Question about the Amman Message

[Shamli 1857]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22945

Assalaamu alaykum,
I can understand why this thread was closed. However, I have some valid questions, which I would like someone to answer. Or in the least for someone in a suitable position to publicly ask their peers for answers. For the benefit of people, I reproduce my questions below:

Interesting post. I'm glad brother Faqih has pasted this fatwa by our respected Shaykh Faraz (may Allah always protect him). There was a question that I repeated in previous discussions on this topic, which no one bothered answering. I am going to pose that question here once more:

What is the role of Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and Shaykh Faraz Rabbani in respect to the Amman Message and the Jordanian Royal Family?

Previously, I wrote with regards to Mufti Taqi Saheb: In conclusion there are three things to keep in mind:
1. Mufti Saheb has told several respected and learned individuals that he is not a signatory of the Amman Message as shown on the original website. This includes Ask Imam and Basair.
2. There is a clear fatwa (the first one written by he himself as published on the Amman Message website) that shows that he is not in agreement with the message
3. The second fatwa (published on the Amman Message) clearly asks readers to refer to the Mufti Saheb's fatwa in another book for further details. An indication that he is not unequivocally in support of the message but is rather asking people to refer to his prior writing on the issue.

Taking these points into consideration, the people behind the Amman Message should clarify the matter with the Shaykh and set hearts at rest. Shaykh Faraz is in Pakistan, this shouldn't be too hard.

Can we have an answer to this?

[Omar HH]

It is agreed upon by both Mufti Taqi and Shaykh Faraz that anyone who holds beliefs which entail kufr are kafir, and those who hold beliefs which entail bid'ah are major sinners and people of bid'ah. Thus, both of their fatwas are essentially the same.

Those people called "Shi'ah" or whatever you want to call them that believe in kufr things are non-Muslim, but if they do not then they are still Muslim. I have read Mufti Taqi's fatwa and the 'Amman declaration and both say this -- so there is no point for this argumentation as they both say essentially the same thing (except to the blind sectarians with sick hearts who commit major sins of the tongue of course).

[Shamli 1857]

It is agreed upon by both Mufti Taqi and Shaykh Faraz that anyone who holds beliefs which entail kufr are kafir, and those who hold beliefs which entail bid'ah are major sinners and people of bid'ah. Thus, both of their fatwas are essentially the same.

Those people called "Shi'ah" or whatever you want to call them that believe in kufr things are non-Muslim, but if they do not then they are still Muslim. I have read Mufti Taqi's fatwa and the 'Amman declaration and both say this -- so there is no point for this argumentation as they both say essentially the same thing (except to the blind sectarians with sick hearts who commit major sins of the tongue of course).

Still doesn't answer the blue bits. I'll repeat and rephrase the question for your benefit. Also, can we keep this discussion civil. I'm unsure if you're referring to me, anyhow, these sorts of comments aren't exactly "traditional". (except to the blind sectarians with sick hearts who commit major sins of the tongue of course)

What is the role of Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and Shaykh Faraz Rabbani in respect to the Amman Message and the Jordanian Royal Family?

Now I would like you to ponder over the following points:
(1) The fact that Mufti Taqi Saheb has told several respected and learned individuals that he is not a signatory of the Amman Message as shown on the original website. This includes Ask Imam and Basair.
(2) The fact that there is a clear fatwa (the first one written by he himself as published on the Amman Message website) that shows that he is not in agreement with the message.
(3) That the second fatwa (published on the Amman Message) clearly asks readers to refer to the Mufti Saheb's fatwa in another book for further details. An indication that he is not unequivocally in support of the message but is rather asking people to refer to his prior writing on the issue.

Taking these points into consideration, the people behind the Amman Message should clarify the matter with the Shaykh and set hearts at rest. The clarification needs to center around the issue of why Mufti Taqi Saheb’s name has been included on the list of endorsers of the Amman Message, when clearly we all know and understand that he is not an unequivocal signatory of the declaration.

P.P.S.
The issued had ended but has been revitalised by a recent posting on Sunni Path and hence for the benefit of the general public needs clarifying.

P.S.
You also say: “I have read Mufti Taqi's fatwa and the 'Amman declaration and both say this.” In relation to this, I’m sorry but this is absolutely untrue. I have read this myself, so have Ulama at Ask Imam, and I’ve also taken the liberty to go over the texts with well-versed Ulama who distinctly said they are not the same.

[abuhajira]

Omar

The point of argument is the Jafaris whome the Aman message cleary gives a green light.

Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim.

And if this is not disputed that the question that whether Mufti Taqi signed it in its entirety or not in the the first place arises. So far I have seen Mufti Sahibs signature WITH a condition, however I still need to confirm with him.

Also, there is still a question of Mufti Taqi signing the 2nd ver. So far I havent had the confirmation of that.

[Saad]

Those people called "Shi'ah" or whatever you want to call them that believe in kufr things are non-Muslim,

In this case Shia sects of Isna Ashris and Ismailis.

Also on Sunnipath it says that Ismailis are kafir while Prince Aga Khan is one of the signatory of this so called "Message".

Thank you for your email. I am not a signatory of the Amman message sent by you(1). Instead, Prince Ghazi had sent to me a question that I answered in detail. The text of my answer was then published by them in a book which has my Fatwa as separate from Amman Message. Later I found that my fatwa is also available on the same site under the heading of “Fatwa of Ulama” .

Mufti Taqi Usmani.

[Omar HH]

Omar

The point of argument is the Jafaris whome the Aman message cleary gives a green light.



And if this is not disputed that the question that whether Mufti Taqi signed it in its entirety or not in the the first place arises. So far I have seen Mufti Sahibs signature WITH a condition, however I still need to confirm with him.

Also, there is still a question of Mufti Taqi signing the 2nd ver. So far I havent had the confirmation of that.

Yes. However, Ja'faris are a large group. There are Ja'faris with beliefs which entail kufr, and those with beliefs which entail bid'ah. I think a major point of contention is the belief that the Imams are higher than the Prophets. This by the ijm'a of ahl al-sunnah is a belief which entails kufr (see Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi's al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah). However, the fatwa of the major Shi'ah Murjah at least in this modern generation is that this belief is not obligatory for a Ja'fari Shi'ah to hold. Thus, we have the contention.

Mufti Taqi (may Allah preserve him) I believe, from reading your remarks, and reading the fatwa in its original Arabic, did not want to sign off exactly on the word "Ja'fari," because the word is wide and vast in its usage and could refer to Ja'faris who held kufr beliefs and give them the "green light." Mufti Taqi more specifically stated that those Shi'ah with beliefs of kufr are kafir, while those free of kufr beliefs are not kafir.

Of course any Shi'ah who believes that the Imams are higher than the Prophets has committed kufr. SunniPath has stated this on its website several times. I urge you all to buy a very good analysis of the Shi'ah and their beliefs from a respected Sunni 'Alim in the USA - Shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali which can be found here:

https://host395.ipowerweb.com/~lampp...986255d67b9e94

And brother Sunni, I apologize, I was not referring to you. What I meant is that there are some people so blinded in hate towards Shi'ah and so engrossed in the sins of the tongue such as ridicule, backbiting, slander, and foul language with regards to the Shi'ah that they are tricked by the Shaytan to fall into much sin.

[Omar HH]

In this case Shia sects of Isna Ashris and Ismailis.

Also on Sunnipath it says that Ismailis are kafir while Prince Aga Khan is one of the signatory of this so called "Message".



Mufti Taqi Usmani.

Prince Karim Aga Khan signed it, while the message does not declare Isma'ilis as Muslims. Thats the odd thing.

I know all about Karim, my grandfather and grandmothers are converts from his religion. Wal Hamdulilah.

[Saad]

Prince Karim Aga Khan signed it, while the message does not declare Isma'ilis as Muslims. Thats the odd thing.

I know all about Karim, my grandfather and grandmothers are converts from his religion. Wal Hamdulilah.

Strange, then why did they get his signatures if hes/Ismailis are not a Muslim.

[Saad]

Yes. However, Ja'faris are a large group. There are Ja'faris with beliefs which entail kufr, and those with beliefs which entail bid'ah. I think a major point of contention is the belief that the Imams are higher than the Prophets. This by the ijm'a of ahl al-sunnah is a belief which entails kufr (see Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi's al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah). However, the fatwa of the major Shi'ah Murjah at least in this modern generation is that this belief is not obligatory for a Ja'fari Shi'ah to hold. Thus, we have the contention.

.

There is a list of their main beliefs that take them outside the fold of Islam and not just aqeeda-e-Imamat. And many of the scholars don't differenciate between their scholars and laymen. (just like we dont differenciate for other sects and religions).