Pakistan Blasphemy Laws , The West
- Thread starter Wadood
- Start date
napak padri has released an statement in support of the execution. despite seeing the biggest janazah, in the history of pakistan, he cannot hold to his own words. this is how Allah subh'anu wa ta'ala manifest the truth from the mouth of shayateen.
we don't need any other daleel after seeing this historical janazah that who is on haq.
mumtaz hussain qadri shaheed received the status that many great awliya and ulama don't get after decades of zuhd. i couldn't go to attend the funeral but inshaAllah i will visit his mazar sharif to seek barakah through him rahimahullah.
Aqib alQadri
Veteran
the filthy pig's statement is here: http://m.urdupoint.com/daily/livenews/2016-03-01/news-601954.html
he probably thinks that he will get favors from the govt by saying this: the idiot does not realize that this is the last nail in his political coffin.
with this, the murtadd dajjal Tahir is perhaps also trying to avoid being the next one to be "targeted". for now almost everyone knows about his apostasy.
but until when can he avoid death and the consequent punishment? even a thousand years' life is nothing compared to eternity.
Last edited:
firstly, umar minhaji should accept his shaykh's claim that janazah will reveal who is aashiq and who is jaahil.
secondly, napak padri could not gather even half a million people in his life with hefty spending of millions of dollars for many months, how would he gather more pigs on his decayed janazah? i'm making a bold statement through the tawassul of mumtaz qadri shaheed rahimahullah that when padri dies his face will not be shown to awam, inshaAllah. on the other hand no money was spent for the announcement of the janazah of mumtaz qadri shaheed, millions of people voluntarily came to the funeral within 24 hours of his shahadah. imran khan too spent millions of dollars on his dharna with 10 karoor RS only on music but how many millions could he gathered? it is the time for sunni organizations that they unite and show their power in elections, they can easily do a clean sweep.
thirdly, mumtaz qadri shaheed's janzah certainly signifies his being on haq, for it was not a gathering of bhangra baaz groups of mix genders, there were millions of ba shara' people including thousands of ulama and mashaykh. this janzah certainly qualifies for the application of the hadith that Allah subh'anu wa'tala will not gather the ummah of Muahmmed aliahi afDalus salat wassalam upon transgression, for it was not only jahil awam in the funeral*, rather there were thousands of pious people who spend their nights in qiyam and days in siyam, who teach quran and hadith. who can deny that in this crowd of multi million attendees** there were no abdaals, ashab al-takween, and other awliya kiram?
* thousands of them would be illiterate but they were not jahil, while minhajians are juhala despite holding degrees
** they are saying around 5 to 6 million, and i don't doubt it
Aqib alQadri
Veteran
I heard that Jamaat e Islami (maudoodi jamaat) held ghaibana namaaz janaaza for Shaheed Mumtaz Qadri in Karachi. is it true?
I heard the same on Ary News
IslamIsTheTruth
Well-Known Member
Umar Padri is now claiming he has nothing to do with Tahir padri or MUQ.
He also blaims the bigger padri for being part of the blasphemy issue in Pakistan.
Umar padri States that he will explain the reasons as to why Tahir padri and 'mullahs' are responsible for the current situation.
I've noticed Umar padri is getting very touchy when someone mentions his association with Tahir padri dajjal.
https://m.facebook.com/umaralqadri/
He also blaims the bigger padri for being part of the blasphemy issue in Pakistan.
Umar padri States that he will explain the reasons as to why Tahir padri and 'mullahs' are responsible for the current situation.
I've noticed Umar padri is getting very touchy when someone mentions his association with Tahir padri dajjal.
https://m.facebook.com/umaralqadri/
CHISHTI
Well-Known Member
..abu layth..holier than thou..of course he ended up in PRISON for handing out doughnuts and petting kittens..he is an all encompassing deviant lover..a "pop culture mufti"...as for umar..sorry..pir umar..he changes alliances faster than abu layth changes hair gel..thank Allah we're Sunni.
Aqib alQadri
Veteran
http://www.dawn.com/news/1243144/pro-qadri-leaders-protesters-booked
there was a news blackout during the funeral; but even this FIR is good for publicity. the Sunni awaam will realize how deviant and corrupt the rulers are.
there was a news blackout during the funeral; but even this FIR is good for publicity. the Sunni awaam will realize how deviant and corrupt the rulers are.
IslamIsTheTruth
Well-Known Member
The prat is suffering from an inferiority complex aswell as dementia.
His own biography states that most of his so called Islamic education was from indo pak and in the most part from deogandis.
Abul Hasnayn
musjidulhaq.com
Has anyone translated this fatwa?
Abu Hamza
Well-Known Member
A few excerpts from the fatwa from Yemen [Tarīm] regarding Salmān Tasīr & Ghāzī Mumtāz Husayn al-Qādirī [rahimahullāh].
In the name of Allāh, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent, I begin.
All praise is to Allāh, the Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace upon the seal of Prophets & Messengers; Our Master Muhammad [who was] sent as a mercy for the entire universe & upon his progeny & upon his companions & upon [all] those who follow them until the last day. Now then, we have received in a gathering of Ifta in [the city of] Tarim a question from the questioner [mustasfi]; Muhammad Mahbūb al-Rasūl al-Qādrī from the city of Lahore [in] Pakistan. We have considered the query in the presence of the members of the gathering of Ifta in Tarim, [which was conducted] on the 12th of Rabī ul-Awwal 1433 AH. After discussing & deliberating everything that has been mentioned in that question, it has become patently clear to us, that if whatever has been related in that question is true & reliable & from the statements of Salmān Tasīr, then he is considered an apostate [murtad] & the rulings of an individual who renounces himself from the Muslims are carried out on him, firstly from the aspect of repentance, either he repents or he is killed as a consequence of disbelief. Thereafter, he is not to be given the ritual bath [ghusl], nor is he prayed over [janaza], he does not receive the shroud [kafan] and nor is he buried in the same graveyard as Muslims........
....Apostasy [ridda] is the most abominable type of disbelief [kufr], Allāh says: "the one from amongst you who commits apostasy from his religion & dies, then he is a unbeliever [kafir] & their actions in the world [dunya] & in the next abode [akhira] have been destroyed" [Surah al-Baqarah]. Allāma Muhammad Ibn Sālim Ibn Hafīdh was asked regarding an individual who [attempts to] diminish [the lofty rank] of the Messenger [صلي الله عليه و اله و سلم], he responded with a lengthy answer which can be found in his collection of legal verdicts. In his response he applies it [the above verse] to prove the apostasy of the one who attempts to diminish the lofty rank of the Messenger of Allah [صلي الله عليه و سلم]....
.... [3rd page]
...Regarding [Ghazī] Mumtāz Husayn al-Qādirī, after it became clear from the verdicts of the Úlemā of the country [Pakistan] that Salmān Tasīr's blood is now permissible, he killed him... up to what has been mentioned in the question regarding [Ghazī's] obstruction [in allowing the courts] to carry out the execution, the Úlemā of Shāfiíyya & others schools state:
Hāfidh Ibn Hajr al-Haythamī states:
"Nobody is to administer it. That is, the punishment for apostasy, except the Imām or his deputy, & if anybody does carry it out on him then he is to be rebuked'.
[As for] The scholars of the Hanafī school,Hidāya; the commentary to Bidāya al-Mubtadī states:
"If a Muslim leaves Islām [irtadda], Islām is again placed before him, if there were any doubts they are quelled.......'
....if he is killed before Islām is presented to him for the second time, it is merely disliked, & there is nothing upon the one who carried out the action [he is not even reprimanded, let alone face capital punishment]. What is meant by dislike [karāha] here is forsaking a more preferred action [tark al-mustahab].....
In the work al-ikhtiyār li tálīl al-mukhtār it states: if one kills him [the apostate] before presenting Islam to him [again], there is nothing upon him because the apostate deserves to be killed for disbelief, therefore there is no accountability for him....'
In the name of Allāh, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent, I begin.
All praise is to Allāh, the Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace upon the seal of Prophets & Messengers; Our Master Muhammad [who was] sent as a mercy for the entire universe & upon his progeny & upon his companions & upon [all] those who follow them until the last day. Now then, we have received in a gathering of Ifta in [the city of] Tarim a question from the questioner [mustasfi]; Muhammad Mahbūb al-Rasūl al-Qādrī from the city of Lahore [in] Pakistan. We have considered the query in the presence of the members of the gathering of Ifta in Tarim, [which was conducted] on the 12th of Rabī ul-Awwal 1433 AH. After discussing & deliberating everything that has been mentioned in that question, it has become patently clear to us, that if whatever has been related in that question is true & reliable & from the statements of Salmān Tasīr, then he is considered an apostate [murtad] & the rulings of an individual who renounces himself from the Muslims are carried out on him, firstly from the aspect of repentance, either he repents or he is killed as a consequence of disbelief. Thereafter, he is not to be given the ritual bath [ghusl], nor is he prayed over [janaza], he does not receive the shroud [kafan] and nor is he buried in the same graveyard as Muslims........
....Apostasy [ridda] is the most abominable type of disbelief [kufr], Allāh says: "the one from amongst you who commits apostasy from his religion & dies, then he is a unbeliever [kafir] & their actions in the world [dunya] & in the next abode [akhira] have been destroyed" [Surah al-Baqarah]. Allāma Muhammad Ibn Sālim Ibn Hafīdh was asked regarding an individual who [attempts to] diminish [the lofty rank] of the Messenger [صلي الله عليه و اله و سلم], he responded with a lengthy answer which can be found in his collection of legal verdicts. In his response he applies it [the above verse] to prove the apostasy of the one who attempts to diminish the lofty rank of the Messenger of Allah [صلي الله عليه و سلم]....
.... [3rd page]
...Regarding [Ghazī] Mumtāz Husayn al-Qādirī, after it became clear from the verdicts of the Úlemā of the country [Pakistan] that Salmān Tasīr's blood is now permissible, he killed him... up to what has been mentioned in the question regarding [Ghazī's] obstruction [in allowing the courts] to carry out the execution, the Úlemā of Shāfiíyya & others schools state:
Hāfidh Ibn Hajr al-Haythamī states:
"Nobody is to administer it. That is, the punishment for apostasy, except the Imām or his deputy, & if anybody does carry it out on him then he is to be rebuked'.
[As for] The scholars of the Hanafī school,Hidāya; the commentary to Bidāya al-Mubtadī states:
"If a Muslim leaves Islām [irtadda], Islām is again placed before him, if there were any doubts they are quelled.......'
....if he is killed before Islām is presented to him for the second time, it is merely disliked, & there is nothing upon the one who carried out the action [he is not even reprimanded, let alone face capital punishment]. What is meant by dislike [karāha] here is forsaking a more preferred action [tark al-mustahab].....
In the work al-ikhtiyār li tálīl al-mukhtār it states: if one kills him [the apostate] before presenting Islam to him [again], there is nothing upon him because the apostate deserves to be killed for disbelief, therefore there is no accountability for him....'
Abul Hasnayn
musjidulhaq.com
May Allah Almighty bless you for your kindness.
Attached is a clearer copy with the question please shower us with some more of your kindness.
Attached is a clearer copy with the question please shower us with some more of your kindness.
Moriarty
Veteran
The Kerry Lugar Bill. Maybe the Pakistani Government wants more Kerry Lugar fund?
http://www.dawn.com/news/1155205
Salaman wanted European integration:
Salaman with Qadiyanis:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1155205
Salaman wanted European integration:
Salaman with Qadiyanis:
Allah, with the name of the Most Merciful, Most Kind
All praise is for Allah, the Lord of the universe, and salawaat and salutations upon the seal of the prophets and messengers, our master Muhammad who was sent as a mercy for the Universe and upon his family, companions and those who follow them until the day of qiyaamah.
After this, we at the seat of Ifta in Tarim have received a question from Muhammad Mahboob ur Rasool al Qadri from the city of Lahore in Pakistan. At its meeting in the dar ul ifta on 13 Rabi ut thaani 1433 it considered it and after discussion and debate it became clear to us that when what has been mentioned in the question is authenticated and proven from the statements of Salman Taseer, he has become a murtad from Islam. And all the matters related to the murtad apply to him, i.e. he should first be encouraged to repent, which is waajib, if he does repent then as is, otherwise he will be executed as a kaafir.
And thereafter he will not be given ghusl, nor janaaza prayed over him, nor will he be given kafan, nor buried in a muslim graveyard, he will be separated from his wives, those with whom he was not intimate will become divorced immediately, whilst because of his becoming murtad all his wives with whom he was intimate will become divorced from him at the end of their iddah. He will not inherit from anyone and nor will anyone inherit from him. His right over all his wealth and property will end until the time he becomes a Muslim because murtad is the worst type of kufr. Allah states "the one from amongst you who commits apostasy from his religion & dies, then he is a unbeliever [kafir] & their actions in the world [dunya] & in the next abode [akhira] have been destroyed" [Surah al-Baqarah].
Allāma Muhammad Ibn Sālim Ibn Hafīdh was asked about a man who tries to devalue the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa salam and he responded with a long reply, as is mentioned in his fatwa and he said in it and he uses it (the verse above) to support his answer of the apostacy of the one who demeans the Messenger and about whom he said ‘May Allah benefit him’: And the man who said ‘Welcome o Joker!’ when people stood in honour of the Messenger during the Mawlid in which he recited the sira of the messenger, and he said ‘May Allah benefit him by it’. Such a man will be one of two matters: one that he said this statement with the intention of demeaning the messenger of Allah and the greatest of Allah’screation, the Khaatim of the Messengers and prophets, Our master, Muhammad. The second is that he meant to demean the people standing in honour of the messenger of Allah. So if his intention was the first then there is no doubt in his turning away from the Islamic deen, may Allah save from that. This is because the demeaning of the Prophet, nay, any prophet from the prophets, is through ijma of the Muslims Kufr. It is in the Book of Shifa of Qaadi Iyaad: ‘Whoever attributes to our Prophet lies in what he brought, and what he informed of, or doubts his truthfulness, or swears at him or says that he did not transmit or he demeans him or one of the prophets or scalds them or hurts them or kills a prophet, or fights them, he is a kaafir by ijma.’
And similar is in more than one book of the imams such as kitaab ul ilaam fi Qawati il islam of Allaama Ibn Hajar al Haytami and kitaab Silm il Tawfeeq of the Habeeb Abdullah bin Hausayn bin Taahir and its shara of Allaama Muhammad Saeed Ba Baseel and others. The text of ‘Tohfa’ of Ibn Hajar Al Haytami at the end of the matan (text) in the first book of Rida (apostacy) is: He is cut from islam with an intention or with kufr words or actions, even if he said it in jest. An example is if it was said to him ‘cut your nails for it is sunnah’ and he says ‘I will not do so, even if it is sunnah.’ He then said at the end of the text ‘or he rejected a prophet or messenger or finds any fault in them or shortens their name in order to belittle them.’ And it is similar in the Nihaaya of Ramlee.
And if this speaker intended the second matter, of degrading those standing in honour of the messenger and if he intended to degrade them because of their standing in the respect of al Mustafa Muhammad then it is not far that he will be as in the first matter, because the respect of the Mustafa Muhammad has been brought by the Sunnah and ordered by the Haqq, the Most Pure, in other verses of the Honourable Quran and degrading the Sunnah is kufr, may Allah forbid, as has been clarified in the text of ‘Tohfa tul Maara’
And it is in the Mugannee of Khateeb Sharbeeni in the Chapter of Ridda: ‘or the degradation of the Sunnah just like if it is said to him that when the Prophet would eat he would lick his three fingers and he responds ‘this is not etiquette’ or it is said to him ‘clip your nails for it is sunnah’ and he said ‘I will not do so even if it is sunnah’ and his purpose was jest.’
And if he intended to degrade them (people) because of another reason then it is extremely haraam, and the perpetrator is deserving the severest ta’zeer of the apostate, for his example will be a lesson to others and they will not say something similar.
Allaama Ibn Hajar in his book ‘al ilaam’ said ‘The 2 shaykhs and others did not express a preference in the first matter in what I saw. I mean if he said ‘the Prophet had long nails.’ and it is clear that if he said it to belittle the Prophet or make jest or in terms of a fault in him then it is kufr, if it wasn’t then it is not kufr. And he will be given a severe Ta’zeer
And he said in a second place: ’if he said it in response to the comment ‘The Prophet would eat he would lick his fingers’ ‘That is not etiquette’ (it is) Kufr. It will be treated as a rejection of the sunnah of licking the fingers and turning away from it. So it has come from what has passed about the one to whom it is said ‘Cut your nails’ and he says ‘I will not do that’ whilst turning away from the sunnah. He then said ‘Or if it is said to him the Prophet liked pumpkin or vinegar’’ and he said ‘I do not view the two (in the same way)’ or says ‘I do not see anything (special) in them’ this will not be kufr, if his intention was to give news of his nature or just generally, as opposed to if his intention being an absence of love for them because the Prophet loved them because in such an intention is the mockery of the Prophet and demeaning him (end).
And it is in Is’aad ur Rafeeq Shara Muslim at tawfeeq of al Baa Baseel quoting from al ilaam: It is said in As Shifaa ‘Whoever swears at our Prophet and all other universally accepted prophets or finds faults in him, or attributes fault in him or his lineage or his religion or his activities, or criticises him, or finds fault in terms of slandering or diminishing his rank or curses him or makes ill dua for them, or wishes for him bad orattributes to him something which does not befit his rank for the purpose of censure, or rebuke him over something from the difficulties and issues he faced, will be a kaafir with ijmah as mentioned by a jamaat. The narration of Ibn Hazam against this matter is not reliable. So if all these matters emanate from a person or just some of them he will be executed andrepentence will not be accepted according to most of the ulema and upon this is a jamaat of our people, indeed Shaykh abu bar Al Faarisi claimed ijma upon it.
And in it is text of Silm ut tawfeeq :And the result from most of the texts which were mentioned of the 2 imams (Qaadi Iyad in Shaifa and Ibn Hajar in I’laam) return to the matter that all beliefs or acts or statements emanating from a person, which evidence the attempt to belittle or demean Allah, or something from His books, or one of his prophets, or angels, or something from his signs or matters of His religion or His commands or His promises or His warnings is kufr. i.e. if the speaker intends belittling or demeaning by way of this, but if he did not mean that then it is a severe Haram act (end)
What we have learned from the written fatwa of Allaama Muhammad ibn Saalim bin Hafeez and from these mentioned proofs one will attain the answer to the first part of the question mentioned about Salman Ta’seer.
As for the response to the second part of the question about Mumtaz Hussayn al Qadri who after he became informed of the Fatwa of the ulema of his country that Salman Taseer’s blood was lawful and there were many obstacles to implementing it (him receiving capital punishment through the Pakistani system), as has been mentioned in the question, and so he killed him … to the end. In its response we mention the statements of the Shafiee and other ulema from other schools, which are:
Ibn Shaykh Al Haytami in his book ‘at thofa’ writes ’No one can institute it, i.e. the punishment of apostacy, except the Imam or his deputy, if someone else does he will be ‘Tazeered’
The Hanafi ulema state as in Hidaaya Shara Bidaaya tul Mubtadee: When a Muslim becomes murtad from Islam, Islam is presented to him, for he may have had some doubts, and with this his doubts will be eradicated, for this is better than the evil of killing (him), however our ulema have said that it is not wajib to present islam to him because the dawah of islam had already reached him and it is said ‘He should be imprisoned for 3 days, if he accepts islam then good, if not he should be executed, It is in Jaame us Sageer: Islam will be presented to the Murtad, whether he be free or slave, and if he rejects he will be executed.’
He then said ‘If a man kills him before islam is presented to him it is makruh, but there is nothing (punishment) upon the murderer, Kiraaha here refers to leaving the mustahab. There is no recompense here because the Kufr leads to the permisissibility of killing. And presenting (islam) after the reaching of the Dawah is not wajib.’
It is in Iktiyaar li ta’leel al Mukhtaar : ‘If a killer kills him before the presenting of Islam (upon him), there is nothing (punishment) upon the killer because he is worthy of execution because of his kufr and there is no retribution upon him, and it is makruh because it led to the tark (forsaking) of the mustahab act of presenting of islam.and in it is doing so without the permission of the Imam (ruler)’
It is in Haashiya Kanz ud daqaaiq ‘It is said in Hidaaya that if a man kills him before presenting islam upon him, Kamaal said ‘or severs a bodily part from him’ it is makruh but there is nothing upon the killer, because the kufr leads to its permissibility, and all crimes against a murtad are void.’ (end) It is in Shara Tahaawi ‘When he does that, i.e. kills him or decapitates him without the imams permission, he will be censured. (end) Qaadi Khan said ‘and the apostacy of the man negates the sanctity of his life such that if he is killed without the order of the Qaadi, either intentionally or accidentally, or without the Sultans command, or cuts a part of his body, there is nothing upon him.
And the position of the Hanbali ulema, quoting from the book Matan al Iqnaa ‘No one will kill him except the imam or his deputy, whether the murtad is free or a salve. If another kills him without permission he will be wrong and censured but there will be no retribution, this is equal if it was before seeking his tawbah or after it.’
And it is in its Shara Kashaaf Al Qinaa ‘(If he is killed) i.e the murtad, (by another) i.e. other than the imam or his deputy (without his permission, he will becensured) because he went against the Imam and his deputy, (and there will be no retribution) from the killer because the place was not of innocence - the murtad was not innocent - and this is equal where it is before seeking his tawbah or after, because his killing ininsignificant for his apostacy makes his blood lawful, and this (condition) was present before tawbah issought from him, just as it is present after it.’
All praise is for Allah, the Lord of the universe, and salawaat and salutations upon the seal of the prophets and messengers, our master Muhammad who was sent as a mercy for the Universe and upon his family, companions and those who follow them until the day of qiyaamah.
After this, we at the seat of Ifta in Tarim have received a question from Muhammad Mahboob ur Rasool al Qadri from the city of Lahore in Pakistan. At its meeting in the dar ul ifta on 13 Rabi ut thaani 1433 it considered it and after discussion and debate it became clear to us that when what has been mentioned in the question is authenticated and proven from the statements of Salman Taseer, he has become a murtad from Islam. And all the matters related to the murtad apply to him, i.e. he should first be encouraged to repent, which is waajib, if he does repent then as is, otherwise he will be executed as a kaafir.
And thereafter he will not be given ghusl, nor janaaza prayed over him, nor will he be given kafan, nor buried in a muslim graveyard, he will be separated from his wives, those with whom he was not intimate will become divorced immediately, whilst because of his becoming murtad all his wives with whom he was intimate will become divorced from him at the end of their iddah. He will not inherit from anyone and nor will anyone inherit from him. His right over all his wealth and property will end until the time he becomes a Muslim because murtad is the worst type of kufr. Allah states "the one from amongst you who commits apostasy from his religion & dies, then he is a unbeliever [kafir] & their actions in the world [dunya] & in the next abode [akhira] have been destroyed" [Surah al-Baqarah].
Allāma Muhammad Ibn Sālim Ibn Hafīdh was asked about a man who tries to devalue the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa salam and he responded with a long reply, as is mentioned in his fatwa and he said in it and he uses it (the verse above) to support his answer of the apostacy of the one who demeans the Messenger and about whom he said ‘May Allah benefit him’: And the man who said ‘Welcome o Joker!’ when people stood in honour of the Messenger during the Mawlid in which he recited the sira of the messenger, and he said ‘May Allah benefit him by it’. Such a man will be one of two matters: one that he said this statement with the intention of demeaning the messenger of Allah and the greatest of Allah’screation, the Khaatim of the Messengers and prophets, Our master, Muhammad. The second is that he meant to demean the people standing in honour of the messenger of Allah. So if his intention was the first then there is no doubt in his turning away from the Islamic deen, may Allah save from that. This is because the demeaning of the Prophet, nay, any prophet from the prophets, is through ijma of the Muslims Kufr. It is in the Book of Shifa of Qaadi Iyaad: ‘Whoever attributes to our Prophet lies in what he brought, and what he informed of, or doubts his truthfulness, or swears at him or says that he did not transmit or he demeans him or one of the prophets or scalds them or hurts them or kills a prophet, or fights them, he is a kaafir by ijma.’
And similar is in more than one book of the imams such as kitaab ul ilaam fi Qawati il islam of Allaama Ibn Hajar al Haytami and kitaab Silm il Tawfeeq of the Habeeb Abdullah bin Hausayn bin Taahir and its shara of Allaama Muhammad Saeed Ba Baseel and others. The text of ‘Tohfa’ of Ibn Hajar Al Haytami at the end of the matan (text) in the first book of Rida (apostacy) is: He is cut from islam with an intention or with kufr words or actions, even if he said it in jest. An example is if it was said to him ‘cut your nails for it is sunnah’ and he says ‘I will not do so, even if it is sunnah.’ He then said at the end of the text ‘or he rejected a prophet or messenger or finds any fault in them or shortens their name in order to belittle them.’ And it is similar in the Nihaaya of Ramlee.
And if this speaker intended the second matter, of degrading those standing in honour of the messenger and if he intended to degrade them because of their standing in the respect of al Mustafa Muhammad then it is not far that he will be as in the first matter, because the respect of the Mustafa Muhammad has been brought by the Sunnah and ordered by the Haqq, the Most Pure, in other verses of the Honourable Quran and degrading the Sunnah is kufr, may Allah forbid, as has been clarified in the text of ‘Tohfa tul Maara’
And it is in the Mugannee of Khateeb Sharbeeni in the Chapter of Ridda: ‘or the degradation of the Sunnah just like if it is said to him that when the Prophet would eat he would lick his three fingers and he responds ‘this is not etiquette’ or it is said to him ‘clip your nails for it is sunnah’ and he said ‘I will not do so even if it is sunnah’ and his purpose was jest.’
And if he intended to degrade them (people) because of another reason then it is extremely haraam, and the perpetrator is deserving the severest ta’zeer of the apostate, for his example will be a lesson to others and they will not say something similar.
Allaama Ibn Hajar in his book ‘al ilaam’ said ‘The 2 shaykhs and others did not express a preference in the first matter in what I saw. I mean if he said ‘the Prophet had long nails.’ and it is clear that if he said it to belittle the Prophet or make jest or in terms of a fault in him then it is kufr, if it wasn’t then it is not kufr. And he will be given a severe Ta’zeer
And he said in a second place: ’if he said it in response to the comment ‘The Prophet would eat he would lick his fingers’ ‘That is not etiquette’ (it is) Kufr. It will be treated as a rejection of the sunnah of licking the fingers and turning away from it. So it has come from what has passed about the one to whom it is said ‘Cut your nails’ and he says ‘I will not do that’ whilst turning away from the sunnah. He then said ‘Or if it is said to him the Prophet liked pumpkin or vinegar’’ and he said ‘I do not view the two (in the same way)’ or says ‘I do not see anything (special) in them’ this will not be kufr, if his intention was to give news of his nature or just generally, as opposed to if his intention being an absence of love for them because the Prophet loved them because in such an intention is the mockery of the Prophet and demeaning him (end).
And it is in Is’aad ur Rafeeq Shara Muslim at tawfeeq of al Baa Baseel quoting from al ilaam: It is said in As Shifaa ‘Whoever swears at our Prophet and all other universally accepted prophets or finds faults in him, or attributes fault in him or his lineage or his religion or his activities, or criticises him, or finds fault in terms of slandering or diminishing his rank or curses him or makes ill dua for them, or wishes for him bad orattributes to him something which does not befit his rank for the purpose of censure, or rebuke him over something from the difficulties and issues he faced, will be a kaafir with ijmah as mentioned by a jamaat. The narration of Ibn Hazam against this matter is not reliable. So if all these matters emanate from a person or just some of them he will be executed andrepentence will not be accepted according to most of the ulema and upon this is a jamaat of our people, indeed Shaykh abu bar Al Faarisi claimed ijma upon it.
And in it is text of Silm ut tawfeeq :And the result from most of the texts which were mentioned of the 2 imams (Qaadi Iyad in Shaifa and Ibn Hajar in I’laam) return to the matter that all beliefs or acts or statements emanating from a person, which evidence the attempt to belittle or demean Allah, or something from His books, or one of his prophets, or angels, or something from his signs or matters of His religion or His commands or His promises or His warnings is kufr. i.e. if the speaker intends belittling or demeaning by way of this, but if he did not mean that then it is a severe Haram act (end)
What we have learned from the written fatwa of Allaama Muhammad ibn Saalim bin Hafeez and from these mentioned proofs one will attain the answer to the first part of the question mentioned about Salman Ta’seer.
As for the response to the second part of the question about Mumtaz Hussayn al Qadri who after he became informed of the Fatwa of the ulema of his country that Salman Taseer’s blood was lawful and there were many obstacles to implementing it (him receiving capital punishment through the Pakistani system), as has been mentioned in the question, and so he killed him … to the end. In its response we mention the statements of the Shafiee and other ulema from other schools, which are:
Ibn Shaykh Al Haytami in his book ‘at thofa’ writes ’No one can institute it, i.e. the punishment of apostacy, except the Imam or his deputy, if someone else does he will be ‘Tazeered’
The Hanafi ulema state as in Hidaaya Shara Bidaaya tul Mubtadee: When a Muslim becomes murtad from Islam, Islam is presented to him, for he may have had some doubts, and with this his doubts will be eradicated, for this is better than the evil of killing (him), however our ulema have said that it is not wajib to present islam to him because the dawah of islam had already reached him and it is said ‘He should be imprisoned for 3 days, if he accepts islam then good, if not he should be executed, It is in Jaame us Sageer: Islam will be presented to the Murtad, whether he be free or slave, and if he rejects he will be executed.’
He then said ‘If a man kills him before islam is presented to him it is makruh, but there is nothing (punishment) upon the murderer, Kiraaha here refers to leaving the mustahab. There is no recompense here because the Kufr leads to the permisissibility of killing. And presenting (islam) after the reaching of the Dawah is not wajib.’
It is in Iktiyaar li ta’leel al Mukhtaar : ‘If a killer kills him before the presenting of Islam (upon him), there is nothing (punishment) upon the killer because he is worthy of execution because of his kufr and there is no retribution upon him, and it is makruh because it led to the tark (forsaking) of the mustahab act of presenting of islam.and in it is doing so without the permission of the Imam (ruler)’
It is in Haashiya Kanz ud daqaaiq ‘It is said in Hidaaya that if a man kills him before presenting islam upon him, Kamaal said ‘or severs a bodily part from him’ it is makruh but there is nothing upon the killer, because the kufr leads to its permissibility, and all crimes against a murtad are void.’ (end) It is in Shara Tahaawi ‘When he does that, i.e. kills him or decapitates him without the imams permission, he will be censured. (end) Qaadi Khan said ‘and the apostacy of the man negates the sanctity of his life such that if he is killed without the order of the Qaadi, either intentionally or accidentally, or without the Sultans command, or cuts a part of his body, there is nothing upon him.
And the position of the Hanbali ulema, quoting from the book Matan al Iqnaa ‘No one will kill him except the imam or his deputy, whether the murtad is free or a salve. If another kills him without permission he will be wrong and censured but there will be no retribution, this is equal if it was before seeking his tawbah or after it.’
And it is in its Shara Kashaaf Al Qinaa ‘(If he is killed) i.e the murtad, (by another) i.e. other than the imam or his deputy (without his permission, he will becensured) because he went against the Imam and his deputy, (and there will be no retribution) from the killer because the place was not of innocence - the murtad was not innocent - and this is equal where it is before seeking his tawbah or after, because his killing ininsignificant for his apostacy makes his blood lawful, and this (condition) was present before tawbah issought from him, just as it is present after it.’
Last edited by a moderator:
Abul Hasnayn
musjidulhaq.com
The Bar Association at Islamabad High Court declared the sentence as Judicial Murder and observed Black Day
