Regarding Shaykh Nazim al Qubrusi, Shakyh Kabbaani and followers, in reference to "The Irrefutable Proof that Nazim al-Qubrusi Negates Islam" by Shaykh Samir Kadi.

While we appreciate your concern, it is necessary to understand an important%0D%0Aprinciple before addressing the issue at hand.%0D%0A%0D%0AThe Fuqaha are unanimous that one may not declare a person a kaafir until%0D%0Athere is absolute proof to this effect. They have mentioned this principle%0D%0Athat should a person make a statement that is apparently a statement of%0D%0Akufr, and the statement has a hundred possible interpretations, of which 99%0D%0Ahave a clear meaning of kufr, and only one interpretation does not imply%0D%0Akufr, then the person should be given the benefit of the doubt. Hence it%0D%0Awill not be permissible to declare such a person a kaafir.%0D%0A%0D%0ABased on such principles, we say that we must be cautious before declaring%0D%0AQubrisi or Kabbaani as misguided.%0D%0A%0D%0AIn such matters each Aalim is expected to investigate the matter%0D%0Aindependently. It will not suffice to say that Shaykh so and so has%0D%0Ainvestigated the matter and has given a ruling.%0D%0A%0D%0AIf Kabbaani and Qubrisi are in fact deviant, then we will not hesitate in%0D%0Amaking this public. It is our Islamic duty as Ulama to expose all the false%0D%0Asects, in order to save the Imaan of the Muslim public.%0D%0A%0D%0AHowever, based on the principles set out by the Fuqaha, we find that there%0D%0Aare many issues still outstanding, hence no statement can be made at%0D%0Apresent. Some of these issues are:%0D%0A%0D%0A1. We have not had the opportunity to study the works of Qubrisi directly.%0D%0AWe only have on hand the statements quoted by Shaykh Kadi.%0D%0A2. Is Qubrisi alive? If so he should be given the opportunity to respond and%0D%0Aexplain his statements. Similarly, Kabbaani should also be given such an%0D%0Aopportunity.%0D%0A3. Having gone through some of the statements mentioned by Shaykh Kadi, we%0D%0Afind that he is definitely short sighted and hasty in his conclusions. The%0D%0Amajority of the statements can be quite easily interpreted in a manner in%0D%0Awhich it conforms to the Shariah.%0D%0A%0D%0AIt is well known that the men of Tasawwuf have at times made such%0D%0Astatements, which externally convey a meaning that is apparently contrary to%0D%0Athe Shariah. However, the Ulama of Tasawwuf have explained the true intended%0D%0Ameanings of these statements, and have shown that these utterances do not%0D%0Aconstitute blasphemy. By way of example, it is famous that a group of%0D%0Aprominent Ulama branded Shaikh Ibn Arabi a heretic. Not withstanding the%0D%0Aprominence of these Ulama, the Ulama cum Sufis (those Ulama who are experts%0D%0Aat both the external branches of Ilm as well as Tasawwuf) have defended him.%0D%0AIn our opinion, most of the statements quoted in the said article of Shaykh%0D%0AKadi are of this nature.%0D%0A%0D%0AIn brief, we do not have sufficient grounds at present to declare that%0D%0AQubrisi is deviant.%0D%0A%0D%0AIf you have any other information on hand, you may forward it to us.%0D%0A%0D%0Aand Allah Ta'ala Knows Best%0D%0A%0D%0AMufti Ebrahim Desai%0D%0AFATWA DEPT.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A