what if words of disrespect weren't said "for arguments sake" but were actually said so that they were to be accepted? then, will we do what husain ahmad tandawi and rashid ahmad gangohi said above or not?
The problem with the notion that even if disrespect is merely conceived or imagined from a statement then it is kufr is that any statement can be construed to be disrespect. For example, Ahmad Rida in ad-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, when refuting the quote from Hifz al-Iman, used Allah as an example and said: if the statement is correct, then it should be possible to say of Allah that He has no speciality in having qudrah for every child, nay madmen and animals possess qudrah. Even though he may be using it for simple argument's sake, any person can easily conceive this as disrespect of Allah; does this make it kufr? It depends on the intention of the person. Most statements of disrespect are lies; the famous verse pronouncing mockery of Allah, His Messenger and His Ayat as kufr (9:65) was about the Hypocrites who said the Muslims and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were cowards - which is a lie and was said in jest [proving a kufr statement made jokingly is kufr]. If the statement, is the truth, then disrespect is less likely, and dependent on the intention. By saying "The Prophet is nought but a man like us" may be conceived as disrespect, but it is in fact from the Qur'an, and whether it is disresepect or not depends on the intention.
@aqdas: no brother, it is not that straightforward. ibn arabi made some vaguely valid points in his post but since he was justifying hifz al-iman, i have deleted his message to send the message but i don't know if he gets the message. actually, he used the analogy of Halim and Rashid which was very silly - but i was afraid that we will go into another long rebuttal which ibn arabi will simply ignore. we won't let them disrupt our forum.
the Qur'an talks about raa'ina and unzurna laa taqulu raa'ina wa qulunzurna the word raa'ina in itself is not a disrespectful word and the sahaba [obviously] did not intend ill by saying it. but the jews elongated it and would say raa'eena [in urdu] raa'ina - hamari riayat kijiye raa'eena - charwaha am i right? but even if a sahabi had a good intention [which they did], it was no longer allowed to use the word. instead, it was unzurna. so, from the Qur'an we learn that even if a word has a good meaning it cannot be used because it might resemble disrespect. so, when words or sentences even have a possibility of being disrespectful, they are not allowed and will make one a kafir. so, the intention does not matter, what matters is what is said. this is proven from the Qur'an. Allah forbade the sahaba from using the word. when we then look at some of the things written by recent "scholars", i am amazed that people have no problem with them. remember, in the case of addressing sayyidina Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam, intention does not count. its what you say only.
