Comedy of Shia Sunni Differences - 7

Syed wrote:

Ankhein band karne se duniya main andhera nahi ho jata. come up with concrete proof to deny this report. Main tau pehle hi keh chuka hoon ke shia ek group that jo ab community ban gaya hai, aur is ko banaya hi jews or fire-worshipers ne tha, phir woh kaisay musalman ho sakte hain, woh tau musalman ki khaal main jews hain. Shia community ne Islam ke liye kuch nahi kiya bal ke Islam ka face kharab karne main bohot bara role ada kiya hai. Shia community ki kuch branches bhi hain i.e. Ismaili, Bori etc..

Mujhe aaj bhi ek british newspaper ki report yaad hai jis main ek shia ko churi ka matam karte huay dikhaya hai aur upper likha tha "They need to be human.." Pakistan ke logon ko abhi in snakes ke bare main pata nahi hai jo un ki aastein main pal rahe hain.. Aaj bhi Iran aur Pakistan ka conflict hoga tau yeh Iran ka hi saath deyngaye.. Agar is group ka koi member in ki majalis attend kar ley tau woh bhi in se itni hi nafrat karey ga jitni main karta hoon. Maine is community pe puri tarah research ki hai aur in ke har concept ko Quran ki roshni main ghalat sabit kar sakta hoon. for more info about them visit www.kr-hcy.com

Syed
======================================

Dear Mr Syed,

Since this discussion is in English therefore I would request you to use English instead of Roman Character [using Urdu] and please come up with Quran and Hadith not some website to support your argument.

I know about that Haidth of Sahih Muslim but please tell me where in that Hadith, Shias are mentioned???

Dear Mr Syed,

The Hadith of Sahih Muslim which you have used against the Shia Community is as under with the Chain of Narrators and Arabic Text.

Arabic Text of that Hadith:

المملكة العربية السعودية

وزارة الشؤون الإسلامية والأوقاف والدعوة والإرشاد

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=6740

في بقية من أحاديث الدجال الفتن وأشراط الساعة صحيح مسلم

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏منصور بن أبي مزاحم ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏يحيى بن حمزة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الأوزاعي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏إسحق بن عبد الله ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عمه ‏ ‏أنس بن مالك ‏
‏أن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏يتبع ‏ ‏الدجال ‏ ‏من ‏ ‏يهود أصبهان ‏ ‏سبعون ألفا عليهم ‏ ‏الطيالسة

‏قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( يتبع الدجال من يهود أصبهان سبعون ألفا ) ‏
‏هكذا هو في جميع النسخ ببلادنا : ( سبعون ) بسين ثم باء موحدة , وكذا نقله القاضي عن رواية الأكثرين . قال : وفي رواية ابن ماهان ( تسعون ألفا ) بالتاء المثناة قبل السين , والصحيح المشهور الأول , وأصبهان بفتح الهمزة وكسرها وبالباء والفاء

English Translation of the Hadith above is as under:

Sahih Muslim

The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)

Chapter 23: THE REMAINING AHADITH PERTAINING TO THE DAJJAL

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/041.smt.html

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls.

Shias are not mentioned anywhere in Hadith and the Perisan Shawls which are mentioned in that Hadith is of Green Colour [الطيالسة] and please tell is this Green Colour revered by Shias or Barelwi Sufis??


Come with verses of Quran and Hadith which say that Shias are Kaafir. I want Quranic Text and Text from Hadith, not the Fatwa of Rampantly Deviant Sipah-e-Sahab, Deobandi or Barelvi Mullahs because their Fatwas are not Hujjat [Proof] because if you follow their Fatwa against Shia Community then also follow their Fatwa of Apostasy against each other. If Shias are Jews then what about Late. Mohammad Ali Jinnah????

LATE. MR JINNAH’S RELIGION:

On 24 September 1948, after the demise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatimah Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, submitted a jointly signed petition at the Karachi High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On 6 February, 1968 after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah'’ demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Fatimah Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on grounds that the deceased was a Shia. As per Mr. I. H. Ispahani who was a family friend of Jinnah, revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mehmoodabad. He however conceded that Jinnah was opposed in Bombay elections by a Shia Conference canditate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He himself arranged the Ghusl and Janaza {Funeral Bath and Funeral} for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia Ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni Namaz-e-Janaza was held later at Polo Ground, Karachi after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her dead body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Allama Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the gusl of the Quaid on the instructions of Miss Fatimah Jinah. He led his Namaz-e-Janaza in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such luminaries as Yousuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, an alim belonging to Deoband school of thought known for its anti-Shia belief, read his Janaza according the Sunni ritual at the ground where the mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatimah Jinnah, alam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered from her residence, Mohatta Palace. Despite all this Jinnah kept himself away from Shia politics. He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim.

[PAKISTAN: Behind the Ideological Mask (Facts About Great Men We Don’t Want to Know) by Khaled Ahmed, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. Aziz, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad].


Religious ‘scholars’ who could not even agree on the definition of a Muslim when they were questioned by Justice M. Munir and Justice M. R. Kayani in the court of inquiry into the Punjab disturbances of 1953. The inquiry was launched after the campaign against the Ahmadis initiated by the then Jamaat-e-Islami chief Maulana Mawdudi.

The Munir Commission Report (Lahore, 1954) states:

“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has, and that definition differs from all others, we all leave Islam’s fold. If we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to everyone else’s definition.” The report elaborated on the point by explaining that the Deobandis would label the Barelvis as kafirs if they are empowered and vice versa, and the same would happen among the other sects. The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path.

Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price. Our politicians played into the hands of these fanatics for expedient political reasons and overlooked the diminishing returns from such an unwise overture.

The journey of politicising Islam began with the Objectives Resolution. Jinnah envisioned a secular Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan made the mistake of adopting the Objectives Resolution in 1949 that stated, “Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.” This stipulation gave the mullahs the chance they were looking for, a chance to flash their religious card and put fear in the heart of the ignorant masses. After moving the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Liaquat Ali Khan said, “As I have just said, the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.” Although he believed in the power of the people and aimed for a secular, democratic rule, yet by bringing the name of religion into the Objectives Resolution, he gave an edge to the mullahs who later claimed it as their licence to impose the Shariah. And so began the rise of the fanatics.

Ulema did not wait long to demand their share of power in running the new state. Soon after independence, Jamat-i-Islami made the achievement of an Islamic constitution its central goal. Maulana Maududi, after the creation of Pakistan, revised the conception of his mission and that of the rationale of the Pakistan movement, arguing that its sole object had been the establishment of an Islamic state and that his party alone possessed the understanding and commitment needed to bring that about. Jamat-i-Islami soon evolved into a political party, demanding the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan.

It declared that Pakistan was a Muslim state and not an Islamic state since a Muslim State is any state which is ruled by Muslims while an Islamic State is one which opts to conduct its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam and accepts the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His Law, and which devotes its resources to achieve this end. According to this definition, Pakistan was a Muslim state ruled by secular minded Muslims. Hence the Jamat-i-Islami and other religious leaders channeled their efforts to make Pakistan an "Islamic State."

Maulana Maududi argued that from the beginning of the struggle for Pakistan, Moslems had an understanding that the center of their aspirations, Pakistan, would be an Islamic state, in which Islamic law would be enforced and Islamic culture would be revived. Muslim League leaders, in their speeches, were giving this impression. Above all, Quaid-i-Azam himself assured the Muslims that the constitution of Pakistan would be based on the Quran.

This contrasts to his views about the Muslim League leaders before independence: Not a single leader of the Muslim League, from Quad-i-Azam, downwards, has Islamic mentality and Islamic thinking or they see the things from Islamic point of view. To declare such people legible for Muslim leadership, because they are expert in western politics or western organization system and have concern for the nation, is definitely ignorance from Islam and amounts to an un-Islamic mentality. On another occasion, Maulana Maududi said it was not clear either from any resolution of the Muslim League or from the speeches of any responsible League leaders, that the ultimate aim of Pakistan is the establishment of an Islamic government.....Those people are wrong who think that if the Muslim majority regions are emancipated from the Hindu domination and a democratic system is established, it would be a government of God. As a matter of fact, in this way, whatever would be achieved, it would be only a non-believers government of the Muslims or may be more deplorable than that.

When the question of constitution-making came to the forefront, the Ulema, inside and outside the Constitutional Assembly and outside demanded that the Islamic Shariah shall form the only source for all legislature in Pakistan.

In February 1948, Maulana Maududi, while addressing the Law College, Lahore, demanded that the Constitutional Assembly should unequivocally declare:

1. That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.

2. That the Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.

3. That all existing or future legislation which may contravene, whether in letter or in spirit, the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of the constitution; and

4. That the powers of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of the Islamic Shariah alone. On January 13, 1948, Jamiat-al-Ulema-i-Islam, led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, passed a resolution in Karachi demanding that the government appoint a leading Alim to the office of Shaikh al Islam, with appropriate ministerial and executive powers over the qadis throughout the country. The Jamiat submitted a complete table of a ministry of religious affairs with names suggested for each post. It was proposed that this ministry be immune to ordinary changes of government. It is well known that Quaid-i-Azam was the head of state at this time and that no action was taken on Ulema's demand. On February 9, 1948, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, addressing the Ulema-i-Islam conference in Dacca, demanded that the Constituent Assembly "should set up a committee consisting of eminent ulema and thinkers... to prepare a draft ... and present it to the Assembly.

It was in this background that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, on March 7, 1949, moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, according to which the future constitution of Pakistan was to be based on " the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam."

While moving the Resolution, he said: "Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today."

The resolution was debated for five days. The leading members of the government and a large number of non-Muslim members, especially from East Bengal, took a prominent part. Non-Muslim members expressed grave apprehensions about their position and role in the new policy.

Hindu members of the Constitutional Assembly argued that the Objectives Resolution differed with Jinnah's view in all the basic points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said: "What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land." Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had "unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state." Bhupendra Kumar Datta went a step further: ...were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape...."

The leading members of the government in their speeches not only reassured the non-Muslims that their position was quite safe and their rights were not being impaired but also gave clarifications with regard to the import of the Resolution. Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Deputy Leader of the House, while defending the Resolution said: "It was remarked by some honorable members that the interpretation which the mover of this Resolution has given is satisfactory and quite good, but Mr. B.C. Mandal says: "Well tomorrow you may die, I may die, and the posterity may misinterpret it." First of all, I may tell him and those who have got some wrong notions about the interpretation of this resolution that this resolution itself is not a constitution. It is a direction to the committee that will have to prepare the draft keeping in view these main features. The matter will again come to the House in a concrete form, and all of us will get an opportunity to discuss it."

In his elucidation of the implications of the Objectives Resolution in terms of the distribution of power between God and the people, Omar Hayat Malik argued: "The principles of Islam and the laws of Islam as laid down in the Quran are binding on the State. The people or the state cannot change these principles or these laws...but there is a vast field besides these principles and laws in which people will have free play...it might be called by the name of 'theo-cracy', that is democracy limited by word of God, but as the word 'theo' is not in vogue so we call it by the name of Islamic democracy.

Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi further elaborated the concept of Islamic democracy: Since Islam admits of no priest craft, and since the dictionary meaning of the term "secular" is non-monastic -- that is, "anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests," Islamic democracy, far from being theocracy, could in a sense be characterized as being "secular." However, he believed that if the word "secular" means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then, I am afraid,...that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan.

During the heated debate, Liaquat Ali Khan stressed:

the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission (and that) the other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind. He was hopeful that even if the body of the constitution had to be mounted in the chassis of Islam, the vehicle would go in the direction he had already chosen. Thus he seemed quite sure that Islam was on the side of democracy. "As a matter of fact it has been recognized by non-Muslims throughout the world that Islam is the only society where there is real democracy." In this approach he was supported by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani: " The Islamic state is the first political institution in the world which stood against imperialism, enunciated the principle of referendum and installed a Caliph (head of State) elected by the people in place of the king."

The opposite conclusion, however, was reached by the authors of the Munir Report (1954) who said that the form of government in Pakistan cannot be described as democratic, if that clause of the Objectives Resolution reads as follows: " Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust." Popular sovereignty, in the sense that the majority of the people has the right to shape the nation's institutions and policy in accordance with their personal views without regard to any higher law, cannot exist in an Islamic state, they added.

The learned authors of the Munir Report felt that the Objectives Resolution was against the concept of a sovereign nation state. Corroboration of this viewpoint came from the Ulema themselves, (whom the Munir Committee interviewed) "including the Ahrar" and erstwhile Congressites with whom before the partition this conception of a modern national state as against an Islamic state was almost a part of their faith. The Ulema claimed that the Quaid-i-Azam's conception of a modern national state....became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949.

Justice Mohammad Munir, who chaired the committee, says that "if during Quaid-i-Azam's life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it.

In an obvious attempt to correct the erroneous notion that the Objectives Resolution envisaged a theocratic state in Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan repeatedly returned to the subject during his tour of the United States (May-June 1950). In a series of persuasive and eloquent speeches, he argued that "We have pledged that the State shall exercise its power and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. In this we have kept steadily before us the principles of democracy, freedom equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. There is no room here for theocracy, for Islam stands for freedom of conscience, condemns coercion, has no priesthood and abhors the caste system. It believes in equality of all men and in the right of each individual to enjoy the fruit of his or her efforts, enterprise, capacity and skill -- provided these be honestly employed."

The Objectives Resolution was approved on March 12, 1949. Its only Muslim critic was Mian Iftikhar-ud-din, leader of the Azad Pakistan Party, although he believed that "the Islamic conception of a state is, perhaps as progressive, as revolutionary, as democratic and as dynamic as that of any other state or ideology."

According to Munir, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differ in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam's views e.g:

1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

4. The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.

It was natural that with the terms of the Resolution, the Ulema should acquire considerable influence in the state. On the strength of the Objectives Resolution they made the Ahmadis as their first target and demanded them to be declared a minority.

After the adoption of Objectives Resolution, Liaquat Ali Khan moved a motion for the appointment of a Basic Principles Committee consisting of 24 members, including himself and two non-Muslim members, to report the house on the main principles on which the constitution of Pakistan is to be framed. A Board of Islamic Teaching was set up to advise the Committee on the Islamic aspects of the constitution.

In the course of constitutional debates, a number of very crucial issues were raised that caused much controversy, both inside and outside the Constituent Assembly over specific questions such as the following:

1) The nature of the Islamic state: the manner in which the basic principles of Islam concerning state, economy, and society were to be incorporated into the constitution.

2) The nature of federalism: questions of provincial autonomy vis-a-vis federal authority with emphasis on the problems of representation on the basis of population and the equality of the federating units; the structure of the federal legislature -- unicameral or bicameral.

3) The form of government: whether it was to be modeled on the British or the U.S. pattern -- parliamentary or presidential.

4) The problem of the electorate: serious questions of joint (all confessional groups vote in one election) versus separate (each confessional group votes separately for its own candidates) electorate.

5) The question of languageboth national and regional. These very fundamental issues divided the political elites of Pakistan into warring factions that impeded the process of constitution-making.

Ghulam Ahmad Pervez of Lahore is a well-known Pakistani Islamic thinker and writer, representing the Ahl-i Quran tendency, and founder of the Idara Tulu‘-i-Islam (Institute of the Dawn of Islam). In the monthly journal of this institute, entitled Tulu‘-i-Islam, dated August 1969, there is an extensive article headed Fatwas of Kufr (Rulings of Heresy) quoting fatwas of various Sunni groups condemning one another as kafir. A long extract from this article is given below in translation.

The Sunnis are divided into two main sects: Non-conformists (ghair muqallid), commonly known as Ahl-i Hadith, and conformists (muqallid), commonly known as Hanafis. The conformists are divided into two groups: Deobandi and Barelvi. Also among the conformists are the various Sufi orders. Now let us see how these sects are declaring each other as kafir.

Fatwas of conformists against non-conformists

“The non-conformist (ghair muqallid) sect, whose distinctive outward manner [of prayer] in this country is saying Amen aloud, raising the hands [during the prayer], folding the arms on the chest, and reciting the Al-Hamd behind the Imam, are excluded from the Sunnis, and are like other misguided sects, because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them. To mix with them socially and sit with them, and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure, is prohibited in Islamic Shari‘ah.” (This bears the seals of nearly seventy Ulama. Reference the book: Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabis from mosques, p. 8.)


“He who calls conformism (taqlid) as prohibited, and conformists as polytheists, is a kafir according to Islamic Shari‘ah, and in fact a murtadd [apostate].” (Book: Discipline of mosques with regard to the expulsion of mischief-makers from mosques)


“It is obligatory upon the Ulama and Muftis that, by merely hearing of such a thing, they should not hesitate to issue fatwas of heresy and apostasy. Otherwise, they themselves would be included among the apostates.” (ibid.)

Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, has quoted the beliefs of all sections of the non-conformists, and given the fatwa:

“All these groups are murtadd and kafir. He who doubts their being kafirs, is himself a kafir.”

(Book Hisam al Haramain)

Fatwas of non-conformists against conformists

“Question: What say the Ulama and the Muftis regarding the conformist (muqallid) group, who follow only one Imam [i.e. Hanafis]. Are they Sunnis or not? Is it valid to pray behind them or not? Is it permissible to allow them into mosques, and to mix with them socially?

“Answer: Undoubtedly, prayers are not permissible behind conformists because their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism, and others spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari‘ah to allow such conformists into mosques.”

This bears the seals of nineteen priests. (Reference the book: Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54 – 55)


The late Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan wrote:

“The word polytheist can be applied to conformists, and polytheism can be applied to conformism. Most people today are conformists. The Quranic verse, ‘Most people believe not, they are but polytheists’, applies quite well to them.”

(Iqtarab as-Sa‘a, p. 16)

Not only Hanafis, but all of them:

“The followers of all the four Imams and the followers of the four Sufi orders, viz. Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali, Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, Naqshbandiyya and Mujaddidiyya are all kafirs.”

(Jami al-Shuhood, p. 2)

Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis

“The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.”

(See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)

Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority

In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi headed: “Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority”. Among other things it said:

“Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.”

After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons (see Tulu‘-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).

Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis

Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam. (See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)

The opposite side

Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:

“They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.”

This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir:

They deny the finality of prophethood;

They insult the Holy Prophet;

They believe that God can tell a lie.

Hence it is written about them:

“He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.”

(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)

You will have seen that all the sects, whether Hanafis, Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the Sufi orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas of heresy and apostasy pronounced against them. And not only sects, but the prominent men of these sects have had fatwas directed against them individually.

Fatwas against individual leaders

Maulana Nazir Husain of Delhi (Ahl-i Hadith) was called disputant, doubter, follower of base passions, jealous, dishonest and alterer (of the Quran).

Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalavi, along with the above Maulana, was called devil, atheist, stupid, senseless, faithless, etc. This fatwa bears the seals of 82 Ulama of Arabia and elsewhere. (Book Nazar al-Haq)

Maulana Sana-Ullah of Amritsar (Ahl-i Hadith) had fatwas directed against him which were obtained in Makka. It is written about his commentary of the Quran:

“It is the writing of a misguided person, one who has invented new doctrines. In his commentary he has collected beliefs such as re-incarnation and the doctrines of the Mu‘tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is neither permissible to obtain knowledge from Maulana Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His evidence cannot be accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt regarding his heresy and apostasy. ... His commentary deserves to be cut to pieces. In fact, it is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of refuting it.”

(Faisila Makka, pp. 15 – 20)

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi):

Referring to an article of his, the weekly Tarjuman Islam of Lahore carried the following extract in its issue for 10 November 1961:

“Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, Deobandi, was a first-rate scholar and servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no introduction. But one was very shocked by a letter of his which contained the grotesque idea of the denial of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu‘tazila, and breaks the records of the ideologies of Chakralvi and Pervez.”

All those whose record is said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani, have had fatwas of kufr directed against them. This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is considered a kafir.


Maulana Maudoodi:

Abul Ala Maudoodi and his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama of nearly every sect.

Mufti Muhzar-ullah, of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in his fatwa:


“On the very face of it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi’s party] exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis, and lead to divisions among the believers, and is the basis of making a new sect. But looking closely, these things take one to heresy. In this case, they do not make a new sect, but result in one’s entry into the group of apostates.”


Maulana Hafiz-ullah of Aligarh has written:

“Whatever was the position of the Zarar mosque, similar is the position of this [i.e. Maudoodi’s] party.”

[Note: The Zarar mosque was a mosque built by some hypocrite Muslims in Madina during the Holy Prophet’s time for the purpose of conspiring against Islam].

The word kufr is used about the Zarar mosque in the Holy Quran. Hence the same word applies to these people.


Maulana Izaz Ali, Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa:

“I consider this [i.e. Maudoodi’s] party to be even more harmful for the faith of the Muslims than are the Ahmadis.”


Mufti Sayyid Mahdi Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological school at Deoband, writes in his fatwa:

“If an Imam of a mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a hateful matter to pray behind him.”


Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi) wrote in a letter to Maudoodi:

“Your ‘Islamic’ movement is against the righteous tradition in Islam. It is like the [extremist] sects of old such as Mu‘tazila, Khwarij and Rafiz. It resembles modern sects such as Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith], Naturi [rationalist], and Baha’i [i.e. the Baha’i religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based on principles, beliefs and practices which are against the Sunnis and Islam.”


The Committee of Ulama of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against Maudoodi:

“His reasoning is devilry against the Quran.”

It is then added:

“May God save all Muslims from Maudoodi and the evil and deceit of his so-called Islamic Party.”

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan [prominent Muslim modernist leader and founder of the Aligarh University for Muslims, d. 1898]:

In his biography Hayat-i Jawaid by Maulana Hali, the storm of condemnation and takfir against Sir Sayyid is fully detailed. Read some of these lines:

“Sir Sayyid was called atheist, irreligious, Christian, nature-worshipper, anti-Christ, and many other things. Fatwas that he was a kafir were prepared, and signatures of Maulavis of every town and city were obtained. Even those who remained silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir, were called kafir.” (p. 623)


“All the Muslim sects in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are on these fatwas.” (p. 627)

A fatwa was obtained from Makka, bearing the seals of Muftis of all the four schools, in which it was written:

“This man is an heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr) from Islamic law in some aspect. ... If he repents before he is arrested, and turns away from his misguided views, and there are clear signs of repentance from him, then he should not be killed. Otherwise, it is obligatory to kill him for the sake of the faith.” (p. 633)

Jinnah and Iqbal [revered in Pakistan as fathers of the nation]:

Sir Sayyid had at least expressed views on religious matters. But these people also called Jinnah as “the great kafir”. Even a true believer like Iqbal had a fatwa of kufr directed against him.

Fatwas of kufr against early savants

The pastime of declaring people as kafir is not a product of the present age. Unfortunately, this disease is very old, and there can hardly be anyone from among the great figures of Muslim religious history who escaped being a subject of such fatwas. Let us look at the great leaders of religion after the age of the Holy Prophet’s Companions.


Abu Hanifa: He was disgraced, called ignorant, inventor of new beliefs, hypocrite and kafir. He was imprisoned and poisoned. He died in 150 A.H. [circa 768 C.E.].


Imam Shafi‘i: He was called devil and imprisoned. Prayers were said for his death. He was taken in captivity from Yemen to Baghdad, in a condition of humiliation and degradation. He died in 204 A.H. [circa 820 C.E.].


Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: He was kept in prison for 28 months, with a heavy chain around his feet. He was publicly humiliated, slapped and spat upon. Every evening he used to be flogged. All this was because of the controversy regarding whether the Quran was ‘uncreated’ or ‘created’.


Imam Malik: A resident of Madina, he too was imprisoned and flogged.


Bukhari [Collector of Hadith]: He was exiled and died in 256 A.H. [circa 871 C.E.].


Nasa’i [Collector of Hadith]: He was disgraced and beaten in a mosque so much that he died.


Abdul Qadir Jilani [Saint of Baghdad, d. 1166 C.E.] was called kafir by the jurists.


Muhiyud-Din Ibn Arabi [great philosopher and saint, d. 1240 C.E.]: The Ulama issued a fatwa against him saying: “His unbelief is greater than that of Jews and Christians”. All his followers were declared kafir, so much so that those who doubted his unbelief were called kafir.


Rumi, Jami and Attar [now world famous Muslim saints and writers of Persia] were called kafir, and anyone not calling them kafir was also called kafir.


Imam Ghazali [philosopher and mujaddid, d. 1111 C.E.] was called kafir, and burning his books and cursing him was declared a good deed.


Ibn Taimiyya [Muslim philosopher and mujaddid, d. 1327 C.E.]: The King of Egypt asked for a fatwa to put him to death.


Hafiz ibn Qayyim: imprisoned and exiled.


Shaikh Ahmad of Sirhind [d. 1624 C.E., mujaddid in India]: called kafir.


Shah Wali-ullah [d. 1763 C.E., mujaddid in India]: called inventor of new beliefs and misguided.


Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi [d. 1831 C.E., mujaddid and military leader in India]: called kafir.


Shah Ismail Shaheed [deputy of above mujaddid]: Fatwas of heresy against him obtained from Makka.

FATWAS AGAINST PERVEZ

Ghulam Ahmad Pervez, founder of the movement which publishes Tulu‘-i-Islam, from which the above extract has been taken, was himself the subject of fatwas such as those quoted below:

“Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kafir according to Islamic Shari‘ah, and excluded from the pale of Islam. No Muslim woman can remain married to him, nor can a Muslim woman enter into marriage with him. His funeral prayers cannot be said, nor is it permissible to bury him in a Muslim grave-yard. This applies not only to Pervez, but to every kafir. It also applies to any person who is a follower of his in these heretic beliefs. As he has become an apostate (murtadd), it is not permitted by the Shari‘ah to have any kind of Islamic relations with him.

Signed: Wali Hasan Tonki, Mufti and teacher, Muhammad Yusuf Banori, Shaikh al-Hadith, Madrasa Arabiyya Islamiyya, New Town, Karachi.”

An organ of Maudoodi’s Jama‘at-i Islami gave the following fatwa about Pervez’s followers:

“If they say that Shari‘ah is only that which is contained in the Quran, and all that is besides this is not Shari‘ah, then this is clear heresy. It is the same kind of heresy as the heresy of the Qadianis. In fact it is worse and more extreme than that.” (article by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, in the daily Tasneem, Lahore, 15 August 1952, p. 12)

"Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis

``The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.''

(See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)

Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority

In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi titled:

``Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority''.

Among other things it said:

``Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.''

After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons

(see Tulu`-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).

Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis

Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam.

(See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)

The opposite side

Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:

``They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.''

This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir :

1.They deny the finality of prophethood;

2.They insult the Holy Prophet;

3.They believe that God can tell a lie.

Hence it is written about them:

``He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.''

(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)"

(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)

Late. Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi on everybody!!!!!!

"QUOTE"

"The Ahl'ul Sunnah have an ijma that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab was a Khwaarijee and baghi (rebel) whoever holds this Najdee belief is an enemy of Islam" [Ahmad Sayyid Kazmi his book "Al Haq al Mobeen page 10-11 and Amjad Ali in "Bahar Shariath Volume 1 page 46"]

"The Wahabis are worse than Jews, Christians, Magians, Hindus, and more damaging to Islam they are worse than Murthads".

"Whoever is a Wahabi and follows Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is a kaffir".


"From the Shaytan Wahabis is Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi"


"Whoever doubts the kufr of Ashraf Ali Thanvi is also a kaffir, his followers are all kaffirs and it is a sin to read his book Bahishti Zewar".


The Sunni scholar Naasir Sunniyath Abu Tahir Muhammad Thabib Siddiqui Dhana Purri, writes as follows:

"the Ulema of Deen, and scholars of the Law are faced by the problem of Wahabis, Deobandis….Najdhis kufr beliefs, and this book addresses how Muslims should deal with them". ["Tajhahib Ahl ul Sunnah" by Naasir Sunniyath Abu Tahir Muhammad Thabib Siddiqui Dhana Purri, published Markazi Anjuman Huzbul Aynaf Lahore, Bareylvi Electorate Press 1361 Hijri]

"A reply to question one

"The followers of Muhammad bin Najdi are called Wahabis. Shah Ismail Dehlavi under "Al Iman" in which there lots of kufr translated his book "Tauhid" in India. Whoever follows the Wahabis is a kaffir.

"Deobadiyaat is a form of Wahabiyath their ideology is to disrespect the Saints, every Deobandi is a Wahabi, and not every Wahabi is a Deobandi. Deobandi's become Hanafi and those that are not Deobandis call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith. They possess a great deal of kufr beliefs. The Wahabis and Ahl e Hadith tend to adhere to the work "Taqwiyat ul Iman" and call it the truth. The Deoband apostates acknowledging their kufr beliefs still call them Muslims, under Islamic Law they are therefore both kaffir and should be punished accordingly" ["Tajhahib Ahl ul Sunnah" by Naasir Sunniyath Abu Tahir Muhammad Thabib Siddiqui Dhana Purri, published Markazi Anjuman Huzbul Aynaf Lahore, Bareylvi Electorate Press 1361 Hijri]

"Oh God send your curse who refuted your beloved, disrespected him and identified faults in him and send your curse on those who loved and supported Abdul Wahab because such people are apostates".["Tahjanib Ahl'ul Sunnah un Ahl'ul Fitna (published Bombay by Anjumaun Tablighi Sadaqat): page 657]

"Verily there is no doubt that the Wahabi Najdis are kaffir and according to Sharí'a they are apostates if they die without repenting, they will be the first to perish in the fire". ["Tahjanib Ahl'ul Sunnah un Ahl'ul Fitna (published Bombay by Anjumaun Tablighi Sadaqat): page 263]

In the same above book the scholar names the guilty party with the following titles:

Ibne Saud, Kahazala Malik al Mabuud (page 257)


Ibne Saud, Kujha al Malik al Wuddod (page 259)


Murdood Ibne Saud (page 268)


Khubsa Najad (page 258)


Mullah Una'y Najad (page 259)


Kafara Najad (page 259)


Murdha Najad (page 260)


Kuffar Najad (page 263)


Murthadeen ay Najad (page 264)


Maloon e Najad (page 268)


Shayaatheen au Deoband (page 268)


"Tahjanib Ahl'ul Sunnah un Ahl'ul Fitna (published Bombay by Anjumaun Tablighi Sadaqat)

Ahl ul Sunnah work "fitnah Najdiyaat" by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi writes:

"Mufti Azam Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan says who is Ibne Saud but a sales man of Haram Shareef that invests his profits on illicit luxuries, appeaser of the British, fired bullets on Muslims"["fitna Najdiyaat" by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi", publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 252]

In the same book Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi writes:

"If at any time Ameer Faysal turns against the British they have an alternative Crown Prince Ibne Saud on the pay roll taken from the speeches of Mufti Azam Muhammad Ali, published Delhi, Ghunni Muthaba, Delhi Volume 2 page 68"["fitna Najdiyaat" by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi", publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 76]

"Wahabis are greater kaffirs than Jews and Christians we have heard from our ancestors that even the Jews and Christians didn't deny their Prophets but these filthy individuals are against their own Prophet (taken from Munkuul As Azad ki Kahani page 351)"["fitna Najdiyaat" by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi", publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 98]

"As far as I recall he said that marriage with a Wahabi is not permissible - Azaz ki kahani"["fitna Najdiyaat" by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi", publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 173]

"Those that follow Abdul Wahab are called Wahabi in our country and consider themselves la madhabi. They claim that it is shirk to follow any of the four Imams, those that do are polytheists and consider Ahl'ul Sunnah women as captives, and deem it halaal to murder Sunni's. These are Wahabis a group of Khwaarjis as deemed Allamah Shaafi".["fitna Najdiyaat" by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi", publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 108]

"Deobandis books should be spat upon and urinated on"[Fatawi Razooba, Volume 4 page 183]

"The kufr of Ismail has been proven by the Ulema - quoting Mufti Azam Allamah Shah FuzulAllah Badhyawni (ra) - 10 - 13 Hijri"[Fitnah Wahabiyaath page 36 Haji Nawabadeen and Maulvi Fazl Haq Sahib Khayr Abadi, in their commentary "Tahqeeq al Fatawi Fi Abthal at Thaqhi Kamal Sharra wa basath" - pages 18-20]

"Ismail Dehlavi according the Sharia is a Kaffir and his killing is a duty. Whoever doubts his Kufr is also kaffir and cursed".[Haji Nawabadeen and Maulvi Fazl Haq Sahib Khayr Abadi, in their commentary "Tahqeeq al Fatawi Fi Abthal at Thaqhi Kamal Sharra wa basath" - page 20]

"The scholars of Ahl'ul Sunnah and the Ulema of Ka'ba, Arabs and non Arabs have a united Fatwa that Ashraf Ali Thanvi is kaffir whoever doubts this is also a kaffir".["Private Matters of the Muslim League" page 7 by Muhammad Miyaar Qadri]


Shias are also not spared


"QUOTE"

Munir Report on Fatwas of Kufr


One of the most famous public documents in the history of Pakistan is known commonly as the Munir Report, its official title being: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. The disturbances referred to were instigated by a number of religious leaders (ulama) in pursuance of their demand that the government officially classify Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority community, and take certain other actions against members of this movement.

The disturbances were eventually quelled by the authorities, and a public court of inquiry appointed with Justice Muhammad Munir as president and Justice Kayani as member to investigate the causes of the trouble. The inquiry went into the underlying issues behind the events, carrying out an incisive analysis of the ulama's concept of an Islamic state. Its 387-page Report, which soon became a historic document, was presented in April 1954.

Referring to the ulama's call for Pakistan to be run as an official `Islamic' state, and to their demands against Ahmadis, the Report says:

``The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulama to give their definition of a Muslim, the point being that if the ulama of the various sects believed the Ahmadis to be kafirs, they must have been quite clear in their minds not only about the grounds of such belief but also about the definition of a Muslim because the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is. The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be. Below we reproduce the definition of a Muslim given by each alim in his own words.''

(p. 215)

There then follow in the Report the answers given by various ulama to the question, What is the definition of a Muslim. At the end of the answers, the Report draws the following conclusion:

``Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.''

(p. 218)

After this, under the heading Apostasy, the Report refers to the belief held by the ulama that, in an Islamic state, a Muslim who becomes a kafir is subject to the death penalty. The Report says:

``According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious views.

``The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna Ashari Shias are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of enquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Quran are kafirs. This opinion is also supported by Mr Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject. He thinks the Shias are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophethood with our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view would be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shias all Sunnis are kafirs, and Ahl-i-Quran, namely, persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are all independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of `combination and permutation' and the form of charge in the Inquisition's sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis mutandis as a model, the grounds on which a person may be indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.''

(p. 219)

Hence this extensive inquiry found that if the fatwas of the ulama are relied upon to determine whether a sect is Muslim or kafir, then no sect at all will be left which could be called Muslim.


"UNQUOTE"

Barelvi and Deobandi Maulvis on Shias being Infidels [in Urdu.]