Sheikh Yasir Qadhi on Shi'ah belief

[radiant-path]

Br. Abuz Zubair,

I have a confusion - How do we reconcile these couple of statements of yours:

If you read the Hanbali manuals, they repeatedly quote Ibn Taymiyya making Takfeer on the ignorant layman who refuses to make Takfeer on extreme Shi'as.

With this statement:

If a person believed ruling with secular laws to be haram but not kufr, we would not consider his belief to be kufr.

But, if a person believes that ruling with secular laws is permissible, then we would all consider his belief to be kufr.

Another example; if one believed that dua to other than Allah is not kufr but only haram, we would not consider it kufr.

Yet, if a person believed that it is permissible to make dua to other than Allah then that belief itself would be kufr.

Source: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/90631-post22.html

So if someone considers the action of making dua to other than Allah only to be Haraam and refuses to consider it as shirk -

in context of 2nd statement, you didn't consider his beliefs to constitute kufr/shirk

whereas in light of the 1st statement, his refusal to consider this action to be Shirk, despite considering it to be Haraam,
would render him a Mushrik as the extreme Shiahs are known for making dua to other than Allah [SWT].


Please clarify

[radiant-path]

Br. AZ

1. In the preface of his commentary on Kashf As-Shubaahat, Yasir Qadhi mentions that he has selected the manuscript of the matn of Kashf As-Shubaahat, which has been been edited by Dr. Saalih al-Mahmud. What's the reason for selecting this particular manuscirpt of the matn of Kashf As-Shubaahat ?

And what's the difference between other manuscripts of the matn ?

Does the interpolation, which you were referring to in post #100, exist in any of these manuscripts ?


2. Secondly, let's suppose there is some non-muslim who reverts to Islam after reading the entire Quran or its English translation (if he's non-Arab)....... if, after accepting Islam and reading the entire Quran, he were to perform Istigatha or perofrm any clear-cut act of kufr/shirk.

Is he to be given the excuse for ignorance, cosnidering the fact that he is only to new to Islam ?
If he were to die in this state, do we treat him as Ahl al-Fatra or do we bury him in the Muslim graveyard and apply other Islamic rulings of the deceased on him ?


How do we reconcile that "new muslims may be excused for ignorance" with what you said "that ignorance is for the one who has never heard of the Quran" ?

[Abuz Zubair]

1. In the preface of his commentary on Kashf As-Shubaahat, Yasir Qadhi mentions that he has selected the manuscript of the matn of Kashf As-Shubaahat, which has been been edited by Dr. Saalih al-Mahmud. What's the reason for selecting this particular manuscirpt of the matn of Kashf As-Shubaahat ?

Allahu A'lam, bro. You will have to ask him.

And what's the difference between other manuscripts of the matn ?

Does the interpolation, which you were referring to in post #100, exist in any of these manuscripts ?

The interpolation I was referring to exists in YQ's translation. As far as I am aware, the manuscripts are completely consistent, and even those of the commentators who share YQ's view do not indicate any inconsistency in the manuscripts, let alone distort the text.

2. Secondly, let's suppose there is some non-muslim who reverts to Islam after reading the entire Quran or its English translation (if he's non-Arab)....... if, after accepting Islam and reading the entire Quran, he were to perform Istigatha or perofrm any clear-cut act of kufr/shirk.

Is he to be given the excuse for ignorance, cosnidering the fact that he is only to new to Islam ?

A new Muslim is only excused for being ignorant of things he couldn't have practically learnt in a very short space of time. Tawheed is the first thing a person learns. Tawheed itself is of various categories/branches, and some aspects of it are more obvious than others. E.g. prostrating or praying to other than Allah is quite clearly an act of worship as opposed to Hukm bi Ghayri ma AnzalAllah. So if a person, as you said were to recite the entire Quran, and still make istighatha, i.e. pray to other than Allah, or deny the existence of paradise and hell, as the Quran which he has read is full of it, then he is either a Kafir Asli, or a Kafir Murtad.

1) Kafir Asli if he read the Quran but never believed in it literally, in which case he never became a Muslim.

2) Kafir Murtad if he believed in all these things after reading the Quran, but disbelieved thereafter.

If he were to die in this state, do we treat him as Ahl al-Fatra or do we bury him in the Muslim graveyard and apply other Islamic rulings of the deceased on him ?

He definitely dies a Kafir. He isn't from Ahl al-Fatra because the greatest of all proofs have been established against him - the Quran, and hence, he is buried in a non-Muslim graveyard.

[mrislam]

Allahu A'lam, bro. You will have to ask him.

The interpolation I was referring to exists in YQ's translation. As far as I am aware, the manuscripts are completely consistent, and even those of the commentators who share YQ's view do not indicate any inconsistency in the manuscripts, let alone distort the text.



A new Muslim is only excused for being ignorant of things he couldn't have practically learnt in a very short space of time. Tawheed is the first thing a person learns. Tawheed itself is of various categories/branches, and some aspects of it are more obvious than others. E.g. prostrating or praying to other than Allah is quite clearly an act of worship as opposed to Hukm bi Ghayri ma AnzalAllah. So if a person, as you said were to recite the entire Quran, and still make istighatha, i.e. pray to other than Allah, or deny the existence of paradise and hell, as the Quran which he has read is full of it, then he is either a Kafir Asli, or a Kafir Murtad.

1) Kafir Asli if he read the Quran but never believed in it literally, in which case he never became a Muslim.

2) Kafir Murtad if he believed in all these things after reading the Quran, but disbelieved thereafter.



He definitely dies a Kafir. He isn't from Ahl al-Fatra because the greatest of all proofs have been established against him - the Quran, and hence, he is buried in a non-Muslim graveyard.

How should what YQ quoted actually read? Whats the correct translation?

[radiant-path]

How should what YQ quoted actually read? Whats the correct translation?

Refer to post #100