I wonder who is the audience here…Muslims or non-Muslims!///
Deoband school terms terrorism anti-Islamic
One of the most influential Muslim seminaries, with followers across the world, on Monday issued a kind of fatwa, declaring terror activities as anti-Islam. The Darul Uloom seminary in Deoband also involved top clerics at a conclave in defining terrorism in the light of the Quran and Shariah.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Yes, terrorism is anti-islamic. Percisely why the US is using it against "islamic" countries.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Deoband school terms terrorism anti-Islamic
baree der ki meherbaan aatay aatay
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Funny how Mufti Rafi Usmani's (Pakistan's Grand Mufti and Head of the biggest Deobandi University in Karachi) views were totally opposite to these, the other night when Geo TV interviewed him.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Mufti Rafi Usmani and Maulana Marghoobur Rahman should be locked in a room until they produce a uniform fatwa for their school. Works for pandas. Rafi Usmani should probably be strip searched beforehand though.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
^ rafi has any relation with taqi usmani?
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
bhai hain ghaliban
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
they did it for money ofcourse.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
^ rafi has any relation with taqi usmani?
they are brothers.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Mufti Rafi Usmani and Maulana Marghoobur Rahman should be locked in a room until they produce a uniform fatwa for their school. Works for pandas. Rafi Usmani should probably be strip searched beforehand though.
Producing a uniform fatwa is not the objective. Producing the RIGHT fatwa is.
Rafi Usmani's views were based on the Quran and the Hadith, but then again many of you do not believe in hadith...so the issues lies with you and not with him.
This recent fatwa from Deoband does not make the slightest sense when it says....
[QUOTE]
Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, **violence **and terrorism.
[/QUOTE]
It speaks the same rhetoric one hears on tv and has no characteristic of one coming from a person with knowledge. Anyone who has read Surah Taubah or Surah Anfaal knows those Ayahs which talk about fighting.
This fatwa is anti-islamic because it accuses the Prophet (sas) and the Sahaabas of mischief because they fought and waged Violent Jihads....both offensive and defensive.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
right, all those who gave a fatwa conflicting with your views have no knowledge and are accusing the Prophet of all sorts of things.
this kind of half-baked reasoning where you make a context-free, literal interpretation of a portion of text will have you saying any essay that includes the sentence "Islam is a religion of peace" is an attack on the Prophet. you can think they're wrong, but its a cop-out to merely assume stupidity or ignorance.
If you go through the text, they specifically give examples of what they're characterising as violence and terrorism: "It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting, and murder among severest sins and crimes. Islam prohibits killing of innocent people.". Now I hope you wont suggest the Prophet ever oppressed, rioted or murdered innocent people.
being not particularly familiar with either of these personalities, could someone tell me which is the more well regarded of the two schools of thought? If there is a deobandi in Malaysia, who would he regard as more authoratative, the Pakistani go-forth-and-bomb-bystanders-group or the Indian we-are-peaceful-group?
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
damn wot an achievement 
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
ravage...What part of "all types of violence" did you not understand?
The statement i quoted was an absolute statement which takes into consideration everything that was stated after it and much more. It gave the impression that Islam is a "turn-the-other-cheek" religion, which the Deobandi school in India has become, pretty much.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
you're at most proving that "all types of violence" is wrong, while ignoring the specific types of violence they condemn. To counter, I could easily argue that the emphasis needs to be placed on the specifics they go into. Just as an entire essay on Islam isnt invalidated by the presence of the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace".
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Peace All
I don't care of the fatawa debate ... War-mongery is forbidden ... War is not ... The difference is bloodthirsting over it and doing it out of necessity. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) only fought as a last resort and chose all the options to avoid fighting in the first instance.
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Peace All
I don't care of the fatawa debate ... War-mongery is forbidden ... War is not ... The difference is bloodthirsting over it and doing it out of necessity. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) only fought as a last resort and chose all the options to avoid fighting in the first instance.
Exactly. Now, we should be clear that the Deoband were talking of harming "innocents"...I don't think there's anything wrong with their declaration...
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
Producing a uniform fatwa is not the objective. Producing the RIGHT fatwa is.
Consensus is very important. Now, either you're accusing these guys of being insincere or ignorant. Are any of us in a position to really do that? Or are we to pick and choose the scholars we want to respect, like a bunch of fanboys...either respect the tradtion as a whole or don't. There's no picking and choosing.
If they're wrong, then present your argument and move on...no need for degrading remarks. It's exactly what those who trivialize our scholarship tradition (as fractured as it is) do...
Re: Deoband terms terrorism anti-Islamic
funny how you trust on news papers
i dont trust on news papers like this
if there is video of the occasion then you should show us
and i am amazed to see such comments that they did it for money
how do you know that they did it for money
did you ask them or you saw stuff with your own eyes
pleas be care full in making statements
but still i am having trouble understanding that what point are you guys trying to make from this article