^^^ Brother, I could not clearly understood what you are trying to say above ... anyhow, from what I understood ... I am replying.
I know that kufr do not make a person Kafir. But takfeer do make a person Kafir (according to various hadith from various sources).
If you have any issue or reservation to that (Takfeeries = Kafir) then … please write a letter to prophet (SAW) complaining about it … put your letter in ‘time machine’ so to reach Prophet (SAW), asking Prophet (SAW) to change his statement … so that Prophet (SAW) changes his statement … in process changing historical writings … and hence we do not read in hadith that anyone who do takfeer is Kafir.
Isn’t it good solution to your concern?
Anyhow coming to your above post … I do not know on what basis you are saying that my position is no better than Takfiri … when my position is not only crystal clear but according to what is mentioned in Hadith and also clear logically (and different from Takfeeris). For me:
Muslim: All who claims or says that they are 'Muslim' are 'Muslim'
Kafir: All who claims or says that they are 'not Muslim' are 'Kafir'.
Takfeeri: All who calls Muslim a ‘Kafir’ are Takfeeri.
Is that what Takfeeir do what I mentioned above to have same position as me?
Is it not obvious the difference between my position and position of Takfeeri. Here is difference for you to see:
All who claims or says that they are 'Muslim':
I consider all of them Muslim (except takfeeri) and leave judgement of their faith on Allah ...
but
Takfeeris do not consider all of them Muslim, rather they 'pic and choose' calling some of them Kafir ...according to their own beliefs and understanding of Islam and do not leave judgement of their faith on Allah.
So how my position and position of Takfeeri is same?
From above it is clear that my and takfeeri position is different ... and if they do not call other Muslim a Kafir then they would not be Takfeeri … then their position would be same as mine ... as I also do not call other Muslim a Kafir.
As for takfeeri being Kafir than (almost) all takfeeries are Kafir. Calling Takfeeri a Kafir is not takfeer … it is just like calling Kafir a Kafir on their own confession (Takfeeri doing takfeer is their confession that they are Kafir). Takfeeris should not be worried about it anyhow. They become Kafir by doing takfeer.
Why takfeeri should worry about being called 'Kafir' anyhow when they are getting same medicine what they give to Muslims? They call Muslim a Kafir and Muslim call them Kafir. No big deal.
Separate but related issue: Now coming to why a Muslim avoids calling Takfeeri a Kafir straight away, rather call them Takfeeri … even though in almost all cases a takfeeri is Kafir?
Reason: Actually all takfeeries are Kafir except in one especial situation that is not only rare but just there for excuse… and that excuse is for Muslims to avoid calling takfeeri a Kafir in case he fulfils that especial situation (it is to safeguard Muslims from Takfeer). And that situation is:
‘A’ in private conversation with ‘B’ heard saying ‘B’ that ‘B’ left Islam (became apostate) … but Muslim at large do not know neither ‘B’ says in public that he left Islam. Ideally ‘A’ should not do takfeer on ‘B’ who has not admitted to Muslims at large in public that he left Islam. Still, ‘A’ on personal information have right to call ‘B’ a Kafir … but since Muslims at large do not know that ‘B’ left Islam, they may consider ‘A’ a takfeeri, even though ‘A’ is not takfeeri because he knows from ‘B’ that ‘B’ has left Islam. Such situation is a very rare and personal situation.
If a Muslim as individual or a group calls other Muslim (anyone who confesses or claim that he is Muslim) ‘kafir’ then that individual or group are Takfeeris regardless of what aqeedah they follow, and what any Mufti says so about such takfeer … be that Mufti Alif or Mufti Bay.
So by your definition we live in takfiri state of pakistan since 1974, all deobandis,wahabis,barelvis,shias are kafir because they believe certain group is kafir based on its aqeedah.
With due respect I disagree with this statement of yours ...
"Muslim: All who claims or says that they are 'Muslim' are 'Muslim'
Kafir: All who claims or says that they are 'not Muslim' are 'Kafir'.
Takfeeri: All who calls Muslim a ‘Kafir’ are Takfeeri."
I however, have said ... an accusation of takfir can be right or wrong ... but the practice is forbidden.
According to your definition even if people change and alter Islam yet call themselves Muslims we are to accept their claim. I however say that their claim in itself does not make them Muslim and Kafirs according to you are not just limited to those who claim not to be Muslim ... you are also saying that takfiris are kafirs. So your definition of Kafir should be modified.
Now since Takfiris claim to be Muslim according to your definition of Muslim above - they are Muslim
However, since Takfiris do takfir they are also kafirs according to your earlier explanation of takfir
So in essence (gathered from your erroneous explanations) a takfiri can be a Muslim and a kafir at the same time ... furthermore you seem to be comfortable calling a takfiri a takfiri who you believe is kafir hence you become a takfiri yourself and you end up ousting yourself from Islam too.
So you see your explanation is not holding any internal consistency at the moment ...
Regarding the comment about writing a letter to RasoolAllah (SAW) that is extremely ill-mannered. Did you not know that there are many places where interpretation is required and that is reason we have scholars ... no need to write letters.
So by your definition we live in takfiri state of pakistan since 1974, all deobandis,wahabis,barelvis,shias are kafir because they believe certain group is kafir based on its aqeedah.
Welcome to the world of takfiristan. :)
tau bhi takfiri hay main bhi takfiri haun
Bhai jaan … I can understand where you are going and what you are trying to imply. Anyhow, you could not make responsible a nation (people living in Pakistan) for decision taken by state and some religious personalities riding on their ego while facilitating the state.
In Islam, a person is responsible of own actions and beliefs, not actions or beliefs of state or other people (be they government officials or religious personalities).
I do not think decision of state declaring someone (individual or group) Muslim or Kafir is Islamic. In my views, what Pakistani officials have done, only satisfied ego of some, but was neither good for Islam or Pakistan. Thus those who made such decisions would be answerable for their actions to one who created them and is owner of religion Islam.
Nevertheless, I think Qadiyanis (or anyone following Ghulam Mirza in any way) are misguided and wrong in their beliefs, but then, I believe some sects terrorising Muslim world are worse than Qadiyanis in their beliefs. That is my belief according to my understanding of Islam and I would not mind if anyone differ with my beliefs and have different understanding of Islam. Actually, if someone could convince me wrong (from Quran, hadith not contradictory to Quran or logic, or logic itself), I change.
Even though I am Hanafi (by default) and most of my religious practices follow Hanafi school of thoughts, I prefer to follow instructions in Quran and hadith rather than whim of some so-called scholars riding high on their ego and feeling that they own Islam (believe they are theekadar of Islam).
In my view, one can question, argue, discuss, teach and learn from others regarding faith and beliefs, but have no right to determine or question other people’ faith and beliefs (calling or considering someone X, Y, Z, or Kafir on basis of own faith and beliefs), rather, one should consider other people’ faith and beliefs what they believe of themselves.
I believe if anyone would do that (start labelling people according to their own faith and beliefs) than they would be answerable to Allah on judgement day as ‘denier’ (Kafir).
With due respect I disagree with this statement of yours ...
"Muslim: All who claims or says that they are 'Muslim' are 'Muslim'
Kafir: All who claims or says that they are 'not Muslim' are 'Kafir'.
Takfeeri: All who calls Muslim a ‘Kafir’ are Takfeeri."
I however, have said ... an accusation of takfir can be right or wrong ... but the practice is forbidden.
According to your definition even if people change and alter Islam yet call themselves Muslims we are to accept their claim. I however say that their claim in itself does not make them Muslim and Kafirs according to you are not just limited to those who claim not to be Muslim ... you are also saying that takfiris are kafirs. So your definition of Kafir should be modified.
Now since Takfiris claim to be Muslim according to your definition of Muslim above - they are Muslim
However, since Takfiris do takfir they are also kafirs according to your earlier explanation of takfir
So in essence (gathered from your erroneous explanations) a takfiri can be a Muslim and a kafir at the same time ... furthermore you seem to be comfortable calling a takfiri a takfiri who you believe is kafir hence you become a takfiri yourself and you end up ousting yourself from Islam too.
So you see your explanation is not holding any internal consistency at the moment ...
Regarding the comment about writing a letter to RasoolAllah (SAW) that is extremely ill-mannered. Did you not know that there are many places where interpretation is required and that is reason we have scholars ... no need to write letters.
Salaam-wa-Alaikum…
Brother … according to hadith, there is no such thing as takfeeri but hadith is clear … that is:
If a Muslim calls someone Kafir than … caller (Muslim before his call) only stays Muslim if the called is Kafir, else caller is Kafir.
On the other hand, in Islam a Muslim determines other people faith and belief from their confessions and claim, and not from own understanding of Islam.
Hence, if a Muslim calls someone Kafir then the called must be Kafir (from called own statement and confession), else if called says that he is Muslim (reciter of Shahadah) then caller becomes Kafir. Simple as that … there is no confusion nor anyone needs PhD logic to understand.
Islam is not personal property of anyone. Islam belongs to Allah and thus to whole humanity. In Islam, a staunch Kafir becomes Muslim once he recites ‘Shahadah’ … as reciting ‘Shahadah’ is considered as his confession of entering Islam. After that, whatever a Muslim believes (according to his understanding of Islam), a Muslim cannot call such person kafir or could not doubt his confession (because confession is not to that Muslim but Allah) … and if anyone would doubt a Muslim’s confession or claim (doubt someone being Muslim on basis of own beliefs or understanding of Islam) than that Muslim leaves Islam (becomes Kafir).
It is as simple as that … and one do not need any interpretation by any so-called self-professed religious scholars, as no human after Prophet (SAW) was or is prophet or get instruction (wahi) from Allah that could change this rule given to us by Prophet (SAW).
Thus, whoever calls a Muslim ‘Kafir’ becomes Kafir … that is different matter that later Muslims instead of using the word Kafir start using the word takfeeri, as word ‘takfeeri’ tells position of the caller in Islam that is contrary to his outer (zahiri) position … because a takfeeri behave and talk as Muslim but him becoming Kafir is due to him violating right of Allah and right of a Muslim to be considered as Muslim.
I am surprised that you keep saying that calling someone who is takfeeri (do takfeer) ‘a takfeeri’ makes caller takfeeri too … that is not only illogical but absurd. :) …
How a Muslim calling Kafir ‘a Kafir’ can make caller Kafir?
How a Kafir calling Muslim ‘a Muslim’ can make caller Muslim?
How a Muslim calling takfeeri ‘a takfeeri’ can make caller takfeeri?
To understand your this statement is beyond my intellectual capacity.
As for my satire I mentioned in my previous post (about time machine and all), I am sorry … but I used the satire to tell that what Prophet (SAW) said clearly as claimed and mentioned in Hadith … that cannot change by someone’s interpretation (whoever that someone maybe) … rather, change could only happen if hadith attributed to Prophet (SAW) changes.
Bhai jaan … I can understand where you are going and what you are trying to imply. Anyhow, you could not make responsible a nation (people living in Pakistan) for decision taken by state and some religious personalities riding on their ego while facilitating the state.
.....
I have just quoted part of your post just for reference.
All sects consider these as kaffirs, deobadi, shias, barelvi,wahabi and etc. so it leaves only few people in pakistan as non takfeeri who are just affixing this fatwa of takfeeris on others.
You must know that this is not what state wanted to do but it was the unanimous of all religious group to stop these people from using name of islam as they all considered them presenting some thing as islam which is not islam.
This is my point and it does makes most of the people including me as takfeeri.
Now here is the resolution to the conflict that you have been unable to provide an answer for.
In every claim there are two variables which are the “objective reality” and the “subjective reality”.
Both the objective reality and subjective reality variables are subject to being “true” or “false”...
Therefore any Claim {X} can be classed as thus:
a) Where both ObjR and SubR are TRUE
b) Where ObjR is TRUE and SubR is FALSE
c) Where ObjR is FALSE and SubR is TRUE
d) Where both ObjR and SubR are FALSE
Now what is meant by the objective and subjective reality of a matter?
The objective reality allows “others” to identify the person to be in concordance with their claim and the subjective reality is a private affair where the person operates out of a sense of “sincerity” or “insincerity”.
Now if we analyse the Claim...
Let’s say the claim “I am a Muslim”
If the claim is classed in a) then the claimant is a “True” in his claim
If the claim is classed in b) then the claimant is a “Hypocrite”
If the claim is classed in c) then the claimant is “Sincere but mistaken/ill-informed/deficient”
If the claim is classed in d) then the claimant is a “Liar - Kafir”
At this stage it is important to explain the term “objective reality” more closely... now objective reality here does not imply “Shari’ah” as Shari’ah is concerned with the “actions of good and bad”.
Rather “objective reality” is concerned with the qualifications that the person attaches to the tag of his claim. So when talking about “being Muslim” the qualifications are “elements associated to the Faith of Islam” – Iman (Creed) ... i.e. Aqeedah.
‘Aqeedah needs to be correct and Sincerity needs to be there in order for the claim to be TRUE. We have the ability to assess ‘aqeedah for its correctness, but we don’t have the ability to assess sincerity of another person with any level of accuracy.
So now we need to look at the array of Response classes to this claim {X}
For a response to a claim to be cogent, it is necessary that the claim is subjected to an “evaluation” before a “conclusion” is drawn. It is further necessary that the “evaluation” needs to be undertaken “fairly” or “sincerely” without “bias”. If a conclusion is drawn on a claim without “evaluation” it will always be subject to “bias”. That “bias” may render the correct result or it may render a false result, but even if a correct response is drawn – when undertaken without “evaluation” it is deemed to be a blameworthy act, but the blame differs subtly in each case.
To show this all “response” classes will give the following variables:
Acceptance or Rejection and these are both subject to Outward and Inward conditions, giving the following possibilities:
q) Both Outward and Inward Acceptance
r) Outward Acceptance and Inward Rejection
s) Outward Rejection and Inward Acceptance
t) Both Outward and Inward Rejection
However when each of these possibilities can either be borne out from an evaluated claim or an unevaluated claim they are further expanded to give the following:
This gives an array of 32 different possibilities of a claim-response scenario.
If evaluated q) is the result for claim class a) then this is good and correct
If unevaluated q) is the result for claim class a) then this is good and correct – where the benefit of unevaluation is given.
If evaluated q) is the result for claim class b) then this is good, but the evaluator has been hoodwinked/deceived.
If unevaluated q) is the result for claim class b) then this is good, but a little blame must be given in that had evaluation been undertaken the truth of the claimant might have been caught.
If evaluated q) is the result for claim class c) then this is good, but better if the claimant was corrected in his deviancy, which would then push the claimant in to another class after knowledge is received.
That is 5 of them ... and so on until 32 are complete ...
To make it easy and to summarise the q) and r) responses (which accept outwardly) are favourable for claims a), b) and c) ... however, they are unfavourable for claim d) and lower blame is on the respondent if evaluation has not been possible – as he gave benefit of the doubt.
r) and s) responses are ones that are not consistent, but r) is more favourable than s) – since r) preserves and s) does not, however, although s) will always be wrong, r) will be favourable for claim d)
It will be terribly erroneous and itself kufr to apply t) on to claim a)
It will be by chance correct to apply t) on to claim b) – but bad adab having not given benefit of the doubt.
It will be zulm to apply t) on to claim c), especially if no opportunity was given to educate the claimant using wisdom (not arrogance).
But it will be correct to apply t) on to claim d) – and if done with evaluation then there is no blame on the respondent since a correct verdict was made using every precaution available.
s) and t) are both “takfir” acts ... Only 1 out of the possible 16 takfir variations are permissible and only one other takfir act although permissible is still blameworthy – and that is to apply t) on to claim d) without evaluation.
To conclude:
Not all acts of takfir are kufr, but most of them are:
Not all claimants of being Muslim are Muslim, but they need to be treated as Muslim and given benefit of any doubt, unless a full evaluation has been done and they are either deemed to be outright liars or hold spurious aqaid. It still requires them to be treated with dignity and respect, but with caution.
A takfiri is a name not suitable for all people who have done takfir ... But should be reserved for those who haphazardly and leisurely apply kufr tags on to others without evaluation and against no attempt to consider sincerity or their criteria or aqeedah in their conclusion, purely because they differ from their own specific nuanced interpretation of Islam.
I have just quoted part of your post just for reference.
All sects consider these as kaffirs, deobadi, shias, barelvi,wahabi and etc. so it leaves only few people in pakistan as non takfeeri who are just affixing this fatwa of takfeeris on others.
You must know that this is not what state wanted to do but it was the unanimous of all religious group to stop these people from using name of islam as they all considered them presenting some thing as islam which is not islam.
This is my point and it does makes most of the people including me as takfeeri.
There are so many groupings among non-Ahmadi muslims. If you look at the newspapers after 1974 decision, the molvis boastfully claimed that "All the 72 factions of Muslims have agreed ....". Such statements also came to light that "such a unanimous decision was never made". Unanimous decision hoa bhi to takfeer par. wah kia baat hai aur kiya qaum hai.
These 72 factions; most of them do takfeer of each other openly. Have you ever seen a shia getting confused by a sunni or a brelvi getting confused by a deobandi. Then why this drama ...
Neither State nor ulemas have the right to play God. This decision was made with political ambitions and we all know what sort of end he met with. The state didn't stop there but then decided that the new "Kafirs" should not "behave" like muslims. They cannot use Islamic terms, they cannot do qurbani (in certain areas of lahore, it is true). You see, it doesn't stop at just takfeer the "gods" keep moving on and on till Allah's hammer descend on them. The point behind telling you all this is that "takfeer" especially at state level is a non-sensical and dangerous notion. You may consider someone wrong, tell them what do you think is the right way but you cannot become their gods.
When the various sects were arbitrarily throwing takfir at each other - yes - I can believe that may be a result of politics and power ... but when all of them come against a single group - i.e. the Ahmedis then they did so on grounds of aqeedah ... Finality of Prophethood (of Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW)) is paramount in Islamic belief.
I have just quoted part of your post just for reference.
All sects consider these as kaffirs, deobadi, shias, barelvi,wahabi and etc. so it leaves only few people in pakistan as non takfeeri who are just affixing this fatwa of takfeeris on others.
You must know that this is not what state wanted to do but it was the unanimous of all religious group to stop these people from using name of islam as they all considered them presenting some thing as islam which is not islam.
This is my point and it does makes most of the people including me as takfeeri.
I think you should have read my post carefully, but I feel you did not. I wrote in my post that in Islam, each individual is responsible of their own deeds, beliefs and faith.
A Muslim does not belong to any religious group or sect, but belongs to Islam and laws of Islam are present in Quran and hadith, not what one or another prominent scholar of any religious group or sects determines. It is for our convenience that we follow one Imam or another, one sect or another, but that is not mandatory requirement of Islam.
Most Muslims accepts ruling of prominent religious scholars believing that scholars would be giving opinion (fatwa) according to Quran and hadith, but unfortunately many so-called prominent scholars do not (or at least do not do that all the time), rather, it happens that they give opinions (fatwa) on their own like, dislike and ego … and at times because of self-interest or under pressure (government pressure, pressure of their financiers, or pressure groups).
Nevertheless, I believe you are deobandi (just guessing). Now Taqi Usmani is a prominent scholar of deobandi Islam. I know that Taqi Usmani would not give such fatwa (opinion), but let say … if … (and I mean if … for whatever reason) ... Taqi Usmani (on behalf of deobandis) give fatwa that ‘Isa (AS) was son of God’, than would that make you also guilty of believing that ‘Isa (AS) was son of God’?
Obviously not. You will be guilty of such belief only if you as individual also have same belief. But if you do not have such belief than regardless of who gives whatever fatwa, you are free from that.
And that is what I wrote in my earlier post that if some people gave fatwa in Pakistan (regardless of who they were representing … or were claiming to represent) then it does not mean whole nation became guilty of that fatwa (opinion), as in Islam, no person individually or institutionally can become responsible of any other Muslim’s deeds, faith and beliefs.
You said a person who claims to be a Muslim is a Muslim ... But we know that all Takfiris claim to be Muslim ... Therefore takfiris must be Muslim.
You also said that when a person does Takfir of a Muslim he is a Takfiri and you say a Takfiri is always a Kafir.
so here is a contradiction ... Is that right?
Dear Brother, I know that you are knowledgeable, have read a lot, and make comments after good read and thoughts. Anyhow, please read my post carefully, as it seems you have not read the post, and if you had read the post then you did not tried to understand what I wrote (as there is no confusion or contradiction in what I wrote). If you had read my post carefully, probably you would not have made accusation that there is contradiction in my post.
In my post, I only made two claims … they are:
1: Whoever calls another Muslim Kafir then that person is Takfeeri.
[Note: A person is not takfeeri if that person calls someone Kafir who is Kafir]
Where:
Muslim is the one who claims that he is Muslim … that is, he is reciter of Shahadah.
[There are various hadith that says that once a person recites Shahadah … he becomes Muslim (enters Islam) … or he is born of Muslim parents then also he is Muslim … and after that (once he is Muslim) he only need to claim that he is Muslim … and that means it becomes obligation on Muslims to consider and treat him as Muslim. If you want to, I can bring hadith].
Kafir is the one who do not claim that he is Muslim … he is not born of Muslim parents, nor ever claimed that he believes, nor ever recited Shahadah.
2: A takfeeri is Kafir … that is according to hadith … and that is … if anyone calls Muslim ‘a Kafir’ than that call returns to the caller … that means his call of being ‘Kafir’ returns to him making him Kafir.
What I wrote is what is there in hadith attributed to Prophet (SAW), without ‘ifs and buts’. I did not write anything from my own mind. I also gave references. I also quoted Quran on this issue.
[Here is another reference: Hadith from Hadith book ‘Majmaaz-Zawa'id’ written by ‘Ali ibn Abu Bakr Al-Haythami’
"Nothing expels a man from faith (Islam) except the denial of that by which he entered into it [i.e. the Kalima].'' (Majma az-Zawa'id, vol. i, p. 43 ... I personally did not read the book,but seen this hadith referred at many places)
So what makes one person enter Islam and become Muslim (that is reciting of Kalma-e-Shahadah) makes another person enter Islam and become Muslim too. If anyone denies (do not accept) another person’s right to be Muslim who recites Kalma-e-Shahadah (do takfeer on reciter of Kalma-e-Shahadah) leaves Islam himself from same door he entered Islam (becomes non-Muslim) as fast as he entered.]
You can read Quran and Hadith, from A to Z … and you would not find a single cause mentioned in Quran or hadith that says: … If a Muslim does ‘this or that’ than he becomes Kafir … other than a Muslim himself declares that he is no more Muslim (become apostate) and become Kafir … or declares someone Kafir who is Muslim (thus becomes Takfeeri) and thus become Kafir himself.
To say that what I wrote is contradictory, you are not accusing me, but you are:
1: Accusing Prophet (SAW) or those who wrote hadith attributing that hadith to Prophet (SAW) … and there are many hadith on the issue (some I mentioned).
2: You are also accusing scholars of Ahle-Sunnah (rather, scholars of Muslims) who agree with what I wrote that takfeer makes a person non-Muslim, without ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ (takfeeri becomes Kafir).
3: You are also disobeying Allah's order in Quran that whoever says Salaam (that is claim that he is Muslim) then one should not call him unbeliever (Kafir) and there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’.
So, what can I discuss with you about the issue, as my problem is that:
A: I accept your logic and deny Prophet (SAW), scholars of Ahle-Sunnah as well as Allah
B: Reject your logic and accept what prophet (SAW) said (as claimed in hadith), what scholars of Ahle-Sunnah wrote … and what Allah orders (without ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’) in Quran … that Muslims should not call a person ‘unbeliever’ (Kafir) if that person even shows sign that he could be Muslim (by giving Salaam).
Hence I am sorry to say that, I think prudent choice for me is to stick with ‘.B’ and reject ‘A’. I hope you would not mind. :)
Now: using your above logic and all what you wrote in the post, can you please give me answer … in ‘yes or no’ one by one to following questions:
1: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Deobandis are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Deobandis are Kafir?
2: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Berelvies are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Berelvies are Kafir?
3: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Wahabis/Salafis/Ahle-hadith are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Wahabis/Salafis/Ahle-hadith are Kafir?
4: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Shias are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Shias are Kafir?
5: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Ahle-Sunnah are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Ahle-Sunnah are Kafir?
6: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Ismailies are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Ismailies are Kafir?
7: Suppose, according to ability of scholars belonging to one group who after accessing aqeedah finds that … Aqeedah of Suffis are not correct … So: …. Is it fine to say that Suffis are Kafir?
And so on …
Please … let us know that according to your logic, answer to all 7 (1 to 7 given above) is yes, it is fine to call them kafir … and if not, then why?
No, according to my logic the answer to none of these is necessarily "yes" ... that is the reason why I answered "no" to all of them.
Firstly, the groups that constitute the Ahl-us-Sunnah Wa-Al-Jamaah are the 4 madhabs. Typically both Barelwis and Deobandis are Maturidi in aqeedah and they are both Hanafis. Malikis and Shafi's tend to be Ash'ari in aqeedah.
The accepted aqaid are three:
Maturidi, Ash'ari and Athari - (Some scholars such as in Al-Azhar have allowed the Jafiri aqeedah of twelver shi'as to be included in this. I am not familiar with the aqeedah of Isma'ilees, but their Alawite derivatives have clearly and openly uttered belief statements which are heresy in Islam.
Sufis are either Sunnis or Shi'a that practice tassuwwuf and that means a Deobandi or Barelwis can and often are Sufis.
The takfir of Deobandis by Barelwis or vice versa is unacceptable because both of them profess to the same aqeedah, despite having subtle differences in understanding. Also, it is never fine to call someone "kafir" rather if a deficiency is noticed then it is important to engage in conversation. Also, it is not appropriate for "one group" to deem another group with a definition of "kufr" because the criteria should be based on solid grounds of aqeedah and not on subtle differences. When a huge majority of scholars across various persuasions are doing this takfir then that is a different matter.
Regarding material from Qur'an and Sunnah - I'll bring some information later for you inshaAllah, but that will be the last I will write on this subject inshaAllah.
Nevertheless, I believe you are deobandi (just guessing). Now Taqi Usmani is a prominent scholar of deobandi Islam. I know that Taqi Usmani would not give such fatwa (opinion), but let say … if … (and I mean if … for whatever reason) ... Taqi Usmani (on behalf of deobandis) give fatwa that ‘Isa (AS) was son of God’, than would that make you also guilty of believing that ‘Isa (AS) was son of God’?
Obviously not. You will be guilty of such belief only if you as individual also have same belief. But if you do not have such belief than regardless of who gives whatever fatwa, you are free from that.
And that is what I wrote in my earlier post that if some people gave fatwa in Pakistan (regardless of who they were representing … or were claiming to represent) then it does not mean whole nation became guilty of that fatwa (opinion), as in Islam, no person individually or institutionally can become responsible of any other Muslim’s deeds, faith and beliefs.
Every one will be responsible for his own believes, no one will get exemption that he followed certain scholar. I am responsible to carefully select whom to follow, but then i should be held accountable for my actions , one can not hind behind scholar.
Every pakistani with knowledge of the issue consider them as such and this is what i was saying in my post. Your definition of takfeeri makes every one kaffir brother.
In order to demonstrate my perspective on this matter I was thinking of preparing a customised post with the information you have asked for … but Alhumdulillah I have reviewed my source material and have seen it is enough to demonstrate my point quite clearly …
My extrapolation using logical constructs was exhaustive because I was dealing with possibility … And when dealing with possibility one must exhaust all possible avenues using this sort of method …
Now the two links below can fully justify my position. I hope you read them as carefully as you have my posts … I hope Allah (SWT) increases me to your level of understanding and puts in your words the truth that when I see it I can concede and rectify my mistakes.
When the various sects were arbitrarily throwing takfir at each other - yes - I can believe that may be a result of politics and power ... but when all of them come against a single group - i.e. the Ahmedis then they did so on grounds of aqeedah ... Finality of Prophethood (of Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW)) is paramount in Islamic belief.
short answers:
1) 72 against one. I am happy with this for obvious reasons.
2) Finality of prophethood was made an issue in case of ahmadis and one evidence is that they didn't make a generalized law. they made very specific law targeting a particular community.
3) Ulemas may be giving fatwas but it is not the matter of state to jump into this. Why takfir at state level? the only reason that come to an unbiased mind is that in that particular state, not all are equal before law otherwise there is no justification for this law.
Quran 17: 13-15 … ‘Every man’s fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgment We shall bring out for him a scroll, which he will see spread open. (It will be said to him) … "Read thine (own) record: Sufficient is thy soul this day to make out an account against thee."Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an messenger (to give warning).’
Brother, thanks for the references … I read both links. No doubt I agree with some of the writing but unfortunately, both writings were based on personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, biases, interpolations, sectarian beliefs, sectarian assessments, personal preferences, and self-righteousness … nothing from Quran or indisputable hadith, and hence valueless as far as Islam is concerned.
You should know that when one is discussing something, it is not about me right and you wrong, but it is about learning from each other and convincing each other using references that is acceptable to other, or at least by using arguments that intelligence of other could accept, especially if other is not stubborn or full of biases. Else arguments and discussions are baseless, especially if other than learning from each other, anyone is stubborn or have fixed bias beliefs … even Prophet (SAW) could not convinced many Kuffar-e-Mecca when they were not willing to listen and were showing stubbornness with fixed bias beliefs.
We are talking about Takfeer that can make caller Kafir regardless of the caller doing Shahadah, praying Salah, giving Zakat, keeping fast, and performing Haj. I do not even know how a person who did takfeer can again enter Islam, as the takfeeri even close the door to enter Islam because he denies and disrespect the gate of entry to Islam (Shahadah) by devaluing another person’s Shahadah that the person made to Allah (not to the takfeeri) … a statement that Allah has declared that whoever recites with true heart enters Islam … and that only Allah can know what is there in heart … no human can cut heart to see that … hence for humans, even though they do not need to judge other person faith, recitation of Shahadah should be enough. I do not know how such person (takfeeri) would again enter Islam, but maybe he stops doing takfeer, ask forgiveness from Allah and ask forgiveness from those he did takfeer … and hope for the best. Thus matter is important.
So, I asked you reference … that does not mean reference from writing of A, B, sectarians outfits, takfeeries, Kharjees, or Mr Keller.
What I wanted to know is that … Other than takfeer, is there anything else that is mentioned in Quran or hadith that can make a Muslim apostate (Kafir) … not sinner, but kafir … even though he claims that he is Muslims and recites Shahadah.
It means reference from Quran where at any place Allah has said that such and such person becomes apostate because of such and such things/acts/sayings … regardless of the person himself claiming to be Muslim and reciting Shahadha … or … an undisputed writing where Prophet (SAW) had declared anyone apostate in his lifetime (for whatever reason) disregarding a person’s claim that he believes on Allah and Prophet (SAW) as prophet of Allah.
If you had given me references backed by Quran or even doubtful hadiths then also it would have had more value for me than references you gave based on opinions of people who were/are neither God nor Prophets (AS).
Things that amazes me is that … how human (misguided but think that they are guided) who themselves are going through test and are going to be judged on judgment day starts testing and judging others when they themselves do not know about their own fate, or own destination (Hell or Heaven) and where they would be standing in front of Allah. How funny it is that, for them their being Muslim depends on their reciting Shahadah (or being born as Muslim) and then they start questioning and making rules for acceptance or rejection of Shahadah from others (or others’ birth right to be called Muslim) … not knowing that by doing such, they are violating their own Shahqadah (or birth right) and acceptance by others of them being Muslim as on same principle others could judge them kafir too … but most important is that, without knowing that Allah is judging them too … and considering them (takfeeri) out of Islam because they rejected relationship of another persons’ with his creator (Allah) on behalf of Allah (that is what takfeer is) … when Allah says that it is only he who knows and accepts relationship of a person (his creation) with him and no one other than Allah who can deny or accept claim of that relationship. No worldly act can overwrite or decide such relationship or knowledge of such relationship.
For humans (especially if one is Muslim), we are bounded to believe confessions rather than what is there in a person heart or judge a person’s intention … and that is why Allah has put many stories in Quran, including story of musa (AS) journey with Khizr (AS) … shows that even prophets (AS) could not judge another person and thus keep their perception on obvious (that is confession).
Do you know, if one starts applying rules given by Keller on some of close companion of Prophet (SAW), we would start doing takfeer on them too? … Though takfeeries know that, hence made another rule, that is, not to discuss or apply their rules of takfeer on Sahabas or earlier Muslims, as if there is difference of faith between earlier and later Muslims … on the other hand we are told to follow earlier Muslims … so, if they were wrong we are allowed to follow wrong … and Allah would forgive us … but in Quran it says: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. … so how following anyone who was wrong could make that person bear our burden? … Fact is that, what applies to earlier Muslims apply to later Muslims. Please check end of the post.
Please read and think.
Do you know that Marwan (Khalifa after Yazid) was exiled from Madina to Taif by Prophet (SAW) permanently because of him reviling Prophet (SAW) and working against Islam, still no takfeer. He was cousin of Usman (RA). When Usman (RA) became Khalifa, Usman (RA) did not only recalled him from exile, but gave him the most powerful post in his Khalafat … later Amir Muawiyah made him Governor of Hijaz. After the death of yazid, he married wife of Yazid and became Khalifa.
Do you know that Abdullah ibn saad ibn-e-Abi Sarh used to write wahi in Madina, but became apostate and ran to Mecca. In Mecca, he started lying about Quran, Allah and Prophet (SAW). At conquest of Mecca, Prophet (SAW) ordered that any Muslim finds him should kill him (for his mischief against Islam attacking sanctity of Quran). To save his life, he ran to Usman (RA). Usman (RA) instead of killing him hid him for a while and later took him to Prophet (SAW) asking for his forgiveness. Prophet (SAW) waited, but after a long pause accepted Usman (RA) plea. Later, Ibn-e-Abi Sarh was made governor of Egypt under Usman (RA) Khalafat. No takfeer … no killing, even though he was not only apostate but reviled Quran, Prophet (SAW), and Allah.
Do you know that Bohtan (Slandering) on Aisha (RA) was big event during the life of Prophet (SAW). It is such a big event that Prophet (SAW) was not only hurt but was on verge of giving divorce (and divorce would have taken place if it was any other human … but being Prophet (SAW), Allah sent ayah that stopped divorce). Prophet (SAW) was so upset that he (SAW) changed his attitude towards Aisha (RA) and stopped talking to her (RA). Here again, many people were involved in spreading slanderous rumour hurting Prophet (SAW). Surprisingly, even after name of Aisha (RA) was cleared, no takfeer happened, nor any involved in spreading rumours were declared Kafir or apostate … rather they all were treated as Muslims. Amongst slanderers, Mistah bin Uthatha whose family was supported by Abu Bakr (RA) was relative of Abu Bakr (RA) … but once cleared Abu Bakr (RA) decided to stop helping him financially and ayah came not to do that (Quran 11:22) … no takfeer no killing. Hamnah bint Jahsh, sister of Prophet (SAW)'s wife, Zainab (RA), was slandering too, but nothing happened … no takfeer no killing.
Even though many stories abound from the time of Prophet (SAW)… one is remarkable.
1000 Muslims left Madina for battle of Uhad. Abdullah ibn Ubayy (chief of Khazraj tribe of Medina) left the battle field with his 300 men, disobeying Prophet (SAW) command and weakening Muslim army, leaving only 700 Muslims to face 3000 Kuffars of Mecca. No takfeer done, neither anyone of them who left battle field were declared Kafir, not even their leader Abdullah bin Ubayy was declared Kafir. Actually, even after Abdullah bin Ubayy prominent role in slandering of Aisha (RA). Prophet (SAW) did not do takfeer on him.
Rather: According to some writings … when Abdulalh bin Ubayy died, son of Abdullah bin Ubayy requested and accepting the request, prophet (SAW) himself led funeral prayers of Abdullah bin Ubayy and placed his (SAW)'s shirt on dead body of Abdullah bin Ubayy in his grave. No takfeer, no killing.
[One should know that nothing can save a person from punishment if they would do anything wrong in this life, be they Prophets (AS), Ahle-Bayet (family of Prophet), Ashab-e-Rasul (companions of Prophet), Azwaj-e-Rasul (wife of prophet), or Ummat-e-Rasul (followers of prophet).
Here is message from Quran 69:43-49:
(This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.
And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).
But verily this is a Message for the Allah-fearing.
And We certainly know that there are amongst you those that reject (it).
Read following hadith from Bukhari:
[TABLE=“width: 750”]
(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: When Allah revealed the Verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Apostle got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.” (Book #51](51. Wills and Testaments (Wasaayaa) - Sahih Al-Bukhari - 0 - 16), Hadith #16](51. Wills and Testaments (Wasaayaa) - Sahih Al-Bukhari - 0 - 16))
(2) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle got up when the Verse:–'And warn your tribe of near kindred…" (26.214) was revealed and said, “O Quraish people! (or he said a similar word) Buy yourselves! I cannot **save **you from Allah (if you disobey Him) O Bani Abu Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah (if you disobey Him). O 'Abbas! The son of 'Abdul Muttalib! I cannot save you from Allah (if you disobey Him) O Safiya, (the aunt of Allah’s Apostle) I cannot save you from Allah (if you disobey Him). O fatima, the daughter of Muhammad! Ask what you wish from my property, but I cannot save you from Allah (if you disobey Him).” (Book 60](60. Prophetic Commentary on the Quran (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)) - Sahih Al-Bukhari - 0 - 294), Hadith#294](60. Prophetic Commentary on the Quran (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)) - Sahih Al-Bukhari - 0 - 294))
Obviously, purpose of ayahs in Quran and hadith is to tell us Muslims that no one is safe if they did anything wrong … in Quran it also clearly says that … only Allah’s fearing would believe this message, and many amongst Muslims would reject this (Quran 69:48-49)]
It's a comical experience to sit back, and watch ourselves who judge others 6.9 days out of 7 taking a moral high ground on why we shouldn't judge. Unfortunately, it's an illness we're all inflicted with in this day and age. May Allah guide us all, and cure us all.
I think with all that writing ... things are getting lost and diluted. I can't understand what you are saying anymore.
I had said that was my last post on the subject ... To summarise my responses again ...
The general situation is that we must not do takfir ... But I showed logically and and using two solid references of scholars who both show that sometimes doing takfir does not imply the caller is kafir ... Kufr has a criteria and that criteria is in accordance to a belief system ... Not in accordance to a claim ...
how we treat people who have made that claim is another matter ... Except when there are detrimental consequences ... The ulema in consensus must be responsible for making the distinction between what beliefs are kufr and what are not and hence without calling people kaafir, they can deem the understanding of a given group to be astray and invite them to a better way ...
Are you a faqih that you keep asking me for references from the Qur'an? But alas you are entitled to your opinion ... I am not a faqih so please leave me alone now ...
For kchughtai ... 72 vs 1 ... Now think who is the Ahl us Sunnah wal Jamma ... As the Hadith tells us how we should work out who are on the haq ... The minority or the majority?
… and it amazed me. I would appreciate if you can quote Quran or hadith to back up what you wrote. Anyhow, according to your post: