Is Takfir (Excommunication) the Only Service to Religion?
(The question remains in its place, why?)
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Article (78)
Explanation presented: It has already been clarified that the article under discussion is neither to demean any sect, nor an attack on the intention of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (Barelvi), but rather it is an indication of a practical contradiction that can be seen on the ground daily.
The reply article termed it as "an accusation against the entire sect," although the question article repeatedly mentioned practical patterns, not a written fatwa of any central institution.
It is important to understand this difference:
Books of Fatwas are one thing,
and the sectarian narrative prevalent among the public is another.
First fundamental question:
Is the claim of "most Takfir" really baseless? The reply article stated that "no statistical evidence, no central fatwa was presented."
This objection is fundamentally weak because: the question article is not a jurisprudential argument but a social and intellectual analysis that is increasing day by day in the common minds. Here, "Takfir" means: calling a Deobandi from the pulpit "Wahhabi," calling Ahle Hadith "misguided," not "Kafir," calling Jamaat-e-Islami "sympathizers of those who deny the Prophethood." All these are titles that are more effective than written fatwas. If it is said that: "These are all done by individuals, not the sect," then the question is: why are these individuals not reformed? Why is there no disavowal of their statements? Silence itself becomes a position.
Objection to the Quranic verses and "context": The reply article said that:
"وَاعْتَصِمُوا… and وَلَا تَنَازَعُوا… have been taken in the wrong context." This objection is partially correct and completely wrong. Correct in the sense that:
The immediate context of the verses is military or collective. Wrong in the sense that:
Quranic verses also give fundamental rules. The commentators of the Ummah have never said that: "These verses are limited to war only." If that were the case, then:
Sectarianism, sectarian conflict,
Takfir of each other would all be outside the scope of the Quran's advice.
Although the Quran clearly says:
إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ
(Al-Hujurat: 10)
This verse is not restricted to any specific context.
The question of marriage: Where is the real contradiction?
This is the point that the reply article could not resolve.
The answer given was that:
Takfir is not done until Kufr (disbelief) is definitive.
This is correct in jurisprudential books,
but the question article is talking about the field of action, not books.
If:
In public statements,
In speeches,
On social media,
In polemical literature,
Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Jamaat-e-Islami are:
"Kafir, blasphemer, denier of Prophethood" are called
Then:
Either:
These words should be taken back
Or:
Marriage, social interaction, mosque, greetings
All the jurisprudential consequences should be applied to all of them.
Both cannot go together. And that is why it was said:
This is not a slip of the tongue, it is a gamble of faith.
The Hadith of Takfir and the accusation of "misuse"
The reply article said:
"This Hadith is for undue Takfir."
This is accepted.
But the question is:
Is the Takfir that is happening today in reality,
is it not undue?
Does every common Deobandi know the details of the world of Kufr?
Is every Ahle Hadith youth a "denier of the glory of the Prophet"?
Is every member of Jamaat-e-Islami a believer in "distortion of religion"?
If not -
Then this Takfir is undue.
The word "Taqiyya (dissimulation)": What was the original objection?
In the question article, "Taqiyya" was:
Not as a belief
But used as an example of practical contradiction.
The intention was that: something on the tongue, something in action, this behavior is not religious, but political or social expediency.
If this seemed harsh, then it should have been answered with arguments, not by declaring it an attack on intention.
The original question remains
Despite being lengthy, scholarly, and reasoned, the reply article could not eliminate this fundamental question:
If other sects are really outside the fold of Islam,
then with them:
Why marriage?
Why Imamate (leading prayers)?
Why greetings?
Why social interaction?
And if all this is permissible, then:
Why does the tongue not stop saying "Kafir"?
This writing is not against any sect, but a question in favor of an Ummah.
This is not a demand that:
Differences should end
But this is a question that:
Why is difference being made Takfir?
And that is why the question article remains in its place, because:
The answer was of emotions,
The question is of action.
And the contradiction of action has not yet been resolved.
By: A concerned, MahmoodulBari.
Who does not want to break the Ummah,
Wants to unite.
mahmoodulbari342@gmail.com