-
Fatwa Relating To Congratulating On Non-Muslim Festivals
Assalamu alaikum
During QA session Ghamdi sahab mentioned about fatwa of Mufti Kifayatullah on congratualting NonMuslims on their festivals and Dr Ammar Khan Nasir saabs article on that
Can you please share that, if you can share the english version it would be grateful
JazakaAllahu Khair
-
5 Replies
-
Fatwa Relating To Congratulating On Non-Muslim Festivals
updated 1 day, 15 hours ago
3 Members
·
5
Replies
-
Following is the article where Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir has discussed the Fatwa of Mufti Kifayatullah relating to sacrificing cow in front of Hindus.
Please see:
-
JazakaAllah Umer bhai for sharing this. Is there english transalation of this article?
Ghamdi saab specially mentioned about fatwa on congratualting on non-muslims festivals. Is this same article.
-
-
This is the only recent article of Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir which discusses the fatwa of Mufti Kifayatullah. May be it is the context which Ghamidi Sahab was referring to when dealing with interreligious festivals and customs. Unfortunately, it is not available in English.
Dr. Irfan Shahzad Sahab ( @Irfan76 ) might be able to clarify this matter.
-
“Tranlsated with ChatGPT”
This column, titled “Nukta-e-Nazar” (Point of View), is dedicated to writings from various thinkers. The opinions expressed in the articles published here do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Supreme Court Decision in Mubarak Ahmad Sani vs. State Case
The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Mubarak Ahmad Sani vs. State has been a topic of considerable discussion. This case involved the distribution of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood’s Tafseer-e-Saghir among Ahmadi students in an educational institution. An FIR was filed on the grounds that publishing a distorted translation of religious texts is legally prohibited and that Tafseer-e-Saghir is specifically banned.
The Supreme Court rejected this claim, citing the Quranic principle of La Ikraha Fid Deen (no compulsion in religion) and constitutional provisions granting every religious community the right to practice, propagate, and manage their institutions. The Court ruled that a community cannot be barred from teaching its religion to its members within its institutions.
The judgment seems to interpret “propagation” as the internal education and training of community members, not as public preaching. While some ambiguity arises when the Constitution’s broader provisions on Ahmadis are mentioned, it appears the Court’s intent in this specific case is not to allow public religious preaching but rather to affirm Ahmadis’ rights within their community.
This decision has once again rejected interpretations by religious groups that attempt to curtail Ahmadis’ legal and religious rights. Last year, the Court clarified that Ahmadis have the right to perform their religious practices within their private spaces. This recent ruling reinforces that Ahmadis can publish and distribute their religious literature within their community, though they remain prohibited from publicly identifying as Muslims or proselytizing.
Reaction and Propaganda
The opposition to this ruling from certain religious factions has led to a propaganda campaign suggesting that the decision undermines constitutional laws related to Ahmadis. However, this campaign seems less about addressing ambiguities in the verdict and more about diverting attention from the core issue—that the ruling does not allow the banning of Ahmadis’ religious literature within their institutions.
These campaigns also serve to perpetuate the perception that religious parties are the primary protectors of constitutional guarantees concerning Ahmadis and that state institutions are answerable to them. This narrative sustains the religious-political strategy aimed at maintaining public influence.
Criticism of the Verdict
Some critics argue that the Court should have restricted itself to the issue of the defendant’s bail and avoided broader discussions on religious freedoms. However, paragraph 10 of the verdict explicitly states that the case should not have been registered in the first place, as it violated constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.
The Court’s reasoning draws parallels with the historical conflict over cow slaughter during colonial India. Muslims argued that they were not bound by Hindu religious beliefs and could not be legally or socially compelled to abandon this practice. However, they were willing to ensure that their practices did not offend Hindu sentiments.
Broader Context and Ghamidi’s Perspective
Prominent Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, in his book Maqamat, emphasizes that while certain beliefs or actions may be considered incorrect, those who profess Islam cannot be declared non-Muslim based solely on their interpretations or practices. Ghamidi’s approach does not endorse religious relativism but rather opposes the excommunication of individuals based on differing interpretations.
Historically, this principle has been echoed by other scholars, such as Sheikh Mustafa Sabri of the Ottoman Empire and contemporary scholar Albani, who advocated against declaring entire groups as non-Muslim despite theological disagreements.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court decision highlights the need to uphold religious rights within the bounds of constitutional guarantees. It also emphasizes the importance of addressing theological disputes through dialogue and mutual respect rather than legal restrictions or social coercion.
-
JazakaAllah @codename.AJK for translation. May Allah reward you. Looks like this is not the fatwa/article which Ghamdi sahab and Hasan bhai referring to in QA session.
Please listen below video from 2:00 for reference
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
