- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
right ? oh yes dissing people is your right. tell me more about how cool and islamic you are. if you are sir irfan's student he'd be hurt to see you misbehaving like this dude. ever thought of it?
-
We need your support!
We are currently struggling to cover the operational costs of Xtremepapers, as a result we might have to shut this website down. Please donate if we have helped you and help make a difference in other students' lives!
Click here to Donate Now (View Announcement)
Sir Irfan Atique: the truth?
- Thread starter usama321
- Start date
- Status
right ? oh yes dissing people is your right. tell me more about how cool and islamic you are. if you are sir irfan's student he'd be hurt to see you misbehaving like this dude. ever thought of it?
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 523
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 523
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 523
hn becuase we like to irritate others and enjoy being abused at -_-
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
yeah a very cool person messages 17 years calling them assholes?
and after getting irritated he called you to come and defend him?? i distinctly remember our glorious sir as saying he 'forgives the young boioling blood' .
- Messages
- 3,225
- Reaction score
- 15,036
- Points
- 523
50 CENT
bro .. Calm down. We wouldn't harm your sir irfaan@inno
Fight with someone of your age and size.Like meebtw "baystey"
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 523
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
50 CENT
@inno
btw "baystey"
mustafa , -.- betsi tumhein mein btaati hun pangey nhi lou -.-
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 523
plisssss i'd prefer to learn islam from someone genuine and sincere, humble and polite
evidently not this sir
- Messages
- 3,225
- Reaction score
- 15,036
- Points
- 523
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
dead batman y u calls -.-
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 523
please i once contradicted him in the following question
Explain why do some scholors reject the use of Qiyas? (4)
and explained and proved to him how he was wrong
and this was his reply
YOU are a viper............and no m not a sir m a head..............you people didn't notice about who am i... and you are telling me that it came in 2009 paper where as..... back than i was cie examiner and wht you said, ur points, students did wrote and we gave them 1/4 coz they didn't use their brain to under stand the question,,..... do whatever you wanna do or write like you wanna write.....i dont give a damn....... coz your a sir not me........so take a Hick and don't post for me ur stupid learning! remarks...... n do some research work about this question.....oh! sorry ma bad ur The sir so let me help my sir viper .........
AKA VIPER SIR HERE IS A RESEARCH ARTICLE......
Qiyâs can be defined as taking an established ruling from Islamic Law and applying it to a new case, in virtue of the fact that the new case shares the same essential reason for which the original ruling was applied.
Qiyâs, therefore, is a method that Muslim jurists use to derive a ruling for new situations that are not addressed by the Qur’ân and Sunnah, like many new developments of our age and like the customs of people not encountered in Arabia during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). By way of qiyâs, these issues can be referred back to those that are explicitly mentioned in the sacred texts.
When we know the reason why something in Islamic Law is obligatory, preferred, permitted, disliked, or forbidden, then if something else shares the same reason, it can be given the same legal ruling.
Categories of Qiyâs:
There are two major categories of qiyâs with respect to its strength as evidence: overt and obscure.
A. Obvious Comparison (qiyâs jaliyy):
This is where the new situation being investigated is clearly no different in its essentials from a matter that Islamic Law has a clear and established ruling for.
This is especially the case where the sacred texts clearly spell out the reason for the original ruling or where there is unanimous agreement among Muslims as to what that reason is.
In such cases, there is no need for the jurist to try to deduce a quality in the new situation that he can use to make a comparison with some precedent in Islamic Law. Everything is clear and up-front.
Consider the following examples:
1. What is the ruling when the guardian of the orphan’s estate burns all the orphan’s property?
Though there is no direct textual evidence that discusses burning the orphan’s property, the ruling is patently clear. It takes the same ruling as when the guardian squanders the orphan’s wealth on himself.
Allah says: “Lo! Those who devour the wealth of orphans wrongfully, they do but swallow fire into their bellies, and they will be exposed to burning flame.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 10]
It is prohibited for the guardian of the orphan’s estate to wrongfully spend the orphan’s wealth on himself. The reason for this ruling is obvious – it brings loss to the orphan’s property.
This is precisely what would happen if the guardian burns the orphan’s property. The orphan will suffer the loss. There is no material difference between the two cases. Since the two cases share the reason for the ruling, they share the same ruling. It is unquestionably prohibited for the guardian to burn or otherwise vandalize the orphan’s property.
2. What is the ruling on giving one’s parents a good smack?
We will not find any text in our scriptures that directly addresses this question. However, we are in no doubt that it is absolutely prohibited and sinful to do so.
We find in the Qur’ân that it is sinful to even mutter “ugh” or “uff” to our parents in exasperation when they ask us to do something for them.
Allah says: “And your Lord has commanded that you shall not worship any but Him, and that you show kindness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them so much as “ugh” nor chide them, but speak to them a generous word.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 23]
We are prohibited to say “ugh” to our parents, because it is abusive behavior. At the very least, it hurts their feelings. We can have no doubt that shoving them or smacking them is even more abusive and hurtful. Since the reason for prohibition is even more evident here, we can be certain that smacking our parents is unlawful and very sinful.
From these examples, there should be no question that qiyâs should be accepted as a legal means for establishing Islamic legislation whenever the comparison is overt and clear.
Some scholars do not consider these examples to even fall under the heading of qiyâs, due to how clear and obvious they are, but consider such rulings to constitute part of what the texts themselves communicate.
B. Obscure Comparison (qiyâs khafiyy):
This is where the new situation being investigated is not so overtly similar in its essentials to the established matter in Islamic Law that it is being compared to.
This is especially the case where the sacred texts do not spell out the reason for the original ruling or where there is disagreement among Muslims as to what that reason is.
Scholars cite as an example that the criminal liability for murder with a bludgeon is the same as that for murder with a knife, since in both cases there is “an intentional and hostile act of killing”.
The difference here to the examples above is that the shared reason for the ruling is one that has been deduced by the jurists from the ruling prohibiting murder. The formula “an intentional and hostile act of killing” is a legal construct developed by legal theorists to define when a killing is legally an act of murder. It is not something that is explicitly stated in the texts, but rather something that is deduced from them.
In such cases, there is a greater burden upon the jurist, who is required to extrapolate and explain the cause of the established ruling and then explain how that cause is also present in the new matter under investigation.
All scholars agree on calling this kind of reasoning by the name qiyâs.
Areas of Scholarly Agreement Regarding the Validity of Qiyâs as a Form of Reasoning:
Muslims are all agreed that qiyâs is a valid approach to reasoning in the following areas of inquiry:
1. Worldly matters: for instance, comparing one medicine to another or pricing one product on the basis of the price of similar products in the market.
2. Any qiyâs that was carried out by the Prophet (peace be upon him): since its consideration become certain on account of its taking place in a context of certainty.
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah are also in agreement that qiyâs cannot be applied to certain matters. It cannot be used to answer essential questions of belief or to investigate matters relating to Allah’s nature and attributes if it leads to comparing Allah to His creation. Qiyâs can only be validly applied in these matters to extent of demonstrating that Allah is superior and transcendent to created things. Otherwise, the use of qiyâs will lead to the mistake of considering both Creator and His creation equally under the aegis of more general concepts. It will also lead to considering Allah as being similar to created things.
Allah says: “To Allah applies the highest similitude: for He is the Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.” [Sûrah al-Nahl: 60]
Allah says: “There is none like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” [Sûrah al-Shûrâ: 11]
As Muslims, we must believe that Allah is free from every deficiency that exists in created beings. By contrast, every aspect of perfection applies more to the Creator than it can to anything in creation.
These matters are agreed upon.
Areas of Scholarly Disagreement Regarding the Validity of Qiyâs:
Scholars disagree regarding the applicability of the second type of qiyâs (qiyâs khafiyy) in matters of Islamic Law. The discussion that follows will be dealing specifically with this second type. ( CONTINUE )
Explain why do some scholors reject the use of Qiyas? (4)
and explained and proved to him how he was wrong
and this was his reply
YOU are a viper............and no m not a sir m a head..............you people didn't notice about who am i... and you are telling me that it came in 2009 paper where as..... back than i was cie examiner and wht you said, ur points, students did wrote and we gave them 1/4 coz they didn't use their brain to under stand the question,,..... do whatever you wanna do or write like you wanna write.....i dont give a damn....... coz your a sir not me........so take a Hick and don't post for me ur stupid learning! remarks...... n do some research work about this question.....oh! sorry ma bad ur The sir so let me help my sir viper .........
AKA VIPER SIR HERE IS A RESEARCH ARTICLE......
- Sheikh Walîd b. Ibrâhîm al-`Ujajî, professor at al-Imam Islamic University
- Tue, 07/03/2007
Qiyâs can be defined as taking an established ruling from Islamic Law and applying it to a new case, in virtue of the fact that the new case shares the same essential reason for which the original ruling was applied.
Qiyâs, therefore, is a method that Muslim jurists use to derive a ruling for new situations that are not addressed by the Qur’ân and Sunnah, like many new developments of our age and like the customs of people not encountered in Arabia during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). By way of qiyâs, these issues can be referred back to those that are explicitly mentioned in the sacred texts.
When we know the reason why something in Islamic Law is obligatory, preferred, permitted, disliked, or forbidden, then if something else shares the same reason, it can be given the same legal ruling.
Categories of Qiyâs:
There are two major categories of qiyâs with respect to its strength as evidence: overt and obscure.
A. Obvious Comparison (qiyâs jaliyy):
This is where the new situation being investigated is clearly no different in its essentials from a matter that Islamic Law has a clear and established ruling for.
This is especially the case where the sacred texts clearly spell out the reason for the original ruling or where there is unanimous agreement among Muslims as to what that reason is.
In such cases, there is no need for the jurist to try to deduce a quality in the new situation that he can use to make a comparison with some precedent in Islamic Law. Everything is clear and up-front.
Consider the following examples:
1. What is the ruling when the guardian of the orphan’s estate burns all the orphan’s property?
Though there is no direct textual evidence that discusses burning the orphan’s property, the ruling is patently clear. It takes the same ruling as when the guardian squanders the orphan’s wealth on himself.
Allah says: “Lo! Those who devour the wealth of orphans wrongfully, they do but swallow fire into their bellies, and they will be exposed to burning flame.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 10]
It is prohibited for the guardian of the orphan’s estate to wrongfully spend the orphan’s wealth on himself. The reason for this ruling is obvious – it brings loss to the orphan’s property.
This is precisely what would happen if the guardian burns the orphan’s property. The orphan will suffer the loss. There is no material difference between the two cases. Since the two cases share the reason for the ruling, they share the same ruling. It is unquestionably prohibited for the guardian to burn or otherwise vandalize the orphan’s property.
2. What is the ruling on giving one’s parents a good smack?
We will not find any text in our scriptures that directly addresses this question. However, we are in no doubt that it is absolutely prohibited and sinful to do so.
We find in the Qur’ân that it is sinful to even mutter “ugh” or “uff” to our parents in exasperation when they ask us to do something for them.
Allah says: “And your Lord has commanded that you shall not worship any but Him, and that you show kindness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them so much as “ugh” nor chide them, but speak to them a generous word.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 23]
We are prohibited to say “ugh” to our parents, because it is abusive behavior. At the very least, it hurts their feelings. We can have no doubt that shoving them or smacking them is even more abusive and hurtful. Since the reason for prohibition is even more evident here, we can be certain that smacking our parents is unlawful and very sinful.
From these examples, there should be no question that qiyâs should be accepted as a legal means for establishing Islamic legislation whenever the comparison is overt and clear.
Some scholars do not consider these examples to even fall under the heading of qiyâs, due to how clear and obvious they are, but consider such rulings to constitute part of what the texts themselves communicate.
B. Obscure Comparison (qiyâs khafiyy):
This is where the new situation being investigated is not so overtly similar in its essentials to the established matter in Islamic Law that it is being compared to.
This is especially the case where the sacred texts do not spell out the reason for the original ruling or where there is disagreement among Muslims as to what that reason is.
Scholars cite as an example that the criminal liability for murder with a bludgeon is the same as that for murder with a knife, since in both cases there is “an intentional and hostile act of killing”.
The difference here to the examples above is that the shared reason for the ruling is one that has been deduced by the jurists from the ruling prohibiting murder. The formula “an intentional and hostile act of killing” is a legal construct developed by legal theorists to define when a killing is legally an act of murder. It is not something that is explicitly stated in the texts, but rather something that is deduced from them.
In such cases, there is a greater burden upon the jurist, who is required to extrapolate and explain the cause of the established ruling and then explain how that cause is also present in the new matter under investigation.
All scholars agree on calling this kind of reasoning by the name qiyâs.
Areas of Scholarly Agreement Regarding the Validity of Qiyâs as a Form of Reasoning:
Muslims are all agreed that qiyâs is a valid approach to reasoning in the following areas of inquiry:
1. Worldly matters: for instance, comparing one medicine to another or pricing one product on the basis of the price of similar products in the market.
2. Any qiyâs that was carried out by the Prophet (peace be upon him): since its consideration become certain on account of its taking place in a context of certainty.
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah are also in agreement that qiyâs cannot be applied to certain matters. It cannot be used to answer essential questions of belief or to investigate matters relating to Allah’s nature and attributes if it leads to comparing Allah to His creation. Qiyâs can only be validly applied in these matters to extent of demonstrating that Allah is superior and transcendent to created things. Otherwise, the use of qiyâs will lead to the mistake of considering both Creator and His creation equally under the aegis of more general concepts. It will also lead to considering Allah as being similar to created things.
Allah says: “To Allah applies the highest similitude: for He is the Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.” [Sûrah al-Nahl: 60]
Allah says: “There is none like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” [Sûrah al-Shûrâ: 11]
As Muslims, we must believe that Allah is free from every deficiency that exists in created beings. By contrast, every aspect of perfection applies more to the Creator than it can to anything in creation.
These matters are agreed upon.
Areas of Scholarly Disagreement Regarding the Validity of Qiyâs:
Scholars disagree regarding the applicability of the second type of qiyâs (qiyâs khafiyy) in matters of Islamic Law. The discussion that follows will be dealing specifically with this second type. ( CONTINUE )
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 523
and also
Here is another ANSWER FOR YOU SIR AKA V.I.P.E.R........
Qiyas and why some scholars rejects it
Definitions
Although qiyas is normally translated as analogy, it may include non-analogical arguments in Sunnite law. In Shi’ite traditions when the word qiyas describes a procedure that the Imams reject, it refers to simple, restricted or juridical forms of analogical reasoning. As Shi’ite scholars developed a coherent legal theory, the rejection of qiyas was explained in greater detail.
Views of Early Scholars
Al-Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022) rejected qiyas on epistemological grounds. He argued that, while qiyas is not necessarily an illegitimate procedure in itself, it does not result in knowledge of the law. Both al-Sharif al-Murtada (d. 436/1044) and Shaykh al-Ta’ifa (d. 460/1067) considered qiyas illegitimate because the procedure is not supported by textual evidence and not because it is epistemologically inadequate. So, in the formative period of Shi’ite legal theory, there were two arguments against qiyas: epistemological uncertainty and lack of textual evidence in support of it.
Views of Later Scholars
Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (d. 676/1277) picked up where al-Mufid left off. Like al-Mufid, he rejected qiyas on epistemological grounds. By qiyas al-Muhaqqiq meant an analogy in which the common element (‘illah), on the basis of which a ruling in a known case is transferred to an unknown case, is not known, but supposed. However, if the ‘illah is recorded in a proof-text (nass) then it is known and the resulting procedure is not qiyas but the transference of a ruling (ta‘diyat al-hukm), which is acceptable so long as there is textual evidence that the original ruling is transferable.
So, at this stage in the development of Shi’ite legal theory, the ruling in a known case may be transferred to an unknown case if the common element is recorded in a proof-text and if there is textual evidence that the ruling in the first case is transferable.
Although al-Muhaqqiq gave some examples of how to recognize a recorded ‘illah, al-‘Allama al-Hilli (d. 726/1325) expanded this list to include phrases such as “on account of” (li-ajl) and “because of” (li-sabab) which signify the introduction of an ‘illah. Al-‘Allama dropped al-Muhaqqiq’s condition that there must be textual evidence that a ruling is transferable.
At this point the rejection of qiyas boils down to a rejection of analogies in which the ‘illah is not recorded but derived (mustanbata) by one of six Sunnite means: munasaba, mu’aththir, shabah, dawran, al-sabr wa’l-taqsim and tard. This became the prevalent view and later scholars upheld al-‘Allama’s view over that of al-Murtada.
There was however one apparent contradiction in al-'Allama's theory which later scholars took up. Al-'Allama rejected qiyas because it is uncertain (zanni) yet he accepted epistemological uncerainty (zann) in the law. Later scholars resolved this by arguing that it is not the uncertainty of a ruling which is problematic, for it was accepted that the jurisconsult's opinion is uncertain, but the uncertainty of the cause of a ruling, which must be certain. Proposing an uncertain ruling was not problematic for scholars, but proposing that the means of arriving at an uncertain ruling are themselves uncertain was controversial.
Here is another ANSWER FOR YOU SIR AKA V.I.P.E.R........
Qiyas and why some scholars rejects it
Definitions
Although qiyas is normally translated as analogy, it may include non-analogical arguments in Sunnite law. In Shi’ite traditions when the word qiyas describes a procedure that the Imams reject, it refers to simple, restricted or juridical forms of analogical reasoning. As Shi’ite scholars developed a coherent legal theory, the rejection of qiyas was explained in greater detail.
Views of Early Scholars
Al-Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022) rejected qiyas on epistemological grounds. He argued that, while qiyas is not necessarily an illegitimate procedure in itself, it does not result in knowledge of the law. Both al-Sharif al-Murtada (d. 436/1044) and Shaykh al-Ta’ifa (d. 460/1067) considered qiyas illegitimate because the procedure is not supported by textual evidence and not because it is epistemologically inadequate. So, in the formative period of Shi’ite legal theory, there were two arguments against qiyas: epistemological uncertainty and lack of textual evidence in support of it.
Views of Later Scholars
Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (d. 676/1277) picked up where al-Mufid left off. Like al-Mufid, he rejected qiyas on epistemological grounds. By qiyas al-Muhaqqiq meant an analogy in which the common element (‘illah), on the basis of which a ruling in a known case is transferred to an unknown case, is not known, but supposed. However, if the ‘illah is recorded in a proof-text (nass) then it is known and the resulting procedure is not qiyas but the transference of a ruling (ta‘diyat al-hukm), which is acceptable so long as there is textual evidence that the original ruling is transferable.
So, at this stage in the development of Shi’ite legal theory, the ruling in a known case may be transferred to an unknown case if the common element is recorded in a proof-text and if there is textual evidence that the ruling in the first case is transferable.
Although al-Muhaqqiq gave some examples of how to recognize a recorded ‘illah, al-‘Allama al-Hilli (d. 726/1325) expanded this list to include phrases such as “on account of” (li-ajl) and “because of” (li-sabab) which signify the introduction of an ‘illah. Al-‘Allama dropped al-Muhaqqiq’s condition that there must be textual evidence that a ruling is transferable.
At this point the rejection of qiyas boils down to a rejection of analogies in which the ‘illah is not recorded but derived (mustanbata) by one of six Sunnite means: munasaba, mu’aththir, shabah, dawran, al-sabr wa’l-taqsim and tard. This became the prevalent view and later scholars upheld al-‘Allama’s view over that of al-Murtada.
There was however one apparent contradiction in al-'Allama's theory which later scholars took up. Al-'Allama rejected qiyas because it is uncertain (zanni) yet he accepted epistemological uncerainty (zann) in the law. Later scholars resolved this by arguing that it is not the uncertainty of a ruling which is problematic, for it was accepted that the jurisconsult's opinion is uncertain, but the uncertainty of the cause of a ruling, which must be certain. Proposing an uncertain ruling was not problematic for scholars, but proposing that the means of arriving at an uncertain ruling are themselves uncertain was controversial.
- Messages
- 3,225
- Reaction score
- 15,036
- Points
- 523
He is alive but "Billi ussay chor kar chali gayey" (the cat left him) so depressed hai
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
50 CENT , 
now you can go n talk to sir irfan on skype if u please .
now you can go n talk to sir irfan on skype if u please .
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 523
copy pasting it all from the internet
is that how a scholor or CIE examiner responds to someone who critices him
by copy pasting stuff from the internet, and not by actually explaining the logic
he wrote many more bad things which went far too personal, but i still forgave him
also he replied very rudely towards faizan muhammmad and usmama123
now if someone contradicts u, explain the right meaning to him, and do not get all pissed off
please learn from his mistake
is that how a scholor or CIE examiner responds to someone who critices him
by copy pasting stuff from the internet, and not by actually explaining the logic
he wrote many more bad things which went far too personal, but i still forgave him
also he replied very rudely towards faizan muhammmad and usmama123
now if someone contradicts u, explain the right meaning to him, and do not get all pissed off
please learn from his mistake
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 523
aren't u supporting him
or u left him all of a sudden
calling others hypocrites, look at urself
or u left him all of a sudden
calling others hypocrites, look at urself
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 12,058
- Points
- 523
karlia naa? to ab bejaa chup krke.? -.-
- Status