The End of Mufti Munir Shakir

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

يا نبي سلام عليك

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Peace be upon you, O Prophet

Hadrat Pir Akhundzada Saif ur-Rahman Mubarak (1925-2010), rahmatullah alaih, was one of the pious friends of Allah and one of the eminent muslihin (reformers) of our time.

The Naqshbandi-Saifi silsilah is attributed to him. This blessed branch of the Naqshbandi order has the honor of having revived the strict adherence to the Shari’ah and emulation of the Sunnah wherever it gained traction. I have personally spent time in the company of the Saifis and observed them to be brothers who are zealous for Islam and for the Sunnah. They are true lovers of Allah and of His Apostle, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam.

The reverend Pir, may Allah sanctify his secret, was born in a village near Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Later in his life he moved to Bara, a town in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, where he spread his blessed Tariqah, bringing the people closer to Allah. The Naqshbandi-Saifi silsilah is now quite popular in Pakistan, especially in Punjab.

This is part of a larger historical pattern of Sufis originating from Afghanistan coming to the Subcontinent to spread the light of Islam and bring the people closer to Allah.

Hadrat Data Ganj Bakhsh, Ali bin Uthman al-Hujwiri (1009-1072 CE), rahmatullah alaih, was from a place called Hujwir near Ghazni, Afghanistan, but settled in India and is buried in present-day Lahore, Pakistan.

Hadrat Khwajah Baqi Billah (1564-1603), rahmatullah alaih, was born in Kabul, Afghanistan and settled in India. He is buried in Delhi, India.

However, during his stay at Bara, the blessed Pir Saif ur-Rahman Mubarak and his disciples of the Naqshbandi-Saifi silsilah were persecuted and suffered violence at the hands of the extremist Mufti Munir Shakir (1969-2025). Indeed, it is not irregular for an eminent and pious saint of this Ummah to face severe and even violent opposition—opposition that is riled up by Satan and his cohorts.

Mufti Munir Shakir was initially a violent Wahhabi closely associated with the Panjpiri or Mamati strain. This is a sect or a broader tendency that exited the fold of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah and took on deviations associated with Wahhabism, Mutazilism, Kharijism and Hadith-skepticism. It is a tendency that is concentrated in the northwest region of Pakistan, and may be said to be an outgrowth of the movement initially started by the private “Jihad” of Sayyid Ahmad of Raebareli (1786-1831) and thereafter Hussain Ali Alwani (1867-1944), an extremist Deobandi cleric. As the activity of these two figures was in that general region of what is today northwest Pakistan, it explains why that remains the sphere of influence of this particular fitnah.

In 2004, Mufti Munir Shakir founded the Lashkar Islam, a militant, part of an array of similar militant and terrorist factions that emerged in the region. These factions often engaged in activities ranging from vigilantism to waging a full scale anti-state insurgency. But they also fought each other. This explains how and why Mufti Munir Shakir himself was killed in a bombing or grenade attack on March 15, 2025. The attack was likely carried out by rival militants.

They may even have been motivated by Munir Shakir’s increasingly heterodox views in which he was challenging many beliefs and practices of mainstream Islam. He was dubbed a Hadith-rejector due to his unrestrained Hadith-skepticism, in which he challenged matters such as punishment of the grave and the special Tarawih prayers during Ramadan. It became clear that Mufti Munir Shakir had gone rogue and his views were offending even those Panjpiris and Deobandis who previously were partial or favorable toward him.

It is also noteworthy that during this radical phase toward the end of his life, Mufti Munir Shakir had openly become a Pashtun ethno-nationalist and spoke in favor of one Manzoor Pashteen and his Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM). The latter is a secular, ethno-nationalist and leftist party that pushes a narrative that may be described as skeptical of the State of Pakistan and its institutions, especially the military.

All of this radical deviation or going from bad to worse is an object lesson with regard to the hostile opponents of the friends of Allah. Mufti Munir Shakir began his infamy by opposing and persecuting Pir Saif ur-Rahman and the Saifis and ended up becoming a Pashtun ethno-nationalist with anti-clerical tendencies and a rejecter of the Hadith, challenging many fundamental beliefs and practices of normative Sunni Islam. In such a way, it is as though Allah exonerated the blessed Pir and the orthodox path of Sufism from the criticism and allegations of the Wahhabi extremists.

Indeed, it is not a stretch to say that Wahhabism laid these rotten eggs of which one egg is that of Mufti Munir Shakir and his deluded followers. Terrorism, anti-State politics, ethnic nationalism and separatism and Hadith-skepticism were all manifested and compounded in the evil person of Mufti Munir Shakir.

While I do not celebrate his bloody killing, it is certainly a sort of divine retribution for his earlier persecution of Pir Saif ur-Rahman and the Saifi silsilah, but Allah and His Apostle know best.

Our people were not responsible for killing Mufti Munir Shakir, nevertheless, I perceive the invisible Hand of Allah at work in the downfall of that radical deviant.

It is disappointing that the Ulama of Deoband excused themselves from issuing a fatwa against him:

دارالافتاءجامعہ علوم اسلامیہ علامہ محمد یوسف بنوری ٹاؤن سے مذکورہ شخص کے بارے میں ایسا کوئی فتویٰ جاری نہیں کیا گیا، اور دار الافتاء کے ضابطے  کے مطابق کسی خاص شخصیت کے بارے میں کفر  یا فسق  کا فتویٰ  جاری نہیں کیا جاتا

“No such fatwa regarding the aforementioned individual has been issued by the Dar ul-Ifta of Jami’ah Ulum Islamiyyah, Allamah Muhammad Yusuf Binori Town; furthermore, according to the protocols of the Dar ul-Ifta, fatwas declaring a specific individual to be a kafir or a fasiq are not issued.”

Let me mention some of the problematic and heretical statements of Mufti Munir Shakir:

1. He said that specifying rajm (stoning to death) as the hadd for adultery is wrong
2. He criticized the Sihhah as-Sita and their compilers (al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and an-Nasa’i), calling them Iranians
3. He denied that Masjid al-Aqsa was the initial Qiblah or was ever the Qiblah
4. He denied the occurrence of the Mi’raj—bodily ascension of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, to the Heavens
5. He denied that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, will intercede on behalf of the major sinners among the Muslims and through that intercession they shall be taken out of Hell

According to Mufti Munir Shakir, the Masjid al-Aqsa mentioned in the Holy Quran does not refer to the Mosque in Jerusalem, which he claims did not exist in the time of the Prophet, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, but rather refers to the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, and the Isra refers to the Hijrah of the Prophet, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam. In his narrative, the sacred Ka’bah in Mecca was always the Qiblah, including of all the Prophets, but that praying in the direction of Jerusalem was the deviation of Jews and Christians.

I have previously explained that the denial of Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem among these heretics is totally in the service of Zionism. The Zionist objective is to demonstrate that Islam has no connection or claim to Jerusalem, and that the holy places of the Muslims are restricted to Mecca and Medina only. These heretics professing Islam but denying the sanctity of Jerusalem or that Masjid al-Aqsa refers to that sacred Mosque that is in Jerusalem, wittingly or unwittingly provide ammunition to the Zionists who argue that Jerusalem belongs exclusively to the Jews and the Muslims have nothing to with it as per their own religion. Hence, apart from that fool Munir Shakir, others who have denied Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem are Muhammad Shaikh, Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, Rashad Khalifa, the Qadianis, many Rafidi Shiites, Batini Ismailis, and some others. Hence, all of these listed individuals and sects are in the service of Zionism.

Mufti Munir Shakir, being a Mamati, took his doctrine to its logical conclusion in denying that the dead could ever be raised back to life in this dunya. He therefore had no other choice but to reinterpret the verses in the Holy Quran which speak about the dead returning to life in this world, such as the incident of the Prophet Ezekiel, peace be upon him, being caused to die for a hundred years and then raised back to life as mentioned in Surah 2:259 and the incident of the Patriarch Abraham, peace be upon him, cutting and killing four birds and placing their corpses on four different mountains then calling them resulting in their miraculous resurrection and flying toward him as mentioned in the subsequent verse of Surah 2:260. Such a reinterpretation that denies that Prophet Ezekiel was literally caused to die and resurrected, and likewise that the birds were actually killed and then quickened from the dead had already been made by heretics prior to Munir Shakir, such as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian and his followers, and Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan the naturalist.

Regarding the Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones as mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel, while some interpret it as a vision or merely a parable, the Talmud indicates that the dead truly were resurrected: “Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Not only was it not a parable, the dead that Ezekiel revived ascended to Eretz Yisrael and married wives and fathered sons and daughters. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira stood on his feet and said: I am a descendant of their sons, and these are phylacteries that my father’s father left me from them.” (Sanhedrin 92b)

It is not surprising that Mufti Munir Shakir excessively praised the evil Yazid, and when asked whether he would pray to either be raised up with Yazid or Imam Husain, radi Allahu anhu, on Judgment Day, he answered and prayed that he ought to be raised up with Yazid!

The Mamatis and Panjpiris are known to exhibit Nasibi characteristics. Another deviation of Munir Shakir was his denial that 

آل محمد

refers to the progeny of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon them.

But perhaps the worst heresy of this evil Munir Shakir was his teaching that it is not allowed to love the Holy Prophet Muhammad, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, in the religious sense!

Forbidden to Enter Churches, Synagogues, Temples

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

يا نبي سلام عليك

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Peace be upon you, O Prophet

Islam is a conservative religion whose spirit is one of jealousy and zeal for our God and our Prophet, peace be upon him.

It is disturbing how many Muslims fail to understand this critical point. The liberal and permissive energy found among Muslims today is due to a combination of factors; among them is a State sponsored narrative that trickles down through figures on the government payroll lacking integrity and honor. 

One instance of this liberal, permissive attitude of a growing number of Muslims is the issue of entering places of worship of the false religions.

In the name of interfaith dialogue and reconciliation we are seeing Muslims casually enter the places of worship of the false religions, meaning, Christian churches, Jewish synagogues and Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh temples. Others from our community are entering these places for sight-seeing, out of curiosity and most concerning of all, to demonstrate their liberalism and so-called “open mindedness”.

This is part of a broader trend where it is no longer taboo in many Muslim societies for people of our community to enter evil places where sinful activity takes place. Nowadays there is a proliferation of nightclubs, bars, cinemas, beaches and public swimming pools in the Muslim world, including and especially in Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the mosques are desolate but the shopping centers filled beyond capacity, whereas my master, the holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

 أَحَبُّ الْبِلاَدِ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَسَاجِدُهَا وَأَبْغَضُ الْبِلاَدِ إِلَى اللَّهِ أَسْوَاقُهَا

“The most beloved of the land to Allah are its mosques and the most hated of the land to Allah are its marketplaces” (Sahih Muslim)

What then is compelling our people to avoid the mosque while eagerly wishing to visit churches and temples of the false religions? This is a particularly grave matter since in our time those Muslims who enter such evil places of idolatry and unbelief do not reckon that their being there is contrary to the teachings of Islam. It is shocking that even some of our clergy have no problem entering a church or synagogue to participate in some interfaith dialogue or conference. Whereas the correct and righteous attitude is to boycott every place of evil and sin and to have ghayrah (jealousy, zeal, honor) for one’s own God and one’s own Faith.

According to our illustrious Hanafi school:

وَفِي التَّتَارْخَانِيَّة يُكْرَهُ لِلْمُسْلِمِ الدُّخُولُ فِي الْبِيعَةِ وَالْكَنِيسَةِ وَإِنَّمَا يُكْرَهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ إنَّهُ مَجْمَعُ الشَّيَاطِينِ لَا مِنْ حَيْثُ إنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ حَقُّ الدُّخُولِ اهـ قَالَ فِي الْبَحْرِ وَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّهَا تَحْرِيمِيَّةٌ لِأَنَّهَا الْمُرَادَةُ عِنْدَ إطْلَاقِهِمْ وَقَدْ أَفْتَيْت بِتَعْزِيرِ مُسْلِمٍ لَازَمَ الْكَنِيسَةَ مَعَ الْيَهُودِ اهـ فَإِذَا حَرُمَ الدُّخُولُ فَالصَّلَاةُ أَوْلَى وَبِهِ ظَهَرَ جَهْلُ مَنْ يَدْخُلُهَا لِأَجْلِ الصَّلَاةِ فِيهَا

“In the Tatar Khaniyyah, it is stated that it is makruh for a Muslim to enter a synagogue or a church. This is considered makruh because such places are gathering spots for devils, not because a Muslim lacks the right to enter them. In al-Bahr, the author notes that the apparent is that it is tahrim (prohibitively disliked)—as this is the standard implication when jurists use the term makruh without qualification—adding that he once issued a fatwa mandating ta’zir (discretionary punishment) for a Muslim who habitually frequented a synagogue alongside Jews. If merely entering such places is prohibited, then performing Salah within them is even more strictly forbidden. This highlights the ignorance of those who enter these places for the purpose of performing Salah.” (Radd ul-Muhtar, Dar ul-Fikr, v.1, p.410)

Sayyidina Umar al-Faruq, may Allah be pleased with him, is reported to have said:

إِنَّا لاَ نَدْخُلُ كَنَائِسَكُمْ مِنْ أَجْلِ التَّمَاثِيلِ الَّتِي فِيهَا الصُّوَرُ

“We do not enter your churches because of the images contained therein.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

There is no doubt that it is prohibited to enter a church or temple due to the presence therein of idols, statues, icons and images. However, this does not mean that it is permissible for a Muslim to enter synagogues, which generally do not contain idols or images, or even a church that does not contain icons or images. This is the ruling of our Hanafi school, though other schools may permit entering a place of worship of another religion such as a church or synagogue which do not contain images.

Followers of the other schools, however, should exercise caution and avoid entering any church, synagogue or temple. It is always better to err on the side of caution. My master, the holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

الْحَلاَلُ بَيِّنٌ وَالْحَرَامُ بَيِّنٌ وَبَيْنَهُمَا مُشَبَّهَاتٌ لاَ يَعْلَمُهَا كَثِيرٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ فَمَنِ اتَّقَى الْمُشَبَّهَاتِ اسْتَبْرَأَ لِدِيِنِهِ وَعِرْضِهِ

“The halal is clear and the haram is clear, but between them are the mushabbahat (doubtful matters) that most of the people have no knowledge of. So whoever, out of taqwa, saves himself from the mushabbahat has protected his Faith and his honor.” (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

In other words, in those grey matters in which there is an apparent difference of opinion, it is an expression of taqwa to avoid them even if one is erring on the side of caution. What then is the need for a Muslim to enter a church, synagogue or temple? These are places of false worship, of idolatry, where the devils and demons have gathered to lead the people astray. Have Muslims of our time become so carefree and unrestrained that they feel they can go anywhere they please? We have come to know of incidents where a Church invited a group of Muslims to establish their Salat ul-Jumu’ah in their place of worship and the Muslims foolishly, shamelessly and dishonorably accepted.

Abdullah Faisal: 100 Fabricated Hadith (Part 2)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اَلۡحَمۡدُ لِلّٰہِ رَبِّ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of the Worlds

Blessing and Peace upon You, my Master, the Apostle of Allah

Continuing the series on Abdullah Faisal, the Jamaican neo-Kharijite and Takfiri extremist, and his controversial book 100 Fabricated Hadith, the eleventh supposedly fabricated Hadith he lists is the famous:

My Companions are like Stars

أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ فَبِأَيِّهِمُ اقْتَدَيْتُمْ اهْتَدَيْتُمْ

“My Companions are like the stars. Whomsoever among them you follow you shall be guided.”

Although Abdullah Faisal claims the Hadith is fabricated, the truth is that since it has many routes of transmission some of the Muhaddithin consider it hasan (sound), though others consider it merely da’if (weak). To deem it fabricated is unwarranted, as even then its subject matter is affirmed in the Quran and other authentic Hadith with regard to the uprightness of the Sahabah, radi Allahu anhum.

The Sahabah are the best of the Ummah, and each of them was a true Believer, upon guidance and ultimately guaranteed salvation. Hence, Allah says:

وَالسّٰبِقُوۡنَ الۡاَوَّلُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡمُہٰجِرِیۡنَ وَالۡاَنۡصَارِ وَالَّذِیۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡہُمۡ بِاِحۡسَانٍ ۙ رَّضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَرَضُوۡا عَنۡہُ وَاَعَدَّ لَہُمۡ جَنّٰتٍ تَجۡرِیۡ تَحۡتَہَا الۡاَنۡہٰرُ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَاۤ اَبَدًا ؕ ذٰلِکَ الۡفَوۡزُ الۡعَظِیۡمُ

The first pioneers among the Emigrants and the Helpers, and those who follow them in goodness—Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared for them gardens beneath which flow rivers. Therein shall they abide forever. That is the supreme attainment

(Surah 9, Ayah 100)

The Prophet, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, said:

أُوصِيكُمْ بِأَصْحَابِي

“I bequeath upon you my Companions.” (Jami al-Tirmidhi: Kitab al-Fitan)

But Abdullah Faisal the Jamaican rejects this Hadith as according to him “As for the Sahaabahs they were not infallible as this fabricated Hadith is suggesting.” (100 Fabricated Hadith, p.35)

Yet by no means is the Hadith even remotely suggesting that the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, are infallible. Must one be assumed infallible before being compared to the stars in the sense of being a means of guidance for the people?

The truth is that Abdullah Faisal and some other ghayr muqallidin (non-conformists) adhere to a methodology which has inherited some degree of rifd and Shiism in their attitude toward the Sahabah, which compels them to immediately dismiss this Hadith and declare it a fabrication. But we Sunni Muslims love this Hadith and even if it is weak we affirm its meaning as true and correct.

If not for women Allah would be worshipped properly

This is the thirteenth in Abdullah Faisal’s list. He criticizes it in the following words, “This fabricated Hadith is repulsive, and it’s against the spirit of Islamic brotherhood and sisterhood. It enhances male chauvinism, which is a form of kufr.” (ibid, p.39)

Whether the narration is actually fabricated is immaterial at this point since I am much more interested in the psychology behind Abdullah Faisal’s harsh criticism of its text. For if he considers this narration “repulsive” then one wonders what he might think of many authentic Ahadith with a similar message and sentiment, for instance:

مَا تَرَكْتُ بَعْدِي فِتْنَةً أَضَرَّ عَلَى الرِّجَالِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ

“I am not leaving behind me a tribulation more harmful upon men than women.” (Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim)

According to Abdullah Faisal’s logic, this Hadith is kufr because it enhances “male chauvinism”?

The reality is that Abdullah Faisal obviously converted to Islam still carrying in his mind and heart some of the foolish feminist notions and supposedly “progressive” and “egalitarian” Western cultural attitudes regarding women. One is at a loss as to what his basis is for declaring “male chauvinism” to be kufr. But it does fit the overall pattern found with Abdullah Faisal in declaring matters to be kufr quite carelessly, as is the hallmark of Kharijites and Takfiris.

That women are a harmful fitnah for men is a basis to reasonably conclude that if not for women men would be able to worship Allah at a higher level, but the divine wisdom ordained otherwise.

Scholars of my Ummah are like Israelite Prophets

This is the eighteenth narration mentioned by Abdullah Faisal. While I agree it has no basis in being attributed to the holy and blessed mouth of the Prophet Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, those like Abdullah Faisal who criticize its meaning have actually failed to understand it. This is part of a general pattern with him and other extremists in lacking the wisdom and intellectual capacity to appropriately interpret statements upon the tongues of the Muslims in a good way rather than rushing to condemnation and takfir. Abdullah Faisal says, “This fabricated Khabar is cited by Qadiyaanis, may Allah curse them, who claim that the possibility exist for prophets to come after Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam.” (100 Fabricated Hadith, p.48)

It is true that the dajjal, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and his followers cited this narration to justify their heresy. But this saying is accepted by the Sufis who correctly interpret it to mean that the Ulama have a function that is similar to the Prophets in teaching and spiritually guiding the people. By no means does it mean that the Ulama are equal to the Prophets in rank or that attainment of Prophethood is possible for the Ulama after sayyiduna Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam. Abdullah Faisal himself cites an authentic Hadith “The learned are the inheritors of the Prophets” (ibid) which is what this statement “the learned of my Ummah are like the Prophets of the Children of Israel” is pointing to. So even if it is not an actual Hadith of Prophet Muhammad it is still true and correct in its meaning.

In the course of his discussion on the nineteenth narration in his list, Abdullah Faisal digresses into a theological discussion concerning tawhid (monotheism), saying, “Tawheed has four branches and anyone who denies one is guilty of denying all, hence he has apostated from the Deen.” (ibid, p.51)

It is the supposed fourth branch of tawhid that is considered controversial, “Tawheed Haakimiya, i.e. to believe Allah, azza wa jall, is the only lawgiver.” (ibid, p.52)

But it should be borne in mind that none of the Salaf or the classical theologians, scholars and jurists of Sunni Islam ever explain tawhid as consisting of four branches with the fourth branch being tawhid al-hakimiyah, meaning that it is from tawhid to affirm that Allah is the “only lawgiver”.

The neo-Kharijites and extremist Takfiris have put forward this notion of tawhid al-hakimiyah to justify their wholesale takfir of large segments of the Muslim Ummah, and particularly the contemporary governments of the Muslims on the basis that they legislate and adhere to legislation that is manmade and therefore guilty of shirk!

We mainstream Sunni Muslims certainly affirm that Allah, holy and exalted is He, is the supreme legislator, and that all mankind is obligated to obey Allah, Whose judgment and legislation supersedes all manmade judgment and legislation.

Nevertheless, if this was a distinct branch of tawhid then none of the creation would be authorized to even legislate or make judgments in the discretionary matters of ijtihad in which the divine Shari’ah is either not explicit or falls silent. If hakimiyah is a distinct branch of tawhid, it would be shirk to even obey any Muslim caliph, emir, sultan, imam, ruler, qadi, etc., even if his commandment or law does not clash with the Shari’ah. That is because just as it is still shirk to worship anything or anyone as a minor god while acknowledging Allah as the supreme God, it therefore follows that to obey the creation as a lesser legislator while acknowledging Allah as the supreme legislator possessing the highest authority must also be shirk if hakimiyah is to be considered a matter connected to tawhid.

Yet, Allah Himself commands us to obey some of His creation, such as His Apostle, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, and the human rulers, governors and judges among us. They are authorized to legislate and issue commands in the discretionary matters where Allah has not legislated or given an explicit commandment or prohibition.

What about a ruler who legislates in opposition to the divine Shari’ah? Or a person who willingly obeys a piece of manmade legislation or a commandment that violates the Shari’ah? Should such individuals be considered polytheists guilty of shirk in the matter of hakimiyah?

It is reasonable to say that to reckon manmade legislation as higher than the law of Allah is surely kufr. But not every instance of kufr is shirk. To reject a true Prophet of God is kufr but it is not necessarily shirk. This is because shirk is a specific type of kufr that has been defined. At any rate, the neo-Kharijite concept of tawhid al-hakimiyah is quite problematic at the very least, and it is better to stick with the conceptions of tawhid and shirk that have been explained by our classical Sunni scholars and theologians.

Illegitimate Child

The twenty-second narration in Abdullah Faisal’s list says “An illegitimate child cannot enter the Paradise nor anyone from his descendants to as far as the seventh generation.”

I agree with Abdullah Faisal that this narration, in the apparent, is quite problematic for rationally speaking how can one assign blame to an illegitimate child for the sin of his or her parents?

Nevertheless, the narration is interesting as it is quite similar to a commandment found in the Torah: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV)

While obviously disagreeing with the meaning of the narration, which contradicts the basic principle of Islam that does not assign responsibility to an individual for the sin of another, I disagree with Abdullah Faisal when he says, “As for the hadith that says the illegitimate child should not lead the salah, this hadith is classified weak. The Imam which the Muslims are not supposed to pray behind is the one who is an open sinner, or the one with a deviant Aqeedah which contains shirk e.g. the Barailwis, the Shias (Twelvers), Democrats etc.” (100 Fabricated Hadith, p.58)

The term Barelawi is usually used by people in the Subcontinent who are not Sunni to refer to the traditional and orthodox Sunni Muslims. Abdullah Faisal is not only a Wahhabi but an extremist Takfiri and neo-Kharijite, currently serving an eighteen year prison term in the United States for attempting to recruit for the terrorist ISIS, and so it is not surprising that he accuses mainstream Sunni Muslims “Barailwis”, of having a deviant aqidah and committing shirk.

With regard to the imamate for the salah of a man born out of wedlock, as a Hanafi it is considered makruh (disliked) in our school as Imam al-Shurunbulali (d. 1069 H) has said:

وكره إمامة العبد والأعمى والأعرابي وولد الزنا والجاهل والفاسق والمبتدع وتطويل

الصلاة

“The imamate of a slave, a blind man, a Bedouin, an illegitimate child, an ignoramus, an open sinner, an innovator and prolonging the salah is disliked.” (Maraqi al-Falah Sharh Nur al-Idah, p.173)

Now the reason for the dislike of a man born out of wedlock leading a congregational salah is that such an individual is usually ignorant and lacks good character due to his family background and lack of valid fatherhood that is often an essential for obtaining knowledge and tarbiyah.

Another reason is that the congregational salah is a very important act of worship which among other functions serves to represent the condition of the particular Muslim congregation. It could reflect badly on the congregation if others come to know that they pray behind a man born out of wedlock, and members of the congregation itself may feel uneasy or disturbed if the status of their imam of being an illegitimate child was disclosed to them. That is because the position of imamate is a noble and respectable one, a figure that the Muslims should look up. But the knowledge that one’s imam is an illegitimate child would likely cause at least some members of his congregation to look down on him and feel he is not a suitable candidate to lead them.