Kufri statements in everyday kalām?

Al Allamah Ibn Abdīn says :

"Seeking Ilm about Haram statements and Kufri Phrases is Fardh. In this era, this is the most important matter"

Radd al-Muhtar, volume 1, page
107

"As a precaution, the ignorant person should renew his īmān every day and renew his nikāḥ with his wife in the presence of two witnesses once or twice every month."

— Ḥāshiyah Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār (1/42)

Al Allamah Badruddin Al Ayni says :

Anyone who utters an explicit word of disbelief with his mouth, or performs an action that leads to disbelief will be declared a disbeliever, even if he does not know that this word or action constitutes disbelief.

ʿUmdat al-Qari, volume 1, page 403

 

If you do compile a list of common kufriyat, it should be sent to a mufti for a fatwa because if you ever told someone based on this list, they might become obstinate and say 'you aren't a mufti' etc

 

I'm his book Mawlana ilyas qadri classified the types of Kufriyaat rampant in society;

Making jokes about Angels
Making jokes about the Hoor
About Jannah, Hellfire & the Quran

Repeating song lyrics with Kufriyaat in it
Saying Allah is in the sky
Making fun of the Sunnah,
of the phrase "ان شاء الله"
Harboring Hate for the Ulama
"Naat" couplets written by juhala which contain Kufriyaat.

If anyone can add more to this list it will be helpful in compiling a list of common Kufri phrases people say.

we have many new modern Kufriyaat like common perenialist, feminist, secularist talking points

 

no

 

How is it to call a Muslim ‘Shaytan’, as is quite common amongst our elders here and back home.

Does it constitute indirect takfir?

 

what about analogies and idioms from other religions? i've heard some of these at work, some from Muslims, some from others

- yeh computer ram bharosay chal raha hai (meaning to say this is a beat up computer running on a lifeline - used by a guy with a Muslim name, as a joke, don't know if he was poking fun at the computer or at ram!)
- jitni chaabi bhari ram ne, utna hi chaley khilona (deplorable and disgusting analogy/idiom from a hindi song used by a habitual drinker open fasiq old guy with a Muslim name, when asked about his failing health!)
- such and such was baptized by fire
- he is risen (christian easter slogan, they also use it for other situations too when something with apparently no hope left takes off again!)

 

it is a stupid sheyr, even if iqbal said it.

but in spite of such stupidity, the poet is not claiming to be a nabi or the other person to be a khuda. he is just using it as an analogy. and a deplorable one at that.

what i don't understand is your obsession with flogging a dead horse. now that i have answered you, about this sheyr, don't pull out another stupid sheyr.

brother, if you don't learn to let go, this OCD will drag you - may Allah ta'ala protect us all - into killing fields.

just let go.

 

Salam
Yes it doesn't sound like it would have been written by him
But apparently, from what I remember, maulana iltaf hussain hali (I also don't know much about this personality so don't know about his reliability) wrote mussaddas e hali on Iqbal's request. And then, dont fully remember, Iqbal - in a gathering - read this couplet.

The story was something along this line.

Oh just realised, I wrote the sher wrong - autocorrect.

It was:
Mana ke mai nabi hun ash'ar ke khuda ka
Qur'an ban ke utra mujh par kalam e hali

 

haven't heard of it - nor does it make any sense. wazan is off by a mile.

 

Salam
There is also another couplet attributed to dr iqbal, though I am 99.99999999999% sure it isn't his.
Mana ke nabi hun ash'ar ke khuda ka
Qur'an ban ke kutta mukh par kalam e hali

The couplet is clearly wrong but is there a possibility of tawil.

Also, is the concept of shikwa jawab shikwa permissible in poetry: insan complaining to the Lord and the Lord replying? I am asking independant aboit the concept, of what iqbal wrote?

 

this is an express denial of the other's godhood.
based on the impossibility of the first clause.

if there khuda ka dar na hota - but there is, it is. therefore will not say this.

---

this is not a wish of kufr strictly.

the poet is absolving himself of this in the first line - irrespective of the person addressed is a common person (beloved), or a shaykh or even sayyiduna RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - that if i were not a muslim, or if i did not know that Allah exists, THEN i would have said this.

but since i know He exists, and

- if it is said by a pious man, it would mean: so i fear Him and will not say this.
- if said by any other person it could mean: i believe in God, and i won't call you this.​

===
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

not related to Afzal-Jalali issue, but related

what would be the ruling on this poetic line (i heard it long time back, not sure who's the poet):

"khuda ka dar na hota to khuda tum ko keh detay"

can it be tawil'ed to imply: "if i didn't know better i might have lost my faith"

or will we take it as a wish of kufr which is kufr, and therefore riddah, per most fiqh books on the topic?

like for example a guy seeing a pretty roman girl and saying "i wish i was a christian so i could marry her" (sorry forgot reference, but this example is in books). here "wish" can't be tawil'ed favorably to suggest the guy is saying he's staying firm and steadfast on Islam.

 

Salam
Wow! This is really impressive ma sha Allah.
Can I ask who you studied under hazrat?
Astaghfirullah. You know I am not saying this out of denigrating. I actually wish to know.

I would have taken an oath that I am not saying this out of sarcasm, were it not a bad thing to take an oath unnecessarily.

 

let us reiterate some preliminaries:

1. it is not permissible to use khuda to describe anyone other than God; it is kufr to do so.

2. khuda however can have other meanings, as accepted by linguists.

3. based on the above, if the context indeed suggests that the person who used the word did not intend the meaning of 'God', this can be an excuse for avoiding takfir - not justification to use the phrase.

4. the principle of takfir is that, even if 99 meanings suggest kufr and there is one possibility that can be considered to absolve a person of kufr, we will withhold our tongue - we will fear Allah.

5. the default is to find ways to excuse, not implicate a muslim in kufr.

6. of course, sarih words when said in a clear and unambiguous manner cannot be excused. however, if there are other factors such as slip of tongue or any other plausible reason, takfir will be withheld.​

----
i had initially seen only the few seconds clip of pir afzal - but wanted to listen to jalali sb before commenting on noor's post. yesterday, i got some time (driving) and managed to listen to about 40 minutes and hope to complete the rest soon.

he mentioned a few quotes if i recall:

- a fatwa of mufti azam hind
- citation from alahazrat's risalah on aqidah (the 12 mahaz jalali talks about)
- 2 or 3 from fatawa rizawiyah (also cited by noor below)
- nibras
- ashiyatu'l lam'at
etc.

either he does not realise that he is burning strawmen - or he doesn't understand that the 'khuda' used in those fatawa is to MEAN ilaah; not the word itself, and the false impression he gives by adding: "lafz e khuda". those fatawa are not talking about the "`alam" but rather the meaning of the word - as in ilaah.

i find this extremely annoying (apart from his needless shouting - reminscent of irfan shah's vocal chord busters or perhaps this is the culture) that he misleads the audience that the fatawa are talking about the word itself and not the meaning.

again, i am not saying that the word can be used, or can be excused etc. but the way jalali weaves in his argument is disingenuous at the least, deceptive if you are unforgiving.

and on top of this all, pir afzal did not say tht "there were two khudaa for this organisation" - where did he say that in the first clip?

he only said - distasteful as it is - but one ought to be just: "there CANNOT be two khudaa" as in an idiom. he was not affirming that he would call the leader of the organisation as khudaa. the entire video (i suppose - going by the 40 min i watched) is about calling someone khudaa.

and in the subsequent clip, he could have just said that he made an error, or a slip of the tongue, but he dug in and foolishly proffered justifications.

however, jalali converts this into an extreme "fight for tawhid". and calls aasiya (the blasphemy accused) as "mal'unah" whereas individual la'anat is not allowed, even for a kafir. the most he could have said is: mustahaqq e la'anat.

---
he gets carried away and calls all those ulama who didn't do takfir (of pir afzal) as those who do not have a zeal for tawhid, according to his shrill proclamation: 'this is for the sanctity of tawhid'.

sub'HanAllah.

where did pir afzal do ithbaat of khudaa for anyone?

while thumping chests as rizwis, many people forget that we can accept the weakest of excuses to exempt from takfir. not because we love that person or support his speech, but only to absolve him from takfir. our efforts should be to find an excuse to absolve him, not find one thousand reasons to implicate him, unless of course, there are deliberate and clear blasphemies.

this statement, while ugly and should be rightfully condemned, can be exempt from takfir as it is not affirmation of someone as khuda; rather an indirect statement which can be interpreted as a misuse of idiom or a stupid analogy.

----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

just one comment on noor's posts for the moment - hasty generalisation is immensely detrimental to a proper understanding of fatawa.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

and my point was, unlike other words and situations, this specific word cannot be misused. similar to rasul - it is said that if someone said: "i hate rasul" and when rebuked, he justified saying: 'i meant scorpions and they are 'sent' [arsala] by Allah'.
because one cannot do ta'wil in sarih words.

see above. what does 'context' mean after all? and no ta'wil in sarih words.

this is different. worship has been historically used in many meanings for ages and is understood thus by common people - it would be kufr, if one intends the meaning of worship as in 'ibadat'. context again.

i have said it many times now. certain words cannot be used for others, when the context indicates or implies that it refers to the Almighty or that it implies godhood.

for example - the word 'maker' or 'Saniy' صانع in arabic. can be used in its literal meaning, as long as the context, tone or any other aspect indicates that the word is used in the meaning of "The Creator", that is god.

"i created this painting" "i made this building" "i am the creator of this plan" "i invented this machine" should all be read in context. clearly these sentences do not imply that the person claims oneself to be a god or the absolute Creator. and it is unjust to assume otherwise.

---
malik. owner. it is one of the Divine Names of Allah. but we also use the word for others - as the word is 'shared' (not the meaning - because the same word when said about Allah ta'ala means something else, such as absolute).

there are many such examples. but such words which do not have multiple meanings, or if they imply godhood, they cannot be used.

if you rephrase your question in ten different ways, the answer will be the same.

---
Allah ta'ala knows best.

---
we will examine noor's objections presently. in sha'Allah.

 

UPDATE
​

I currently found out that Sharif ul Haq Amjadi held the same view as Alahazrat. He also did the takfir just like Alahazrat on using Lafz e khuda on a person. The reference is below:





The taweel was done in case on Majazi Khuda and not in the case of literally using Lafz e Khuda on a person (By Dawat e Islami scholars and Mufti Sharif ul Haq Amjadi).

Now, I don't after reading the Fatawa. Please look into it. Also, The Fatawas (and references the Dr Jalali gave in the seminar) prove that Feroz ul Lughat would not be used in this case.

But still the Afzal Qadri's issue remains. After all of this, why still Luzum and not Iltizam?

 

Thank you for your advice.

Well, I don't want to be unfair, and I genuinely want to support your point of view, but there are a few important issues.



(This time from 1:55 to 3:30) Please watch the video again, the second video in which Afzal Qadri gave his clarification and said "...Ma ya batana chahta hu ka ya Khuda ka Lafz jo ha ya Ilaah kay liya bhi ata ha. Ya meray samnay Feroz ul Lughat pari hue ha. Is ka mana Malik bhi hota ha, Aqa bhi or Hakim bhi. Jab Ilaah ka Lafz jo ha us kay liya khuda ho tow phir Allah kay mano may hota ha. Jab bando kay liya how tow phir Aqa or Hakim kay mano may hota ha...". He clearly tried to justify that Lafz e Khuda can be used on a person and left no room for taweel (According to Dr Ashraf Asif Jalali Sahab and Mufti Zahid Nomani Sahab). Also, it makes the discussion on Izafat irrelevant. Taking your advice, I will further clarify. Your statement is that:

I get your position. The position of Dr Jalali Sahab is that we won't consider other meanings like 'malik' or 'aaqa' to avoid takfir.

Now, the important issues are the references he gave, which are from Fatawa Razawiyya.

(Reference number 1)​

The link of Fatawa Razawiyya Jild 14, Pg 612:
https://archive.org/details/fatawar...awiya-Jild-14/page/n613/mode/2up?view=theater

Alahazrat did Iltizam e Kufr here and taweel of Lafz e Khuda with "guidance of Murshid" or "Aqa" or "Malik" was not made. Alahazrat did Takfir of those people. Also, if the Murshid likes it then he is also Kafir (written above).

(Reference number 2)​

Alahazrat did Iltizam-e-Kufr here again, and not just the taweel of Lafz-e-Khuda with 'Aqa' or 'Malik' was made. Alahazrat also declared Takfir of those people who had doubts about whether it was kufr من شک فی کفرهم و عذابهم فقد کفر. This was the whole reason why I asked this question. I hope that you will understand.

 

My point was, what if the person making the statement intended to use the word god with the other meaning in mind. From what I understand from your response, the context itself shows the alternate new meaning was not intended. If so, then regardless of how the new meaning came to be, can takfir be at all avoided when context shows the alternate meaning may have been used?

Another example is the word "worship": apparently some people use it to mean admiration, devotion, etc. I personally wouldn't do that, but what if someone said he worships his mother or referred to a judge as "his worship": will that be kufr?

A scholar once explained that the word "pet pooja" is not kufr, for in reality the expression means something other than what the literal words mean; but can the same be said about the other examples I quoted above?

 

not in every case. and NO especially in this case.

and in this case, these are new meanings because people have begun using this word in unholy ways. these are informal and modern meanings simply due to the prevalence of atheism in our time and lack of any inhibitions - blasphemy laws do not exist in the west - and profanity has become tolerated. this is pushed by the liberals and atheists.

take the definitions of cambridge: 'in some religions' - catering to the atheist reader. even though, atheists are still a minority worldwide - and the majority believes in God - irrespective of their shirk and or incorrect beliefs - the concept of God is universal. again, i do not mean to say that everyone worships the same God - or that God, that i as a muslim worship, Allah sub'hanahu wa ta'ala - is worshipped by everyone just as i do (like tahir padri said at wembley). BUT, my point is that the concept of God as a Supreme Being, Diety is common across religions.

you must learn to be aware for these manipulations in the modern world.





i asked gpt




====

if explicit wording and context are not enough, what else do you think is required? can you suggest some other factor?