Qadri’s fatwa breaks no new ground

The London Evening Standard yesterday had a two-page feature on a forthcoming fatwa by the leader of the Minhaj-ul-Quran group, Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, which unequivocally condemns suicide bombings. The feature is dominated by a picture of an al-Muhajiroun demonstration, but features a long article by Allegra Mostyn-Owen, a former wife of Boris Johnson who is now married to a much younger Muslim man who is associated with Qadri’s organisation; a shorter article is by Douglas Murray of the “Centre for Social Cohesion”, a London think-tank notorious for hostility to Muslims and Muslim organisations. Mostyn-Owen’s article includes an interview with Dr Qadri himself in which he makes some sweeping generalisations about Muslims outside his group; both articles grossly overestimate his influence. (More: Brian Whitaker @ Comment is Free, Salman @ Rumoured.)

To begin with, Qadri’s fatwa is not by any means the first to condemn the use of suicide bombings, and he is not even the first supposedly genuine Islamic scholar to issue one. The tactic has always been controversial; there have been some scholars who approve of it, but since suicide itself is against Islam and the tactic originated among non-Muslims (the Japanese in World War II followed by the Tamil Tigers), its adoption was never likely to be universally accepted. Specifically, the mainstream Saudi Wahhabi scholars publically condemned it years ago, including a denial that suicide bombers were martyrs, as did a mainstream Sunni scholar called Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, who is Malaysian but who lives in Oxford. Contrary to Douglas Murray’s accusations that Muslim condemnations of violence always contain caveats and double-talk, none of them make exceptions for, say, Israeli civilians. Dr Akiti’s fatwa specifically states that soldiers on the way back to the army base, for example, are not to be treated as combatants. Shaikh Nuh Keller, in 2003, disapproved of Palestinian suicide bombings on the grounds that suicide was against Islam and that they involve the killing of women and children, and unlike in cases such as those in Lebanon where fighters had killed enemy soldiers along with themselves, the “victories” spoken of in Palestine were only “propaganda victories”.

A further problem is that Tahir ul-Qadri is not by any means a universally accepted figure in the Muslim community, either here or in Pakistan. His authority is not accepted by all Barelvis, which is what is meant by “Sunni” and “Sufi” throughout this article. His fatwa will be accepted by his followers, who are likely never to have supported suicide bombings anyway, and ignored by a whole lot of other people. Having spent time among the Barelvis in east London (Walthamstow to be precise), I can state for sure that he is bitterly opposed by some of the Barelvi imams in that part of London. A Deobandi imam I spoke to in south London several years ago called him “a complete jahil”, meaning an ignorant person, and “an outcast, even for the Barelvis”. Mostyn-Owen claims that he has “the status of a Sheikh-ul-Islam”, but this is not accepted by much of the community and never has been. In the past, only the highest class of scholars had this title, many of them household names centuries later, as well as the official chief scholars of the Ottoman empire. Among the Indo-Pakistani community, there are plenty of imams whose followers give them high-flown titles and extol their phenomenal scholarship, but there is no sign of that scholarship or spirituality flourishing in the parts of London they influence.

Some of Qadri’s comments in this interview reveal his divisive, sectarian nature. Regarding Deobandis, he says:

As Dr ul-Qadri sees it, no terrorists have emerged from a Sunni or Sufi background: instead, they have come from the Salafis (Wahhabis) or Deobandis. The Deobandis are a South Asian variant which is close to the Gulf-orientated Wahhabis.

“Every Salafi and Deobandi is not a terrorist but I have no hesitation in saying that everyone is a well-wisher of terrorists and this has not been appreciated by the Western governments,” he said.

This simply isn’t true. Deobandis are recognised by Sunnis elsewhere in the Muslim world as Sunnis, and scholars from the Gulf who are not Wahhabis have travelled to the Indian subcontinent to study in Deobandi institutions. The similarities between Deobandis and Brelvis, regardless of their very different appearance and style, are much greater than between the Deobandis and the Wahhabis of today, who reject the Deobandis because of their adherence to the Hanafi school of law and various Sufi traditions. The main divide between the Deobandis and Barelvis is a bitter dispute over what some of the early Deobandi imams may or may not have written in their books a century ago which led to the Barelvis’ leader issuing a fatwa saying that the Deobandi scholars concerned were apostates. This is what it is all based on, along with disputes over such matters as whether celebrating the mawlid (birthday) of the Prophet (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is acceptable — something the Deobandis, particularly in the UK, have moved towards accepting as more moderate forms of it have become apparent, such as in the Hadrami tradition.

So, that the MQ group in London opposed the Abbey Mills mosque project is nothing surprising; Abbey Mills was a Deobandi project and Barelvis would have wanted it stopped for their own reasons even if they do not normally openly oppose them. The concern about “extremism” is just an excuse. It is not a sign of their commitment to peace, only of their hostility to Deobandis. The claim about Wahhabis being “well-wishers of terrorists” is also a lie. As already stated, the official Saudi scholars have always opposed terrorism, whether in Palestine or anywhere else. They are especially suspicious of groups seeking to wage jihad and ultimately to replace the Saudi regime. From talking to individual Deobandis personally I can state that his claim that they are all well-wishers is false as well. It’s true that many Deobandis supported the Taliban in the 1990s, but I would imagine that some Barelvis did as well. Certainly, they were active in the religious parties which governed Baluchistan and the NWFP under Musharraf. They are not nearly as pacifist as they make out when talking about “peace” to western newspapers.

Douglas Murray is also deluded about the importance and reach of Qadri’s fatwa. He claims that it “has the possibility of being respected by a far wider range of people than any of those individual non-scholarly Muslim voices who have also condemned terrorism without caveat”. Again, they are not all non-scholarly, but Qadri’s reach is to his own followers, and not many others. Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims will simply not take someone seriously as an upright Muslim, let alone a scholar, if their beard is trimmed to less than what they can grab with their fist, and this is the case with Qadri. He also claims that “the most violent interpretations of Islam have indeed trickled down to terrorists via learned scholars”, which is also mostly untrue. The justifications generally come from people with dubious scholarly credentials, are heavily based on skewed interpretations and extrapolations and are rejected by most actual scholars. Even if an individual who gives an extreme ruling, whether permissive or otherwise, is a scholar, Muslims are not allowed to accept it if it is known that most other scholars oppose him, and there are likely to be warnings not to take his word on that issue.

In short, this is a rather insignificant development which shows how ignorant the western press are about the make-up of the Muslim community and about Muslim scholarship. The fatwa will be taken up by people within the Minhaj-ul-Quran organisation and a few fellow-travellers, but most of those outside will have received similar rulings in the past anyway. As for those who do approve of this kind of thing, many of them either despise Dr Qadri and this will come as no surprise to them; others are likely never to have heard of him. It could be that it turns out to be an unusually comprehensive piece of work and may become a standard text on those grounds, but given how extensive Dr Akiti’s existing work on this matter is, I find that unlikely. It is a predictable stance by a sectarian figure, and its impact is likely to be very limited.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
  • http://www.bayyinat.org.uk/cv2.htm Yakoub

    Although I agree with your core argument about this being a sectarian spat, and I personally consider his comments about Deobandis inexcusable, I’m not sure if I agree with you about Minhaj-ul-Quran’s influence or Qadri’s scholarly credentials. On the influence of MUQ, see Professor Ron Geaves’ analysis of them in Malik and Hinnell’s “Sufism in the West”. As for his qualifications, Qadri is from Jhang and I gather his family are part of Jhang’s long-standing and thriving religious bourgoisie. However, perhaps that might be a further source of contention, in that I understand Jhang has a tradition of tolerance between Sunni and Shi’a.

  • waqas amin

    Salam brother

    You are entitled to your views; you’ve raised some noteworthy points: the west no matter how hard it tries never really understands the divisions between the Muslims.

    But personally looking through this fatwa, and reading the other fatwas you’ve mentioned above, Dr. Qadri’s fatwa is different. I am not exaggerating if i say that this is the final word on the subject.

    The fatwa itself has the verdicts of all the prominent scholars of the four sunni schools of thought, as well a whole chapter dedicated to Salafi scholars and their condemnation of terrorism.

    All that’s needed really is an open mind. This fatwa is inclusive of Barelwise, Deobandis, and Salafis. Anyone from these groups who approaches this fatwa will have to accept to it, because rejecting it would entail rejecting one’s own scholars and leadings authorities.

    As for its impact I feel that it will be historical. what’s different with Dr. Qadri is that it he has a universal appeal both amongst Non-Muslims in the West and the Muslims in the east… this is something which very few scholars have. Also he is the first Pakistani to give such a verdict and as Pakistan is the safe haven of terrorism today, its significance is much more.

    As for Dr. Qadri’s religious standing he is accepted amongst some of the greatest authorities around the world: his hadith collection al-minhaj as-sawi is accepted and certified by the leadings authorites of Egypt’s al-Azhar and Syria; likewise he is widely respected by the greater authories; as for petty- middle ranking mediocre scholars there’s no reason to be concerned with such people- jealousy blinds.

  • sajuk

    First mistake he made was his comments about Deobandis we here in the UK are under constant attack we need unity more than anything and for such a learned man to sew division like this is naive at best and mischief making at worst! Whatever your views of other groups no Deobandi or Tablighi would ever attack other Muslims to the Western Media like this really makes me feel physically sick and sad we can talk about our differences amongst ourselves but to attack each other like this is a bad sign especially when our entire way of like form how we eat to how we dress to how we prey is under attack from ever quarter!

    Why is he slandering so many Muslims like this??? Is he doing this because he is a “living saint”? what is that anyway who decides? Did the Pro[het believe in such a concept?

  • http://www.zaufishan.co.uk Zaufishan

    Masha’Allah, relevant stuff. Rather than take sides listen to what is being said, published and look at it from every viewpoint but most importantly the right - Islamic viewpoint. Media generally doesn’t follow the ‘right/wrong’ morales, in saying that, nor does every ‘Muslim leader’. … sigh I’ma come back inshAllah to read this again, maybe print it!

    http://www.muslimness.com .-= Zaufishan´s last blog ..Analyzing Surah Al Mulk (essay pt. 2) =-.

  • http://www.salafimanhaj.com AbdulHaq al-Ashanti

    It is utterly disingenuous for Ed Husain, Douglas Murray and Qadri to make out as if this the only religious ruling ever given on suicide bombings. This is farce in itself, and Qadri was also no doubt an expendable pawn to justify another rant from Murray.

    And yes, the Salafi Ulama issued rulings on suicide bombings in the 1990s when it was not a fashion trend to do so.

  • Old Pickler

    So, cut to the chase - is suicide bombing wrong or not? The reason why we “ignorant” Westerners have wanted a fatwa like this is because so many Muslims equivocate and say it’s wrong to kill “innocents” (by which they exclude Israelis or even all non-Muslims).

    The onus is on Musims to prove that they are opposed to suicide murder, since it is Muslims who do it

  • Faisal Hussain

    Fact remains,

    There are various reasons why no one should, or can, refute this Fatwa.

    1) The spirit and content of this fatwa is an ACTIVE step (First one) towards the beginning of an intellectual war against terrorism. For Muslims it is the first of a series of treatments to help rid this community of its cancer. Refuting this fatwa will be equal to stopping a cancer patient from having treatment or stopping the doctor from treating the cancer.

    2) Writing “Water” on a piece of paper doesn’t mean that piece of paper will also get wet. Off-course a prescription is just a piece of paper until you actually take the medicine prescribed. Real attributes of a text are in its meaning. This text doesn’t leave any grounds for anyone to exploit, or even innovate, a mentality that can justify terrorism. The good thing about it, as Waqas Amin has mentioned, is that if any school of thought within Muslims refute this Fatwa it will in effect mean they will be refuting their own school of thought. It represents all and while doing that it guides and corrects some back to their original teachings, which are long forgotten.

    3) Every Non-Muslim can also not refute this and this includes those who think we didn’t need a fatwa to tell us killing people is wrong. More than 15000 people die due to drink driving in USA every year. There are countless texts, papers, laws, documentaries, adverts, talk shows, etc.. etc.. educating people that drink driving kills and it kills more than what terrorists do today. You could say you don’t need to spend millions on telling people that drink driving kills, its bloddy obvious. In the US this year, So far 1875 people have already lost their lives due to drink driving, only in 2010. This is just an example. Education before legislation is the civilised way of resolving a social issue.

    4) With all due respect, this disease is not inherent and we all know it is an infiltration, it was imported or should I say smuggled into the Muslim world, then systematically nurtured and then left to grow until it has turned into a plague, an outbreak that is also contagious to those with a weak mental capacity. This link may help understand what I mean (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeYvNYdZ9oQ). This now affects everyone, just like the whole world seems to be taking precautions against swine flu. This fatwa is a prescription to cure an outbreak.. Use it as a face mask, or a sterilizing gel or however but please go ahead and use it and also go ahead and encourage others to use it too because you wouldn’t really like your loved ones to be infected by this dangerous life threatening killer of terrorism? Use it even more in vulnerable areas just like you use swine flue precautions in hospitals where the vulnerable are. Make sure this is available to that troubled youngster in those troubled areas who is at the brink of making the worst decision of his/her life. Make sure this is in the hand and mind of that individual who feels hard done by or unfairly treated or desperate. Be there to prevent at the right time on the right place. This is mind changing conviction driven stuff, this is authentic, this is un-deniable, this has authentic references in case you feel like denying, this is the real thing in text and spirit.

    5) When a youngster shoots some of his fellow student dead in a university campus the first think remedial authorities do is send a group of psychologists to understand how and why. You start seeing documentaries explaining what caused this and work starts on prevent. There has never been an offensive reaction to such incidents; however offensive reaction was the first step against terrorism or terrorists with no effort placed on identifying how and why. There has always been an intellectual approach that has been taken to understand a problem within the society and action has been taken to deal with it from a grass root level. This Fatwa tries to address the issue at a grass root level with a workable approach.

    In the big scheme of things I believe this Fatwa is stronger than that bomb you drop on a group of terrorists as it is very much likely that the same bomb may be giving birth to as many terrorists as killed. Need not forget that the bomb will kill a father or brother or mother or sister or daughter or son… Don’t you think that is the right person at the right time suitable to be recruited by a terrorist?

    This is a message, just as strong, now available to counter ideologies that make a terrorist. This message needs to be made available, summarised if needs be, re-worded and translated to make sure it is read and understood by all age groups and people from all groups of life. Instead of launching bombs, throw summaries and extracts of this Fatwa onto people in effected areas so that people may read it, absorb it, understand it and transmit it…. Give them an alternative, give them a chance.

  • Khalid

    Faisal Hussain.

    No one is disputing the fact that terrorism and suicide bombing are haram in Islam and Islamic Scholars, all over the world ( including Salafi and Deobandi ulema In Pakistan for example)have issued fatwas to this affect. What is so disappointing and hurtful for Muslims is Tahir-ul-Qadri’s generaliastion and slandering of fellow muslim brothers when he says they( Deobandis/Salafis) are all well wishers of the terrorists. This is an absolute nonsense. This is an allegation we are used to hear from neo-con/zionist propaganda machine , and others who are driven by hatred of Islam and Muslims. When a so called scholar of Islam subscribes to such a baseless propaganda for sectarian motives, one has to seriously question his credential as a Muslim scholar. Does Qur’an not say ‘Hold on firmly to the rope of Allah and be not divided’? Is ‘Sheikh-ul-Islam’ not aware of it? If he was realy serious in issuing a fatwa against terrorism/suicide bombing,he could have tried to bring together Muslim scholars from all schools of thought in the UK and put forward a joint declaration. This would have achieved the goal of condemning terrorism in clear terms at the same time maintaining the muslim unity. In Pakistan Muslim scholers have done just that. While I am writing these lines, a joint press conference is being held in Karachi by Barelvi and Deobandi ulema , issuing fatwa agaist sectarian violence and terrorism.

    It is unfortunate that some Muslim Scholars, perhaps for worldy gains would not hesitate to demonise their own Muslim brothers in clear violation of islamic injunctions. Slandering a whole section of Muslim community is not a prerequisite for condemning terrorism and thats where Tahir-ul-Qadri has failed. He should be aware of the fate of Sufi Muslim coucil and Quilliam foundation who tried to to dance to the tunes of zionist/ neo-con propaganda machine and failed miserably.

    By the way I myself come from a Barelvi background ,though I try not to let it overshadow my Muslin identity.

  • waqas amin

    Salam… I want to add another comment.

    Dr. Qadri’s discrimination againsts certain Muslims is actually his theological position which he had derived from the sunnah of the Holy Prophet. If it seems secterian then its only because he is following the letter and spirit of the tradition.

    Dr. Qadri in no way whatsoever is siding with anyone out of his whim- be they Muslim or non-Muslim: This is his position which he has derived directly from the sunnah so you cannot blame him- you will have to put forward a theological/scriptural challenge not one based on emotions or popularist notions.

    If you want to know the sources from which he has derived his theological position then you will have to read his fatwa: refer to chapter 7 concerning the Khwarij; or you can read his hadith collection called: al-intibah li’l-khwarij wa’l-harura (the warning concerning the khwarij and harura)which can be accessed online on Minhaj books:

    http://www.minhajbooks.com/english/control/btext/cid/8/bid/375/btid/1976/read/img/%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%86%DB%81%20%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC%20%DA%A9%D8%A7%20%D8%A2%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%8C%20%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF%20%D9%88%20%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%20%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA.html

    There are three sections in this chapter within chapter 7 of the fatwa which sets out a scripture-based policy of how to deal with terrorist and extremists. If you read it then you will actually understand why Dr. Qadri made the comment he made. I don’t think its out of his personal enmity, but out of his honest feelings about the situation taking place today. Living in Pakistan and having been involved in the political administration from within he is entitled to make such a view because he is at the end of the day a first-hand observer of the situation there. As for his strong-headed approach and condemnation then it is because he is following the sunnah of the Holy Prophet.

    The point is Dr. Qadri through his research of the Qur’an and sunnah has legally derived the ruling that when the Khwarij appear at any given time or moment it is incumbent on Muslim authorites to do everything they can do to totally annihilate and obliterate the Khwarij. The Khwarij today are the terrorists and extremist who legitimize the killings of non-combatants, and as the deobandi and salafi scholars reject it they are in no way the khwarij per say; but however you must be honest with yourself and accept that those who are khwarij usually tend to be extremist from that spectrum (this my personal experience through the last many years meeting Muslims of all kinds this is why I beleive it and agree with that not all deobandis and salafis are khwarij, majority of them have nothing to do with the khwarij, but whenever I meet a khwariji it is always from a deobandi and salafi background; I’m still yet to meet a Barelwi Khwariji or Sufi khwariji).

    This is the policy that Dr. Qadri is following; he has made it clear that there is no negotiation with the Khwarij as they have to be destroyed like the way Allah destroyed the Aad and Thamud. The Khwarij are the worst of creation (this is not Dr. Qadri’s self indulged opinion but is the express words of the Holy Prophet). So when the worst of creation show up and declare war and kill innocent people be they Muslim or non-Muslim it is incumbent on all Muslims who are not Khwarij regardless they are Barelwi, Deobandi, Salafi or Shia to unite against them and obliterate them completely. And those who do not follow this policy are no different to the Khwarij in meaning, though in appearance they may have nothing to do with them.

    I’ll give you some references from the Sunnah so you can see how Dr. Qadri made his mind up about the Khwarij:

    1) Sahih Bukhari: bab qatli khwarij wa’l-mulhidin #6531 No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

    This is the ruling concerning the Khwarij which Dr. Qadri has based his view upon. It is a Sahih Hadith of Bukhari which states that the Khwarij will be young brainwashed individuals who will have no religion. And what is to be done with such people who appear at the end of time? They are to be obliterated by those who are against terrorism, there is no other option.

    2) If one reads Sahih Muslim and refers to Kitab az-Zakah there is two chapter dedicated by Imam Muslim on the Khwarij some hadiths state:

    A) The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: From this very person’s posterity there would arise people who would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throat; they would kill the followers of Islam and would spare the idol-worshippers. They would glance through the teachings of Islam so hurriedly just as the arrow passes through the prey. If I were to ever find them I would kill them like ‘Ad.

    B) (The Holy Prophet) said: There would arise a people from the progeny of this (man) who would recite the Qur’an glibly, but it would not go beyond their throats; they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) religion just as the arrow passes through the prey. I conceive that he (the Holy Prophet) also said this: If I find them I would certainly kill them as were killed the (people of) Thamud.

    C) Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a mention of a sect that would be among his Ummah which would emerge out of the dissension of the people. Their distinctive mark would be shaven heads. They would be the worst creatures or the worst of the creatures. The group who would be nearer to the truth out of the two would kill them.

    D)Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A group would secede itself (from the Ummah) when there would be dissension among the Muslims. Out of the two groups who would be nearer the truth would kill them.

    E) There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of judgment.

    F) Verily there would arise from my Ummah after me or soon after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures.

    G) Usair b. ‘Amr reported that he inquired of Sahl b. Hunaif: Did you hear the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) making a mention of the Khwarij? He said: I heard him say (and he pointed with his hand towards the east) that these would be a people who would recite the Qur’an with their tongues and it would not go beyond their collar bones. They would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey.

    You see? These are Sahih Hadiths which are recorded in Bukhari and Muslim the common point between them is that:

    The khwarij will outwardly look religious but internally will be hypocrites, they will be the worst of creation, they will call to goodness but their intentions would be incorrect, they will attack the believers and consider their blood to be legitimate, these will be young people who will be brainwashed and they will appear time and time again until the day of judgement. So if you find them kill them and destroy and obliterate them like the way God destroyed Ad and thamud. So this is what Dr. Qadri is pursuing, he is following the practice of Ali who was the first person to destroy the Khwarij, and this process will continue till the end of time, when the Khwarij will finally side with the Dajjal.

    This is what is different about this fatwas from all other fatwas. The other fatwas condemn terrorism, but Dr. Qadri’s fatwa prescribes a no-nonsense and strict policy for their elimination. This is what is different: no Muslim scholar today has given a theological position of how to eliminate terrorism they have only condemned it and affirmed Islam’s orthodox position concerning its condemnation of terrorism and suicide bombings.

    Dr. Qadri is not seceterian he has nothing against Deobandis or Salafis that’s why he has included their scholars in the fatwa. However, he is 100% against the Khwarij and wants nothing but their total elimination (and remember he has based his view on the hadith of the Holy Prophet and the verdicts of past scholars). If Dr. Qadri is seceterian then he would have taken obsecure examples of how deobandis and salafis legitimze terrorism; but he did the complete opposite, he showed that the Salafis and deobandi scholars have the same position as all other Muslim groupings. How the media presents his views is a different case because they have their own aims to fulfill, but Dr. Qadri knows who he serves, and he is not in need of homage of any people regardless how powerful they are.

    Dr. Qadri explictly states that his views are based on his honest readings of the Quran and sunnah, and that he wants to please the Holy Prophet. So if the Holy Prophet has commanded for the destruction of the Khwarij then Dr. Qadri as the servant of the Holy Prophet will do exactly what the Holy Prophet wants- this is not being seceterian this is what it means to be Muslim.

  • Umar

    Jazakallah’Khair for the commentary Br Yusuf, most balanced and hits the nail on the head, I have always tried my utmost to extend all Muslims of the cloth a special respect regardless of their background, but this individuals statements are unforgiveable, my brother graduated from A deobandi madaris, he is the the most passive and gentle guy you can meet. So for this ‘Shaykh’ to make such baseless slurs and statements against fellow Muslims means he will never be trusted by the mainstream again…even thogh he wasn’t before.

  • LeedsLad

    What shocks me is the need for a “fatwa” when common sense would have been enough. Its not bravery to commit suicide attacks, but working hard for years to beat your enemies at their own game.

    Suicide bombing kills those who are closest to you, and it is just nonsense to use such tactics in a world where your killers are flying drones in the skies.

  • Abbas

    My experience of media representation of Muslims has never been one that I wish to keep stored in my long term memory. The claim that Minhaj ul Quran welcomed the ban of the proposed plans for the building of a Mosque at the Olympic site is unfounded and untrue. What was actually said was that the proposed project could have benefited from a wider representation from within the Muslim community of the Borough of Newham and therefore perhaps have been more successful as a community initiative. At no point was anything mentioned about supporting the ban of the proposed building of a Mosque. Perhaps it is human nature to believe everything you read in the papers. Dr Tahir ul Qadri has throughout his life worked strenuously on dealing with sectarian division and sectarian violence as well as discrimination against minority communities. He was instrumental and at the forefront in terms of providing charismatic leadership which resulted in Sunni Shia acceptance of one another in Pakistan which saved many innocent lives from being lost. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_27fW5hRWI&feature=related In respect to the Deobandhi’s and Wahabi’s the brother speaks about above and Dr Tahir ul Qadri’s views regarding them I would like to bring to your attention my brother that it is Dr Tahir ul Qadri that has always promoted unity within the Muslims. The Brelvi’s of Waltham Forest you referred to who according to you dislike Dr Qadri do so precisely because of their disapproval of his accepting disposition. This link is for the elaboration of your knowledge in respect to Dr Qadri’s position regarding deobandhi’s and wahabi’s as you will find he is from a the tradition of classical Muslim scholarship that promote tolerance and peace. In particular I think you’ll find the following links very useful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhncHplAzCM
    Qazi Hussain Ahmed referring to Dr Qadri as Shaykh ul Islam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nugLwCgr020&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4wqQ3Gll8 In the above link you’ll hear Qazi Hussain Ahmed refer to Dr Qadri as Shaykh ul Islam somebody who as everybody knows is the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami and undoubtedly not of brelvi denomination. Many examples can be cited but I think for the open minded those cited above suffice. Dr Tahir ul Qadri has worked his whole life not only on unity within the Muslim community but has spent decades working on interfaith cohesion. Newspapers may print false or misrepresented statements but one should weigh up a person’s life and works and form opinions based on sound principles of judgement rather than merely commenting without any knowledge of what was said, when, how and why.

  • Pingback: Radical Muslim :: Shaikh Dr Tahir ul-Qadri - Anti-Terrorism Fatwa Without Teeth :: March :: 2010

  • Mohammed Amin

    This cobbled together nonsense - lacking in fundamental inaccuracies.

    There is a great difference between Barelwi and Deobandi school of thought.

    This is a bit like Qadiani calling themselves Muslims and non-Muslims

    Deobandis call themselves Sunni - there is no issue of recognition.

    Pathetic attempt at discrediting Dr Qadri.

    but Qadri’s reach is to his own followers, and not many others. Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims will simply not take someone seriously as an upright Muslim, let alone a scholar, if their beard is trimmed to less than what they can grab with their fist, and this is the case with Qadri.

    And Yusuf - you obviously are not biased. This is the sillies argument I have heard. Dr Qadri does not trim his beard - he simply dose not have any more.

  • Pingback: Fatwa Against Jihadist Terrorism « A Rabbit's Eye View of the Hyperborean North

  • Hamid

    I just want to make two points. Firstly, there is no such thing as a ‘universally accepted’ scholar in Islam today, so there is no relevance to that point. Everyone has their critics. Secondly, most terrorists do come from a Wahabi/Deobandi background. Not to say all or even most wahabi’s support terrorism but they do sympathise with them a lot more because they are more prone to hate in general by their hardline stance.

  • Abdullah

    There has been a lot of fuss over the fatwa of Tahir ul-Qadri – released in London today - and after receiving the PR from the Quilliam Foundation about the issue my interest was doubly aroused, since this is not the first time this particular fatwa has been released.

    In fact, this fatwa was initially released in Pakistan and Canada, with translations available in both English and Arabic, in December 2009. It was subsequently released in the UK in January.

    However, after being available online in English for a while, the fatwa was taken down within the last week in the run-up to the “re-launch”, heavily backed by the Quilliam Foundation who sponsored the speech. The reason for this removal could be due to passages such as this, found online on a cached page:

    “Injustice being currently meted out to the Muslims in certain matters, double standards displayed by bigger powers and their open-ended and long-term military engagements in a number of countries, under the pretext of eliminating terror, form some of the fundamental local, national and international causes that underpin terrorism, and add a punch to the war cry of militants”

    Passages like this undermine the core call of Quilliam, who claim that it is “Islamists” who set the mood music for terrorism, and grievances are not a sufficient explanation. Therefore – the fatwa has to be retranslated, after all – the newly claimed reason for its authorship by Tahir ul-Qadri is that “he felt compelled to issue the edict because of concerns about the radicalisation of British Muslims at university campuses and because there had been a lack of condemnation of extremism by Muslim clerics and scholars.” Therefore passages such as the above may prove unsuitable for the Western audience of politicians etc. This is despite the fact that terrorism has been condemned time and time again by a multitude of scholars as any google search will throw up.

    Anyhow back to Quilliam, who helpfully define “Islamists” and “Islamism” in their FAQs as:

    “The modernist attempt to claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari’ah equates to state law, and that it is a religious duty on all Muslims to create a political entity that reflects the above…In short, Islamism is the belief that Islam is a political ideology.”

    Now, Tahir ul-Qadri has written many books in English. Just by looking at one of them – “Islam – the State Religion” – found online

    We find he has said the following:

    He claims that “there is a fundamental contrast between an Islamic state and a secular state.” Why? Because “ The authority of a secular state derives from the people themselves. Religion plays no obligatory role in its functioning. But the authority of an Islamic state derives from the Almighty Allah”. He also claims that “Islam is the basis of polity in an Islamic state”, and that the first constitution of Madinah “declared the state of Madinah as a political unit”. He also mentions that the constitution declared the “indivisible composition of the Muslim nation (Ummah) and its total and unquestioning submission to the will of God”.

    Furthermore, in a tip to the “dar ul Islam/ dar al-Kufr” split in Islamic political view, he mentions that “In the Holy Quran God Himself has categorically expressed the concept of two-nation theory. There are those people who belong to the Ummah and there are those who are outside it” those who embrace Islam, and those who reject from the other nation”

    He also believes in the “Supremacy of Islam over other systems of life” and that “a state is Islamic only when it recognises the constitutional and political predominance of Islam”. With respect to modern constitutions, Tahir ul-Qadri says “since the constitution itself is a document of law, it has to derive its validity from Qur’an and Sunnah”, and modern political rulers have the “religious and moral responsibility to implement the “revealed laws””. In fact – he rejects secular rule stating that “a constitution is a man-made law and by no means it can be declared superior to a God-made law” and that “no authority in the land can suspend enforcement or curtail the implementation of Shariah”

    In other words – he is a man who believes in the Sovereignty of God’s law, that Shari’ah equates to State law, that it is a political duty for Muslims to create a political entity that reflects that. In short – there is no doubt that Tahir ul-Qadri sees Islam as a political ideology, whatever Harry’s Place may tell us. Perhaps Tahir ul-Qadri does believe in democracy and human rights, but as is clear from the above his conception of such a State is where the people choose Islam and the rights are defined by Islam. As he mentions in other books, hudood prescriptions are primary/ core issues in the law which must be implemented unless there are societal reasons such as famine or lack of education to do so.

    Ed Husain writing in the Guardian has proclaimed Tahir ul Qadri as “the head of a global social movement of mainstream Muslims, a teacher to thousands, and a compassionate Muslim leader who has drawn millions to normative Islam”.

    In other words – the ideas mentioned above are all part of normative Islam. Which means, according to the Quilliam Foundation themselves – “Islamism” is part of “normative Islam”.

    Which brings us to the point – exactly why are people like Ed Hussain, Douglas Murray and Harry’s Place promoting Tahir ul Qadri? While Douglas Murray and Harry’s Place obviously have no clue about this man, nor any clue that rather than being against “Islamism” as they define and hate it, but rather he is against other “Islamic sects” which he claims are “conservative”, Ed and the Quilliam Foundation surely have no excuse for this underhanded sleight of hand? This is hardly the first fatwa condemning suicide bombings or terrorism, and coming from a man whose political party achieved 0.7% of the vote in 2002 Pakistani elections there is doubt that he is the most popular to have done so either.

    Ed claims “Shaikh Tahir is a leader of that caravan of ordinary Muslims, trying to rescue our Islam from the Saudi clerics that issue fatwas of death, and leading the way for announcing fatwas against death”.

    Ahhh, so now we get it. This isn’t about “Islamism” at all. Its Quilliam and Minhaj ul Quran politicking to discredit “conservatives” (read” Deobandis” and “Salafi/ Wahabis”) and ingratiate themselves to a political class that has no clue about the inner workings of the wider Muslim community. They are probably also jealous of the work that Andrew Gilligan did on his dispatches program without so much as involving them, and wanted to steal the limelight back.

    It all makes sense now. Petty divisiveness and attempts to garner more government money by looking relevant.

    Confused?

    That’s what 1£ million of taxpayers money gets you.

  • Abbas

    Brother Abdullah for your information the Quilliam foundation DID NOT fund or sponsor the fatwa launch. Please check your facts out before commenting otherwise you run the risk of falling into the category of people governed by the Hadith of the Prophet PBUH regarding hearsay. Just a quick correction you mentioned: The reason for this removal could be due to passages such as this, found online on a cached page:

    “Injustice being currently meted out to the Muslims in certain matters, double standards displayed by bigger powers and their open-ended and long-term military engagements in a number of countries, under the pretext of eliminating terror, form some of the fundamental local, national and international causes that underpin terrorism, and add a punch to the war cry of militants” If you refer to the actual English document that was released you will find to your surprise that this passage is documented on page 24, therefore if it was an issue as you suggest and contrary to Quilliam foundations objectives it would have been edited out of the documented text. Please check your facts don’t talk nonsense instigated by personal bias. The Quilliam foundation were merely participants as were many other organisations.

  • http://rumoured.wordpress.com Salman

    assalam alaykum

    Jzk for this excellent article brother.

    The BBC wrote today, “The scholar’s movement is growing in the UK and has attracted the interest of policymakers and security chiefs.”

    Another naive Muslim who will be used and abused by the imperialists and colonialists for their agendas. He has been trained and brought up by the same class of treacherous brelawis (I make distinction between these and other brelawis) who sided with the British against the Muslims who refused to accept occupation.

    As for his popularity, yes, he is very popular in Pakistan but amongst those who follow a particular brand of Islam which is clearly not recognised by any sober Muslim from all schools of thought.

    This is the kind of Islam we are talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KPXFCxY1ls

    Plz fwd to 3:00 .-= Salman ´s last blog ..Useless Anti Terror Fatwa launches in London =-.

  • Abdullah

    @Abbas - the issue of QF sponsorship was reported on some news sites, but in any case they heavily supported it and were intimately involved in drumming up publicity.

    Hope to see the full document soon then. Strange how it was taken down in the run up to this whole issue, isn’t it?

    3 launches and counting.

    In any case, the fact that he has fallen into the worst kind of narrative that plays into Brit government hands (conservatism leads to terrorism) is much worse than anything written above

    wasalam

  • LeedsLad

    Muslims should keep away from Douglas Murray and other genocidal maniacs as long as they stay quiet about their own Zionists and money they raise in the UK to cause terror in ME.

    Those who beleive, fight in the name justice; they do not make friends with racists from Douglas Murray’s gangsters. Douglas Murray wants to have his cake and eat it, but the Muslim is always left with the scraps or dirt.

  • waqas amin

    Dear Abdullah

    There are elements of truth in what you are saying, but your take on it is extremely cynical. What you need to know is that Shaykh-ul-Islam’s views have not changed in anyway whatsover. In the al-hidayah camp in 2009, answering the question of an academic, he stated that global powers were at the heart of funding extremism in Afghanistan to fight ‘jihad’ against the soviets a few decades back. The quotations you have used where you put foward the Shaykh’s views on Islamic political system are also correct, and these views are also not going to change.

    However, Shaykh Islam is working with hikmah and foresight because we all know how munipulative the media is (and he said this to the media today that they give no media coverage to Muslims who work for peace). Right now this isn’t a discussion concerning anything but to categorically ascertain that terrorism is the total antithesis of Islam. There was no other objective except to present a clear picture that Islam is not to be vilified if people commit terrorism in its name- terrorism is just terrorism, there is no such thing as islamic terrorism. It was to send out a strong message which has been well recieved by the non-Muslims; thus the underlying purpose has been acheived. The point is that this press conferance can also be seen as a means of building up Shaykh Islam’s profile as a scholar who is determined to bring peace back to the world, and to dismantle the bin Ladin legacy once and for all. So you see I agree with what you’re essentially saying but you take on it is cyncical, you need to come out of your cynicism and be a bit more embracing.

    Shaykh-ul-Islam today in his press conference states that this fatwa is first and foremost for Pakistan- though it has its relevance to all Muslims as it is essentially a theological document. There is still to be an official launch in Pakistan in the coming weeks. Todays press launch was only designated for the above reason which was to present islam properly to the common man and women in the West via the media; and he kept away from any controvery so that the media cannot miscontrue anything that he would have said- He has taken a hardline approach in order drive home this message. If Shaykh Islam went off topic exposing the hypocricy of Western governments then the whole purpose of the press conference would have been lost; thus the shaykh is dealing with hikmah, this cannot be understood right now- I agree with you that it seems contradictory that is if you look at it from a short-term perspective, but if you knew of its long-term implications then you would be praising Shaykh Tahir; its only because you haven’t actually studied this man with depth, (and to be honest I don’t think anyone has).

    To me this fatwa is the ‘treaty of hudaibiyyah’ of our time; the companions when the treaty of hudaibiyyah was signed were confused and lost hope and felt disheartened that the Prophet signed a treaty with the Quraish which gave them an upper hand over the Muslims. At the time it seemed illogical but the Prophet nevertheless signed the treaty. Allah declared that this treaty was a clear victory for the beleivers, and lo and behold in the space of 2/3 years Makkah was conquered without bloodshed. This fatwa is a reflection of that: the Muslims today cannot understand it and they feel that Shaykh Tahir has given in, but if you would only give this fatwa a few years then I think you will come to realise that this fatwa will herald the coming of a new dawn for the Muslims ummah. This is the begginning of the beggining. I have studied Shaykh Tahir comprehensively as for his views on politics and all I can say is just have faith in the man, he is extremely sagacious, wise and intelligent.

    So you should know that the Quillam foundation has nothing to do with this press conferance at all- they were invited in the same way that all other organizations were invited. This whole press conference was organized, funded and carried out by Minhaj ul Quran alone; and it was designed to promote the fatwa and increase is publicity in the West. If Shaykh Tahir Qadri has got all of this media attention, it is only because his workers put their backs into making it happpen, which they did out of love for their shaykh. Nobody asked Shaykh Tahir for this press conference; this was purely a minhaj ul quran initiative. Minhaj ul Quran unlike other Muslims groups does not receive funding from any organization or government, it works purely on donations and the commitment of its members- that’s why its centres are so impoverished.

    I actually find it offensive that credit for the hard work that the members put in is given to the likes of Quillam when the Quillam foundation had nothing to do with it. If Shaykh Tahir got the coverage its because his workers worked hard to make it happen; and the hard work has now paid off. alhamdulillah.

    You might not understand the importance of this fatwa today, but come back to me in several years from now and you will see how this fatwa was the first practical step towards the revivification of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

  • Abbas

    Dear Abdullah, Some peoples lame attempts to defame this monumental work has lead them to concoct false statements to divert attention from the content of the document by claiming that the event was funded by external influences. This is being done quite simply because they find themselves incapable of intellectually refuting what is an irrefutable theological verdict, thoroughly researched and based solely on the primary sources of reference in Islamic law as well as being corroborated by the juristic opinion of the greatest Muslim scholars of Hadith and Fiqh including the likes of Ibn Taymiyya. It is unwise for you to propagate the claims without verifying the authenticity of what was said quite simply because firstly it is morally incorrect to do so but also because legally you may find yourself in trouble if you cannot verify that which you have stated. I’m sure you’re fully aware of defamation of character laws and I need say no more. Therefore I suggest that you refrain from making such comments in the future unless you can provide evidence to support your claims. Furthermore your speculative nature which lead to your claim that the reason for the withdrawal of the online version was the passage you quoted, again points to the fact that you choose not to speak from a sound footing but rather you prefer to promote rumours for reasons that ALLAH AZAWAJAL knows best. I do not wish to be repetitive therefore I will not reiterate what I have already stated about the passage in question. I’m very disappointed at the fact that instead of articulating a counter argument if indeed your theological position differs from that which was outlined by Dr Tahir ul Qadri you choose to use shallow tactics alien to the traditions of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam who warned against forwarding information that is considered hearsay without verifying it’s accuracy. From your reply it is evident that you did not take the necessary precautions before enlightening us with your take on today events because had you have done so you it would have been crystal clear to you that no organisation contributed a dime towards the event and that it was completely and independently funded by Minhaj ul Quran. If any person has an issue with the fatwa please feel free to provide a counter theological argument, one which is based on the principles set out by the classical scholars of Islam when arguing for or against a particular legal position. Instead of trying to helplessly defame a sound theological work based on the primary sources of reference in Islamic law addressing the most pressing issue facing Muslims and non Muslims alike you should read the document and make an informed judgment. You forget that many of the innocent victims affected by the despicable actions of the terrorists happen to be Muslim. Next time you wish to rant about a genuine attempt to save lives and thus promote the true peaceful teachings of Islam and the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam just remember the blood that is shed as a result of these despicable crimes is not only that of non Muslims but also of your Muslim brothers and sisters at the hands of these barbaric maniacs.

  • Abbas

    Sorry I forgot to mention that QF was not intimately involved again something you assume but cannot back up with any credible evidence. The fact that Ed Hussain wrote an article in the Guardian and QF attended the event does not automatically amount to them being involved in the launch of the fatwa. We live in a country where people are free to do as they choose within the bounds of the law and thankfully are not restricted to having to conform to your world view. Therefore if QF felt that the fatwa launch was something that their organisation believed in then they are free to support it in the same way that you have freedom to register your disapproval so long what you say can be substantiated is beneficial and not a biased view reflecting prejudices which provide no real contribution to the discussion.

  • Abdullah

    Abbas,

    You write 3 long replies, and yet you do not answer the critical point:

    “In any case, the fact that he has fallen into the worst kind of narrative that plays into Brit government hands (conservatism leads to terrorism) is much worse than anything written above”

    Also, whether you like it or not, Minhaj ul-Quran were used by the Quilliam Foundation, who were the ones who contacted all the press and politicians on their behalf as shown by their PRs and articles.

    As for defamation - considering what “Sheikh ul-Islam” has said about “conservatives”, I think you all should be more worried than anyone else.

    Wasalam

  • Muslim

    As a (Sufi-inclined) Muslim Briton (of subcontinental origins), I have mixed feelings about this.

    Indiscriminately killing civilians is wrong, whether by suicide-bombing or missile-bombing etc - the means of delivery is not of primary concern, however, the target definitely is.

    This helps in drawing a line against the presumably Muslim-origin fanatics who are succumbing to a lack of tawakkul & thereby subscribing to a belief in Total War with the ends justifying the means.

    It does not help in that it helps foster sectariainism among diverse Muslims, aids the “Divide & Rule” RAND “Moderate Muslim” PNAC Neo-Colonial Imperial project.

    It is unfortunate that terrorism is not defined according to the O.E.D., & that meaning applied without fear of favour to all killers. It shows bias if one side’s actions are condemned & a whole group’s reputation tarred, while the other is ignored.

    I wonder, when will there be a fatwa against state terrorism, homicide-bombing, ecocide-bombing, paedocide-bombing, missile-bombing & the other variants of industrialised indiscrminate slaughter of innocents? I don’t feel that we should hold our breaths…

  • Abbas

    Actually only one reply of the three can perhaps be considered as long. The other two would probably not fit that description. I’ll try to be a short as possible in order not to take up too much of your time or waste any of mine. The critical point you refer to regarding the ‘narrative’ you made reference to is nothing more than an explanation of the traditions of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam who warned against conservative manifestations of Deen. In fact you may be aware of the Hadith in which the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam identified a path left of centre and one right of centre and indicated to the Sahaba (may ALLAH be pleased with them) that the Prophetic Minhaj was the path in between ie centre ground in other words moderation. Dr Qadri was referring to conservatism as an ideology that at the core fosters intolerance and narrowness. Dr Qadri provided numerous references to Bukhari and Muslim as well as other authoritative books of Hadith whilst addressing the issue of conservatism as an ideological manifestation of Islam. If you have issues with the Ahadith of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam or His Prophetic opinion I’m afraid there isn’t much anybody can do. I’d seriously advise that you read the document and refer to the references which are primarily from the authoritative scriptural sources and give some thought to what the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam said. After all we all endeavour to attain a clearer understanding of Deen and therefore nobody should have any hesitation from engaging in research that could ultimately lead to the truth unless of course one feels the truth is a bitter pill to swallow. In short brother Abdullah none of us have anything to fear or be concerned about if our intentions are sincere for the Deen because we can be at peace in the knowledge that ALLAH AZAWAJAL is the greatest judge and nobody will escape ALLAH’s judgement. Finally your reference to what was said about ‘conservatives’ which by the way is taken out of context was not something Shaykh ul Islam had invented but in actual fact if you engage in the effort of consulting Bukhari, Muslim and the Tafsīr’s of the scholars he mentioned you’ll find what Dr Qadri refered to were Prophetic warnings for the Ummah in order to ensure they refrained from falling victim to fitna. Shaykh ul Islam’s address was extensive and backed by references from the most authoritative texts in the Islamic intellectual tradition and therefore there isn’t the need for me to elaborate. Please do take the opportunity to read the complete document with an open mind so that you may reach a fair and just conclusion. May ALLAH AZAWAJAL guide us to the path that leads us to HIS pleasure and on that positive note I will leave you hoping and praying that you do study the complete document. Wasalaam

  • Abdullah

    @Abbas

    Is there a narration which talks about the dangers of “deobandis” and “wahabis”? Secondly - conservativism is different from extremism. You are trying to excuse the inexcusable in a disingenious way.

    Sorry to say - your replies have convinced me of nothing. No explanation for the narrative, no explanation for the work with QF, no explanation for the removal of the fatwa even though it was previously online.

    Anyway, I will read it - once it is back online

    wasalam

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    It is disappointing that our dear brother indigo jo had NOT read the fatwa by Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (hâfizahullâh) or reviewed information about him before writing. I can help with that:

    1. Shaykh-ul-Islam is not responsible for what the media writes about him. The media even tries to slur the best of creation, our beloved Prophet (sallallâhu alayhi wa âlihî wa sallam)</i> by writing half truths. We cannot pin this upon our Master <i>(sallallâhualayhi wa âlihî wa sallam) at all, wal-`iyâdhubillâh. Similarly, Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam cannot be asked about items ascribed to him in the media. I would have expected the writer to know this.

    2. It is true that many other scholars had already made similar fatwas but these also included Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam. However, I’m not referring to the articles by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti written around 2003 and 2004. Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam and other `Ulamâ’ and Mashâ’ikh had already refuted such terrorism over 20 years ago so there is no point in trying to claim otherwise. One of the unique points about this particular fatwa is that it tries to deal with the subject comprehensively and is watertight to prevent any space for doubt. Previous works were quite brief including the 2 you have mentioned whilst this one covers 600 pages of solid information, quotes and references. This has come about because a number of scholars remained silent on such terrorism which the terrorists saw as tacit approval of their acts. As a result, Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam wanted to make it plain and clear that they simply cannot remain quite about such an issue which is claiming dozens of lives everyday and destablising a Muslim nation.

    3. As for the authority of the work, the contents page and introduction alone amount to twice as many pages and material than both the articles of the respected 2 scholars mentioned by indigo jo (Shaykh Nuh and Shaykh Akiti) put together.

    4. indigo jo wrote: “A further problem is that Tahir ul-Qadri is not by any means a universally accepted figure in the Muslim community, either here or in Pakistan.”

    He is far known and recognised than the respected 2 scholars you have mentioned so please spare the reader of such comments. Scholars, layers, politicians, Sûfîs and all known authorities in different branches of knowledge take advice from him.

    5. indigo jo wrote: “Having spent time among the Barelvis in east London (Walthamstow to be precise), I can state for sure that he is bitterly opposed by some of the Barelvi imams in that part of London”

    As for the comments about “Barêlwîs”, there was a time when a small group of scholars who could be classed as “Barêlwîs” (May Allah give them jazâ’ for their good intentions) opposed Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam. This scenario has completed changed and nearly all of the major Ahlus-Sunna scholars who could be classed as “Barêlwîs” now not only acknowledge his authority but support his movement including the imams of east London. The `Ulamâ’ and Mashâ’ikh Conference held in March 2009 was attended by 300 of the biggest Ahlus-Sunna “Barêlwî” scholars from across Pakistan with all of them promising that they with their thousands of murîds would support Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam. Take the following Shaykh who says that he would sacrifice himself at a single signal from Shaykh-ul-Islam!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDEe3II7R44&feature=PlayList&p=AEB212E76C6140DF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

    6. indigo jo wrote: “A Deobandi imam I spoke to in south London several years ago called him…”

    Asking “a Deobandi imam” doesn’t mean anything. Ask the leading authority of the Deobandî School in Pakistan, Shaykh-ul-Hadîth `Abdur-Rahmân Ashrafî as he refered to Shaykh-ul-Islam as “mujaddid” which is not a title given to ignorant people.

    Mawlânâ Zubayr Ahmad Zahîr, LEADER of Markazî Jamâ`at Ahl-e-Hadîth (Salafî brother of Ihsân Ilâhî Zahîr) is on video calling Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri “Shaykh-ul-Islam”.

    You would be hard pushed to find a single scholar speak against Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam and give their name out. “Unknowns” writing behind a computer screen simply doesn’t count.

    7. indigo jo wrote: “Mostyn-Owen claims that he has “the status of a Sheikh-ul-Islam”, but this is not accepted by much of the community and never has been.”

    The title of “Shaykh-ul-Islam” was not given to him by his followers, youngster easily impressed Muslims or his students as in the case of titles given by British Muslims in this country to visiting Arab scholars. Rather, the first to give this title to Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri was al-Muammar Hadrat as-Sayyid Rasûl Shâh Khâkî of Chakwâl (Pîr Khâkî Shâh Sâhib) [d. 1994AD] who had died at the age of 130 years! He was a direct student of Imâm al-Hind Mawlânâ Shâh Ahmad Ridâ Khân al-Barêlwî and was among the main khalîfas (spiritual successor) of Naqîbul-Ashrâf Sayyidunâ Ibrâhîm Sayfuddîn al-Jîlânî of Baghdad . He also had association with Pîr Shâh Sharafuddîn, Khawâja Muhammad Qâsim Kiyânî Moharwî, Sayyidunâ MihrAlî Shâh Golrawî, Hâfiz Khawâja Abdul-Karîm, as-Sayyid Jamâat Alî Shâh, Yahyâ Qalandar, Mawlânâ AmjadAlî Ridwî, Mawlânâ Kifâyatullâh Dehelwî and Mawlânâ Anwar Shâh Kashmîrî. He would give the title of “Shaykh-ul-Islam” to Shaykh Tahir-ul-Qadri and desired only for him to lead his janâza prayer which he did. The Shaykh-ul-Hadîth of The Minhaj University, al-Allâma Muhammad Mirâj-ul-Islâm (direct student of Hadrat ash-Shaykh Muhammad Karam Shâh al-Azharî – quddisa sirruh) narrated directly (mubâsharan) that he heard ash-Shaykh as-Sayyid Rasûl Shâh Khâkî say:

    “mujhe HaDrat ghawth aZam sayyidabdul-qâdir jîlânî raHmatullâhi alayh ne Hukm diyâ he ke logo kô batâdô ke muHammad Tahir-ul-qâdrî shaykh-ul-islâm hê!” “Hadrat Ghawth Azam Sayyid `Abdul-Qâdir Jîlânî ordered me to tell the people that Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is Shaykh-ul-Islam!”

    He then sent a flag to Shaykh Tahir-ul-Qadri with the following written on it: “Shaykh-ul-Islam Professor Doctor Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri”. This flag was gifted by Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri to Shaykh-ul-Hadîth al-Allâma Muhammad Mirâj-ul-Islâm who still has it among his possessions. So he was among the first to give the title of “Shaykh-ul-Islam” and that seems to be in the early 1990’s. The above has been reported by abundant witnesses amongst whom is the son of as-Sayyid Rasûl Shâh Khâkî, as-Sayyid Mahmûd-ul-Hasan Shâh Khâkî (Cf. Mahmûdul-Hasan Shâh Khâkî, Tadhkira-e-Khâkî, Section 3).

    He was officially given the title by leading Ulamâ’ and Muhaddithîn of Syria in 2004, at Jâmia Muhaddith al-Akbar Badruddîn al-Hasanî in a gathering I was personally present in along with 300 others who had travelled with Shaykh-ul-Islam.

    8. indigo jo wrote; “Some of Qadri’s comments in this interview reveal his divisive, sectarian nature.”

    As already stated, the shaykh is not responsible for what the media writes about him and you of all people should know better regarding that. You know very well that Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam has received flack for his unitist approach to other schools of thought such as Deobandî, Salafî and Shia. He does not go around stiring sectarian divisions at all. His fatwa is proof of this because he makes reference to the Deobandî authorities such as Shaykh Anwar Shah Kâshmîrî and Mawlânâ Shâbîr AhmadUthmânî and the Salafî scholars, Shaykh Abdul-Azîz ibn Bâz, Albânî and Shaykh Sâlih Fawzân to back his case. This way, he has actually brought about unity on the opinion regarding this issue adding `Allâma Ibn Taymiyya as a further support.

    9. indigojo wrote: “MQ group in London opposed the Abbey Mills mosque project is nothing surprising”

    MQI London was not opposed to the Abbey Mills mosque project and this issue has been cleared up with supporters of the mosque so these comments look to be of a “divisive, sectarian nature”.

    10. indogi jo wrote:

    “Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims will simply not take someone seriously as an upright Muslim, let alone a scholar, if their beard is trimmed to less than what they can grab with their fist, and this is the case with Qadri”

    One is deluded to think that Shaykh-ul-Islam is not taken seriously. He is the most loved and heard Islamic scholar in all of Pakistan , India and Bangladesh , having his lectures broadcast on several TV stations everyday! He is the most loved and welcomed person in that land by people from all walks.

    If this was the case, scholars would not be taking Mullâ Alî Qârî seriously because he wrote that some Hanafîs considered a fistfull beard to be <i>mustahab</i> (recommended) and not <i>wâjib</i>. MullâAlî al-Qârî states in his commentary of Sayyidunâ Imâm al-Azam Abû Hanîfa’s <i>(radiyallâhuanhu) Hadîth collection, “al-Musnad” wrote:

    “فالتقدير : لو أخذتم نواحي لحيته طولا وعرضا وتركتم قدر المستحب وهو مقدار القبضة وهي الحد المتوسط بين الطرفين المذمومين من إرسالهما مطلقا ومن حلقها وقصها على وجه استئصالها…” (`Alî Qârî, Sharh Musnad Abî Hanîfa ( Lebanon , Beirut ), 1:578)

    11. indigo jo wrote:

    “It could be that it turns out to be an unusually comprehensive piece of work and may become a standard text on those grounds, but given how extensive Dr Akiti’s existing work on this matter is, I find that unlikely. It is a predictable stance by a sectarian figure, and its impact is likely to be very limited.”

    You should know better than to make assumptions without having read a single word from the fatwa which is rather disappointing. As mentioned earlier, the contents and introduction alone of Shaykh-ul-Islam’s fatwa is more comprehensive and detailed than both respectd Shaykh Akiti’s booklet and your Shaykh Nuh’s few page article.

    Brother indigo jo, this piece really does injustice to the good work you have done on this blog. Please stick to facts instead of baseless assumptions. I was equally shocked to hear a unknown by the name of Massoud Shadjareh of an unknown organisation called “Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC)” who dared to claim that the fatwa launch event was paid by the government. That was a whooping lie which he forged and if he is reading this blog, I would like to ask him to retract his statement on al-Jazîra or perform the mubâhala with me to establish who is speaking the truth as I was one of the organisers.

    Lastly, Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri’s fatwa is truly historic. It is a masterpiece of scholarship which will be refered to for centuries inshâ’Allâh. Jazâkallâh brother Waqas Amin for posting an irrefutable excerpt from it. The work is comprehensive, powerful and a huge counter pounch to extremists which has no comparison at present. If you think there is one, please bring it forward (with all respect, not the short pieces by the 2 noble Shaykhs you have mentioned but I mean a large indepth comprehensive work).

  • Abdullah

    @Rafiq

    Why is it you supporters cannot see - it is not about whether the fatwa is right or wrong.

    Its about the politics behind it - and his using this issue (disingeniously) to basically get one up on other Muslims while kissing up to the government.

    Don’t you find it disturbing that those backing this whole event are the heretical Quilliam Foundation? It is well known they heavily pushed and publicised it, in fact this second launch of the fatwa in UK was down to them. It had already been launched once.

    Your comments as well have no answer - No explanation for the narrative, no explanation for the work with QF, no explanation for the removal of the fatwa even though it was previously online.

  • LeedsLad

    “Lastly, Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri’s fatwa is truly historic. It is a masterpiece of scholarship which will be refered to for centuries inshâ’Allâh”

    Bismillah! The more people follow clergy, the less Islam looses its freedom and character. Are we going back to the old idolatry days of worshipping Gurus?

    Follow the Quran and not the “Fatwa” please. There is nothing in Quran which contradicts human compassion, spiritual harmony, and equity.

    Some Hacks at Jihawatch use exactly the same words for a fraudster who claims to be a scholar in “Jihadism”.

  • Ibn adam

    Please can we have an answer from the supporters here. Did Tahir al Qadri say that all deobandis and Wahabis are well wishers of Terrorism ? Did Tahir al Qadri deny the obligation of the Caliphate ? Why oh why did Minhaj al Quran invite the Quilliam Foundation knowing full well about their history ? There is much more to come……

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    A) “Abdullah” wrote: “Its about the politics behind it - and his using this issue (disingeniously) to basically get one up on other Muslims while kissing up to the government.”

    1. There is no such word as “disingeniously”.

    2. Are you claiming to read intentions?? Intentions (niyyât) are concealed in the hearts and ordinary people have no right to claim that they know what someone’s intentions are especially if they are ignorant of the Dîn themselves. Have some fear of Allâh for making such an absurd assumption.

    3. Where did you get this “kissing up to the government” from? He issued this fatwa because it was his duty to do so as an authority of the Dîn and not for any other purpose. There was no other motivations. More than 150 `Ulamâ’ and Mashâ’ikh who have spoken against the terrorists have been killed so far. Thousands of innocent people murdered tarnishing the faith to those unaware. So a scholar of his calibre must respond to such pressing issues and he has done so mâshâ’Allâh is an amazing way.

    B) “Abdullah” wrote: “Don’t you find it disturbing that those backing this whole event are the heretical Quilliam Foundation? It is well known they heavily pushed and publicised it, in fact this second launch of the fatwa in UK was down to them. It had already been launched once.”

    What drugs are you on? I am one of the organisers of this event and can categorically say that this “Quilliam Foundation” had absolutely nothing to do with us deciding to arrange such an event. Fear Allah and desist from spread such lies otherwise meet if you have any proof so that the truth of this matter can be settled accurately. If QF decided to promote the fatwa, that is their issue… nothing to do with MQI or its founder. In most cases, it doesn’t take a genius to work that out. If others have problems with QF, they could try promoting the fatwa themselves and reduce publicity taken by QF. I don’t really care about QF to be honest as I know very little about them. If you have an issue with them, then sort it out with them. Don’t get MQI involved.

    C) “Abdullah” wrote: “Your comments as well have no answer - No explanation for the narrative, no explanation for the work with QF, no explanation for the removal of the fatwa even though it was previously online.”

    We have not been carrying out any work with QF so please stop saying that or provide the proof in person instead of writing nonsence behind a computer screen. Otherwise others may accuse you of “kissing up to the” unknown forces who are hell-bent on keeping Muslims in the dark about such a pressing issue which is claiming lives everyday.

  • Ibn adam

    @Rafiq You know little about the Quilliam foundation ?! Is this some joke? Let me ask you what do you think of those that call the modern application of the Sharia as barbaric oudated and demonising ? What is your position on those that label the proscription of homosexuailtybas medievalist ? Yep the Quilliam foundation ? Do we expect a fatwa on the Quilliam foundation from Minhaj al Quran ? Oh yeah brothers did send detailed questions to those in the Minhaj al Quran and no answer was given. Now the mates of the Quilliam foundation are going around accusing your shielh of Kufr by saying that he denied the obligation of the Caliphate in the press conference. Hey, there is even a link from a ” minhaj al Quran ” Twitter account linking to the article in Harrys Place that claims he denied the obligation ! Let me guess you have no idea what Harrys place is as well. Finally I ask again are many or all Deobandis and Wahabis well wishers of Terrorism ? It is irrelevant whether Tahir al Qadri quotes Salafi scholars that does not refute the point now does it ? After all he is not a well wisher of our Salafi brothers and quoting Albani does not nullify that

  • Ibn adam

    Sorry correction should be dehumanising ie Quilliams view on the modern application of the Sharia

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    Thank you Ibn Adam for asking the questions instead of making assumptions. Ibn Adam wrote:

    “Please can we have an answer from the supporters here. Did Tahir al Qadri say that all deobandis and Wahabis are well wishers of Terrorism ?”

    I wouldn’t say I’m a “supporter”. Rather, I would say that I follow the derivations of Shaykh-ul-Islam as he is qualified in that field, i.e. an authority (see next post for a clearer understanding of the term “authority”). I didn’t hear anything about schools of thought/sects at the event yesterday even though a questioner mentioned it. You can hear his videos on youtube for clarification.

    “Did Tahir al Qadri deny the obligation of the Caliphate?”

    Assuming that you mean here the “obligation of having the Caliphate”, he only denied (and refuted) the HT, al-Muhajiroun, terrorist version of the Caliphate system.

    “Why oh why did Minhaj al Quran invite the Quilliam Foundation knowing full well about their history ? There is much more to come……”

    Everyone is welcomed in our gatherings and we don’t believe in rejecting people if they want to learn Islam. No one is rejected of benefitting from the knowledge and hidâya of this Dîn.

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    Leedslad wrote:

    “Bismillah! The more people follow clergy, the less Islam looses its freedom and character. Are we going back to the old idolatry days of worshipping Gurus? Follow the Quran and not the “Fatwa” please. There is nothing in Quran which contradicts human compassion, spiritual harmony, and equity.”

    Yes, the Qur’ân teaches “human compassion, spiritual harmony and equity” and the ruling extracted from the Qur’ân is known as fatwa. We needs to be qualified to derived rulings which is why we follow authorities and not blindly what our minds may perceive. Shaykh-ul-Islam al-Imâm Jalâluddîn as-Suyûtî listed that the following sciences must be mastered before one ventures into interpreting the Book of Allâh:

    ilm al-lugha, ilm an-nahw, ilm as-sarf, ilm al-ishtiqâq, ilm al-maânî, ilm al-bayân, ilm al-badî, ilm al-qirâ’a, ilm usûl dîn, ilm usûl al-fiqh, ilm asbâb nuzûl, ilm qisas al-qur’ân, ilm al-hadîth, ilm nâsikh wal-mansûkh, ilm mahâwarâtarab, ilm at-târîkh andilm al-ladunnî. (Suyûtî, al-Itqân fî `ulûm al-qur’ân (Suhayl Academy, 1980), 180)

    So if you are well versed in these sceices, you are free to interpret the Qur’ân yourself otherwise you will just be deluding yourself. An English translation is not a substitute for the Holy Qur’ân and prerequisites are required before extracting rulings from it.

  • Ibn adam

    What aspect of the HT version of the Caliphate did he deny. ? Does he deny the obligation of a single Caliphate that rules by the sharia. What particular version of the HT model does he find abhorant ? I ask again the question what are your views on his statement on the Deobandis and the Wahabis ? Did he make these statements? Do you think the Quilliam foundations views are heretical if we have accurately presented them ? Why where the Quilliam foundation invited ?

  • Ibn adam

    The statement is in the Evening standard ie his statement about Deobandis and Wahabis

  • Ibn adam

    Would you allow Salamn Rushdie to publicise your events ?

  • Ibn adam

    Do you think it would be a good thing if Minhaj al Quran issued a fatwa about the quilliam foundation ? Should Muslims be warned about them ?

  • waqas amin

    For me it is simple:

    1) This fatwa is a masterpiece and is irrefutable; not until one reads this fatwa in its entirety will they be able to appreciate its uniqueness and originality- name a fatwa on terrorism that extends over 100 pages?

    2) Refer to my second post where I have given references from Bukhari and Muslim concerning the killing of terorrist and their total annihilation; explain why the Prophet told his followers to kill Muslim extremist- is the Prophet promoting seceterianism? (@Abdullah: the answer for the narrative is contained through out my second post- Shaykh Tahir is not playing politics he is pursuing his honest reading of the scripture, if you look at the evidences then you will see)

    3)There is too much assumption in this debate with references to media and hearsay; not until we get hard facts can we have a serious discussion. If the organisers say that they had nothing to do with QF then you will have to trust the testimony of your brothers and take their word for it. If they have nothing to do with QF they have nothing to do with QF, you can’t assume that especially after your brothers say they have nothing to do with them. If the media and QF are promoting minhaj then that’s by the grace of Allah, that’s the whole purpose of its launch i.e. to promote the fatwa; the more the promotion the better it is. Minhaj has paid no one, neither has it been paid, for this all; it’s purely fi sabilillah

    4) It is still to early to decide the significance of this fatwa, whether or not it was in the benefit of the Muslims or not. Give this fatwa a few years and everything will become clarified. We will know who was right and who was wrong. Remember the treaty of hudaibiyyah which gave an upperhand to the enemies of Islam in the short-term, but ended up being a tactical victory for the Muslims, which lead to Islam being the greatest force in the Arabian peninsula. Trust in Allah, in a few years you will see the long-term implication of this fatwa.

  • waqas amin

    As for the website taking down the English its only because half of it has been translated, and the purpose of putting it online was only to show that it is being done, because its publication is taking long.

    It was 150 pages when it was first promoted, then as the months went by it got extended to 600 pages, so it was promoted again.

    I rememeber myself waiting in December for it because Shaykh Tahir said it will come out within a week. So I waited for weeks and some time through January/February I found out that it got extended to 600 pages. So I realised that its publication is taking time, because more work is being done on it.

    Also its to be translated in English and Arabic so things are going overboard- there is a lot pressure on the organizers because Shaykh Tahir said it will be out within a week but instead its taking months.

    So Abdullah you’re simply being cynical, you’re over assuming things and you should fear Allah. People in Minhaj-ul-Quran work voluntarily and so things don’t always run smoothly, and the organizations is so large that things get lost in communication.

    I blame it on adminstrative faults then some purposeful agenda to re-edit the fatwa to make it suit western audiences. You need to stop being being so cyncical.

  • Abbas

    Brother Ibn Adam I suggest you attain a copy of the recording and see for yourself what parts of the HT idea of Khilafahā was unequivocally rejected by Dr Qadri on the basis of Quran and Sunnah. As for the question regarding the deobhandi’s/wahabi’s Dr Qadri was clear in his response to the same question which was asked by a participant and was answered on record so there cannot be any ambiguity regarding Dr Qadri’s opinion. If you care to know he said that his fatwa was universally applicable in that it was a broad framework based on numerous references from the Quran, traditions of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam and the opinions of the authorities of Tafsir. To answer your question he said anybody that exhibited behaviour such as that which is outlined by his fatwa regardless of their denomination would be subject to it’s application. Please read the document because many of the questions being raised are dealt with by the text. If you do not wish to read the actual text which is the basis for discussion there isn’t really anything to discuss. You keep to your opinion of Dr Qadri which you take from your preferred source ‘the papers’ and Dr Qadri will continue to quote only the authentic sources Muslims should base their opinions on. Lastly Dr Qadri is a scholar of 15th century Islam and one may be doubtful of him however, there was not an iota of doubt over who Sayyidina Hussain Ibn Ali RA was or what his authority in Deen was. After all He was the Grandson of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam and a Sahabi RA. Yet that did not deter the misguided yazid lanatullah Alayhi from slaying His Blessed Blood. Even greater was the status of Sayyidina Ali RA who is from the best of the Sahaba yet that did not stop the khawarij lanatullah Alayhum from rebelling against the one about whom the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam said ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its door’. Today the vast majority of Muslims excluding the ignorant fringes on the periphery accept taqlid and follow one of four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, however the overwhelming popularity and acceptance of the four Imams in our time is not reflective of the pain and suffering they faced in their own lifetimes. It’s simple people of Haqq will always be deplored by those who seek to destabilise Islam. Many do so purely out of jealousy. If anybody genuinely disagrees with the content of the fatwa please don’t resort to cheap slandering campaigns against the Shaykh provide a counter theological argument. I was one of the main organisers of the fatwa launch part of a core team of five and I can tell you all five members were from Minhaj ul Quran and not a single one was from QF neither did they attend any of the organisational meetings. Lastly to answer your burning question regarding why QF was invited it’s simple Minah ul Quran extends invitations to Jews, Muslims, Christians, Wahabi’s Deobandhi’s, Brelvi’s, Athiest etc etc. It is for this reason that some people have issues with the MQ because according to their narrow-mindedness disagree with our inclusive nature to provide Hidāyah for all. We are not selective in our da’wa efforts and there anybody is welcome. You have an issue with us inviting QF to participate, should we assume therefore that you also have an issue with the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam allowing polytheists to worship in Masjid al-Nabawi. All we did was to invite people to listen to Shaykh ul Islam’s message on the single most pressing issue facing the Muslims today. However, The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam allowed a Chrisitain delegation to pray even after the Sahaba RA raised questions regarding tawhid. What is required is a greater understanding of Deen that is based on the teachings of the founder of the Deen and not one which is based around our whims and preferences. Websites such as this one provide the platform for disunity and confusion by promoting hearsay and scandalous lies. Ibn Adam my brother listen to this link which will provide you with a categorical answer to Shaykh ul Islam’s position on deobandhi’s and wahabi’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4wqQ3Gll8 this was said in the 80’s and history unlike the devious media does not lie. Time will be the best judge of Shaykh ul Islam and the effects of his fatwa and the genuineness of his intentions for Deen.

  • ali khan

    Assalamualaykum

    Realise brothers and sisters that not one serious orientalist scholar has even tried to say or insinuate using primary textual sources that Islam condones suicide bombing. The only people who do are neo-con(t)s and their lackeys like qf and murray et al.

    The sort of people who do these acts are to be found at your nearest spearmint Rhino! (Atta.anybody remember him?)

    It may be short and it does not get into the khawarij but Shaykh Afifi Al-Akiti’s fatwa suffices for those who care.It deals with the subject, no more no less.

  • waqas amin

    @Ali Khan

    You’re right about Shaykh Afifi’s fatwa it does suffice. I have read it and I have glanced over Shaykh Tahir’s fatwa.

    This is the point which no-one seems to understand: Shaykh Tahir’s fatwa is unlike all other fatwas.

    Shaykh Afifi’s fatwa ra-affirms Islam’s othodox position on the matter; Shaykh Tahir’s fatwa is a full-fledge attack against the extremists; its gives a theological justification for their killing.

    Do you understand what that means? It means that Shaykh Tahir Qadri through the Qur’an, sunnah, and verdicts of the greatest authorities of Islam has justified the destruction and annihilation of the extremists. That means that the Pakistani Taliban and Usama bin Ladin, and all those that legitimize the killing of non-combatants, are ‘wajib al-qatl’. Refer to my second post to see the evidences for this.

    Shaykh Tahir has taken that step further and is rallying the Muslims of Pakistan, be they Barelwi, Deobandi, Salafi or Shia, to unite against the khwarij. This is what nobody here seems to understand and that’s why much promotion of this fatwa needed.

  • waqas amin

    Here are the evidences:

    1) Sahih Bukhari: bab qatli khwarij wa’l-mulhidin (the chapter on the killing of the khwarij) #6531 No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

    This is the ruling concerning the Khwarij which Dr. Qadri has based his view upon. It is a Sahih Hadith of Bukhari which states that the Khwarij will be young brainwashed individuals who will have no religion. And what is to be done with such people who appear at the end of time? They are to be obliterated by those who are against terrorism, there is no other option.

    2) If one reads Sahih Muslim and refers to Kitab az-Zakah there is two chapter dedicated by Imam Muslim on the Khwarij some hadiths state:

    A) The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: From this very person’s posterity there would arise people who would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throat; they would kill the followers of Islam and would spare the idol-worshippers. They would glance through the teachings of Islam so hurriedly just as the arrow passes through the prey. If I were to ever find them I would kill them like ‘Ad.

    B) (The Holy Prophet) said: There would arise a people from the progeny of this (man) who would recite the Qur’an glibly, but it would not go beyond their throats; they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) religion just as the arrow passes through the prey. I conceive that he (the Holy Prophet) also said this: If I find them I would certainly kill them as were killed the (people of) Thamud.

    C) Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a mention of a sect that would be among his Ummah which would emerge out of the dissension of the people. Their distinctive mark would be shaven heads. They would be the worst creatures or the worst of the creatures. The group who would be nearer to the truth out of the two would kill them.

    D)Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A group would secede itself (from the Ummah) when there would be dissension among the Muslims. Out of the two groups who would be nearer the truth would kill them.

    E) There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of judgment.

    F) Verily there would arise from my Ummah after me or soon after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures.

    G) Usair b. ‘Amr reported that he inquired of Sahl b. Hunaif: Did you hear the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) making a mention of the Khwarij? He said: I heard him say (and he pointed with his hand towards the east) that these would be a people who would recite the Qur’an with their tongues and it would not go beyond their collar bones. They would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey.

  • Abdullah

    @Rafiq

    Well - here is a piece from the Washington Times, which by the way is on Minhaj website - so it has YOUR backing - where it says:

    “Mr. Tahir-ul-Qadri, founder of the Minhaj-ul-Quran worldwide movement promoting a tolerant Islam, and his followers hope that his fatwa will show those youths an alternative to extremism, said Ghaffar Hussein, a spokesman for the Quilliam Foundation, a British government-funded think tank.

    The foundation’s backing and promotion of Tuesday’s event drew much more media and public attention than it would have received otherwise, according to British press reports”

    From CBC News:

    “U.K.-based anti-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, which sponsored the speech, called the Pakistani-born Qadri’s fatwa”

    Huffington Post says “but Tuesday’s event in London was publicized by the Quilliam Foundation, a government-funded anti-extremism think tank and drew strong media attention.”

    So - these are all out there, you actually promote this material as well - so it is disingenuous of you to come here and complain.

    Why don’t you deal with the substantial points, instead of making very poor excuses for your behaviour.

    a. Did he say that all deobandi’s and wahabi’s support terrorism? (as he is quoted in the Evening Standard?)

    b. Did he say conservatism leads to terrorism (as we all heard him say on radio)?

    c. Did he deny the obligation of the Caliphate?

    d. What was your exact link with the Quilliam Foundation, since you yourself have a piece on your website where it says they were the ones who got you the media attention?

    Please no distractions - just answers to these 4. Tired of your dancing.

    Wasalam

  • Abdullah

    Also - we know that the fatwa was originally written for Pakistan - as you say here.

    How come now the justification is also extremism in British universities?

    Such tools.

    Wasalam

  • Abdullah

    Also what made him change - since in 2006 he said:

    “Terrorism has no religion; it is a social and criminal phenomenon caused by various reasons.”

    This is an altogether more sensible position than the one taken now, which is that “conservatism leads to terrorism”.

    You should fear Allah.

    Wasalam

  • Ibn adam

    This amazes me ! I am to gather that advertisment by the QF, Douglas Murray , Harrys place is a good thing on par with the treaty of Hudabiyyah ! Oh the wonders of some people. Do you people know who these people are ? They are promoting you for an agenda and to top it off it seems you are advertising their articles that put Kufr in the mouth of your shiekh! Oh it even gets better you don’t even bother correcting it . And for the umpteenth time we are not talking about certain rulings, we are talking about this Shiekhs understanding of reality. He thinks that many if not all of the Deobandis and Wahabis are well wishers of terrorism and this being splashed all over the newspapers. If this wrong then it is his duty to correct because it will spread fitnah but hey as long as their is publicity for this fatwa! We ask again. Do you think the Quilliam foundation are heretic ? Do you think a single Caliphate that implements the Sharia is obligatory ? Their is Ijma on this by the way. Do you think that Deobandis and Wahabis are well wishers of terrorism ?

  • waqas amin

    Abdullah may your mother lament over you.

    Quillam foundation has got nothing to do with it; they’re just trying to get a share of the limelight because they know that they’re total waste of the publics money.

    If Quillam is backing Minhaj then what’s wrong with that? If you were to run the marathon, and I was on the side-line cheering you on does that means I sponsered you or that I was somehow involved in your training? No. In the same way QF may be backing Dr. Qadri but doesn’t mean that they are directly involved, there on the sideline alongside all other supporters including the MCB. Go onto BBC iplayer and you will see that Mawlana Ibrahim Mogra also extends his support, as well as the MCB. Does that mean that the MCB is also involved in the organization and sponsoring of this fatwa? The MCB is also supporting

  • Abdullah

    @Waqas

    Look at who is supporting you Douglas Murray Quilliam Foundation Harry’s Place.

    Anything in common between the three above?

    And - are the Quilliam Foundation heretic or not? Answer please.

    And please answer my questions a-d.

    wasalam

  • Abdullah

    Just found another post - Melanie Phillips is also supporting you.

  • waqas amin

    A summary of the fatwa is available online in English:

    http://www.minhaj.org/images-db2/fatwa-eng.pdf

    Read from page 24 onwards and you will see how with hikmah Shaykh Tahir points out that double standards in Western policy is one of they key factors that legitimizes terrorist tactics by the extremists.

    The beauty with minhaj ul Quran is that it works with hikmah; as I can see from your posts above its obvious you guys are part of Hizb Tahrir which is nothing but a Bolshevik movement under an islamic guise- the Prophet forewarned about the hururiyyah no wonder your organization’s name strikes resemblance: tahrir/ hururiyah? If your from al-Muhajiroun then you guys are part of the khwarij whose actions always brings islam into disripute, so its obvious why your so against shaykh tahir because he the nemesis of all Muslim extremist.

    Suffice yourself that the Prophet forewarned about the likes of you:

    Sahih Bukhari: bab qatli khwarij wa’l-mulhidin (the chapter on the killing of the khwarij) #6531

    “No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

    Remember the MCB is also supporting this fatwa, not just the Quillam foundation.

  • Abdullah

    @Waqas.

    Answer the questions?

    Wasalam

  • waqas amin

    Excerpts from the english version fatwa:

    page 24: It may be true that among the fundamental local, national and international factors underpinning terrorism on a global level include: the injustices being currently meted out to the Muslims in certain matters, the apparent double standards displayed by the main powers, and their open-ended and long-term military engagements in a number of countries under the pretext of eliminating terror.

    page 25: These people justify their actions of human destruction and mass killing of innocent people in the name of Jihad (holy struggle against evil) and thus distort, twist and confuse the entire Islamic concept of Jihad. This situation is causing Muslims, the young in particular, to fall prey to doubts and reservations, muddling their minds in respect of Jihad, because those perpetrating these atrocities are from amongst the Muslims.

    page 25-6: the Western media is wont of overreporting incidents of terrorism and extremism around the Muslim world, and does not at all highlight the positive and constructive aspects of Islam, its peaceful teachings and philanthropic philosophy and orientation. Moreover, it does not report the abhorrence, condemnation and opposition prevalent within Muslim communities towards extremists, militants and terrorists. Bracketing both Islam and terrorism together has led only to negative consequences. The western mind conjures up images of terrorism and extremism at the merest mention of the word ‘Islam’, leaving Western-bred and educated Muslim youth in a most difficult position, and leaving them ever more puzzled.

    page 27: Thus, Western policies are instrumental in producing and inducting potential terrorist recruits and supporters, with no end in sight. In consequence, both the Muslim Umma, as well as humanity, is heading towards catastrophe.

    page 28 We thought it necessary, under these circumstances, to place the Islamic stance on terrorism precisely in its proper perspective before the Western and Islamic worlds, in the light of the Holy Qur’an, Prophetic traditions and Books of Jurisprudence and Belief. We want to put across this point of view before all the significant institutions, important think tanks and influential opinion-making organisations in the world so that both the Muslims and non-Muslims , entertaining doubts and reservations about Islam, are enabled to understand Islam’s standpoint on terrorism more clearly and unambiguously. The contents of this research work are summarized here briefly.

    Look at the hikmah of all of this. It’s only your jeolousy that blinds you; and your seceterian affiliation with your group than with the truth.

  • Abdullah

    Some good quotes from the fatwa “Thus, Western policies are instrumental in producing and inducting potential terrorist recruits and supporters, with no end in sight. In consequence, both the Muslim Umma, as well as humanity, is leading towards catastrophe.”

    What a shame in his interviews in the ES and on radio he played a different tune. Why is that?

    Seeing as there is a section on Salafi condemnations of terrorism - why did he say “all deobandis and wahabis support terrorism”.

    These questions need answering. Along with all the ones I have put up.

    No-one can comment on the fatwa since we have not seen it in full.

    But we have full right to condemn the disgusting and divisive attitude of minhaj ul quran throughout this time, and their aligning themselves with heretics and enemies of Islam and aiding the foreign government agenda - even if they claim in the fatwa they have no such intention.

    Wasalam

  • Abdullah

    @Waqas - very few people will read the fatwa in any case, and again no one is condemning the fatwa itself since we have not seen it.

    However, millions will read the comments of your group in the media. Politicians will listen to the soundbites you give.

    Disgusting - again - to reiterate:

    We have full right to condemn the disgusting and divisive attitude of minhaj ul quran throughout this time, and their aligning themselves with heretics and enemies of Islam and aiding the foreign government agenda - even if they claim in the fatwa they have no such intention

    Wasalam

  • Abdullah

    a. Did he say that all deobandi’s and wahabi’s support terrorism? (as he is quoted in the Evening Standard?)

    b. Did he say conservatism leads to terrorism (as we all heard him say on radio)?

    c. Did he deny the obligation of the Caliphate?

    d. What was your exact link with the Quilliam Foundation, since you yourself have a piece on your website where it says they were the ones who got you the media attention?

    Please no distractions - just answers to these 4. Tired of your dancing.

    Wasalam

  • waqas amin

    Your question have been fully answered but you have just overlooked them or ignored them; read through all the posts again and find the answers coz your taking me round in circles like the way HT has taken its memebers round in circles for the last 50 years. Just admit that regardless of the answer you just wont accept it, because you’re mind is bent on your self-fabrication. I have presented ahadith to you and you have not gone through the fatwa so is there any point?

    Is there any point talking to you when the Holy Prophet has already stated that people like you are young and foolish?

    Sahih Bukhari: bab qatli khwarij wa’l-mulhidin (the chapter on the killing of the khwarij) #6531

    “No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

    I don’t think common sense can get through to you guys; as this is the prophecy of the Holy Prophet that some young people in the end of times will be foolish. They will say the best word, like khilafah, but their faith will not go beyond their throat.

    So let me end by saying that time will tell who was right.

  • Abdullah

    Allahu Akbar. Fear Allah.

    You cannot answer questions - so then you accuse me of being a terrorist.

    Excellent.

    No wonder your organisation acts the way it does.

    Salam.

  • Abdullah

    For any others such as Rafiq who will not stoop to the level of the disgusting Waqas:

    a. Did he say that all deobandi’s and wahabi’s support terrorism? (as he is quoted in the Evening Standard?)

    b. Did he say conservatism leads to terrorism (as we all heard him say on radio)?

    c. Did he deny the obligation of the Caliphate?

    d. What was your exact link with the Quilliam Foundation, since you yourself have a piece on your website where it says they were the ones who got you the media attention?

    Please no distractions - just answers to these 4. Tired of your dancing.

    Wasalam

  • Ibn adam

    lol I am not HT. If you really want to know I am more inclined towards the Bin Bayyah approach. Still if HT say that God exists I wouldn’t have problems agreeing with them. It is not difficult you know. The questions again. Does Tahir Qadri reject the classical notion of the Caliphate as upheld by Mawardi , Juwayni and Ghazali ( there you go no HT ) Did Tahir al Qadri call Deobandis and Wahabis well wishers of terrorism and for Allah’s sake do you consider the views of the Quilliam foundation heretical ? Not difficult you know .

  • Abdullah

    alJazeera said this:

    “Ul-Qadri said he felt compelled to issue the edict because of concerns about the radicalisation of British Muslims at university campuses and because there had been a lack of condemnation of extremism by Muslim clerics and scholars.”

    What a load of **.

    Just shows you what this fatwa is all about.

    Ws

  • Ibn adam

    I am baffled how Hadith about the khawarij answer these points ? Now I am going to ask you guys, do you think that the Deobandi Ulema in this country will be happy when they find out that Tahir Qadri is going about calling them well wishers of terrorism? Yeah wonderful advertisment for the Muslim community here when a large number of mosques have Deobandi scholars. Yeah I forgot it is the fault of the media so you are not obligated to correct this mistake By the way I am not a terrorist or a well wisher of terrorism but I think the Deobandi ulema have done many good things forbtge ummah. Am I terrorist in your world now? Oh yeah was a prophetic dream an insight into this stunt ?

  • waqas amin

    The questions again. Does Tahir Qadri reject the classical notion of the Caliphate as upheld by Mawardi , Juwayni and Ghazali?

    Yes: Read through his books (muqadimma sirah rasul) and you’ll understand that Shaykh Tahir follows the classical notion of politics as understoood by Mawardi, Juwayni and Ghazzali. That a state, and the ruler of a state, must base its legitimacy in the rule of law, which is essentially the quran and sunnah, or in other words the shariah. But the HT notion that there should be 1 caliph over the whole islamic world is totally rejected, because islamic history proves otherwise that there can be more than one islamic government in the world at the same time.

    Did Tahir al Qadri call Deobandis and Wahabis well wishers of terrorism?

    He wouldn’t have said this- though the media may have twisted his words because it goes against all that he preaches.

    But my own personal experience is that the extremists always tend to be staunch wahhabis, even though most wahhabis are not extremists; the terrorists alwasy tend to be wahabbis, this is what i have expereinced through out my life. so you can have a go at me with this one.

  • Abbas

    Abdullah Also what made him change - since in 2006 he said:

    “Terrorism has no religion; it is a social and criminal phenomenon caused by various reasons.”

    I suggest you watch the recording Shaykh ul Islam said during his briefing yesterday that terrorism has no religion. That seems to me at least to be consistent, perhaps you did not hear him properly if you were present. If you weren’t present it doesn’t surprise me that you posted this comment because you have exhibited many times previously a liking for the promotion of hearsay. His underlying message which he repeated was to disassociate the word terrorism from the word Islam. He eloquently provided an analysis of the lexical and etymological origins of the words Islam, Iman and Ehsan to establish his argument and that in no way can the two terms coincide because they are complete opposites in nature. All you exhibit is prejudice and bias. It’s rich coming from you who hasn’t read the document to be calling for people to be dealing with the substantial points (which have been answered time and time again) when you yourself have acted according to your whim and contrary to your own prescription by stating that QF sponsored Shaykh ul Islam’s address. Your answer when I enquired what proof you had was speculation on the media. That’s hardly concrete evidence and perhaps short even of being considered circumstantial evidence seen as the original allegation was farfetched and a complete lie. It’s obviously apparent that your primary source of reference is your friend the media. Muslims like you discredit the good work of fellow Muslims in this case by trying to divert attention from the real issue which is the fatwa and its content. If QF acted independently and on their own initiative to promote the event that is entirely their own decision, MQ cannot be held responsible. If your philosophy is that because QF promoted the event that somehow MQ is responsible then should I assume that you believe that the Muslim community bares the responsibility of the actions of terrorists carried out in the name of Islam. They act independently and according to their ideology but they do so according to their opinion upon the instructions of the Quran. Should we all bare collective responsibility for something carried out in our name. What a ridiculous argument you make. If newpaper coverage is on MQ websites it is to promote the fatwa, if the papers have included that QF assisted that’s their business. The articles go up in their entirety as published by the news outlets. You did not have and will never have any proof to back your ridiculous claim based on media speculation that Shaykh ul Islam’s address was funded by QF how pathetic. So you’ve now turned your attention having failed to prove the funding claim to the QF support narrative. Please give your brain cells some rest so that you increase your ability to be able to comprehend some of what people have posted and therefore bring your opinion more in line with moderation rather than ranting and raving. The Quran has advised us about how to deal with ignorant people and the Quran was very precise and chose not to waste too much time addressing this particular type of people, Qālū Salāma. Perhaps we should all take a lesson from the Quran and pay no attention to these ridiculous arguments you make. By the way let’s ask you a question are you from Hizb ut-Tahrir or not, if you are and you believe in the organisation you should have no qualms about mentioning it. Brother Ibn Adam it’s funny how only a very few people from Hizb ut-Tahrir feel that there is Ijma on the establishment of a single Caliph to govern. The vast majority of Muslims or scholars do not sympathise with your stance, therefore according to the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam who said that the majority of His Ummah Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam ‘al-sawādul ‘azam’ will be on haqq you should check your position in regards to the status of Ijma you attribute to the issue of a single ruling Muslim caliph.

  • waqas amin

    The questions again. Does Tahir Qadri reject the classical notion of the Caliphate as upheld by Mawardi , Juwayni and Ghazali?

    No he doesn’t reject their notions (i misread the question in the one above): Read through his books (muqadimma sirah rasul) and you’ll understand that Shaykh Tahir follows the classical notion of politics as understoood by Mawardi, Juwayni and Ghazzali. That a state, and the ruler of a state, must base its legitimacy in the rule of law, which is essentially the quran and sunnah, or in other words the shariah. But the HT notion that there should be 1 caliph over the whole islamic world is totally rejected, because islamic history proves otherwise that there can be more than one islamic government in the world at the same time.

  • waqas amin

    If Shaykh Tahir Qadri thought that deobandis were terrrorist or extremist then why has he joined forces with them?

    A few years back he had a press conference with Qazi Hussain on the issue of unity; and Qazi hussain addressed him as shaykh-ul-islam at Minhaj-ul-Quran secretary and appreciated the work he did for the unity of the ummah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXWy4mp8QT0

    Likewise, in the early 2000s he invited Mawlana Tariq Jameel to minhaj ul quran i`tikaf and he attended as a guest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3RrBp29-IQ

  • Abdullah

    @Abbas

    Again - no answers.

    I never said the QF funded it - i said “sponsored”, which does not necessarily mean financially backed.

    At the end of the day - you still refuse to answer the points: I’ll put them down again:

    a. Did he say that all deobandi’s and wahabi’s support terrorism? (as he is quoted in the Evening Standard?)

    b. Did he say conservatism leads to terrorism (as we all heard him say on radio)?

    c. Did he deny the obligation of the Caliphate?

    d. What was your exact link with the Quilliam Foundation, since you yourself have a piece on your website where it says they were the ones who got you the media attention?

    Please no distractions - just answers to these 4. Tired of your dancing.

    Whoever is reading all this will be surprised at just how much you are avoiding dealing with simple questions. Once you answer properly we can talk about other issues. Again - this has nothing to do with the substance of the Fatwa - its to do with how you are acting in the media.

    Wasalam

  • Abdullah

    “No he doesn’t reject their notions (i misread the question in the one above): Read through his books (muqadimma sirah rasul) and you’ll understand that Shaykh Tahir follows the classical notion of politics as understoood by Mawardi, Juwayni and Ghazzali. That a state, and the ruler of a state, must base its legitimacy in the rule of law, which is essentially the quran and sunnah, or in other words the shariah. But the HT notion that there should be 1 caliph over the whole islamic world is totally rejected, because islamic history proves otherwise that there can be more than one islamic government in the world at the same time.”

    What a contradiction, Mawardi, Juwayni and Ghazzali all state there must be one caliph over the whole Islamic world.

    So what you are in fact saying is - Tahir ul-Qadri rejects Mawardi, Juwayni and Ghazzali.

    Wasalam

  • Ibn adam

    Ahhhh then you are a liar and Tahir Qadri has gone against the Ijma and clear texts that say it is an obligation in principle to have a single Imam. This is the position of Ghazali in his attack on the ismailis and his defence of the Abbasid Caliphate , the position of Juwayni in his Ghiath al Umam and the position of Mawardi in his Akham al Sultaniyyaah. In fact Imam Nawawi says that this is the position of all the salad and he considers it an innovation to think otherwise . Clearly you have not read the primary texts. On this position then Tahirval Qadri has committed heresy! May Allah keep us on the position of the Salaf

  • Abdullah

    @Waqas - we are not asking what he thought in the past. Read the question. It asks very simply - did he or did he not say the things he is quoted to have said.

    Once again (this is now very boring)

    a. Did he say that all deobandi’s and wahabi’s support terrorism? (as he is quoted in the Evening Standard?) [SO FAR WE HAVE NO DENIAL OF THESE WORDS]

    b. Did he say conservatism leads to terrorism (as we all heard him say on radio)? [NO DENIAL OF THESE WORDS]

    c. Did he deny the obligation of the Caliphate? [HE IS ON THE HERETICAL POSITION OF THOSE WHO CLAIM YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE CALIPH - ACCORDING TO PEOPLE HERE]

    d. What was your exact link with the Quilliam Foundation, since you yourself have a piece on your website where it says they were the ones who got you the media attention? [IT IS CLAIMED QF DID IT ALL OFF THEIR OWN BACK, WITH NO CONTACT OR SUPPORT OR THANKS FROM MINHAJ UL QURAN - A LIKELY STORY?]

    End of story I think

    Wasalam

  • waqas amin

    Your questions have been answerreeeeeeeeeeeeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    a) He couldn’t have said that

    b) yes; conservatism leads to radicalism, which leads to extremism, which leads to terrorism- there’s nothing wrong about this. Its the same with non-Muslims: a conservative English man if unrestrained can become a radical white supremist, who in turn if unrestrained will become a racist extremist, who if unrestrained will legitimize violence and will become a terrorists. It a universal human phenonomonon which applies to all people regardless of religion or colour. Its a way to understand things. But not all conservative minded people become radical: if that’s the case then we will have to ban the conservative party and the neo-cons, because its radicalized manifestation is the BNP and Geert Wilders, if unrestraiend will lead to the likes of neo-nazi terrorists. I would like to consider myself as conservative, if that means sticking to traditional values.

    c) What do you means obligation of khilafah? If it’s the one-world one khilafah model that HT espouses then NO. If its a muslim country where the rule of law is shariah and the state provides social and economic justice then yes.

    d)Minhaj ul Quran has got nothing to do with them. they do their work minhaj does their own. If its for the sake bringing peace to the world then even if minhaj has to work with non-muslims then there’s no problem with that. So long as everyone is working for a common good of humanity.

  • Abdullah

    ok, finally straight answers - jexakAllahkhairan.

    To give you the benefit of the doubt - I would say that you are very naive, and also ignorant.

    Naive to think that working in this manner with these munafiqeen (QF) will in any way further Islamic aims, and naive to not realise what damage voicing particular nonsensical views in public can bring (most people involved in these haram actions are not conservative - they are mostly ignorant of the deen and very downtrodden and angry at their rights being trampled on by their own governments and the West)

    Ignorant - because forget about HT or any other group - your views on the Khilafah go against Islamic orthodoxy and place you among the heretics.

    But I do believe you were not acting out of malice or evil intent.

    I am finished with this now

    Wasalam

  • Ibn adam

    Waqas you are a liar! You claimed that the position of what you call the “one world ” Caliphate is not the position of Mawardi Ghazali or Juwayni whereas we have the opposite in their books. They consider the ” multiple caliphate ” model heretical ! We have their books right here and I suggest you repent before Allah as you have violated the ijma And the Qati texts! Where have these scholars claimed what you have said ? Now be careful are you sure Tahir Qadri didn’t accuse at least many Deobandi and Wahabis of being well wishers of terrorism . We have some more refernces you know. Finally are the Quilliam foundation heretics and is Minhaj al Quran going to issue a public statement to correct this fitna that has been reported in the press. You may not believe he said it but it is your foundations duty to correct it

  • Ibn adam

    Indeed I agree Waqas may be ignorant because he probably did not even read the primary texts by Mawardi Juwayni and Ghazali . I had mentioned them because they are particularly harsh against the view that Waqas claims of them ! Isn’t it amazing how difficult it is for them to call the QF heretics while they have said far worse against fellow Muslims

  • Ibn adam

    Waqas one more question left unanswered. Do you think the Quilliam foundation are heretics ? Oh yeah when is Minhaj al Quean going to provide a press release about the fitnah that has been created . We expect you to disavow at least the majority of Deobandi and Wahabi brothers from being well wishers of terrorism because like Tahir Qadri Christmas issue this will go public all around the Deobandi schools and they will be very angry at this. Now go and issue your press release or by Alllah if we find out this is true we will ensure that the ulema will sign a decleration against him and his supposed heretical views on the Caliphate . We nay know a ulema or two as well that are from different backgrounds !

  • waqas amin

    But history proves otherwise:

    The Abbassids had their khilafah in the West in Baghdad, whilst the Ummayyads had their khilafah in the east in Andalusia- if there had to be one khilafah for the world then why were to two poles of power within the Muslim world, both independent from each other? Likewise, the Ottomans had their khilafah in the Middle east whilst the Mughals had their own authority in India. Likewise the as-Saud hed there polical authority in Najd whilst the Ottomans had control over Hijaz?

    I admit I have not read their works, but from what I assume their condemnation is that there can only be one authority over one peice of land but if you can relay their works to me I would love to read them.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25419892/The-Islamic-State-Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri

    You can read from 17 onwards on this issue.

    Even during the time of the Holy Prophet (s) there was an an Islamic state that was independant from Madinah! Thus this proves from the sunnah that there can more than one independant Islamic states at the same time within the world. However, from what I understand the `Ulemas consensus is that there can only be one authority ruling over one peice of land at one time; and if anyone tries to bring another rival authority over it then that is condemened.

    The islamic state that was independant from Medina during the time of the Holy Prophet was at a place called Dhul Hulaifah, which is in between makkah and medina. So when the treaty of hudaibiyyah was signed and the people of dhul hulaifah continued their campaign agaisnt mushrikin of makkah, the makkans asked the Prophet to stop those people because they were obliged to do so under the treaty. The Holy prophet replied that he was not in a position to do so because they were an independent auhtority and were not subjected to his rule, because the boundaries of his state were identified within madinah.

    When it comes to secular issues you should know that there can be changes in ruling (tagayyir al-ahkam bi-taghayyir az-zaman; these issues belong to ijtihad so you cannot condemn another person if they have different view to the classical ulema so long as it is grounded in the teachings of quran and sunnah. If you read shaykh tahir’s work you will see he reformalized the works of the past ulema and has put them into a new order using the quran and sunnah as his evidences; this is ijtihad.

  • waqas amin

    Ibn Adam can I ask who you are?

    Have you done a darz nizami?

  • Abdullah

    @waqas - thankyou for that reference.

    We now have his heretical opinions in his own words - with one quick glance I can already see numerous problems in his bid’a.

    We will work on a quick yet very thorough refutation of this heretical piece of work.

    “darz nizami”? Brother - we are Arabs not Asians, and we have studied through classical, traditional means.

    Wasalam

  • waqas amin

    Bring your refutations! Not like it’s the first.

    Every great imam of the past has been accused of heresy. Imam Shafiwas known as a Rafidi. One ofulema from Delhi a few centuries back (shah Walilullah I think or one of his family members) were accussed of heresy for translating the quran into farsi. He was driven out of his home and was not allowed to enter delhi. But today everyone proclaims the name of that man.

    So it is history that judges, and you’ll see one day how Allah will bless Shaykh-ul-Islam and give success to this ummah through his hands. and you will have to submit to him one day. inshallah

  • Abbas

    Brother Abdullah please be honest, If you read your initial post it read: ‘heavily backed by the Quilliam Foundation who sponsored the speech.’ What exactly do you mean by the above statement? If according to your new position you did not mean financially backed then what is the nature of this sponsorship. This current position is a shift from your initial position based fundamentally on a discredited report in the media. Furthermore when I corrected you mentioning the fact that not a single organisation provided any form of financial backing at no stage did you say you were referring to non financial backing. The statement ‘sponsored the speech’ denotes only one meaning as is apparent from your reply to my initial enquiry in which I asked you for proof to back your claim. @Abbas - the issue of QF sponsorship was reported on some news sites, but in any case they heavily supported it The last part of your statement as mentioned above is clear evidence that you were referring to financial aid. If you had not been referring to financial aid the second part of the sentence would not have been stated. You differentiate the nature of support in your statement by using the term ‘in any case’ continuing onwards to say ‘they heavily supported it’ which really leaves no doubt that what you were really referring to was indeed financial sponsorship. It’s pretty clear what you meant, your mistake was simple you accepted what was said on the news and lent the false notion of financial aid your support without verifying its accuracy. To change your position now having had a day to think is quite shallow. This is why the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam advised not to act on hearsay because at the very least an individual is spared the embarrassment of having to change his/her position when the truth is established and more seriously a person is saved from the sin of slandering. Just be big enough to say it was an error of judgement, your esteemed status will not be affected by the consumption of a small piece of humble pie. As for the other questions you asked they were answered on numerous occasions. My question to you is why should anybody believe a word you say when you change colours like a chameleon. If you had just been honest and said I accept it was an error of judgement then the rest of what you said may have been worthy of being considered for discussion. However seen as you decided not to be honest when you discovered that there was no basis for your obscured claim I do not feel any need to reply to anything you say. You do not warrant a reply because of your lack of transparency. I shall not be responding to anything you say quite frankly because I do not believe you have genuine concern to address any issue but rather your concern was just to discredit Shaykh ul Islam for which you used dubious tactics. I wish you well in the future and pray for you in particular I pray that ALLAH AZAWAJAL opens the way for you to tread the straight path.

  • Abbas

    You’re Arabs and studied according to the classical tradition? Well according to Imam Muslim (a classical scholar) it is not permissible for one to transmit the teachings of Deen unless one has a license to do so. The license Imam Muslim refers to is Isnad. Please kindly enlighten us with regards to what authoritative Muslim Scholars have given you permission to transmit Deen. We await your response. If the answer is none or those not considered authoritative then it’s clear what your position is and Imam Muslim is clear if you care to read his position about people who transmit Deen without permission. If you’re not aware of Imam Muslims position regarding such people please ask I will be more than happy to provide you with his postion from his own work.

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    “Abdullah”: For one last time, QF has nothing to do with Minhaj-ul-Qur’ân International. Newspaper clippings of all sorts of groups have existed on the Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr website for years but no one would think they were part of those groups. The same is the case with Minhaj.

    “Abdullah”, you’ve been asking many questions without responding to any answers. So I think it is now our turn to ask about Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr:

    1. Do you subscribe to the view of Taqiyuddîn an-Nabhânî that man creates his own actions (ma`âdhallâh)? Do you want me to tell you where he said that?

    2. Do you believe that the leader of a second Islamic state needs to be decapitated as stated by Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr?

    3. Do you believe that there is only one mode of establishing Islamic state?

    4. Do you believe that one who dies without giving the bay’ah to a Caliph dies in a state like those of the period of jâhiliyya?

    5. What is your view of Yazîd?

    There are too many other questions but this should suffice for the time being. Any case, I don’t expect you to reply to a single one satisfactory. Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr hold a of form of political Islam which is close to socialism. In fact, it is like socialism mixed with Islamic slogans.

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    “Abdullah” said: ““darz nizami”? Brother - we are Arabs not Asians, and we have studied through classical, traditional means”

    If you really have studied through classical and traditional means, can you kindly tell us who your shaykh is please and which texts you have covered with him?

  • Abbas

    Can you please tell us from what classical traditional means you acquired your knowledge. It would be interesting to find out where and how you gained your knowledge and what makes you think you’re qualified to classify Muslims as heretics. Also are you a part of Hizb ut-Tahrir? I asked before but you did not respond. I hope that’s not because you have any issues with providing information regarding your identity or who/what you follow. I sense inferiority complex. If you are with HT just say you are. If you’re not just say so, so that people know who they are speaking to.

  • Abbas

    Ibn Adam mentioned Imam al-Ghazali and that the Ijma was Qati. For the elaboration can you provide us with a description of what constitutes Ijma Qati and what makes Ijma Qati different from Ijma zani from the classical sources you have studied, completely referenced. I take it you agree with Imam al-Ghazali’s position of being an adherent of Sufism. I take it therefore that because Imam al-Ghazali was a Sufi the two of you are also followers of Sufism. Who is your Shaykh?

  • Abbas

    Abdullah if you are Arab and have studied in accordance with classical traditional means please provide your Sabt. If you’re Arab you’ll know what that is and if you don’t then it leaves open the door for doubt over your ethnicity. Also if you studied in classical traditional means you will understand how important the Sabt is and therefore you should have your own. Please provide them for increase of our knowledge.

  • Unimpressed

    This is beyond pathetic. A true religious edict against terrorism would have sharply condemned and endorsed armed resistance against global Anglo-American terrorism. But I suppose he would not have been invited to London then. I am not a Muslim but I have read the Koran and know one needs no fatwa to take up arms against an aggressor. Suicide bombings are weapons of the weak and brave. It takes no courage to carpet bomb cities or drone attack villages. Old Pickler, westerners ought to cease their terrorist attacks and quit this infantile whining about being targeted in return. You can’t have it both ways, dear. In my country, it wasn’t hymms and holding hands which got master off our backs, it was steadfast and ruthless resistance against the terrorists who invaded and subjugated us.

  • Abbas

    If the two of you are Arabs then you should understand Arabic. That would seem a common sense question however common sense unfortunately is no longer common. Knowledge of Arabic is considered an underpinning prerequisite in order to being considered knowledgeable and is essential if you wish to declare somebody heretic considering that the Ummahātul Qutb of the various Islamic Sciences are all in Arabic. To declare a scholar heretic is even more difficult however, it proved pretty easy for you to do so. What Arabic texts have you studied and under the tutelage of whom? Please answer

  • ibn adam

    Ok, let us deal with this heresy!

    1-History is not a daleel. To quote divisions in our history is not evidence that disunity is allowed. With this logic everything would be allowed in Islam! Let us follow this deviant logic

    Historically the Muslims where divided

    Therefore disunity is allowed

    Historically the Muslims sinned

    therefore sinning is allowed!

    We challenge you to provide one scholar in Ahlu Sunnah i.e. we believe in the creed of Imam Al Tahawi that provides this as an Usuli principle.

    2-The principle that the ruling changes with time and place is totally misunderstood. This refers to the absence of an illah (the efficient cause that is mundabit, dhahir and mentioned in the text by the usual hermeneutics that have been given by our illustrious ulema) Well that would be great but we are not talking about an illah here because we have a Nass ( that is muttawatir in meaning) that prohibits the disunity of the Muslims in a universal sense. One does not talk about this principle if we have a text that is in asl universal. The onus is on you to provide a reason for takhsis. As you well know in the Hanafi Usul the A’mm is Qati!

    Regarding the views of Mawardi, Ghazali and Juwayni! First we have Waqas claiming that he read the primary texts and now he admits that he did not! Subhan Allah. Brother repent for lying is forbidden in Islam. As for the claim that this view refers to one land mass, well that is another slander on these great Ulema. Let us look at the primary texts of these scholars

    Imam Juwayni.

    He has this to say in his Irshaad

    “Our companions have agreed on the proscription on pledging allegiance to two Imams throughout the Muslim world. They also went on to say “If it was allowed to have two Imams then it would fall under the same category as allowing two guardians of a potential bride to be married off to two husbands!” As for my position: The pledge to two Imams in one continuous area that is connected…is not allowed and an Ijma has become established on this, but if the different areas are so vastly apart (in terms of the authority of the Imam i.e. Shuzu3 al Nawah) then the possibility can be considered. This issue then goes outside what is definitely established “(as opposed to the initial scenario)

    Then we have this in the Ghiath al Umam

    In the seventh section dealing with appointing two Imams he has this to say.

    “If the appointment of one Imam becomes feasible then the plan of Islam is established. If the Caliphate on its different levels (in strength) in both East and West of the lands has the ability to have an influence (i.e. its authority established) in these areas then it becomes obligatory to appoint him and in this case it is not allowed to have more then one Imam. This is a matter that is agreed upon and there is no difference of opinion on this”

    So Imam Juwayni is now starting to clarify this “geographic” exception of lands that are “vastly apart”. He then for the whole page tells us about the calamities one can get when we have more than one Imam! Clearly Imam Juwayni does not think that the norm is plurality that can be used when the need arises! There are exceptions according to this Imam and he clarifies this further on

    “It is possible that a certain people will be cut off from the authority of the Caliph (i.e. it is impossible for the orders of the Caliph to reach them) and between them and the Muslim lands is Dar Kufr. Because of this Caliph will not be able to have an authority …….With this scenario some have allowed the appointment of an authority in that area which cannot have any possible influence by the Imam . This has been attributed to our Shiekh Abu Hassan , Abu Ishaaq al Isfra’ani and others… “ Imam Juwayni goes on to agree with this view but finishes with the caption

    “The person appointed though is not the Imam….”

    and if this difficulty is removed then the Amir should pledge his authority to the Caliph. He considers another situation which really can reflect our reality today. What if we have a time where the lands of Islam no longer have an Imam? In other words we have a number of rulers that have authority over different areas. In this case he goes on to say they cannot claim to be an Imam. Imam Juwayni obviously, and here the word H’aja (need) comes in, does not invalidate the authority because of this need. He still though sees the need for an Imam to be appointed in this case! In fact he goes on and later clarifies the issue. If you have two Imams then the allegiance goes to the first one to claim it. If it is not clear then this does not alleviate the obligation of the Imam but it seems to be in the hands of the Muslims or at least those in authority to decide. Imam Nawawi has this to say in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim on this view of Imam Juwayni

    “…and if between them there are vast expanses then possibility can be considered… and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”

    So let us recap on the views of Imam Juwayni

    1-In principle we should have one Imam if he is able to have an influence on all the lands of Islam. This is a matter that is Qati i.e. definite even though it is an issue in the branches

    2-In certain situations we can allow this rule to be qualified. These include the following scenarios

    A-If the Imam cannot possibly have any influence on the area due to the vast distance between Muslim lands and the people also cannot receive his authority then it is allowed for them to appoint an Amir. He is not called the Imam though.

    B-If we have a time when there is no Imam and we are faced with a situation where you have Amirs in different areas, then because of Duroora and Hajaa we should accept their authority but we should strive to have an Imam appointed to unite them. They may continue to be Amirs but it does not remove the obligation to appoint a Caliph. Again they are not called Imams!

    C-In these situations if we have a claim to an Imama from different Amirs then we look at the temporal location of the claim. The first one to claim Imama should have priority but if it is not clear then this should not be an excuse to remove the obligation to have one Imam. It seems that this then rests with the people in authority or the Muslims as a whole to choose one. Interestingly it seems that Imam Nawawi may have misunderstood the position of this Imam and was a tad bit to harsh but even with the whiff of the stench of disunity he put his pen to the Ink well and wrote

    “…..and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”

    Imam Ghazali

    Now we must remember that Imam Ghazzali was the student of Imam Juwayni.

    First, we have the famous book which has been translated by Sherman Jackson — “Faisaal At-Tafriqa bain Al-Islam wa Az-Zandaqa”

    In the eight section of this book, Ghazali says:

    Know that a mistake in the foundation of the Imama, in the methods to choose an Imam, in the conditions necessary for an Imam and those things that are linked to it; In any of these things we are not obligated to pronounce any Takfir(apostasy). For Ibn Kaysan rejected even the obligatory nature of the Imama and it is not deemed necessary to pronounce any apostasy on him….

    Now does this imply that Ibn Kaysan had a legitimate interpretation? We must remember that Ghazali earlier on in describing the canon states:

    The matters of Nadhariyaat are divided into two sections: A section that deals with foundations of our Creed and a section that deals with the branches. The foundations of Imam are belief in Allah and his Messengers and in the Day of Judgement. Anything else is considered a branch. You must also know that in principle there is no apostasy in the branches except in one matter alone, that is a rejection of religious edict that is established from the prophet by Tawatur, but in some matters one can be mistaken and in others one can innovate like certain mistakes that are linked to the Imamia and the states of the companions.

    So clearly here we can see that there are certain things one can innovate in when it comes to the Imama. We must remember this not a good innovation but a bad one and Ghazzali also in this tract defines an innovation as anything that goes against what has been said by Companions and the Salaf. In effect something unheard of that goes against Islam. This would also be something that goes against the consensus of the companions.

    Now what does he say with regards to the topic of Ijma’a (consensus)? Later on he goes on and says:

    If he rejects something that is established by consensus then this is a matter that should be looked into further. This is because knowing that Ijma is an evidence that is definite can have some lack of clarity that those who have knowledge in the foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence would know. In fact Nadhaam (the Mutazilite) rejected Ijma as a source in itself. Because of this Ijma becomes a matter of dispute and it falls into the branches

    Note that Ghazali does think that Ijma’a is a definite source! What he is saying here is that because it is a detailed issue we can’t in an immediate sense reject someone’s faith in Islam. We have another primary text of Ghazali which clarifies his position towards Ibn Kaysan. Let’s see if he thinks it a matter of legitimate difference.

    In his book ‘Infamies of the Esoterics (Ismaili Shia) and the Renown of the Exoterics’, we find in Chapter Nine:

    This is a serious attack on Law-based judgements and an explicit declaration of their inoperativeness and neglect, and it would call for the clear declaration of the invalidity of all the administrative posts and the unsoundness of the judging of the Qadis and the ruin of God’s rights and prescriptions and the invalidation of blood and wombs and property and the pronouncement of the invalidity of marriages issuing from the Qadis in all the regions of the earth and the remaining of the rights of God most high in the custody of his creatures. For all such things would be legal only if their fulfilment issued from the Qadis duly appointed by the Imam-which would be impossible if there was no imamate. So the exposure of the corruption of a doctrine calling for that is an important task and duty of religion, but not an easy one…

    Now would a legitimate opinion be considered corrupt? If it was not corrupt, than how would Ghazali consider it as a duty of religion to expose its corruption? Further on he says: What if the first premise is denied?” That is the premise of the obligatory nature of having a Caliph in the first place. His answer…..

    “We reply that this is agreed upon by us and the Batinites and by all the Muslims. The principle is not questioned but only the specification of the individual-except for the man known as Abd al Rahman Ibn Kaysan.” He goes on to say

    “All knowledgeable men agree on the falseness of the latter’s doctrine:two things to be pointed out to those seeking guidance on it…(1) The haste of the early companions, after Muhammad’s death to set about appointing an Imam… (2) The defence and the championing of religion undoubtedly necessary and obligatory. To preserve order there must be someone to keep a watchful eye on men and to nip danger in the bud: otherwise anarchy. The conflict of wills and passions would lead to neglect of the afterlife and the triumph of vice over virtue and of the lowly over the learned with the consequent dissolution of religious and “secular” checks. So it is clear that the Imam is an indispensible necessity for men”

    It seems that I am reading Juwayni again and this is of no surprise anyway as Imam Juwayni considers the Imama in the branches as well even though in Ghiath al Umam he says that there are aspects that are Qati! All the Muslims except this Mutazilite Imam have agreed on the obligatory nature of the appointment of an Imam, according to Ghazali. This I think implies a consensus of the companions! After all, the companions were Muslims! Just because something is in the branches it does not follow that it cannot have a definite base

    In fact Imam Ghazali’s book

    المستظهري: فضائح الباطنية وفضائل المستظهرية

    is a defense of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustathir! He believed that he was the one Caliph that all Muslims should unite behind! We also know that Ghazali was a student of Juwayni. Strange that you attribute to Ghazali that the Caliphate was defunct after the first four and we are therefore allowed multiple rulers or that it refers to one land mass. Another lie on Ghazali!

    Imam Mawardi

    He is the easiest and if you just bother and read his Ahkam al Sultaniyah you will find his view i.e. the obligation of having one Caliph! I just cannot be bothered to be honest

    Note that this view is considered Qati by the Classical Ulema yet here we have a modernist rehash to contradict them in the name of Ijithaad yet Tahir Qadri is using Ijma in the very same fatwa that you are so proud of. Note how claims that the hadith that refer to unity do not prohibit the Caliph being in multiple geographic locations i.e. Tahir Qadri , a view that Imam Nawawi considered clearly heretical in his Sharh,. Ya thal Ajaab, here we have a Hanafi scholar who knows very well the context of the Amm in Hanafi Usul yet he believes that the Amm has to mention possible contextualisation to be considered Amm in the hadiths noted. An innovation in Hanafi Usul, and in fact a heretical innovation in any Usul, if I ever saw one.

    Do not bother us with the usual “shadh” views. We are very well informed of all the views and have the books on this topic from illustrious Ulema who have Isnads that will shame Tahir Qadri

  • ibn adam

    Note that Imam Juwayni and Ghazali that followed are talking about Ijma that is Qati and not one that is disputed i.e. certain definitions of Ijma.

    Note what Juwayni says. An Ijma that cannot be disputed i.e. the in principle unity of the Muslims. He considers it and I quote “definitely established”

  • ibn adam

    Now, why are you rejecting the consenus of the scholars I quote Imam Nawawi again

    “…..and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”

    Yet here we have Tahir Qadri going against this and even against the Usul that has written about in his two volume work.

    Yes we can read Urdu texts as well! We have some funny tid bits about your shiekh but let us leave it at that for now.

  • waqas amin

    First and foremost tell me the absolute truth if you really beleive in Allah and the Holy Prophet: are you Mufti Adam Kawhtari?

  • waqas amin

    what is your full name

  • waqas amin

    I will not deal with your answer until you tell me exactly who you are.

  • ibn adam

    This is the position of Abdullah Bin Bayyah as well

    In answer to this question he says and I quote

    “Such a unity is based on a single leadership or headship for the Muslim nation. It was exactly like that in the era of Khilafah before it got divided to make way for division due to inheritance, lineage and geographical dispersion. But the idea was to have the Ummah under one flag and one leadership. That is what the religion of Islam calls for. But when put into practice, the Ummah disbanded from a single tie a long time ago. Hence its enemy increased and its prestige was lost.”

    Note, he says this is what the religion of Islam calls for, and we know Abdullah Bin Bayyah will mention differences of views and will not mention it as a single fact that the religion of Islam calls for if there was no Ijma on this! We can also see his elaborations in his article in arabic on the Islamic state and we can also give you references for this.

    Does Bin Bayyah have enough Ijazat for you?

  • ibn adam

    Interestingly it has been narrated that some of the Khawarij held such views! lol! The irony of it all. I have yet to verify the Isnads that are attributed to the specfic characters that I am talking about but is mentioned the books of our great Ulema!

  • waqas amin

    I will not deal with your answer until you truthfully in the name of Allah and the Holy Prophet tell me exactly who you are:

    what is your full name, and do you have connection with Dar al-Ulum Deoband.

    Bin Bayyah is a lover of Shaykh al-Islam, they have met each other numerous times and they both have a good standing with each other. Bin Bayyah is a friend.

  • waqas amin

    Will you not tell your name? Why are you hiding?

  • Abbas

    Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah is a respected scholar. Difference of opinion has existed amongst scholars since the beginning of Islam. Imam Abu Yusuf who as you may be aware was Muqalid of Imam Abu Hanifa disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifa on a number of matters regarding fiqh. The question raised was over your permission to transmit the teachings of Deen not Shaykh Abdullah’s. Shaykh Abdullah’s Ijazaat are restricted to him and not transferrable so it’s totally irrelevant for you to make reference to the respected Shaykh’a Ijazaat ‘ Does Bin Bayyah have enough Ijazat for you’ We asked you to provide us with your chain of transmission. That’s like me saying because my father is a qualified doctor and says it is a good thing for people suffering from depression to take anti depressants it is accepted that I have the right to prescribe them based on my fathers qualification. Why do you have an issue with saying who you are? What are you worried about? Perhaps that people may find out what your true identity is. It’s easy to post behind a pen name use your real name if you really believe in who you are and what you preach.

  • waqas amin

    If this ibn Adam is a truthful Muslim he will tell us his full name; my answer to him is very simple.

  • waqas amin

    The fact that he is not replying means that I know exactly who it is.

  • Abbas

    People of haqq have no issue disclosing who they are! They fear only ALLAH AZAWAJAL and have no issues with attributing their views to their persons. You sit behind a computer screen presenting your opinions with nobody the wiser as to who you are. If you have an issue of disclosing your identity then stop wasting people’s time and refrain from posting. Please spare us all the pain of having to read your nonsense which is what your opinion will amount to unless you can provide your identity, who your teachers are, where you acquired the license to transmit the knowledge of Deen and what curriculum you studied. You’ve criticised Shaykh ul Islam for days but at least he provided his fatwa with courage in public unafraid of the consequences in the knowledge that he is well equipped with dealing with any counter argument. Tell us who you are, you must have a name?

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    “Ibn Adam” could you kindly tell us the name of the person from whom you are getting your Dîn from please. Then atleast I know I’m talking to someone real. I can also then scrutinise that person to see what if any benefit he is giving to the Umma.

    Secondly, can you also kindly tell me where you copied and pasted this material from please? Otherwise I will have to go through my old archived Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr files as it looks like something which Mr `Umar Bakrî had distributed to his followers when he was head of Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr in Britain. It has been reproduced on your site: http://www.traditionalislamism.wordpress/com

    If you deny that you are copying and pasting, can you kindly bring “Irshaad by Juwayni” and al-Imâm al-Mâwardî’s book “al-Ahkâm as-Sultâniyya” with you please so that we can see what is really going on here. This is better than hiding behind a computer screen.

    Thirdly, if you truly “believe in the creed of Imâm at-Tahâwî” then can you tell us why your Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr contradict the following matn of al-`Aqîta at-Tahâwiyya:

    “wa lâ nukhâlifu jamâ`atil-muslimîn” “We do not separate from the largest body of the Muslims.”

    Forthly, you (and OBM) claimed above that Imâm an-Nawawî alledgedly considered having multiple rulers to be heretical. If you (and OBM) indeed hold this view, you will have to consider Sayyidunâ Amîr Mu’âwiya and Sayyidunâ Alî (radiyallâhuanhumâ) heretical because they were both heads of TWO states. They did not issue the verdict you and your type are spreading. The Ahlus-Sunna do not consider them wrong so we also see their two states as legitimate.

    Fiftly, since you are speaking about ijmâqatî, could you kindly define this for us and tell the reader how it is come by using any matn from any book in Arabic please.

    Do not forget to tell us from whom you are getting this material.

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    “Ibn Adam” why are you scared to mention your teacher and allow me to meet him with you?

    The statement of Shaykh `Abdullâh ibn Bay’ah is different from the position produced in the OBM article you have copied and pasted.

  • waqas amin

    I am asking you for the sake of ALLAH! For the sake of ALLAH! Now Allah is lookign at you! Give me your full name! And tell me truthfully for the sake of Allah have you written any books in English which has been published? Yes or No.

    I answered your direct questions isn’t it fair that you answer mine?

  • waqas amin

    Ibn Adam if you are a scholar and you have students who take you seriously then we are not in a position to argue with you (I’m not even a serious student of knowledge) so save us the hassle and tell us the truth! We shouldn’t argue with scholars.

  • ibn adam

    Oh the wonder of it all, you are asking me for an Isnad in an issue that the scholars have agreed upon!?

    What next if I tell you that the Hudud is obligatory would I need an Isnad as well?

    There is no Ijtihaad or taqlid in matters that contradict the Ijma and the definite texts in Islam

    As for me being Mufti Adam Kawthari, well…. I neither confirm it nor deny it lol!

    You know that your view was held by some Kharawij (supposedly) right?

    lol!

  • waqas amin

    So even for the sake of Allah you do not give me a direct answer. What sort of servant are you?

  • waqas amin

    If a person cannot do something when requested by the name of ALlah then what benefit is knoweldge for such a person?

  • Abbas

    Ibn Adam it’s simple if you do not have the courage to identify yourself you certainly do not follow the classical tradition of Muslim scholars who were all courageous people and had no reservations about attributing their views to themselves. What are you so scared of? you write: Oh the wonder of it all, you are asking me for an Isnad in an issue that the scholars have agreed upon!?

    What next if I tell you that the Hudud is obligatory would I need an Isnad as well?

    If you were knowledgeable such a ridiculous question would not have been asked. The fact you posed the question shows just how shallow your understanding of Islam is and it’s intellectual tradition. Pack it in and find a day job!

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Indigo Jo

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum everyone,

    Having traced Ibn Adam’s IP address, it appears he is posting from somewhere in the Bristol area. I thought Mufti Ibn Adam al-Kawthari lived in the west Midlands.

  • ibn adam

    No the analogy with the Hudud was valid! The unity of the Caliphate is in the branches of the deen but with ilm Nadhari it becomes Qati! You cannot do an ijithaad on it nor is it subject to an “ijtihaad”

    Now answer my references and provide me with one scholar from the salaf or the those of the Khalaf that holds onto the view of your Shiekh!

  • Abbas

    Well if that is so indigo jo why does he have an issue with providing his name? What does he fear?

  • Abbas

    Ibn Adam wrote: No the analogy with the Hudud was valid! The unity of the Caliphate is in the branches of the deen but with ilm Nadhari it becomes Qati! You cannot do an ijithaad on it nor is it subject to an “ijtihaad”

    Now answer my references and provide me with one scholar from the salaf or the those of the Khalaf that holds onto the view of your Shiekh!

    I think you should stop giving futile advice and build up the courage to provide a name! Do you think anybody can take you seriously when you do not have the decency to say who you are! You’re opinion amounts to nothing, until you provide your identity you remain irrelevant and so too your arguments!

  • ibn adam

    Do as you wish, and to make matters worse I could actually be from the Midlands anyway! lol!

    We have as our guides well know Ulema and we have no worries wal hamidullah!

    Now answer this question if you may. If someone insults the Sharia and its modern application is this on equal par with insulting the prophet?

    What is the view of your movement with regards to such people?

  • Abbas

    Ibn Adam the ghost lol stop wasting peoples time and get a day job! The Ulema you refer to are probably ghosts who live in your celestial world, that’s probably where you received your knowledge from and your notions of Ijma.

  • Abbas

    Waqas and Rafiq I don’t think you should waste your time replying to a nobody that has no following who gets his 15mins of fame by defaming world renowned scholars such as Shaykh ul Islam because quite frankly nobody is interested in what he has to say and he knows this which is why he is scared to give his name. You and you elusive Ulema can carry on passing judgement on the people of Haqq to your own detriment. Good luck when you meet ALLAH AZAWAJAL in the hereafter, I’m sure we’ll find out who you are once we’re there. This thread was a waste of time so too was the article. In future please provide your readers with something worth reading. Wasalaam

  • ibn adam

    “The Ulema you refer to are probably ghosts who live in your celestial world,”

    Well….what if I provide links to the books of these scholars online! lol! Then you can double check right? Can prove me wrong right?

    All these books are available online and interestingly you will find many a thesis on these subjects online as well.

    I assume you guys have nothing further to say lol!

    My view of Ijma is based on the texts of the classical ulema, don’t you worry about that.

  • ibn adam

    Go then, nobody is stopping you. I fail to see how that refutes anything

    Wa Alekuum al Salaam

  • ibn adam

    We will inshallah then inform the Deobandi Ulema that we are in close contact with and inshallah they will assess the statements of Tahir Qadri and clarify it with him! May Allah forgive him if turns out that he said what has been reported.

    It is your duty now though to clarify this and stop this fitnah and Allah will Judge you on the day of Judgement

  • waqas amin

    Ibn Adam let me tell you that Shaykh-ul-Islam has not broken with ijma in anyway. In fact the post which you posted above proves my point 100%:

    ””“The pledge to two Imams in one continuous area that is connected…is not allowed and an Ijma has become established on this, but if the different areas are so vastly apart (in terms of the authority of the Imam i.e. Shuzu3 al Nawah) then the possibility can be considered. This issue then goes outside what is definitely established “(as opposed to the initial scenario”“”“

    The statement: but if the different areas are so vastly apart (in terms of the authority of the Imam i.e. Shuzu3 al Nawah) then the possibility can be considered.

    As for Shaykh Tahir’s view, then its exactly the same! In meaning it’s the same, but how it is expressed is different. Here it speaks from top-down, that one ruler should rule the muslim world. But Shaykh Tahir is saying the same thing but bottom-up!

    What he says is that the Muslims states that exist today are all legitimate states if they implement the shar’iah and its not neccessary to consolidate them into one large macro-state; however, alongside this there should be a unity between the muslims nations, were they unite together and create a collective bod, i.e. A Muslim Union, like the EU and work under one leadership. In this sense, there is one imam over the whole Muslim world.

    Thus Shaykh Tahir has not broken with ijma, he has interpretated it accordingly to the situation we find ourselves within- you need to be practical as well, shaykh tahir has provided a practical approach to acheiving this.

    If you know Urdu then listen to the following clip, he outlines his plan to achieve a Muslim Union, start from 2:30: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZd7De4uzQ&feature=related

  • ibn adam

    @ Rafiq

    I am not HT nor do I agree in anyway with the views of Omar Bakri Muhammad, so all your criticisms of HT and OBM mean nothing to me!

    I can provide the links to all the books online if you wish and you check the texts yourselves to see if I taking things out of context.

    Are you ready to do this Rafiq?

    Yes I do affirm the Aqueedah of Imam Tahawi in the general sense. Of course there are points in the Aqueedah that are disputed among the Salaf like his definition definition of Imam but that is another story. In other words not all that is in the Aqueedah of Tahaqi is Qati but you should know that.

  • ibn adam

    Ya Waqas, Imam Juwayni considers this viable if the lands are so far apart that it is impossible for the authority of the Imam to be transferred to that isolated land.

    Also that Amir in the far off land is NOT called the Caliph but a temporary Amir that will unite with the Caliphate until this is allowed.

    I agree with this view of Juwayni as well. In fact Juwayni mentions a scenario that is applicable today.

    What if there is no Caliph and we have only independent Emirates? In this it is obligatory for the Governers to unite to form a Caliphate.

    That is my position. We follow our rulers in the good and disobey them in the haraam and we remind the Muslim Ummah of the necessity of unity under one leadership. We try to convince those in power as well, that unity is far better under a Qureshi Caliph that applies the Shariah. The Qureshi aspect is disputed but the view that I follow is that is at the very least recommended.

    If this is the view of Tahir Qadir then I agree and we have no problem inshallah.

  • ibn adam

    Unfortunately Shiekh Tahir does not see the obligation of the unity and this goes against Ijma. I am assuming that you are correctly quoting his view.

  • waqas amin

    I can’t see any point of this discussion anymore. I have a strong feeling that the whole point of all this was nothing but to slander Shaykh Tahir.

    Many Awliya of the past have been slandered and critcized, and even declared as heretics; but nothing had stopped them from acheiving the grace of Allah, and today we remember their names.

    Remember that Shaykh Islam has the backing of his Shaykh, Shaykh Tahir Alauddin al-Gilani, who is head of the Qadiri Silsilah and the descendent of Shaykh Abdul Qadri al-Jilani, ghauth al-azam. And he is his spritual mentor and the one who is backing minhaj ul Quran. It is his prophecy that Minhaj ul Quran will revive the din, and anyone who opposses it will be oppossing this revival.

    So all those who have hatred to Shaykh Tahir Qadri should fear Allah, and repent, because I know you all will regret everything that has happened in the last two days. Time will tell.

  • waqas amin

    The fifth objective of Minhaj-ul-Quran is to unite the Muslim Ummah- so it means that we all come to a truce and this discussion is to close?

  • ibn adam

    Yes we have seen the clip and we knew of it before.

    Jazak Allah Waqas for the reference.

    Of course it does not mean that the Shiekh has not produced anything fruitful but we in the end throw the views of our Ulema against the wall when it goes against such a consensus. It seems that Sheikh Tahir may have been influenced by the views of Imam Shokani who interestingly thought the same thing because in his view he claimed that it was impossible for the Muslims to communicate over such vast distances. I fail to see how this applies now.

    This is also the view of the modernist trend among some scholars in Azhar although this has been refuted by the scholars over and over again.

    Shiekh Nuh Amin Keller is also of this view and this is the view of Abdul Hakim Murad as well i.e. one Caliphate! (at least it seems so when he called the Ottomans the Caliphate of Allah on Earth or something like that, when he talked about the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman State.)

    This is also the view of Hamza Yusuf, and Habib Ali Jifiri! We have all the references as well.

  • ibn adam

    Ya Akhi I am not here to slander Shiekh Tahir, but you must remember that this whole mess was brought about by this fitnah that has surrounded the fatwa.

    If Shiekh Tahir holds onto the obligation of unity of the Muslim Ummah from a bottom up approach under one Caliph, then I agree!

    The discussion is closed!

    I assume this is your view now?

    I have nothing against the Shiekh personally, but he inshallah he should retract from the crazy statements that are attributed to him in the press. He should also retract from the statements that are attributed to him that claims that the Caliphate is not obligatory.

    Brother the Quilliam Foundation and the Centre of Social Cohesion are using you to spread fitnah. What is wrong with the Shiekh releasing this press statement and distancing himself from these people.

    If he does this then I will inshallah be the first to praise him and I will spread it everywhere. It will also make his fatwa against Terrorism and suicide bombing all the more powerful. I, by the way, agree that suicide bombing and these crazy terrorist activities are clearly haraam and nothing to do with Islam

  • Abbas

    Brother Ibn Adam Brother the Quilliam Foundation and the Centre of Social Cohesion are using you to spread fitnah.

    Minhaj ul Quran has spread to more the 80 countries worldwide in a time span of nearly three decades and comprises a multi faceted organisational network unparallel in the world. It has done this without any input or assistance from QF or the centre for social cohesion. For the record MQ is totally independent and this has remained one of MQ’s and Shaykh ul Islam’s greatest achievements. It is completely self financed and its work is carried out within its resources. The Shaykh’s views about various Muslim denominations have been consistent for as long as MQ has been in existence. If you watch his lectures you will find the leaders of the school of deoband attend his lectures. He has always tried to unite Muslims and has taught to avoid takfir and such positions. You’re entitled to your opinion but claiming heresy against Shaykh ul Islam without knowing his position basing it on attributed comments is wrong in my opinion. I agree we need to work to unite the Muslims and not slander one another merely on that which we read. It would have been far better if you had said I am prepared to sit down with people from MQ to discuss the issue instead of the course of action that was taken. However, thankfully for the benefit of all the discussion is now closed.

  • ibn adam

    Salaam alekuum brother,

    I should apologise inshallah if I have hurt anyone and forgive me if I have made any mistakes and all that is good is from Allah, as you know.

    My brother Abbas, my sincere advice, we are talking about the situation of this fatwa here in the UK. It is clear that the Quilliam Foundation and the Centre of Social Cohesion have used this and it is clear that he is quoted saying some very sectarian things. For Allah’s sake I advise you let him issue a press release that will absolve him from this! LEt him clarify that he does not hold onto the views that are portrayed of him in Harry’s Place, let him distance himself from the Quilliam Foundation! This will be of great benefit to your organisation here in this country.

    We are not here to disagree with the good that he brings! Terrorism should be tackled Islamically, and no one doubts that but the Muslim community here is already under significant pressure. The statements attributed to the Shiekh make our community even more suspect because many mosques are run by Deobandis and Salafis!

  • ibn adam

    I assume the majority of the mosques?

  • ibn adam

    I forgot to mention something. The analogy is with Muawiyyah and his dispute with Ali is very very poor, because the conflict was NOT on the allowance of two caliphs but it was obviously related to something totally different as we know from our books.

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    “Ibn Adam”: I’m afraid considering that you are refusing to meet, bring any evidences you cite with you, inform the reader of who your shaykh is and who you mean when referring to yourself as “we”, it is pointless continueing this discussion. If you are so proud of your information and pseudo-knowledge, why are you scared to mention which scholar you are taking this from? I do not consider you to be a scholar and am settling for trying summarising our two opinions:

    A) “Ibn Adam” view:

    “we believe in the creed of Imam Al Tahawi that provides this as an Usuli principle.”

    My view: `Aqîda at-Tahâwiyya states: “We do not separate from the largest body of the Muslims.”

    OBM/Hizb al-Harûra/at-Tahrîr make up close to 0% of the Umma whilst Sayyidi Shaykh-ul-Islams views are held by the majority of the A’imma and Mashâ’ikh today from east to west.

    B) OBM/HT/ “Ibn Adam” views on having more than 1 Caliph:

    (i) At one stage he quoted the statement: There SHOULD be 1 Caliph (SHOULD indicates recommendation and not obligation) upon which he claimed ijmâ` qat’î. (Citations from Juwaynî, Ghazâlî and Ibn Bay’ah).

    (ii) Later he claimed that it was OBLIGATORY to have the one Caliph and that it was this that had been proven to be qat`î and not (i) above. (Claimed from al-Mâwardîs al-Ahkâmus-sultâniyya)

    (iii) He claimed that it was heresy to hold a view allowing two Caliphs (ascribed to Nawawî).

    (iv) He ignored the fact that there were the TWO states, TWO SEPARATE leaders who were COMPANIONS, Sayyidunâ Alî and Sayyidunâ Mu’âwiya (radiyallâhuanhumâ) and neither of them claimed that the other state was heretical or going against something obligatory. This is irrebutable evidence refuting both claims (ii) and (iii) above. The reason behind the existence of the two states is irrelevant to the fact that they existed. There were TWO states among the Sahâba and no one considered it heretical.

    I ask Allah to guide and forgive me, you (“Ibn Adam”) and those you refer to as “we”.

    Brother Waqas: “Ibn Adam” is not Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam because he would not write so loosely contradicting his own teachers.

  • Rafiq Ahmad

    For the note, Indigo Jo is a very sincere brother who is pious, hard working and still pursuing the truth using classical methods. I have a lot of respect and love for him and would like to use this as an opportunity to encourage him to continue updating his blog with useful information and comments (obviously verifying information when it comes to big Mashâ’ikh).

    Ma`as-salâma Rafiq

  • Ibn adam

    Salaam alekuum Rafiq let me reiterate I am not from HT and I in no way endorse the views of OBM that you are thinking about. Secondly if OBM did quote Imam Nawawi on this then so what. The quote is there and the Sharh is available online if you want me to link it. Let me guess Imam Nawawi is on the Manhaj of the khawarij and OBM astghfur Allah. These quotes I have given of Juwayni and Ghazali are from the texts I have read myself and I have confirmed with those who are specialists in this field as well. The Ghiath is a particularly difficult book. If you believe that Muawiyyah fought Ali because he believed he was a distinct authority then you are taking us for a ride! I would really like to see the references for that! As for the use of the imperative “Should”, my answer is eh ? Are you seriously trying to portray an inconsistency here ? lol

  • Ibn adam

    Now brothers go back and issue your press release or we will inform many and I mean many Ulema about these statements that are reported of him. They will not be happy! Imagine if Dar al Ulum got hold of this. So stop this fitnah now. It is your obligation to ensure that these “misquotes” are clarified as they are now in the public domain. What a disasterous publicity stunt. To have Tahir being publically quoted accusing the majority of the Imams in this country of being well wishers of terrorism is a very dangerous public statement and it must be clarified, whether he said it or not!

  • Abbas

    Brother Ibn Adam please read the citation below which should InshALLAH explain why people have an issue with your reluctance to provide your identity and why nobody will take you seriously until you do so. This is the answer to what you posted yesterday. Initially I did not feel the need to reply to your comment with a sound reference for the simple reason that had you have acquired any grounding in classical Islamic scholarship or had any meaningful affiliation with its intellectual tradition you would have been well aware of the opinion of the earliest scholars of Islam which holds greater significance than later medieval jurists. I’m sure you’re aware of the Hadith of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam in which He Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam stated the best of the people in my ummah will be the sahaba then the companions of the sahaba and so forth. This is one citation from a number of references that exist regarding the importance and significance of the transmission of Knowledge of Deen, I could provide you with many more however, for the sincere and those who ALLAH AZAWAJAL has bestowed his grace upon this single citation suffices. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī reports in al-Kifāya (p. 121) through ‘Abdu’llāh ibn ‘Umar that the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) said: “Oh Ibn ‘Umar! Your dīn is your faith. Indeed it is but your flesh and blood (it is your life). Therefore, you should be very careful about whom you are receiving it from. Receive it from the pious and the steadfast and do not take it from those who are leaning astray.” The Words of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam councelling Ibn Umar that “you should be very careful about whom you are receiving it from” ‘it’ being a reference to Deen is sufficient evidence that what you say is not what matters, neither does it matter who you quote if you remain elusive and refuse to provide an identity. For all we know you could be an atheist trying to preach Islam. Should we take our Deen from an atheist? Please grow up and be serious, the Deen of ALLAH AZAWAJAL is not a joke so please do not make a mockery of it. Save yourself and us from the displeasure of ALLAH AZAWAJAL and HIS Noble Messenger Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam. Wasalaam Ps until you say who you are and who your teachers are your opinion in light of the Hadith of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam holds no significance even if you were to quote the Quran let alone al-Ghazali RA.

  • Muhummad Ashraf

    “Remember that Shaykh Islam has the backing of his Shaykh, Shaykh Tahir Alauddin al-Gilani, who is head of the Qadiri Silsilah and the descendent of Shaykh Abdul Qadri al-Jilani, ghauth al-azam. And he is his spritual mentor and the one who is backing minhaj ul Quran. It is his prophecy that Minhaj ul Quran will revive the din, and anyone who opposses it will be oppossing this revival.”

    i heard that Tahir ul Qadri was disowned from the tariqah as he took an oath not to enter politics and renegged on it. I believe this was taken in germany. Im not sure where it was but i know the sources are reliable

  • waqas amin

    @Muhammad Ashraf Why does everyone base their opinion on hearsay? If Shaykh Tahir wsa disowned by the tariqah then why is it in the last year the sons of Shaykh Tahir Alauddin Gilani visited Minhaj ul Quran and attended the gatherings of Shaykh Islam?

    In the following link you will see the son of Pir Tahir Alauddin Gilani, Sahibzada Abdul Qadir Jamal-ud-Din, attended the Ghauth Al-Azam conference held by Minhaj-ul-Quran, look at the following link and stop listening to rumours and hearsay:

    http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/8750/Gauth-ul-Azam-Conference,-Victoria-Park-Mosque-Manchester.html

    can we stop with this thread now, so much time is being wasted!

  • Abdullah

    Glad to see that while I was absent - we have seen that you have no replies to the points raised from the classical books and have resorted to “who are you” type tactics typical of such people. If you were so concerned about “who are you” then before you begin discussing such points of view you should have identified yourselves properly. Which of you is Tahir ul Qadri’s son? Which of you is the spokesperson for Minhaj ul-Quran?

    As it is - you and your ilk have accused people of being like the khawarij - you have accused me of being a kaafir on this very thread - you have accused a mass of Believers to be supporters of terrorism - therefore you are not trustworthy and in fact you are dangerous to the Muslim Ummah, and anyone on this thread would be foolish to identify themselves to people like you.

    To return to the points at hand - the book you linked by Tahir ul Qadri to includes opinions and words which are not found in classical scholarship.

    What you are asking of people is to believe that Tahir ul-Qadri knows something that was missed by generations of scholars.

    Thank you but I will stick to the classical orthodox opinions rather than taking the innovative words of people who hold Merry Christmas celebrations with their “Christian brothers and sisters” encouraging people of kufr in their kufr.

    I won’t return to this thread again as its clear that you are unable to discuss in any fashion, and therefore are simply partisan to the opinions of your “Sheikh ul-Islam”. Since that it is the case, any discussion is useless. Either send someone to the thread who has studied with Shuyukh properly and can discuss based upon his readings of these classical texts, or leave it alone.

    Wasalam

  • Ahmed

    You wrote approximately 1200 words without reading the actual fatwa? And you are calling others as ignorant?

  • Muslim

    Is “radicalism” among Muslims something to be discouraged?

    Since we are communicating in the English language, we should understand the O.E.D. definition & apply that. Radicalism is derived from the Latin word for root.

    Should Muslims go back to the roots of Islam or away from i.e. Quran & Sunnah?

    All too often we Muslims of the current generation are selectively appeasing those who want to an Islamic “Reformation” while indulging in Takfirism against fellow Muslims.

    It is unfortunate that terrorism is not defined according to the O.E.D., & that meaning applied without fear of favour to all killers. It shows bias if one side’s actions are condemned & a whole group’s reputation tarred, while the other is ignored.

    I wonder, when will there be a fatwa against state terrorism, homicide-bombing, ecocide-bombing, paedocide-bombing, missile-bombing & the other variants of industrialised indiscrminate slaughter of innocents? I don’t feel that we should hold our breaths…

  • http://rollingislamically.blogspot.com/ Zaid Muhammad Khan

    Assalaam’aaleykum!

    I am writing it after having read all the comments which was, indeed, worth giving up my bed time. :)

    Br. Ibn Adam and Br. Abdullah, you guys have literally rocked the show. May Allah ta’ala bless your efforts for keeping up the real Traditional Islam. And may HE [s.w.t] increase you in your knowledge and wisdom manifold. Ameen

    P.S - Br. Indigo Jo, you deserve an appreciation too for this article. .-= Zaid Muhammad Khan´s last blog ..‘Islam is’: Google glitch or…? =-.

  • Ibn kawthar

    Salaams

    i happen to come across this site after searching through sheikhul Islam tahirul qadiris fatwa.

    I was dissappointed with some of the responses from the mq brothers on this forum I’m also dissappointed with the summary of the fatwa that I read. It just seems to be lacking of a political understanding of een the most basic terms like ‘terrorism’. This term was defined in the 70s and has remained a hotly contested definition. For instance nelson Mandela was designated as a terrorist yet today he is considered a role model for the world. Hizbullah who fought against Israeli occupation are considered terrorists (therefore any support for them is illegal and would result in a custodial sentence in the uk). Yet hizbullah are part of te ruling faction in Lebanon and enjoy wide support. Similarly israel is believed to have indiscriminantly killed civilians to achieve political ends but yet is not considered to perform any terrorist acts. So the first problem with this fatwa is the non definition of key terms. And just one further example USA and uk have killed far more civilians than so called Muslim ‘terrorists’ the deaths have been inevitable due to the types of weapons used and yet te arguement used is that it is necessary to achieve political ends. However the un have not termed USA or uk as terrorist nations.

    Second to this is the definition of the term extremism, radicalism or even moderates. All of these terms are clearly vague ambiguous and subject to ideological bias. For example homosexuality is considered a sin punishable by death yet many liberal minded non Muslims belive this is extreme. So on this definition tahirul qadiri is considered an extremist.

    Therefore to condemn extemism becomes a worthless point as it contains no meaning and can quite easily fit into anyones agenda.

    And this tbh is the point Britain believes extremism are those ppl who believe in shariah, seek unity of the ummah and believe in a khilafah. (see tony Blair speech 16th July 2005 and Charles Clarke 5/10/05). And the new contest two document that was leaked to the guardian newspaper also included in the definition of extremism as those who believe homosexuality is a sin.

    Therefore ifthey say this is extremism then for tahirul qadiri or anyone to use such terms without clarifying it’s meanig would allow groups like qf to use his statements.

    Finally why is it that these ulema do not clarify and reaffirm some basic beliefs. Like the belief that an Islamic state is fardh, that the ummah should be unified under one khaleefa (oh and I have al ahkam as sultaniya at home it’s quite clear) the beliefthat shariah should be the basis of the state and the rejection of nationalistic and secular values.

  • Pingback: Islamic scholar issues fatwa against terrorism - Page 4

  • ibn adam

    Minhaj al Quran have just put up his introduction i.e. Tahir al Qadri on youtube.

    Just some comments,

    1-What he understands by a terrorist is someone who theologically justifies the killing of civilians and also dies in the act. I assume it would include the terrorist “scholars” as well. It seems that he extends this to those who allow suicide bombings. This extension I need to confirm though. One gets the impression initially that he thinks the act itself leads to Kufr. That would be very strange indeed and in fact heretical but he does not believe that as he clarifies later on.

    Would this mean that any scholar that allows what one calls “martydom operations” would be an apostate? Would scholars like Ali Guma and Qaradawi be apostates then? Would this be also transferable to those scholars that refuse to call these scholars apostates?

    There are many scholars in the Middle East from all persuasions i.e. “Sufi” “Ikhwani” etc… that allow to, partially for political reasons when the rulers in the Middle East want to put pressure on Israel.

    Still, I move on…HE SEEMS to label both HT and al Qaeda as Khawarij groups by playing on words. It is less clear with HT but by the play of words that his followers use on this thread i.e. Hizb tahrir/ hururiyah it does seem to be the case.

    From the blog it seems that HT are Khawarij because they believe in a “terrorist model” of the Caliphate which is a “unitary” Caliphate. Personally I would have thought this would have been ignorance on part of this people and a misunderstanding of Tahir al Qadri but then came the shock !

    He just does not think that the view of one Caliphate is a stronger opinion but he even thinks that it is NONSENSE to believe in one Caliphate. In fact this belief according to Tahir al Qadri would go against the Prophet and the practice of the companions!

    Now that is very dangerious and heretical. To label the beliefs of all the companions and Ijma of the salaf and khalaf as nonsensical and even to claim a consensus of the Khulafah al Rashidah against it is Kufr!

    This view is not just claiming that the opposing side is weaker it is insulting a view that is held by the virtual consensus of the companions and the those that followed them from the Salaf.

    Almost every single scholar in Islam has held this view to the correct one and there are many that have cited an Ijma on it!

    May Allah protect us from this!

    If the quote in the Evening Standard is correct i.e. the Wahabi’s and the Deobandis or at least many of them are “well wishers” of Terrorism does that imply that they are apostates as well?

  • ibn adam

    Correction “He just does not think that the view of one Caliphate is a weaker opinion”

    Oh yeah, he also thinks that those who say that Democracy is Kufr are saying something against Islam! Clearly he is playing with words and does not understand his opponents.

    What they mean by this is the right of the people to elect the Sharia out of State law. To make this halal would certainly be heretical in Islam because that would allow a Haraam.

    That was just stupid on his part because the normal definition of democracy is just that and he was playing to the audience

    Oh yeah Maajid and Ed was invited. It seemed that it was an invitation only event.

    I just got this creepy feeling that Tahir Qadri was playing on words in such a way by using terms like “ideology” and “Democracy is Kufr” in a manner that addressed the Quilliamite dialectics. Still this is a suspicion.

    It just seems strange that Minhaj al Quran invites them knowing their background. I am sure they knew who they were and they of the contacts of the Quilliam Foundation in the media.

    That was just stupidity to allow the Quilliam Foundation to take the Media campaign on even with silent consent. This is the reason why Tahir al Qadri is now in this whole mess.

    Oh yeah the Deobandi Ulema know about this. There seems that this is going to make the relationships very very strained indeed!

    Minhaj al Quran are inviting a theological war in this country and transfering it from Asia.

  • Ibn kawthar

    Salaams

    strange all the anti Muslim forces ie quilliamites, harrys place, Douglas Murray, melanie Phillips et al all seem to be supporting this fatwa and tahirul qadiri. Does it not worry any of the berelwis here that such vehement enemies towards Islam are so supportative of this sheikh?

    As for saying a single khilafah is false then what? we hold onto the boarders shaped by the colonial powers of Britain and France from the 19th and 20th century? It just seems that what the anti Muslim forces wish for te Muslims they will always find a scholar for dollar who will speak on their behalf.

    I feel tahirul qadiri is just another one of these types perhaps in the mould of ali abdul razzaq.

  • Ibn kawthar

    Here’s a speech from the then prime minister of Britain henry bannerman in 1907. His speech was reference to the strength of the unity the Muslims potentially could have….”“There are people (the Arabs, Editor’s Note) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another … if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

    From the Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907

    thankfully for bannerman a hundred years later we have scholars who say think that unity of the Muslims is a nonsense. Ie tahirul qadiri ‘sheikhul islam’

  • Ibn adam

    Just to clarify something accordingbto Ghazali it seems that not innovations go against an Ijma but it would certainly imply that it is ahistorical in the sense of being alien to Islam . I am talking about bad innovations. Still on the topic we are talking about it would go against Ijma

  • waqas amin

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Qao4DXf6U

    All I can say is time will tell who was right and who was wrong; your judgements are far too premature.

    And a day will come when all of you will bow your heads in shame, and you will have to submit to Shaykh-ul-Islam.

  • http://rollingislamically.blogspot.com/ Zaid Muhammad Khan

    Assalaam’aaleykum!

    Brother Waqas Ameen,

    Let the time decide that for us. But even if we are proven wrong, then [Insha’Allah] we would be submitting ONLY to Allah Ta’ala alone not to any Shatkh or Mujaddid. .-= Zaid Muhammad Khan´s last blog ..‘Islam is’: Google glitch or…? =-.

  • Abdullah

    “And a day will come when all of you will bow your heads in shame, and you will have to submit to Shaykh-ul-Islam.”

    Words like this just show what a cult you are, and how delusional you are.

    Wasalam

  • Ibn adam

    So with this YouTube link are you saying that orthodox aspects of political Islam was funded by the US ? Gosh that must be news to Imam Nawawi ! Man these scholars invented a “terrorist ” model of the Caliphate because the CIA went back in time with it’s time machine to fund them for the “ideology” that Al Qaeda already has ! Now that is a good conspiracy. Was this revealed by Kashf ?

  • Fayyaz

    I’ve been reading this thread for a few days and came across a very interesting youtube link: Our brother Ibn Adam used the name of Shaykh Habib Ali Jifri to support his uninformed argument regarding Ijma and try to give his argument weight by mentioning the names of some of the well known contemporary Scholars of Islam.

    “This is also the view of Hamza Yusuf, and Habib Ali Jifiri! We have all the references as well.”

    Seen as he uses Shaykh Habib Ali as a reference to support his argument about ijma (albeit a deluded one) it’s fair to say that he regards the opinion of the respected Shaykh as sound. I would ask you to have a look at the following words of the Shaykh, who is sectarian and who speaks the truth according to the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_s91vUF80s&feature=related

    I think it’s safe to say Ibn Adam agrees with Shaykh Habib Ali Jifri on his views about a misguided minority.

  • Fayyaz

    Shaykh Habib Ali is unequivocal in his condemnation of those he claims are misguided and they are identified by the Shaykh in his talk. Now where does that leave Ibn Adam? You were raising concerns about what Dr Qadri did or did not say about the wahabi’s based on a newspaper reporting. If there is doubt over what Dr Qadri said there certainly isn’t an iota of doubt about Shaykh Habib Ali’s views on the Wahabi’s which is that they are misguided and lack an understanding of the Deen and it’s scriptural texts. Seen as you referred to the Shaykh as a reference in support of your argument I think we can assume you hold similar views about the wahabi’s lol

  • Abbas

    I hope Ibn Adam you don’t deny the reality of Kashf? If you do I think you should have a look at Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyya’s book al-Istiqaama in which he uses the term kashf to explain an event that took place between Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Gilani RA and Shaykh Umar Soharwardi RA. I think it may come as a shock to you but if you refer to al-Istiqaama and the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya I think the issue of kashf will at least be clear to you if nothing else is.

  • Ibn adam

    I deny that kashf leads to kufr ! Will I ever get a prophetic dream that instructs me insult the Sharia and was has been agreed upon ? So spare me the red herring sectarianism

  • Ibn adam

    Isn’t this amazing. Notice the sectarian responses. First I am HT khawarij. Does this imply that you support the killing of HT in Pakistan for their beliefs ? They would apostates on this reading! I may have my disagreements but isn’t this a tad extreme ? Then I am Mufti Ibn Adam ( who knows right ? lol ) . Now I am a Wahabite. Anything to avoid my valid accusation that the Shiekh has mocked aspects of the Sharia on which many scholars have claimed an Ijma

  • http://rollingislamically.blogspot.com/ Zaid Muhammad Khan

    Are you the same Ibn Adam who owns a Blog called traditionalislam?

  • ibn adam

    @ Fayyaz, you did not read the thread well! I said that Habib Ali and Hamza Yusuf believe that is part of the Sharia to believe IN PRINCIPLE that Muslims should ideally have one Caliph.

    Here are the links

    Habib Ali Jiffri

    I quote from this youtube clip

    “The issue of Tahkim of Allah and the Tahkim of the Sharia, yes it is necessary for the Muslim State and the unity of the Muslims under the Khilafa is an obligation ….”

    Of course Habib ali thinks it is a small aspect of the Sharia and it was only restricted to the first four. This is not the traditional understanding of the hadith that Habib Ali is thinking about and I can get all the traditional commenataries on this hadith i.e Khilafah will be 30 years…. (something like that). Still, that to me is not the issue here

    So he believes it is an obligation. If you do not believe me then here is the clip

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9-tuy2XvOU

    So fear Allah! Is Habib Ali a well wisher of terrorism? Is he from the Khwarij ? Does he believe in a terrorist model? Is he from the deluded? Wa La Hawlaa wa Laa Quwata ila bil Lah!

    Hamza Yusuf

    I quote, and this was in response to a question about lack of authority in the Muslim Ummah

    “Its a major problem (the lack of central authority) because Islam in it’s classical formation recognises the idea of a Caliphate. In the absence of a Caliphate, it is just open game in terms of religious authority, so it is a real problem and we are suffering from it”

    So notice Hamza Yusuf believes in the same thing, and this is no surprise because this is the view of Bin Bayyah himself! If you do not believe me then see from the 25th minute this clip

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJJ1MQm19mg

    Does Hamza Yusuf believe in a terrorist model of the Caliphate ?

    Does he have the ideology of al Qaeda?

    So Fear Allah!

    Now what in the hell does a clip of Habib Ali about “Wahabi’s” have to do with this?

  • ibn adam

    Notice that Hamza Yusuf thinks of it as the “classical formulation” and Habib Ali thinks it is part of the Sharia, yet here we have Shiekh Qadri calling it a Nonsense!

  • ibn adam

    Fayyaz, I didnt see Habib Ali calling at least many of the “Wahabis” well wishers of terrorism.

    You have to take it in light of the Fatwa. Shiekh Qadri thinks they are apostates i.e. the “terrorists”. So what is the Hukm of those that are well wishers of changing the Sharia?

  • http://rollingislamically.blogspot.com/ Zaid Muhammad Khan

    Assalaam’aaleykum!

    Br. Ibn Adam,

    Is it possible to get access to your Blog? Please, ask me for my ID and grant me the access.

  • ibn adam

    Anyway, I am more than happy for Minhaj al Quran to issue a press release and say that the Evening Standard fabricated this quote or at least twisted it and does not represent the views of Shiekh Tahir al Qadri.

    Now that would be a nice start.

  • Abbas

    @Ibn Adam ‘Of course Habib ali thinks it is a small aspect of the Sharia and it was only restricted to the first four. This is not the traditional understanding of the hadith that Habib Ali is thinking about and I can get all the traditional commenataries on this hadith’

    Since Habib Ali according to your own words feels that ‘it was only restricted to the first four’ should we assume according to you that Habib Ali is heretic Astaghfirullah. Another thing should we assume therefore according to your comments ‘This is not the traditional understanding of the hadith that Habib Ali is thinking about’ that therefore your understanding is superior than that of Shaykh Habib Ali? Surely Shaykh Habib ALi comes from a classical tradition and has studied the books of the classical authorities and thus knows what the ijma is.

  • Abbas

    @Ibn Adam “Shiekh Qadri thinks they are apostates i.e. the “terrorists”. I take it that you think the terrorists are pious Muslims grounded in classical Islamic scholarship lol BTW Imam Maturidi also thinks that terrorists are apostates. He writes those who commit mass killing with the belief that their actions are sanctioned and permissible in Islam are as a result of this ideology expelled from Islam. I hope you don’t issue a blog edict of heresy against Imam Maturidi for his quote “tad extreme” opinion and lack of understanding (Astaghfirullah)

  • Abbas

    “Anything to avoid my valid accusation that the Shiekh has mocked aspects of the Sharia on which many scholars have claimed an Ijma”

    Ibn Adam who so far nobody knows and who is frightened to disclose his identity in case his misguided opinion of Ijma is attributed to him thinks he knows more about the Shariah and principles of law such as Ijma than somebody (Shaykh ul Islam) who has given Ijazaat to a number of the most notable contemporary Muslim scholars to transmit the teachings of Deen. Either ibn Adam is a highly enlightened individual and all the scholars who have taken Ijaza from Shaykh ul Islam are ignorant or the more likely position is that ibn Adam should spend some time in the company of a real Shaykh and learn a little about the Great Deen of Islam and its intellectual and academic tradition.

    Dhur Khuwaisra al-Tamimi once tried to teach the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam tawhid Astaghfirullah by saying ‘fear ALLAH’ he obviously thought he was an expert on tawhid and the Shariah and challenged the authority and understanding of The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam with regards to matters concerning Deen. It’s was the first but certainly not the last time that ignorant people would challenge the understanding and authority of the learned.

    I’ve watched the youtube clip provided by brother Fayyaz (JazakALLAH Khair). I don’t see ibn adam blowing his trumpet against Shaykh Habib Ali and his views of wahabi’s. I take it therefore you agree with Shaykh Habib Ali like the brother suggested. It’s safe to assume that ibn adam feels the wahabi’s are misguided and lack an understanding of the textual references of Islam. If that is so that is a grave allegation which basically declares them as ‘Gumrah’ misguided. This whole exercise was based on one thing and one thing only and that was to try to malign the character of Shaykh ul Islam because of the inability to challenge the authenticity and authority of his fatwa which is based on Quran, Hadith and the consensus opinion IJMA of the classical scholars of Islam (regarding the khawarij) including: Imam Abu Hanifah Imam Malik Imam Shafi’i Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Imam Sufyan Thawri Imam Tahawi Imam Mawardi Imam Sarkhasi Imam Kasai Imam Murghainani Imam Ibn Qudama Imam Nawawi Imam Ibrahim ibn Muflih al-Hanbali Imam Zain ad-Din Ibn Nujaim Imam al-Jaziri Imam Bukhari Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari Imam al-Ghazali Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi Qadi Iyad al-Maliki Imam Abu’I Abbas al-Qurtabi Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya Imam Taqi ad-Din as-Subki Imam Shatibi al-Maliki Imam Ibn Bazzaz al-Kurdari Imam Badr ad-Din al-‘Aini Imam Ahmad al-Qastalani Mullah Ali al-Qari Shaykh Abdul Haqq Muhaddith al-Dehlawi Shaykh Abdul Aziz Muhaddith al-Dehlawi Shaykh Ibn Abidin al-Shami Shaykh Abdur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri And many more………. (Completely referenced for those who wish to consult the original works.) That my brother ibn Adam is IJMA of the scholars. Now please find a day job to occupy your time so that you’re saved from spreading your disillusioned understanding of Islam.

  • Ibn adam

    No Habib Ali is not a heretic . We are talking about the denial of the obligation and not an understanding of reality. Anyway do you want the commentsires on this from the classical ulema ? By the it was not I who labelled it as a terrorist model . It was not I who has been reported to have said that “all” or “many” Wahabis and Deobandis are well wishers of Terrorism . Of course I agree that making the killing of innocent civilians is Kufr but where are the many Wahabi and Deobandi Fatwas that say this ?

  • ibnnadam

    Brother, do you think that Imam Ghazali is a higher authority than Habib Ali. Imam Ghazali wrote a book in defense of the Abbasid Caliph of his time, a Caliphate that Muslims should unite behind. I am sure he was not from the first four.

    I am more than happy to provide you the commentaries of the classical Ulema on this hadith. Do you want the references?

  • ibnnadam

    Sorry Abbas Ijma regarding what ? On the apostasty of the Khawarij? There is certainly NOT an Ijma on this. My view is they should have been fought because they raised arms against fellow Muslims. We must remember part and parcel of the problem was the Khawarij belief that sins do not lead to apostasy.

    I assume this is not your belief right?

    Interestingly we are checking certain references, :) of this work of the Shiekh.

    You know the funny thing is this. The Shiekh does have knowledge, but why oh why did he do this? Wouldnt it have been safer to say that those who kill the innocent should be punished ? That it was against Islam! Why involve the sectarian debate?

  • ibnnadam

    Sorry correction: Sins do lead to apostasy (at least certain sins) i.e. the Khawarij belief

  • ibnnadam

    Brother, what I labelled as “tad extreme” is the allowance of killing HT for their beliefs because they are the “Khawarij.”

    Do you believe this?

  • Abbas

    Don’t apply double standards, You clearly said “Habib ali thinks it is a small aspect of the Sharia and it was only restricted to the first four” these were your words and so you can’t retract, what does ‘only restricted to the first four’ therefore imply? The first four being Sayyidina Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali RA. You’re disillusioned. Shaykh ul Islam calls or Muslim unity, again refer to the following in which he clearly states that the future for the Muslim Ummah is only through unity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related Don’t apply your limited understanding of Deen to the issue you speak about from behind a computer. Leave that to those entrusted by ALLAH Azawajal with this responsibility ie: the scholars who have unbroken chains of transmission from themselves right the way back to the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam. Discussion closed as far as I’m concerned your prejudice and jealousy for Shaykh ul Islam is apparent and visible. That’s more than can be said for you personally as we still haven’t a clue who you are lol and perhaps we’ll never find out. However I extend to you the invitation to come to Minhaj ul Quran with all your books and discuss the issue with learned scholars face to face in accordance with the intellectual tradition of Islam to try to establish your opinion as being the true opinion. I’m not holding my breath though! Wasalaam

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Indigo Jo

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

    The Khawarij extended that belief to mean that anyone who was not in agreement with them was an apostate, hence the legitimisation of mass slaughter of Muslims. This is the principal reason why they were fought. If they had held that belief peacefully (as more extreme views were), they would not have been fought.

  • ibnnadam

    Abbas, I am not retracting my view. He DID NOT deny the obligation. We are talking about the obligation and not about whether such and such people where Caliphs after the first four.

    Do you not understand the difference?

    As for the Shiekh talking about unity, well he is talking about a sort of a European Union with no obligation to have one leader.

    What confounds me is this. If we can have a Islamic Union according to the Shiekh, why would it be difficult to appoint a Caliph over this union?

    The Shiekh denies the obligation of a single Caliphate in his books. He says it goes against the Prophet and the practice of the Companions i.e. to extend after the first four i.e. ITS OBLIGATION AND NOT ITS REALITY.

    He also calls it a nonsense! This is insulting the Sharia. I am sorry. It is.

  • ibnnadam

    I agree Yusuf, in fact the majority of Ulema did not do takfir of the Khawarij .

    I also understand the majority of the Ulema also do not consider Suicide like Shirk. It is an action that does not lead one out of the fold of Islam

  • ibnnadam

    Note the consistent use of the harshest opinions in certain cases

  • Abbas

    @Ibn Adam “You know the funny thing is this. The Shiekh does have knowledge, but why oh why did he do this? Wouldnt it have been safer to say that those who kill the innocent should be punished ? That it was against Islam! Why involve the sectarian debate?” Finally an admission but guess what you’re not the first person to come to the conclusion that Shaykh ul Islam has knowledge. There isn’t really anything funni about it. The Grand Imam of Jami’a al-Ummawi (Damascus) Shaykh Asad Muhammad al-Sagharji regards Dr Qadri as Shaykh ul Islam, Shaykh ul Azhar has endorsed Shaykh ul Islam’s book of Hadith ‘Al-Minhaj us-Sawi’ and the list goes on… Carry on studying the sources and cross referencing them it won’t come as a surprise to the learned but I’ll mention it for you so that you don’t spend too much time on a pointless task, you won’t find any inconsistencies with regards to the Shaykh’s sources or in fact his academic credentials, neither will you have any reservations over his command and comprehensive understanding of Islam so long as you look objectively and without prejudice, bias and jealousy. As for the following comment “Wouldnt it have been safer to say that those who kill the innocent should be punished” well when Islam is being violated and the image of Islam is being tainted it is the responsibility of the Ulema to correct the wrong. This comment sums up the core of this fatwa and is the differentiating factor from the previous edicts of the respected Shuyukh on this topic. When everybody only condemns yet the situation continues to exacerbate leading to heinous crimes we have all witnessed and the shedding of human blood it is up to the scholars to see what the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam has instructed . Perhaps you should direct this question to the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam who said the khawarij are the dogs of hell. Why such a harsh statement? Why not those who commit mass murder will be punished in hell? The answer, however is that more heinous the crime so too the condemnation this is the Sunnah of the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam. Wasalaam

  • Abbas

    @Indigo Jo As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

    The Khawarij extended that belief to mean that anyone who was not in agreement with them was an apostate, hence the legitimisation of mass slaughter of Muslims. This is the principal reason why they were fought. If they had held that belief peacefully (as more extreme views were), they would not have been fought.

    Precisely the point that Shaykh ul Islam made. His declaring them kafir was on the basis of the opinion of the Scholars of Aqeeda as he mentions in his address quoting Imam Maturidi that the action of killing itself does not render the killer out of the fold of Islam. It is the belief that the action of mass killing is sanctioned permissible in Islamic Law, therefore the people who he is referring to are those who hold the theological position that mass killing is sanctioned permissible in Islamic law. How many times have we heard these terrorists claim it is permissible to shed the blood of Muslims who aid the kufar and similar rethoric to justify their heinous actions and to persuade impressionable young Mulsims who have reservations about killing fellow Muslims that doing so comes under an allowance by Shariah because ‘these Muslims help the enemy forces. . My question is that who are the targets of suicide bombing in Pakistan? the majority of whom are Muslim. All the confusion could have been avoided if people read the fatwa. Wasalaam

  • ibnnadam

    But the problem is this. With knowledge you have greater responsibility.

    Look brother, the Khawarij where not apostates according to the stronger view, and I am happy to discuss this. Personally I cannot understand how those hadiths apply to those who believe in the obligation of a single Caliphate?!

    Out of curiousity why are HT khawarij? It is important because it seems at the moment to be because of the belief in a single Caliphate. Clarify it please.

  • ibnnadam

    @ Zaid, inshallah we will be up soon. We have a bigger team now and a number of Ulema want to contribute.

  • ibnnadam

    Abbas! You are mixing things up! One is Tahleel and the other is belief of the Khawarij. The majority of ahl Sunnah say that the Khawarij are NOT apostates and ALL ahl Sunnah say that anyone who allows what Allah has forbidden is out of the fold of Islam.

  • Abbas

    Ibn Adam lets be serious and not cause fitna. You keep mentioning Imam al-Ghazali who we all love and respect. However, we first take from the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam then the Pious Sahaba and so on. I provided you with a reference of a Hadith in which the Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam counselled Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Umar RA to be very weary of the source of acquisition of the knowledge of Deen. If you claim to come from a tradition of classical scholarship then you must know the implications of the Hadith. You could quote Quran let alone Imam al-Ghazali yet your opinion is pointless. So i make one suggestion if you really have the best interest of Deen at heart then meet face to face and bring all the references you wish with you. If you do not wish to meet please don’t waste time. Posting on an internet blog does not make you an authority. Meet to eradicate confusion in accordance to how the classical scholars use to FACE to FACE. Wasalaam

  • Abbas

    If you chose not to meet then I suggest you stop posting on this thread and chose another to occupy your time. May ALLAH Azawajal protect us all from fitna Wasalaam

  • ibnnadam

    Abbas, do you know what is of immediate concern at the moment for me ? Is the fitnah of the statements are attributed to him in the Evening Standard. Do you not know how many Muslim groups are angry because of this ?

    Inshallah, I tell you what, you issue a press release attacking the Evening Standard for misrepresenting the views of Shiekh Qadri, say that the vast majority of the Deobandi’s and “Wahabis” in this country are law abiding and have nothing to do with terrorism and publically distance your group from the Quilliam Foundation and then we might inshallah get Ulema to meet Tahir Qadri to patch things up.

    Oh yeah, for Allah’s sake remove the issue of the Caliphate from the discourse. It has NOTHING to do with Terrorism. The belief in the Caliphate DOES NOT push one to Terrorism

    That would be far better then making it a personal issue about me.

  • sajuk

    THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!

    Can anyone on here tell me what is the ruling on bowing down to anyone other then God?

    and what do people make of our “living saint” Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, allowing people to dance sing kiss his feet and bow down to him????????????? SEE LINK!

    http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=685376#post685376

  • waqas amin

    Most of this debate is useless for the very reason that number one that Ibn Adam and his lot simply do not understand who and what Shaykh Tahir is about. Their misperception of Shaykh Tahir is is like the misperception non-Muslims have of Islam,, i.e. they come across a few things which they think is totally wrong and so reject the whole.

    If these people would comprehenively read all his works then they will see that there really is no conflict at all- we’re all just arguing on names and formalities when the meaning is all the same.

    Secondly, this so called Ibn Adam keeps on pointing out the names of scholars who he thinks are agaisnt Shaykh Tahir and little does he know that these scholars are in fact his lovers and admirers. He acts as though he knows these ulema personally and he knows their thoughts, but in reality he has his own perception which he interpolates into their teachings, and assumes that they believe what he beleivees, this man just jumps on the bandwagon.

    One of the most important things I have heard Shaykh Hamza say is that he never became a Muslim to join BANI ISLAM but he came to what he perceived was the truth.

    If only Ibn Adam knew that Shaykh Hamza, Bin Bayyah, Shaykh Habib Umar, Shaykh Habib Ali are all infact friends of the Shaykh Tahir and have a deep sense of respect and love for him then we too ( being a populist) would join the bandwagon and would shut up.

  • http://C Ibn kawthar

    Salaams

    problem that the mq guys have on this blog isthe lack of ability to argue some of the most basic evidences being supplied. Therefore their only recourse is blind taqleed to their sheikh.

    My advise is to look at the statements of the past ulema and ask sheikhul Islam why they say khilafah is a fardh and that unity under one khaleefa is the normative position of the Muslims as defined by the nass and how his statements calling it a nonsense can be reconciled. As we know we have a clear statement of the prophet (saw) foun in sahih muslim who stated that if the Muslims give bayah to two khaleefas kill the latter of them. And we know the well known sharh by imam nawawi who quotes an ijma that the ummah can have only one khaleefa for the Muslims. Imam nawawi also believed the permission in an exceptional circumstance of having two khaleefas when they do not know each others existEnce or cannot communicate with each other due to vast distance as a shadh opinion. Now whether it is a shadh opinion or not what is regarded as ijma is that having one khaleefa for the whole ummah is a normative Islamic opinion. Now u can either take my word for it or u mq brothers could check the quotes for yourself and/or ask those whom u regard as scholars about this Islamic position. And once you have clarified this then u can ask tahirul qadiri why he said it was a nonsense opinion.

    What tahirul qadiri has said has acc

  • http://C Ibn kawthar

    Waqas quick question do u accept that the belief of one khilafah for the entire muslim world us a legitimate Islamic opinion?

    I’m not asking what tahir has said or meant or anything like that I just want to know what your position is?

  • waqas amin

    Brother there’s no debate- go beyond the artificialities of the this debate and look deeper into the meanings that are being potrayed.

    It’s like were both looking at at mercedes benz: I’m calling it by its prevelant name which is a car, whilst you’re calling it an ‘auto-mobile’. Or me calling nappies nappies and you’re calling it diapers. Go beyond words and look at meanings.

    I believe that having one big Islamic state is impossible especially with the diversity of the Muslim world. A fellow Pathan can’t even live with a Punjabi ruling him, or more signficant the Punjabi and Bangladeshi Muslims of pre-1971 Pakistan couldn’t live together in one state, and look at the fitna that was caused. The Baluchis want an independent state- so how practicle is your thought: doesn’t maqasid shariah dictate that creating hardships is to be avoided and ease to be facilatated.

    So each and every Muslim community and nationality should have their own independant state whereby they can live under the rule of law of the shariah independently as seperate states; but all of these states MUST be brought together into one union with a head who we call ‘president of the Muslim union’, which who you may call a ‘khalifah’. What’s the difference? You call it by one name and we call it by another- does it really matter?; the fact remains there is still a single unified authority who represents the whole.

    At the end of the day it was Shaykh Tahir who stopped Nawaz Sharif from implementing an interest-based economy in Pakistan, and it was Shaykh Tahir who got a bill passed to declare Qadiyanis as Kafir, and it was Shaykh Tahir who argued for the re-distrubution of wealth in Pakistan when other ulema were arguing against it. When times have mattered this is the man who made the difference; not some blogger sitting behind a computer or a bunch of youths who think that they can have discourses on things which are simply beyond them.

  • Ibn adam

    Waqas so why don’t we eventually have Wilayahs (states) that have Governors that are in end answerable to the Khalifh? Same thing. So why did shiekh Tahir call it a nonsense ?After all even HT believes that each “state” has it’s own Amir who is appointed by the Caliph. Do you agree with this ?

  • Ibn adam

    Oh yeah once the Khalif is appointed they cannot be independent of his commands. Sorry that is a difference . The Khalif is not a figure head. Of course it could be a bottom up approach. Do you agree with this ?

  • Akram Sohail

    Dear Ibn Adam and Ibn Kawthar,

    If you guys are really serious about knowing Sh Tahirs viewpoint on the islamic state then here is a booklet on his views:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28097420/Islamic-State

    If you dont want to read it then stop wasting time here wanting his views through secondary sources, go and read the first hand view.

    Regards Akram

  • Ibn adam

    I have read it ya akhi. He clearly says that there is no daleel for one caliph and thinks that the Hadith that talks about removing the second Caliph is only isolated to a region. This is a tafsir that is unheard of in classical scholarship

  • waqas amin

    EVERYONE CHECK THIS OUT:

    This one guy undoes this whole blog in a space of five minutes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ulFGuXwTjU

    It shows you what a non-biased person thinks about it and can see that this is a historic moment for Muslims all over the world.

  • Pingback: London Evening Standard: Tahir al Qadri issues “fatwa”, Doesn’t Miss Opp to Brand Deobandis, “Wahhabis” | MuslimMatters.org

  • http://C Ibn kawthar

    Waqas. Amazingly u failed to answer a simple question. I asked whether u think that having one khaleefa is a legitimate Islamic opinion or not. I didn’t ask whether u think it’s practical or not. It’s either yes, no or I don’t know.

  • LeedsLad

    When will there be “Fatwa” for Muslims in Asia and Arabia to stop using the word “Slave” at black people, or even have a different word for a “Servant” rather than the word “Servant” and “Slave” being used interchangeably.

    The above causes grievous crimes against the most isolated and vulnerable of societies who often are left with nothing but serving households to cook and clean as we know them as “maids”. However, the mentality prevalent in Asia and Arabia skews towards the expectation of enslavement from a person working as a “maid”.

    More Muslims are killed by their employers than there ever been “infidels” killed by a “Jihadi”.

    Thank you, and hopefully you will be true to your so called “Sheikhs” once they declare such “Fatwas” against violence and not ignore them out of ignorance and self interest. And if you could not see sense before reading the last paragraph, you are a nasty peace of work :)

  • Asad Sulami

    The discussion/accusation about Dr Qadri being sectarian is completely baseless as the BBC has discovered. I have studied his life through various sources on the internet and have come to know that he has authored a 1000 books of which he has publsihed 400 and it is clear that none of them are sectarian and there is no evidence of sectarism in his 7000 speeches. Since 1981 he has been giving TV lectures and for the last 5 years he has given daily lectures on Islam and you will never find any evidence or any words spoken about sectarism. If you read the fatwa you will not find a single word which indicates anything of this kind.

    I was present during his news conferences last week and I witnessed myself someone questioning him about sectarianism but he refused to answer it and he said his Fatwa is global regardless of any sects.

    Analysts see this Fatwa as a benchmark which will expose those who support terrorism and those who do not. You have to question what are the real motives behind such unfounded and irrelevant statements? Why don’t they say what they really mean? Are they trying desperatly finding a way to dicredit Dr Qadri because in reality deep down they disagree with the fatwa? And they have no other way to do this but with mere unfounded statements because they know that they cant challenge his authority, his works, nor his evidences in his 600 page fatwa book. It is a known fact that some Al Azhar scholars are Dr Qadri’s students and have even written commentries on his books.

    The fact of the matter is that this Fatwa simply couldn’t be digested by some individuals and organisations. Since they cannot disagree with it openly they feel the need to go about it indirectly by desperatly trying to discredit Dr Qadri.

    Instead of being thankful to Dr Qadri for clarifying many issues relating to the British youth, promoting the right message, they seek to do the opposite.

  • http://muslimmatters.org/ amad

    “The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques, that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States – like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok – but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US.”
    [Kabbani @ the State Department]

    Deja vu?

    Just as Kabbani was forever ostracized by American Muslims after his remarks (lies) at the State Department, I think Tahir Qadri has done us all a great service by making these remarks, and being supported by all the usual suspects and poodles. British Muslims hopefully will see right through him and ship him back to the Pakistan, where he can continue to be adulated by the mostly illiterate and uneducated (as I witnessed myself among my relatives). Yes, of course, there will be a few educated ones duped into kissing his feet, just like Kabbani’s cult attracted a few. The truth of the matter is that no mainstream British Muslim organization, with any significant Muslim following, gave him the platform for this “fatwa”.

    As for the “fatwa”, yawn… about 8 years too late. Did he just wake up to the terrorism issue? .-= amad´s last blog ..Some Advice for Muslim Husbands on Giving Your Wife a Break =-.

  • abbas

    @Ahmad “As for the “fatwa”, yawn… about 8 years too late. Did he just wake up to the terrorism issue?”

    This statement shows just how out of touch from reality you are. Dr Qadri has been writing on this issue for more than 15 years with various publications. Circumstances have become so intolerable now and have exacerbated to the extent that this fatwa became a necessity to address the growing complacency with which terrorists have began to kill in the name of Islam. Instead of supporting it you try to discredit it by the expression of your shallow rhetoric.

  • ibn kawthari

    Salaams

    the sectarian issue is highlighted by his statements against ‘deobandi leaning mosques’ that prepare ppl for the ideas of terrorism, and how ‘wahhabis and deobandis are well wishers for terrorism’.

    further he then tries to link hizb ut tahrir with the word huroriya saying that although they are not linguistically linked they sound alike? thus the tahrir party is like the khawarij as prophecised by the prophet, which according to him should be killed thus by implication hizb ut tahrir should be killed.

    u see this ‘peace loving’ man only seems to quote peace towards certain ppl and death and killing to others.

    anyone find that ironic?

  • abbas

    @ ibn Kawthari u see this ‘peace loving’ man only seems to quote peace towards certain ppl and death and killing to others.

    anyone find that ironic?

    Can you explain the supposed irony (according to your view) in the following example:

    The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam according to the Quran is ‘The Mercy unto the worlds’

    It is also true that The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam has instructed Muslims to terminate the Khawarij (note: termination implying killing).

    The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam was the most peaceful of ALLAH Azawajal’s creation. Why then did The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam instruct the death of the khawarij? Is it fair to assume that in the above example you find irony or contradiction in the aforementioned example on the basis of your statement: “peace loving’ man only seems to quote peace towards certain ppl and death and killing to others” You lack an understanding of what it means to be peaceful. Eliminating the fringe minority on the periphery who disrupt social harmony is in actual fact to provide peace and stability to the lives of the majority. Similarly ALLAH Azawajal is the most Merciful according to the Quran. Can you please then explain why certain people will end up in hell fire? Where’s the mercy in sending people to hell and a tormenting punishment? Can we assume according to your self-concocted concept of peace that there is irony or contradiction in belief of ALLAH Azawajal being Merciful? Furthermore one of the Beautiful names of ALLAH Azawajal is Al-Salām. Where’s the provision of peace in hellfire? Is there a contradiction or irony in the attributive quality of peace ascribed to ALLAH Azawajal? Why does ALLAH Azawajal send some to paradise and some to hell? According to your deluded understanding mercy and peace would be to send everybody to paradise. Learn the intricacies of Deen before you comment. Was Sayyidina Ali RA’s position of opposing the Khawarij ironic because He RA too preached peace? Is the position of all the scholars who condemned the Khawarij Ironic? You lack an understanding of the hidden meanings of scriptural text but that isn’t your fault it’s just something ALLAH Azawajal bestows upon a selective few. The lay persons have only a surface understanding of Islam. This is why it is important to follow the Prophetic tradition and have a continuous chain of transmission (of knowledge) from one’s self leading right back to The Prophet Sallallaahu Alayhi wa Sallam, hence connecting an individual to the fountain of knowledge so that one may keep the fields of knowledge irrigated with the provision of Prophetic understanding.

  • abbas

    Btw continue hopelessly as much as you wish to stop the good work ordained by ALLAH Azawajal. You’ll exhaust yourself trying but what has been decreed by ALLAH Azawajal will inevitably transpire. Many in the past have tired and many will continue in the future to stop the good that exists in this world by the permission of ALLAH Azawajal. Some try out of ignorance and a lack of understanding and some do so according to particular agendas. All the major Imams and Scholars throughout Islamic history faced sever criticisms during their respective era’s many of whom faced torture including the likes of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal but that did not dissuade them from carrying out their obligation because they were divinely protected. The same is the case for Shaykh ul Islam, try your best to oppose him and exhaust yourselves doing so it won’t make any difference to him or his work. After every controversy he and his organisation have always come out stringer. Imam Abu Hanifa once said if I tell the public some of what I know they will ask for my head. Somebody once asked Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal why do people not give you your due respect after all you are a great Imam of fiqh? The Imam replied when the people will rise from their graves on the day of resurrection they will realise who Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was. Your lack of understanding today pins you firmly on the opposing side but just as people of the past failed to recognise the learned scholars of their times the world will one day come to realise the hikmah of Shaykh ul Islam.

  • Ibn adam

    Ok after all that I assume you think HT are apostates then ? So, killing them is ok then. Nobody doubts the khawarij should have been fought when they took up arms for illegitimate reasons. To apply this to HT because they believe in the orthodox position of a single caliphate is stupidity. I assume you would have executed Ghazali then if he was still alive

  • http://C Ibn kawthar

    Abbas. Seeig as waqqas has become silenced by a single question. Let me ask u the same question. Do u accept that belief in a single caliphate is a legitimate Islamic opinion?

  • ex-HT

    ibn Adam, Quite predictabily it looks like you thrive on an extreamist view of things. You pick and choose the extreamist extracts of books (and that may as well include holy books) and reffer them out of context in an extream way.

    Common now, no one is executing any one. No indipendant individual or non political organisation can execute anyone. In effect anyone who takes arms without the authority to do so within the political system will be treading on the Khawarij line. If any particular extreamist view turns one into a terrorist then by all means it should be addressed and dealt with however executing should be for those who have crossed the line and taken the law in their hands without the political struggle to gain their objectives. They surely should be executed.

    If an HT or even my view encourages one towards being a terrorist then be it that those terrorists be executed an I or HT be punished according to state laws by the law and authority not by a minhaj ul quran or an HT or an individual.

    Give it a break everyone. Defy and appose extreamism, nurture peace and harmony, lets quit this Blog and take Abbas on his offer to meet and resolve differences, you are all nice people looking at the little wrong there may be in each of you. Who amoung you is perfect?

  • abbas

    Brother ibn Kawthari I’ve answered many of your questions yet you seem interested in just asking and not answering. I’m not interested in speaking to somebody who technically doesn’t exist lol when you decide to be real may be you’ll warrant a reply. As for waqas not answering I think you have comprehension issues that is all I’d like to say on that topic. I think waqas has realised that he’s wasting his time. With regards to your rediculous comment of executing Imam al-Ghazali, well I think you should get yourself checked by a competent medical practitioner I think you’re suffering from you’re suffering from self confessed authority syndrome. Wasalaam

  • Ibn adam

    Abbas it is not I who called Ghazzali’s model of the Caliphate a terrorist model. As for “ex-HT” please provide an evidence where I have taken things out of context from the Classical books . It is just amazing how you guys are in denial . Is this what blind taqlid does to you ?

  • anon

    How can a discussion or fatwa about the legality of “terrorism” have any validity and therefore any value when it is a crime to hold any opinion other than the one being advocated within it?

    It’s a shame. I can’t even trust the opinions of scholars (TQ not included) that I would normally respect any more.

  • anon

    I’m also sick of islamophobes like diklas murrey talking about condemning terrorism without caveat when they refuse to condemn torture without caveat. they always come out with excuses and justifications for why water boarding or sending people to foreign prisons to be electrocuted and beaten up is okay rather than firm condemnation. there’s always the make belief ticking time bomb or evil bogeyman…blah blah blah. and its not just obscure rednecks in Texas or Buckinghamshire, but also MAINSTREAM politicians, tv presenters, radio show hosts, journalists who are making such justifications and excuses. and making excuses for israelis to continue their conquer and occupation of palestine is their number 1 thing they reuse to condemn without caveat.

    after 9-11 polls showed that majority of public supported these people doing their torture too. so who has the real problem with extremism? Who are the ones who are really in need of a dodgy fatwa to help them control their ownselves?

    And even though these people make me sick, the sell out muslims who go around licking their behinds and giving out dumb fatwas that put all the blame on muslims for terrorism make me even more sick.

  • Pingback: An Academic Analysis of Tahir Qadri's Deception at Westminster at Forums.IslamicAwakening.Com

  • Hayaa

    This blog is good but this particular thread is a waste of space begining with the bloggers opening post. No comments have been made on the fatwa and instead there are attacks on personalities. Personal grudges are haraam in Islam so plz concerntrate on the content of the fatwa instead.

    To the blogger: Why don’t you delete this entire post and read the fatwa that is available in English first? You also need to find out some background information about what the terrorists have done in NWFP like how they have ethnically clensed the Sunnis from there. There are now nearly no aastaanas left with Mashaikhs. There have been 150 Sunni Ulemas killed by the Kharijis so far. Once you obtain this information, you’ll be in a good position to post a good a peice on the subject. The son of our Murshid, Hz Zia Ul Ummat, Hz Abul Hasanaat attended the janaazah of 4 Ulemas last year near the border with Afghanistan and is a Mujahid as a result of this.

    If you understand Urdu you can get information about the attrocities commited there especially against the Sunnis from the speech of Hz Peer Abdul Haadi who is from Mardaan in the affected area.

  • Javed

    All Muslims know suicide bombing or terrorism is haram. The question as Qardawi mentions is what should be labelled as suicide bombing and what are martydom operations - what is terrorism and what is jihad…

    Tahir al-Qadri does not address such issues nor does he importantly address (or leaves out from his work) the state terrorism of the US or British who have unleashed illegal wars, sanctions, occupations etc where over million citizens have been killed - who is he afraid of, Allah or those who provide him sanctuary in the west?

  • Hayaa

    This Qardawi Sb is wrong to say that Suicide is halal whatever you call it. Whether you call it martyrdom operation, suicide is haraam in our religion of Islam. Who is this Qardawi Sb and where has he learnt from?

    Hz Sheikh Qadri held a hundreds of Ulemas and Mashaykh conference and one of the points everyone agreed to is that this is a conspiracy from foreign powers. The foreign powers invade places and the young join terrorists who are getting arms from those very foreign powers behind the scenes.

    Yes many Muslims got shaheeded by the US in Iraq and Minhaj were part of anti-war work like all Muslims. But more Iraqis have now been killed by terrorists. The imam of Ghaus Paak Jilanis mosque has been shaheed by Shiites or Wahabis. Why are they doing that and calling themselves Muslims? Why don’t you condemn that? Are you supporting that or are you happy about Sunnis being ethnically clensed everywhere?

    In Pakistan the US has probably only killed at most about a hundred ppl from drone attacks. But the Kharijis have killed thousands. They have ethnically clensed most of NWFP of Sunni Ulemas. They killed 150 Sunni Ulemas but the US killed none. They killed Hz Dr Sarfraz Naeemi and did a suicide bomb which shaheeded many Ulemas during a Meelad Shareed programme which is like a kafiri. Is that martydom or jahannam? It is jahannam of course because Ulemas are the ppl who protect and preserve Islam. So this is not martydom operation, it is a trip to Hell. So many so-called maulanas are not condenming it so someone needs to set the record straight. This is what Hz Sb has done. He is not scared of anyone and doesn’t need anyones protection as he said himself. All of the Ulemas from all maslaks are supporting him so he really doesn’t need anyone.

  • waqas amin

    LOL. 3 Weeks on and everyone is still debating this.

    The fact that were still so obsessed shows that Shaykh Qadri is most unique scholar of our time!

    This

  • Harris Hammam

    waqas, what is the practical application of the following Hadith?

    Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri in Saheeh Muslim from the Prophet, ‘If two Khalifahs are appointed, then kill the last one of them’.

    What is Qadri’s response to this?

    Also, because Imam al-Maturidi is the highest theologian according to Qadri, what does he have to say about what the great Maturidi al-Taftaazaani said?: If objection is made, “Why is it not permissible to have sufficient men of power in different districts, and thus do away with the necessity of a general authority over all?” we reply that this only leads to disputes and quarrels which end in disorder both in religious and secular matters, as is to be seen at the present time.

    Yet we saw Qadri proudly boast that he has found no Hadith [or authority] that establishes one Khilaafah for the Muslims!

    Even if he didn’t find any explicit Hadith, the above Hadith indiectly proves it. Indirect evidence [i.e. twisting by Qadri] was used many a time by Qadri to prove his point in Westminster. Even if there was no Hadith, the fact that Maturidi theologians have agreed that there can only be one Khalifah proves that Qadri didn’t address his opposition’s arguments.

    This method adopted by Qadri does not help Qadri’s cause.

  • Pingback: Indigo Jo Blogs — Further thoughts on Qadri fatwa

  • waqas amin

    These are the scholars narrated by brother Harriss Hammam as being the true propogators of jihad in our time. What this proves is that this fatwa has really got on the nerves of the extremists and radicals, who are so blinded in their guluww/extremism.

    Brother indigo jo, you see how Shaykh Tahir has got to the nerves of these extremists; their BANI ISLAM (tribal) mentality is exposed and their obsession with matters that simply do not concern them, matter such as a global caliphate, has shown through.

    Here is a description of some of the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them and give them guidance) these extremists are obsessed with (these names were provided by brother Harris Hammam above which you yourself can verify):

    Hamood al-Shu’aybi: Sheikh Hamoud al Aqla al Shuebi was a Saudi born Islamic cleric.

    He has been seen as a radical element since at least 1994 when he was quoted by Osama bin Laden in his Open Letter to Shaykh Bin Baz on the Invalidity of his Fatwa on Peace with the Jews, and several weeks after the Invasion of Afghanistan.

    He drew condemnation from the United States for making comments supporting the 9/11 attacks, and encouraging Muslims to fight Christians and Jews in “Muslim lands”. He issued a Fatwa praising the Taliban for creating “the only country in the world in which there are no man-made laws

    Abdullah Azzam Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (1941 As-ba’ah Al-Hartiyeh, British Mandate of Palestine – November 24, 1989, Peshawar, Pakistan) (Arabic عبدالله عزام) was a highly influential Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian, who preached in favor of defensive jihad by Muslims to help the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet invaders. He raised funds, recruited, and organized the international Islamic volunteer effort of Afghan Arabs through the 1980s, and emphasised the political ascension of Islamism.

    He is also known as a teacher and mentor of Osama bin Laden, who persuaded bin Laden to come to Afghanistan and help the jihad, though the two differed as to where the next front in global jihad should be after the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan. He was killed by a bomb blast on November 24, 1989

    Abdullah al-Rashud Abdullah Rashud, 37, was one of the last three Saudis at large out of a list of 26 senior Al Qaeda militants wanted by Riyadh for a wave of deadly attacks in the country.

    Ali al-Khudhayr heikh Ali al-Khudair (Arabic: شيخ علي الخُضير‎, Sheikh ’Ali al-Khuḍayr), also known as Sheikh Ali bin al-Khudair, or Ali bin al-Khudayr is a well-known and influential Saudi Arabian cleric and scholar. He was arrested in 2003. According to Michael Scott Doran in Foreign Affairs [1] Sheikh Ali al-Khudair “is known as a leader of the takfiri-jihadi stream of Islamic radicalism — that is, as someone quick to engage in takfir, the practice of proclaiming fellow Muslims guilty of apostasy (a crime punishable by death).”

    Sheikh Ali al-Khudair had issued fatwas against several Saudi-Arabian thinkers, among them Turki al-Hamad, Mansour al-Naqeedan and Abdullah Abusamh declaring them as infidel.

    Nasir al-Fahd: Until May 2003, al Qaeda did not have sufficient Islamic grounding on which to convincingly justify a WMD attack. In that month, however, a young Saudi cleric named Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd published “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels.”

    Shaykh al-Fahd concludes by addressing the issue of whether Muslims can kill other Muslims in pursuing jihad in God’s name. He says that, indeed, the lives of Muslims are considered sacred and there is no permission from God to wantonly kill another Muslim. But, al-Fahd maintains, “If we accept the argument unrestrictedly, we should entirely suspend jihad, for no infidel land is devoid of Muslims. As long as jihad has been commanded…and it can be carried out only in this way [i.e., with Muslims being killed in attacks by Muslims], it is permitted.” God allows this, al-Fahd explains, “so that the enemy cannot force us to abandon jihad by imprisoning a Muslim among them.” http://ianlivingston.com/threatmatrix/handbook/wmd_fatwa.htm

    It is this kind of extremism that this fatwa speaks out against; once the English translations will be available it will remove these sideline justifications of terrorism.

    I have no doubt that this is a moral victory for orthodox Islam, and the sunna of the Holy Prophet and the salaf as-salih; and within time the truth will prevail, inshallah!

  • Harris Hammam

    waqas amin,

    1. I note you have no reply to the Hadith nor the statements of ‘one Khalifah only’ made by major Maturidis - all contradicted by Qadri.

    2. Instead you have the cheek just to fire back with whom I referred to. Well, FYI, I never said I agreed with them in everything what they say; I was rather making the point that - if we are going to go back to the original sources of the Shariah (like Qadri claims) - then why not compare their evidences to Qadri’s?

    3. Even if they disagree, why cannot it be treated as a mujtahad feeh mas’alah in Jihad?

    I expect no legitimate answer from you, waqas amin.