The Sunni Creed regarding the Knowledge of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Aqdas, Feb 3, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member

    You're welcome.

    Wa iyyakum
     
  2. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    Thanks for the advice

    I don't read Ala Hazrat's fatwas, you come across things over time from ulema and articles like this. You do realise my problem was with the article not the fatwa, but then the fatwa was the basis of the article


    Jazak Allahu khair for the suggestion of other Ulema.

    Wise yeah it would be wise in a worldly way, I would have accepted if I could.

    I am not aware of anyone else's endorsement or condemnation outside of this thread.
     
  3. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member


    So here Im guessing your'e speaking for yourself? You tend to read fatwas of Ala Hazrat and interpret them to what you think they mean and then pass judgment on the words (i.e rejecting them), based on your own reasoning, which you admit youre nowhere in the capacity (knowledge-wise) to do anyways?

    So wouldn't it be wise to accept this statement/fatwa of his at face value without extra discussion, especially when many high calibre Ulema including Ulema from outside the subcontinent, from the Haramain, have endorsed this very book and they have never criticized this statement.

    So if the "ibarat are problematic to people" of your level as you say, then just accept that your knowledge is too weak to understand it, rather than deciding to reject the statement and trying to encourage others to do so as well.

    And if you happen to find yourself falling into such a dilemma frequently with regards to the works of Ala Hazrat, once again, if it makes you all the more comfortable, there are plenty of other Ulema outside the subcontinent that you can take knowledge from.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  4. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    Please don't start saying you believe this or that based on this thread.
    I don't have disagreement with Ala Hazrat as it stands (see earlier agreement, the zahir of the fatwa might be misleading since he is not obliged to explain his ruling, the ruling can come in plain form and we are not privy to its complexities). Of course he knows things I don't know, is a grand master of fiqh and I am similar level to you. I thought you came to refute me so I obliged my view.


    I do know Razvi ulema tend to interpret muhaal kalaam since muhaal is impossible. Thereby they don't do takfir on these issues but the ibarats remain problematic to people of my level. So we might find ourself following what we think Alahazrat's position was. In fact the whole issue is more complicated than that. This whole issue has many traps and you don't need to follow anything from it. Keep in mind and no need to reply. Thanks
     
  5. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member

    So can you support your view with evidence? And if so, mubarak to you for your view. Your not obliged to follow Ala Hazrat. Ill take his view over yours any day. No questions asked. Your the one creating all the fuss. And your examples/explanations don't make much sense.
     
    Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  6. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    If a person commits a crime (Barabari) and is given something to hide his crime (ataee) but the cover is insufficient (impossible). He is still guilty. If he is not prosecuted a follower will commit the same crime with less stress, even impunity ("so what if Allah shared All His Knowledge") and thus it is fair seeming to them, doesn't even carry stress yara it's simple. What is the fuss all about
     
  7. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    Ataee is less than Barabari or can be less than Barabari or can be Barabari if mind is faulty enough.

    If we say it is less than barabari but a person claims Barabari, so we end up with ataee + Barabari, or Barabari + ataee

    You are saying the net of this sum is still less than 100% Barabari so it's not kufr level, or that it has a kufri element (Barabari) and a faith aspect (ataee). The matter is confused and not definite either way


    My view is the claim of barabari necessitates disbelief even when added with ataee because ataee shirk is most common form of shirk. It is the kitabi shirk and the shirk of some of the mushrikeen. The faith is to uphold the Oneness and herectism such claiming Barabari is disbelief.
     
  8. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member

    This may be a bad example but i hope it gets the point across:

    If a person is completely innocent of a crime against another individual, but yet claims he committed the crime, and even the "victim" denies it and there is no evidence against the "suspect" whatsoever. Then, The suspect doesnt need to be prosecuted, although he can be shunned/condemned for lying and wasting everybody's time.
     
  9. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member



    Its no longer "barabari" once the person says ataee. This is why its faulty reasoning. And therefore not definite reason for takfir.
     
  10. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    Barabari not level of kufr if claimed to be ataee?

    Yes that is the question. The answer to that question is what it really boils down to
     
  11. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member


    Also, perhaps he hasnt reached the level of "associating partners with Allah" since this would also require belief in independent knowledge without having received knowledge from Allah. Therefore, there is no "partnership" in the truest sense of the word.
     
  12. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member

    Nobody is excusing the person. Rather, just not making takfir. This person may still be a deviant but just not at the level of kufr.
     
  13. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    If you substitute insanity for faulty reasoning it seems now you are excusing the person for faulty reasoning.
     
  14. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member

    No need. The explanation that the brother posted seems sufficient enough to me. Where is the confusion?



    "sorry - "insanity" will ward off takfir in any and every case - it does not require an explicit specification here.

    The statement, 'takfir will still not be made', indicates that the fatwa is speaking to the case which is within the ambit of takleef, whereas an insane person is not mukallaf, to begin with.

    ----

    Rather it is a case of faulty reasoning and/or ambiguity in what the person understood by those words.

    The bottom line is that, the unqualified attestation to the knowledge's being 'ata'ee', shields the speaker from takfeer.

    And Allah knows best."
     
  15. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    Perhaps you can rewrite that passage so we can see what it looks like without wrong conflation. That would clarify what you wanted to say

    As it seems right now you are excusing the person associating partners with Allah for faulty reasoning.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  16. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member


    Masha Allah, very well explained.

    "faulty reasoning" is what I should have mentioned. I think I wrongly conflated "insanity" with "faulty reasoning"

    Jazak Allahu Khairan for the clarification.

    Barak Allahu Fik.
     
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    sorry - "insanity" will ward off takfir in any and every case - it does not require an explicit specification here.

    The statement, 'takfir will still not be made', indicates that the fatwa is speaking to the case which is within the ambit of takleef, whereas an insane person is not mukallaf, to begin with.

    ----

    Rather it is a case of faulty reasoning and/or ambiguity in what the person understood by those words.

    The bottom line is that, the unqualified attestation to the knowledge's being 'ata'ee', shields the speaker from takfeer.

    And Allah knows best.
     
    Abdullah Ahmed likes this.
  18. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    That was part of question: "Of course the other possibility is what I have said is reasonable but the takfir is withheld due to some technical Sharii pearl (insanity, ignorance etc)"

    I had reasons why I couldn't apply or assume that understanding by myself (Inc people had already suggested other things on facebook, its application here is inappropriate although it might be true) , and as it turned out others didn't apply that either. You are the first to suggest that as a reason. Fair enough but it was needed to ask
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  19. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed New Member


    In response to the above post (someone please correct me if i'm mistaken):

    Alaa Hazrat wrote that he COMPLETELY REJECTS Ataee+Equal but takfir is not made, perhaps because the sanity of the person (making such a statement) comes into question for having such a nonsensical belief.

    And if he decides to be cautious about takfir and has a very strict criteria, why is that a problem? Hes not stating that this is his belief; rather, he is just refraining from making takfir of someone else possessing a nonsensical belief.

    Is Alaa Hazrat required to provide context as to why he refrains from takfir in this case? And is there a problem if someone further deduces a possible reason for the withholding of takfir?

    Why the jump to assuming that someone has rejected the fatwa because they added context that was not already present in the fatwa?
     
  20. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi New Member

    This is acceptable.


    Allah willing it is the case
     

Share This Page