Why do you believe the first scenario doesn't even "remotely" resemble shatm/sabb when the Zaahir of the words are clearly disrespectful, are they not? What makes the first scenario so remotely different with respect to the Zaahir of the words uttered? I'm not referring to the qasd/i'tiqaad, but purely based upon the Zaahir, how is the first scenario any different than the other two?
akhi, you certainly seem sincere, may Allah bless you... however, you're going around in circles, i feel... the problem with looking at things "generally" is that you miss out on the detail. i've already tried to look at the three awjuh, and how they relate to the deobandi statements, which i think is the logical thing to do if you're asking this in the context of those statements... as for your general point about whether qasd is taken into consideration - this was my point from the begining... with regards to sabb/shatm of anbiya', it is not taken into consideration. the first statement which as-suyuti addressed, and subsequtently analysed via the three awjuh, did not remotely resemble sabb/shatm. the second one dealt with the topic, but was not sabb/shatm in itself. this is exactly why as-suyuti's fatwa does not even remotely apply to the deobandi statements. even if it did, the awjuh he discusses do not fit them (except the last, which is kufr). hence my initial post - sabb and shatm of anbiya' is an exception, where qasd is not considered.
Sorry, I've been ill for the past few days and was unable to respond earlier. shukran, for responding again. To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure if the awjuh that al-suyooti specifically uses in his fatwaa fit entirely with the statements made by the Deobandi founders. But even before discussing how these awjuh fit in with their statements, there's something else I wanted to ask. Which is that if you look at how he answered the fatwaa, you will notice that in all three awjuh, he went into analysing their qasd and their i'tiqaad along with the concept of sabq al-lisaan. Whereas, correct me if I'm mistaken, this is not the way of majority. Meaning, that one is not required to do such an in-depth analysis on what could've been the qasd or what was the i'tiqaad at that moment and was it sabq al-lisaan or was it not? Rather, things were more or less looked at from its zaahir. Provided, of course, that one was not merely doing naql of someone else's alfaaz but that such statements really issued from oneself. My apologies, I might be rambling a bit here but in short, what I'm trying to ask/say is that doesn't his fatwaa, when looked at generally, seem to imply the need for checking the qasd/i'tiqaad of the qaa'il? And is this not a da'eef opinion vis-a-vis what we see in al-sayf, al-saarim, and al-shifaa'?
bismi Llah... you should show us exactly how as-suyuti's fatwa can be used in this situation, since you are asking the question. . . there were three awjuh which as-suyuti considered, regarding the first statement: [note: there is no explicit insult in this first statement...] 1) sabq al-lisan, 'adam al-qasd - this is not applicable, since the individuals in question did not utter their statements in passing; rather, they had them put down in writing. at least one recieved a letter from Ahmad Rida Khan, informing him of the insulting nature of the statements, though they had no effect. 2) please inform me how the second wajh applies to the statements... 3) the third wajh is that it be due to real 'i'tiqad which is clear kufr according to everyone. it was only the second statement which relates to the topic of sabb, although again, it's not really sabb. "if a nabi were to insult me, i would insult him..." of course, someone could claim that this was said out of certainty that a nabi would never insult them... even then, one would be punished for merely considering the possibility (although the whole thing is 'mustahil min aslih' as suyuti says). however, you cannot compare this to the deobandi statements, which at least can be interpreted as clear sabb/shatm, rather than merely addressing the topic. was-salam
I can understand that point of view. Perhaps you're right in saying that. Any thoughts on the question I've asked above? Would you be able to pose this to Shaykh Asrar?
thank you for the reply. yes, I'm familiar with what has been stated in al-shifaa', al-saarim, and al-sayf. But I don't think you're understanding my exact question. It specifically deals with what is being stated in raddul muhtaar and then using the fatwa of tanzeeh al-anbiyaa'. To be succinct, why can't al-suyotiy's fatwa be used? Have the scholars said that this fatwa is shaadhdh? This is what I'm trying to understand. I know that the majority have said what is said in the aforementioned books and what you have quoted above by al-qaari'. But that's not what my question is directed towards.
You accept that the statements contained sabb/shatm, right? But you believe they could be excused due to their beliefs, as they claimed in their later apologteic works? Since you appear to know arabic, and you seem to be desirous of a scholarly answer, may I direct to Mulla 'Ali Qari's Sharh al-Shifa. . . The Shifa states clearly that whether one claims one intended sabb or not, one is still considered a kafir. Mulla 'Ali al-Hanafi comments on this, affirming it, though adding the caveat that one may be excused due to ignorance in a very specific circumstance. . . However, the excuse of ignorance would not apply to the people in question, given that they were considered 'scholars'; Ahmad Rida Khan wrote letters to at least one of them, and yet no change was made. So it's clear - whether one intends it or not, uttering a statement of sabb/shatm is kufr, and the one who does so can have have takfir done to him, with the exception of an extreme case of ignorance, detailed in the passage below. (وإن ظهر بدليل حاله) أي حال قائله (أنّه لم يعتمد) أي لم يرد (ذمّه) عليه الصلاة والسلام في مقاله (ولم يقصد سبّه) لاعتقاده كماله لكن صدر عنه مقاله (إمّا لجهالة) بنعوت جماله (حملته على ما قاله أو لضجر) بفتحتين أي قلق من أثر غم ناله (أو منكر) محرم أو غيره (أو قلّة مراقبة) في شأنه (وضبط) أي وقلة ضبط (للسانه وعجرفة) أي محازفة وقلة مبالاة في بيانه (وتهوّر في كلامه) أي سرعة في خلقه وجراءة في نطقه (فحكم هذا الوجه) الثاني (حكم الوجه الأوّل) وهو (القتل) أي قولا واحدا (دون تلعثم) أي توقف في بابه (إِذْ لَا يُعْذَرُ أَحَدٌ فِي الْكُفْرِ بِالْجَهَالَةِ) إذا معرفة ذات الله تعالى وصفاته وما يتعلق بأنبيائه فرض عين مجملا في مقام الإجمال ومفصلا في مقام الاكمال نعم إذا تكلم بكلمة عالما بمبناها ولا يعتقد معناها يمكن أن صدرت عنه من غير إكراه بل مع طواعيته في تأديته فإنه يحكم عليه بالكفر بناء على القول المختار عند بعضهم من أن الإيمان هو مجموع التصديق والإقرار فياجراءها يتبدل الإقرار بالإنكار أما إذا تكلم بكلمة ولم يدر أنها كلمة ففي فتاوى قاضيخان حكاية خلاف من غير ترجيح حيث قال قيل لا يكفر لعذره بالجهل وقيل يكفر ولا يعذر بالجهل أقول والأظهر الأول إلا إذا كان من قبيل ما يعلم من الدين بالضرورة حينئذ فإنه حينئذ يكفر ولا يعذر بالجهل أقول وفي الخلاصة من قال أنا ملحد كفر وفي المحيط والحاوي لأن الملحد كافر ولو قال ما علمت أنه كفر لا يعذر بهذا أي في القضاء الظاهر والله اعلم بالسرائر (ولا بدعوى زلل اللّسان) فيه أن الخطأ والنسيان وما استكره عليه الإنسان أن عذر في معرض البيان (ولا بشيء ممّا ذكرناه) مما يظن أنه يكون عذرا (إذا) وفي نسخة إذا (كان عقله في فطرته) أي خلقته وجبلته (سليما) بأن لا يكون مجنونا ولا خرفا سقيما (إلّا من أكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان) كما هو مبين في القرآن
Thank you for the reply. However, I was hoping for someone to reply back directly addressing my question.
33 Ulama of Makkatul Mukarramah and Madiantul Munawwarah have done Takfeer of the Deobandi elders and if I am not wrong more than 268 Ulama of the Indian sub-continent have done Takfeer of these deobandies including the Qadiani Mirza. And they were not 'newbies', but well distinguished scholars of Islam. Read Al-Mo'tamad asl-Mustanad, Hussam al-Haramayn, and Sawarim-ul-Hindiyyah and you will get to know what exactly is the case! If you want I can provide you these books. Just a simple question for you. If a person comes to you and says that the knowledge of Huzoor Sallallahu 'Alaihi wa Aalihi Wasallam is similar to that of quadrupeds and madmen, can you call that person a Muslim? And if someone says yes, I believe that the person who said this, and the person who supported him are both Kaafir! PS - This matter has been discussed time and again. Please refer the above mentioned books. And do not try to defend those scums. Even many deobandies cannot defend them!
Is it possible to apply his words in order to prevent takfeer? What was the reason why those who did do takfeer not to apply this passage? And as for those scholars living in the subcontinent that were from the Sunnah and non-Deobandi and did not do takfeer, was it perhaps on account of this? If so, wouldn't their stance also be justifiable based upon the words of ibnu 3aabideen in conjunction with the fatwaa of al-suyootiy? Because prior to this fitnah, they were known by all as those that fall into what al-suyootiy described as: إِذَا عُرِفَبِالْخَيْرِ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ the reason why I ask is because I've read the follow-up fatwas by al-Gangohi in his Fatawa Rasheediyyah, and likewise in al-Thanavi's Bast, and al-Sahaaraanpoori's al-muhannad...all of which state that they did not have, what we can state by using al-suyootiy's words: (enter their respective passages here)...عَلَى وَجْهِ الِاعْتِقَادِ ، بِحَيْثُ يَعْتَقِدُ فِي نَفْسِهِ
وَأَمَّا قَوْلُهُ الثَّانِي فَمِنْ أَخْطَأِ الْخَطَأِ وَأَقْبَحِهِ ، وَأَشَدُّ مِنْ قَوْلِ هَذِهِ الْمَقَالَةِ فِي السُّوءِ الْإِفْتَاءُ بِإِبَاحَتِهَا ، فَأَمَّا أَصْلُ الْمَقَالَةِ وَهُوَ أَنْ يَقُولَ قَائِلٌ : لَوْ سَبَّنِي نَبِيٌّ ، أَوْ مَلَكٌ لَسَبَبْتُهُ ، فَالْجَوَابُ فِيهَا كَمَا قَالَ ابن رشد ، وابن الحاج : أَنَّهُ يُعَزَّرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ التَّعْزِيرَ الْبَلِيغَ ؛ بِالضَّرْبِ [ ص: 285 ] وَالْحَبْسِ ، وَأَمَّا إِبَاحَتُهُ لِلنَّاسِ أَنْ يَقُولُوا ذَلِكَ فَمَرْتَبَةٌ أُخْرَى فَوْقَ ذَلِكَ فِي السُّوءِ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ إِغْرَاءٌ لِلْعَامَّةِ عَلَى ارْتِكَابِ الْحَرَامِ وَاسْتِحْلَالِهِ ، وَغَضٌّ مِنْ مَنْصِبِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّلَامُ ، وَكَيْفَ يُتَصَوَّرُ أَنَّ يُبَاحَ هَذَا لِأَحَدٍ وَالْأَنْبِيَاءُ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّلَامُ مَعْصُومُونَ ، فَلَا يَسُبُّونَ إِلَّا مَنْ أَمَرَ الشَّرْعُ بِسَبِّهِ ؟ وَمَنْ سُبَّ بِالشَّرْعِ لَمْ يَجُزْ لَهُ أَنْ يَسُبَّ سَابَّهُ ، فَالْمَسْأَلَةُ مُسْتَحِيلَةٌ مِنْ أَصْلِهَا ، فَالْجَوَابُ : رَدْعُ هَذَا الرَّجُلِ وَزَجْرُهُ وَهَجْرُهُ فِي اللَّهِ ، وَعَلَيْهِ التَّوْبَةُ وَالْإِنَابَةُ وَالْإِقْلَاعُ .
الْحَالُ الثَّالِثُ : أَنْ يَكُونَ عَلَى وَجْهِ الِاعْتِقَادِ ، بِحَيْثُ يَعْتَقِدُ فِي نَفْسِهِ أَنَّهُ لَوْ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَيًّا ، وَقَالَ لَهُ : الْحُكْمُ بِخِلَافِ مَا حَكَمْتَ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ لَهُ وَهَذَا كُفْرٌ نَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنْهُ ، قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى : ( قُلْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْكَافِرِينَ ) ، وَقَالَ تَعَالَى : ( فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا ) ، وَقِصَّةُ الَّذِي حَكَمَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَلَمْ يَرْضَ بِحُكْمِهِ ، وَجَاءَ إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ - لِيَحْكُمَ لَهُ فَقَتَلَهُ عمر بِالسَّيْفِ مَشْهُورَةٌ ، وَقَدْ أَهْدَرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دَمَهُ ، وَالْعَجَبُ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ : مَا سَمِعْتُ لَهُ حَتَّى يُرِيَنِي النَّصَّ ، وَقَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَفْسُهُ : هُوَ النَّصُّ فَأَيُّ نَصٍّ يُرِيهِ بَعْدَ قَوْلِهِ ؟ وَالظَّنُّ بِالْمُسْلِمِ إِنَّهُ لَا يَقُولُ ذَلِكَ عَنِ اعْتِقَادٍ ، وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ
[FONT=Arial","sans-serif]الْحَالُ الثَّانِي : أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَىوَجْهِ سَبْقِ اللِّسَانِ ، وَلَا عَلَى وَجْهِ الِاعْتِقَادِ الَّذِي يَذْكُرُهُالْمُصَمِّمُ ، فَيَقُولُ مَثَلًا : لَوْ أَمَرَنِي الْإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ بِهَذَامَا سَمِعْتُ لَهُمْ ، وَلَوْ رُوجِعَ فِي خَاصَّةِ نَفْسِهِ لَقَالَ : مَاأَرَدْتُ ظَاهِرَ الْعِبَارَةِ ، وَلَوْ قَامَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوَسَلَّمَ مِنْ قَبْرِهِ حَقِيقَةً ، وَقَالَ لِي : لَبَادَرْتُ إِلَى امْتِثَالِقَوْلِهِ ، وَسَمِعْتُ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَلَعْثُمٍ ، وَلَا تَوَقُّفٍ ، وَلَكِنَّهَذِهِ عِبَارَةٌ قُلْتُهَا عَلَى وَجْهِ الْمُبَالِغَةِ ؛ لِعِلْمِي بِأَنَّقِيَامَهُ الْآنَ مِنْ قَبْرِهِ وَقَوْلَهُ لِي غَيْرُ كَائِنٍ وَهُوَ مُحَالٌعَادَةً ، فَهَذَا لَا يُكَفَّرُ ، وَلَكِنَّهُ أَتَى بِعَظِيمٍ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ ؛فَيُعْزَلُ مِنَ الْحُكْمِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ، وَيُعَزَّرُ تَعْزِيرًالَائِقًا بِهِ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَنْتَهِيَ إِلَى حَدِّ الْقَتْلِ[/FONT][FONT=Calibri","sans-serif] . [/FONT] [FONT=Calibri","sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT="Arial","sans-serif"]مَسْأَلَةٌ : رَجُلٌ حَكَمَ بِحُكْمٍ فَأَنْكَرَهُعَلَيْهِ قُضَاةُ بَلَدِهِ ، فَقَالَ لَهُ سُلْطَانُ الْبَلَدَ : ارْجِعْ عَنْهَذَا الْحُكْمِ فَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يُوَافِقْكَ عَلَيْهِ أَحَدٌ ، فَأَبَى وَحَلَفَأَنَّهُ لَا يَرْجِعُ لِقَوْلِ أَحَدٍ ، وَلَوْ قَامَ الْجَنَابُ الْعَالِيعَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ مِنْ قَبْرِهِ مَا سَمِعْتُ لَهُ ، حَتَّىيُرِيَنِي النَّصَّ ، فَهَلْ يُكَفَّرُ بِهَذَا ؟ ثُمَّ قَالَ بَعْدَ مُدَّةٍ :لَوْ سَبَّنِي نَبِيٌّ مُرْسَلٌ ، أَوْ مَلَكٌ مُقَرَّبٌ لَسَبَبْتُهُ ، وَصَارَيُفْتِي الْعَامَّةَ وَالسُّوقَةَ بِجَوَازِ هَذَا[/FONT][FONT="Calibri","sans-serif"] . [/FONT][FONT="Arial","sans-serif"]الْجَوَابُ : أَمَّا قَوْلُهُ الْأَوَّلُ وَهُوَ قَوْلُهُ : لَا يَرْجِعُلِأَحَدٍ وَلَوْ قَامَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنْ قَبْرِهِ مَاسَمِعَ لَهُ حَتَّى يُرِيَهُ النَّصَّ ، فَهَذَا لَهُ ثَلَاثَةُ أَحْوَالٍ :الْأَوَّلُ : أَنَّ يَكُونَ هَذَا صَدَرَ مِنْهُ عَلَى وَجْهِ سَبْقِ اللِّسَانِوَعَدَمِ الْقَصْدِ ، وَهَذَا هُوَ الظَّنُّ [/FONT][FONT="Calibri","sans-serif"][ [/FONT][FONT="Arial","sans-serif"]ص[/FONT][FONT="Calibri","sans-serif"]: 284 ] [/FONT][FONT="Arial","sans-serif"]بِالْمُسْلِمِوَاللَّائِقُ بِحَالِهِ ، وَلَعَلَّهُ أَرَادَ مَثَلًا أَنْ يَقُولَ : وَلَوْقَامَ مالك مِنْ قَبْرِهِ ، فَسَبَقَ لِسَانُهُ إِلَى الْجَنَابِ الرَّفِيعِلِحِدَةٍ حَصَلَتْ عِنْدَهُ فَهَذَا لَا يُكَفَّرُ وَلَا يُعَزَّرُ إِذَا عُرِفَبِالْخَيْرِ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ ، وَيُقْبَلُ مِنْهُ دَعْوَى سَبْقِ اللِّسَانِ ، وَلَايُكْتَفَى مِنْهُ فِي خَاصَّةِ نَفْسِهِ بِذَلِكَ ، بَلْ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُظْهِرَالنَّدَمَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ ، وَيُنَادِيَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ فِي الْمَلَأِ بِالْخَطَأِ ،وَيُبَالِغَ فِي التَّوْبَةِ وَالِاسْتِغْفَارِ ، وَيَحْثُوَ التُّرَابَ عَلَىرَأْسِهِ ، وَيُكْثِرَ مِنَ الصَّدَقَةِ وَالْعِتْقِ وَالتَّقَرُّبِ إِلَى اللَّهِتَعَالَى بِوُجُوهِ الْبِرِّ ، وَالِاسْتِقَالَةِ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْعَثْرَةِ[/FONT][FONT="Calibri","sans-serif"] . [/FONT]
ibnu 3aabideen writes in his Haashiyah: [FONT=Arial","sans-serif]والذي تحرر أنه لا يفتي بكفر مسلم أمكن حمل كلامه على محمل حسن أو كانفي كفره اختلاف ولو رواية ضعيفة، فعلى هذا فأكثر ألفاظ التكفير المذكور لا يفتىبالتكفير فيها، ولقد ألزمت نفسي أن لا أفتي بشيء منها أ.هـ كلام البحر[/FONT] and elsewhere in his Haashiyah he continues: [FONT=Arabic Transparent","sans-serif]) [/FONT][FONT=Arial","sans-serif]قَوْلُهُ وَلَوْ رِوَايَةً ضَعِيفَةً ) قَالَ الْخَيْرُ الرَّمْلِيُّ [/FONT]: [FONT=Arial","sans-serif]أَقُولُ وَلَوْ كَانَتْ الرِّوَايَةُ لِغَيْرِ أَهْلِ مَذْهَبِنَا ،وَيَدُلُّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ اشْتِرَاطُ كَوْنِ مَا يُوجِبُ الْكُفْرَ مُجْمَعًاعَلَيْهِ ( قَوْلُهُ كَمَا حَرَّرَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ ) قَدَّمْنَا عِبَارَتَهُقُبَيْلَ قَوْلِهِ وَشَرَائِطُ صِحَّتِهَا ( قَوْلُهُ وُجُوهٌ ) أَيْاحْتِمَالَاتٌ لِمَا مَرَّ فِي عِبَارَةِ الْبَحْرِ عَنْ التَّتَارْخَانِيَّةأَنَّهُ لَا يَكْفُرُ بِالْمُحْتَمِلِ ( قَوْلُهُ وَإِلَّا ) أَيْ وَإِنْ لَمْتَكُنْ لَهُ نِيَّةُ ذَلِكَ الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي يَمْنَعُ الْكُفْرَ بِأَنْ أَرَادَالْوَجْهَ الْمُكَفِّرَ أَوْ لَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ نِيَّةٌ أَصْلًا لَمْ يَنْفَعْهُتَأْوِيلُ الْمُفْتِي لِكَلَامِهِ وَحَمْلِهِ إيَّاهُ عَلَى الْمَعْنَى الَّذِيلَا يَكْفُرُ ، كَمَا لَوْ شَتَمَ دِينَ مُسْلِمٍ وَحَمَلَ الْمُفْتِي الدِّينَعَلَى الْأَخْلَاقِ الرَّدِيئَةِ لِنَفْيِ الْقَتْلِ عَنْهُ فَلَا يَنْفَعُهُذَلِكَ التَّأْوِيلُ فِيمَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ رَبِّهِ تَعَالَى إلَّا إذَانَوَاهُ ( قَوْلُهُ وَيَنْبَغِي التَّعَوُّذُ بِهَذَا الدُّعَاءِ صَبَاحًاوَمَسَاءً ) تَدْخُلُ أَوْرَادُ الصَّبَاحِ مِنْ نِصْفِ اللَّيْلِ الْأَخِيرِوَالْمَسَاءِ مِنْ الزَّوَالِ ، هَذَا فِيمَا عَبَّرَ فِيهِ بِهِمَا[/FONT] .And I will write one more quote in a post below taken from al-suyootiy's al-haawi lil-fataawi....
