[insoneeri]

Allah says in the Qur'an:

"Say, 'O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah . Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.'"

All sins are forgiven by repentance, even shirk. If Allah can accept someone's repentance from shirk, why will He not accept someone's repentance from any other action?

...maybe TUQ means that a blasphemer is never given the taufeeq of taubah...

[mr.memo]

If the brother has completely changed his life, then at least in dhaahir it seems Allah Ta'aala has given him tawfeeq. Allah knows best how any of our baatin is.

[onlyfun_biziness]

...maybe TUQ means that a blasphemer is never given the taufeeq of taubah...

salaam

when TUQ keeps saying Allah says i can forgive you for gustakhi against me but not against my rasool etc

where is he actually getting these quotes from?

[asharbiq]

"O my sons! Go and search for Yusuf and his brother. And do not become despondent of Allaah's mercy (His mercy will ensure that you achieve your objective). Indeed only the nation that commits kufr grows despondent (loses hope) of Allaah's mercy."

Yusuf: 87

[JonDopl]

That point about the poster who made regarding TUQ's dance; its not actually dancing but known as 'hadra'. Search it up, hes actually engaging in it with Mohammed Al Yaqoubi, a highly repsected scholar, and many scholars have declared that engaging in hadra is praiseworthy...

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...=5111&CATE=239

[Liskaspexia]

Slm,

Not to turn this into yet another 'hadra' thread, but I posted a question to Shafi Ulema regarding the hadra/raqs. Reason I asked is because it is quite common in their dhikr majlis. This is the response I got:

Question:

as salamu alaykum,

Is the hadra permissible as per ijma in the Shawafi madhaab?

Shukran.

Answer:

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuHu,

All praise is to Allah . And, prayers and salutations are on the Prophet Muhammad .

Ijma, as mentioned in the question, is the agreement of all the mujtahids of a given era on a specific matter. Ijma is not restricted to a particular madhhab. Rather, it is measured according to the entire ummah’s opinion. Therefore, if the Shafi’is agree on a point, their agreement is not necessarily considered ijma. After the Quran and the Sunnah, ijma is the third source of Islamic law. (See: Zarkashi, al-Bahr al-Muhit 4/435-37)

The controversial element in a ‘hadra’ may well be the participant’s movements which include swaying back and forth [raqs]. If the permissibility of a ‘hadra’ is contingent on ‘raqs’ being permissible, then in Kitab al-Shahadat, Imam Nawawi discussed the issue. Subsequently, Ibn Hajar, Khatib, and others commented on Imam Nawawi’s remarks. The following are opinions pertinent to the issue as stated in Ibn Hajar’s Tuhfat al-Muhtaj and Khatib Shirbini’s Mughni al-Muhtaj:

1) Furani and others maintain that it is permissible [mubah] because it is merely movement and repose.

2) In another view it is disliked. This comes from Qaffal and others.

3) Ghazzali drew a line of distinction between individuals whose emotional/spiritual state becomes overwhelmed, and act according to that. These individuals are referred to as ‘arbab al-ahwal.’ According to Ghazzali’s view, it is not disliked for them; but remains disliked for others. Bulqini assessed Ghazzali’s view, and stated that there is no need to make such an exception. For the reason that such individuals have lost control of themselves and in that instance are not duty-bound. Khatib states that it is clear when one is in such a state. Even so, many who do this are not.

In conclusion, the first view that ‘raqs’ is permissible [mubah] seems to be what Ibn Hajar and Khatib prefer. However, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Shafis regarding this. Moreover, there is not an ijma establishing the permissibility of ‘raqs’ or by extension ‘hadra’.



And, Allah knows best.

Yaqub Abd al-Rahman



al-Haytami, Ibn Hajar. Tuhfat al-Muhtaj. [Printed in ten volumes with Tuhfat al-Muhtaj featured on the margins, Shirwani’s commentary on the top of the page, and Ibn Qasim’s on the bottom]. Cairo: Matba’at Mustafa Muhammad. See: vol. 10, pg. 221-22.

Khatib Shirbini. Mughni al-Muhtaj. 6 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah. See: vol. 6, pg. 350.

[insoneeri]

...sorry dint read the whole thread before jumping in, the brother is trying to apply TUQ's fatwa on a friend...

[paypaltoegold1]

Brother, I do not know the reason you adopted such a signature. But, may I make the humble request to change it? Subhan Allah, how come my brother be confused with your such logical comments I see in this forum. You must have already past the stage of confusion (if at all you had one) that is so apparent from your comments. In fact we humans are confused in some aspects or other of our lives. Hope you do not take offence for my request.

Jazakullah for your kind words. This was back in 2005 when I joined. If the mods are willing to change it, then sure.

[insoneeri]

salaam

when TUQ keeps saying Allah says i can forgive you for gustakhi against me but not against my rasool etc

where is he actually getting these quotes from?

....you wont find a quote like that, but this is true in a way, nobody gets the death sentence for saying Allah is three Nauzubillah, however the only punishment for the one who attempts to attack the honour of Huzoor is death...so as far as hudood punishment are concerned in this life, islam is strict on the blasphemer of Huzoor ....I heard this a couple of times during the days of the namoose risalat movement from learned/emotionally charged people...

[paypaltoegold1]

nobody gets the death sentence for saying Allah is three Nauzubillah, however the only punishment for the one who attempts to attack the honour of Huzoor is death

I guess this is what I was trying to say earlier to brother abdulwahhab.

[paypaltoegold1]

I just wanted to say Jazakullah Khair to everybody for their replies.

[attlawqa]

Haven't seen the video but regarding the topic - if I have understood it correctly - I remember having read somewhere else that the tawbah of someone disrespecting the Prophet isn't accepted and thus the death punishment will be carried out anyway, while even that of someone disrespecting Allah would be accepted, and that's because the former would be a violation of Huquq al-'Ibad and we don't know in this life if the Prophet will forgive him or not.

My question is: is this rule valid only for a Muslim blasphemer or also for a kafir who have accepted Islam some years later?

[paypaltoegold1]

Haven't seen the video but regarding the topic - if I have understood it correctly - I remember having read somewhere else that the tawbah of someone disrespecting the Prophet isn't accepted and thus the death punishment will be carried out anyway, while even that of someone disrespecting Allah would be accepted, and that's because the former would be a violation of Huquq al-'Ibad and we don't know in this life if the Prophet will forgive him or not.

My question is: is this rule valid only for a Muslim blasphemer or also for a kafir who have accepted Islam some years later?

Jazakallah Khair for your answer, however the topic has more to do with the Akhirah.

[attlawqa]

Well, the topic has more to do with the Akhirah.

Then let's say I'm interested in a reply to both the punishment and the status in the Akhyrah.
Let's just consider the issue of being forgiven, which should apply for both the sides dunya-akhyrah..

[blackjackiisre]

Salaamu aleikum.

The whole blasphemy law situation is a complete mess, and seems to be an artifact of a bygone political era, where 'blasphemy' was evoked to legitimize political rule. Did the Prophet and his companions kill off anyone that disagreed with him or insulted him, s.a.w? No, they didn't - and wartime assassinations, such as of Kab cannot be brought as evidence. The Qur'an is also silent on issues of capital punishment of blasphemy, and the very definition of blasphemy. The fact that Mumtaz Qadri's actions have any degree of support, especially from mainstream Barelwi organizations is repulsive to me.

[attlawqa]

Salaamu aleikum.

The whole blasphemy law situation is a complete mess, and seems to be an artifact of a bygone political era, where 'blasphemy' was evoked to legitimize political rule. Did the Prophet and his companions kill off anyone that disagreed with him or insulted him, s.a.w? No, they didn't - and wartime assassinations, such as of Kab cannot be brought as evidence. The Qur'an is also silent on issues of capital punishment of blasphemy, and the very definition of blasphemy. The fact that Mumtaz Qadri's actions have any degree of support, especially from mainstream Barelwi organizations is repulsive to me.

I would rather say that your understanding of Islam is a complete mess.

Such "unfortunate" times we live in.

[blackjackiisre]

Salaam Umar. Why would you say that, and what would you base that upon? Have you met me and inquired about my past studies? Or do you just not like/disagree with what I said? If it's the latter, then please do not get personal. Can you tell me what, in your conception, constitutes blasphemy and what basis there is for making it a capital offence? Im not being funny, I actually want to know your opinion.
Thanks

M

[paypaltoegold1]

I did my own research and I found this:

http://askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?a...97584a5c4e7447

I also found the following:

http://askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?a...46a7c36bb81f3b

Is the second link a mistake?

[mr.memo]

Both links are mentioning the same things.

[paypaltoegold1]

In the first link, the questioner is strictly talking about whether they can be forgiven by Allah. In the second link, the questioner also asks this but the answer is referring to the punishment in this life which says that if Tawba is done, they will not be killed. This is why I'm asking if this is some kind of mistake.