Sunni Conference 2006

  • Thread starter Thread starter Haq Chaar Yaar
  • Start date Start date
So does anyone have a video where he actually clarifies which Wahabbis are Kafir and who one must believe is a Kafir otherwise one will become a kafir himself?

someone mentioned terrorists above - if I don't believe a terrorist is a Kafir am I a Kafir to the shaikh?
 
I dont think the speaker means a particular type of wahabi are kafir. he clearly states that they all are and his reason for it is that they are all ghustakh. he has stated this on more than one occasion that all wahabis (including deobandis) and all shia are kafir. One has to be just and state the truth of his words.
 
he clearly states that they all are and his reason for it is that they are all ghustakh.
Click to expand...
if he believes they are all gustakh, then he, as a scholar, must believe them to be kafir. if he knows someone to be gustakh and he still considers them muslim, then theres something wrong.
 
Please Note:

Those who agree with the Kufr Aqaid of the Deobandi Mullahs (Thanvi etc), or the Kufr Aqaid of Shia (The Quran is not complete etc), then they KUFR Is proved cleary from QURAN AND SUNNAH.


The Respected Shaykh, is quoting from Quran and Hadith,

How can a Ghustakh-e-Rasool(Salahu alaihiwasallam) REMAIN Muslim ?
How can a Ghustakh-e-Sahabah(Radiallahtaala anhuma) REMAIN MUSLIM ?
 
Abu Fadl said:
I dont think the speaker means a particular type of wahabi are kafir. he clearly states that they all are and his reason for it is that they are all ghustakh. he has stated this on more than one occasion that all wahabis (including deobandis) and all shia are kafir. One has to be just and state the truth of his words.
Click to expand...

may Allah reward you akhi for saying it as it clearly appears from his words.

He also appears to say that those who do not consider all the Wahabbis [which apparently includes Deobandis] Kafir are kafir themselves.

would you agree that this is what he is saying?
 
I am sorry brothers but i cannot beat round the bush, yes, that is what he says. You can agree or disagree with him but that does not change the fact of his views. I am not talking against Shah Sahib in anyway but just simply stating what he says.
 
question
He also appears to say that those who do not consider all the Wahabbis [which apparently includes Deobandis] Kafir are kafir themselves.

would you agree that this is what he is saying?
Click to expand...
answer
he clearly states that they all are and his reason for it is that they are all ghustakh.
Click to expand...
anyone who has an issue of labelling an insulter as being a kafir is clearly a kafir himself because he considers an insulter of Allah and His Rasool to be a Muslim.

do people here consider an insulter of Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam a kafir or not?
 
Last edited:
brother aqdas, all i am saying is that it is blanket takfir whatever his reasons are, and then yes, it would automatically apply that anyone denying the kufr of a kafir is also a kafir.
 
The respected Shaykh has said:

Aqaa (Sallahu alaihiwasallam) kay ghustakh wahhabi hai -FACT

The Insulters of the Messenger of Allah (Sallahu alaihiwasallam) ARE Wahhabis,

and THESE Wahhabis are Kaafir, because they are Ghustakh-e-Rasool, and anyone who is a Ghustakh-e-Rasool is a KAAFIR.

THE SHAYKH REFERS TO WHICH WAHHABIS, HE IS ON ABOUT, IN THE BEGGINING OF HIS SPEECH:

SUCH AS THOSE WHO DENY THE ILM-E-GHAIB OF RASOOLULLAH-SALAHU ALAIHIWASALLAM AND BULL-DOZED JAANTH UL BAQEE
 
As-salamu alaikum brothers,

I think I will leave this discussion for now as it seems to be heading down a slippery slope that will lead us all into trouble on the Day of Judgement.

Wasalam

p.s. sidi aqdas: Ahmad al-Ghumari also declared Amir Muawiyah RA a Kafir. Needless to say, he holds some erroneous views.
 
Abu Fadl said:
So they are all kafir?

Im glad you just it put his view forward in plain terms.
Click to expand...

Like, Brother Aqdas has correctly said:

ANY Ghustakh is a Kaafir

That is the View of the Shaykh, and the view of ALL the scholars, from the past 1400 years
 
brother faqir! on some threads I see that you appear to be sick of the criticism of deobandis and on the other hand you seem persistent to push your words in others mouth against ulama of ahlus sunnah, and trying to provoke issues again and again.

why don't haq char yaar people ask allama irfan shah mashadi sahab directly and get a clear answer of his own statements.
 
My point is that it is not the opinion of the ahlus sunnha scholars: all wahabis are kafir because all wahabis are ghustakh, or all shia for that matter. Ala Hazrat R.A. did not hold this view - see Hussam-ul-Haramyan, nor do all the ulama i have asked. Only those particular deobandis have been called kafir based on their kufri ibaraat/belief. Blanket takfir was never the opinion of Ala Hazrat. No disrespect to Mooswi Shah Sahib, but one cannot attribute this belief towards the Ahl us Sunnah and our great scholars.
 
Noori said:
brother faqir! on some threads I see that you appear to be sick of the criticism of deobandis and on the other hand you seem persistent to push your words in others mouth against ulama of ahlus sunnah, and trying to provoke issues again and again.

why don't haq char yaar people ask allama irfan shah mashadi sahab directly and get a clear answer of his own statements.
Click to expand...

Jazzakallah Khair,

Inshallah, we will get an answer from Qibla Peer Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashadi Moosvi Sahib, regarding this topic.

Please allow some time, As Qibla Shah Sahib is currently Abroad
 
why not name this thread "blanket takfir"

there is another person on deenport obsessed with the so called "takfiri barelwis". infact there is more than one. they all happen to be deobandis or from deobandi backgrounds

infact the issue is, if you want to give barelwis the benefit of the doubt on their takfiri trait, why not give the deobandis the benefit of the doubt on their wahabi traits?

then the issue comes up, the deobandis are far too takfiri than even the barelwis, as one can see with clear eyes in the Sub Continent (As I saw myself)

one can play around with the fatwas issued from the "barelwi" side, and can then justify it with the argument that the wahabi/deo fatwas were also being played around with

then one can say, I am just following the simple english of the translated fatwas from the Barelwi side, perhaps because I am not Barelwi or Deobandi, I do not know where the meaning is coming from, though from the words it does seem blanket takfir.

one can also "beat around the bush", the lovely phrase, about what the words of Shaykh Irfan Shah Mash-hadi "clearly" "CLEARLY" mean

brother Abu Fadl agreed without beating around the bush, and then the purpose was done, opportunity in hand, but one still believes one is genuinely enquiring into the matter, because this seems interesting and why not the Barelwis (brothers) discuss it

but there is still the possibility that this is all a truly innocent, genuine, unbiased, seeking clarification in concern, enquiry for brothers on Sunniport
 
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060914&fname=arshad&sid=1

this one is ridiculous

More than 200 Muslim men of Moradabad town are required to remarry their own wives. This is the opinion of the local Mufti of the town. Their fault: participating in a funeral prayer which was led by an imam of a denomination not their own. It so happened that while most of these Muslims were Barelwis, the imam under which they said the prayers happen to be a Deobandi. The local Barelwi leadership was enraged and decreed that since they do not regard the Deobandis as Muslims enough, all those who said their namaz under that imam ceased to be Muslims. And since they went outside the pale of Islam, the logical conclusion was that their marriages had become invalid and hence they had to marry again.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top