Does leaving the prayer make one a kaafir?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Those aren't proofs, because in Islam abandonment of Salat , does not mean not praying Salat. It means denying the obligatory practice of Salat.

these individuals are not Mu'min, but they're not kufar either, they're mufasaqeen.

What is your evidence?

[ScimitarXEdge]

^^^

That's your whole arguement, "blah blah, no use talking to you"

Seriously, who the **** are you to call other people a "Kafir". It's not like you are without-sin. Every time you call someone a Kafir, you are only giving that person good deeds, while you stack bad ones.

Scimitar
I'm still waiting for a response in your evolution thread btw

For your response, god knows best. On what he meant about Jews/Christians, and being righteous.

Well the Qur'an explains more clearly in other verses what God would have meant. The conditions for being a believer and deemed pious is based on the standards of what God revealed. The revelation of Muhammad(saw) is indicated to the prior ummat, therefore their rejection of Muhammad(saw) while having these evidences, is rejection of God, thus they cannot be pious or righteous.

This is all indicated in the Qur'an if you'd like verses which demonstrate this by all means I'll be happy to provide.

[ScimitarXEdge]

What is your evidence?

where is yours? Prove that abandonment means merely not praying?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Scimitar, you are playing with words.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Scimitar, you are playing with words.

Words are crucial especially in Islam

please show us the Arabic forms of these ahadith and lets examine what they really say.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Words are crucial especially in Islam

please show us the Arabic forms of these ahadith and lets examine what they really say.

You are not qualified to examine ahadeeth. You have no formal education. It is as if I would use my ratio to examine formula's in physics.

We should learn to be humble.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You are not qualified to examine ahadeeth. You have no formal education. It is as if I would use my ratio to examine formula's in physics.

We should learn to be humble.

Neither are you; and yet you come here presenting the information and claims of "proof" as if you're an expert. I know more Arabic than you do and I know how Wahhabis use skewed translations.

So please provide the actual AHADITH themselves in their ORIGINAL Arabic so we examine their meanings word for word.

Physics is a natural science based on QUANTITATIVE relationships, which exist independent of human influence; Ahadith is based on interpretations and lexicon, which require human inferences. Thus the analogy is false.

Now show evidence of the actual Arabic versions of these ahadith.

Remember lying about ahadith and their meanings can lead you into damnation

itaqo billah Akhi.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Dude, do you really think that I do not know how to get the Arabic text? I have maktaba Shamela which contains over 8.000 books in Arabic.

And I have Bukhari & Muslim in hard copies in Arabic & Translation.

The point is, you are trying to discredit the position of ahlul sunnah because you think that by your own ratio you are able to draw another conclusion from the text.

This is a classic Mu'tazili arrogance. After all, it was the khawarij who first challenged the sahaba by claiming to know better than them. And once they were defeated, they came back saying Nahnu Rijaal and started philosophizing about established facts.

I do not have to fear because I am not the one who is jumping out of the Jam'ah by introducing a new matter in religion which is against proofs from Quran & Sunnah.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Then please provide them for the ahadith in question.

It the the Wahhabis who masquerade themselves as Ahl Al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah who are steeped in arrogance and hubris. Wahhabis use the Mu'taziah scholar Zamakhshari's Al-Kashshaf as Tafsir precisely because of his understanding of lexical meanings; yet they want to then takfir on Mu'taziliyeen?

Us Ahl Al Tawhid wal 'adl are here to put individuals like yourself in check

now please Akhi, ITAQU BILLAH (fear Allah) and provide the Arabic versions of these ahadith so we can discuss this evidence further when we consult the Arabic Qamus on this matter

[شمله ور خراساني]

Then please provide them for the ahadith in question.

It the the Wahhabis who masquerade themselves as Ahl Al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah who are steeped in arrogance and hubris. Wahhabis use the Mu'taziah scholar Zamakhshari's Al-Kashshaf as Tafsir precisely because of his understanding of lexical meanings; yet they want to then takfir on Mu'taziliyeen?

Us Ahl Al Tawhid wal 'adl are here to put individuals like yourself in check

now please Akhi, ITAQU BILLAH (fear Allah) and provide the Arabic versions of these ahadith so we can discuss this evidence further when we consult the Arabic Qamus on this matter

Zamakhsari and al Kashshaf were experts in linguistic interpretation of Quran. But not all of their explanations are used. Because obviously they deviated in various matters.

Similarly, the Muhaditheen consider narration by Khawarij as reliable since Khawarij believed that commiting a major sin is kufr. And therefore the muhaditheen say, if someone beliefs that lying is kufr he will not lie.

Now, just because Ahlul Sunnah use narrations and tafsir from Ahlul Bid'ah it does not necessarily mean that everything Ahlul bid'ah says is accurate.

Ahlul Sunnah has the principle of taking al Haqq from everyone. Even from the devil. If it can be proven by Quran and Sunnah that something is haqq, it doesn't matter who says it. Be it a Mu'tazili or a Khariji.

And I am not going to post the Arabic text. If you think you can examine it, go ahead, knock yourself out.

It is irrelevant what a Mu'tazili layman has to say about this topic as it is obvious that you talk from your whims and desires. Not from knowledge of kitab wa sunnah.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Al-Kashshaf is a Tafsir by Al-Zamakhshari, ya Akhi.


Look at what you say Akhi, the circular and inconsistent logic; You're only accepting something on the basis of whether it is consistent with your beliefs; and yet you use these proofs as the basis for your beliefs in the first place, narrated by the people you reject. This makes your entire doctrine faulty.

What this demonstrates is precisely why your scholars are flawed; It is in fact they who are trying to fit everything into their "own ratio" ; is that the expression you used? They're arbitrarily fitting what suits their preconceived ideas rather than actually examining the evidence for what it is; hence these inconsistent translations.

So once again please provide the ARABIC TEXT versions of these ahadith you use as evidence.

If you refuse to post them that's fine, then you have no actually provided evidence and thus the claim is Unmerited; therefore there is no evidence in Islam that merely missing prayer makes one a Kafir

We can however agree that missing prayer makes one no longer a Mu'min but not a Kafir; as is the standard Mu'tazili view.

[Mujib]

They are not the same. And you are just merely presenting the Murji position regarding the prayer. However, the position of Ahlul Sunnah is that actions are part of Imaan. And who-ever abandons the prayer is no longer a Muslim.

If you were so sure of this why did you open the thread and ask the question?

1. As to actions and iman, the Sunni (Ahl al-Sunna) position is laid out in the `Aqida Tahawiyya:

Belief consists of affirmation by the tongue and acceptance by the heart.

2. As to prayer and iman, the hadith I quoted earlier (which you seem to have ignored, after having asked for it) is proof against the claim that the one who does not pray is a kafir. In addition to that hadith there is the following hadith from Bukhari and Muslim:

"Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, Allah forbids the Fire from touching him."

There are many similar hadiths. As to the hadiths quoted in Gulalai's post, the scholars explain that the wording emphasizes the gravity of not praying. There are other such hadiths about other actions, such as denying one's lineage. They do not mean that the one who does so is a kafir.

The `Aqida Tahawiyya, which enumerates the beliefs (`aqida) of the Ahl al-Sunna (Sunnis), states clearly:

We do not consider any of the people of our qiblah to he unbelievers because of any wrong action they have done, as long as they do not consider that action to have been lawful.

[...]

A person does not step out or belief except by disavowing what brought him into it.

[شمله ور خراساني]

If you were so sure of this why did you open the thread and ask the question?

1. As to actions and iman, the Sunni (Ahl al-Sunna) position is laid out in the `Aqida Tahawiyya:

Belief consists of affirmation by the tongue and acceptance by the heart.

2. As to prayer and iman, the hadith I quoted earlier (which you seem to have ignored, after having asked for it) is proof against the claim that the one who does not pray is a kafir. In addition to that hadith there is the following hadith from Bukhari and Muslim:

"Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, Allah forbids the Fire from touching him."

There are many similar hadiths. As to the hadiths quoted in Gulalai's post, the scholars explain that the wording emphasizes the gravity of not praying. There are other such hadiths about other actions, such as denying one's lineage. They do not mean that the one who does so is a kafir.

The `Aqida Tahawiyya, which enumerates the beliefs (`aqida) of the Ahl al-Sunna (Sunnis), states clearly:

We do not consider any of the people of our qiblah to he unbelievers because of any wrong action they have done, as long as they do not consider that action to have been lawful.

[...]

A person does not step out or belief except by disavowing what brought him into it.

As I said before, Irja is not part of aqeeda of ahlul sunnah. Sadly many Ahnaaf have Murji beliefs.

You are jusint those ahadith to prove that your irja is founded on Quran & Sunnah.

But there are plenty of other evidences which can be provided to prove that actions are part of Iman. And abandonment of actions is a nullifier of Iman.

And one can become an apostate by preforming a particular action.

The reason why I opened this thread was because I wanted to know what the various views and beliefs are of people who regularly post in religion section.

I am studying the topic of Irja currently. I see that there are quite allot of people who are murjiya. They refrain from making takfir as if making takfir is something that goes against Islam.

I am going to make a new thread which is also related to this topic.

[Mujib]

Islam Question and Answer - Ruling on one who neglects prayer

Notice, brothers and sisters, the part not highlighted in Sangar's post:

The majority of scholars said that if a person denies that prayer is obligatory, he is a kaafir and an apostate from the religion of Islam. The ruling concerning such a person is as described above. If he does not deny that it is obligatory, but he neglects it because of laziness, for example, then he is guilty of a major sin (kabeerah), but he is not considered to be beyond the pale of Islam.

As I cited from Reliance of the Traveller:

The Hanafis, Malikis, and Shafi`is all hold that someone who misses the prayer out of laziness is a Muslim, and that missing the prayer does not entail his being an unbeliever. Nawawi says, "This is what the vast majority of early and later scholars have held" (al-Majmu` (y108), 3.16). As for the Hanbalis, they have two views, the first being that such a person becomes an unbeliever and is dealt with as a renegade from Islam (def: o8.2), while the second view is that he does not become an unbeliever, and this is what Ibn Qudama, in al-Mughni (y63), 2.329, has declared to be the soundest position.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Notice, brothers and sisters, the part not highlighted in Sangar's post:

As I cited from Reliance of the Traveller:

The Hanafis, Malikis, and Shafi`is all hold that someone who misses the prayer out of laziness is a Muslim, and that missing the prayer does not entail his being an unbeliever. Nawawi says, "This is what the vast majority of early and later scholars have held" (al-Majmu` (y108), 3.16). As for the Hanbalis, they have two views, the first being that such a person becomes an unbeliever and is dealt with as a renegade from Islam (def: o8.2), while the second view is that he does not become an unbeliever, and this is what Ibn Qudama, in al-Mughni (y63), 2.329, has declared to be the soundest position.

Whats there to notice? I repeated myself by stating that we are discussing the one who does not pray at all. Not the one who neglects it or is lazy.

And I lean more towards Hanbali views in these matters.