Ayatollah may be the last mujadid of this ummah

Araabi

Awdalite
The Amman Message:

Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world’s leading Islamic scholars ‘Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the ‘Three Points of the Amman Message’):

- They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.

- Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.

- Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.

These Three Points were then unanimously adopted by the Islamic World’s political and temporal leaderships at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide—as can be seen on this website [click here to see the entire list]—unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points.

This amounts to a historical, universal and unanimous religious and political consensus (ijma’) of theUmmah (nation) of Islam in our day, and a consolidation of traditional, orthodox Islam. The significance of this is: (1) that it is the first time in over a thousand years that the Ummah has formally and specifically come to such a pluralistic mutual inter-recognition; and (2) that such a recognition is religiously legally binding on Muslims since the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: My Ummah will not agree upon an error (Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab al-Fitan, Hadithno.4085).

 
So what?

If all the Islamic governments push today a political motivated consolidation, claiming Christianity, Islam and Judaism are one and the same, despite the differences on the basic essence of doctrine, dosent make it right.
 

Araabi

Awdalite
So what?

If all the Islamic governments push today a political motivated consolidation, claiming Christianity, Islam and Judaism are one and the same, despite the differences on the basic essence of doctrine, dosent make it right.

These are the points I raised in an earlier comment:

- No recorded history of Shia being included as Dhimmis, Mu'ahid or Musta'man. Read: تاريخ الإسلام, البداية والنهاية, الكامل في التاريخ. None of the traditional Islamic historical sources has ever mentioned this.

- There is no recorded mention of Shia ever having to pay the Jizyah or convert to Islam i.e 'Sunnism'. It has never happened in Islamic history.

- They have never been ruled by any Islamic courts of any Islamic empire or Khalifah to be murtadeed (Apostates).

- Sunni - Shia marriage did not entail the same rulings as marrying Jews or Christians.

- They participated as Muslims in all Islamic features of any civilization i.e contributed to Islamic discourse.

- They were buried in Islamic cemeteries along with other Muslims

Either show us everything above is false or grudgingly accept that Shia have always been considered Muslim. If you don't entertain these points without sufficient evidence but just want to argue then your opinion is of no value or weight.

Also... to counter this strawman, until you show me over 200 Ulama claiming Jews, Christians and Muslims are one religion, your argument is nonsensical. You can't turn a hypothesis into an argument unless you have sufficient evidence.
 

reer

VIP
abu yusuf was a judge and companion of abu hanifa:
"Al-Lalakai narrated with his chain of transmission from Abu Yusuf that he said: 'I do not pray behind a Jahmi, nor a Rafidi, nor a Qadari.'"
Sharh Usul I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah


subki a shafi judge:
"There is no doubt that if someone hates one of them – namely Abu Bakr and Umar – because of their companionship, it is disbelief. In fact, even if someone hates those lesser than them in companionship, due to their companionship, they are certainly a disbeliever."
Fatawa al-Subki

"As for someone who insults a Companion not because of his status as a Companion, but for a specific reason related to him, and that Companion, for example, is one who embraced Islam before the Conquest (of Mecca), and we recognize his virtue, as for the Rafidis who insult the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and Umar]... Al-Qadi Husayn mentioned two opinions regarding the disbelief of one who insults the two Shaykhs."
Fatawa al-Subki

"As for the Rafidi, he hates Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) because of the ignorance and corruption he has grown up with, believing that they wronged Ali. But this is not true, nor does Ali believe such a thing. The belief of the Rafidi in this matter diminishes the religion, because Abu Bakr and Umar are foundational figures after the Prophet. This is the basis for declaring the Rafidis disbelievers due to their hatred and insults toward them."
Fatawa al-Subki

qadhi abu ya'la a hanbali judge
Qadi Abu Ya'la said: 'Whoever accuses Aisha of what Allah has exonerated her from is a disbeliever, without any disagreement. Several scholars have narrated the consensus on this, and many of the imams have explicitly stated this ruling.'
 
Last edited:

Araabi

Awdalite
abu yusuf was a judge and companion of abu hanifa:
"Al-Lalakai narrated with his chain of transmission from Abu Yusuf that he said: 'I do not pray behind a Jahmi, nor a Rafidi, nor a Qadari.'"
Sharh Usul I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah


subki a shafi judge:
"There is no doubt that if someone hates one of them – namely Abu Bakr and Umar – because of their companionship, it is disbelief. In fact, even if someone hates those lesser than them in companionship, due to their companionship, they are certainly a disbeliever."
Fatawa al-Subki

"As for someone who insults a Companion not because of his status as a Companion, but for a specific reason related to him, and that Companion, for example, is one who embraced Islam before the Conquest (of Mecca), and we recognize his virtue, like the Rafidis who insult the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and Umar]... Al-Qadi Husayn mentioned two opinions regarding the disbelief of one who insults the two Shaykhs."
Fatawa al-Subki


qadhi abu ya'la a hanbali judge
Qadi Abu Ya'la said: 'Whoever accuses Aisha of what Allah has exonerated her from is a disbeliever, without any disagreement. Several scholars have narrated the consensus on this, and many of the imams have explicitly stated this ruling.'

Scholarly exegesis, opinion and commentary isn't binding in everyday functionality (ظاهرا) unless there is a concensus (ijma' إجماع). That is why a ruling of a faqih (Fatwa) is speculative (ظني) and not definitive (قطعي). Their judgement cannot be used as evidence that anyone has committed an act of disbelief. That is solely the perogative of state institutions and state judges to make in a court of law.

Also people need to differentiate between a broad general statement made that "anyone who believes x is a y" to make a personal judgement on a group or people (تعيين). The latter is impermissible according to concensus.

This is basic fiqh 101. Yet most people here don't even understand the basics.
 
Top