The Question Still Remains (With Further Explanation)

The question still remains.
(With further clarification)
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.. Article (79)
(The issue of public Takfir despite Fatwa and Fiqh)
The question does not end with the answers given in light of Fatwa and Fiqh, but feeling the pain of the question, the need increases that we all together determine a course of action that leads the public not towards violence but towards brotherhood, fraternity and a positive intellectual attitude. Because it is certain, and there is no disagreement on this, that the chapter of Takfir is very delicate, cautious and bound by strict conditions in the view of Ahl-e-Sunnat wal Jamaat. It is also correct that according to the jurisprudential principle, until disbelief is proven definitively, explicitly and without any doubt, neither is a ruling of disbelief applied to any individual nor are its jurisprudential consequences (annulment of marriage, prohibition of association, etc.) applied. This principle is a manifestation of the mercy of Sharia and its balance.
Note: So far, the matter is at the fundamental and theoretical level, on which almost all schools of thought agree. The disagreement is not in the book, the problem is the difference between the book and the pulpit.
But the question here is not of jurisprudential books, but of the ground reality.
You have been made the target of objection on the basis of this ground reality, not because the difference is only with you, but because the loudest and most organized narrative of Takfir at the public level comes from you. The most noise is also made by taking the label of Ahl-e-Sunnat wal Jamaat, and in this noise, both the common and the elite are targeted.
While the reality is that many scholars and the public of other sects - please do not mind with respect - generally call you an innovator, mistaken, or even close to Shirk, but do not exclude you from the circle of Islam.
Remember, the discussion here is not about Fatwa, but about public narrative and ground effects.
In short: It should also be remembered that a theory is substantiated by the Quran and Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas, and then an invitation is given to act on that thought. Acceptance and rejection have their own scope and arguments.
Note: This is the point where the theory is transferred to the public mind, and this transfer becomes the root of the real crisis.
But in practice, what is happening is that the public has emotional attachment to their elders, accepts their statements without considering them as evidence, and makes these statements common from the pulpit and altar.
The problem here is not what Fiqh says,
The problem is what the public is hearing and learning.
Note: The public does not read jurisprudential principles, they remember the speaker's tone, sentence and style.
Where is the real contradiction?
It should be accepted that the Takfir of common people is jurisprudentially rare, less or fundamentally incorrect.
But the question is:
If it is really rare, then why is it so common on the pulpit and altar?
The reality is that in most public statements:
;; Deobandis are misguided ;;
;; Wahhabis are infidels ;;
;; So-and-so is a denier of the glory of the Prophet ;;
Such sentences are uttered so easily that the listener understands that this is a religious service, not a dangerous language.
Note: When a sentence is repeated again and again from the religious stage, it does not remain the opinion of an individual, it becomes the formation of a collective mind.
The contradiction here is that:
Fiqh says: There is no Takfir of common people, caution is necessary.
But the pulpit says: These people are not misguided but are outside the circle of Islam.
Now the question is, whose words should the public believe?
The book's or the speaker's?
The principle's or the gathering's?
You have rightly said, which is reflected in your writing, that one cannot be called an infidel merely because of ideological differences unless it is against a clear text.
Note: If this principle is really a sectarian approach, then it should also become a part of the public narrative, not just limited to books.
So the question is, if that is really the case, then why these Fatwas of ;; infidel ;; and ;; misguided ;; in gatherings, speeches and sermons?
Are they not spreading hatred among the public?
Are they not giving birth to intellectual violence?
And are they not fueling sectarianism?
Saying that ;; all these are done by individuals, not by the sect ;; may be correct in principle, but practically insufficient.
Note: When the mistake is from the same language, the same style; and the same platform, it becomes the identity of the narrative, not of the individual.
Because when a mistake becomes organized, the same language is repeated again and again, and it is not corrected at any level, it becomes the mistake of the narrative, not of the individual.
Is this not a practical contradiction?
Here the word ;; Taqiyya ;; is not as an accusation but as a diagnostic term:
Belief is something else,
Fiqh is something else,
The pulpit is something else,
And action is something else.
When these four are not in the same direction, it is not wrong but an intellectual responsibility to raise questions.
Note: Intellectual honesty is that principle, invitation and public language should be in the same moral direction.
If we really do not do Takfir of common people, we believe in caution, we believe in the beauty of Sharia, then the pulpit should also adopt the same language, not the language that teaches the public that the other is not a Muslim but an enemy.
What is the approach of the Quran?
The Quran says:
﴿إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ﴾
To say under this verse that:
;; Since falsehood is falsehood, brotherhood is not possible at all ;;
In fact, this is a clear misunderstanding of the approach of the Quran, because the scope of beliefs (faith and Islam) is specific, while good treatment and good association are common to all as human beings, as creatures of God.
Therefore: The principle of Ahl-e-Sunnat is not that:
Every difference = Kufr (disbelief)
Every mistake = Khurooj an-al-Islam (exit from Islam)
Rather, the basic principle is that:
Falsehood should be called falsehood,
But until explicit disbelief is proven,
A Muslim should not be expelled from the circle of Islam.
Most of the differences between sects are:
Of interpretation,
Of Ijtihad (independent reasoning),
Of preference,
Not of faith and disbelief.
Therefore, while remaining within the sect:
Criticism can be done,
Rejection can be done,
Debate can be done,
But brotherhood cannot end.
Breaking unity through Takfir
Is neither the approach of the Quran
Nor the tradition of Ahl-e-Sunnat.
The real danger is not that people call falsehood falsehood,
The real danger is that people make every different person
;; Falsehood outside of Islam ;;.
And this is the place where
Neither religion remains safe,
Nor the Ummah.
My pen puts the narrative, not Fiqh, in the dock.
That is why I deliberately did not present any Fatwa as evidence, otherwise I would have done so.
Because the purpose is not to overthrow principles,
Not to humiliate anyone,
But to hold accountable,
To review,
To highlight the gap between principle and public language.
And this gap has become the biggest Fitna (mischief) in the Ummah today. Think now what the course of action will be.
By Mahmood ul Bari
mahmoodulbari342@gmail.com