The following article is an apt rebuttal of the rubbish kufr and shirk defence proffered by the MJC’s jaahil ‘mufti’ for the wedding of shirk and kufr.



Maulana Muhammad Huzaifah Ibn Aadam Ebrahim

Recently, an event of blatant Kufr and Riddah took place in Cape Town, in which a supposedly Muslim girl got married to a Hindu man who had supposedly become Muslim. However, the event was drowned in Shirk from the very beginning until the end, with a Christian priest being given the platform to propagate his Kufr, and thereafter a “Hindu wedding” was performed, including the Mangal Phere (circumambulating around a fire) – a ritual accorded so much importance in Hinduism that no Hindu marriage is considered to be solemnised without it. The fire is an object of worship in Hinduism and, when this particular fire is lit in a Hindu wedding, it is considered to be a representation of Agni Devta (the Lord of Fire), and thus the marriage is taking place in his presence. The Hindu bride and groom circumambulate this so-called “Sacred Fire” seven times, chanting different mantras in each of the seven cycles.

Thus, this is an act of worship in the Hindu religion. Ebrahim Rasool claims to have “sanitized” it. What is he talking about? This is like a person saying he ate a bowl of excreta but he sanitized it first. Perhaps he washed his hands before consuming the excreta? Or he ate it using a knife and fork?

As a result, even if the man had indeed “accepted Islaam”, by taking part in this he became a Murtadd. Furthermore, the girl is a Murtadd, the father of the girl is a Murtadd, and all of those who took part in this accursed, satanic event are Murtaddeen. All of those who approve of it are Murtaddeen. This is clear for all of those who have Imaan, for all of those who have even a little bit of knowledge of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

In addition to this, all of the miserable, wretched Ulamaa-e-Soo’ that have crept out of the woodwork to defend this event of Irtidaad, to make excuses for it, etc., are guilty of Kufr as well.

The event took place under the auspices of members of the MJC (Murtadd Juhalaa Council), which is a Kaafir organisation hell-bent on destroying Islaam. They are notorious for their love and support for the Kaafir Shias, among countless other crimes. They have long ago sold out the Deen and the Muslim Ummah.

After the Kufr wedding had taken place and some `Ulamaa had come out and proclaimed the Haqq and issued Takfeer, which is the duty of Nahi `anil Munkar as ordered by Allaah Ta`aalaa, the MJC (Murtadd Jahaalat Council) decried this and said:

“An equal, if not greater burden of apology, both to the Rasool family and the community, rests upon the shoulders of those whose lamentable discourse of Takfīr, based upon the flimsiest of a rumour that flies brazenly in the face of the Qurānic imperative to verify, has tarnished the image of Islām and Muslims. We advise that those who pronounced Takfīr on those who were present at the Rasool wedding atone for what they have articulated and make a public apology.” [End quote.]

This request of theirs is in itself Kufr. Their irtidaad is compounded by having put forward this request. It is akin to asking the Muslims to apologise to Shaytaan for not worshipping him. Their request is laughable and is chucked in their faces.

Moving on:

The “Grand Jaahil” of the MJC, Taha Karaan, brought out a ridiculously feeble defence for the Kufr that had taken place – a defence so weak that even a new-born baby would mockingly scoff at it. A defence so weak that even Shaytaan is ashamed of it.

In this article we shall just briefly refute one Baatil contention of his from the many Baatil claims he made. He said:

“Ibn Taymiyyah stated that sajdah for an idol does not by its very nature mean the person has become a mushrik, but one needs to find out with what frame of mind the sajdah was made.”
First of all, you are supposedly a follower of the Shaafi`ee Madh-hab. Why are you quoting Imaam ibn Taymiyyah? We are Muqallideen of the Four Madhaahib, not Muqallideen of Imaam ibn Taymiyyah رحمة الله عليه, brilliant and sincere `Aalim as he was.

Secondly, you have miserably failed to understand what he meant. If he was alive today he would have been the very first person to make Takfeer of everyone who had even the slightest role to play in the satanic wedding. Bear in mind that he is the Imaam of the people you refer to as “Takfeeris”, “extremists”, “fundamentalists”, “radicals”, etc.

We shall briefly mention the Fatwaa of each of the four Madhaahib on this issue of performing Sujood to an idol, and then finally we shall explain what Imaam ibn Taymiyyah had been referring to, In Shaa Allaah. It is mind-boggling for an “anti-Takfeer” person to quote Imaam ibn Taymiyyah of all people, when his “extreme”, “uncompromising” stance is well-known to all and sundry. Surely he is the last person on earth you would want to quote if you are trying to push an “anti-Takfeer”, “interfaith” agenda. An `Aalim who spent so many years of his life in jail, was exiled, branded a “Takfeeri”, “extremist”, “troublemaker”, and who called for and took part in Jihaad numerous times in his life against the Kuffaar including the Mongols who, at that time, claimed to be “Muslims” (though in reality they were not, on account of rejecting the Sharee`ah).

The Hanafi Madh-hab:

Imaam ibn `Aabideen ash-Shaami رحمة الله عليه said:
قال القهستاني: وفي الظهيرية يكفر بالسجدة مطلقًا

كذا في رد المحتار

“Al-Quhustaani said: It is mentioned in azh-Zhaheeriyyah that the one who performs Sajdah (to an idol or anyone besides Allaah Ta`aalaa) becomes a Kaafir, unrestrictedly (i.e. regardless of whether he did it out of respect or not, and regardless of his intention).” [Raddul Muhtaar]

Imaam Abul Baqaa al-Kafawi رحمة الله عليه said in al-Kulliyyaat:

والفعل الموجبُ للكفر هو الذي يصدر عن تعمُّدٍ ويكون الاستهزاء صريحاً بالدِّين، كالسُّجود للصَّنَم

“An action that necessitates Kufr (i.e. expels the person from Islaam) is one that is done intentionally and clearly mocking the Deen, like performing Sujood to an idol.”

The Maaliki Madh-hab:

وكذلك نكفر بكل فعل أجمع المسلمون أنه لا يصدر إلا من كافر، وإن كان صاحبه مصرحًا بالإسلام مع فعله ذلك الفعل..كالسجود للصنم، وللشمس، والقمر، والصليب، والنار
كذا في الشفا

Qaadhi `Iyyaadh رحمة الله عليه said: “Similarly, we make Takfeer of any person who perpetrates such an action which, the Muslimoon have ijmaa` (consensus) that such an action is not done except by a Kaafir. (Takfeer is made of this person) even if he claims emphatically that he is a Muslim, because of him having done such an action (of Kufr which takes him out of Islaam), such as Sujood (prostrating) to an idol, and to the sun, and the moon, and the cross, and fire.” [Ash-Shifaa, v.2, p.11]

Imaam al-Qarraafi رحمة الله عليه states in his Qawaa`id:

بخلاف السجود لنحو الصنم أو الشمس فإنه لم يرد هو ولا ما شابهه في التعظيم في شريعة من الشرائع, فلم يكن لفاعل ذلك شبهة لا ضعيفة ولا قوية فكان كافراً

“…Unlike performing Sujood to an idol or the sun. No Sharee`ah from the Sharaa’i` ever intended honour for it, and thus there is no excuse, neither weak nor strong, for a person who does so (performs Sujood to an idol), and thus he becomes a Kaafir.”

The Shaafi`ee Madh-hab:

Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه said:

أو عظَّم صنمًا بالسجود له، أو التقرب إليه بالذبح باسمه، فكل هذا كفرٌ
كذا في روضة الطالبين

“If a person honours an idol by performing Sujood to it, or draws near to it by slaughtering in its name, then all of this is Kufr.” [Rawdhat-ut-Taalibeen]

Here, Imaam an-Nawawi is saying that the very fact that you perform Sujood to an idol shows that you honour it, regardless of what you claim.

Imaam an-Nawawi also states in Rawdhat-ut-Taalibeen, under Kitaab-ur-Riddah:

والأفعال الموجبة للكفر هي التي تصدر عن تعمُّد واستهزاء بالدِّين صريح ، كالسُّجود للصَّنم أو للشمس ، وإلقاء المصحف في القاذورات

“The actions that necessitate Kufr (i.e. that expel the person from Islaam) are those which are done intentionally and (which in reality are done on account of) clearly mocking the Deen, like performing Sujood to an idol or to the sun, or throwing the Mus-haf in the trash…”

Imaam Zayn-ud-Deen `Umar ibn Muzhaffar al-Wardi ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه states in al-Bahjah, under Kitaab-ur-Riddah:
أفحش كفر إرتداد مسلم *** مكلف بفعل أو تكلم

محض عناداً وبالإستهزاء *** وباعتقاد منه كالإلقاء

للمصحف العزيز في القاذورة *** وسجدة لكوكب وصورة

“The vilest of Kufr is irtidaad (apostasy) by a Muslim who is mukallaf, by an action, or by saying something which is pure obstinacy, and by mockery, and by him believing (a belief of Kufr): (examples of irtidaad by an action are) throwing the Honourable Mus-haf in the dirt, or performing Sajdah to a star or a picture.”

Imaam Badr-ud-Deen az-Zarkashi رحمة الله عليه said:

فمن تكلَّم بكلمة الكفرِ هازِلاً ، ولم يقصدِ الكفرَ كفر

“So whosoever utters a word of Kufr jokingly, he has become a Kaafir even if he did not intend Kufr.”

Imaam Zakariyya al-Ansaari رحمة الله عليه states in Manhaj-ut-Tullaab, enumerating the various nullifiers of Imaan:

كنفي الصَّانع أو نبيٍّ أو تكذيبه أو جَحْد مجمَعٍ عليه معلوم من الدِّين ضرورةً بلا عذرٍ، أو تردُّد في كفرٍ أو إلقاء مصحفٍ بقاذورة أو سجودٍ لمخلوقٍ

“…Like denying the Creator, or a Nabi, or rejecting (a Nabi), or rejecting something (of the Deen) upon which there is Ijmaa` (consensus) and which is known from the Deen by necessity, (and the person does so) without a valid excuse, or has doubt concerning (something that is) Kufr, or throws the Mus-haf in the dirt, or performs Sujood to a creation.”

Imaam Ibraaheem ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Baajoori رحمة الله عليه states in his Haashiyah of `Ali ibn Qaasim al-Ghazzi, giving the definition of Riddah (apostasy):

وشرعاً قطع الإسلام بنيةِ كفرٍ ، أو قولِ كفرٍ ، أو فعلِ كفرٍ ، كسجودٍ لصنمٍ سواءً كان على جهة الاستهزاء أو العناد أو الاعتقاد

“In Shar`i terms, (Riddah is) cutting off of Islaam through intending Kufr, or uttering a statement of Kufr, or performing an action which is Kufr, like performing Sujood to an idol, regardless of whether this was done out of istihzaa (mocking), or obstinacy, or belief.”

Imaam ibn Hajar al-Haytami رحمة الله عليه said in al-I`laam bi-Qawaati`il Islaam:

ومنها -أي ما يوقع في الكفر- : كل فعل صدر عن تعمد واستهزاء بالدّين صريح، كالسجود للصنم أو الشمس، سواء كان في دار الحرب أم دار الإسلام

“And from the actions that cause a person to fall into Kufr is: every clear action done intentionally and as mockery of the Deen, like Sujood to an idol, or to the sun, regardless of whether this is done in Daarul Harb or Daarul Islaam.”

The Hanbali Madh-hab:

Imaam Abu-n Najaa al-Hanbali states in al-Iqnaa` fee Fiqhil Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

فمن أشرك بالله أو جحد ربوبيته أو وحدانيته أو صفة من صفاته أو اتخذ له صاحبة أو ولداً أو ادّعى النبوة أو صدّق من ادّعاها أو جحد نبياً أو كتاباً من كتب الله أو شيئاً منه أو جحد الملائكة أو البعث أو سبّ الله أو رسوله أو استهزأ بالله أو كتبه أو رسله قال الشيخ: أو كان مبغضاً لرسوله أو لما جاء به اتفاقاً وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعاً انتهى أو سجد لصنم أو شمس أو قمر أو أتى بقول أو فعل صريح في الاستهزاء بالدين أو وجد منه امتهان القرآن أو طلب تناقضه أو دعوى أنه مختلف أو مختلق أو مقدور على مثله أو إسقاط لحرمته أو أنكر الإسلام أو الشهادتين أو أحدهما كفر
“So whosoever commits Shirk, or rejects the Ruboobiyyah of Allaah, or His Wahdaaniyyah, or a Sifah from His Sifaat, or claims that He has a wife or child, or claims Nubuwwah, or believes in someone who claims Nubuwwah (after Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم), or rejects a Nabi, or rejects a Kitaab from the Kutub of Allaah or any part of it, or rejects the Malaa’ikah, or Al-Ba`th (The Resurrection on the Day of Qiyaamah), or insults Allaah, or His Rasool صلى الله عليه وسلم, or mocks Allaah, or His Kutub, or His Rusul, or hates Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم or what he brought, or appoints intermediaries between himself and Allaah Ta`aalaa upon whom he places his trust and calls upon them, and asks from them… or he performs Sujood to an idol, or to the sun, or to the moon, or does a clear action or utters a clear statement which mocks the Deen, or he is found to have belittled the Qur’aan, or sought to contradict it, or claimed that it is contradictory, or that it is created, or that it is possible to bring the like of it, or (does such an action which entails) disrespect to it, or rejects Islaam, or rejects the Shahaadatayn, or either part of the Shahaadah, then he is a Kaafir.”

Imaam ibn Taymiyyah and the Salafis:
By Taha Karaan misquoting Imaam ibn Taymiyyah رحمة الله عليه, perhaps he is trying to give the impression that Imaam ibn Taymiyyah and the Salafis are okay with people performing Sujood to idols? In case he or anyone else thinks so, we shall present here some of their Fatwas:

This is the quote from Imaam ibn Taymiyyah:

وَمَا كَانَ كُفْرًا مِنْ الْأَعْمَالِ الظَّاهِرَةِ: كَالسُّجُودِ لِلْأَوْثَانِ وَسَبِّ الرَّسُولِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ فَإِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ لِكَوْنِهِ مُسْتَلْزِمًا لِكُفْرِ الْبَاطِنِ وَإِلَّا فَلَوْ قُدِّرَ أَنَّهُ سَجَدَ قُدَّامَ وَثَنٍ وَلَمْ يَقْصِدْ بِقَلْبِهِ السُّجُودَ لَهُ بَلْ قَصَدَ السُّجُودَ لِلَّهِ بِقَلْبِهِ لَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ كُفْرًا وَقَدْ يُبَاحُ ذَلِكَ إذَا كَانَ بَيْنَ مُشْرِكِينَ يَخَافُهُمْ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ

“As for that which is Kufr, from the external acts: (then it is actions such as) sujood to an idol, or insulting Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم, etc. This is because such (external) acts necessitate internal Kufr (i.e. doing such an act shows that internally, the person is a Kaafir, because if he was not a Kaafir he would not have done it). Otherwise, if it is supposed that a person performed Sujood in front of an idol, and in his heart he had not intended sujood to it, but rather he had intended to perform Sujood to Allaah, then this is not Kufr. This is permitted if done among Mushrikeen whom he fears for his life from (i.e. fears that they will kill him if he does not do so).” [End quote.]

This is the actual quote. Now, the Salafis themselves when explaining this issue point out something: Imaam ibn Taymiyyah does not say:

من سجد لوثن “Whosoever performs Sajdah to an idol”; instead, he says سجد قدام وثن “Whosoever performs Sajdah while facing an idol.” The word “quddaam”, used here, means that the idol is in front of him. Why is this wording important? Because, according to Imaam ibn Taymiyyah, if he actually performed Sujood to the idol, then he would immediately become a Kaafir.

Thus, what Imaam ibn Taymiyyah is referring to in his Fatwaa is this:

A person is surrounded by Mushrikeen. Perhaps he has been taken as a prisoner. They say to him: “Either you bow down to the idol or we kill you.” This is termed “ikraah”. This person has two choices: 1) refuse to bow down, and be killed, and of course this is the greater of the two options. 2) perform Sujood with the niyyah that he is actually performing Sujood to Allaah Ta`aalaa, though outwardly facing in the direction of the idol. Because this is done out of ikraah, the person does not become a Kaafir.

This is the explanation of what Imaam ibn Taymiyyah had said. It has absolutely nothing to do with a “frame of mind”. He was speaking about ikraah, and there was NO ikraah in the satanic wedding in Cape Town. There was not even a hallucinated “ikraah”.

This shows that Taha Karaan did not have even the haziest idea of what Imaam ibn Taymiyyah meant, hence he either knowingly or unknowingly (and more likely it is knowingly) mistranslated it. Nowhere did Imaam ibn Taymiyyah say: “Ibn Taymiyyah stated that sajdah for an idol does not by its very nature mean the person has become a mushrik …”
Nowhere did he say “for an idol”, because “for an idol” is blatant Kufr. He said “facing an idol whilst intending the Sajdah for Allaah”, in the circumstance of ikraah (being forced at the threat of being killed). There is a massive difference between the two.

Now, unless Taha Karaan claims that everyone who took part in the satanic wedding were forced to do so at the threat of being killed, a claim which would be ridiculous and laughable, then he must admit that his feeble “defence” which he tendered is palpably Baatil and baseless.

Here are some Fataawaa from latter-day Salafis on this issue:

Sulaymaan ibn `Abdillaah Aal ash-Shaykh (d.1818) said:

[Note: Whenever you see “Aal ash-Shaykh” after a person’s name, it means he is one of the grandsons of Muhammad ibn `Abdil Wahhaab an-Najdi. Those who are “Aal ash-Shaykh” have, from the time of ibn `Abdil Wahhaab until the present day, been the “official Muftis” in Saudi.]

إعلم رحمك الله أن الإنسان إذا أظهر للمشركين الموافقة على دينهم خوفاً منهم ومداراة لهم ومداهنة لدفع شرهم فإنه كافر مثلهم ، وإن كان يكره دينهم ويبغضهم ويحب “الاسلام والمسلمين” ، هذا إذا لم يقع منه إلا ذلك ، فكيف إذا كان في دار منعة واستدعى بهم ودخل في طاعتهم وأظهر الموافقة على دينهم الباطل وأعانهم عليه بالنصرة والمال ، ووالاهم وقطع الموالاة بينه وبين “المسلمين” ، وصار من جنود القباب والشرك وأهلها بعد ما كان من جنود الإخلاص والتوحيد وأهله؟ فإن هذا لا يشك “مسلم” أنه كافر من أشد الناس عداوة لله ورسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم

“Know, may Allaah have mercy on you, that if a person displays agreement and conformity to the Mushrikeen regarding their religion out of fear for them, or out of flattering them or trying to butter them up, in order to repel their harm, then he is a Kaafir like them, even if he hates their religion, hates them and loves Islaam and the Muslimeen. This is the case (even if nothing but that) is done by him, so what still about a person (who does so) whilst living in a land of protection, yet he chooses to call to them, obey them and display to them agreement with their Baatil religion, and assists them financially or otherwise, (or goes even beyond that) and has allegiance to them and severs his Muwalaat to the Muslimeen, and becomes part of the army of domes and Shirk and its people, after he had been part of the armies of Ikhlaas and Tawheed? No Muslim has any doubt that such a person is a Kaafir and from the biggest enemies of Allaah and His Rasool صلى الله عليه وسلم.” [End quote.]

Here, Sulaymaan Aal ash-Shaykh is referring to people who, for example, take part in interfaith. This person who takes part in interfaith, who grovels to the Kuffaar as the Ulamaa-e-Soo of today do, he is a Kaafir even if in his heart he hates these Kaafirs and loves Islaam. This grovelling of his at their feet and displaying agreement with them renders him a Kaafir. Just this much. What then, do you think, he would say regarding a person who performed Sajdah to an idol? What would he say regarding people who take part in a Shirk, satanic wedding?

`Abdul `Azeez ar-Rayyis said:

فمن سجد للصنم كفر ظاهراً وباطناً

“Whosoever performs Sujood to an idol has committed Kufr both externally and internally.” [End quote.]

`Abdur Rahmaan ibn Naasir al-Barraak was asked:

“Performing Sujood to an idol, or to a leader, or to a great person, or to some statue: are there details to be taken into consideration concerning this, such as, if it was a Sujood done for the sake of `Ibaadah then it is Kufr and Shirk, whereas if it was done for Tahiyyah (a greeting) and Ta`zheem (respect), then it is Haraam? Or it is Kufr which expels one from Islaam, i.e. Shirk Akbar?”

He replied:


Whosoever performs Sujood to an idol despite there being no ikraah (being forced at the threat of death), then he is a Mushrik even if he claims that in his heart he had not intended Sujood to it. This is because the Hukm (Ruling) is given based on the zhawaahir (what is externally apparent, not on the internal).” [End quote.]

Again, a clear Fatwaa. Here, he is saying that regardless of the person’s “intention” or “frame of mind”, he becomes a Kaafir by having prostrated to an idol. Simple and straightforward. Unless someone put a gun to his head and said, “Prostrate to it or I’ll blow your brains out,” which is termed “ikraah”, if he performs Sujood to an idol, he becomes a Murtadd.

Imaam ibn Taymiyyah رحمة الله عليه said in Majmoo`-ul-Fataawaa:
أَمَّا تَقْبِيلُ الْأَرْضِ وَرَفْعُ الرَّأْسِ وَنَحْوُ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا فِيهِ السُّجُودُ مِمَّا يُفْعَلُ قُدَّامَ بَعْضِ الشُّيُوخِ وَبَعْضِ الْمُلُوكِ : فَلَا يَجُوزُ ؛ بَلْ لَا يَجُوزُ الْإِنْحِنَاءُ كَالرُّكُوعِ أَيْضًا…وَأَمَّا فِعْلُ ذَلِكَ تَدَيُّنًا وَتَقَرُّبًا فَهَذَا مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الْمُنْكَرَاتِ وَمَنِ اعْتَقَدَ مِثْلَ هَذَا قُرْبَةً وَتَدَيُّنًا فَهُوَ ضَالٌّ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ يُبَيَّنُ لَهُ أَنَّ هَذَا لَيْسَ بِدِينٍ وَلَا قُرْبَةٍ فَإِنْ أَصَرَّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ اُسْتُتِيبَ فَإِنْ تَابَ وَإِلَّا قُتِلَ

“As for kissing the ground and raising the head, etc., which contains sujood and which is done in front of some Shuyookh and kings, then this is not permissible. It is not permissible. Rather, even bowing in front of someone, like Rukoo`, is not permissible as well. If a person does this as part of Deen or to gain Qurbah, then this is from the worst Munkaraat (vile evils). If a person believes the likes of this to be Qurbah and Deen then he is a deviated, fabricating liar. He is to be told that this is neither Deen nor Qurbah. If he persists, he is asked to make Tawbah, and if he does not, then he is to be killed.”

We wonder what Taha Karaan will say about this. He wanted to quote Imaam ibn Taymiyyah. Here, Imaam ibn Taymiyyah is saying that if a person kisses the ground in front of a Shaykh or ruler, then he must be killed if he does not make Tawbah. Let alone worrying about his “frame of mind”, or restricting things to just discussing whether or not this person has become a Murtadd, Imaam ibn Taymiyyah goes as far as to say that such a person must be killed. And, this is not even a person who makes Sajdah to an idol. This is someone who does what many so-called “Sufis” (crank Sufis) today do, of kissing the ground in front of their Shaykh. If this miscreant “Sufi” must be killed for doing so, according to Imaam ibn Taymiyyah, then what still about a person who performs Sujood to an idol?

Thus, again we ask: reading this view of his, what do you think he would have said about the satanic wedding that took place in Cape Town, had he been alive today? Leave alone Imaam ibn Taymiyyah, what would Sahaabah-e-Kiraam have said?

فإلى الله المشتكى وهو المستعان

This much is sufficient to dispel the lie tendered by Taha Karaan.
والله تعالى أعلم وعمله أتم وأحكم
اللهم أرنا الحق حقاً وارزقنا اتباعه وأرنا الباطل باطلاً وارزقنا اجتنابه
آمين يا رب العالمين

(End of article)


It is absolutely ridiculous and deploringly lamentable to even contemplate that someone who professes to be a ‘mufti’ sink into the lowest dregs of the sewerage gutter to proclaim that making sajdah for an idol is not shirk and kufr. And, the motivation for corrupting and even jettisoning his Imaan with this rotten shirk is purely to justify the wedding of shirk which was bedevilled with several blatant Hindu rituals of shirk and kufr.
In order to defend his shaitaani cohorts who sold their Imaan by flagrantly participating in Hindu shirk rituals, this jaahil maajin ‘mufti’, Taha Karaan, forgot that tomorrow he has to perish, be dumped underground and be confronted with the terrible experience of Munkar and Nakier.

“Imaan is suspended between fear and hope.”

18 Jamaadul Ulaa 1440 – 25 January 2019