1. Home
  2. Fatwa against Hafiz Saeed, declaring him anti-Islamic

Fatwa against Hafiz Saeed, declaring him anti-Islamic

August 18, 2016

Bareilly (UP), Aug 18: Islamic seminary of Barelvi sect today issued a 'fatwa' (edict) against Mumbai terror attacks mastermind Hafiz Saeed declaring him anti-Islamic.bum

The 'fatwa' was issued against the Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief by Mufti Mohammed Saleem Barelvi, an Islamic seminary in Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh.

It dubbed Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Taiba who carries a USD 10 million bounty on his head, as "outcast" from Islam and declared those following him or considering as Muslim as "illegal".

A 'fatwa' is a legal pronouncement in Islam which is given by a mufti, a Muslim scholar of a recognised authority, who is an interpreter or expounder of Islamic law.

The ruling came close on the heels of Saeed asking Pakistan Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif to send troops to Kashmir to "obey" the pending order of Pakistan founder M A Jinnah.

The 'fatwa' was issued by Manzar-e-Islam Saudagaran, an institution associated with Dargah Ala Hazrat, in a reply to a question asked by Mohd Moinuddin of Jaipur.
It said Saeed has no connection with Islam.

Moinuddin had mentioned in his query that Saeed considered those writing against Allah and Prophet Mohammad as Muslims. Besides, he publicised anti-religious ideology and points of view and provoked people to create terror.

He asked whether such a person should be considered as Muslim.

In his 'fatwa', Mufti Saleem said that having any type of connection with persons working against the dignity of Allah and the Prophet was illegal and 'haraam', an act that is forbidden by Allah.

It said since Saeed was having contacts with such persons, he has been outcast from Islam.

It said that considering him as Muslim and listening to his words was also illegal and prohibited.

As per the fatwa, Saeed was a man with terrorist ideology, who with his acts has brought infamy to Islam and Muslims across the world. Therefore, it was compulsory for every Muslim not to follow him and keep away from his ideology.

Addressing a rally held under the banner of 'Defence Council of Pakistan' in Karachi on Sunday, Saeed had claimed, "Kashmiris had announced before the partition that they wanted to remain with Pakistan. But after the partition, India forcibly sent Army to Jammu and Kashmir.

"On this Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah ordered his commander-in-chief to respond by sending troops but he refused (to obey his orders). Now, I ask Gen Raheel Sharif to send troops in (Jammu and) Kashmir as Quaid-e-Azam's order is pending," Saeed said.

He said he was not asking for a war with India but they (Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Raheel) must form a strategy regarding the Kashmir issue.

Comments

observer
 - 
Friday, 19 Aug 2016

Does this fatwa makes any difference to him? By the way how many hindu scholars are denouncing attoricities by hindu organizations orchastering on daily basis across india in the name of hindutva unlike muslim dharma gurus.

Rikaz
 - 
Thursday, 18 Aug 2016

Good, he always thinks bad about India and Indian Muslims.....

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 13,2020

New Delhi, Jan 13: The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing on issues related to discrimination against women in various religions and at religious places including Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said that it was not considering review pleas in the Sabarimala case.

“We are not hearing review pleas of Sabarimala case. We are considering issues referred to by a 5-judge bench earlier,” the bench said.

The apex court had on November 14 asked a larger bench to re-examine various religious issues, including the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple and mosques and the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

While the five-judge bench unanimously agreed to refer religious issues to a larger bench, it gave a 3:2 split decision on petitions seeking a review of the apex court's September 2018 decision allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala.

A majority verdict by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep pending pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine, and said restrictions on women in religious places was not restricted to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well.

The minority verdict by Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting view by dismissing all review pleas and directing compliance of its September 28 decision.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 11,2020

Mar 11: Thirteen of the 22 rebel MLAs in Madhya Pradesh have given an assurance that "they are not leaving the Congress", senior party leader Digvijaya Singh said on Thursday while expressing confidence that the Kamal Nath-led government in the state will win a floor test.

"We are not keeping quiet. We are not sleeping," Singh told PTI, a day after Congress leader from the state Jyotiraditya Scindia quit the Congress and 22 MLAs submitted their resignations from the assembly in Madhya Pradesh.

Scindia was offered the post of Madhya Pradesh deputy chief minister but wanted his nominee, Singh said. However, Kamal Nath refused to accept a "chela", he said.

Scindia, he said, could have been a Congress nominee to the Rajya Sabha but "only Modi-Shah" can give a Cabinet post to the "over-ambitious" leader.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 30,2020

Kochi, Jul 30: The Kerala High Court on Thursday refused to grant the extension for the stay of a 74-year-old US citizen, Johnny Paul Pierce, who had earlier said that he felt safer to remain in India than in the United States amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The single-judge bench of Justice CS Dias, which considered the writ petition, observed that the grant or extension of visa to foreign nationals fall exclusively within the domain of the Government of India (GoI) and that judicial review in such matters is minimal.

The power of the GoI to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, the bench said.

"In view of the categoric declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the plea of the petitioner to permit him to stay back in India cannot be accepted, as it falls within the purview of the guidelines and the discretion of the Government of India," the order said.

"The petitioner cannot be heard that the guidelines/policies/regulations formulated by the Government of India, that an American national though has been granted a visa having validity of five years has to leave India within 180 days, is irrational or unreasonable," it added.

The High Court, which was hearing a plea to permit the US citizen to stay in India for a further period of six months, said that the petitioner does not have a case that there is an infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"The petitioner was well aware of the visa conditions when he arrived in India, and it is too late in the day for him to raise a grievance on the visa conditions," the bench said noting that the petitioner's love for India was heartening.

The High Court also directed the Foreigners Registration Officer to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of two weeks in accordance with the applicable guidelines and policies.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.