بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Brother if you had traced my comments you would know my stance on the matter, but since you have addressed me personally then alHamdolillah. According to my understanding regarding Dr Padri there is: (1) deference of opinion regarding him ranging from being ghumrah to those who make takfir (2) According to my knowledge there is no consensus (ijma3) that Dr Padri is a kaffir.amongst the ahle sunnah ulema (3) personally I feel it is wrong and unhealthy to malign and insult other Muslim brothers/sister who adopt a differing opinion in the absence of a consensus of opinion (in comparison there is consensus regarding the takfir of the elders of the deobandiyya and qadianiyya/ahmediyya). You asked regarding my "general stance", I have made it clear previously maybe you missed it, I currently adopt the position that has been expressed by Mufti Azam Allamah Ashraful Qadiri sahib, which is that Dr Padri sahib is "batreen ghumrah" and some of his action appear to be kufriyya in in such circumstances I prefer to refer to his tanzeem not as "Minhaaj ul Qur'an", but "Minhaaj ush shaytaan". I hope that clarifies the confusion for you
I did not read brother Imran's post or else I would have replied it long back. It was only when brother Abdul Qadir highlighted in his post that I read this part. This requirement of two sharii testimonies is not asked by Mufti Mutiur Rehman Rizvi sahab and I never said this on his behalf. The need for this requirement is based on my personal experience while debating Tahirur Qadri's supporter and for your kind information they are certified scholars from Jamia Nizamia Hyd and other Islamic institutes. The measures to stop fitna of Tahir is not fought on internet only. There are people who are working in real life to stop the spread of his fitnah. There are scholars who say" We have not received sharii daleel of his kufr, so we do no issue fatwa". What will you do then? If you say" Tajusshariah has issued the fatwa". A prompt reply comes " He must have got the sharii daleel, but I have not." What now? You citing example of kufr of deobandiya and later scholars accepting the fatwa is totally incorrect. And if you ask me why is it incorrect? Then I will have to start from the basics of how a fatwa of kufr and a person being labelled a kafir is done. Just for hint: The case of Ismaeel Dehlavi will come up. Hope you understand. Tahir is a smart deviant. Have you found anything in written in his book? Mufti Mutiur Rehman Rizvi sahab has explicitly told that he has not found anything in his book" Firqa parasti ka khatma Kyunk Kar mumkin hai' , which entails fatwa of kufr upon Tahir. What now? As far as Tajusshariah is concerned, we should know that he is a world leader. He travels all over the world and meets people in different country. It is quite possible some of his murideen might have informed him about various kufriya acts of Tahirul Qadri, or there might have been many other evidence which Tajush shariah had. I will see if I could get time to meet Mufti Mutiur Rehman Rizvi sahab and put forward my points. But that is not happening soon as I lack time. If some one else could do it, it will be great. My suggestion to get two sharii evidence for Tahirul Qadri was only to make our case stronger in front of those who are his supporter. Those who consider Tahir to be kafir/ murtad/ gumrah/ etc, should think of how to stop the spread of his fitna. I can tell you from the information which I have that Tahir is playing in the hands of anti Islamic forces.
@imranaybani just so you know, i support and always propagate the fatwa that tahir is a murtad, be it from Tajush Shari3ah or anyone else. my personal inclination is that he is a mini dajjal. it is not because of your tasteless rants on this thread, ask any of your friends on the forum, this has been my inclination before you even joined. ask abu Hasan, how much he has had to restrain me from lashing out at tahir before no fatwa of riddah was available ----------- with that out of the way - your rant is super idiotic and childish can you define "proof" from any mazhab of fiqh? this claim that tahir (a specific, mu3ayyan person) said this or that is a "khabar". this khabar needs to be proven "authentic" what is the Shar3i status of internet as a source of the khabar? is the internet in and of itself 3aaqil? ma3qool? jaahil? majhool? muballigh? muballagh? etc etc. in the light of Shari3ah, what is the Shar3i standing (shar3i haysiyat) of a website (textual content)? what is the Shar3i haysiyat of a photo uploaded on the internet? or a photo printed on paper? (eg. can a photo by itself be used as a proof in establishing zina or drinking? or can it only be used as a corroboratory evidence?) what is the Shar3i haysiyat of a youtube video (with movies of humans or animals etc.)? what is the Shar3i haysiyat of a youtube video with only sounds or graphics or plain audios? (anything without videos of humans/animals) are they and can they be acceptable as authentic proof evidence in a Muslim court in front of a qadi, if there was an Islamic khilafah now? what are the criteria in Islam for ascertaining or denying a khabar? if Imam Bukhari or Imam Nawawi were alive today, if something is famous all over the net and the mass media tv, news channels, newspapers etc. (similar to what could be called "tawatur" in the real physical brick and mortar world of real humans) would search engine rankings and multiple publishings on multiple websites let them call such a piece of information as "asahh" perhaps? maybe if something only exists on a lonely blog buried under the 37th page of a google search query, would he call it "da3eef"? or would they just write off the internet????????? and ask for testimonies from real humans, written form with their signature, or in person. after all, websites can be hacked, doctored, etc. etc. etc. sure, in the past too, tehreef could be done into written books. ----------------- come to think of it - back in the 60's or 70's or 80's - what was the ulema's ruling on the Shar3i haysiyat of the popular recording devices then? - the gramophone, home videos and movie recordings on on vcr cassettes, audio cassettes, 8-track tapes, radio & tv broadcasts-kafir government (eg. all india radio), radio & tv broadcasts-Muslim government (eg. ptv); radio & tv broadcasts-privately owned channels (eg. nbc) if someone was passing by a pub carrying his movie camera in the 70's and made a video of some guy drinking alcohol in the pub (assume both are Muslims), what would Mufti A3zdham Hind radi Allahu 3anhu have said - a) the person in the movie is guilty of consuming alcohol b) the person in the movie is guilty of drinking, and also the person recording it is guilty of recording a video c) just the guy who recorded is guilty of recording the video, and the contents of the video do not establish the person in it as having been a drunk, as two witnesses are required who should have seen the act live if someone know this please do enlighten me. the more i have pondered over Mufti Sahab's condition of bringing in 2 testimonials, the more fascinated and intrigued i have become. ------------ this is the whole crux of the matter with Mufti Mutee3ur Rehman (who is not an Attari or Misbahi, but rather a reputable khalifa of Mufti A3zdham Hind) he needs an authentic khabar that the specific mu3ayyan person, tahir, uttered those words and did those things - this is what i understand ------------ see just today, brother Aqib Qadri posted a news item about a shooting and videos of the shooting that have gone online, in another thread . the news item that the brother linked to, says: every time, bin laden used to release a video, dubya, obama, etc. announced that they are working on ascertaining the authenticity of the video before they went ahead and said that yes the video is authentic and was recorded and released by al-qaeda. even now, whenever isis releases a video, western leaders give statements that they are working on ascertaining the authenticity of it. the point is that a video or website just being out there is one thing. it being confirmed as authentic, is something else. -------------- all those names of the past that you wrote, the testimonies, records, affidavits, publications etc were solicited and used and analyzed by the ulema of those times. the ulema verified the publications bearing their names etc. in their times. those matters were settled in their times. some of those people even arrogantly confessed to their crimes the ulema of those times issued their rulings on THOSE specific personalities. when they ulema of those times spoke of those personalities, they had all the forensic evidence they needed on those personalities! tahir was NOT around then (and by extension, forensic evidence on his kufriyat), so there is no fatwa of Ala Hazrat and his contemporaries, on the specific, mu3ayyan person of tahir -------------- you have no logic zayd is not an "exemplary" name. click on the link and learn the meaning of "exemplary" (this is just so you improve your english) "zayd" is a fictitious name to present a hypothetical situation, which will better allow us to understand the fiqh of the matter at a conceptual and ideological level! (click on all the links to understand the terms and what i am talking about!) tahir jhangvi is not a fictitious character in a hypothetical scenario. he is a living human being in the real world! it is insane to suggest that a mufti can't answer a question on a matter of principles. it is equally insane to suggest that the ulema of those times gave rulings of kufr on specific individuals without any forensic evidence against those specific individuals! your logic is as bad and bogus as the "mufti" who wrote that itni na badha "refutation" - UP-bhaiyyagiri at its finest! that person is a dear khalifa of Huzoor Mufti A3zdham Hind and understand fiqh, and what is a khabar and what is the shara3i haysiyat of something much better than you! ------------------------------- here's a question to all of you Tajush Shari3ah gave fatwa of kafir on tahir, based on his (tahir's) videos. so from this we can deduce that in Tajush Shari3ah's methodology videos are valid Shar3i proofs. then should it lead us to believe that Tajush Shari3ah considers videos as jayiz, yes or no? how yes, or how no? if Tajush Shari3ah consider's videos as najayiz, then on what legal precepts he accepts video evidence against tahir? i don't have a problem with his fatwa on tahir using videos as a proof, because i follow the fatwa that videos are jayiz and that salah on a moving train doesn't have to be repeated, and that the one who holds this opinion is fit to be an imam to lead Sunnis in jama3ah! i love his fatwa on tahir and promote it to anyone i can! was-salam.
From my own knowledge I believe Mufti Qasim is now aware of what happened at wembly and the Christian/believers statements of padri and I believe mufti saabs views on this are the same as Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan and his fatwa. I know many DI brothers & DI ulama who follow the Fatwa of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan on this matter regardless of their own Darul ift not having issued a fatwa of kufr themselves. So on that note its clear DI do not appose or contradict the fatwa of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan, in fact they promote it themselves amongst the mureeds. A DI brother who presented the fatwas of mufti Ahktar Raza khan and Mufti Qasim on padri to another brother who had newly joined DI, got into a debate over it.. the new brother was overly cautious but didn't understand the fitna of padri, so to settle the matter this was taken to a Alim of DI who said the older brother had done right and we follow the fatwa of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan on this matter. So I believe DI's position is inline with ulama of Ahle Sunnah.. if anyone wants a specific fatwa about padri and his kuffriya sayings then they should write to darul ifta ahle sunnat of DI and ask them specific questions about the wembly and Christmas celebrations
So if this fatwa is pre wembly and inline with what most other sunni muftis have said about padri then there should be no issue over it and DI. Can anybody verify its date and how that date stands against the wembly event, is the fatwa iv put a link to pre or post wembly thats all that needs answering. If it turns out to be pre Wembley then DI darul ifta have answered to the best of their ability and according to the majority position at that time, so people should stop bickering over this. If it's post wembly then perhaps the mufti who answered it wasn't aware of wembly at the time of writing it and he just simply answered the question on the points that it was asked about. This is a possibility so lets not rule it out without knowing the facts.
Here is the proof for urdu speaking people: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/3714/Media-Coverage-of-Merry-Christmas-Program-(3-Jan,-2006).html Here is the proof for english speaking people: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/3204/Merry-Christmas-Program-at-Minhaj-ul-Quran.html For further proofs please visit this link: http://www.minhaj.org/en.php?control=Search&srch=christmas Tahir Jhangvi became kafir in 2006 itself when he said that Christians and Jews are believers in his organized Merry Christmas Program on 3rd January 2006. And at Wembley he invited others for open shirk. Above mentioned proofs are not uploaded by any other opponents of Tahir Jhangvi, its his official website and none of the statement of denial gone through my sight. This means he is showing consent to this things and does not denying this statements. Now, lets come on the point that old aged scholars are not aware of deviance and kuffriyat statements of Tahir Jhangvi because they do not know english and do not sit on internet. Nowadays, in the age of technology, the facility of Computer and Internet is available in each and every idara. If they do not sit on the internet they even bother to ask their murids who knows internet and english very well to look into this issue. It is very weak argument that they did not ask or they do not know about this. And if they do not know english first link has Urdu evidences. So, it is not difficult for them arrange original copy of those proofs and confirm it. Why they are asking for two sworn in testimonies in this case? I am asking this because they are not wasting a minute in declaring kafir to Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, Qasim Nanotwi, Khalil Ahmed Ambethvi etc. and their followers. Do they have two sworn in testimonies of the person who attended their jalsa and listen them to saying kuffriyat statements? The answer is no. They are following the Fatawa of Ala Hazrat and other previous pious ulama, and in this case they need two sworn in testimonies. subhanAllah! What kind of double policy is this? And, when you ask any Mufti with exemplary name of Zayd that, Zayd is saying believers to Christians and Jews. So, Zayd become kafir or not? Then which answer they will give. Will they ask for two sworn in testimonies about Zayd or will they give fatawa of kufr. Therefore, instead of making personal opinions and pointless arguments, does anybody have strong evidence of not calling Tahir Jhangvi a kafir? Does anybody have strong evidence against the Fatawa of Huzoor Taajush Shariah and the reference of Fatawa al Harmain? If the answer is no then please do not make pointless arguments and accept it. Note: Here I am not supporting any above mentioned rotten kafir of wahabi sect. I am just shedding light on the double policy of the person who made this kind of pointless argument of two sworn in testimonies. I am considering them kafir. Even they are the worst creature on the earth.
1. I think his avatar was changed by the admin and not done personally .. 2. @snaqshi is your general stance that you dont agree with the fatawa on tahir ul qadri?
actually, the only thing that fatwa stops short of, is takfeer. it is a stronger DI fatwa than what Aqib Qadri linked to it states perfectly well the popularly known positions ON tahir based on the known positions OF tahir. this is what most other muftis also said about him before he called christians as believers and before he organized the wembley circus i would like to ask the members of Sunniport who have read MFM of abu Hasan - how many of you have forwarded the istifta mentioned at the end, to your trusted muftis? if non-english-speaking SUNNI muftis are not aware of the seriousness of wembley, don't expect them to magically know about tahir's kufriyat at wembley just by way of ilham. please understand the fact that a sizable majority of our desi muftis are not well versed in english and despite all the ugliness of the job, it is still your job to translate the wembley circus for them, for the maslaha of obtaining the ruling on it. please note, that you must always say "tahir said" when you translate his kufr. you should never quote someone else's kufr without saying "he said" or "she said" btw, is mufakkir paqs fluent in english, enough to understand what tahir says?
This is the fatwa of Mufti Qasim I read... Im not a urdu reader but it has a attached English translation to it but unfortunately the date is not on the English one and I don't know if the actual question is pre Wembley or post... but one thing is clear the questioner doesn't mention Wembley or calling Christians believers https://www.dropbox.com/s/upyrm2t6do13tbc/Darul Ifta Ahle Sunnat Fatwa on Tahir Minhaji.pdf?dl=0
I haven't had the opportunity to talk to mufti qasim attari about the wembly issues when he last visited England, but a brother who did spend some time with him informed me that Mufti Qasim clearly stated padri said words of kufer in a number of his statements about Christians and other statements about jews. According to the brother the word that was used for padri was kafir of the century by mufti saab... Allah knows how true that last statement is.. but I believe mufti qasim would regard padri as someone having done kufr in light of wembly... he would never say his just gumrah after having done kufr.. The question is has darul ifta and mufti qasim been asked about wembly...? And lets say someone did ask them and they turned around and replied we follow the fatwa of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan on the wembly matter... and I personally believe they do follow that fatwa myself.
No Mufti of DI or Shaykh ilyas have ever said doc T's clear statements of calling Christians believers etc is ok and not kufr... Allama shahid raza attari and I have had many discussions on the topic of padri and wembly kufr fest and he clearly regarded these saying of padri as kufr statements
The fatwa that DI mufti Qasim Attari issued in relation to tahir minhaji was the fatwa of Mufti Waqaar uddin Allah have mercy upon him.. Now what I want to ask here is did muft Qasim issue his fatwa pre Wembley? Another factor is the fatwa that I read by him of Mufti waqaar is answering the specific question of is padri a good sunni who's jamaat is upon the sunnah or path of ahle sunnah... it didn't mention anything about Wembley in that question to the darul ifta
I do not know whom are you relying on for these false information. Kindly note, Mufti Muteeur Rahman is NOT a member of Majlis e sharii, mubarakpur. ( The list is online) Any one can call Mufti Nizamuddin sahab, who is the principal of Jamia Ashrafia and sadar dar al ifta ( his number is on internet and confirm) . Or you can ask Mufti Merajul Qadri , who is a khalifa of Tajush shariah and a teacher at Jamia Ashrafia Mubarakpur. Who ever informed you, please correct him as well.Please be cautious in stating things on forum. This is your second wrong information in less than 24 hours. Second, ask those whom you are relying that who was the biggest advocate and supporter of Tajusshariah during Ashrafi- Rizvi dispute? It was none other than Mufti Mutiur rehman rizvi, who has completed his entire education from Bareilly shariff. Ask them, who used to accompany Tajushhariah in every gathering which was held against Ashrafis? My suggestion to you is that it is better if you contact senior ( aged) scholars before posting.
I have no doubt in the fatawa of Ala Hazrat and Huzoor Taajush Shariah. So, you go to your all big men and ask them to refute the fatawa given by Taajush Shariah and reference of Ala Hazrat with strong evidence. You only confused and jumping here and there without any evidence against my reference. One advice, take a chill pill and read the reference of Fatawa al Harmain again and again. Then you will understand my point.
You have an intellect and my reference is crystal clear... So go on and deduce the ruling from that... Or ask any Mufti based on that reference you will get the answer
no Sahihul Aqidah Sunni on this planet denies CONCEPTUALLY that ANY PERSON (without doing ta3ayyun) who doesn't call christians as kafirs is himself is a kafir. the issue of mu3ayyan takfeer of tahir requires acceptable Shar3i evidence that tahir is such a person who doesn't call christians as kafirs. according to Mufti Mutee3ur Rahman and his khulafaa, video doesn't count as acceptable Shar3i evidence to forensically prove or disprove something because according to his view video in itself (fi nafsihi) is haram, this is why this particular mufti sahab needs the sworn testimony of two Muslims (who did tawba and tajdeed-e-iman for visiting such an event) who were present at wembley and they heard tahir say those things with their own ears and saw him commit those acts with their own eyes (any uk brothers, is it possible for any of you to get such testimonies from 2 Muslims who were personally present at wembley?) also don't forget that a lot of the people like ulema, muftis, etc from the older generation don't sit on internet or youtube, so they may not be aware of all of tahir's deviancies. yet again, don't forget that most of them don't know english or know very poor english, so they might not grasp the depth of tahir's dalalah at wembley or other such places. remember, his defense was also in english (where he lied against the Holy Prophet 3alaihis salam) if the issue would be so simple as you make it out to be, we would all be DIY muftis like the wahabis. akhi sunnistudent, is what i said above your quote, a correct recap of what you implied? it's an insightful fiqh point - if you believe recording videos are haram, then you can't use videos to forensically prove or disprove anything!
Shaykh Mutee ul Rahman, a senior member of the Mubarakpur Majlis e Shariy, and an associate of Shaykh Yaseen and Shaykh Nizamuddin Mubarakpur
Your twisted straight up,go on then if your all big man give fatwa on the ulama such as mufti ashraf ul qadri,mufti muti ur rehman and the rest.
