A husband verbally gave his wife one talaaq and then later messaged her via WhatsApp with another talaaq.

Answer

Two Talaaqs came into effect. Anger does not cancel Talaaq. In fact, 99.9% of husbands issue Talaaq in the state of anger. No one issues Talaaq in the state of love. Rare are the men who issue Talaaq intelligently.

Since the term Talaaq was used, they may reconcile immediately without need for renewing the Nikah. The reconciliation without Nikah is permissible prior to the expiry of the wife‟s Iddat. The Iddat is a period of three haidh cycles.

The man should understand and remember that even after reconciling, the two Talaaqs will remain suspended. Should he issue one more Talaaq, all three will be activated and the Nikah will then terminate irrevocably and finally. Thus, he should not treat Talaaq as a joke, then plead anger, bipolarism, OCD and such nonsense whispered by Iblees.

The Shaafi sheikh has erred by claiming that the Talaaq in anger is not valid. Since the husband is a Shaafi, he should say some words to the effect of revocation, e.g. "I revoke the Talaaq". But renewal of Nikah is not incumbent even according to the Shaafi Math-hab in view of the Raj‟at (Revocation) having been effected before expiry of the Iddat.

The arrangement between the man and woman mentioned by you will not entitle him to demand renewal of the Nikah after expiry of the Iddat. Once the Iddat has expired, the woman will be free to marry any other man.

It should also be understood that according to the Shaafi‟ Math-hab, if the husband has any kind of sexual relations with his „wife‟ prior to Ra‟jat, it will be tantamount to zina. But according to the Hanafi Math-hab, any such relationship will be permissible and it will effectively be Ra‟jat (Revocation).

TECHNOLOGY - decree of Allah Ta‟ala. It is Allah

Ta‟ala Who has created man‟s

HIS COMMAND

brains. It is Allah Ta‟ala Who "Do you not see that Allah has by way of Ilhaam creates techmade subservient for you whatevnological brainwaves in the er is in the earth, and the ship brains of the atheist scientists. sails in the ocean by His com-

Most of the Ilhaam pertaining to mand…"

material progress is awarded to (Al-Hajj, Aayat 66, and in many the kuffaar because Rasulullah other Aayaat)

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "The dunya is jeefah Technology and scientific ad-

(carrion)". And, the Mu‟mineen vancement are the effects of the

"have been created for the Aakhirah".

The ship sails with His Command. Similarly all effects of technology operate by the command of Allah Ta‟ala. Since there is a natural coherence between the jeefah and kufr, and since the kuffaar are doomed for eternal perdition in Jahannam, Allah Ta‟ala favours them in this dunya with Ilhaam in the material realm.

JANNAT WITH PEACE "Spread Salaam (i.e. greet the night (to perform Salaat)

everyone, the known and un- while people are sleeping, then Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi known); feed the poor; main- enter Jannat with Salaam (in wasallam) said:

tain family ties; stand during peace)."

Mr. Daniel Haqiqatjou says regarding Shiahs:

"Mass takfir of Shiah is incorrect because they are highly diverse in their beliefs. Therefore takfir can only be done on a case by case basis." Mr. Daniel appears to be a sympathiser of the Shiahs. Today Shiahs are Khomeinists. The diversity to which Mr. Daniel refers is no longer applicable today. In the initial phase of Shi‟ism, the movement was political. Then, to establish its political status, the Shiahs began fabricating beliefs of kufr regarding Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu). But today, almost all Shiahs, if not all, are followers of the twelve hallucinatory infallible imaams to whom they attribute a plethora of kufr doctrines and teachings which are glaringly present in their books of theology. Khomeini had revived Shiah Kufr and the Shiahs of today are his followers.

Displaying blatant sympathy for the Shiahs, the chap says that only some Shiahs commit shirk with their imaams.

"Some, but not all. Twelvers do tawassul of their imams. Now, you might take the position that this is an act of shirk, but does that justify takfir? If so, then you have to takfir a large percentage of Sunnis as well who do tawassul through the Prophet and awliya, so on what basis are you takfiring all Shiah?"

On the basis of the induracy of their shirk. The concept of Tawassul for Shiahs and Muslims are similar in only name. Christians believe in God and so do Muslims. But there is a vast difference in the concepts of the two groups. The Shiah concept of tawassul is hard-core shirk. It is first class shirk.

Shiahs believe that their imaams are ma‟soom (sinless); Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) delivers wahi to them. They believe that their imaams have the power to answer supplications. On the other hand, Muslims make dua to Allah Ta‟ala. They petition Allah Ta‟ala and supplicate to Him to grant their duas by virtue of the proximity which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the Auliya have with Him. The Tawassul concept of Muslims does not assign any power to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Auliya. Dua is not directed to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Auliya.

Mr. Daniel exhibiting his stupid sympathy for Shiahs says:

"Sunni scholars have discussed the question of whether insulting particular Sahaba takes one out of Islam, and the majority said no, unless you insult ALL of them because that contradicts the Quran. Part of the reason is there are documented cases of

individual Sahaba insulting each other. The general rule that scholars agree on is that the nature of the insult has to directly contradict the Quran. So if you insult Our Mother Aisha radiAllahu anha, you are a disgusting fasiq deviant, but you are still considered a Muslim. UNLESS your insult directly contradicts the Quran, e.g., by accusing Our Mother of that specific sin that Allah explicitly exonerated her from in the Quran. If you insult her in that way, you are deemed a kafir because you are denying the Quran. Same principle applies for insulting other Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them all. It does not automatically take one out of Islam. It depends on the nature of the insult."

Firstly, this chap spins a deceptive narrative as a red herring to detract focus from the extreme villainy of Shiah vituperation hurled against the most senior Sahaabah for whom Jannat has been assured by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and which fact is testified to by the Qur‟aan Majeed itself.

The averment of „all of them‟, is pure stupidity based on dubiosity and hypocrisy. We state unequivocally that even if ONE Sahaabi whose salvation is substantiated by Qat‟i Daleel is insulted, then the vile person is a kaafir. Among the primary targets for Shiah slander and vituperation are the most senior Sahaabah, namely, Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Muaawiyah and Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anhum), as well as almost the entire body of the Sahaabah.

The vilest epithets of slander and abuse are hurled by Shiahs at these illustrious Sahaabah. And, this is the state of belief of the Twelvers whom the Daniel fellow seeks to vindicate. Without the slightest doubt, these Shiah slanderers are kuffaar, and only one in whose heart lurks nifaaq can sympathise with them.

Further demonstrating gross stupidity in the attempt to vindicate the Shiahs, this Shi‟i sympathiser or perhaps hidden Shiah, says:

"Most Twelvershia do not view the imams as prophets in the sense that the imams receive revelation. They believe that the imams are ma'sum in the sense of understanding revelation. They believe the imams cannot make a mistake in understanding and teaching Islam. This is undoubtedly a deviant belief, but is it kufr? Sunnis have an analogous concept from the hadith of the Allah will not let my Ummah agree upon misguidance."Scholars understood this as ijma (consensus of the ulama). So there is a concept of isma being in Ahl al-Sunna too, and obviously it's not kufr. Note: Historically there are shia who believed revelation continued after the Proph- These are certainly kuffar but this is not the belief of the mainstream Twelvers however."

This is deceptive spinning of their beliefs in an abortive bid to exonerate Shiahs from kufr. All Twelvers believe in the „nubuwwat‟ (prophet hood) of their „infallible‟ imaams. Not referring to them as Nabis does not detract from their belief in the „nubuwwat‟ of their imams. All the attributes of a Nabi are bestowed to the imams by the Shiahs.

The averment that Shiahs believe their imaams to be ma‟sum in only the issue of „understanding and teaching Islam‟ is an insidious falsity. Shiahs believe that their imaams are ma‟sum, sinless and infallible in all respects. This Daniel Shiah sympathiser has sucked this copro claim from his thumb.

The claim that Muslims have an „analogous concept‟ is more copro bunkum. There is absolutely no resemblance between the Islamic concept of Ijma‟ and Ismat (infallibility/ sinlessness) which Shiahs attribute to their imaams. There is absolutely nothing in common between the two concepts.

It is not an issue of „historically there are Shiah who believed revelation continued after the Prophet…" This is the belief of all Shiahs. From whence do they acquire Hadith when they have no Kutub of Hadith as do the Muslims have? There are no Muhadditheen in their ranks. It

(Arabic passage, page 22 of the original PDF)

(Arabic passage, page 22 of the original PDF)

(Arabic passage, page 22 of the original PDF)

is their belief that Islam was revealed to their imaams via Jibraeel (alayhis salaam).

This Shiah sympathiser or covert Shiah says:

"So, I'll tell you why. I was a Twelvershii from childhood and my encounter with sunnis challenged my belief. And none of the above arguments would have convinced me. You know why? Because I didn't do tawassul of the imams, thought it was silly. I didn't insult the Sahaba, never felt the need to do so. And I didn't think the imams received revelation. But I was, nonetheless, fully shi‟i."

Since this deviate Daniel was a Twelver Shiah since birth, his affinity with Shi‟ism constrains him to defend the Shiahs despite his claim of having renounced the Shiah religion. Shi‟ism is entrenched in his veins. If he did not practice tawassul nor insult the Sahaabah nor believed the imaams received wahi whilst he was overtly a Shiah, it does not exonerate Shi‟ism from the stark copro kufr it propagates.

There may be many modernist Shiahs as there are modernist Muslims who reject their respective beliefs. But such rejection does not detract from the reality of the beliefs of the respective religions.

Very cunningly defending Shi‟ism, this deviate says:

"Their most authentic books are inauthentic. They have no preserved tradition. They have no system of hadith preservation analogous to what sunnis have developed.

Because of this lack of preservation, Shiism is an ever evolving set of beliefs. This is why they are so heterogeneous. They cannot trace any of their distinct beliefs and practices to the Prophet closed."

Since he is aware of the absolute kufr and abuse of the Sahaabah recorded in all the official books of Shiah theology, he abortively seeks to exonerate Shiahs by attributing the deluge of kufr to their books which are not authentic and to the fact that they have no „preserved tradition‟.

Since they have no authentic books of Hadith, from whence to they derive the thousands of masaa-il pertaining to all aspects of life? According to their belief, their knowledge of Islam is from the Imaams who acquired it from Jibraeel (Alayhis salaam). Thus, they are kuffaar, not only Ahl-e-Bid‟ah.

Then very stupidly he attempts to defend them with a ridiculous argument. Thus he says that "Shi‟ism is an ever evolving set of beliefs." But, Islam is not "an ever evolving" Deen. It is a Deen which the Qur‟aan declares was perfected and finalized during the very lifetime of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Now when the Shiahs have no established Deen which reached them by means of reliable narration and transmission from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then this by itself confirms that all of them are kuffaar. They have no religion. They do not follow Islam. The religion they follow is a religion of „ever evolving beliefs‟. And, even this moron deviate confesses:

"They cannot trace any of their distinct beliefs and practices to the Prophet."

This confession clinches the argument and confirms that all Shiahs are kuffaar. They do not follow the Deen of the Qur‟aan and Sunnah. The moron has unwittingly conceded

this irrefutable fact.

VIEWING BEFORE

MARRIAGE