SunniStudent's "Analysis" of Abu Hasan's Posts (Obaidullah Issue)

simply re-regurgitating mufti muti'urRahaman's fatwa will get you no where. you seem to think no one other than yourself and your group know anything about anything.

quite rich coming from you...

oh yeah we have been hearing all sorts of ta'weels for the past 2-3 months, two fatwas are already out. you seem to have some more to add from your own bag. go ahead.

sorry to disappoint you but the moment i read it in the latest fatwa I could immediately think of the ta'wil which alahazrat ('alayhiraHmah) has given.

again, people praising a ram-praiser to the skies are pointing fingers at others....

 

brother @Wadood if possible can you please provide a quick summary of the Persian stuff I linked. many thanks

 

double post. plz excuse.

 

All posts are addressed to Abul Hasan, unless specified.

Abul Hasan said ( 82 main thread)

This gives a hint that either Abul Hasan does not know the types of tawil and 'sarih statements" or he did not think it was necessary to explain this. If it is the former case, then one should study before criticizing the scholars of Ahlus sunnah. And if it is the second case, then it shows Abul Hasan does not understand the gravity of takfir. If Abul Hasan says, that this statement ( ta'wil is not in sariH statements) is found in many books of fiqh without explanation, then we say, yes it is indeed found. But when the case is related to a specific individual ,then one needs to establish the hujjah for which this explanation is a must. If Abul Hasan says that this case is not related to a specific individual since the fatwa is not on the name of Obaidullah Khan, then we say, then we say why are people calling him Kafir? In all cases, this is either ignorance of Abul Hasan or his lack of understanding the fiqh of takfir.

Now let us, observe two statements of Abul Hasan:

Post ( 82)

and he also agrees to the statement of Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri Barkati Rh, as quoted by him in MFM ( source:internet)

So Abul Hasan had an easy way in supporting Nagpuri fatwa. All he needed was to prove that there is no tawil possible in that part of the statement of Obaidullah Khan , which was quoted in the Nagpuri fatwa.
Abul Hasan and "his supporters" ( hope Abul Hasan won't mind using this term and he understands why!) must be aware that Ala Hazrat follows the methodology of mutakallamin and muhaqqiqeen fuqaha. So the second thing which Abul Hasan must have done was to prove that Obaidullah Kahn's speech ( as quoted in Nagpuri Fatwa) has words which reject daruriat e deen.

Only these two things were needed to prove that Nagpuri fatwa is correct. But Abul Hasan and no one else can prove this . And why?

Read this :

Ala hazrat was asked :

"If I am lying than Khuda also lies" ( agar main jhoot bolta hoon to khuda bhee jhoot bolta hain)

Abul Hasan, who has so much desire of declaring takfir on a Muslim should tell me , is this sarih ( explicit) statement or not? Is there any tawil possible in it or not?

Perhaps Abul Hasan does not know that there are two types of sariH

1) SARIH MUTABAYYAN
2) SARIH MUTAYYAN

See Fath Al Qadir for detailed discussion.

And among the categories of Tawil we have :
1) Tawil qareeb
2) Tawil ba'eed.

Abul Hasan shold study this and undertand before making fun of sunni scholars on his forum. These are discussed in basic books of ifta course. I am not explaining it here.

Abul Hasan should tell me what is the methodology of Ala Hazrat? Remember I will accept only the methodology of Ala Hazrat.

Which of the two sarih types and which of the tawil type Ala hazrat followed in his life?


Now coming to the question asked to Ala Hazrat concerning a person who says:

"If I am lying than Khuda also lies" ( agar main jhoot bolta hoon to khuda bhee jhoot bolta hain)

Ala hazrat said : This statement can be fixed at two situation and can have two possibilities.
First, the the person intended to free the charges of lying upon him by comparing it with something which is muhaal ( impossible) that is lying of Allah ta'ala then . Second, he accepted that he is lying and attributed this to Allah ta'ala . In the first case, takfir will not be done and in the second case takfir will be done . ( Hashiya of Ala Hazrat on Fatwa Alamgiri)


So what is required is that the first thing is to contact the person who made statements which is under consideration. But the love and desire of declaring kufr upon a a Muslim is so dominant in the heart that some unknown Mufti sahab issued the fatwa on " ek shakhs" and his uneducated followers are using it on a particular person! Gutbaazi ki sari hadein paar kar dee!

Coming back to the point.

In certain cases inspite of sarih kalma e kufr, takfir is not done on the person who said it due to:

1)shubah fi al kalam
2) Shubah fi al takallum
3)Shubah fi al mutakallim

( See al mawt al ahmar by Mufti e Azam Hazrat Mustafa Raza Khan ,Rh. May Allah elevate his status in both the worlds. Ameen.
One must understand this in light of tawil ba'eed , which is accepted by Mutakallimin and not fiqaha.

Those who are declaring a particular person as ' kafir" and " outside the fold of Islam" , did they contact that person? Since he is alive and healthy, why was he not contacted? Isn't this the first requirement in takfir? Ya shauq e takfir me itanee zyda jaldi hai!


1) If it is known that the qayal means kufr with his utterances then , indeed he is kafir.


2) If it is found that the qayal intended the meaning of baee'd then he is a muslim


3) And if it cannot be found out what was the intention of the qayal? Then what, O Abul Hasan???


The methodology of Ala Hazrat is the remain silent on that person!!


Look at this precaution of Ala Hazrat! And then look at the methodology of some of the scholars of today's time! Forget about finding out tawil baeed, they did not deemed it necessary to contact the person!!



Now look at another characteristic of Abul Hasan.


He said [ post 14 ]

Abul Hasan is ignorant of the terms used by the fuqaha! I purposely used it without explaining, to make Abul Hasan realize how much he knows about fiqh, but has guts to make fun of sunni scholar!


O Abul Hasan, don't you know that fiqh is not just black and white, where you can read book and translate without understanding! In fact major portion of the fiqh relating with takfir is IMPLIED and not black and white.


Let me enlighten you with an example.


First, learn the meaning of " tajdeed e iman" and when and why Ala Hazrat used it. You will not get this on internet . For this you must learn the methodology of Ala Hazrat. Ponder over the meaning of 'tajdeed" and then see in which meaning and in which case Ala Hazrat used it! This is not available in black and white. This is only if you study Fatwa Ridawiya sheriff carefully.


To enlighten you with an example. When Ala Hazrat uses the term " qatan, yaqeenan", observe what is his ruling and what is the case. And when he uses " sareeh kalama e kufr" then observe what is his ruling and what is the case! You don't have time to read fatwa ridawiya under a sunni mufti but has big tongue to disrespect scholars. Is this what you are propagating on this forum?


In sha Allah your mastery in fiqh, especially with respect to matters of takfir will be discussed in this thread. I am addressing this only to Abul Hasan and will not reply to any of his " supporters".


In sha Allah, later

 

what is the meaning of "Abul Hasan" ?

 

i've been trying to locate the terms kufr fiqhi and kufr kalami in Fatawa Ridawiyya text search but not successful so far

got this out of google (i don't know persian so have no idea what it means)

1) on a shia site: http://www.eshia.ir/feqh/archive/text/rabani/kalam/90/900703/

2) this one's in Urdu dunno if this is a wahabi or Sunni or shia site - http://www.islamquest.net/ur/archive/question/fa669

one of the footnotes says:

3) same islamquest in persian has some discussion here on kafir kalami and kafir fiqhi - http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa23194

4) another persian site, dunno if Sunni or shia, mentions the term kufr fiqhi and gives some explanation - http://tadabborat.ir/tag/کفر فقهی

 

Fawatih Ar-Rahamoot cover - http://www.4shared.com/office/GdaEvFdGce/fawatih_ar-rahamoot_cover.html

Volume 1 - http://www.4shared.com/office/XVBxHYbtce/fawatih_ar-rahamoot_vol_1.html

Volume 2 - http://www.4shared.com/office/hy5F05Zhba/fawatih_ar-rahamoot_vol_2.html

now if we can have the Fatawa Ridawiyya (new edition, 30 volumes) & Fawatih references, we might be able to get somewhere

----

for the record, my personal stance on ubk issue is still what i got from the Arab Jilani shaykh (Shafi3i mazhab).

i'm just intrigued to see where both the for and against ubk debate of the subcontinent reaches. again, as i said in the main thread, i still haven't read/heard the for arguments that i linked in the last few posts on that thread, with proper concentration (the 2nd article by Murshid Ansari, Nizamuddin sab's audios, the book on takfeer usul, Muti3ur Rehman sab's fatwa)

 

@ss you are trying to achieve what the likes of mufti nizam and mufti muti'urraHman couldn't.

I used to see this on wahhabi forums when one of their kingpins was refuted on his home turf; foot soldiers would start creating a ruckus, drop names and big words left, right and center trying to give an impression that they have much to stand on. What they hoped that no one would notice is the glaring fact - why did the kingpin not provide that evidence if it exists at all? The answer being, he knew he would be caught out and publicly humiliated but these internet nobodies have nothing to fear. Just keep up the pretense so that the sheeple in the barn don't go over.

I don't know what inspires in you such spite against sunni skuyukh and students of deen, that too in a matter so self-evident as this.

Defending praise of a hindu god! What more will I see being pedaled in the name of maslak-e-alahazrat in the coming years I dread to think.

thoroughly disappointed.

 

Just because the methodology and principle of fuqaha in issuing fatwa was called" kufr fiqhi" ,the Internet scholars could not understand it! The term has been used by Ala Hazrat as well as Mufti shareef al haq amjadi.These people will issue fatwa now.

 

I am not surprised that Abul Hasan has not heard about " kufr fiqhi" and very smartly he avoids proving the authenticity of the Nagpuri fatwa.

This again shows the depth of Abul Hasan's knowledge of fiqh. A beginner in the ifta knows it. Try any Ifta student. But Abul Hasan finds it 'strange'.

In sha Allah, in the coming weeks I will make posts with original reference / texts to show the fallacy in the Nagpuri Fatwa.
Meanwhile, book attached in post no 362 ( main post) has been sent to Bareilly and Ghosi, in which the author has challenged ( he has used this very word) them to prove a point.

In sha Allah next sunday.
was salam

 

it is impossible to discuss with you without a Hakam. my questions were not irrelevant, though you try to skip from here and there in your replies.
everyone can see that you are side-stepping my questions. khayr. just by claiming that you have answered my questions, it doesn't become the truth. i can do that too: sunnistudent, i have answered all that you have asked, now don't play games.

your posts are full of personal accusations, derision, ridicule, self-righteousness etc. and sweeping statements. i read through and simply decided to abandon this.

---
i don't know if you are purposely doing this, but the reference of fatawa riDawiyyah could be checked if you could at least mention the chapter or the fatwa number; and since i do not have that particular edition here with me at the moment, i am unable to comment.

---
about the nagpur fatwa, i have already said in the main thread. there is nothing new to add. and your "there is a difference. go attend a fiqh class to learn it" won't change it.

you make words to bend to your will, while i assume that the commonly understood meaning should be used. so where you get caught or cornered, you simply change what you 'meant'. i lack that kind of flexibility. you don't understand plain english sentences and spin off on tangents. you don't understand figures of speech, you don't understand an argument (ironically, for a proponent of the "devil's advocate" argument, it is pretty rich!)

---
everybody can see who is playing games. for my part - i am done with sunnistudent.
i expected this anyhow, so i am not surprised. it is just that i will leave with the satisfaction that i tried.

until the day you show me definitions of "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami" from books, with citations and due implications, our discussion is going nowhere. [you've given references that i cannot check now, so it is dead-end for us. including fawatiH raHmut.]

why is it that you have all the excuses and others are sheer evil? (same thing happened when the fight first broke out - he accused noori of falsifying when it was a mistake in referencing the post number; all kinds of conspiracy theories and accusations were thrown at noori. but when SS did the same, he had valid excuses and clean missed the irony! when i attempted to mediate, he trained his guns on me which he is firing until now...) he can put words in my mouth - but if i as much as seek clarification, he retorts belligerently.

i have decided to quit from this pointless 'debate'.

wa billahi't tawfiq.
---
وليس يصح في الأذهان شيء
إذا احتاج النهار إلى دليل

---
salam.

 

​

 

Yes to both.

yes. I don't know why you find it " strange".

I said " is asked to" and my usage of the word" entails" was in the meaning of " the person is asked to" .I just found that 'entails"means" necessary, which I did not mean. I said" is asked to" and stick to it.

Yes. And a reminder: You do not see any difference.

Yes.

This is your implication, not my words,as you have mentioned.

Abul Hasan does not understand the difference and its proof is your own statement ( post 122)

Kindly show where I said this. Just show .

This is what I said

My post

I asked you and the Baharaichi Mufti sahab to show me the statement which he has quoted. Now tell me how you understood what you have posted?


After this Abul Hasan raises many questions. This is Abul Hasan, who did not answer my one question but wants me to answer his many questions!! I will answer all his questions which are related with my post,but not those questions which is not related to my writings/ posts.

Since I have used these two terms , I will answer this. Fatwa Ridawiya. 6/150 ( I used old edition while compiling my answer). Discussion is available in Fawatih al Rahmut.

This has nothing to do with my posts. If you are really interested to know you can read in the above reference work, also in the discussion of: ihtimal' in various book of Fatwa. Since your this question is not based on my post or writing. I am not answering it.

Yes I said it and stick to it.

This is your understanding.

I repeat what I said : "kufr e fiqhi" does not make "one to go out of the fold of islam" but "kufr e kalami" makes "one to go out of fold of islam".

A person who does not know this has guts to mock fatwa of mufti from hyderabad, mufti mutiur rehman rizvi saheb and mufti nizamuddin rizvi saheb. For answer see:
See Fatwa Shareh Bukhari Mufti Shariful Haq Amjadi rh , Vol 2 ,page 545-546 for a direct answer.

In case you don't have this book, read fatwa ridawiya vol 6 ( old edition) for better understanding.

This has nothing to do with my post or writing.

Please ask those questions which are related with my answer /text. Better,join some fiqh class. I can ask you a reverse question " prove that it is correct". But I won't since you did not mention this in any of your post.

This is again not related with my post. Send an istifta ( in Urdu) in sha Allah, it will be answered. I can give you address in PM. Additionally, you need to read fatwa ridawiya, vol6, to see the understanding of the word" tajdeed". I won't answer you general question.

Not related to my post /writing. However answer is in Vol6, fatwa ridawiya. Read it.

Yes ruling would differe in either case. I can make a counter point: As per Abul Hasan ruling will not differ. Now after you have read kufr fiqhi and kalami, you will know the difference in ruling. Since you don't know that difference, read it. I have answered your question with regard to reference. I stick to it, the ruling will be different in both the cases.

I did not find any post made by me at the link which you gave.
Please show when did I "argued upon" your said citation. The answer to your this question is available on this forum. I won't pin point because I don't want to encourage you in asking questions which are not related with my posts/writing.

This is Abul Hasan classic.! All these months he has been supporting Nagpuri fatwa based on a reference from fatwa ridawiya. Today, when asked to prove it, by bringing one evidence he comes up with 15 question, and most of them are not related with my post/ writing.

Abul Hasan,is this what you do when asked to prove your claim? Tell me why should I answer all these questions ? Just tell me why? Also,why should you not prove your claim when I asked a simple question.

Who said only Urdu? Use Arabic, persian, Hindi, Braj, any language used in fatwa ridawiya. I follow and stick to the methodology of Ala Hazrat.

----

Now Abul Hasan, don't come up with new set of questions. All these months you have been supporting Nagpuri Fatwa and today when asked to prove its correctness, this is what you do!!!

I have not answered your questions and will not answer your those questions which are not from my text / post/ writing. Although most of your questions are answered point by point in the book posted in the post in 362 of the main thread. I have still not referenced them because I don't want to encourage you to ask irrelevant questions.

----
Abul Hasan, I was the first to ask you a question. Instead of answering my single question, that too related with your claim, you come up with 16 questions!"

I can paraphrase your question no 11, ( and act like you ) when I ask :

Question: Mawlana Ziaul Mustafa said that Mawlana Sanabil Raza has married a deobandi girl. Mawlana Sanabil Raza says that his wife is sunni. A question was sent to Manzare Islam, Bareilly ( Ala hazrat's madarsa) asking " What is the ruling on a scholar who knows that deobandi are kafir , but still calls sunni as Deobandi?

The answer is : He ( the scholar) has become one of them. He should do tajdeeed a iman etc.

The fatwa is available on internet.

Now I can ask you many questions:

1) Has Mawlana Ziaul Mustafa become a Kafir?
2) If not, prove that Fatwa of Manzaere Islam is wrong.
3) The fatwa doesn't mention Mawlana Ziaul mustafa by name. Can it still be used on Mawlana Ziaul Mustafa?
4) If Mawlana Ziaul Mustafa marries , will his children be legitimate?
5) What is the ruling on children of Mawlana Sanabil Raza?
6) Why did Mawlana Ziaulmustaf hide this for so many years ?
etc etc

I can ask these question and say" see this is similar to our case. In Obaidullah's case his name is not mentioned in the fatwa, so is the case of Mawlana Ziaul mustafa, so what do you say? Give reference for your answer.

Abul Hasan, please don't play games. I have answered all your questions which are related with my posts and writings. Your irrelevant question will not be answered , so please don't ask.

Now be a gentleman , which you are, and answer my simple question : Prove me from Nagpuri Fatwa that Obaidullah is outside the fold of Islam.

This is my ONLY question. I have a strong doubt that instead of answering this, you will either come up with a new set of question or will try to divert the topic.

But why? All these months you have been championing the Nagpuri fatwa, about which today you have come to know why was it fabricated, but are not able to prove that fatwa.. Come on do it!

If you ask me irrelevant question, I won't answer. And in return can bring such cases as I have mentioned above. After which you will ban me.

So brother, now that I have answered your relevant questions, please answer my one simple question.

Regarding my understanding that you have read the Baharaich fatwa and you did not find it ' ridiculous" , but now you claim ( this is what I understand, I may be wrong) that you have not read it , then I am sorry for my understanding.

 

i just edited a small formatting in your post to insert an end [/quote] did not do any changes. for the record.

 

multiple

 

mutiple post, hence deleted.

 

Based on my experience on this forum I knew that Abul Hasan will come up with a set of questions. In past he has done this. But it is not a problem for me. In sha Allah I will answer each point.

But, Abul Hasan who has been supporting the Nagpuri Fatwa all these months , suddenly has nothing to support it, when asked to prove how that fatwa makes Obaidullah to go outside the fold of Islam!

Just observe, I asked him to bring evidence on which he is supporting Nagpuri Fatwa. I asked one question, which Abul Hasan did not reply and in return comes up with so many questions!!

In sha Allah, I will answer your each point. But you must answer one simple question:

Why is that I should answer your questions when you did not answer my one simple question, that too when I and not you, was the first one to raise the question .
( You can answer this at last, not necessarily now).

I am answering your questions in the manner "yes" or " no" where answer is in 'yes" or "no". I won't give the reference where you didn't ask and will give where you asked.

 

firstly, SS said in the other thread:

perhaps i am paranoid, but i took it as a thinly veiled reference to myself and my own posts and initially ignored it. but in the face of new posts by SS, this patronising statement is highlighted, because, it should now be assumed that either SS is himself capable, or is writing with the aid of capable people behind him.

---
my summary assessment of latest posts of SS: splitting hairs. baal ki khaal nikalne ki bharpur koshish ki gayee hai. i look at it as rather amateur sophistry. in sha'Allah i will substantiate this assessment. but for the present, please proceed.

---
A:

aH does not understand according to SS.
B:

C:

D:

E:

F:

G:

[this is SS' allegation, which is pending examination; we shouldn't digress here]
dear brother SS, your statements are cited above and labeled for quick-reference. i will restate and reword for clarity. please correct me if i have misunderstood these statements, because this is important step to proceed. i sincerely state that my intention is not to distort your words in a manner that makes them pliable to my case. therefore, if you think i have contorted your statements, feel free to point that out. i prefer an explicit approval as in: "your restatement is valid" but, even if you keep silent without commenting, i will take it as acceptance. wa billahi't tawfiq.

however, if certain statement was made by you in haste or confusion, feel free to clarify and correct. my objective is to start on a firm footing instead of running wildly around all the wrong trees.

-----
definitions:

1. according to SS, there are two kinds of kufr: "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami"

2. according to SS, one who commits "kufr fiqhi" does not become kafir, does not go outside the fold of islam.

3. [yet strangely] according to SS, the one who commits "kufr fiqhi" is asked to do tawbah, tajdid-e-iman and tajdid-e-nikah [C]. this 'asking' is not just a formality, but according to SS, "kufr fiqhi" ENTAILS tawbah, tajdid-e-iman and tajdid-e-nikah [E].

4. according to SS, "kufr e sareeH" and "sareeH kalimah e kufr" [see G] are two distinctly different things and there is certainly a huge difference.

5. "sareeh kalimah e kufr" is "kufr fiqhi" [E].

6. "kufr e sareeH" is "kufr kalami". this is implied from statements of SS, even though SS does not say it expressly. i highlight this implication because of his categorisation, and because he pointedly says that "abu Hasan does not understand the difference" - and emphasizes in the next post:

the astute reader will notice that examples/implications of "kufr kalami" are avoided when the statement "kufr e sareeH" is mentioned. for the moment, let this be aside and let us go further.

7. according to SS "sareeH kufr" and "irtidad" are two different things.

i won't quote the entire post, but in the post #4 of this very thread, SS challenges and derides the mufti of bahraich for 'adding' the word irtidad and in general it appears from his statement that "sareeH kufr" is not "irtidad".

a side note is that he includes me in the fatwa of bahraich. he includes me in the challenge of adding the 'irtidad' bit. why? because i strung together a PDF - and even though SS himself is busy and disappears often (of which *i* have not complained) he does not cut any slack for me. he assumes that i have already read that fatwa diligently, and assumes that i agree completely with that fatwa, assumes that i have pledged unconditional support* to that fatwa (of bahraich) - therefore he includes me in the challenge:

not only that, he also assumes what my answer will be in defence and has already pre-empted my 'answer'.

sub'HanAllah.

---
now for a few questions:

1. in which book/s can this categorisation of "kufr e fiqhi" and "kufr e kalami" be found. please note that i am looking for explicit statements that mention this categorisation. if it is only implied from certain statements of fuqaha, it should be noted likewise.

2. what is the formal definition of both "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami"? and references for the same.

3. SS says that "kufr e fiqhi" does not make "one to go out of the fold of islam" but "kufr e kalami" makes "one to go out of fold of islam". in other words "kufr e fiqhi" is not kufr; and "kufr e kalami" is kufr. please clarify.

4. then what is the purpose of asking someone who has committed "kufr e fiqhi" to do tawbah, tajdid-e-iman and tajdid-e-nikah? recall SS:

another side-note. going by previous posts, the older FR is being referenced. i do have the older version (which i own since the 90s) but at present, i have access only to the new 30-vol edition.
is it only out of cautiousness or is it technically required?

5. is there any difference between saying "a muslim committing SareeH kufr" or "irtidad" or becoming "murtad"? do these descriptions entail the same implication: tawbah, tajdid-e-iman, tajdid-e-nikah - or do they all have their own nuances and different rulings?

6. uttering a "sareeH kalimah of kufr" is "kufr e sareeH" and hence irtidad. is this wrong? if so, how?

7. if one commits "kufr e kalami" what should he/she do other than tawbah, tajdid-e-iman and tajdid-e-nikah? what ELSE?

let us go a little bit further:

8. as any student of fiqh would know, there is a chapter on riddah or apostasy in fiqh books. are these "kufr fiqhi" or "kufr kalami"?

9. for example, the excerpt cited by alahazrat in fatawa ridawiyyah, which is cited back-and-forth by all parties in this issue, contains a quote from ghamz al-uyun [see vol.2/p.189 - bab al-riddah] which is commentary on ashbah wa'n nazayir. both the original and the commentary expound on "what makes one to go out of the fold of islam". riddah, irtidad in other words (unless SS has nuanced meanings for all these).

a) are these entries "kufr fiqhi" or "kufr kalami" or both? if both, how can one make distinction? [because ruling would differ in either case, according to SS]

b) a number of statements are mentioned in this chapter - and the chapter is titled "riddah". interestingly, it starts with the statement: "tabjil al-kafir kufr". now is this "kufr fiqhi" or "kufr kalami". if it is the former, then why is it mentioned under "riddah" (which one out assume that would make "one go out of the fold of islam") and if it is the latter - you have yourself said that "kufr kalami" makes one go out of islam. [notice that it is THIS citation that is being argued upon. don't lose the link: here]



"fa-qad kafar" or in alahazrat's words: "ba ittifaq e ayimmah kafir hai"
is this "kufr e fiqhi" or "kufr e kalami"?

c) in almost all books of fiqh and fatawa - there is a separate chapter on 'riddah' or 'apostasy' or 'what makes one go out of the fold of islam'. is this chapter about "kufr fiqhi" or "kufr kalami"?
​

10. suppose a person who commits "kufr fiqhi" does not do tawbah, nor tajdid-e-iman, nor tajdid-e-nikah.

a) is it permissible to pray behind him?
b) is it permissible to give to and take zakat from him?
c) is it permissible to give one's daughter (sister/etc) to him in marriage and will such a union be legal?
d) will his offspring AFTER committing "kufr fiqhi" be deemed legitimate?
​

-------------------------------
going even further:

11. should fatawa ridawiyyah be considered as a fundamental text, where every word should be deemed as textual evidence - and then based on merely the urdu words/idioms used in fatawa sharif, one can do istinbat and ta'wil and derive usul? because you say:

i was under the impression that this kind of istinbat, is reserved only for nuSuS. please get it from a qualified mufti that every word of alahazrat's fatawa should be weighed for istinbat and it is impermissible to restate or summarise his opinion (or that alahazrat himself does not restate or reword fatawa of previous ulama).

-----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

---
*like the hyderabadi fatwa, upon which i commented as "blank cheques", which SS is piqued and duly threw back at me. this is another among the many side-notes. wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

whoa. not so fast brother. don't become the defendant, judge, jury and executioner. just wait.
we won't go into discussion until we get some clarifications.

[for ease also, drop the longer: janab abcd sahib - just say aH, it will suffice.]

 

( All my posts are addressed to Janab Abul Hasan sahab)

For the sake of convenience,the first thing which has to be addressed is the Nagpuri Fatwa ( No 2), which has quoted a fatwa from fatwa ridawiya and then said that " the person is outside the fold of Islam". Just prove that how a person goes outside the fold of Islam, in light of the quoted fatwa from fatwa ridawiya. Baharaichi fatwa can be discussed after this.You have split the thread for our ease and I have set the first issue for discussion, again for our ease.