankind.
The RS-28 Sarmat, a behemoth of Russian engineering, stretches 35.3 meters in length and boasts a diameter of 3 meters. With a weight of approximately 208,100 kilograms, it can carry up to 10 warheads, each with a yield of 1 megaton.
This missile is engineered to evade missile defence systems, utilising multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) to ensure its payload reaches its intended targets. Its range extends up to an astounding 18,000 kilometres, making it a formidable tool of deterrence and destruction.
In contrast, the American LGM-30 Minuteman III, though smaller in stature, remains a critical component of the United States’ so-called defence. Measuring 18.3 meters in length and 1.68 meters in diameter, and weighing around 35,300 kilograms, it can deliver up to 3 warheads, each yielding 300 kilotons. The Minuteman III is the only land-based ICBM currently in service in the US, equipped with MIRVs to enhance its strike capabilities. Its range of approximately 13,000 kilometres ensures it can reach targets across the globe with devastating effect.
These missiles operate through a series of meticulously orchestrated phases. In the launch phase, the missile is propelled from a silo or mobile launcher, ascending rapidly through the atmosphere powered by its rocket engines. During the midcourse phase, the missile travels through space, following a ballistic trajectory, and may deploy its MIRVs.
As the warheads re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere in the re-entry phase, they descend towards their targets at high speeds. Upon impact or even before hitting the ground, the warheads detonate, generating immense blasts, heat, and radiation, causing widespread destruction.
The sheer size and power of these ICBMs underscore their role as ultimate weapons, designed to maintain a precarious balance of power through the threat of mutual assured destruction. The history of bloodshed does not deter arrogant superpowers from unleashing death and destruction in their relentless pursuit of greater power.
“There shall be sent against you a flame of fire, and smoke; and you shall not be able to help yourselves.” (Surah ar-Rahman, Ch. 55: V. 36)
These “pillars of fire” – the ICBMs, with a typical payload of a 900-kiloton nuclear weapon, would unleash catastrophic destruction, with effects that are both immediate and far-reaching. The explosion would generate a powerful blast wave, capable of flattening buildings and infrastructure within a radius of several kilometres.
The initial shock wave, travelling at speeds exceeding 160~200 kilometres per hour, would cause extensive damage, leaving a trail of devastation in its wake. The intense heat from the explosion would create a massive fireball, igniting fires and causing severe burns over a wide area.
Thermal radiation from the blast could cause third-degree burns up to 40 kilometres away from the detonation point, inflicting grievous injuries on anyone within its reach. The immediate burst of radiation, including lethal gamma rays and neutrons – the smokeless fire, would be deadly to anyone within several kilometres of the explosion. The fallout from the explosion would spread radioactive particles over a large area, posing long-term health risks to those exposed.
In Surah al-Dukhan, we find verses that vividly describe this scenario:
“But watch thou for the day when the sky will bring forth a visible smoke, that will envelop the people. This will be a painful torment.” (Surah ad-Dukhan, Ch. 44: V. 11-12)
The environmental impact would be equally severe. The explosion would release an immense amount of energy, vaporising everything in its immediate vicinity and creating a large crater. The resulting radioactive fallout would contaminate the environment, rendering it uninhabitable for years to come.
The Holy Quran prophetically captures the profound and harrowing imagery of a day when nuclear weapons may manifest a mushroom cloud, enveloping all and bringing forth immense suffering to humanity. We witnessed a small example of it over Japan in 1945. The combined effects of the blast, heat, and radiation would result in significant casualties, perhaps millions may perish and long-term environmental damage, underscoring the devastating power of such a weapon.
Global number of the pillars of fire
The combined nuclear arsenals of the world’s nuclear-armed nations possess the potential to unleash catastrophic destruction on a global scale. As of 2024, there are approximately 12,121 nuclear warheads in existence. The United States and Russia together hold a staggering 88% of these weapons, underscoring their dominant positions in the realm of nuclear capability.
Modern nuclear weapons vary significantly in their destructive power, with yields ranging from tens of kilotons to several megatons of TNT (a chemical explosive used in mining and conventional warfare). This immense range highlights the terrifying potential of these weapons to cause widespread devastation.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested, the Soviet Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 megatons, making it over 3,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Such a weapon exemplifies the sheer magnitude of destruction that modern nuclear arsenals are capable of inflicting.
The existence of these arsenals serves as a sobering reminder of the destructive power that humanity has harnessed and the profound responsibility that comes with it. We are at the verge of witnessing Quranic prophecy, “that (manifest smoke) will envelop the people. This will be a painful torment.” Unless, of course, the powerful nations of the world heed the message of peace. The potential for global catastrophe underscores the critical importance of diplomatic efforts and international treaties aimed at nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
Conclusion
“The Doomsday Clock” is a symbolic representation created by a group of scientists who collectively warn the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making. It serves as a metaphor, a stark reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on this planet.
When the Doomsday Clock was first created in 1947, the greatest danger to humanity stemmed from nuclear weapons, particularly the prospect of a nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. On 28 January 2025, the Doomsday Clock scientists announced a chilling update by putting the clock at 89 seconds to midnight, where midnight is the impending disaster:
“In setting the Clock one second closer to midnight, the Science and Security Board sends a stark signal. Because the world is already perilously close to the precipice, a move of even a single second should indicate extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.”
This announcement underscores the urgent need for immediate and decisive action to mitigate these looming threats.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V, Mirza Masroor Ahmadaa, said in his Friday sermon on 25 October 2023, “The rate at which the state of war is escalating, and how the Israeli government and other major global powers are adopting certain policies, it’s apparent that a world war is staring us in the face.” He further stated that, “if wise policies are not immediately adopted, the world will face devastation.”
“It is because we follow the teachings of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that we feel extreme pain and anguish in our hearts at the state of the world. It is that pain which drives us in our efforts to try and save humanity from destruction and suffering. Therefore, I and all other Ahmadi Muslims are striving to fulfil our responsibilities towards achieving peace in the world.” (World Crisis and the Pathway to Peace, p. 55)
Awwab Saad Hayat & Tahmeed Ahmad, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Maktubat-e-Ahmad is a collection of letters by the Promised Messiahas from 1883 to 1908 addressed to various individuals. These letters serve as a valuable historical and spiritual record for scholars and members of the Jamaat alike.
One such letter was addressed to Hazrat Hakim Maulvi Noor-ud-Dinra, which some have used to raise baseless and unfounded allegations, as will be proved in the course of this article.
On 11 July 1887, the Promised Messiahas wrote to Hazrat Hakim Maulvi Noor-ud-Dinra, mentioning he had received half of a 500-rupee note and requested the other half be sent securely by registered mail. In a follow-up letter, he confirmed receiving the full amount and expressed deep gratitude for the support during a difficult time, praying for Allah’s blessings upon him. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad [2008], Vol. 2, pp. 41-42) Similar mentions of “half-cut notes” are found in other letters.
Allegations have surfaced online, falsely accusing Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas and Hazrat Hakim Maulvi Noor-ud-Dinra of fraud, founded on letters exchanged in 1887 concerning the sending of a 500-rupee note in two halves for security during the monsoon season. The site claims that this manner, used to avoid postal theft and high transfer fees, was a deceitful trick. It mocks the act as a calculated fraud, despite it being a practical solution at the time. These baseless allegations are built on misinterpretation and a lack of understanding of historical context and intention.
A history of half-cut notes: A global practice of secure money transfers
The practice of cutting notes was a way to ensure secure money transfers through unreliable postal systems.
“I duly received yours of the 7th inclosing 4 half bills of the U.S. bank. (Norfolk, May 13, 1801)”
The line above is a receipt for a purchase made by the then US president, Thomas Jefferson. The president who would be featured on the 2 dollar bill had a peculiar practice: he would tear banknotes in half and mail them separately to avoid what he called “the infidelities of the post office”. (Thomas Jefferson on Wine, pp. 267-268)
This method of cutting banknotes is not limited to the president or just the US; we find similar records worldwide. A widow living in Poole, Dorset, southern England, requests her banker for £92 on 24 November 1806. “She asked specifically that the money be sent directly to her, in the form of half bank notes. This was a common practice: bank notes would be cut in half, one set of halves mailed away, and after their safe receipt the other halves would be sent off to join them.” (Jane Austen Annual Report 2010, p. 106)
“Frequent references appear in the local press to forgery and theft of notes, from the odd pickpocket to the thieves who broke in and stole almost the entire funds of the West of England Bank. A precaution against loss when sending notes by coach was to cut the notes in half. One half was sent by one vehicle and the second half by another, and then the halves were rejoined when they had arrived safely.” (Banks and banknotes of Exeter, 1769-1906 : a study of provincial banking with a standard list of banks, banknotes, and partnerships, p. 20)
Background
An Old Banknote mended after being cut in half | Wiki Commons
According to Ian Angus in Paper Money, this practice goes back to the earliest days of the Bank of England. “As a further precaution against fraud these marbled paper bank notes were cut in half and only one half given to the customer. When the note came back to the bank it could be checked against the other half to prove that it was genuine. None of these marbled notes has survived, but the practice of cutting notes in half continued for some time. Later notes may be found with curved cuts between the two halves as well as a printed design. A watermark was adopted as a security measure in 1697.” (Paper money, p. 15)
The infidelities of the post office
The need for splitting notes arose yet again a few decades later due to a variety of reasons. As early as 1782, the authorities were urging people to send banknotes in halves. (Morning Post, 10 January 1899)
Take, for example, Thomas Jefferson’s comments about “the infidelities of the post office”. In 1862, TheTimes published a lengthy article on the topic, reporting that the post office was discouraging people from sending money by mail. Various incidents were highlighted, including a bag full of post falling into a sewer, envelopes being stolen by ravens, and children pouring water into the letterbox. However, the most significant issue was poverty. Many postal workers came from impoverished households, making even a small amount of money tempting to them. Although the post office implemented measures to address this issue, they could not provide a guarantee of safety for the mail. (St. Neots Chronicle and Advertiser, 31 May 1862)
By 1868, this became the most reliable way of sending cash; newspapers would request that their correspondents only send half-notes. (Dublin Evening Mail, 20 June 1868)
Some would argue that, from a moral standpoint, “the man who sends a divided bank-note in two separate enclosures, is literally doing things by halved” (Commonwealth (Glasgow), 5 January 1856)
However, this was promptly met with a much stronger slogan, published by nearly every newspaper at the time: “Never do things by halves, except when you send us bank-notes by post.” (The Punch, 18 May 1872)
By 1873, the custom of sending these in halves, sealed in different covers, “had become habitual,” reports the Daily Telegraph & Courier (24 July 1873)
How to cut a note in half
Eventually, due to the sheer popularity or necessity of sending banknotes in halves, the post office began publishing instructions on how this system worked. Headings such as “The following has been issued by order of the Postmaster-General” would follow up with detailed instructions on the entire process. (Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, 29 May 1872)
One of the most straightforward explanations I could find is from the popular newspaper Liverpool Echo, or as it was known, the Echo. A reporter from the Echo interviewed an authority on finance. One of the questions was whether or not sending half-notes was the best way of sending cash. He responded by explaining the whole process in great detail:
“Oh, yes,” said the authority. “The best way to send large sums of money through the post is to tear the notes in half and send the halves by different mail.
“Obviously, this prevents theft in transit. The first batch of half notes is, of course, valueless, and the second batch is valueless too. But when the recipient has both batches and can, therefore, present the full notes, quite whole and all there, he can cash them at the bank in the usual way.
“Thus, loss or robbery is guarded against. If one batch of halves were stolen, it would probably be possible, after a certain lapse of time, to make arrangements for the negotiation of the other halves at the bank.
“A bank would not cash half a note, because, if it started doing that, it would soon find itself cashing both halves at different times and paying twice on each note.
“Sometimes a person going abroad takes half notes with him to prevent robbery en route, and has the corresponding halves sent on by another boat. (Liverpool Echo, 9 May 1929)
Conclusion
The accusations against the Promised Messiahas are, in fact, a “half-truth” at best! Sending currency in halves was a common practice for secure transactions, not a scheme for fraud. Those who try to “cut” the truth are simply missing the whole picture, as his letters reflect trust, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause.
Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Central to Islamic teachings concerning modesty and interaction between genders is the following question: What is the ruling (hukm) on a man intentionally directing his look (nazar) towards the face of a woman unrelated to him by marriage or close kinship (ghayr mahram)?
This subject requires careful consideration owing to the widely held view among classical jurists within Islamic legal scholarship that a woman’s face, unlike other parts of her body, does not constitute ‘awra requiring mandatory covering (satr) in every situation. This exemption is generally understood to arise from interpretations of scriptural exceptions, such as “except that which is apparent thereof” (illa ma zahara minha) in Surah an-Nur, Ch.24: V.32, and considerations of necessity (darura or haja) connected with daily life, testimony and ritual obligations like prayer (salah) and pilgrimage (hajj).
The main point of divergence, consequently, becomes evident when determining the necessary legal implications (lawazim shar‘iyya) of this non-‘awra status for the separate hukm governing the man’s act of looking. Does the concession (rukhsa) regarding her covering automatically permit him to look, conditional upon certain subjective factors – the absence of desire (shahwa) or perceived risk of temptation (khawf al-fitna) – being apparently met? This viewpoint, representing a notable interpretive direction seen in early Hanafi reasoning, the prominent Maliki view, which suggests agreement on the permissibility of looking without desire, and the Zahiri school, essentially puts forward a principle of direct correspondence: the permissibility of uncovering for her implies permissibility of looking for him under these conditions.
Conversely, the position argued for in this text is in favour of separating these two rulings. This view finds strong support in the relied-upon (mu‘tamad) position within the Shafi‘i school, championed by scholars such as al-Juwayni (d. 478/1085), an-Nawawi (d. 676/1277) and later commentators like Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974/1566) and ar-Ramli (d. 1004/1596), the main Hanbali perspective, arising from the school’s emphasis on precaution, the cautious approach adopted by many later Hanafis concerned with the corruption of the times (fasad az-zaman) and, most importantly, the preventative philosophy expressed by the Promised Messiahas.
This position holds that the ruling governing the man’s gaze operates under distinct textual commands and legal principles. Principal among these are the proactive divine injunction for lowering the gaze (ghadd al-basar) in Surah an-Nur, Ch.24: V.31, interpreted as a primary preventative measure, and the broad jurisprudential principle of blocking the means to potential harm or sin (sadd adh-dhara’i‘). From this perspective, the rukhsa related to the woman’s satr, granted owing to hardship (mashaqqa) or necessity (haja or darura), does not nullify the independent primary ruling (‘azima) guiding the man’s conduct. This primary ruling gives precedence to preventing fitna at its source by addressing the inherent susceptibility of human nature to temptation, making reliance on subjective self-evaluations of intent insufficient as a primary legal safeguard.
This piece will examine the Holy Quran and Sunnah as the textual bases, jurisprudential reasoning (usul al-fiqh) and ethical considerations supporting this preventative approach. It will contend that separating the hukm of satr from the hukm of nazar is not only jurisprudentially sound but also aligns more closely with the comprehensive wisdom (hikma) and higher objectives (maqasid) of the sharia aimed at cultivating chastity (‘iffa), preserving individual piety and maintaining societal morality by proactively reducing the occasions for temptation.
Separate responsibilities: The concession for covering and the command regarding the gaze
The primary jurisprudential weakness in the view permitting looking at the face of a non-mahram woman provided shahwa or fitna are absent lies in its frequent, often unspoken, assumption of a direct, almost reciprocal, legal connection between the ruling applicable to her act of not covering and the ruling applicable to his act of looking.
A key characteristic of Islamic legal reasoning (usul al-fiqh) is that rulings (ahkam) are specifically linked to their particular textual proofs (adilla) and underlying causes (‘ilal) or objectives (maqasid). This basic method often leads the sharia to assign distinct responsibilities and rulings to different individuals involved in related situations. For instance, the granting of a specific concession (rukhsa) to one party owing to hardship – established through its own evidence and reasoning – does not automatically override a general primary ruling (‘azima) or preventative measure (sadd adh-dhara’i‘) directed at another party, especially when different wisdoms (hikam) or potential outcomes (ma’alat) are being addressed for each distinct act and actor. The permissibility (ibaha) or concession (rukhsa) granted to one party owing to specific circumstances, consequently, does not necessarily negate or modify a prohibition (tahrim) or obligation (wujub) placed upon another party concerning a related action, particularly when that prohibition is guided by separate textual evidence or broader preventative maqasid.
In the specific case of the face, the consensus or near-consensus among classical jurists holds that it is exempt from the absolute requirement of covering (satr) that generally applies to other parts of a woman’s body. This exemption is consistently justified not as an inherent and unrestricted permission, but rather as a specific concession (rukhsa) founded upon necessity (darura or haja) and the avoidance of excessive hardship (raf‘ al-haraj). Jurists across schools explicitly stated this reasoning.
The Hanafi jurist Ibn Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683/1384) clearly states in al-Ikhtiyar li-ta‘lil al-Mukhtar:
لأن في ذلك ضرورة للأخذ والعطاء ومعرفة وجهها عند المعاملة مع الأجانب لإقامة معاشها
“[B]ecause in that there is necessity (darura) for giving and taking (akhdh wa-‘ata’) and knowing her face during transactions (mu‘amala) with strangers (ajanib) for establishing her livelihood.” (Ibn Mawdud al-Mawsili, al-Ikhtiyar li-ta‘lil al-Mukhtar, Cairo: Matbaʻat Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1936, Vol. 4, p. 156)
In a similar way, the Shafi‘i jurist Abu Ishaq ash-Shirazi (d. 476/1083) notes in al-Muhadhdhab:
ولأن الحاجة تدعو إلي إبراز الوجه للبيع والشراء و إلي إبراز الكف للأخذ والعطاء فلم يجعل ذلك عورة
“[A]nd because necessity (haja) calls for revealing the face for buying and selling, and for revealing the hand for giving and taking, therefore that was not made ‘awra.” (Abu Ishsaq ash-Shirazi, al-Muhadhdhab fi fiqh al-Imam ash-Shafiʻi, ed. Zakariyya ʻUmayrat, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyya, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 124)
This reasoning, connecting the exemption directly to practical needs, is echoed within the Maliki school as well, as related by al-Maziri (d. 536/1141) citing Ibn al-Jahm (d. 329/941):
لأن بها ضرورة إلى إبداء هذين العضوين للمعاملات والأخذ والعطاء فدعت الضرورة إلى استثناء هذين العضوين
“[B]ecause there is a necessity (darura) for her to reveal these two limbs [face and hands] for transactions and giving and taking, so necessity called for the exception of these two limbs.” (Al-Maziri, Sharh at-Talqin, ed. Muhammad al-Mukhtar as-Sallami, Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 2008, Vol. 1, p. 471)
Our position fully acknowledges this well-established rukhsa granted to the woman, relieving her from the obligation of perpetual facial covering owing to practical requirements. It firmly holds, still, that this concession, specific to her situation and needs, does not automatically extend to create a corresponding rukhsa for an unrelated man to freely exercise his gaze upon her face. The ruling governing his act of looking (nazar) stems from independent considerations: the explicit divine command to lower the gaze (ghadd al-basar) in Surah an-Nur, Ch.24: V.31, the inherent potential of the face to be a focal point of attraction (majma‘ al-mahasin) and thus a source of fitna and the preventative legal principle of blocking the means leading to harm or sin (sadd adh-dhara’i‘).
The man’s obligation remains independent of the woman’s action; his duty to lower his gaze persists even if she uncovers her face, whether permissibly due to the concession or impermissibly.
This important separation was explicitly recognised and articulated within major schools of thought.
The relied-upon Shafi‘i position, as definitively explained by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his works, directly addresses the apparent logical tension. He clarifies the primary rationale for prohibiting the gaze despite the face not being ‘awra for covering in Tuhfat al-muhtaj:
وبه اندفع ما يقال: هو غير عورة فكيف حرم نظره؟ ووجه اندفاعه أنه مع كونه غير عورة نظره مظنة للفتنة أو الشهوة، ففطم الناس عنه احتياطا
“This refutes what might be said: ‘It [the face] is not ‘awra, so how is looking at it forbidden?’ The way it is refuted is that despite it not being ‘awra, looking at it is a likely cause (mazinna) of fitna or shahwa, so people were weaned off it as a precaution (ihtiyatan).” (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Tuhfat al-muhtaj bi-sharh al-Minhaj, Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tijariyya al-Kubra, 1938, Vol. 7, p. 193)
This core distinction – that the concession for uncovering stems from necessity while the prohibition on looking stems from the potential for fitna – is concisely reiterated by him in al-Minhaj al-qawim:
وإنما لم يكونا عورة حتى يجب سترهما لأن الحاجة تدعوه إلى إبرازهما وحرمة نظرهما […] ليس لأن ذلك عورة بل لأن النظر إليه مظنة للفتنة
“And they [face and hands] were not made ‘awra requiring covering because necessity (al-haja) calls for their uncovering. And the prohibition of looking at them (hurmat nazaruhuma) […] is not because that [‘awra] but because looking at them is a likely cause (mazinna) of fitna.” (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Minhaj al-qawim sharh al-Muqaddima al-Hadramiyya, ed. Ahmad Shams ad-Din, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyya, 2000, p. 115)
Furthermore, explaining in Tuhfat al-muhtaj why this preventative view is preferred despite being opposed by the majority, he highlights the distinct textual commands:
وكون الأكثرين على مقابل الصحيح لا يقتضي رجحانه لا سيما وقد أشار إلى فساد طريقتهم بتعبيره بالصحيح ووجهه أن الآية كما دلت على جواز كشفهن لوجوههن دلت على وجوب غض الرجال أبصارهم عنهن ويلزم من وجوب الغض حرمة النظر ولا يلزم من حل الكشف جوازه كما لا يخفى فاتضح ما أشار إليه بتعبيره بالصحيح
“The fact that the majority hold the view opposite to the sound or correct (as-sahih) view [i.e., prohibition] does not make it the stronger view, especially since he [an-Nawawi] indicated the weakness of their approach by using the term as-sahih. Its reasoning is that the verse [Ch.24: V.32, regarding illa ma zahara minha] – just as it indicated the permissibility of them uncovering their faces – also indicated [through the preceding verse, Ch.24: V.31] the obligation for men to lower their gazes from them. From the obligation of lowering the gaze follows the prohibition of looking, while from the permissibility of uncovering, the permissibility [of looking] does not necessarily follow, as is not hidden. Thus, what he indicated by using as-sahih becomes clear.” (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Tuhfat al-muhtaj bi-sharh al-Minhaj, ibid.)
Shams ad-Din ar-Ramli, another pillar of the later Shafi‘i school, echoed this exact reasoning in his Nihayat al-muhtaj, confirming its centrality to the relied-upon position. (Shams ad-Din ar-Ramli, Nihayat al-muhtaj ila sharh al-Minhaj fi l-fiqh ʻala madhhab al-Imam ash-Shafiʻi, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1984, Vol. 6, p. 188)
Thus, the non-‘awra status concerning mandatory covering (satr) is conceded for the woman owing to necessity, but its direct implication for the permissibility of the man’s gaze (nazar) is decisively denied. The ruling on looking is determined independently, giving precedence to the preventative objective (maqsid) of safeguarding against fitna by addressing the act of looking itself, even when the object looked at is not mandated to be covered under all circumstances.
The divine command to lower the gaze: A proactive measure against fitna
The divine injunction central to regulating the male gaze forms a foundational element of our argument. The Holy Quran commands:
“Say to the believing men that they restrain their looks and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Surely, Allah is Well-Aware of what they do.” (Surah an-Nur, Ch.24: V.31)
A parallel command is given to believing women in the subsequent verse, establishing restraining the looks (ghadd al-basar) as a mutual responsibility fundamental to Islamic modesty. The opposing view often interprets this command in a reactive manner – suggesting the gaze need only be lowered or averted after shahwa is felt or when fitna is actively feared. This interpretation considerably weakens the preventative force of the verse. It presumes a level of self-awareness and control over developing desires that Islamic teachings on human nature (fitra) and the subtleties of temptation frequently caution against. Relying on subjective assessment after exposure creates a risk that the seeds of fitna may be sown.
Our position, in contrast, understands this command as fundamentally proactive and preventative. The instruction to “restrain their looks” is not simply about controlling shahwa once it arises, but about actively managing one’s sight to prevent the arousal of such feelings and to avoid situations where fitna is likely. It constitutes a primary barrier against the very means (sadd adh-dhara’i‘) that lead towards impurity. The inherent danger lies in the initiating act of looking itself, given the natural human disposition towards attraction.
The Promised Messiahas powerfully articulated this preventative understanding, rejecting any notion of permissible gazing under the guise of pure intentions:
“[G]od Almighty has not instructed us that we might freely gaze at women outside the prohibited degrees and might contemplate their beauty and observe all their movements in dancing etc. but that we should do so with pure looks. […] We have been positively commanded not to look at their beauty, whether with pure intent or otherwise, […]. We have been directed to eschew all this as we eschew carrion, so that we should not stumble. It is almost certain that our free glances would cause us to stumble sometime or the other.” (The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, pp. 47-48)
Expounding further on this necessary degree of aversion and contrasting it with less strict approaches, the Promised Messiahas wrote:
“Unlike the Gospel, which forbids one to look covetously and lustfully at women who are not Mahram but permits it otherwise, the Quran instructs against glancing at women under any circumstances, be it covetously or with pure intentions because one is liable to stumble on this account. In fact, your eyes should always be lowered when you confront a Non-Mahram. You should not be aware of the physical form of a woman except through an obscured sight, in the way a person’s vision is clouded in the early stages of cataract.” (Noah’s Ark, p. 46)
This interpretation views ghadd al-basar not as conditional restraint but as a comprehensive discipline involving deliberate aversion from that which is likely to tempt – primarily, the forms and faces of unrelated members of the opposite sex. The emphasis is on avoiding the stimulus altogether, aligning perfectly with the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘.
The precise meaning of the particle min in “their looks” (min absarihim) has been discussed by commentators. Linguistically min can indicate partition (tab‘id), i.e., restraining some of the looks and lowering some of the gaze. Yet, given the verse’s explicit aim of achieving greater purity (azka lahum) and the established Islamic principle of preventing harm by blocking its means (sadd adh-dhara’i‘), interpreting min here as primarily specifying the object from which the gaze must be averted is more aligned with the preventative purpose of the command. This perspective acknowledges the necessity of sight for daily life but demands conscious redirection away from prohibited stimuli – primarily non-mahram individuals – beyond incidental glances or established need.
This resonates strongly with the guidance of the Holy Prophetsa differentiating between the unavoidable first glance (nazrat al-faj’a) and the forbidden intentional second glance, as reported in the well-known hadith addressed to ‘Alira:
“Do not follow up one glance with another; the first is for you, but the second is not.” (Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 2149)
Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi (d. 606/1210), in his influential Quran commentary, explicitly links the prohibition of intentional looking, even without a specific purpose or fear of fitna, to the command of ghadd al-basar and this very hadith:
فاعلم أنه لا يجوز أن يتعمد النظر إلى وجه الأجنبية لغير غرض وإن وقع بصره عليها بغتة يغض بصره، لقوله تعالى: {قل للمؤمنين يغضوا من أبصـارهم} […] ولا يجوز أن يكرر النظر إليها […] ولقوله عليه السلام: يا علي لا تتبع النظرة النظرة فإن لك الأولى وليست لك الآخرة
“Know that it is not permissible to intentionally look (yata‘ammad an-nazar) at the face of a non-mahram woman without a purpose (li-ghayr gharad), even if his gaze falls upon her suddenly, he should lower his gaze, due to the statement of Allah Almighty: {Say to the believing men that they restrain their looks}. […] And it is not permissible to repeat the glance towards her […] and due to his [the Prophet’ssa] statement: ‘O Ali, do not follow up one glance with another; the first is for you, but the second is not.’” (Mafatih al-ghayb, commentary on Surah An-Nur, Ch.24: V.31)
Ar-Razi draws a contrast: the intentional gaze undertaken without specific purpose or fear of fitna is forbidden based on the command to lower the gaze. This is distinct from looking for a valid need like marriage or testimony, which is permissible if fitna is absent. He also separately addresses looking driven by desire (shahwa), categorising it as unequivocally forbidden (mahzur) and citing prophetic warnings about the “fornication of the eye” (zina al-‘ayn). His overall analysis underscores that the primary prohibition targets the intentional gaze itself, even when shahwa or darura are absent, as a direct application of the Quranic command for restraint.
The independent force of the ghadd al-basar command is such that jurists like the famous Maliki scholar Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 544/1149), while holding the common Maliki position that face-covering (satr al-wajh) is recommended (mustahabb) not obligatory, nonetheless applied a distinct and strict ruling to the man’s gaze, affirming his separate duty:
وعلى الرجل غض بصره عنها في جميع الأحوال إلا لغرض صحيح شرعي
“[A]nd upon the man is [the obligation of] lowering his gaze from her in all circumstances, except for a valid, legitimate purpose.” (An-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim bi-sharh an-Nawawi, ed. ʻIsam as-Sababiti; Hazim Muhammad, ʻImad ʻAmir, Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, 1994, Vol. 7, p. 393)
The stance of Qadi ‘Iyad again illustrates the principle that the man’s obligation to lower his gaze operates independently of the ruling concerning the woman’s covering. This principle of separation, combined with the proactive interpretation of ghadd al-basar as a preventative measure, provides a solid foundation – across various schools of thought – for prohibiting intentional gazing at non-mahram women, irrespective of whether their faces are technically defined as ‘awra requiring covering.
Blocking the means: The principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘ and the gaze
Women Visiting a Hermit | Wiki Commons
Central to the jurisprudential basis of our view is the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘, meaning literally blocking the means or pathways that lead to prohibited (haram) or harmful outcomes. This principle, recognised particularly strongly within the Maliki and Hanbali schools but operationally relevant across Sunni jurisprudence, permits the sharia to prohibit actions that, while potentially permissible (mubah) in isolation, serve as likely precursors or facilitators (dhara’i‘) to sin or social harm (mafsada). In the context of relations between genders, sadd adh-dhara’i‘ provides a sound justification for prohibiting the intentional male gaze (nazar) directed at a non-mahram woman’s face, even if that face is not technically mandated to be covered (satr) under all circumstances. The look itself is identified as a primary means leading towards fitna and the potential arousal of shahwa.
This preventative approach contrasts markedly with the opposing view’s reliance on subjective and often unreliable conditions – specifically, the assertion that looking is permissible provided the viewer ascertains within themselves an absence of shahwa or immediate fear of fitna. Our position, grounded in sadd adh-dhara’i‘, argues that such self-assessment is precarious considering the inherent weaknesses and subtleties of human nature (fitra) regarding attraction.
The grave danger of the initial, seemingly innocuous look is highlighted by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350):
والنظر أصل عامّة الحوادث التي تصيب الإنسان، فإنّ النظرة تولّد خطرةً، ثم تولّد الخطرة فكرةً، ثم تولّد الفكرة شهوةً، ثم تولّد الشهوة إرادةً، ثم تقوى فتصير عزيمةً جازمةً، فيقع الفعل، ولا بدّ، ما لم يمنع منه مانع.
“And the gaze (nazar) is the origin (asl) of most problems (hawadith) that afflict a person. For the glance (nazra) gives birth to a fleeting thought (khatra), then the fleeting thought gives birth to a developed thought (fikra), then the thought gives birth to desire (shahwa), then desire gives birth to will (irada), which then strengthens and becomes firm resolve (‘azima jazima), and the action inevitably occurs, so long as there is no impediment to prevent it.” (Ibn al-Qayyim, ad-Da’ wa-d-Dawa’, ed. Muhammad Ajmal al-Islahi, Mecca: Dar ‘Alam al-Fawa’id, 2008, p. 350)
This step-by-step analysis reveals precisely how the gaze serves as the critical first step – the dhari‘a – on a path that leads to sin, explaining why blocking this initial means is a cornerstone of preventative Islamic ethics.
The sharia, in its wisdom, does not primarily depend on individuals successfully policing their internal states after exposure to potent stimuli; rather, it aims to minimise exposure to such stimuli in the first instance.
Furthermore, the mere existence of scholarly disagreement (khilaf) on the permissibility of looking without shahwa does not automatically grant license to choose the more lenient view based on personal inclination. As established by consensus (ijma‘) among scholars, khilaf itself is not a proof (hujja), and the obligation remains to follow the ruling supported by the strongest evidence and alignment with broader sharia principles, such as precaution and blocking the means to harm (sadd adh-dhara’i‘). To selectively adopt a less precautionary view simply because it exists within the spectrum of opinions, especially in matters prone to temptation, risks undermining the preventative objectives of the sharia and potentially following personal desire (hawa) rather than sound evidence.
The Promised Messiahas sternly highlighted this inherent human vulnerability and the inadequacy of relying solely on managing intent after the fact:
“It should be kept in mind that as the natural condition of man, which is the source of his passions, is such that he cannot depart from it without a complete change in himself, his passions are bound to be roused, or in other words put in peril, when they are confronted with the occasion and opportunity for indulging in this vice. […] There can be no doubt that unrestrained looks become a source of danger. If we place soft bread before a hungry dog, it would be vain to hope that the dog should pay no attention to it. Thus God Almighty desired that human faculties should not be provided with any occasion for secret functioning and should not be confronted with anything that might incite dangerous tendencies.” (The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, pp. 47-48)
By addressing the objective risk inherent in the act of gazing – recognising its power as an “occasion and opportunity” that naturally rouses dormant passions – the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘ implements the preventative wisdom described here. It aims to “close the door” (hasm al-bab) to temptation before it can fully manifest, rather than depending solely on the subjective state of the gazer after exposure.
This preventative rationale, grounding the prohibition in the fear of fitna, especially concerning the face as the majma‘ al-mahasin, was clearly articulated even by classical Hanafi scholars like as-Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090) when laying out the potential bases for such a ruling. He explained this logic as:
فدل أنه لا يباح النظر إلى شيء من بدنها، ولأن حرمة النظر لخوف الفتنة وعامة محاسنها في وجهها فخوف الفتنة في النظر إلى وجهها أكثر منه إلى سائر الأعضاء
“[T]hus, it indicates that looking at any part of her body is not permitted (la yubahu n-nazaru ila shay’in min badaniha), [this is argued] because the prohibition of looking (hurmat an-nazar) is due to fear of fitna, and most of her beauty (‘ammat mahasinuha) is in her face, so the fear of fitna from looking at her face is greater than from [looking at] other parts.” (As-Sarakhsi, Kitab al-Mabsut, Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1989, Vol. 10, p. 152)
While as-Sarakhsi, representing the Hanafi school, ultimately gave precedence to evidence indicating a specific rukhsa for looking at the face without desire, his articulation of the fitna-based reasoning itself highlights its validity as a jurisprudential principle for prohibiting the gaze.
Such a proactive stance finds resonance in the commentaries on the very verses dealing with women’s adornment. For instance, regarding the interpretation that “what is apparent thereof” (Surah An-Nur, Ch.24: V.32) refers to the face and hands, Tafsir al-Jalalayn notes:
فيجوز نظره لأجنبي إن لم يخف فتنة في أحد وجهين والثاني يحرم لأنه مظنة الفتنة ورجح حسما للباب
“According to one of two views (wajhayn), looking at them by a non-mahram is permissible if there is no fear of fitna. The second [view] is that it is forbidden because it is a likely cause (mazinna) of fitna, and this [view] was preferred (rujjiha) in order to close the door (hasman li-l-bab).” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, commentary on An-Nur, Ch.24: V.32)
This preference for prohibition, justified by the potential for fitna and the principle of closing the door, even while acknowledging the view permitting uncovering, strongly supports the application of sadd adh-dhara’i‘ to the gaze itself.
It aligns with the approach advocated by influential classical jurists in similar contexts.
Al-Juwayni, the leading Shafi‘i scholar of his era, articulated this logic when justifying the prohibition on looking, comparing it to the general prohibition on seclusion (khalwa) with a non-mahram, which applies broadly without examining specific intentions in every case:
واللائق بمحاسن الشريعة حسم الباب وترك تفصيل الأحوال، كتحريم الخلوة تعمّ الأشخاص والأحوال
“[A]nd what befits the beauties (mahasin) of the sharia is closing the door (hasm al-bab) and avoiding the detailed assessment of circumstances, just like the prohibition of seclusion (khalwa), which applies generally to persons and situations [if non-mahram].” (Al-Juwayni, Nihayat al-matlab fi dirayat al-madhhab, ed. ʻAbd al-ʻAzim Mahmud ad-Dib, Jeddah: Dar al-Minhaj, 2007, Vol. 12, p. 31)
Al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), discussing impediments that make listening forbidden, draws a comparison with the ruling on looking, explicitly stating the preventative principle applied to the face:
أحدهما أن الخلوة بالأجنبية والنظر إلى وجهها حرام سواء خيفت الفتنة أو لم تخف لأنها مظنة الفتنة على الجملة فقضى الشرع بحسم الباب من غير التفات إلى الصور
“One of the two [principles] is that seclusion (khalwa) with a non-mahram woman and looking at her face (an-nazar ila wajhiha) is forbidden (haram), whether fitna is feared or not, because it is a likely cause of fitna (mazinnat al-fitna) in general. Thus, the sharia dictated closing the door (hasm al-bab) without regard to specific situations.” (Al-Ghazali, Ihya’ ‘ulum ad-din, Beirut: Dar al-Ma ‘rifa, 1982, Vol. 2, p. 281)
This statement clearly categorises looking at the face under the principle of hasm al-bab, prohibiting it generally due to its potential for fitna, irrespective of the subjective assessment of risk in individual cases, aligning directly with the preventative approach.
This preventative perspective extends to prohibiting looking without a valid reason or sustaining the gaze beyond the initial glance, even if desire is claimed absent.
The Shafi‘i jurist al-‘Imrani (d. 558/1163) states:
وإذا أراد الرجل أن ينظر إلى امرأة أجنبية منه من غير سبب فلا يجوز له ذلك، لا إلى العورة، ولا إلى غير العورة
“And if a man intends (arada) to look at a non-mahram woman without reason (min ghayri sabab), that is not permissible for him (fa-la yajuzu lahu dhalik), neither towards the ‘awra, nor towards other than the ‘awra.” (Al-‘Imrani, Al-Bayan fi madhhab al-Imam ash-Shafi‘i, ed. Qasim Muhammad an-Nuri, Jeddah: Dar al-Minhaj, 2000, Vol. 9, p. 125)
Similarly, the Hanbali position, as related by Ibn Qudama (d. 620/1223), prohibits looking without cause:
فأما نظر الرجل إلى الأجنبية من غير سبب، فإنه محرم إلى جميعها، في ظاهر كلام أحمد. قال أحمد: لا يأكل مع مطلقته، هو أجنبي لا يحل له أن ينظر إليها
“As for a man looking at a non-mahram woman without reason (min ghayri sabab), then it is forbidden (muharram) [to look] at all of her, according to the apparent statement (zahir kalam) of Ahmad. Ahmad said: He should not eat with his divorced wife; he is a stranger (ajnabi), it is not permissible (la yahillu) for him to look at her.” (Ibn Qudama, Al-Mughni, ed. Mahmud ʻAbd al-Wahhab Fayid; Muhammad ʻAbd al-Qadir ʻAta, Cairo: Maktakabat al-Qahira, 1969, Vol. 7, p. 102)
The Maliki scholar Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1071) also emphasises the prohibition on looking, even extending the caution to mahrams:
ولا يجوز ترداد النظر وإدامته لامرأة شابة من ذوي المحارم أو غيرهن إلا عند الحاجة إليه أو الضرورة في الشهادة ونحوها
“And it is not permissible (la yajuz) to repeat the glance (tardad an-nazar) and sustain it (idamatuhu) towards a young woman (imra’a shabba), whether from mahrams or others, except for need (haja) or necessity (darura) in testimony and the like.” (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, KitabAl-Kafi fi fiqh ahl al-Madina al-Maliki, ed. Muhammad Muhammad Ahid Wuld Madik al-Muritani, Riyadh: Maktabat ar-Riyad al-Haditha, 1980, Vol. 2, p. 1136)
These statements underscore that the prohibition is not merely reactive to subjective feelings but involves actively avoiding unnecessary looking as a means of preventing fitna.
The opposing view’s reliance on the absence of shahwa is further weakened because the term, as defined by jurists, often encompasses more than just overt physical arousal. It can refer simply to inclination or attraction.
Illustrating this point, the renowned Hanafi scholar Ibn ‘Abidin (d. 1252/1836) cites the definition given by ‘Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulsi (d. 1143/1731), where shahwa involves the state where:
يتحرك قلب الإنسان ويميل بطبعه إلى اللذة
“[T]he person’s heart is stirred and inclines by its nature towards pleasure (ladhdha)”. (Ibn ‘Abidin, Hashiyat Radd al-muhtar ʻala ad-Durr al-mukhtar, Cairo: Shirkat Maktab wa-Matbaʻat Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladih, 1966, Vol. 1, p. 407)
Because shahwa includes such subtle internal states – the mere inclination of the heart – it becomes exceptionally difficult to reliably ascertain its absence. This renders the condition absence of shahwa a precarious and insufficient safeguard for permitting the gaze.
Arguments citing the corruption of the times (fasad az-zaman) were employed by some later jurists, particularly within the Hanafi school, not only to justify strengthening the woman’s obligation to cover her face, but also to restrict the man’s gaze beyond the default ruling.
While the earlier Hanafi position permitted looking at the face if there was certainty of no shahwa, later Hanafi scholars like Shams ad-Din al-Quhistani (d. 953/1546) stated:
وأما في زماننا فمنع من الشابة
“As for our time, [looking at] a young woman is forbidden.” (Shams ad-Din al-Quhistani, Jami‘ ar-Rumuz, ed. Kabir ad-Din Ahmad, Calcutta: Mazhar al-‘Ajayib, 1858, p. 530)
Al-Haskafi (d. 1088/1677) clarifies the reason:
لا لأنه عورة بل لخوف الفتنة
“Not because it is ‘awra, but due to fear of fitna.” (Al-Haskafi, ad-Durr al-mukhtar, ed. ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Khalil Ibrahim, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2002, p. 58).
This demonstrates the direct application of sadd adh-dhara’i‘ principles to the man’s gaze due to perceived societal conditions. The core relevance of sadd adh-dhara’i‘ for our view pertains directly to the independent prohibition on the man’s gaze. This principle provides a fundamental, objective legal basis rooted in preventative wisdom, applicable even outside conditions of extreme societal decline, although such conditions might certainly accentuate its perceived necessity.
Sadd adh-dhara’i‘, consequently, offers a compelling jurisprudential foundation for prohibiting the intentional gaze at a non-mahram woman’s face as a primary preventative measure, shifting the focus from the unreliable subjective state of the viewer to the objective potential of the act itself to serve as a means towards fitna.
Evidence from the Sunnah: The Khath‘amiyya incident and the principle of exceptions
A manuscript of Sunan at-Tirmidhi
Proponents of the view permitting looking without shahwa often cite specific incidents from the Sunnah, arguing they demonstrate a baseline permissibility for looking at non-mahram women. Principal among these is the well-known encounter involving the Holy Prophetsa, his cousin al-Fadl b. al-‘Abbasra and a woman from the Khath‘am tribe during the Farewell Pilgrimage. A careful examination of this and similar reports, alongside the established jurisprudential principle that specific allowances (rukhas) indicate a general prohibition, reveals that these narratives actually support the preventative position.
The Khath‘amiyya incident, rather than affirming a right to look innocently, powerfully illustrates the Prophet’ssa proactive implementation of sadd al-dhara’i‘ regarding the gaze. As al-Fadlra, described as a handsome young man, began looking intently at the young woman asking the Prophetsa a question, the Prophetsa did not merely counsel him about intent; he physically intervened. The detailed narration clarifies his action and explicit reasoning:
فالتفت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والفضل ينظر إليها، فأخلف بيده فأخذ بذقن الفضل، فعدل وجهه عن النظر إليها […] فقال له العباس: يا رسول الله، لم لويت عنق ابن عمك؟ قال: رأيت شاباً وشابة، فلم آمن الشيطان عليهما
“The Prophetsa turned while al-Fadl was looking at her, so he put his hand behind al-Fadl’s chin and turned his face away from looking at her. […] Al-‘Abbas said to him, ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you twist your cousin’s neck?’ He replied, ‘I saw a young man and a young woman, and I did not trust Satan regarding them.’” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi, 885)
The Prophet’ssa direct physical intervention and his stated reason – “I did not trust Satan regarding them” (lam aman ash-shaytan ‘alayhima) – highlight the perceived inherent risk of mutual gazing between young, unrelated individuals, irrespective of their initial intentions. His action was preventative, aimed at averting potential fitna before it could arise thus aligning perfectly with the principle of blocking the means.
Hadith commentators like Qadi ‘Iyad noted that the Prophetsa did not explicitly order the woman to cover her face in that instance, which he used to argue face-covering was not universally obligatory. (Qadi ‘Iyad, Ikmal al-mu‘lim bi-fawa’id Muslim, ed. Yahya Ismaʻil, Mansoura: Dar al-Wafaʼ li-t-Tibaʻa wa-n-Nashr wa-t-Tawziʻ, 1998, Vol. 4, p. 440)
This observation pertains to her satr, not the ruling on al-Fadl’sranazar. The Prophet’ssa focus was on immediately curtailing the man’s gaze owing to the evident risk.
The very existence of specific, enumerated permissions (rukhas) within the sharia for men to look at non-mahram women under conditions of defined need (haja or darura) serves as strong evidence that the general rule (asl) is prohibition. Islamic jurisprudence operates on the principle that exceptions are made only where a general rule exists. Indeed, the exception proves the rule. If looking without shahwa were generally permissible, there would be little need to explicitly permit it under specific circumstances like providing testimony (shahada), administering medical treatment (‘ilaj), engaging in necessary transactions (mu‘amala) or viewing a prospective spouse (khitba). The careful delineation of these exceptions across the legal schools signifies that looking outside these boundaries is generally disallowed.
Numerous Maliki jurists, even those who permitted looking without shahwa more broadly than Shafi‘is or Hanbalis, often restricted looking at young women (shabba) precisely to these situations of need. Ibn Rushd al-Jadd (d. 520/1126), one of the most important and influential Maliki jurists of all times, for instance, stated:
ولا يجوز له أن ينظر إلى الشابة إلا لعذر من شهادة أو علاج أو عند إرادة نكاحها
“And it is not permissible for him to look at the young woman (shabba) except for a valid reason (‘udhr) such as testimony, medical treatment or when intending to marry her.” (Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, Al-Muqaddimat al-mumahhidat, ed. Muhammad Hajji, Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1988, Vol. 3, p. 460)
This perspective, restricting the gaze upon a young woman solely to cases of necessity, was echoed by later Maliki authorities such as Ibn Shas (d. 616/1219) and Ibn al-Hajib (d. 646/1249). (Cf. Ibn Shas, ʻIqd al-jawahir ath-thamina fi madhhab ʻalim al-Madina, ed. Hamid b. Muhammad Lahmar, Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 2003, Vol. 3, p. 1305; Ibn al-Hajib, Jami‘ al-ummahat, ed. Abu ʻAbd ar-Rahman al-Akhdar al-Akhdari, Damascus; Beirut: al-Yamaya li-t-Tibaʻa wa-n-Nashr wa-t-Tawziʻ, 2000, p. 569)
The statement of Qadi ‘Iyad, previously cited, limiting permissible looking to “a valid, legitimate purpose” (gharad sahih shar‘i) further reinforces this point. The specification of valid purposes implies the absence of general permission.
Rather than supporting a general permissibility, the careful legal framework surrounding exceptions for looking strongly indicates that the default ruling, derived from the command for ghadd al-basar and the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘, is one of prohibition outside of clearly defined necessity.
The argument from prayer (salah) and the distinction between rulings
A frequent argument put forward by proponents of the permissive view utilises the established agreement (ijma‘) within Islamic jurisprudence that a woman is permitted, and indeed generally required, to leave her face uncovered during the ritual prayer (salah). As articulated by the Maliki scholar Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr:
لإجماع العلماء على أن للمرأة أن تصلي المكتوبة ويداها ووجهها مكشوف ذلك كله منها تباشر الأرض به، وأجمعوا على أنها لا تصلي متنقبة ولا عليها أن تلبس قفازين في الصلاة، وفي هذا أوضح الدلائل على أن ذلك منها غير عورة
“[T]he agreement (ijma‘) of the scholars is that it is for a woman to perform the obligatory prayer with her hands and face uncovered, pressing them directly to the ground [in prostration]. They also agree she should not pray wearing a niqab (mutanaqqiba) nor wear gloves (quffazayn) during prayer. In this lies the clearest evidence that these parts are not ‘awra [in this context]”. (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, at-Tamhid li-ma fi l-Muwattaʼ min al-maʻani wa-l-asanid, ed. Saʻid Ahmad Aʻrab; Muhammad al-Fallah, Rabat: Wizarat al-Awqaf wa-sh-Shuʼun al-Islamiyya, Vol. 6, p. 365)
From this agreement regarding the specific context of prayer, the opposing argument infers a broader principle: if the face is not ‘awra for the correctness (sihha) of prayer and can be exposed during this sacred act, it cannot be considered intrinsically forbidden (haram) to look at outside of prayer, provided conditions of shahwa or fitna are absent.
The early Maliki scholar Qadi Isma‘il b. Ishaq (d. 282/896) presented this line of reasoning explicitly, arguing that since covering the face is not required in prayer, this indicates it is permissible for strangers to see:
قد جاء التفسير ما ذكر، والظاهر والله أعلم – يدل على أنه الوجه والكفان، لأن المرأة يجب عليها أن تستر فى الصلاة كل موضع منها إلا وجهها وكفيها، وفى ذلك دليل أن الوجه والكفين يجوز للغرباء أن يروه من المرأة
“The interpretation [of illa ma zahara minha] has come as mentioned [i.e., face and hands], and the apparent meaning – and Allah knows best – indicates that it refers to the face and hands, because the woman is obligated to cover every part of herself in prayer except her face and hands. And in that is evidence (dalil) that the face and hands are permissible (yajuz) for strangers (ghuraba’) to see from the woman”. (Ibn Battal, Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, ed. Abu Tamim Yasir b. Ibrahim, Riyadh: Maktabat ar-Rushd, 2003, Vol. 9, p. 21)
This line of reasoning fails to appreciate the distinction made by jurists between the specific requirements for covering during the act of prayer (‘awrat as-salah) and the separate ruling governing what is permissible or prohibited for a non-mahram man to look at (‘awrat an-nazar) – in general social interactions. The ruling allowing the face to be uncovered during prayer is specific to that act of worship (‘ibada). Its rationale is linked not only to practical necessities like letting the forehead directly touch the ground during prostration (sujud), but also to the interpretation of scriptural exceptions specifically within the framework of worship. Covering the face during prayer is often explicitly discouraged (makruh) or even considered invalidating by some, indicating a specific ritual requirement separate from general rules of modesty and interaction.
There is, in fact, a scholarly consensus (ijma‘) on the necessity of differentiating between types of ‘awra based on context. (ʻAbd al-ʻAziz b. Marzuq at-Turayfi, Al-Hijab fi sh-sharʻ wa-l-fitra, Riyadh: Maktabat Dar al-Minhaj, 2015, p. 80)
This jurisprudential distinction is key: the parts that must be covered for prayer validity define the minimal ‘awrat as-salah. In contrast, the prohibition related to looking (‘awrat an-nazar) addresses what is forbidden for an unrelated person to intentionally look at, primarily because the act of looking itself is considered a source of fitna (mazinnat al-fitna). This prohibition on looking extends to parts, like the face, which are permissible to uncover during prayer, i.e., not part of ‘awrat as-salah. Confusing these distinct legal categories and their respective rationales leads to flawed conclusions.
Numerous jurists across different schools explicitly articulated this distinction.
The contemporary Saudi scholar ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Barrak concisely defines this specific concept:
عورةُ النَّظرِ هي ما لا يجوز النَّظرُ وإنْ لم يجبْ سَتْرُهَا
“The ‘awra related to looking (‘awrat an-nazar) is that which it is impermissible to look at, even if it is not obligatory to cover it.” (“Ma l-faraq bayna ‘awrat an-nazar wa-‘awrat as-satr”, albarrak.com, 25 December 2017)
This clear definition encapsulates the principle demonstrated by classical scholars cited below.
al-Baydawi (d. 685/1286), commenting on the interpretation that ma zahara minha refers to the face, stated:
والأظهر أن هذا في الصلاة لا في النظر فإن كل بدن الحرة عورة لا يحل لغير الزوج والمحرم النظر إلى شيء منها إلا لضرورة
“And the most apparent [interpretation] is that this [exemption] is regarding prayer (fi s-salah), not regarding looking (la fi n-nazar), for indeed the entire body of a free woman is ‘awra [in the context of nazar], it is not permissible for anyone other than the husband or mahram to look at any part of her except out of necessity (darura)”. (Anwar at-tanzil, commentary on Surah an-Nur, Ch.24: V.32)
The Shafi‘i scholar Zakariyya al-Ansari (d. 926/1520) stated clearly:
(وعورة الحرة في الصلاة، وعند الأجنبي) ولو خارجها (جميع بدنها إلا الوجه، والكفين) […] وإنما لم يكونا عورة [في الصلاة وعند الأجنبي]؛ لأن الحاجة تدعو إلى إبرازهما، وإنما حرم النظر إليهما؛ لأنهما مظنة الفتنة.
“(The ‘awra of a free woman in prayer and in the presence of a non-mahram man), even outside prayer, (is her entire body except the face and hands) […]. These are not ‘awra [requiring covering] because necessity calls for their uncovering. However, looking at them [the face and hands] is forbidden because they are likely sources of fitna (mazinnat al-fitna).” (Zakariyya al-Ansari, Asna al-matalib, Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-Islami, n.d., Vol. 1, p. 176)
This distinction is further emphasised by Muhammad b. Sulayman al-Kurdi (d. 1194/1780), a prominent Islamic jurist and teacher of the Salafi school of thought in the Ottoman Empire, specifically Damascus, who held the position of Grand Mufti:
هذا لا ينافي قول من قال إن عورتها عند الأجانب جميع بدنها، لأن حرمة نظر الأجانب إلى الوجه والكفين إنما هي من حيث أن نظرهما مظنة للشهوة لا من حيث كونهما عورة
“This does not contradict the statement of those who say her ‘awra in the presence of non-mahrams is her entire body, because the prohibition of non-mahrams looking at the face and hands is only from the perspective that looking at them is a likely cause of desire (mazinna li-sh-shahwa), not from the perspective of them being ‘awra [for covering].” (Al-Kurdi, al-Hawashi al-madaniyya ʻala Sharh al-Muqaddima al-Hadramiyya, ed. Muhammad al-Sayyid ʻUthman, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyya, 2013, Vol. 1, p. 494)
This distinction is further emphasised by the later Shafi‘i commentator, Sulayman al-Bijirmi (d. 1221/1806), in his supercommentary on al-Khatib ash-Shirbini’s commentary:
أما عورتها خارج الصلاة بالنسبة لنظر الأجنبي إليها فهي جميع بدنها حتى الوجه والكفين، ولو عند أمن الفتنة
“As for her ‘awra outside of prayer with respect to a non-mahram man looking at her, it is her entire body including the face and hands, even in case of the absence of fitna (law ‘inda amn al-fitna).” (Sulayman al-Bijirmi, Bijirmi ‘ala al-Khatib, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 450)
This explicitly defines the ‘awra for looking as encompassing the entire body, including the face and hands, and confirms the prohibition applies even if one presumes the absence of fitna, clearly separating it from the ruling specific to prayer.
Taqi ad-Din as-Subki (d. 756/1355) explicitly articulated this stricter scope for looking:
الأقرب إلى صنيع الأصحاب أن وجهها وكفيها عورة في النظر
“The closest to the methodology (sani‘) of the companions [Shafi‘i scholars] is that her face and hands are ‘awra with respect to looking (fi n-nazar).” (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Tuhfat al-muhtaj bi-sharh al-Minhaj, ibid.)
This established distinction led scholars like Nur ad-Din ‘Ali az-Ziyadi (d. 1024/1615), a Shafi‘i jurist and Shaykh al-Azhar, to explicitly categorise different types of ‘awra based on context:
عرف بهذا التقرير أن لها ثلاث عورات عورة في الصلاة وهو ما تقدم وعورة بالنسبة لنظر الأجانب إليها جميع بدنها حتى الوجه والكفين على المعتمد وعورة في الخلوة وعند المحارم كعورة الرجل
“It is known from this explanation that she [the woman] has three [types of] ‘awra: ‘awra in prayer (salah), which was discussed earlier; ‘awra with respect to the gaze of non-mahrams (nazar al-ajanib) towards her, which is her entire body including the face and hands according to the relied-upon view (‘ala al-mu‘tamad); and ‘awra in seclusion (khalwa) and in the presence of mahrams, which is like the ‘awra of a man.” (Al-‘Abbadi; Ash-Shirwani, Hawashi ash-Sharwani wa-l-‘Abbadi ‘ala Tuhfat al-muhtaj bi-sharh al-Minhaj, ed. Anas ash-Shami, Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, 2016, Vol. 2, p. 364)
This distinction was not limited to the Shafi‘is.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350), a prominent Hanbali scholar, noted:
العورة عورتان: عورة في النظر، وعورة في الصلاة، فالحرة لها أن تصلي مكشوفة الوجه والكفين، وليس لها أن تخرج في الأسواق ومجامع الناس كذلك.
“The ‘awra is of two types: ‘awra concerning looking (fi n-nazar) and ‘awra concerning prayer (fi s-salah). The free woman may pray with her face and hands uncovered, but she may not go out in the marketplaces and public gatherings like that.” (Ibn al-Qayyim, I‘lam al-muwaqqi‘in ‘an Rabb al-‘Alamin, ed. Abu ʻUbayda Mashhur b. Hasan Al Salman, Dammam: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 2002, Vol. 3, p. 285)
In a similar vein, the Maliki jurist Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (d. 628/1231), while analysing the different viewpoints within his own school regarding looking at the face and the basis for its permissibility or prohibition, acknowledged the possibility of this very separation:
وهذا الإستقراء في أنه ليس بعورة صحيح، ولكن قد يمكن أن يقال: إنه ليس بعورة فيجوز النظر إليه، وأن يقال: [إنه] ليس بعورة ولكن لا يجوز النظر إليه.
“And this inference (istiqra’) that it [the face] is not ‘awra is correct. But it is possible to say: it is not ‘awra, so looking at it is permissible; and it is possible to say: [it] is not ‘awra, but looking at it is not permissible.” (Ibn al-Qattan, Ihkam an-nazar fi ahkam an-nazar bi-hassat al-basar, ed. Idris as-Samadi, Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 2012, p. 180)
Ibn al-Qattan’s acknowledgement points to an important distinction sometimes observed even among Maliki scholars: the rules about what a woman must cover (‘awrat al-satr) are separate from the rules about what a man may look at (‘awrat an-nazar). Just because something, like the face, may not require covering does not automatically mean looking at it is allowed, nor does it automatically mean it is forbidden – they are treated as two separate legal issues. This insight is valuable because it questions the idea that all Malikis effectively agreed on allowing the gaze under certain conditions, even if they disagreed on the reasoning. If the link between allowed to be uncovered and allowed to be looked at is broken, as Ibn al-Qattan suggests is possible, then the claim of unified agreement on the practical outcome cannot be sustained.
The agreement regarding the face in the specific context of prayer does not automatically dictate the ruling for a man’s gaze outside of prayer, particularly in the broader societal sphere where the potential for fitna is different and often greater. The requirements for satr during salah address the correctness of the worship itself under specific ritual conditions, while the rules for nazar are governed independently by the command for ghadd al-basar and the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘, aimed at preventing fitna in social interactions. The different objectives and potential risks in each context allow for, and indeed point to the need for, separate rulings.
Preventative wisdom: Safeguarding piety and society
Kashmiri Muslim women in traditional long Phiran 1870 | Wiki Commons
The argument presented by the opposing view – that the established non-‘awra status of a woman’s face regarding mandatory covering directly implies permissibility for a non-mahram man to look at it, provided shahwa or fear of fitna are subjectively deemed absent – constitutes an interpretation that oversimplifies the matter unduly and carries potential risks regarding Islamic legal principles. This perspective, while perhaps appearing straightforward, does not sufficiently consider the varied aspects of sharia rulings concerning modesty and interaction between genders. It neglects the important principle, evident throughout jurisprudential methodology, that distinct rulings often apply to different agents based on separate textual commands, underlying causes and preventative objectives.
Specifically, the permissive argument diminishes the independent and proactive strength of the divine command for lowering the gaze (ghadd al-basar), interpreting it merely as a reactive measure rather than a fundamental preventative discipline that targets even the intentional gaze undertaken without specific purpose or perceived fitna, as highlighted by commentators like ar-Razi.
It neglects the deep wisdom contained within the principle of blocking the means (sadd al-dhara’i‘), a principle illustrated by Ibn al-Qayyim’s analysis of the glance as the origin of subsequent sinful thoughts and actions and invoked by jurists like al-Juwayni and al-Ghazali to justify “closing the door” (hasm al-bab) by prohibiting the gaze at the face irrespective of subjective assessments.
It further relies on a narrow definition of shahwa that overlooks the subtle inclination of the heart identified by some jurists. It incorrectly construes important narrative evidence, such as the Khath‘amiyya incident, which actually demonstrates prophetic intervention to prevent the gaze owing to perceived risk, and it fails to grasp the legal purpose of specific allowances (rukhas) for looking under necessity, whose very existence points to a general rule of prohibition.
Lastly, it inappropriately mixes the specific rulings governing satr within the distinct ritual context of prayer (salah) with the broader requirements of modesty and gaze control in general social life, failing to appreciate the explicit distinction made by numerous scholars between ‘awrat as-satr, ‘awrat as-salah and the broader scope of ‘awrat an-nazar.
The position advocated herein – aligning with the preventative philosophy articulated by the Promised Messiahas, the relied-upon stance of the Shafi‘i school, the dominant Hanbali view and the cautionary approach reflected in the reasoning of later Hanafi authorities concerned with fasad az-zaman – maintains a necessary separation between the ruling on her covering and the ruling on his looking.
The strength of the Shafi‘i position prohibiting the gaze even without desire or fear of fitna is underscored by leading figures like an-Nawawi designating it as the sound or correct view and later authorities like Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, ar-Ramli and others confirming it as the relied-upon view for fatwa, despite acknowledging that the opposing view permitting looking without shahwa or fitna was held by a majority of earlier scholars. This preference was explicitly based on the strength of the evidence supporting prohibition and the principle of precaution, as articulated by scholars like as-Subki.
It recognises that the sharia grants women a concession (rukhsa) regarding facial covering owing to practical hardship and necessity. At the same time, it imposes a distinct obligation (‘azima) on men and women to proactively lower their gaze (ghadd al-basar) from that which is likely to incite temptation, applying the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘ to the act of looking itself.
Furthermore, it is important to uphold established jurisprudential methodology when navigating areas of scholarly difference (khilaf). The mere existence of a more lenient opinion within the spectrum of valid ijtihad does not automatically render it permissible to adopt, particularly when it appears to contradict clearer primary texts or established preventative principles like sadd adh-dhara’i‘. Scholars have consistently warned against specifically seeking out concessions or choosing opinions based on personal ease or desire rather than the strength of the evidence.
As Ahmad b. Hanbal is reported to have cautioned, selectively adopting the easiest opinion from various schools on different matters could lead to accumulating “all evil” (ijtima‘ ash-sharr).
Similarly, al-Awza‘i warned that taking the anomalous opinions (nawadir) of scholars could lead one out of Islam.
The principle remains to follow the ruling best supported by the Quran, Sunnah and sound jurisprudential reasoning, giving due weight to preventative measures established by the sharia.
This preventative framework, grounded in the proactive command for ghadd al-basar and the principle of sadd adh-dhara’i‘, acknowledges the realities of human nature and gives precedence to safeguarding piety by minimising exposure to temptation.
It reflects a greater degree of precaution that serves the higher aims (maqasid) of the sharia: the cultivation of chastity (‘iffa), the purification of hearts (tazkiya), the protection of lineage and family integrity (hifz an-nasab) and the preservation of a morally sound society. By prohibiting the intentional gaze outside of defined necessity, even when the face itself is not mandated to be covered, Islamic law implements a deep wisdom, safeguarding both individual piety and collective well-being from the subtle but strong dangers of unrestricted visual interaction.
Mudabbir Ahmad Tak, Srinagar, Indian-Administered Jammu & Kashmir
The title of this article might be misleading – the mask has already come off of those who have for years called Muslims barbarians and Islam a religion of violence and oppression. But what unfolded some time back during a debate between two Western commentators has snatched the mask off Islamophobes, shred it to pieces and scattered it to the winds.
Watching the “debate” between American journalist and commentator Tucker Carlson and the British journalist and talk show host Piers Morgan was like watching two birds sitting side by side on a branch, chirping and jumping around – one could not understand what the point of it was, but it was a strange kind of harmless fun. Until both started talking about wars, and civilian casualties in wars.
Both Carlson and Morgan have been hugely popular in their respective countries, with viewership in the millions. Although Carlson has been more popular, both had their own TV shows on famous networks (Carlson on Fox News and Morgan on ITV, CNN etc.) from where they were both fired. The labels might not mean much in today’s world, but many consider both Carlson and Morgan to be right-wing. Carlson’s Wikipedia page calls him a “conspiracy theorist”, which is one way of identifying someone as a non-conformist. Morgan has had somewhat of a resurgence of late among mainstream media circles, after his unabashed and forceful support of what Israel is doing in Palestine. He once said that Muslim women and women who accept Islam were “oppressed”.
The debate between the two was a stunning portrayal of how low the world has fallen when it comes to the ideas of justice, peace and the value of human life in general. On Tucker Carlson’s channel, the debate has 1.6 million views. On Morgan’s channel, the video has 2.2 million views at the time of writing. It is safe to assume that the debate was watched by millions around the world.
The debate began with the Russia-Ukraine war, with Mr Morgan presenting his usual defence of Ukraine and NATO, and Mr Carlson trying to make him understand that the war was nothing but the West’s way of trying to contain Russia and to get a hold of minerals and other resources in Ukraine. Nothing unusual so far.
But then, the debate quickly moved to the funding of Israel’s brutal campaign against Gaza by the United States. And while Carlson struggled to openly condemn Israel’s campaign (he did allude to the fact that the mainstream media in the West is afraid of openly criticising Israel, fearing backlash by the Israel lobby), Morgan went full-on ballistic. He heaped praise on Israel and the West’s action. And in the course of doing this, he said something terribly offensive and inhuman.
Morgan, discussing civilian casualties in modern wars, talked about how modern-day warfare is more advanced than primitive methods of waging war and therefore the weapons of modern wars caused more damage. The discussion moved to civilian killings, and while Carlson was saying that it was evil to purposefully kill civilians – especially women and children – in wars, Morgan asked a horrific question – “Is it evil though? Really?”
Ponder over that for a moment. Let those words sink in, if words as vile as that can. That comment alone should have been enough for this debate to be stopped, especially because it was (for some strange reason) being held in Saudi Arabia. Morgan asked that question with a straight face, and then went one step further. When Carlson asked him how it was not evil to kill women and children on purpose in a war, Morgan said that one had a “moral right [to kill civilians] if there was a world war.” Carlson answered by saying that it was disgusting. It is worse than disgusting.
We do not have to go into the intricacies of how disgraceful that comment is. That is self-evident. And sure, there must be many who might even support that, considering the comments on the video. But is such a statement, and the support for it, evidence of how biased some people are when it comes to Islam and Muslims? Is it a display of naked Islamophobia?
Piers Morgan’s words go to show how devious and selfish the world has become. While many raise allegations against Islam by saying that it is a violent religion that was spread by force, the same people now not only defend, but advocate the purposeful killing of civilians, especially women and children in their wars.
What does Islam say about war?
Let us now turn to what Islam says about wars and civilian casualties. The history of Islam is full of instances when Muslims had to go to war. Instead of understanding and contextualising the reasons for these wars, the opponents present these wars as proof of the supposed barbarity of Islam.
Wars have been allowed in Islam under certain conditions. The Holy Quran states:
“Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has power to help them.” (Surah al-Hajj, Ch. 22: V.40)
“Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.” (Surah al-Hajj, Ch. 22: V.41)
“And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not [in], and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is [freely professed] for Allah. But if they desist, then [remember] that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 191-194)
These verses clearly lay out that only defensive wars are allowed in Islam. Even then, the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa listed some rules that were to be followed strictly during the waging of wars. For instance, it is mentioned in various narrations that:
The elderly, children and women should not be harmed: “Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well.” (SunanAbi Dawud, Hadith 2614)
Women and children should not be killed: “[…] a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allahsa forbade the killing of women and children.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1744b)
Suitable clothing should be provided to prisoners of war: “When it was the day (of the battle) of Badr, prisoners of war were brought including Al-Abbas who was undressed. The Prophetsa looked for a shirt for him. It was found that the shirt of ‘Abdullah bin Ubai would do, so the Prophetsa let him wear it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3008)
Cheating, breaking oaths and mutilating bodies is impermissible: “Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1731a)
The face should not be targeted: “If somebody fights (or beats somebody) then he should avoid the face.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2559)
The Holy Prophetsa was so insistent on these rules for a fighting army that he declared that whoever did not observe these rules, would fight not for God but for his own self (Abu Dawud). There are numerous other verses and ahadith detailing the aspects of war, which Mr Morgan would do well to consult.
What becomes clear then is that even when Muslims are attacked and have to defend themselves, they are to show respect to the life, liberty and property of the enemies, particularly civilians.
Islam, therefore, advocates just and ethical means of fighting wars, which should only be fought for defensive aims. In his Friday Sermon on 13 October 2023, the Worldwide Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa said:
“Over the past few days, the war between Hamas and Israel has been ongoing, due to which civilians on both sides, including women, children, and the elderly, are being killed or have already been killed without distinction.
“Even in times of war, Islam does not permit the killing of women, children, or anyone who is not engaged in the fighting. This is something that the Holy Prophetsa has given strict guidance on.”
Huzooraa states:
“Islam teaches that where retribution is required then it must be proportionate to the act of transgression. However, if forgiveness can lead to reformation, then the option to forgive should be taken. The true and overarching objectives should always be reformation, reconciliation and the development of long-lasting peace.” (World Crisis and the Pathway to Peace, p. 109)
“If a war is warranted, then it can be fought between armies, not with women, children or the innocent.”
Compare this with the so-called “civilised” journalist Piers Morgan, who not only advocates the killing of civilians in a war, but defends it. Wars are fought between armies. Wars cannot technically be “fought” against civilians, because civilians do not have any arms to fight with. This is especially true of modern wars, which are fought with a sophistication and savagery that are unmatched in history.
Islam prohibits wars that can lead to collateral damage to civilians. On the other hand, using massive bombs that kill blindly and precise weapons that kill unerringly, modern wars fought by supposedly civilised people have become a barbarous affair.
Using such weapons against civilians is not “fighting”. Armies that “fight” civilians, in truth, only massacre them. And that is what some people who, like Piers Morgan, profess to be civil and humane, support and advocate. The mask has indeed been torn to shreds.
On 5 April 2025, Majlis Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya and Majlis Atfal-ul-Ahmadiyya South Virginia, USA, held their local ijtema at the Masroor Mosque. The day began with Tahajjud and Fajr prayers, followed by a short dars. After having breakfast, the opening session commenced with a recitation from the Holy Quran, followed by khuddam pledge, a poem and a welcome address by my humble self. Thereafter, the regional Qaid, Ibrahim Chaudhry Sahib, delivered a speech, followed by another speech by Hamza Ilyas Sahib. Muavin Sadr New Immigrants, Luqman Gondal Sahib, then conveyed a special message from Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa to MKA USA. The opening session concluded with a silent prayer. Then, khuddam and atfal participated in academic competitions. Towards the end of these competitions, a parallel session for new immigrants was held in the mosque library with Luqman Gondal Sahib. After lunch and Zuhr and Asr prayers, all members gathered for a special Khilafat session, where some youth members shared their experience with the blessings of Khilafat. This was followed by sports competitions. In the evening, a prize distribution ceremony was held. Luqman Gondal Sahib offered closing remarks. Then, Syed Shamshad Nasir Sahib, a missionary, delivered a speech. The ijtema concluded with a silent prayer.
On 27 March 2025, Majlis Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya Norway hosted an Iftar event under the theme “Iftar with a Muslim”, attended by around 200 people, including Minister of International Development Åsmund Aukrust, Pastor Annette Dreyer from Haugerud, representatives from Gurdwara Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Oslo, as well as a diverse group of guests from various communities.
The programme included a presentation about Ramadan, a video showcasing a typical day for a Muslim during the fasting month, and speeches from Minister of International Development Åsmund Aukrust; Sadr Majlis Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya Norway, Unib Sarwar Sahib, and the Amir of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya Norway, Ch Zahoor Ahmad Sahib. Sadr Sahib highlighted that this was the first time they hosted such an Iftar programme and warmly welcomed everyone. He expressed hope that this would become a tradition that strengthens the community and fosters understanding between people of different backgrounds. After the programme, an Iftar meal was served, followed by a tour of the mosque, where they learnt more about the values and beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. The event received excellent feedback from the guests.
A glimpse into the rich history of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat
Acting Governor-General of Sierra Leone hosted a reception in honour of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIIrh
9 May 1904: On this day, the City of Truro locomotive became the first in Europe to be recorded travelling at over 100 mph, a symbolic moment in the remarkable transformation of human transport. But this was just one of many milestones reached during the life of the Promised Messiahas, reflecting the gradual fulfilment of the Quranic prophecy:
وَ اِذَا الْعِشَارُ عُطِّلَتْ
(And when the she-camels, ten-month pregnant, are abandoned.) (Ch.81: V.5)
This verse alludes to the decline of primitive transport as new, faster and more efficient means emerged. Indeed, in the time of the Promised Messiahas, railways spread rapidly across continents. In 1853, for example, India saw its first passenger train run between Mumbai and Thane and in 1869, the American transcontinental railroad connected east and west for the first time.
9 May 2005: On this day, Jalsa Salana Tanzania commenced. This was the first Jalsa Salana of Tanzania Jamaat in which a Khalifatul Masih was present. Huzooraa delivered the inaugural address, inspected the printing press and presided over a children’s class. After family mulaqats, delegations from Burundi, Malawi and Zambia met with Huzooraa. That evening, Huzooraa also attended a reception to which dignitaries of the country were invited. (Al Fazl International, 3 June 2005, Page 11)
10 May 1903: On this day, the Promised Messiahas wrote to the tehsildar of Batala, Moti Ram, presenting around fifteen points that refuted the allegations that were being made by the opponents about the construction of Minaret-ul-Masih in Qadian. (Life of Ahmad, pp. 777-781)
For more details about the history of Minaret ul Masih, see: ‘‘A brief history of the construction of Minarat-ul-Masih Qadian’’ at www.alhakam.org (6 January 2023, pp. 10-11).
10 May 2013: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa delivered his historic Friday Sermon from the Baitul Hameed Mosque in Chino, California, as his first visit to the West Coast of the United States of America continued. (“Historic Address Delivered by Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in California”, www.pressahmadiyya.com, 11 May 2013)
11 May 1922: On this day, during a question-and-answer session, a person requested Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra to recommend a particular prayer for being able to have children. Huzoorra was also asked, “As the Promised Messiahas was mostly ill, did he still fast?” A person also asked, “Did the Promised Messiahas say salaam after offering two rak‘aat of witr prayer and complete the remaining one rak‘ah after, or would he offer the complete three rak‘aat in one go?”
To read the answers to these questions, see: ‘‘100 Years Ago… – Daily diary of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II: Prayer for having children, relaxing the shariah for new converts and objections of ghair mubai‘een at www.alhakam.org (24 June 2022, pp. 16-17).
11 May 2013: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa delivered the keynote address at a special reception held in his honour at the Montage in Beverly Hills, LA, USA. (“Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat Delivers Historic Address in Southern California”, www.pressahmadiyya.com, 12 May 2013)
12 May 1970: On this day, the then acting Governor-General of Sierra Leone hosted a reception in honour of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIIrh, which was also attended by various dignitaries of the country, including ministers and foreign ambassadors. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 26, p. 67)
13 May 1927: Lahore witnessed intense unrest and communal riots. On this day, Al Fazl published a detailed account by Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra. At the time, Huzoor’sra contributions extended beyond the religious domain to include active engagement in social and political matters. His views, guidance and actions were taken very seriously and held considerable weight. That same day, a comprehensive tract authored by him, titled What Can You Do for Islam and Muslims?, was also widely circulated. In it, Huzoorra presented 31 important points aimed at promoting unity within the Muslim Ummah.
13 May 1951: The Ahmadiyya Mosque in Samundri, Faisalabad, was ransacked and burnt on this day. Ahmadis present in the mosque were tortured and items available in the premises of the mosque were looted. However, the influential members of the neighbourhood and the city condemned this irreligious act committed in the name of religion. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 13, pp. 304-309)
14 May 1948: On this day, the leader of the Jewish settlers, David Ben-Gurion, announced the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
To learn more about this topic, see: ‘‘Borders of the Holy Land: A brief study in theology and geo-politics’’ at www.alhakam.org (12 May 2021)
15 May 1908: On this day, The Daily Paisa Akhbar and Akhbar Ahl-e-Hadith published a prophecy made by Dr Abdul Hakeem Khan of Patiala, who announced that the Promised Messiahas would pass away on 4 August 1908. Arrogantly, he claimed, “Mirza will fall prey to a fatal illness and shall die on 21 Sawan 1965 [i.e., 4 August 1908].” The Promised Messiahas passed away on 26 May 1908.
For more details, see: “Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s demise and Abdul Hakeem”, at alhakam.org (10 February 2023, p. 17).
Hazrat Maulvi Abdur Rahim Nayyarra (1883-1948), London
Malik Ghulam Farid[ra] MA, an Ahmadi missionary from London, writes:
“By the grace and mercy of Allah the Almighty, encouraging signs are gradually emerging from various quarters. A gentleman named Arthur Plant from Manchester has taken a keen interest in Islam after reading The Review of Religions. In one of his letters, he requested contact information for people from India so that he could acquire further knowledge about Islam. I responded by explaining that this is precisely why we are based in London – to assist anyone seeking information about Islam. I assured him that he is welcome to ask any questions freely and, God willing, he will receive satisfactory answers. I am including excerpts from his letter, which reflect the depth of his affection for Islam and his earnest desire to gain a deeper understanding. He writes:
“Dear Brother, I am not corresponding out of mere curiosity about Islam; rather, I write because I sincerely wish to acquire knowledge.”
“Further on, he adds:
“Please, send me a copy of [the Arabic words of the] salat. I intend to purchase the Holy Quran and will do so when I am able.”
“Similarly, a woman named Miss Vera Maitland has also expressed significant interest in Islam. She has requested a copy of [the Arabic words of the] salat, The Review of Religions, the lecture by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II[ra] titled The Ahmadiyya Movement, and A Present to the Prince of Wales, among other literature. She has already remitted payment and is actively exchanging letters as well.
“Moreover, an individual from Holland has sent payment for a copy of the first part of the Holy Quran, requesting that it be dispatched promptly.
“Last Sunday, I delivered a lecture on Islam at our mission house. Following the lecture, there was a question-and-answer session. A particularly prejudiced Christian woman from our neighbourhood, who attended and took notes, later wrote to say that she had greatly benefitted from the lecture.”
Holland
Our respected sister Miss Hidayat Budd from Amsterdam, Holland, writes to the esteemed Dr Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Sahib[ra]:
“I am eagerly awaiting the Ahmadiyya lectures that Maulvi Abdul Rahim Sahib Dard[ra] will deliver on 7 and 10 April [1925]. After these lectures, I plan to open my own reading room and publish announcements as well. I also intend to publish my articles written in Dutch in the form of a small treatise. I have begun a series of articles on Islam, which will be organised as follows:
The fundamental principles of Islam: Tawhid [Oneness] of God Almighty, Angels, Divine scriptures, Prophets, the afterlife, and Predestination.
Moral and religious principles, Prayer, Fasting, Zakat, Hajj.
“All these articles will be published together in Dutch as a treatise. I am pleased to report that the journal De Tempel has begun publishing my articles, and the magazine’s staff have told me several times that these articles are written in a style that is particularly well-suited to their publication. This journal is read in over 250 towns across Holland, and it has a significant readership in the capital, Amsterdam, as well as many subscribers in foreign countries. Therefore, you can be assured that many people around the world will now become familiar with the finest and truest religion – Islam.
“Even if people do not accept Islam in large numbers immediately, I am grateful that my efforts are helping to present the noble image of Islam more honourably than before, and that people are beginning to develop affection for this pure religion. Once I have done my part, someone else can come and benefit from this prepared ground by bringing people into Islam.
“A few weeks ago, I received a letter from my sister. Although she has not yet converted, she congratulated me on my acceptance of Islam and wrote that her husband also admires my decision. He is a very good man, and if both of them were to accept Islam, I would be overjoyed. I believe that my brother-in-law would be very beneficial to our cause, as he is a highly intelligent and courageous person.
“I was delighted to learn the name His Holiness has given me. It sounds very pleasing to my Dutch ears, and the meaning of this name (Hidayat) will always serve as a special source of inspiration for me.
“At the moment, I am facing some challenges – particularly from people and quarters where I least expected them. No doubt, I will not be capable of guiding others until I myself face difficulties and overcome them. I am hopeful that these challenges will soon be resolved, and that I will be able to successfully continue on this path.”
The readers of Al Fazl will be pleased to know that our esteemed sister also writes Arabic script on her letters, as follows:
[“In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. We praise Him and send salutations upon His Noble Messengersa.”]
Nigeria
Chief Brother Zakariya Tambo, the president of Jamaat Ahmadiyya Lagos, writes:
“I am pleased to inform you that the lawsuit concerning the mosque, which had been filed against us by deserters in the High Court of Lagos for the past two years, has been decided in our favour, and God Almighty has granted victory over our opponents. However, these people have not taken heed; instigated by Augusto, they have filed another case. Please continue to pray for us regularly so that the disbelievers face defeat. I have decided to send my son, Abdul Hameed, to England for studies in law, medicine, or civil engineering. Kindly pray earnestly for him as well.”
After the above news, Imam Qasim R Ajose, missionary-in-charge of Nigeria, provides a report. A summary of the report is as follows:
“Our chief imam, Muhammad Dabiri, and the Jamaat convey their congratulations and request prayers. Preaching work is proceeding smoothly as usual. The annual gatherings of the First and Third Divisions were successfully held over the past two weeks. Electricity has been installed in the central mosque at the expense of the president. The office of the Ahmadiyya Literary Society has been relocated to the Talim-ul-Islam School. Brother AR Balogun (a capable and devoted member of the Lagos Jamaat and an employee in the Survey Department) has recently visited and delivered a highly impactful lecture in front of the Ire-Waluya (ایرولویا) Mosque.
“Our Jamaat’s women have also made considerable progress. On 16 January [1925], Mrs Giwa delivered a lecture, and on 21 January, Miss Subrat Dabiri gave a speech, detailing the ways in which the Ahmadiyya Jamaat has protected the rights of women and refuting the clerics’ claim that women are forbidden from preaching. Miss Dabiri has memorised a large portion of Surah al-Baqarah. Brother Joshua Shodande continues to diligently fulfil his preaching duties.”
Gold Coast
Maulvi Fazl-ur-Rahman Sahib Hakim[ra] writes:
“Land has been sought for the mission, school buildings, and mosque; however, it is difficult to acquire in the town of Saltpond. For the mission, school, mosque, and also for a playground for children, approximately 300 square feet of land will be required for now. Thus far, friends have pledged a total of £349, 16 shillings, and 9½ pence.”
After writing his last letter, Maulvi Sahib[ra] left for Accra, the capital of the Gold Coast, where the Prince of Wales was on [an official] visit.
Mauritius
Muhammad Ahsan Siddiqi Sahib (secretary of tabligh) reports from Rose Hill:
“The work of Ahmadiyya preaching is ongoing. We are conducting visits, and Brother Ahmad Ibrahim Achha and Mian Nizamuddin Sahib (tailor master), who have recently arrived from Qadian, are assisting in the preaching work. Hafiz Sufi Ghulam Muhammad Sahib[ra] BA, missionary-in-charge, is delivering daily dars of the Holy Quran, Sahih Bukhari, and Kashti-e-Nuh.”
Egypt
An Ahmadi missionary, Sheikh Mahmud Ahmad Sahib[ra] reports from Cairo:
“The work of serving Islam is being carried out through meetings, speeches, and debates. During the week being reported, there was a four- to five-hour debate with Dr Abdul Aziz, a Muslim influenced by Christian doctrines. Additionally, at the request of a group of Egyptian Muslims, a debate on the refutation of the divinity of Christ was held with Kamel Mansour, a Christian, at the American Church, which had a very positive impact on non-Ahmadis.
“Moreover, discussions on the distinct beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat were held with Ghalib Bey, Tahir Pasha, and other dignitaries. The Indians here have also formed an association, and I am guiding them. This association has now permanently moved into the Ahmadiyya Mission House, and a telephone has also been installed at the premises.”
In another letter, Sheikh Sahib[ra] writes:
“On Sunday night, I preached for three and a half hours to Bash Aana, a special officer and Pasha of the Sarai Mulki [Royal Palace]. Other individuals were also present. He listened to the introduction of the Jamaat with great astonishment. Detailed explanations were given regarding the death of Jesusas, the claims of the Promised Messiahas, and his miracles. He remarked, ‘In my entire life, I have met many prominent people, but I have never heard anything like this before.’ He was very pleased and promised to arrange another meeting.
“Very soon, I will also meet Amir Lutfullah, who belongs to the royal family of Antioch, to convey the message of Islam Ahmadiyyat to him.” […]
(Translated by Al Hakam from the original Urdu, published in the 5 and 7 May 1925 issue of Al Fazl)
Momentarily and temporarily man may see some benefit, but in reality, the heart of man is darkened if he adopts a way of falsehood, and termites, as it were, begin to eat away at him from within. To cover one lie, a person must then conjure many more lies because the initial lie must be made to appear as if it were the truth. It is in this way that one’s moral and spiritual faculties begin to wither away from within, until finally one becomes so bold and impudent that he begins to forge lies against God Almighty as well, and will reject the Messengers of God and those divinely commissioned by Him, after which he is deemed ‘the most unjust’ or azlam, just as God Almighty states:
Meaning, who can be more unjust than the person who forges a lie and untruth against Allah the Exalted, or rejects His signs? Remember that falsehood is a most evil affliction and that it destroys a person. What could be a more grave consequence of falsehood than the fact that a person rejects the Messengers of God Almighty and becomes worthy of punishment from God by the rejection of His Signs? Therefore, adopt the truth.