KR

Oh sorry, these are pakka Sunnis. In that case, nothing whatsoever extreme about this. As you were then... carry on.

Chain takfir as a condition for entering an institute of learning? What strange fashion of Wahhabis are these??

Title: Declaration I hereby declare that Ahlus Sunna wal Jama'a is the only true religion which is recognised in this age by the name of "Maslak e Ala Hazrat", similarly I affirm the fatawa Hussam al Haramayn and consider molvi Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, Qasim Nanotwi, Ashraf Ali Thanawi, Khalil Ahmed Ambethwi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani due to their kufri and batil statements according to Fatawa Hussam al Haramayn, I consider them all, name by name kafir and murtad, and whoever, after having reached certain knowledge about their kufri statements, considers them their leader, or imam, or a Muslim, or at the minimum doubts their kufr and torment, i consider such a person a kafir as well. Furthermore, I pledge to adhere to this affirmation and the principles and regulations of the aforementioned institute during my educational tenure. In case of denial of the aforementioned declaration or violation of the institution's principles and regulations

Mufti Sahib follows up right after with this quote: “Ghaws Pak (Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani / may Allah have mercy on him) did not drink milk of his mother in the month of Ramadan. This is also Qur’anic commandment.”

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/nabi-knew-quran-before-birth/ One of the absurd beliefs of some of the Barelwis is that they hold that the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him) knew about the Qur’an before birth. Even before he was gifted with prophethood, and before he was even born, Barelwi Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan holds that he knew the entire Qur’an. This beliefs goes against the Qur’an, Hadith and the consensus of the Muslim community and not a single classical scholar of the past ever held this opinion. Even the leader of the Barelwis, Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan believes that at a later stage of the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he was gifted the knowledge of what was and what will happen (ma kana wa ma yakun). This was mentioned in several works of his such as his al-Dawlat al-Makkiya. Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan elobarates this view in his book Ja al-Haq, under the chapter of ilm al-ghayb, in the end under the sixth paragraph [fasl], where he tries to answer the arguments against the full knowledge of ilm al-ghayb, on p. 136 [Maktaba Islamiyya edition]: “If the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is not aware of all heavenly scriptures, so what is the point of expressing it and not expressing. The fact is that the Prophet knew the Qur’an from beginning, but he did not implement the Qur’anic commandments before their revelation. So, the first hadith of Bukhari says that Sayyidina Gabriel (may the peace of Allah be upon him), when appeared first time in Hira cave, said: iqra’ (read), he did not say: read so and so verse. ‘Read’ can be said only to one who already knows [so if it is said to a child, read, would that mean that child already knows?]. The Prophet replied: “I am not reader”, I am teacher, I have already learnt. The Qur’an is preserved in the Preserved Tablet (Lawh Mahfuz) and it is already in the memory of the Prophet. Before his birth, he was a prophet with Qur’an. How a nubuwwah (prophet-hood) without wahy (revelation)? Therefore, we will have to admit that he knew the Qur’an before his birth. Nowadays also, many children are born hafiz. Sayyidina Isa (may the peace of Allah be upon him) proclaimed just after birth: “He gave me Book.” It means that he already knew the book. Some prophets said: “And We gave him wisdom, while he was still a child”. The Prophet, just after his birth, prostrated and interceded for his Ummah, whereas prostration (sajdah) and intercession (shifa’ah) are Qur’anic commandments.” We ask our Barelwi brethren: Is there any classical source for the above belief? Is there any scholar who held such a belief? The answer is clearly no! One verse would be enough against this belief: “And thus We have sent to you Ruh of Our command. You knew not what is the Book, nor what is Faith.” [42:52]

Don't worry though, our maulvis are ready to perform nikah renewals for a fee.

So you invited Tariq Jamil or Zakir Naik to give a talk, eh? Congratulations, you now need to renew your Iman and your Nikah.

Next time you're eating your HMC-approved meal, remember this fatwa. You are eating mayta. HMC = Haram Maytah Committee

Remember brothers and sisters, it is (Deobandi and Salafi) Wahhabis who are the crazy takfiris. Brelvis are just simple pakka Sunnis.

Screenshots of the original text of these takfiri gems of Ala Hazrat can be found here: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/mad-takfirism/

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān further states: Nadhīr Ḥusayn Dihlawī, Amīr Aḥmad Sahsawānī, Amīr Ḥasan Sahsawānī, Qāsim Nānotwī, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī, Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī, Ashraf Alī Thānawī, and all their adherents, followers and devotees and those who praise them are by agreement of the notable scholars kāfirs; and those who do not recognise them to be kāfirs, and doubt their kufr, are also without doubt kāfirs, let alone regarding them to be leaders and masters! (‘Irfān-i-Sharī‘at, p. 54)

He also states: My approach is that [Shāh Ismā‘īl] is like Yazīd: if someone calls him kāfir I wouldn’t stop him and I wouldn’t call him [this] myself. However, anyone who doubts the disbelief of Ghulām Aḥmad [Qādiyānī], Sayyid Aḥmad [Khān], Khalīl Aḥmad [Sahāranpūrī], Rashīd Aḥmad [Gangohī] and Ashraf ‘Alī [Thānawī] is himself a kāfir. (Malfūẓāt A‘lā Ḥāḍrat, Da‘wat e Islāmī, p. 172)

In a fatwā from 1335 H (1917 CE), Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī said: The first condition for someone giving religious talks is that he is Muslim. Someone with Deobandī belief is not Muslim. It is ḥarām to listen to his religious talk. Knowingly appointing him as a religious speaker is kufr…The same applies to all Wahhābīs and Ghayr Muqallids as they are all brothers of the devil. (Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, 29:71)

In a fatwā dated 1331 H (1912/1913 CE), Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī was asked: Zayd’s father-in-law is Deobandī. He buys meat with his own money and sends it to him. The person bringing it is also Deobandī. Is this meat ḥalāl or not? How is the qurbānī meat of a Deobandī? He answered: The slaughter of a Deobandī is carrion. The meat sent by a Deobandī is carrion, even if the person bringing it is a Muslim. (Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, 20:249)

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān also says: The Tabarrā’ī Rāfiḍī, Deobandī Wahhābī, Ghayr Muqallid Wahhābī, Qādiyānī, Chakrālwī (“Ahl al-Qur’ān”), naturists (Sayyid Aḥmad Khān etc.) – the slaughtered meat of all of these is pure filth and carrion, and categorically ḥarām, no matter if they take the divine name a thousand times, and however pious and scrupulous their behaviour, because these are all murtaddīn; and there is no slaughter for a murtadd. (Aḥkām-i-Sharī‘at, p. 140)

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān states: The worst of the murtaddīn is the murtadd munāfiq –whose company is more harmful than the company of a thousand kāfirs, since they teach kufr while behaving as Muslims. Especially the Deobandī Wahhābīs, because they call themselves specifically Ahl al-Sunnah wa l Jamā‘ah, and behave as Ḥanafīs, behave as Chishtī Naqshbandīs. They pray and fast like we do; they read and teach our books; and they swear at Allāh and His Messenger.* They are the deadliest poison. (Aḥkām-i-Sharī‘at, p. 130)

Barelwi Takfir: Breakdown | Barelwis: A Critical Review https://barelwism.wordpress.com/brief-breakdown-of-barelwi-takfir/

السميري يعلن عجزه عن ذكر ضابط الفرق بين الأصول والفروع في العقائد ، فلا يذكره رغم تحدينا له بذكره ، لكنه يعلن هذا العجز بالشتم والسب ! يكرر : (العوني جاهل ، العوني جاهل العوني جاهل)! طيب : لا تحتاج لتثبت ذلك بتكراره درجة الإملال ، لا تحتاج لتثبت (جهل العوني) إلا أن تذكر أنت الضابط ، فلماذا لا ترتاح وتثبت (جهل العوني) بذكر الضابط ؟! يا سميري تظاهر بحسن الأدب وعفة اللسان وأخر الشتم قليلا والكذب وقلة الأدب ، بذكر الضابط الذي استجهلت العوني. بعدم ذكره . لقد عذرناك بعد أن فضحت نفسك . لكن السميري يريد أن نفيده بضابط العوني وعلمه ! يظن أنه سوف يستفزنا لنفيده بالضابط الذي لا يعلمه لا هو ولا شيوخه في الجهل . مُت بحسرة جهلك ، لن نفيدك من علم العوني .

بين لي ضابط الأصول والفروع في كلامي، والذي بسببه قلتُ(=العوني): الخلاف بين السلفية والأشعرية خلاف في الفروع دون الأصول!! هل مدعي كون الخلاف بين السلفيين والأشعريين خلافا في الفروع أنا أم العوني؟! كل كلام يتضمن إجمالا وعدم تفصيل وبيان يلزم صاحبه البيان والتفصيل ولا يلزم خصمه(=ألف باء بحث ومناظرة). العوني جاهل بإلزامه الآخرين ما يلزمه هو دون الآخرين. لا يمكن للباحث أن يأتي إلى كيانات علمية تختلف في أصولها الاستدلالية والتقريرية = إلى مذاهب لها أركان من خالف فيها فقد خالف إجماع أهل الحق، ثم يبحث في حكم المخالف لها داخل هذه المذاهب هل هو في دائرة المبتدعة أم هو خارج عن دائرة الإسلام؟= إلى مذاهب عقدية لا يقتصر فيها الخلاف على مسائل معدودة وإنما يختلفون اختلافات معنوية فاصلة في أكثر الأبواب العقدية ثم يقول هذا الباحث اختلافكم اختلاف فروعي لا في أصول العقائد، وفي نفس الوقت يترك القارئ في جهالة لمقصوده بالأصول والفروع. الاعتبار في حصول الاختلاف بين مذهب ومذهب وعدم حصوله هو ما يرسمه أرباب كل مذهب وأئمته لمذهبهم من أركان ومعالم لا يسمح فيها بالخلاف. فإذا وجدت مذهبين عقديين يختلفان جدا في مسالك استدلالية وتقريرات جوهرية في أبواب عقدية مختلفة فالواجب في حقك إن أردت تسطيح الخلاف أن تبين لنا الدواعي العلمية المعتبرة شرعا في ذلك. وسيتحقق قطعا بينك وبين هذه المذاهب القائمة خلافا لا يعد من قبيل الخلاف في الفروع دون الأصول=سيتحقق بينك وبينها خلاف في كون هذه العقيدة أصلا مجمعا عليه أم لا ولن تكون منتسبا لأحدها في أعين الباحثين لعدم التقاء أصولك مع أصولهم، ولن يسطح الباحث العلمي الخلاف بين هذه المذاهب وبينك كما تسطحه اعتبارا منه للأصول المقومة لكل مذهب. على كل أتحف القراء الكرام بالضابط العوني في كون هذه المسألة من قبيل أصول العقائد وكون هذه المسألة من قبيل فروع العقائد= الضابط الذي أعتمد فيه العوني على الشرع لا على الهوى والتشهي. مثلا لماذا كان علو الله فوق عرشه فوقية حسية من قبيل فروع العقيدة لا من قبيل الأصول لدى العوني؟ ما الذي جعل الإيمان بخلق أفعال الله للعباد من قبيل الأصول دون الفروع إن كانت عندك من الأصول دون مسائل عقدية أخرى؟ إني من المنتظرين