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.
Yes to both.
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]
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.
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.
Yes. And a reminder: You do not see any difference.
5. "sareeh kalimah e kufr" is "kufr fiqhi"
Yes.
6."kufr e sareeH" is "kufr kalami". this is implied from statements of SS, even though SS does not say it expressly.
This is your implication, not my words,as you have mentioned.
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:
Abul Hasan does not understand the difference and its proof is your own statement ( post 122)
as inquisitive has already said: i don't see any difference. if you SEE it, go ahead and explain.
7.according to SS "sareeH kufr" and "irtidad" are two different things.
Kindly show where I said this. Just show .
This is what I said
My post
On page 3 of this fatwa it is written :
" ..Aur kutub fiqh wa fatawa mein musarrah hai ki kuffar ke devtaon ko izzat dena aur un ke liye ayse kalamaat istemaal karna jin se in ka aijaaz zaahir ho sareeh kufr wa irtadaad hai"
[ And it is explained in the books of fiqh and fatawa that to give respect to the deities of Kuffar and to use such words for them which gives them honour/repect is sareeh (explicit) kufr and irtadaad]
Observe, this Bahraichi Mufti who uses " books" ( kutub) of fiqh and fatawa. It is a sigha of jamaa ( plural). As per this mufti sahab there are many books of fiqh and fatawa which contains the statement which he has quoted.
Now we ask this Mufti sahab and Janab Abul Hasan sahab to give reference from just one book for the quote. Only one book on this planet. The fact is that this statement is not present in any book of fiqh and fatawa. And if Abul Hasan says, a similar statement is present in fatwa ridawiya, then the reply is : That statement of Ala Hazrat does not contain the word "irtadaad".
So agree that either this Baharaichi mufti sahab has misquoted/ fabricated a quote of Ala Hazrat or agree that he has lied when he wrote that. To prove me wrong, just get me one reference from so many " kutub".
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.
now for a few questions:
1. in which book/s can this categorisation of "kufr e fiqhi" and "kufr e kalami" be found.
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.
2. what is the formal definition of both "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami"? and references for the same
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.
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"
Yes I said it and stick to it.
in other words "kufr e fiqhi" is not kufr; and "kufr e kalami" is kufr. please clarify.
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".
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?
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.
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?
This has nothing to do with my post or writing.
6. uttering a "sareeH kalimah of kufr" is "kufr e sareeH" and hence irtidad. is this wrong? if so, how?
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.
7. if one commits "kufr e kalami" what should he/she do other than tawbah, tajdid-e-iman and tajdid-e-nikah? what ELSE?
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.
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"?
Not related to my post /writing. However answer is in Vol6, fatwa ridawiya. Read it.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
