Ayatollah may be the last mujadid of this ummah

[Araabi]

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).

Amman Message – The Official Site

The Amman Message | The Official Site

ammanmessage.com

 

[Bison]

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]

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]

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.'

 

[Araabi]

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.

 

[reer]

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.

if a qualified scholar/student/person does حكم معين takfir on a certain shia scholar by using the statements of subki or nasafi or abu yacla or ibn abidin then his position is valid. being a judge or a member of state apparatus isnt a requirement of a qualified scholar making تكفير معين individual/specific takfir on a person. takfir was made on bishr al marisi, jahm bin safwan, ibn abi du'ad from non state scholars (not exclusive to judges). imam ahmed made individual takfir.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated in Tareekh Baghdad and mentioned by some of the scholars of the Sunnah: Imam Ahmad was asked about Ibn Abi Du'ad.

He said: 'This is a man who disbelieves in Allah, the Almighty.'

making individual takfir is a special case and has ties to the state though i agree with you. because the state would seperate between spouses, imprison, call them to repent, maybe implement hadd etc.


the bottom line is that the positions of major ulama from the 3 schools of aqeedah and the 4 madhabs of fiqh is not extremism like @World was trying to frame those opinions as wahhabism.

 

[Farsi]

(who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi

lol imagine quoting Qaradawi, isn’t he the same deviant that supports democracy over sharia.

 

[Araabi]

if a qualified scholar/student/person does حكم معين takfir on a certain shia scholar by using the statements of subki or nasafi or abu yacla or ibn abidin then his position is valid.

What do you mean by valid? If you mean it's a valid scholarly opinion then fine. Granted. However that's all that it is. It is an exercise of ijtihad that is not binding (غير لازم) which is the nature of fatwa and ijtihad short of any scholarly concensus. This means it has no real implications in society. Said individual will still be considered Muslim by society.

The simplest example I can give is if a criminal lawyer writes a book commenting on their personal opinion on an individual who he/she may deem to have done a criminal act. That lawyer's opinion has zero legal implications in real life because that's all it is. An opinion.

being a judge or a member of state apparatus isnt a requirement of a qualified scholar making تكفير معين individual/specific takfir on a person. takfir was made on bishr al marisi, jahm bin safwan, ibn abi du'ad from non state scholars (not exclusive to judges). imam ahmed made individual takfir.

Only a state apparatus in an Islamic country can apply a definitive ruling in that society about who is and isn't Muslim. A qualified scholars opinion is NOT binding. The implications of this is if scholar x wrote something in his fiqh book about y, it has zero bearing in society unless it is agreed upon by a concensus or if it is judged by state institutions and even then it will only be binding in that that jurisdiction.

For example, if someone was deemed to be guilty of drinking نبيذ, an alcoholic beverage in a predominantly Shafi'i country. The ruling of that judge is not binding in Khorasan or Central Asia which is predominantly Hanafi and any scholarly opinion on it has no weight in the eyes of state institutions.

making individual takfir is a special case and has ties to the state though i agree with you. because the state would seperate between spouses, imprison, call them to repent, maybe implement hadd etc.

On this we agree.

the bottom line is that the positions of major ulama from the 3 schools of aqeedah and the 4 madhabs of fiqh is not extremism like @World was trying to frame those opinions as wahhabis.

The Wahhabis take it too far. They believe every Shia is a kafir. In fact a few hundred years ago they believed ever Muslim who didn't believe in MIAW's doctrine was a Mushrik. Their beliefs about the whole concept of takfeer is deviant.

 

[reer]

What do you mean by valid? If you mean it's a valid scholarly opinion then fine. Granted. However that's all that it is. It is an exercise of ijtihad that is not binding (غير لازم) which is the nature of fatwa and ijtihad short of any scholarly concensus. This means it has no real implications in society. Said individual will still be considered Muslim by society.

The simplest example I can give is if a criminal lawyer writes a book commenting on their personal opinion on an individual who he/she may deem to have done a criminal act. That lawyer's opinion has zero legal implications in real life because that's all it is. An opinion.

Only a state apparatus in an Islamic country can apply a definitive ruling in that society about who is and isn't Muslim. A qualified scholars opinion is NOT binding. The implications of this is if scholar x wrote something in his fiqh book about y, it has zero bearing in society unless it is agreed upon by a concensus or if it is judged by state institutions and even then it will only be binding in that that jurisdiction.

For example, if someone was deemed to be guilty of drinking نبيذ, an alcoholic beverage in a predominantly Shafi'i country. The ruling of that judge is not binding in Khorasan or Central Asia which is predominantly Hanafi and any scholarly opinion on it has no weight in the eyes of state institutions.

his takfir ijtihadi is not necessarily binding but it is not invalid. i agree. example if we lived under shafici courts and a major judge did individual takfir on someone who accused aisha of zina or insulted abu bakr and omar then his position would not strange or extreme if he used subki's opinion and takfir'ed him specifically. the
also if a hanafi judge shut down a shop selling chess boards in afghanistan his ruling is valid. even though shafi judge wouldn't do that in somalia, etc.


also in somaliweyn we dont have religious judiciary system of fuqaha like hanbali judiciary in saudi arabia. or the hanafi family court judiciary of jordan.
so naturally the non state scholars will take the position of making the takfir. we cant condemn ulama who make takfir on the modern qadiriyya tariqa when they have this beliefs of shaykh abdul qadir jeylani (fabricated).

وأعلم نبات الأرض كم هو نابت
وأعلم رمل الأرض كم هو رملة
وأعلم علم الله أحصي حروفه
وأعلم موج البحر كم هو موجة

this is from kitaabka munaaqibka.

The Wahhabis take it too far. They believe every Shia is a kafir. In fact a few hundred years ago they believed ever Muslim who didn't believe in MIAW's doctrine was a Mushrik. Their beliefs about the whole concept of takfeer is deviant.

with bin baz as mufti in the post colonial era they calmed down and mostly left their mass takfir. abdulrahman hassan, tim humble, abu usmah dhahabi etc are wildly different to the old school sulayman bin sahman, mohamed bin ibrahim etc.
here is an old statement from around a century ago talking about muslims not under saudi rule.

As for those who are not under the authority of the Imam of the Muslims (we do not know all of their conditions and what they are upon, but most of them are what we mentioned first, that they are not Muslims), then whoever appears to be Muslim among them is treated as a Muslim is treated in all rulings.
https://shamela.ws/book/8476/71