brother Aqib, can you fulfill this request please? also, the images you posted in your post # 6 aren't available.
Here we go with another round of lies and confusion being instigated by Jahanghir. there is no refutation of Asif Jalali sahab in the views aired by the ulema in this video. they are simply expressing the islamic law. Typical Minhaji deception.
Irfan shah mashadi on Salman tasir and Mumtaz qadri How could we miss this ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwIJ_GG-QI&feature=player_embedded can we have response from Asif Jalali sahib ... I am pretty sure he is in extreme JALAL rightnow ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw88lhgKwQI&feature=relmfu
ma sha' Allah! excellent work! thanks to the mustafti and those with him! the fatwa was signed by Habib 'Ali al-Mash-hur b. Hafiz (older brother of Habib 'Umar, and head of Dar al-Mustafa) amongst others.
brother, please incorporate all Arabic and Urdu questions and answers in a single unified document and upload it (also include the Arabic fatwa scan with the stamp) and then delete all the previous attachments in parts (or ask the mods to delete) this will eliminate all confusion and guesswork
jazakAllahu khayran. thanks for the clarification. my apologies too for the presumption that the question was ignored (and in hindsight, harsh comments.) i suggest the question be included in the urdu translation of the fatwa mentioned. --- as the shuyukh of yemen have attested, if it is true that salman has said and done all that mentioned in the istifta, then undoubtedly he is a murtadd. wa billahi't tawfiq.
Salaam. I dont think we are talking directly about TuQ or his stance in this fatwa. Also, the second post contains the Arabic question (66kb file). My apologies for the confusion here.
Mufti Allamah Pir Afzal Qadri Sahib Abu Hasan Sahib you need to read the article by Allamah Mufti Pir Afzal Qadri Sahib it is avaible on the internet. Search Fatwaa Allamah Mufti Pir Afzal Qadri Sahib. Tahir ul Qadri ghumrahi ki aakhri haddoun ko pehlang gaya in sha Allah Tabaarak wa Ta'ala all will be made clear
i didn't explain myself well. that was not what i was referring to. of course in islam, transparency has always been demanded, even from the likes of Sayyidina 3umar, radi Allahu 3anhu, despite the lofty status he enjoyed and despite the fact that he was from the blessed 10 guaranteed heaven in this life (so really, you have a very valid point and i have no counter-argument, not that i was against transparency from the get go; but it was incorrect to bring the tahir analogy 'coz it's not a case of 'his word against someone else's word'... tahir stands by the cock and bull 3aqaid and usul he has cooked up and defends them, the apt analogy would have been if something was attributed to tahir and he said he didn't make an xyz claim and someone else said that he did, so people would be in a dilemma whether to convict tahir or not, and whose word carries the weight of evidence with it) my point was more along these lines, to illustrate by an example: let's say we live in Sher Shah Suri's times and i live in agra and you live in delhi. in agra i knew of a xyz guy who never said anything wrong. he leaves agra and moves to delhi. i come to delhi to pay you a visit, you tell me he's been executed for blasphemy, the appointed qadi found him to be a blasphemer for this and this reason, he was tried, found guilty and executed. at this point, it would be idiotic of me to ask you for the evidences and the details of the court proceedings, just because i was not there when all this happened. the most i could say would be, "Allah grant us a good ending, the guy was quite a normal Muslim back in agra! over there i never observed any such thing from him" but i would trust your word as a fellow Muslim, and also trust the qadi's authority and judgment and would assume the case proceeded with proper transparency and Islamic guidelines in delhi. had i not visited delhi, i might not have even heard of it. fast forward to 2012 very ironically and paradoxically, the more we are exposed to 'information' overloads, the more ignorant and confused we are becoming, both of true knowledge as well as things that are going on in the world! this is compounded by the fact that politicians speak a million and one things and change their words and backtrack and offer fantastical explanations and what not; AND also by the fact that a lot of the 'ulamaa' too speak in similar diplomatic tones as politicians. further compounded by the fact that there is no central authority for qada; notwithstanding that the politicians and rulers are drenched in corruption not to mention that any documentation and proofs can easily be manufactured by any side, specially in a country as corrupt as pakistan so now on an issue such as this, would it or would it not make sense fiqh-wise to ask an aalim you trust, who knows the ground realities of the place the events happened as opposed to just news clips on tv, blog posts, youtube videos and so on; and you put 2 and 2 together with the person's track record as a stooge of the colonial powers anyways- and come to a conclusion? (this is not a rhetoric question to make a point or convince someone. it's a genuine and open ended question to which i don't have a full answer yet)
in the arabic, the question is not present. all three images are of the fatwa, which is translated in urdu posted by the brother earlier. this comment was because, the original question (istiftaa) was not included in the PDF; and because the fatwa refers to: 'what was mentioned in the istifta' we are in the dark as to what was asked in the first place. wa billahi't tawfiq.
ironically, it is because we live in these times, we need to see documentation in such cases. --- i don't think so. even an official qadi would be required to state the reason - i don't think we ever had kangaroo courts. if you think i am wrong, please direct me to documents that mention this. --- did scholars simply sign alahazrat's fatwa blindly or did they examine the case and alahazrat's proofs? if one has to simply attest a fatwa on the basis of a person's standing, why don't you accept everything tahir jhangvi says (and he has dream-attestations too)? just because you don't like him? particularly in high-profile cases, it is necessary to be transparent. particularly in the case of takfir, because of the danger it entails. we cannot cry hoarse lamenting that people don't stick to tradition and violate it where it is not conducive to us. i respect sunni ulama, but when it is a matter of takfir, i would only trust a formal fatwa with evidence for the case - because in our times, takfir-by-ta'wil is becoming common. and people find excuses to make takfir, where they should try to find an excuse to refrain from takfir. the 'blind taqleed' that sunni ulama like imam ghazali and others lamented (which is cited by salafi/anti-madh'habites for their own purpose) is this kind. there is no problem in following scholars, but we cannot indemnify them from error. and this is a simple issue. just state the reasons why taseer should be ruled murtad and the proof that these reasons are true. unfortunately, it is not a case of whether his wuDu was nullified or whether his fast was invalid. this is a matter of takfir and i prefer to keep silent unless i see proof. like it or not, this translation is reminiscent of deobandi attitudes - like muhannad for instance... wa billahi't tawfiq.
not disparaging your query, but for some/many of us who are not pakistanis, we're going by the words of scholars like Muzaffar Shah Sahab who have attested to him being a blasphemer. i believe Shah Turabul Haq Sahab also said the same; that notwithstanding the 500 or so scholars (real or perceived) who said the same thing in regards to him i'm not being sarcastic this is a genuine fiqh query thinking loudly, this is a case in point for fiqh in these troubled times: in the past in an Islamic state, if an official qadi ruled a person as a shatim, that was that, and we wouldn't need any more transparency or the details of the case other than that. common people after all, are not jury members or prosecutors. they would place their trust in the ruler and the qadi and would think that the due course of law has been run but now in these times and these corrupt states, can we and should we demand transparency and full details of the case? or is it a case of - everyone go with an aalim you trust, and he is answerable in front of Allah? (which leads to a heterodox opinion on the same matter) can an aalim a person trusts be deemed as a qadi for that person on all matters, even those not directly related to him (like this salman taseer case, or even moon sighting and declaration of Ramadan/Eid) as opposed to personal matters (divorce, inheritence, etc.) where obviously his trusted aalim can be deemed to be a qadi for those specific circumstances i too found the translation very lacking. we need to see what was said to the scholars, for academic reasons if nothing. it would have been nice if the Arabic fatwa was also included in the copy
what was asked about salman taseer in the istifta? what were the questions? and where is the arabic istifta and fatwa? ---- i am sorry to say this, but the case of salman taseer/mumtaz qadri is being argued without transparency. we do not doubt that anyone who disrespects the messenger sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is a kafir; it is the ijma'a. but the question is: did he say things that are disrespectful and insulting? and what is the proof? ----- can anyone please direct us to proof - if it is available - that salman taseer uttered blasphemies? i have been saying this here. ----- we have to be fair and upright. this is the maslak of alahazrat. and in this urdu fatwa, there is no mention of the complaint - just an obscure mention of 'as described in the question'. what was described in the question?
The Grand Muftis of YEMEN have given decree of KUFR (IRTIDAD) against Salman Taseer, who was executed by Mumtaz Qadri. The Fatwa, translated in Urdu, is attached.
