The cursed Waseem Rizvi writes in his book on Page No 86 under the heading of “Prostitution is Lawful” that it is mentioned in Durre Mukhtar that….

“If someone informs I enjoy sexual intercourse with a woman on remuneration, then such an act of him cannot be a punishable act”

In fact, here the cursed Waseem Rizvi tried to become a Mufti (An Islamic Religious Expert) simultaneously to be a leader but he has fallen down with face down.

Respected Readers! At the outset I am going to present before you the original Arabic text of Adurrul Mukhtar.

Adurrul Mukhtar, Volume Four, Kitabun Nikah, Babul Mahar, Page No 239.

لو تزوج علی ان یھب لابیھا الف درھم لھا مھر المثل وھب لہ اولا۔

Translation: “If someone marries a woman on the condition that he will give one thousand rupees to her father, then it is a ‘Mehre Misl’ for that particular woman, irrespective of whether he gives it or not”.

Explanation: Respected Readers! Here, I am going to elucidate the religious implication. It is about ‘Mehar’. The cursed Waseem Rizvi needs to understand that it is Kitabun Nikah and Babul Mahar. If someone marries a woman with the commitment to her of giving one thousand Dirham to her father, then it will stand to be ‘Mehre Misl’ for that woman regardless of the fact he gives it or not. Let it be very clear that here it pertains to giving one thousand Dirham and not pertaining to having sexual intercourse on the remuneration of one thousand Dirham. Besides, it is a narration about one thousand rupees of ‘Mehar’ as it is obligatory in the Islamic Code of Laws to pay ‘Mehre’ to solemnise the marriage ceremony. LAV TAZAVAAVZ means ‘if someone marries’. But the cursed Waseem Rizvi mistakes its meaning as ‘if someone has sexual intercourse’. It implies that if someone solemnises the wedding on the payment of one thousands Dirham. Here, in this statement the word ‘Mehar’ is silent because the chapter itself is ‘Mehar’ and, therefore, the word ‘Mehar’ is understood from the preceding and succeeding context of the sentence. But the cursed Waseem Rizvi has misunderstood it as ‘if someone has enjoyed sexual intercourse on the payment of one thousands Dirham’.

\The cursed Waseem Rizvi writes boasting himself as…

“As per the Islamic Code of Laws, such an act of him can’t be a punishable act”.

Readers! How can there be any element of punishment while marriage is solemnized on the payment of ‘Mehar’? Is there any religion wherein the punishment for marriage has been stipulated? In fact, if someone doesn’t solemnize the marriage on the payment of ‘Mehar’, yet if someone has sexual intercourse, then it would be an act of fornication. The punishment for such an act of fornication is either to whip him hundred whips or to kill him by pelting the stones on him. In fact, the cursed Waseem Rizvi has failed to understand the meaning of LAV TAZAVAAVZ. He has failed to understand even the meaning of ‘IBNE’ and ‘BINTE’ let alone the meaning of LAV TAZAVAAVZ. Besides, how can he understand the meaning of LAV TAZAVAAVZ who has failed to understand the meaning of even “AKAL” and “SHARB” as you have already studied in the preceding pages of this book?

Beyond any scintilla of doubt, the Islam religion has fixed a very severe punishment for an act of fornication. Let’s study about the punishments for an act of fornication prescribed by the other religions.

Manuji describes in Hindu Dharm Shashtra, Chapter 11, Shalok 172:

“The compensation for sexual intercourse with the daughter of the father’s sister, daughter of maternal aunty or daughter of maternal uncle is ‘Chaandraain Brat’. (It is a type of compensation in which one has to reduce one morsel of food daily with the reduction of crescent of the moon; and then one has to increase one morsel daily with the enhancement of the moonlight”).

(‘Chaandraain Brat’ is a type of compensation for committing the sexual intercourse with the above stated women which eliminates their sin).

Manu Dharm, Shashtra, Chapter 11, Shalok 175.

“He will take a bath wearing his clothes who has committed sexual intercourse with a man contrary to nature and with a woman in a running bullock cart”.

(In this religion, the punishment for this sin is only to get a bath with the same cloth with which he has committed the sin. His sin will be forgiven. “Author Aasi”).

It is mentioned in Dhamnu Dharm Shashtra, Shlok 356 that

“He deserves the urgent physical punishment who commits the sin though the young girl resists it; but there isn’t any provision of punishment for those who gains the benefits from the body of a girl belonging to the same cast and creed with her consent”.

Hence, the cursed Waseem Rizvi needed to study the books of other religions also prior to maligning the fabric of the Islam religion. Is it the only punishment that one should get a bath with the same cloth for the sin of committing sodomy? Does the cursed Waseem Rizvi have any convincing reply to this question?

xxxxxxxx