Tweet
Takfeer is not the same as issuing a death sentence
Allot of people believe that making takfeer is a very dangerous matter. They also say that the one who declares another person as a kaafir, also believes that person should be killed.
This is an often repeated claim by some opponents of Islam and Muslims, be it crypto Kafirs or atheists and ex-Muslims.
This claim is false for a number of reasons.
Takfeer, as I have explained elsewhere on this forum, is an observation. I will explain this by an example:
In Qur'an, we read how committing adultery, murder, theft and other matters are labeled as sins/crimes. Based on this, we know that these acts are sins.
Similarly, in Qur'an certain acts are described as shirk and kufr. They are worse than theft, adultery and murder. Because in Islam, the highest sin is to disbelieve in Allah or to associate partners with him in Worship.
So if we see a person committing an armed robbery, we observe his actions and we say: I saw an armed robber. We ascribe robbery and theft, maybe even murder to that person based on his actions we have observed with our own eyes.
Observing a person committing these crimes and labeling him as a criminal, a murder or a thief is rational, jusfitiable and logical. There is no harm in doing so if we have actually observed the person committing those crimes.
Similarly, if a person worships something other than Allah, we call him a mushrik. Because worshipping anything else beside Allah is shirk. We know so because in Qur'an, worship and shirk are defined. Thus based on our own observations, we conclude that hte person who worships anything else is a kaafir and a mushrik.
With regards to punishment, just like in the case of murder and theft, individuals are not allowed to punish people. Punishing people is the job of a government. Therefore, a judge has to investigate the matter, hear all witnesses, examine the evidence and question the suspect. Based on his investigation, the judge will eventually issue a sentence.
If a person witnesses a crime, he is allowed to say: I saw a man committing a crime. In the eyes of the witness, the person becomes a criminal. However, the witness is not the judge.
The problem arises when people distort this and use it to misguide people. For instance, Khomeini issued a fatwa where he ordered everyone to go and kill Salman Rushdie. The fatwa of Khomeini is invalid on many grounds.
First of all, Khomeini is a shiite who openly promotes worship of false deities. therefore, as a mushrik, he cannot be a legitimate authority for Muslims. So anything he says, is in no way of concern to us as Muslims.
aside from him being a disbeliever himself, he also commits blashphemy in his books where he curses and insults wives of Prophet Muhammed and his companions. He is in many ways, worse than Salman Rushdie.
Even if Khomeini was a Muslim and even if Iranian shiite state was in fact a legitimate monotheist Islamic state, a fatwa like his would never be valid. Because a judge cannot give random people the authority to go and carry out death sentences against citizens of other countries. A fatwa of that nature would require a declaration of war against other nations. Only in state of war, can the authorities allow the citizens to bare arms on behalf of the state and become part of the armed forces and enforce the law.
Furthermore, enforcing the law of one state inside the territory of another state is invalid. A legitimate state doesn't send civilians with a mission to go into another country's territory to carry out a death sentence.
If we study the Islamic jurisprudence, we find that these matters are all contrary to many principles of our system of law. Long before formation of modern nation states, the Islamic world had its own laws for international affairs. Muslim states knew what is legal and what is illegal.
Therefore, issuing a fatwa of that kind doesn't have a precentence in our legal system.
People who cite fatwa of Khomeini and similar populist statements by certain leaders need to learn Islamic law. A populist demagogue can cite the whole Qur'an as evidence to justify his own actions, but that doesn't mean its legal or legitimate.
In conclusion, I hope I clarified this matter so that members here understand why takfeer doesn't mean a death sentence. Similarly, I hope you now understand that issuing death sentences against people is not a joke.
We should deal with these matters of Islamic faith with utmost care and we should know every concept of our sharia properly.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with observing and describing something as kufr. If we see a hindu, a jew or a christian, we acknowledge that they are not Muslims. The same applies to people who claim Islam but believe in other prophet like Qadyanis. Similarly, people who believe in divnity of their imams, saints, or if they believe in legitimacy of man made laws, they are all not Muslims. There is no problem saying this. It's not a sin, its an act of obedience to Allah. By making takfeer on such people, we abide by Allah's ruling.
This is an often repeated claim by some opponents of Islam and Muslims, be it crypto Kafirs or atheists and ex-Muslims.
This claim is false for a number of reasons.
Takfeer, as I have explained elsewhere on this forum, is an observation. I will explain this by an example:
In Qur'an, we read how committing adultery, murder, theft and other matters are labeled as sins/crimes. Based on this, we know that these acts are sins.
Similarly, in Qur'an certain acts are described as shirk and kufr. They are worse than theft, adultery and murder. Because in Islam, the highest sin is to disbelieve in Allah or to associate partners with him in Worship.
So if we see a person committing an armed robbery, we observe his actions and we say: I saw an armed robber. We ascribe robbery and theft, maybe even murder to that person based on his actions we have observed with our own eyes.
Observing a person committing these crimes and labeling him as a criminal, a murder or a thief is rational, jusfitiable and logical. There is no harm in doing so if we have actually observed the person committing those crimes.
Similarly, if a person worships something other than Allah, we call him a mushrik. Because worshipping anything else beside Allah is shirk. We know so because in Qur'an, worship and shirk are defined. Thus based on our own observations, we conclude that hte person who worships anything else is a kaafir and a mushrik.
With regards to punishment, just like in the case of murder and theft, individuals are not allowed to punish people. Punishing people is the job of a government. Therefore, a judge has to investigate the matter, hear all witnesses, examine the evidence and question the suspect. Based on his investigation, the judge will eventually issue a sentence.
If a person witnesses a crime, he is allowed to say: I saw a man committing a crime. In the eyes of the witness, the person becomes a criminal. However, the witness is not the judge.
The problem arises when people distort this and use it to misguide people. For instance, Khomeini issued a fatwa where he ordered everyone to go and kill Salman Rushdie. The fatwa of Khomeini is invalid on many grounds.
First of all, Khomeini is a shiite who openly promotes worship of false deities. therefore, as a mushrik, he cannot be a legitimate authority for Muslims. So anything he says, is in no way of concern to us as Muslims.
aside from him being a disbeliever himself, he also commits blashphemy in his books where he curses and insults wives of Prophet Muhammed and his companions. He is in many ways, worse than Salman Rushdie.
Even if Khomeini was a Muslim and even if Iranian shiite state was in fact a legitimate monotheist Islamic state, a fatwa like his would never be valid. Because a judge cannot give random people the authority to go and carry out death sentences against citizens of other countries. A fatwa of that nature would require a declaration of war against other nations. Only in state of war, can the authorities allow the citizens to bare arms on behalf of the state and become part of the armed forces and enforce the law.
Furthermore, enforcing the law of one state inside the territory of another state is invalid. A legitimate state doesn't send civilians with a mission to go into another country's territory to carry out a death sentence.
If we study the Islamic jurisprudence, we find that these matters are all contrary to many principles of our system of law. Long before formation of modern nation states, the Islamic world had its own laws for international affairs. Muslim states knew what is legal and what is illegal.
Therefore, issuing a fatwa of that kind doesn't have a precentence in our legal system.
People who cite fatwa of Khomeini and similar populist statements by certain leaders need to learn Islamic law. A populist demagogue can cite the whole Qur'an as evidence to justify his own actions, but that doesn't mean its legal or legitimate.
In conclusion, I hope I clarified this matter so that members here understand why takfeer doesn't mean a death sentence. Similarly, I hope you now understand that issuing death sentences against people is not a joke.
We should deal with these matters of Islamic faith with utmost care and we should know every concept of our sharia properly.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with observing and describing something as kufr. If we see a hindu, a jew or a christian, we acknowledge that they are not Muslims. The same applies to people who claim Islam but believe in other prophet like Qadyanis. Similarly, people who believe in divnity of their imams, saints, or if they believe in legitimacy of man made laws, they are all not Muslims. There is no problem saying this. It's not a sin, its an act of obedience to Allah. By making takfeer on such people, we abide by Allah's ruling.
Comment