I am not sure what sect you are from, but you sound, as brother Shahid said, like a Qadiani (or perhaps a Khalifite). Your posting is full of the specious reasoning which defenders of those two sects use all the time.

You say:

Declaring someone kafir is in essence we are predetermining his or her final abode. Because the final destiny of a kafir is Hell fire ,according to the Quran. In other words Man has predetermined the fate of another Man. In other words Man has bypassed the due process of Man which is to unfold on the Day of Judgment under the authority of God.

Not true, because a person can be a kaafir (unbeliever) one moment and a Muslim the next, or the other way round. If a someone declares someone to be an unbeliever, he is only saying that the person is at that moment an unbeliever, not that he will always be one.

In addition, takfeer is often taken as a license to kill, by the Muslim extremists, which may make you complicit indirectly in the consequences of takfeer, the boold of those who were victimised by this takfeer may fall on the soulder on all of those who support it.

They do this, in my observation, only in the case of takfeer pronounced on rulers who don’t rule by the Shari’ah, and on those who support them. This is why they kill Iraqis who sign up to join the police force rather than join their movement. I dealt with that in my original post, but it is totally different from takfeer against those who deny things known to be of Islam, such as the prohibition on alcohol and homosexuality.

There is no sin on someone who rightfully declares someone to be an unbeliever if another person goes and kills that person. Where did you get that impression? People are responsible for the deeds of others only if they encouraged them. By pronouncing takfeer alone, if it is correct to do so, one does not acquire guilt for anything someone does without one’s encouragement. (The case of people like Abdullah Faisal, who encouraged his followers to shout “kill him” regarding an American Muslim preacher who said it was not permitted to kill people in the Egyptian army, is different, not only because his grounds for takfeer were dubious to say the least, but also because he actually said it was permitted to kill them, if only theoretically.)

Any one who declare the shahada; the unity of God and the messenger hood of Muhammad, enter the fold of the Muslim community.

And anyone who denies something necessarily known of the religion and which is agreed on by the consensus of the Ummah leaves the fold of Islam, such as by denying that we obey the Prophet (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) according to what we have received through the hadeeth, or the finality of Prophethood with Muhammad (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).

I suspect that this was his intention; either them or the Khalifites, I wasn’t sure which, but it was full of the specious reasoning we are familiar with from defenders of these two sects. I approved it intending to refute it, which I will do later insha Allah.

And thus you allow Qadianis into Islam. Was that your intention?

You do not know me and I do not know you but I am able to know something about you through your writings of your site. What really made me writing these words to you is your sanctioning of the takfeer phenomenon among Muslims. I find it obligatory upon my self to address this issue with those who are sincere about their faith but somehow are entangled with this serious issue of takfeer. And you come across someone sincere about his religion. My admiration to you is for converting to Islam despite all the negative propaganda against Muslims and Islam in our world. Second I salute you for honoring your parents by living with them at this stage of your life, may God Bless you for that.

Now you stated that, “In fact, distinguishing who is a Muslim from who isn’t is part of Islamic scholarship;” You know that Man’s knowledge is limited,hence is subjective and absolutely inconclusive unlike the knowledge of the prophets of God. Man make his or her best to make judgment to manage his affairs either with good intentions or bad intentions and the consequences are determined accordingly.This follows that passing judgment on who is Muslim or not may not necessarily reflect the absolute reality of the true judgment which is rendered by scholar. Scholars may issue judgment in regard to various issues which may not result to profoundly effect Man’s integrity and fate. In addition, takfeer is often taken as a license to kill, by the Muslim extremists, which may make you complicit indirectly in the consequences of takfeer, the boold of those who were victimised by this takfeer may fall on the soulder on all of those who support it. Declaring someone kafir is in essence we are predetermining his or her final abode. Because the final destiny of a kafir is Hell fire ,according to the Quran. In other words Man has predetermined the fate of another Man. In other words Man has bypassed the due process of Man which is to unfold on the Day of Judgment under the authority of God. This follows that Man is overriding God’s role as the Supreme Judge of Mankind. This act alone and that is to transgress God’s limit and authority may merit the status of kufr or unbelief which is clearly highlighted in the Quran. Furthermore, declaring a Muslim to be Kafir by another mortal person; scholar or Muslim authority is clear contradiction to Man’s own status of salvation. The one who wishes to condemn someone else as kafir or “into Hell fire” must guaranty first his own salvation on the Day of Judgment. How could any mortal Man who is not certain of his own final abode whether is going to be in Hellfire or in Heaven, has the gutts to determine the fate of others. None of these Muslim scholars, whom you support and you think they have the authority of determining the fate of others, are able to tell their own fate on the Day of Judgment. Therefore no mortal Man should meddle in these affairs which deals with the final destiny of Man, for they are belong to and to be determined by the Supreme Judge of the universe. Muslim scholars aught to abandon the business of takfeer once and for all and instead focus on the real reasons and factors which have devastated our Muslim people throughout the world, and not become an instrument to further denigrate the progress and well being of Muslims, which the takfeer philosophy do just that. Any one who declare the shahada; the unity of God and the messenger hood of Muhammad, enter the fold of the Muslim community. As for others we deal with them as our counter part of humanity and their final fate rests with Allah alone, for he is the supreme Judge.

Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you. These words are a reminder for me and you.

O Allah you are my Witness that I have conveyed what I think is right.

Wassalamualaikum

Katib

I think that what you’re saying, effectively, is that this is a mere theological dispute between different religious traditions.

I accept that there are either theological roots, or manifestations, of Sunni-Shia emnity. There are deep and nasty divisions between most sects, and most religions: at least those which claim an exclusive message for the whole world. That doesn’t bother me. Well, it bothers me a bit, I suppose. But what you hope and expect people in a pluralist society to do - a society like the UK or the US, for example - is to gloss over those points of conflict, and not to stir up hatred.

Take one of the central claims of Christianity: that the Jews orchestrated the death of Jesus. Now, there are many reasons to doubt that this was the case. However, be that as it may, most polite Christians do not harp on about it, and most polite Jews do not seek out opportunities to be offended by the charge. All very nice and civilised, see?

Now, if a demagogic Christian preacher turned up and gave a sermon, to his followers - which they then put on the internet!! - not simply reading the scripture, not merely noting in passing what the Bible said, but addressing the point directly, said:

“With regard to the Jews, really they are the most murderous lot in the world. In other words, it is a part of their religion… that they are allowed to murder …. They have an ascription to one of their Rabbis - “Murder is nine tenths of this religion”. Now by the way I’m speaking of their religion that is based on certain knowledge. I have their main book, the Talmud …I have looked over it, I have read their chapters. I’m not taking this from what the Jews say. The Jews are allowed to lie. It is their religion to lie. Ok. Any person who knows the Jews knows this. 90% of their own religion, by their own statement, is lies. They are allowed to lie… they lie about having murdered Jesus. The Jews killed God! They are murderers!”

What would you say then?

Would you say - well, its all just theology, isn’t it? It is just what some people believe. I mean, it isn’t as if millions have been killed over religious disputes like this. Go on, let him in to the country. Broadcast him on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Have him at a revivalist meeting, and get senior politicians from all three main parties, plus the SWP, to turn up and congratulate everybody on what a splendid conference it has been.

Wouldn’t happen, would it?

Come on!

If it is “commonly known of Islam… that extramarital sex … is forbidden” then logically muslims should favour gay marriage because they believe marriage is a good thing and so “gay marriage is a good thing and Islam is for what is good”. Of course, it may be less good than ungay marriage or they may even believe that gay marriage would not be good but merely be less bad than forbiddding it and giving gays no choice but to practise extramarital sex. There are logical problems too- how many people could male and female gay muslims marry, for example? What about bisexual muslims?- or perhaps the lady thinks that muslims should not practise homosexuality but if they live in a society where nonmuslims are going to practise homosexuality without lapidation it would be better if they did so in a marital relationship than an extramarital relationship. I don’t think she can be fairly called a kaafir in these circumstances.

This is not an honest account of what he says.

Qadhi makes it very clear that the exculpates Shiites who, basically, ‘don’t know the truth about their religion’.

Just like anti-Muslim bigots let off the hook, Muslims who ‘don’t know the truth about the Quran’, etc.

You’re using precisely the same arguments.

Oh, and can you tell me what the punishment is for a Muslim who becomes an apostate?