Issue of Takfir and Ahmadi/Qadyanis

[Cherub786]

i had a hippie liberal muslim mindset when it came to the rafidah. I always thought "as long as some1 says sahada they are muslim" nonsense.

What you describe as "hippie liberal mindset" is actual orthodoxy and the way of Ahl us-Sunnah if I may be so bold. I truly believe that any individual who professes the Shahadatayn is to be considered, formally, a Muslim, despite sect. The Shia believe in Tawhid and Risalah therefore I consider them Muslims despite their deviations.

"According to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), if there are 99 factors of kufr and one factor of Iman in a person, the 99 factors of kufr should be discarded and the person proclaimed a Muslim."

This beautifully expresses our position toward the issue of Takfir. When the man who, out of ignorance, did not believe that Allah could resurrect the remains of the cremated was nevertheless a Believer, how can we declare other sects as disbelievers on comparatively lesser fundamental doctrines?
Disbelief in resurrection absolutely is of course unbelief, but disbelief or ignorance of a certain aspect of it is not, as illustrated by the man who did not know Allah has the power to resurrect the cremated remains. Then on what basis can we declare Shia or Rafida as disbelievers?

[Qamar Farooq]

What you describe as "hippie liberal mindset" is actual orthodoxy and the way of Ahl us-Sunnah if I may be so bold. I truly believe that any individual who professes the Shahadatayn is to be considered, formally, a Muslim, despite sect. The Shia believe in Tawhid and Risalah therefore I consider them Muslims despite their deviations.

"According to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), if there are 99 factors of kufr and one factor of Iman in a person, the 99 factors of kufr should be discarded and the person proclaimed a Muslim."

This beautifully expresses our position toward the issue of Takfir. When the man who, out of ignorance, did not believe that Allah could resurrect the remains of the cremated was nevertheless a Believer, how can we declare other sects as disbelievers on comparatively lesser fundamental doctrines?
Disbelief in resurrection absolutely is of course unbelief, but disbelief or ignorance of a certain aspect of it is not, as illustrated by the man who did not know Allah has the power to resurrect the cremated remains. Then on what basis can we declare Shia or Rafida as disbelievers?

i agree with you totally. But there are certain things, which if you believe in, take you out of Islam EVEN THOUGH they say the Shahada. For example, Qadianis say the Shahada, but it is a consensus that they are not muslims. Why? because acknowledging somebody to be a Prophet, after the prophet Muhammad(pbuh), is kufr. In the same manner, the station of imamat is basically prophethood. They just call them 'Imams' because they think most stupid Sunni muslims will buy into their nonsense. In fact, according to almost every Shia who i have had interactions with, claims that Imamat is SUPERIOR to prophethood. In Summary, anyone who believes in the concept that there are 11 people who come after the prophet who have a station higher than prophethood, and whose role is almost identical to that of a nabi and whose obedience is compulsory, are automatically disbelievers. As far as your personal opinion goes, if you truly believe that someone who believes in the concept of imamah, as described by their clergy and books, is still a muslim than first you need to justify why Qadianis are muslims as well first. 

[Cherub786]

i agree with you totally. But there are certain things, which if you believe in, take you out of Islam EVEN THOUGH they say the Shahada. For example, Qadianis say the Shahada, but it is a consensus that they are not muslims. Why? because acknowledging somebody to be a Prophet, after the prophet Muhammad(pbuh), is kufr. In the same manner, the station of imamat is basically prophethood. They just call them 'Imams' because they think most stupid Sunni muslims will buy into their nonsense. In fact, according to almost every Shia who i have had interactions with, claims that Imamat is SUPERIOR to prophethood. In Summary, anyone who believes in the concept that there are 11 people who come after the prophet who have a station higher than prophethood, and whose role is almost identical to that of a nabi and whose obedience is compulsory, are automatically disbelievers. As far as your personal opinion goes, if you truly believe that someone who believes in the concept of imamah, as described by their clergy and books, is still a muslim than first you need to justify why Qadianis are muslims as well first.

Beautiful logic! It just so happens that I don't consider the misguided and astray Qadiyanis to be non-Muslim either. Takfir must be based on outright denial of something that is known in the Religion by necessity. Outright denial is different from Ta'wil of the matter. I concur with you that the misguidance of the Twelver Shia is 12 times worse than that of the Qadiyanis. Like I said, if the man who disbelieved in an aspect of our fundamental belief in Qiyamah was not a disbeliever, but in fact praised for his excessive fear of Allah and on that basis pardoned and granted salvation from Hell, then how can we make takfir of someone whose belief in Nubuwwah is not 100% perfect but has distortions?

Therefore, certainly do make تبديع but restrain from making تكفير, it is best to err on the side of caution especially in such a sensitive matter as Takfir.

[Cherub786]

Malware ("Mufti Abu Layth") and champion that Zindiq as a "Sunni scholar" knowing well how controversial that sell out is, all in order to sow discord amongst Sunnis).

Now certainly I am no fan of Mufti Abul Layth and take strong objection to his careless fatawa and generally modernist and liberal attitude toward social issues like celebrating Christmas and the like. Nevertheless, I think it is too harsh to call him a Zindiq. As far as I know, his most controversial beliefs are things like the death of sayyidina Masih عليه السلام and that the splitting of the moon was an eclipse, based on the narration of Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنهما


عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : كُسِفَ الْقَمَرُ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالُوا : سُحِرَ الْقَمَرُ فَنَزَلَتْ اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانْشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ مُسْتَمِرٌّ
Ibn Abbas narrated: The moon was eclipsed in the time of Allah’s Apostle upon whom be peace, but they said: “The moon has been bewitched”, so (the Ayah) was revealed: The Hour has drawn near and the moon has split. And if they see a Sign they turn away and say “passing magic” (Mu’jam al-Kabir of al-Tabarani #11642)


I am actually quite persuaded that these ideas of the Mufti have a strong basis and are not at all zanadaqa or kufr.

As far as I know, Mufti Abul Layth has no professed any belief or idea that is a rejection of anything that must be known in our Religion by necessity (such as rejection of Allah, His Prophet, His Angels, His Scriptures, Resurrection, Heaven and Hell).

[Ebn Hussein]

Assalamualakum!!

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN??!. I have missed you SOOO MUCH on TSD bro. I have been trying to get in touch with you but i couldn't. Im not sure you are aware but bro Farid has been on leave from the TSD for some personal issues. I was thinking that maybe you can fill the gap by coming on TSD live sessions bro!. I dont think you need to worry about the rafidah anymore since the threat to your life has mostly died down somewhat.

As far as this Yahya Seymore person is concerned, i would LOVE for Adnan Rashid to debate him. Did he approach Bro Adnan Rashid recently? or is this right after when Ammar Nakswani called Abu Bakr(RA) a terrorist?. If he approached bro Adnan Rashid recently than that would be amazing. But knowing the rafidah, i would not be a tad bit surprised if he behaved in a similar way as their fictional 12th imam, which is to come out for just a little bit, and than going into Ghaybah forever  .

Aside from everything else, i have always wanted to tell you something personally but never got the chance to. In the era prior to speakers corner debates, i had a hippie liberal muslim mindset when it came to the rafidah. I always thought "as long as some1 says sahada they are muslim" nonsense. But when i saw some of your videos on leftshia4good it cleared up alot of my confusion surrounding the rafidah. I also completely disassociated myself from the practice of Istighatha as well. And when the debates between Sunni and Shia started taking place at speakers corner it only reaffirmed what you stated in your videos. So i just wanted to thank you personally for clearing my confusion and granting me intellectual saqena. May Allah keep you steadfast on the religion and protect you against the raidah. I would really like to hear more from you, so if possible, add me on facebook. Keep up the good work bro.

wa 3alaykum as-salam akhi, was ra7matullah.

Brother, I made it clear on the last tweet on my twitter account that as an Ex-Shia I will never stop waging intellectual war against the Zandaqah called Rafidism, bi2idhnillah. I have never feared for my life, Akhi, especially not from coward Rawafid who threatened my family including my toddlers, that's all they good for. I'm just very busy, maybe in the future I'll be more active currently all I'm able to do is some translation work (for nuneoirz Anti-Rafidi projects).

I'm very happy that I was a sabab/cause for you realising the reality of the pagan Rafidi religion, Alhamdulillah. Private message me bro, inshallah.

As for Abu Layth being a Zindiq: By Allah he's a Zindiq:

https://youtu.be/qglo-oVb9QE

That's not some ikhtilaf here and there, this Zindiq has an agenda and even mocks the idea of converting anyone to Islam, no wonder Rafida champion him as a "true Sunni and Mufti".

Now please let's not derail the topic, the thread is about the shubuhat of Johnny Seymour the Turbaned one.

[Qamar Farooq]

i agree with you totally. But there are certain things, which if you believe in, take you out of Islam EVEN THOUGH they say the Shahada. For example, Qadianis say the Shahada, but it is a consensus that they are not muslims. Why? because acknowledging somebody to be a Prophet, after the prophet Muhammad(pbuh), is kufr. In the same manner, the station of imamat is basically prophethood. They just call them 'Imams' because they think most stupid Sunni muslims will buy into their nonsense. In fact, according to almost every Shia who i have had interactions with, claims that Imamat is SUPERIOR to prophethood. In Summary, anyone who believes in the concept that there are 11 people who come after the prophet who have a station higher than prophethood, and whose role is almost identical to that of a nabi and whose obedience is compulsory, are automatically disbelievers. As far as your personal opinion goes, if you truly believe that someone who believes in the concept of imamah, as described by their clergy and books, is still a muslim than first you need to justify why Qadianis are muslims as well first. 

Now certainly I am no fan of Mufti Abul Layth and take strong objection to his careless fatawa and generally modernist and liberal attitude toward social issues like celebrating Christmas and the like. Nevertheless, I think it is too harsh to call him a Zindiq. As far as I know, his most controversial beliefs are things like the death of sayyidina Masih عليه السلام and that the splitting of the moon was an eclipse, based on the narration of Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنهما


عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : كُسِفَ الْقَمَرُ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالُوا : سُحِرَ الْقَمَرُ فَنَزَلَتْ اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانْشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ مُسْتَمِرٌّ
Ibn Abbas narrated: The moon was eclipsed in the time of Allah’s Apostle upon whom be peace, but they said: “The moon has been bewitched”, so (the Ayah) was revealed: The Hour has drawn near and the moon has split. And if they see a Sign they turn away and say “passing magic” (Mu’jam al-Kabir of al-Tabarani #11642)


I am actually quite persuaded that these ideas of the Mufti have a strong basis and are not at all zanadaqa or kufr.

As far as I know, Mufti Abul Layth has no professed any belief or idea that is a rejection of anything that must be known in our Religion by necessity (such as rejection of Allah, His Prophet, His Angels, His Scriptures, Resurrection, Heaven and Hell).

When it comes to the Rafidah and the Qadiani, to you your opinion and to me my opinion. Me personally?, i think i will stick with thousands of other scholars of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamah who say otherwise. As for Mufti Abu Layth, the problem is not that he has some strange opinion here and there. The problem is that he is taking ALL the strange opinions that could possibly exist and hiding them all under the gel of his hair. That is the real issue here. Anyhow, I just hope that stupid street fighter character doesnt pollute the minds of other clueless impressionable muslims even further. 

[Cherub786]

The problem is that he is taking ALL the strange opinions that could possibly exist and hiding them all under the gel of his hair.

As I said, I'm not fan of this so-called Mufti. He ought to be refuted as strongly as possible. But on what basis is he being called a Zindiq? As I understand it, a zindiq is even worse than a kafir murtad. I find no justification to make takfir of the man, let alone refer to him as a zindiq.

Of course, in my own study, I came to the conclusion that there is no such term as "zindiq" in Islam. It is concocted by jurists.

[Rationalist]

To believe Qadianis are Muslim is Kufr itself. There is an agreement on the finality of Prophethood in the Ummah.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The problem is that he is taking ALL the strange opinions that could possibly exist and hiding them all under the gel of his hair. That is the real issue here.

https://youtu.be/qglo-oVb9QE

That's not some ikhtilaf here and there, this Zindiq has an agenda and even mocks the idea of converting anyone to Islam.

Indeed what Mufti Abu Layth professes is a kind of Zandaqa.

[Cherub786]

Indeed what Mufti Abu Layth professes is a kind of Zandaqa.

I don't think there's any such concept as "zandaqa" in Islam.

[Cherub786]

To believe Qadianis are Muslim is Kufr itself. There is an agreement on the finality of Prophethood in the Ummah.

Making takfir of someone who fails to make takfir of an entire group of people that claim to be Muslim?

Even if that group truly are kuffar, how can you make takfir of someone who disagrees with their takfir?

What about someone who fails to make takfir of someone (me) who fails to make takfir of Qadianis?

Is he  kafir to? Where does the chain of takfir end?

Chain takfir is a huge fitna!

[Rationalist]

Making takfir of someone who fails to make takfir of an entire group of people that claim to be Muslim?

Even if that group truly are kuffar, how can you make takfir of someone who disagrees with their takfir?

What about someone who fails to make takfir of someone (me) who fails to make takfir of Qadianis?

Is he  kafir to? Where does the chain of takfir end?

Chain takfir is a huge fitna!

The reason is there is no other interpretation on the finality of Prophethood. To claim Mizra Ghulaam is a lower ranking Prophet is kufr. With that in mind you are still saying their interpretation is not kufr. The danger comes in when Qadianis are killed for their belief. This is wrong and action should be taken against people who want to harm them.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I don't think there's any such concept as "zandaqa" in Islam.

The term "Zandaqa" may have been introduced by Jurists for classification, Just like Classification of Tawheed, etc. But the actions of Zandaqa did occur in Islamic empire in its early stages and were dealt accordingly.

[Cherub786]

The term "Zandaqa" may have been introduced by Jurists for classification, Just like Classification of Tawheed, etc. But the actions of Zandaqa did occur in Islamic empire in its early stages and were dealt accordingly.

The classification of Tawhid has a basis in the Quran in terms of its essence. Jurists only introduce terminology to describe something that is already essentially present.

But the distinction between kufr and zandaqa, that has no basis from the texts of Islam.

To say the concept of zandaqa is valid because the actions of zandaqa occurred in history is a circular argument. On what basis do you say such examples of zandaqa differ from ordinary kufr?

Therefore, it is wrong to make another category of kufr and call it zandaqa, and furthermore, to start legislating a more severe punishment for zandaqa than kufr.

Maulana Ishaq said, for example, that a zindiq has to be treated differently than a murtad. Whereas a murtad is given three days to recant and re-enter the fold of Islam, he said that a zindiq has to be killed no matter what, even if the zindiq swears he has recanted.

Such stupidity and barbarism is an example of why we have to reject these medieval concepts and just stick with what is clearly established in the Shari'ah.

[Cherub786]

The reason is there is no other interpretation on the finality of Prophethood.

Of course it is open to interpretation. Even orthodox Sunnis have been forced to interpret it to allow for the second coming of a Prophet (Jesus) thousands of years after the death of the Final Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم
Slice it any way you want, that is interpretation (ta'wil).

If someone makes ta'wil of something that is apparent kufr, you cannot make takfir of them.

Remember the story I quoted of the man who believed he would not be resurrected by Allah if he was cremated. He apparently believed Allah has the power to resurrect those that are buried but cannot resurrect cremated remains. That is indisputable kufr, but it is not justification to make takfir on that man. That man was actually forgiven by Allah.

If disbelieving in an aspect of Qiyama and in an aspect of Allah's Qudra is not justification for takfir, how is disbelieving in an aspect of Khatm un Nubuwwah justification to make takfir of someone who otherwise affirms the essential Articles of Faith in Islam, especially La elaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.

Furthermore, Qadianis themselves differ on the idea that Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet. Ghulam Ahmad himself said he is not a prophet in the real sense, but figuratively:

وسُمِّيتُ نبيّا من اللّه على طريق المجاز لا على وجه الحقيقة
اور اللہ کی طرف سے مجھے حقیقی طور پر نہیں بلکہ مجازی طور  پر نبی کا نام دیا گیا ہے۔
And I have been named as a Prophet by Allah in a metaphorical sense, not in the literal sense.”
(Damimah Haqiqat-ul-Wahi pp.64-65; al-Istiftaa pp.154-155)

Now if you consult the writings of Mulla Ali Qari, he stated that making a claim to Nubuwwah metaphorically is not kufr or even bid'ah:

(فكذلك كلّ إمام) أي من الأئمة الاثني عشر (عند هؤلاء) الرافضة (يقوم مقامه في النّبوّة والحجّة) يعني إن أرادوا بها الحقيقة وإلا فالمنزلة المجازية لا توجب الكفر ولا البدعة
"ُThus every Imam, meaning the 12 Imams of these Rafida, are established upon the maqam of Nubuwwah and Hujjah, that is, they mean in reality (literally), and not metaphorically, and (such an idea of metaphor) would not necessitate kufr or bid'a"
(Sharh ash-Shifa v.2 p.519)

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Undercover qadiani posing as sunni alert.
Who you tryna fool.

[Cherub786]

Undercover qadiani posing as sunni alert.
Who you tryna fool.

Looks like you've been debating the Shia for too long. Starting to see Taqaiyya everywhere

[Cherub786]

Look up the etymology of the word Zindiq. It comes from the Zoroastrians, a Middle Persian word "zandik". The ancient Zoroastrians apparently applied it to groups within their tradition they viewed as heretical, like the Zurvanites.

This concept of Zindiq was then apparently imported into Islam due to the Zoroastrian influence.

[Rationalist]

This not site to debate about defending Qadianis. Please leave before you get banned.

[Cherub786]

This not site to debate about defending Qadianis. Please leave before you get banned.

Since I am not doing that why should I leave?

I am debating the issue of Takfir. Or is that not allowed either?