Kufr Returns or Not?

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Noori, Mar 23, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    You should be ashamed of asking answers from me. Forgot Nagpuri fatwa story?

    Let me tell , what Abu Hasan deleted.

    I posted an audio statement from Mufti Akhtar Raza sahab, in which he said that a particular scholar who issued fatwa of kufr upon a muslim, but the scholar was unable to bring shari'i evidence in support of that fatwa, then "kufr" returned on that scholar!

    I may not agree with this verdict of Mufti Akhtar Raza.

    But what is accepted by all scholars ( of maslak e ala hazrat) that if a lay man ( like abul hasan) calls a muslim kafir, then propagates this message ( like abu hasan) and if this layman is unable to bring shari'i evidence to prove that the muslim is kafir, then the kufr will return back on that layman.

    Hence, Abu hasan sahab deleted my post.
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the scans i posted have to do with "kufr returns or not".
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    for someone who started this thread for this noble purpose, he cannot read or interpret simple ibarat. i encourage you to refute me.

    your simple mind cannot understand that in some cases kufr returns and some cases kufr does not return. do ask your fiqh teachers, and they will give you examples. now, with glee go back to my original post and see what i have said. if you can bear to download TKM, you will see some of the below translated as well.

    i don't understand your predicament. you dismissed me as someone who doesn't know fiqh - and have been chiding me. then why are you demanding answers from me? i accept that i am a student and a beginner riddled with flaws. you don't have to prove it.

    get over it.
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    You made stand that Nagpuri fatwa is correct and that Obaidullah is Kafir.

    The scans you posted has nothing to do with that. You need to make it clear what you stand you take from that ' scan".

    Regarding comprehension, see post 44 of this thread. Feel proud.

  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have posted scans AFTER making a stand. if you are incapable of reading, it is not my problem.
    read again. peel your eyes - but what is the use of reading without comprehension?

    no, just sympathetic.
  6. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    You too have posted scans without making your stand.

    Feeling disgusted again?
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i deleted another post. that has nothing to do with my answer. talk about me and give me YOUR answer.

    SS is so stupid that he thinks i am responsible for the sayings and statements of all ulama who oppose nizamuddin!
  9. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    smile. Anything which proves your wrong, is of course "not related to the topic".

    You are disgusted again. This time because you were again unable to prove your claim.

    Now, don't tell me that you are disgusted because of your "iman".

    Trust me, its nafsanic.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i deleted one post which was not related to the topic.
    stick to the topic - don't give us your idiotic meanderings. i don't have time to waste with those who are dedicated to the service of ram-bhakats.

    you started this topic: kufr returns or not. let me explain it to you again:
    it does not return to those muftis who gave fatwa of kufr upon obaids speech (or portions of speech) - whether it is nagpur-fatwa no.1 or no.2. because of the hadith i cited and the fiqh page i mentioned below.

    if you have any objections to that argument, please post. don't filibuster.
  11. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    don't keep proving your idiocy. who is diverting the thread?
    your question was kufr returns or not. and i answered you.

    if you are incapable of reading it or understanding it, it is not my problem. go and ask mutiyu'r rahman to explain it to you.

    spoken like a true idiot. i said that to nawaz because he was posting partial quotes INSINUATING something without stating his own stand. so my comment was for him to take a stand. if you hadn't drunk so much bilge water, you can see that i have also explained in inglish. read it again. my stand is clear - all i did was post some references for you to check in my evidence. if you cannot understand english or arabic, is it my fault? alHamdulillah, i can translate that for you - but what is the guarantee that you will heed it? you are playing this trick because you are incapable of reading arabic, nor understanding it. therefore, you will never understand the answer.

    you cannot read inglish. you cannot read arabi. and i cannot speak gibberish.

    i am not diverting the issue. i gave you the answer. you are incapable of understanding basic ibaarat and strut around talking as faqih e aazam.
    i am not interested in proving your stupidity - it is self-evident. those are the answers for your silly questions. go and genuflect to those who genuflect to the person who praises hindu idols. sub'HanAllah, instead of muftis reprimanding the person (regardless of the ta'wil and abstaining from takfir, which is a secondary issue now) these 'muftis' want us to praise obaid for extolling rama!


    i won't waste time translating them for YOU - because it is useless for you. i have already translated portions of it elsewhere.

  12. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Let people"see"


    lying is the last thing I expect from any one on this forum.

    Abu Hasan was requesting for reference of kufr fiqhi from "new version" of fatwa ridawiya. I gave reference from old edition!

    After 2 weeks he found old edition and cross checked my reference and found it!
  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Let others 'see".

    Abu Hasan ,I asked you to prove two simple things:

    1) Which scholars called Obaidullah a Kafir , as on March 2015, when you were propagating that "those who have called Khan kafir"......

    You have failed to answer this ,as is your habit.

    2) Second question: Why will Kufr not return on those scholars?
    You have again not answered this ,as is your habit.

    These two questions were asked in reference to what you posted in March 2015.

    Since I am aware of your behavior it is not shocking to me.

    You will never answer these two questions and will continue to divert topic, as you tried in Nagpuri fatwa issue.


    If some one makes a post in Arabic, without explaining what he deduces from that text, you write:

    But one can observe how you posts things without explaining deduction from the text. This is your rule, different rules for different people.


    After you failed to prove your accusation , you started with what you always do!

    Had you been reading actual books of fiqh, you would not have said this:


    Your high level understanding can be seen in that thread.

    Come to any madarsa and a primary student of fiqh will tell you about it. Now your " supporters" have used this term. Be happy!

    It is not about being disgusted. You get disgusted even when I point your double standard. I cannot help in that case. The issue is you are calling some on a Kafir, without shari'i daleel.
    Fatawa Ridawiyah, Vol 21, p.186 says
    من استحسن فعلا من افعال الكفاركفرباتفاق المشاءخ

    Abu Hasan translated this as :

    It was asked to you why did you add " religious" with in brackets, you went silent, as is your habit.

    It was said :

    Word to word translation :
    Whosoever considers any action of the disbelievers as commendable has committed kufr, as agreed by all scholars.

    Let us list some of the action of the disbelievers. Observe it says" any action".

    1. A Kafir in Varanasi gets up early morning and goes for a long walk.
    2. A Kafir in Syria eats beef daily.
    3. A Kafir in Mozambique climbs on a tree everyday.

    Suppose a Muslim considers all of the above actions commendable. Will it be said that this Muslim has committed Kufr? Yes or No?

    And what about this!

    Sachin tendulakr is a great batsman.
    Hatim Tai used to help poor and needy.
    Rustam was a great wrestler.
    And what will we do with so many Arabic poets who were kafir and their works are being taught in madaris even now! Their Arabic literary skills are praised by the Muslim scholars. What do we do now, O Abu Hasan?

    Suppose a prompt reply comes that these 'actions' are 'general actions' ,which are done by even Muslims, so it cannot be called as ' kufr".

    So what is the meaning?

    Another reply comes: One will said to have committed an act of 'kufr", if he considers any 'religious' action of the disbelievers as commendable.

    ( Observe this: Had it been black and white, you would not have added "religious". Since fiqh is implied , you added " religious", though it is not in the original text)


    So let us say people agree to the translation provided by Abu Hasan. Now let us see what is Abu Hasan's translation.

    Abu Hasan's translation:
    Whosoever considers any [religious] action of the disbelievers as commendable has committed kufr, as agreed by all scholars.

    Now let us list some of the 'religious' action of the disbelievers.

    1.Helping poor and needy is a religious action in Hinduism .
    2 Giving charity is a religious action in Hinduism.
    3.Helping orphans is a religious action in Christianity.
    4.Protecting modesty and chastity of a woman is a religious action in Sikhism.
    5. Speaking truth is a religious action in Jainism.
    6. Stopping and suppressing evil is a religious action in Hinduism. etc , etc

    These teachings are present in either their books or in the explanations/commentary of the basic books.

    What now, O Abu Hasan? Now if a Muslim considers the above mentioned " religious action" of the disbelievers as " commendable" will he be said to have committed " an act of kufr" ? And suppose these actions are performed by the biggest kafir on the earth, if the kafir is praised , not because of his kufr, but because of these " religious" action, will it not be a "bigger kufr"? Tell me Yes or No and the reason for your answer.

    And why not? The first kufr being considering" religious action" of disbelievers as commendable and the second kufr being praising the biggest kafir, but not because of his kufr but because of the above mentioned " religious actions"!

    Suppose now another reply comes . By actions, it is meant those " religious actions which are specific to that religion or is a hall mark of that religion and / or is against Islam. " And much more can be added to this.

    Abu Hasan did not explain why he added ' religious" with in brackets , because if he would explain that, it will show his wrong argument!

    Note: Abu Hasan will still not explain why he did " religious' with in brackets.

    It was said (in the speech / article) that praising deities of Kuffar will be kufr, when they are praised for their kufr. If they are praised for those things which are good as per Islam as well, that will not constitute Kufr. If angels are praised ( worshiped by some kuffars), or hazrat isa bin maryam alayhis salam is praised ( who is worshiped by some of the kuffars), then will it constitute kufr? Some people worship Guru Nanak, so praising Guru Nanak for his good deeds, which are considered good even as per Islam, will it constitute kufr? Some people in south India worship movie stars. If that movie star is praised for his charity, will it constitute kufr?

    Remember , you need to answer this in the light of maslak e ala hazrat!

    Abu hasan has totally abandoned maslak e ala hazrat. Why?

    Abu Hasan quotes Ala Hazrat in ' The Preamble to Faith': ( Internet,p.64)

    These question would arise if you explain why you added ' religious" with in brackets. So you chose not to answer your addition of that extra word.

    So don't be under the illusion that you are disgusted due to some one praising Ram. In fact, you are disgusted because you have been refuted as per your own principles.

    You write:

    Abul Hasan, do you see how weak you are at fiqh? When you yourself consider it be to be a 'weak cause" and hence ihtamal, then in this case ruling of kufr is not issued by the mutakallimun!

    Since you are weak at fiqh let me answer the other point which you have raised regarding 'audio tape".

    When Nagpuri molvis issued fatwa, they were not aware whose speech it is. They did not contact Obaidullah. Since there is an ihtamal here, fatwa of kufr cannot be issued. But they issued it, though, without name. And you went ahead and used that fatwa on an individual.

    Showing your anger , you continue:

    You can call me what ever you wish, but let me show yout comprehension:

    You ask
    This is your standard, but you want to act as a mufti!

    Showing what you have, you continue:
    If you fear Allah, forget shame, tell me, why are you unable to prove the correctness of Nagpuri Fatwa, which you were calling it correct? You were acting as a mufti on your forum because no one dared to ask you to prove its correctness! The day I asked you, and till to date, you have no answer. It is on record that you were supporting Nagpuri fatwa.

    I know these scholars. But let the world know about you!

    Abu Hasan writes:

    See, Abu Hasan, you can go on abusing me or any scholar, but that will not help you!

    You need to prove that Obaidullah is Kafir, as you have stated!

    Mufti Abu Hasan, a basic fiqh knowledge for you.

    An audio clip will create an ihtamal in issuing a fatwa of kufr with person's name. When there is ihtamal, you cannot issue fatwa of kufr.

    If you can't understand this ( since you are still learning kufr kalami and kufr fiqhi), let me tell you what Ala hazrat wrote:

    1. FOURTHLY, in Izālatu’l Áār bi Ĥajr al-Karāyim án Kilāb an-Nār, which was first published in 1317, from Azīmābād; I wrote on page 10:
    We prefer the opinion of Kalām scholars in these matters. And thus, do not do takfīr of a person as long as he does not deny or reject any necessary aspect of religion; or considers such a denier to be a Muslim.

    2. Our Prophet  has warned us from making takfīr of those who say: lā ilāha illā Allāh. We do not rule them kāfir, as long as we do not have proof as obvious and glaringly apparent as the mid-day sun; and [withhold from takfīr] until the remotest possibility remains to absolve them from kufr.

    If you are still under memory loss, please read this:


    Note: Observe, how defensive you are when I asked you just two questions:

    1) Which scholars called Obaidullah a Kafir , as on March 2015, when you were propagating that "those who have called Khan kafir"......

    2) Second question: Why will Kufr not return on those scholars?

    Remember, you not only considered Obaidullah a Kafir, you announced that and propagated that on your forum.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    tell your teachers to explain what ayni meant here:

  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    go and ask your teachers whether they do takfir of khawarij - those khawarij who did takfir of SaHabah. why doesn't kufr return upon them as we sunnis know and believe that all SaHabah were muslims.

    surely, except perhaps mutiyu'r raHman, none of us believe that obaidullah is similar to SaHabah?
    surely, except perhaps mutiyu'r raHman, none of us believe that the positions of the SaHabah (both the correct and erring parties) was not the same as praising ram the hindu idol?

    go ask mutiyu'r raHman whether he does takfir of the khawarij who do takfir of SaHabah. if not, why not? and if yes, what will he do with hanafi sources i will quote; here is a sample (irrespective of your antagonism, ask your teachers to explain this to you. trust me you will learn a lot).


    *btw, that also has the solution to your 'kufr kalami' that you get knotted about and which you accuse me of not understanding. according to your stupid logic, if anyone asks you something for confirmation, they don't know it. anyway, you idiotically ran away with the belief that i don't know what it means, and all i was trying to show you how much you know. i am sorry if nobody has told you this before:you are stupid. sorry for this, but the truth has to be told. in case you have forgotten, i asked you that in the spirit of solving a problem and for that to have a clear understanding of what terms mean. you - out of sheer stupidity - turned that to my not knowing the terms and you teaching me the meaning of those terms. sub'HanAllah.

    here are some posts:


    you may have developed amnesia, but not everybody has. read the second post - it was a genuine query to resolve issues and at that time i was under the impression that you were mistaken. and i thought that if we have proper definitions, we may arrive at some conclusion. i didn't know that you were utterly stupid and had not realised that you were already taken in the Wrath of Allah (al-iyadhu billah) for supporting someone who praises idols! ask your heart - leave all those silly justifications. was obaid really being religious and wasn't he ram, the hindu idol?

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    and mufti mutiyu'r raHman debates using the cassette as sharayi witness - confession (as in the istifta of obaid) attested by a well-known mufti. which account will he put that in?
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it would require you to develop an understanding better than a 15-year old. and require you to read actual books and learn something.

    aren't you ashamed of yourself? how will you face the Lord ALmighty WaHid Qahhar with this in your deed-book?
    just think for a moment - i am disgusted at someone extolling idols and you are wasting your time defending him.

    i am repeating this. i considered obaidullah khan azmi a kafir after i heard his speech (which he himself admitted, and attested by your favourite nizamuddin - so don't go about asking about establishing proofs. if you are ignorant about how to establish proofs, go and ask those who are filling you in).

    not everybody is an abject jahil like you who doesn't know the difference between eeman and kufr; and needs a mufti to tell him what is iman and what is not. may Allah ta'ala elevate the ranks of my teacher in jannah, among the earliest hadith that he taught me was this:


    you won't understand this. neither the words nor its interpretation. with your arrogance and shameless support of those who praise idols, do you think this light will be given to the blind? do yourself a favour and ask someone you trust.

    as for nizamuddin and mutiyu'r raHman, i don't feel like mentioning a respectful title for the reason that they encourage people to praise ram, the hindu idol. i challenge you to disprove me that nizamuddin and mutiyu'r raHman did not support praising and extolling ram.

    mutiyu'r rahman says: "upon this azmi sab, for his manly courage and believer's wisdom, should be rightfully praised."
    in other words, obaidullah should be praised for praising ram! sub'HanAllah, and this is supposed to be a mufti!


    as if this was not enough, this 'mufti' compares obaidullah to imam azam!


    you call him a mufti? senior scholar? he doesn't even have basic reasoning skills - at least in that fatwa, this 'mufti' appears to pretty clueless. a jahil like you may get carried away with citation from big names like: 'sharh mawaqif' etc. but any serious student knows that mutiyu'r rahman in his blind love of obaidullah has sacrificed more than he should have. i mean, he thinks imam azam's refutation of a mulHid and praise of ram in a gathering of ram-worshippers are similar! if mutiyu'r rahman sends this to modi, he may even receive a bharat ratna for qiyas.

    only sunnistudent and other nizamuddin-admirers can find it plausible. i respect sunni scholars - and i know that all men make mistakes. but for the life of me, i cannot respect a person who says that obaid should be praised for his praise of ram, a hindu idol. you may say what you like, but this is how i will talk about both of them until they do tawbah.

    as a follower (and who knows, their student...) little wonder that you make such ridiculous 'arguments'. by the way, first learn to read english, a lot of your problems will be solved. i was reminded of the parrot* who was taught: 'is mein kya shak hai..' which may sound smart for a while, but thereafter one will realise the extent of what the parrot knows. who can argue with a parrot?

    a man went to a fair and saw a parrot for sale.
    he asked, 'does it talk?'
    the seller replied, 'ask the parrot'
    the man asked: 'can you talk?'
    the parrot replied: 'is mein kya shak hai / is there any doubt in it?'
    the man was pleased. he asked: 'how much'
    the seller said 1000 dinar. the man said: 'hey it is too much. does this parrot deserve it?'
    the seller said: 'ask the parrot himself'
    the man asked the parrot: 'do you deserve 1000 dinars?'
    the parrot replied: is mein kya shak hai?'
    the man was satisfied. he took home the parrot. and then realised that the parrot could only say one sentence:
    'is mein kya shak hai'
    angry that he was cheated and frustrated he asked the parrot: 'was i an idiot that i paid 1000 dinar for you?'
    pat came the reply: 'is mein kya shak hai.'
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  18. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    We will see that no one except Abu Hasan called Obaidullah a Kafir by name.

    Abu Hasan was just trying to create a mob mentality by provoking others to call Obaidullah a kafir by name.

    If Abul Hasan can bring one scholar who issued Fatwa of Kufr on Obaidullah by name, as of March 2015, I will publicly apologize to Abu Hasan.

    If he can not bring any such name, ideally and sharan he should do tawba. But I think that is difficult from Abu Hasan.

    No fatwa, no evidence. Name one scholar who issued fatwa of kufr on obaidullah khan by name before that date.
  19. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abul Hasan said ( post 21), 25 March 2015


    Abul Hasan, who were "those" who called (obaidullah) Khan kafir when you made that post on 25 March 2015? Please name them.

    Why will Kufr not return on them, as per maslak e ala hazrat?

    This question is addressed directly to you, is concerned directly with you.

Share This Page