Moslims in Nederland voelen zich het meest gediscrimineerd van heel EU

Quran 4:94 - ...Do not accuse anyone who claims himself to be a Muslim of disbelief just for worldly gains.

But let's say they ARE in fact, polytheists. Can we call them names?

Do not say crude words to those who call upon other than Allah, lest they use crude words about Allah in revenge without knowledge. As such we have made the actions of each nation seem pleasing. To their Lord they shall return, and He will inform them of that they were doing. ‌[6:108]

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 125d:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "If a man says to his brother, O Kafir (disbeliever)!' Then surely one of them is such. "

Calling another Muslim a kaafir has been listed by scholars as The Fastest Way to Leave Islam

"Whoever attributes kufr [unbelief] to a believer, he is like his murderer.'' (Tirmizi, ch. Iman (Faith); see Arabic-Urdu edition cited earlier, vol. ii, p. 213. See also Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)

"Nothing expels a man from faith except the denial of that by which he entered into it [i.e. the Kalima].'' (Majma` az-Zawa'id, vol. i, p. 43)

In the hadith Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: If a Muslim calls another kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is himself a kafir.'' (Abu Dawud, Book of Sunna, edition published by Quran Mahal, Karachi, vol. iii, p. 484)

Abu Zarr reported that the Holy Prophet said: No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kafir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him.'' (Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)

"Withhold [your tongues] from those who say `There is no god but Allah' --- do not call them kafir. Whoever calls a reciter of `There is no god but Allah' as a kafir, is nearer to being a kafir himself.'' (Tabarani, reported from Ibn Umar)

Call not the people of your Qibla [i.e. those who face the Ka`ba in Makka for prayer] as kafir.'' (Al-Nihaya of Ibn Athir, vol. iv, p. 187)

"And among the doctrines of the Ahl as-Sunna is that none of the people of the Qibla can be called kafir.'' (Sharh `Aqa'id Nasfi, p. 121)

"He did not call as kafir anyone from among the people of the Qibla.'' (Sharh Mawaqif, fifth part)

He said: "Nothing expels a man from faith except the denial of that which made him enter it.'' (Rad al-Mukhtar, vol. iii, p. 310)

"It is extremely serious to expel a Muslim from the faith.''(Sharh Shifa, vol. ii, p. 500)

"A ruling of takfir against a Muslim should not be given if it is possible to interpret his words in a favourable manner.'' (Rad al-Mukhtar, Book of Jihad, ch. on Apostasy)

"As for statements of takfir found in books of rulings (fatwa), these are not proof if the authors are unknown and the arguments are missing, because in matters of faith, beliefs depend on conclusive proof, and the takfir of a Muslim is attended with troubles of all sorts.'' (Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari)

Allama Sayyid Jalal-ud-Din wrote: "The takfir of people of the Qibla is itself an act of unbelief.'' (Dala'il al-Masa'il)

Ibn Abu Hamra, a saint, wrote: "It has already been stated that the rule of the Ahl Sunna is that they do not call kafir, or consider as going to hell eternally, anyone who is of the people of the Qibla.''

"The Imams have made it clear that if there is any ground for not issuing takfir, a ruling of takfir should not be made, even if that ground is weak.'' (Raf al-ishtiba `an `ibarat al-ishtiba, p. 4, published in Egypt)

"Some prejudiced persons from the Asharis call the Hanbalis as kafir, and some Hanbalis call the Asharis as kafir. But their calling each other kafir is not right because the belief of the trustworthy Imams of the Hanafis, Shafi`is, Hanbalis, and the Asharis, is that none of the people of the Qibla can be called a kafir.'' (Miftah Dar as-Sa`ada wa Misbak as-Sayyida, vol i, p. 46)

"The generality of the theologians and the jurists are agreed that none of the people of the Qibla can be called a kafir.'' (Al-Mawaqif, printed in Cairo, p. 600)

The famous eighteenth century saint of Delhi, Khawaja Mir Dard (d. 1785 C.E.), wrote: "We do not call kafir anyone of the people of the Qibla, even though he may be following falsehood or novel beliefs in most matters, because the acceptance of the oneness of God, and the affirmation of the prophethood of Muhammad, and the turning to the Qibla, do not expel them from faith as such. So he would be of those who follow later inventions and falsehood from among the Muslims. The Holy Prophet said: `Withhold in the matter of the people of the Qibla, that you do not call them kafir'.'' (Ilm al-Kitab, p. 75)...

Interestingly, the Qur’an does not appear to state upon whom takfir, in the sense of excommunicating someone from the religion of Islam, can be made but it expressly says on whom takfir cannot be made. Allah commands “O you who believe…say not to anyone who offers you salutation, Thou art not a believer…” (Qur’an, Al Nisa, 4:94). This clear injunction prohibits the making of takfir on any Muslim, even if they do not carry out any other daily religious obligations, so long as they have uttered the Muslim salutation. It is worth noting the difference between takfir and apostasy. The Qur’an explains who are apostates, e.g. people who become unbelievers after being a believer (Al Imran, 3:86-90), those who believe then disbelieve (Al-Nisa, 4:137) and those who disbelieve in Allah after their belief (Al-Nahl, 16:106). In each case, it is the deliberate decision of the individual, and not that of another person to leave Islam and become a disbeliever. These verses of the Qur’an cannot therefore be interpreted as authorising the making of takfir. By the very nature of the definition of takfir, the person upon whom it is made has to be a Muslim so, if they cease to be a Muslim on their own volition, there is no need to make takfir on them. There is however a need to explain and differentiate the words zindiq (never was a believer), ridda and irtidad (apostate), and takfir (one upon whom the pronouncement of disbeliever is made). These explanations appear to be the view in the majority of Sunni juristic literature (Ahmad, 2007. p. 51). It is therefore an error to equate takfir with apostasy. It is widely accepted by Muslims generally that the punishment for apostasy is death. That view, however, is not unanimously supported or agreed upon by ulemas.

All the reliable ahadith, the second main source of the religion of Islam, illustrate the stringent restraints and explicit prohibitions on making takfir. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prohibited calling another Muslim a kafir (making takfir). Abu Zarr reported that, if a person makes takfir on someone and that person is not kafir, i.e upon whom takfir should not have been made, the maker becomes a kafir and Prophet Muhammad further admonished his ummah that it was prohibited to make takfir on people who pray (Aziz, 1987, p. 82). In addition, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stated that, in the Islamic legal framework, “Three things are the basis of faith. [One is] to withhold from one who says ‘There is no god but Allah’ – do not call him kafir for any sin, nor expel him from Islam for any misconduct” (Aziz, 1987, p. 82). To illustrate how much he deprecated making takfir, the Prophet (pbuh) equated the makers of takfir to murderers (Aziz, 1987, p. 82). The teachings contained in these ahadith are, therefore, meant to restrain Muslims from dubbing each other as kafir.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) explicitly said that, “What is between a person and committing shirk (associating partners with Allah) and kufr (disbelief) is abandoning the prayer” (Meehan, 2008). This is not to be interpreted as suggesting that those who do not pray are kafirs. The Prophet was coming up with the injunction that takfir should not be made on a person who prays. Those who emphasise that action is part of faith rely on such ahadith to make takfir on those who do not carry out religious rituals. Imam al-Tahawi prohibited making takfir on those who pray or commit any sin, but he qualified his beliefs, “as long as he does not deem it [sin] lawful…” (H. Yusuf, 2007, p. 64). Classical jurists, the likes of Abu Hanifa, Murjia and al-Maturidi as mentioned in chapter one, prohibit making takfir on sinners unless they deem sin as lawful.

The doctrine and prohibitions on making takfir are so clearly and forcefully taught in the Qur’an and Sunnah that there should not to be any need to seek opinions of ulema (Muslim scholars) or theologians. However, Muslim scholars have reminded the ummah of the prohibitions in making takfir within the Islamic legal framework. The famous eighteenth century saint of Delhi, Khawaja Mir Dard (d.1785), reiterated that takfir cannot be made on people who pray, even if they follow any falsehood or practise bida (religious innovation) because they accept and believe in the oneness of God and accept the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (Islamopedia Online, 2010).

All the imams, Hanafis, Maliki, Shafi‘is and Hanbalis, have made it clear that, if there is any ground for not issuing takfir, the ruling should not be made, even if that reason is weak (Islamopedia Online, 2010). “Trustworthy Imams of the Hanafis, Shafi’is, Hanbalis, and the Asharis, is that none of the people of the Qibla can be called kafir” (Ali, 1950, p. 97), thereby reinforcing all ahadith that prohibits making takfir on those who pray. Imam Shafi‘i (d.820), one of the four great founders of Islamic jurisprudence, also added that “one cannot make takfir on a person who erroneously interprets verse of the Qur’an differently from its obvious meaning” (Ismail, n.d.).

It is repeatedly reminded that “no one from the people of qibla should be rendered unbelievers” (A. Yusuf, 2007, p. 150). On the other hand, it is also stated that “One who says the Qur’an is created…or curses the Shaykhyn [Abu Bakr and Umar] is an unbeliever” (A. Yusuf, 2007, p. 150). Abu Hanifa confirms that both rulings are accepted by the majority of Muslims. It is not suggested that people who say the Qur’an is created or those that curse the Shaykhyn are not ‘people of the qibla’. Abu Hanifa acknowledges that “reconciling between the two [types of] statements is difficult” (A. Yusuf, 2007, p. 150). The two statements may be difficult to reconcile, but the issue is not about reconciliation, rather it is whether takfir can be lawfully pronounced on either or both. Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar highlighted, if there are 99 reasons for considering someone as kafir and only one reason against, then that one reason should refrain one from making takfir (Aziz, 1987, p. 84).

Contemporary jurist Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri[12] also claims terrorist acts expel a Muslim from Islam. Qadri announced categorically that suicide bombings and attacks against civilian targets are not only condemned by Islam, but render the perpetrators totally out of Islam. He argues that terrorists commit acts of self and mass murder with the firm conviction that their actions are not only lawful, but they will be rewarded by God and they are heaven-bound. Qadri convincingly advances scriptural evidence to demonstrate the perpetrators of suicide bombings are destined for hell, not heaven as they claim. The terrorists, Qadri asserts, erroneously hold those beliefs despite the clear commands of Allah, e.g. Al Ma’idah (5:32) states “…whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men…”. The Qur’an repeats the prohibition, “…and kill not your people…aggressively and unjustly…” (Al-Nisa, 4:30-3). Abu Hurayra reported Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said the “one who commits suicide is threatened with a severe torment in the Hereafter” (Qadri, 2011, pp. 80-81). It is therefore abundantly clear that committing suicide and all terrorist attacks are un-Islamic and grave sins (Qadri, 2011, pp. 80-81). Qadri justifies his fatwa that terrorists and suicide bombers are disbelievers because they deem their atrocities as lawful. To counter any argument against his fatwa in light of the prohibitions against making takfir on those who recite the shahada, Qadri argues the Qur’an and ahadith specifically forbid suicide and terrorists acts, and the terrorists deem such atrocities are not only Islamic but there is a great reward for carrying them out, all of which makes them disbelievers. This line of thinking explains Fethula Gulen’s slogan “No terrorist can be a Muslim, and no true Muslim can be a terrorist” (Gulen Institute, 2001). Both Imam al-Tahawi and Qadri’s views are accepted generally by the ummah, but they should be read with the caveat that the views held by so-called terrorists are not based on erroneous interpretation of the Qur’an, but they deem their unlawful acts lawful knowing they are unlawful.

Further, Qadri treated al-Qaeda and other contemporary terrorists as an old evil with a new name. He compared them with the Khawarij who, with their extreme beliefs, violent acts and terrorism, constantly labelled other Muslims as disbelievers. Qadri gave a fatwa in which he said the Khawarij and al-Qaeda share the same character traits and their respective theological and political outlooks are almost identical. Qadri listed classical sources to illustrate that the vast majority of Muslim scholars, past and present, consider the Khawarij, the founders of terrorism, to be totally unIslamic. He concluded that the terrorists of the present times are the Khawarij of our time (Qadri, 2011, p. 392).

Islamic law should not be understood “as an adaptable system of regulations derived through deductive reasoning” (Wolff, 2012, p. 454), as that could amount to human beings making decisions in the name of Allah, a dangerous scenario potentially amounting to a denial of divine supremacy. God is infallible; human beings are not. To make takfir, despite the Islamic legal framework prohibiting making them, is tantamount to not only pre-empting Allah’s judgment, but acting against His commands.

Muslim jurists have examined the act of takfir in detail and there appears to be a consensus that takfir should not be made. There are some differences in opinions, but most jurists see takfir as a sin and a dangerous act done towards fellow believers. It appears the hermeneutics of each group leads them to very casually and sweepingly make takfir on the basis that those upon whom takfir is made do not agree with their theological ideologies.

Critical analysis of rationality and reasons of takfir makers

Having established the place of takfr in Islamic theology and law, this chapter critically analyses the Islamic justification and reasoning by certain groups, organisations and their ideologues in justifying the practice of takfir in contemporary times. Takfir stems from the claims by each sect, society or group who each claim to have the only right ideology. Giving priority to one’s personal sectarian theological position, irrespective of whether it is consistent with Islamic theology, is one of the major reasons for making takfir against one another. Takfir makers purportedly base their pronouncements under the banner of the religion of Islam and, as Abdullah bin Bayyah warned at a Religion for Peace conference in September 2014, “People who claim to speak for religion are like energy…It can be productive or destructive…People dress heinous actions in the garment of religion” (Global Newsletter, 2014).

This study discusses takfir as encountered in three contemporary scenarios: by radicals, by the stance adopted by certain Muslim governments and by practices within the context of social and political disputes in major Muslim countries.

Takfir are made by way of fatawa. Abdullah bin Bayyah describes fatwa-making as an industry subject to certain prerequisites. According to him, just like different political, economic, and social conditions today, fatawa have become unregulated and dangerously out of order. He said “Fatwa is not free from such disorder” (Bayyah, n.d.). The factory or industry for fatawa on takfir does not only continue to produce more of them, but also keeps extending the list of people or communities upon whom takfir are made.

Islamic society has been subject to internal divisions and theological differences since the seventh century. Having differences in Islamic theology is not prohibited, but what is prohibited is making takfir because of the differences, which may have nothing or very little to do with faith. Some people make takfir in ignorance. Umar Kamil argues that religious extremism, classical and modern i.e. the Khawarij and al-Takfir wa’l-Hijra, may be attributed to ignorance of faith. Kamil also accuses the Khawarij, and for that matter all the modern extremists groups, of following Qur’anic verses that are not clearly understood, so they can conveniently give their own interpretations to justify their respective positions. But they abandon verses that are entirely clear (Tamani, 2002, p. 211).

Making takfir for selfish, political or any other theologically unethical and invalid purpose creates disunity among Muslims. The formation of sects for such reasons is the natural consequential evil that follows from making takfir. Primarily, the consequences are in direct contradiction to a number of verses in the Qur’an, e.g. Allah commands us all “to hold on to the rope of Allah and be not disunited” (Qur’an, Al Imran, 3:303), and in another verse Allah prohibits the formation of sects (Qur’an, Al Anam, 6:159).
Radical approach

The controversy of the concept of takfir in Islam has deteriorated by organisations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who reject the concept as un-Islamic (Tristam, n.d.). This belief, in view of the previous chapter, may be described as deviant and dangerously divisive, as it is more likely to further tear apart the ummah than bring it together. Radicals make takfir on anyone who denies their brand of truth or rejects its specific ideology, even on issues that have nothing to do with faith. Their declared purpose is to fight anyone who does not fit into their ideology. For ISIS, it is against all kafirs (infidels), which includes mainstream Muslims (Ali, 2000). It seems that the contemporary problem of takfir is an enduring issue in Muslim societies. The Khawarijites’ slogan to be a Muslim was “there is no command but Allah’s”. If anyone disagreed, the Khawarijites would regard them as kafir and felt religiously obliged to kill them with impunity. Qadri believed the Khawarijites genuinely believed what they were doing had good and noble intentions, but no forbidden action can become virtuous and lawful due to goodness of intention (Qadri, 2011, p. 204).

Reuven Paz (2005) in his study discusses the radical interpretation of the Islamic doctrines of apostasy and takfir. He mentions Muslims, who are merely perceived as being with the Americans or other Western powers, are also deemed to be apostates or kafirs. Such a perception, in their reasoning, could also arise if a Muslim joins any security services associated with America or other Western countries, simply to keep peace in a country. Paz describes these extremists groups as “new ideology of jihad” and asserts “the road map states, Arabs and Muslims who support [Crusader West] are considered like them and must be killed because they are apostates” (Paz, 2005, p. 43). The extremists erroneously equate apostasy with takfir; however, rationality or any intellectual dialogue does not appear to come into their equation.

A Sunni extremist group that originated as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn and was commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed a worldwide caliphate (successor to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who ISIS claims is a descendant of Hussain ibn Ali (d. 681), the grandson of the Prophet, and therefore from the linage of the Prophet. ISIS claims there is a religious obligation to have a family member of the Prophet as the caliph of the Muslims and that every Muslim has to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before they die. As a caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. Compulsion in religion is the ideological foundation of ISIS and it believes it has superior knowledge of God’s wishes for mankind (Whitaker 2014). Therefore, ISIS feels entitled, and even required, to act on God’s behalf and punish those who fail to comply with the divine will, as interpreted by the group. It even claims to have the licence to ‘break the cross’ and destroy churches irrespective of Qur’anic injunctions to protect not only mosques but cloisters, churches and synagogues as well. (Qur’an, Al-Hajj, 22:40). To manifest its irrationality, ISIS even blows up Shii’at mosque. If anyone does not accept their interpretation, like the Khawarijites, it will not only make takfir on them but brand them as infidels and apostates, and thus justify killing them with impunity. In doing so, it does not, like the Khawarijites, claim to be seeking power for itself, but is merely trying to make the world more holy. ISIS genuinely believes those who do not accept its ideology are infidels and enemies of humanity and the religion of Islam. (Vice News, 2014). Their ideology is based on their claim to have superior knowledge of God’s wishes and that anyone outside their ideology cannot be people with iman and they therefore, religiously believe, are entitled to kill them to protect the religion of Islam. Those criteria do not legitimatise their otherwise unlawful actions (Qadri, 2011, p. 6; 13). Besides, the ideology of condemning Muslims who do not agree with a particular interpretation is in direct contradiction to what Imam Razi, the great classical commentator of the Qur’an, wrote in his renowned commentary that “Those who interpret differently cannot be called a kafir” (Aziz, p. 86).
Government level

Apart from individuals and groups, Governments have also made this significant religious error by empowering itself to have authority to legislate on matters of faith. Freedom of religion is an intrinsic aspect of Islamic law. Religiously, that absolute right should never be curtailed, compromised, restricted or even imposed, in view of the Qur’anic verse (Al -Baqarah, 2:256) that clearly prohibits any compulsion in religion. In the context of this paper, therefore, no nation should have the right to pass any legislation to decide on who is or is not a Muslim. A person qualifies and remains a Muslim by divine law, not by man-made law.

However, laws in Pakistan determine who is not a Muslim. By corollary, it determines who is a Muslim and that particular determination appears to be made contrary to the specific injunctions in the two main sources in Islamic theology, the Qur’an and Sunnah. Therefore, those laws cannot be valid within the Islamic legal framework. Those laws stem from the non acceptance, by some political parties and politicians, of Ahmadis as Muslims and therefore use their Parliament to achieve their political or personal ends. If the Qur’an and the Sunnah are the Constitution, then those laws can be described as invalid or unconstitutional. Without going into details about the ideologies of the Ahmadis or the differences between the two groups within the Ahmadis, Qadianis and Lahorees, it is sufficient, for present purposes, to mention that the Ahmadis recite and believe in the kalima (there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah). The Lahoree Ahmadis (Lahorees), unlike the Qadianis, also believe in the finality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the five pillars of Islam, mujadith (reformers or rejuvenators) and do not accept any sin as lawful (Lahore, n.d.).

The Ahmadis, therefore, according to the previous chapters, qualify as people with iman. However, Article 260 of the Pakistan Constitution declares any person who accepts the claim of Gulam Ahmad (d.1908) as a mujadith is a kafir (Ali, n.d.). The Lahorees, in accepting Ahmad as a mujadith, rely on the hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesied the coming of a mujadith at the head of every century ( Sunan Abu.Dawud 36:1). The dilemma of the Lahorees does not end at that as Pakistan’s 1984 Ordinance further prevents them from calling their places of worship a mosque nor can they enter any mosque to pray. They cannot even recite the adhan (call for a Muslim prayer). The lahorees cannot be seen to be praying as Muslims do or even, when they do pray, it should not resemble a Muslim prayer (Pakistan Ordinance, n.d.). They cannot offer a Muslim salutation, which, when uttered, Allah says is sufficient basis for an injunction to prevent making takfir on them (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:94). For any infringement, the Ahmadis can be imprisoned for a period of three years. The charges against Ahmad are that he claimed to be Jesus and a prophet. His claim to be Jesus was based upon the coming of the Messiah, which means the anointed one, one who will propagate Islam ‘Jesus style’, peacefully and not violently. E.g. he explained that Jihad (struggle) was not to be carried out with a sword but with the pen, meaning by literature explaining Islam as a peaceful and tolerant religion. Ahmad always maintained that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the last and the seal of all prophets. Ahmad (d.1908) confirmed Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) statement that no prophet would come after him, and the Hadith report “There is no prophet after me” (la¯ nabiyya ba‘dı¯) was so well-known that no one had any doubt regarding its authenticity” (Ahmad 1898. p.32). He also confirmed that every single word of the Qur’an as absolute, in its noble verse “he is the Messenger of Allah and the Kha¯tam an-nabiyyı¯n” (Qur’an, 33:40). To believe, he continued, in a prophet after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), he said, “would have destroyed the entire fabric of Islam” (Ahmad 1898. p.32). Ahmad (d.1908), on 2 October 1892, declared that anybody who does not accept Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as, “… to be a liar and a kafir (heretic)”. He then argued, “’How is it permissible for me to claim prophethood and thus throw myself outside the pale of Islam and join the party of kafirs?’. (Faruqui 1983. p. 27.)

Apart from the curse of disunity and formation of sects, making takfir can lead to inhumane activities. A glaring example is the Constitution of Pakistan that declares the Ahmadis, as non-Muslims and this has had significant consequences. This prohibition is so strictly adhered to that, for example, an Ahmadi who was accidently, or by some administrative error, buried in a Muslim graveyard near Bhalwal in Pakistan was exhumed when the authorities found out about the burial. They took the drastic action because that particular graveyard was for Muslims only and, since the deceased was not a Muslim by virtue of being an Ahmadi, he was not entitled to be buried there (Khan, 2010). For similar reasons, Pakistani Ahmadis, who qualify as Muslims according to Islamic theology, but kafir according to the Pakistan Constitution, are prohibited from performing hajj (pilgrimage).

In January 2014, in total contrast to the scenario in Pakistan, Tunisia passed a law to criminalise anyone making takfir. Despite the stormy discussions and intellectual tug-of-war between different ideologies and political affiliations on the issue, Article 6 of Tunisia’s Constitution was passed and it stipulates, “The state protects religion, guarantees freedom of belief, conscience and religious practices, protects sanctities, and ensures the neutrality of mosques and places of worship” (Al-Haddad, 2014). The Pakistan Government, in passing their laws, ignored the principles of Islamic theology including all acceptable definition of who is a Muslim. The irony is that Pakistan was a signatory to the ‘Amman Message’ that provided an acceptable definition of who is a Muslim. The Lahoree Ahmadis, by that definition, are Muslims as they adhere to the legal and theological schools listed in the Amman Message (Lahore,n.d.). Political power, as in the case of Pakistan, should not and cannot take precedence over principles in Islamic theology in making any decision on issues of iman.
Social and political disputes

Further, Muslims who carry out undesirable practices have also been condemned as being unbelievers. The Salafists, for example, condemn any sort of mediation between man and Allah. They use this to make takfir, as their ideology states anyone who believes in such mediation creates a polytheistic religion and has nothing to do with Islam. Salafiyya is characterised by al-tawhid (oneness of Allah). Using this principle, which the Salafiis say must be translated into Islamic jurisprudence and rites, they translate this into rejecting individual opinions and interpretations in the religion of Islam. They also criticise those who venerate dead saints as being in some mysterious contact with God, a criticism that may be well justified but not sufficient to justify making takfir. E.g. it is wrong to visit grave of a saint seeking help or cure for some illness or tribulations. Venerating dead saints does not exist in Islam but their mistaken belief does not make them kafirs. They also condemn Muslims who give too much importance to local changes at the expense of Islam, again a criticism that may be justified, e.g. changing dressing codes to accommodate local changes that go beyond Islamic injunctions. However, what cannot be justified is the condemnation of people outside their ideology as polytheists or kafirs. This illustrates that if one does not adhere to their ideology, then despite the Qur’an and ahadith, they will be condemned as kafir. This is yet another example of pronouncing takfir using social or sectarian reasoning rather than the Qur’an and Sunnah (Mentak, 2011). This ideology, apart from having nothing to do with iman, also has other major flaws. Aside from not having any basis in Islamic theology, it is implicit in their reasoning that the person upon whom takfir is made believes in Allah. That belief on its own should be sufficient to prohibit making takfir (Aziz, 1987, p. 64). Even if, in the opinion of the Salafists, meditation was a sin, making takfir cannot be justified. Ozalp (2010 p.253) reinforced that major sins do not nullify one’s faith or make a person non-Muslim. Therefore, undesirable, impermissible or even sinful acts cannot justify making takfir. Reformists draw clear distinctions and boundaries between permissible and impermissible ritual gestures in Islam. Prostration, for example, during prayers towards other than Kaba was strictly interdicted. Also, prostrating towards a saint’s tomb or circumambulation of anything but the Kaba are practices that should be impermissible as they resemble non-Muslim practices. Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, a Sufi, while condemning such practices as bida (religious innovations), said “But if someone engages in this practice, to call him a kafir and push him outside the domain of Islam is very undesirable” (Ingram, 2009).

In a published fatwa, Bin Jibrin’s explanation why Shiites should be condemned as unbelievers is yet another example of making takfir outside the Islamic legal framework, which distinctly prohibits making takfir on people who believe in God, His prophet, pray and fast. Bin Jibrin in his fatwa announced, “Some people say that the rejectionists (Rafidha, i.e. Shia) are Muslims because they believe in God and his prophet, pray and fast. But I say they are heretics” (Teitelbaum, p.74). Bin Jibrin’s fatwa cannot be rationalised in Islamic theology and therefore is unlawful. This is an extreme example of making takfir to justify one’s personal views irrespective of Islamic theology.

For the Wahhabis, grave worship was the paramount act of shirk, or polytheism, a severe accusation, so its practice by the Shiites became a source of constant suffering. According to the Sunnis generally, the Shiites are known as rawafid (those who reject the first three caliphs in favour of the fourth caliph Ali and the Prophet’s house, known as Ahl al-Bayt (Teitelbaum, 2010, p. 74). The Wahhabis however consider the Shiites as worse than rejectionists: “they are associationists and polytheists (mushrikin) who associate people (such as Ahl al-Bayt) and objects with God” (Teitelbaum, 2010, p. 74). Wahhabis and Shiite beliefs and practices stand in stark contradistinction with each other particularly with “its strong emphasis on tawhid, or the uncompromising unity of the Divine” (Teitelbaum, 2010, p. 74). Many Shiites were killed by when they refused to convert. In 1927, the Wahhabi ulama published a fatwa calling upon the Shiites to “convert” to Islam. Some Shiite notables complied, while others left Saudi Arabia. (Teitelbaum, 2010, pp. 74-75). Much of education in Saudi Arabia is based on Wahhabi religious material. Al-Hassan wrote:

From a very young age, students are taught that Shiites are not Muslims and that Shiism is a conspiracy hatched by the Jews, and so Shiites are worthy of death. Government Wahhabi scholars, such as Abdulqader Shaibat al-Hamd, have proclaimed on state radio that Sunni Muslims must not “eat their [Shia] food, marry from them, or bury their dead in Muslims’ graveyards”. (Al-Hassan 2002)

The government has declared the Qur’an and Sunnah (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad to be the country’s constitution.[13] It has been established that the recitation of the shahada should be sufficient to make one a Muslim. The Qur’an is undoubtedly clear on whom takfir cannot be made. Both the Shiites and Sunnis believe in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It has also been established that wrong practices and commission of sins do not theologically justify making takfir. It becomes more difficult to rationally justify treating Shiites as infidels or apostates when the Constitution of Saudi Arabia is the Qur’an and Sunnah.

The present increasing and rushing trend of making takfir will leave very few people, if any, left who will qualify as Muslims. President General Pervez Musharaf, as he then was, in his address to the Nation of Pakistan on 12 January 2002, when there was so much infighting among Muslims and killing each other after making takfir to justify their atrocities, said “… I think, these people [those who made takfir] have declared more Muslims as Kafirs (infidels) than motivating the non-Muslims to embrace Islam” (Globalist, 2002).

Making takfir on Muslims is therefore against the command of Allah and His messenger. Justice and faith (iman) are the acceptance of the truth brought by the Prophet, so unbelief (kufr) is its rejection. No one has the right to expel anyone from Islam so long as they confess to the unity of God and the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (Ali, 1950, p. 95). People making takfir should not play God, as Ghazali “rightly questions the authority of religious scholars and jurists to pass judgments about kufr”. (Barlas, n.d.). He tags those who rush to condemn people who go against any school of thought as kafirs “as reckless ignoramuses” (Barlas, n.d.).

Khaled Abou El Fadl (2003) provided some consolation when he included in his discussion that many sectarians accuse others of disbelief, but jurists do not do so. He noted that only the opinions of jurists matter because they give their opinions based on objective rather than subjective criteria (Abou, 2003, p. 281). There is no apparent evidence that, whenever takfir was made, jurists were either consulted or involved in the decision-making process. In Islamic law, jurists are known as ulema, i.e. those who specialise in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) (Jurists, n.d.).

Abu Hamid Muhammad Ghazali warned those who hold such a view and think they have a monopoly over the truth are closer to being guilty of both unbelief and contradictoriness (Ghazali, n.d., p. 91). The reason Ghazali gives is “because he puts this thinker in the position of the Prophet, who alone is exempt from committing errors (in doctrine), and through whom alone faith [iman] obtains by agreeing with him and unbelief obtains by disagreeing with him” (Ghazali, n.d., p. 91). At the same time, Ghazali acknowledges there may be differences in certain theological positions but stressed that, so long as a person holds fast to the shahada, the making of takfir on such a person should not be permitted. He continued and explained “Unbelief (kufr) is to deem anything the Prophet brought, to be a lie. And faith (iman), is to deem everything he brought, to be true” (Ghazali, n.d., p. 92). He further maintained that the status of people who firmly believe in the messages of the Prophet, including the contents of the Qur’an, is a believer, even if they are unable to substantiate the messages. (Ghazli, n.d., pp. 123-124).

#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 14:56
	Moslims in Nederland voelen zich het meest gediscrimineerd van heel Europa quote: Nederlandse moslims voelen zich vaker gediscrimineerd dan hun geloofsgenoten in andere EU-lidstaten. Dat blijkt uit een onderzoek dat het Europese Agentschap voor Grondrechten vandaag heeft gepubliceerd. Als het gaat om discriminatie op grond van religie voelen moslims in Nederland zich zelfs het vaakst gediscrimineerd. Maar liefst 30% ervoer in de afgelopen vijf jaar discriminatie op religieuze gronden. Alleen als het gaat om discriminatie op grond van herkomst wordt Nederland door een ander EU-land overtroffen. In Griekenland ervaar maar liefst 52% van alle moslims dit. In Nederland ‘slechts’ 42%. Desondanks is het percentage Nederlanders dat zegt liever geen moslims als buren te hebben in Nederland juist wat lager dan het Europees gemiddelde: 17% van de Nederlanders zegt dit tegenover 20% in de gehele EU.
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 14:57
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:53 schreef geavanceerd het volgende: [..] Ben je boos omdat ik je de islamitische wetgeving aanreik die hierover oordeelt? Ehm is er een hoger autoriteit binnen de islamitische wetgeving dan Mohammed? Verder ja, ik ben heeeeeeeeeel erg boos. Beter blijf je op afstand.. of zoiets. [ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 22-09-2017 14:57:31 ]
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 14:58
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:54 schreef matspontius het volgende: [..] Zoek maar op, daar ben je heel goed in Gia zei al eerder dat de gemiddelde Nederlander minimaal MBO 4 is opgeleid.. daar ben jij de uitzondering op hé, eerlijk? [ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 22-09-2017 14:58:35 ]
Kapitein_Scheurbuik	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 14:59
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:49 schreef Chewie het volgende: [..] Deze cijfers had ik je net ook al gegeven en dat gaat over de hele wereld (wel een apart stukje ove Europa) http://www.pewforum.org/2(...)religious-landscape/ Ja en ik heb die cijfers bekeken en zelfs met die cijfers gaat het niet zo snel als domrechts ons wil doen geloven. Die cijfers zeggen dus helemaal niets over Nederland, aangezien het over de wereld gaat. Het aantal moslims stijgt in Nederland veel sneller dan het aantal moslims in Hongarije (om de simpele reden dat ze ze daar simpelweg niet binnen laten.) En zo zijn er natuurlijk nog veel meer landen waar je nauwelijks moslims hebt en waar die bevolking dus ook niet groeit maar die wel in jouw cijfers worden meegenomen. Kortom, je cijfers gaan over totaal iets anders. En dan wiskundige en demograaf, gepromoveerd Jan van de Beek "domrechts" noemen. Dan mag je jezelf rustig tot domlinks rekenen.
2NutZ	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 14:59
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:48 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] Nog in dezelfde reactie mijn beste. [..] maar goed. Dat zeg ik toch? dat je dat als voorbeeld noemt Maar goed quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:45 schreef Kapitein_Scheurbuik het volgende: [..] En de meeste moslims in Nederland zijn geen arabier, kennelijk heeft het arabisch superioriteitsgevoel er niet mee te maken maar het islamitisch superioriteitsverschil. Dat lijkt mij ook waarschijnlijker. quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:44 schreef matspontius het volgende: [..] Hij is zo intelligent dat hij zijn eigen woorden niet begrijpt. Knap niet? Precies dus dat zegt wel wat over zijn intelligentie.
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:01
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:59 schreef 2NutZ het volgende: [..] Dat zeg ik toch? dat je dat als voorbeeld noemt Maar goed In dezelfde reactie waar je op reageert, om vervolgens een suggestieve vraag op je reactie te stellen. Volg je het nog een beetje lieve 2NutZ?
geavanceerd	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:02
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:57 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] Ehm is er een hoger autoriteit binnen de islamitische wetgeving dan Mohammed? Verder ja, ik ben heeeeeeeeeel erg boos. Beter blijf je op afstand.. of zoiets. Umdat al-Salik is natuurlijk afgeleid van het leven van Mo.
2NutZ	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:02
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:01 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] In dezelfde reactie waar je op reageert, om vervolgens een suggestieve vraag op je reactie te stellen. Volg je het nog een beetje lieve 2NutZ? Volg jij het nog Triggershot? dat is een betere vraag mijn god zeg.... Ik ga weer elders posten, tijdverspilling dit
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:03
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:02 schreef geavanceerd het volgende: [..] Umdat al-Salik is natuurlijk afgeleid van het leven van Mo. En de uitspraken van Mohammed zijn afgeleid van tegelspreukjes van Loesje? De vraag is concreet en gericht aan jouw persoon: Is diegene die z'n moeder een roos geeft een jihadist volgens jouw beleving?
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:04
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:59 schreef Kapitein_Scheurbuik het volgende: [..] Die cijfers zeggen dus helemaal niets over Nederland, aangezien het over de wereld gaat. Het aantal moslims stijgt in Nederland veel sneller dan het aantal moslims in Hongarije (om de simpele reden dat ze ze daar simpelweg niet binnen laten.) En zo zijn er natuurlijk nog veel meer landen waar je nauwelijks moslims hebt en waar die bevolking dus ook niet groeit maar die wel in jouw cijfers worden meegenomen. Kortom, je cijfers gaan over totaal iets anders. Dan heb je niet goed gelezen, de cijfers gaan ook over hier en het aantal atheisten groeit hier ook sneller dan in bijvoorbeeld Hongarije maar dat heb je zeker gemist? quote: En dan wiskundige en demograaf, gepromoveerd Jan van de Beek "domrechts" noemen. Dan mag je jezelf rustig tot domlinks rekenen. Volgens mij noemde ik jou domrechts en nergens heeft Jan van der Beek het over dat moslims het hier over nemen, dus domrechts is duidelijk een juiste omschrijving voor jou. Maar laat je vooral bang maken voor al die boze moslims als je daar je energie in wil steken, ik ga gewoon lekker verder met mijn kapitalistische atheïstisch leventje Overigens als jij denkt dat ik links ben dan ben je zeker dom(rechts), rechts betekend niet dat je moeite hebt met buitenlanders en de ongegronde angst dat ze onze samenleving overnemen, dat is voorbehouden aan dom rechts.
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:06
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:02 schreef 2NutZ het volgende: [..] Volg jij het nog Triggershot? dat is een betere vraag mijn god zeg.... Ik ga weer elders posten, tijdverspilling dit 'Oh hey, laat ik hetzelfde vragen met een tegenvraag, paar smileys bij plaatsen, tijdverspilling noemen en mijn vertrek aankondigen. Daarmee heb ik mijn punt gemaakt.' Als dit het niveau is adviseer ik je toch inderdaad je tijd niet te verspillen met onderwerpen waar je geen verstand van hebt. [ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 22-09-2017 15:06:48 ]
2NutZ	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:11
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:06 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] 'Oh hey, laat ik hetzelfde vragen met een tegenvraag, paar smileys bij plaatsen, tijdverspilling noemen en mijn vertrek aankondigen. Daarmee heb ik mijn punt gemaakt.' Als dit het niveau is adviseer ik je toch inderdaad je tijd niet te verspillen met onderwerpen waar je geen verstand van hebt. Is goed, Triggershot. Als jij maar het gevoel hier en nu hebt dat je hebt gewonnen
Kapitein_Scheurbuik	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:11
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:04 schreef Chewie het volgende: [..] Dan heb je niet goed gelezen, de cijfers gaan ook over hier en het aantal atheisten groeit hier ook sneller dan in bijvoorbeeld Hongarije maar dat heb je zeker gemist? Ja, quote het anders even. Nederland wordt niet eens genoemd in dat hele artikel quote: Volgens mij noemde ik jou domrechts en nergens heeft Jan van der Beek het over dat moslims het hier over nemen, dus domrechts is duidelijk een juiste omschrijving voor jou. Ik ben links, maar dat terzijde. En ik heb ook nergens beweerd dat moslims het hier overnemen, ik beweerde dat het aanzienlijk korter duurt dan enkele eeuwen zoals Jan van de Beek aantoont.En in tegenstelling tot wat jij beweert (maar aan probeert te tonen met cijfers die er helemaal niets over zeggen) Sterker nog, jij zegt domme dingen als dat er in de cijfers van jan van de beek geen rekening wordt gehouden met dat autochtonen ook kinderen krijgen. Dan heb je er echt niets van begrepen. Verder uit hij wel degelijk zijn bezorgdheid over de grote aantallen moslims die ons land binnenkomen. quote: Maar laat je vooral bang maken voor al die boze moslims als je daar je energie in wil steken, ik ga gewoon lekker verder met mijn kapitalistische atheïstisch leventje Overigens als jij denkt dat ik links ben dan ben je zeker dom(rechts), rechts betekend niet dat je moeite hebt met buitenlanders en de ongegronde angst dat ze onze samenleving overnemen, dat is voorbehouden aan dom rechts. Nou gelukkig ben ik daar niet bang voor, ik ben er bang voor dat onze verzorgingsstaat onbetaalbaar wordt. Dat heeft dokter Jan van de Beek gelukkig ook uitgebreid becijferd. [ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door Kapitein_Scheurbuik op 22-09-2017 15:29:23 ]
matspontius	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:12
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:11 schreef 2NutZ het volgende: [..] Is goed, Triggershot. Als jij maar het gevoel hier en nu hebt dat je hebt gewonnen Dat valt onder de noemer pedante betweter - volledig overtuigd van zijn eigen gelijk en kennis en geen enkel relativeringsvermogen. Zal wel aan zij hoge intelligentie liggen vermoed ik
geavanceerd	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:13
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:03 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] En de uitspraken van Mohammed zijn afgeleid van tegelspreukjes van Loesje? De vraag is concreet en gericht aan jouw persoon: Is diegene die z'n moeder een roos geeft een jihadist volgens jouw beleving? Ik heb geen eigen defininite van jihad of wat een jihadist is. Het is ook niet productief om dat te hebben, want dan ga je naast de realiteit lopen. Het is hun wetgeving, zij bepalen wat wel en niet een jihadist is, en alleen door die te kennen kun je die effectief bestrijden. Als je je eigen definities en interpretaties hanteert dan verdwaal je, en dat zie je bijvoorbeeld met de introductie van het woord islamist gebeuren. Het woord bestaat niet in de islam of in de islamitische wereld, het is puur een woord dat in het Westen ontstaan is om het verband tussen islam, moslims en politiek kunstmatig te kunnen scheiden. ""He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad". Als de moeder zichzelf gaat opblazen en daarbij een vermomming nodig heeft, bijvoorbeeld een bos bloemen om de bom in te verstoppen, en je geeft haar met dat doel een bos bloemen, dan lijkt het dat je wel binnen de definitie jihadist valt. Daarnaast is jihad niet uitsluitend fysieke oorlogvoering.
ems.	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:13
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 14:52 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] Ze zeggen dat het dezelfde club is? IS en haar ideologie van Wahabisme heeft juist 'takfir' groot gemaakt en past het breed toe. Als ze iets doen is het wel ontkennen dat andersdenkende moslims (moslims voor jou en mij ) niet moslims zijn en niet tot de club behoren. Nog een overeenkomst inderdaad. Zeggen dat de moslims die zich niet gedragen zoals wat zij moslim vinden geen moslims zijn. Dat doen de keurige moslims natuurlijk (meestal dan) net zo goed over de jihadisten. Feit blijft dat het allemaal moslims zijn. quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:03 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] En de uitspraken van Mohammed zijn afgeleid van tegelspreukjes van Loesje? De vraag is concreet en gericht aan jouw persoon: Is diegene die z'n moeder een roos geeft een jihadist volgens jouw beleving? Of iemand wel of geen bloemen geeft aan z'n moeder zegt exact niets over of hij een jihadist is of niet.
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:14
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:11 schreef 2NutZ het volgende: [..] Is goed, Triggershot. Als jij maar het gevoel hier en nu hebt dat je hebt gewonnen Als je hier komt reageren met het idee van verliezen/winnen dan snap ik je verwarde gedrag wel wat beter. Maar ik moet schijten, op tijd de trein pakken en nog wat dingen voor ik van het weekend mag genieten, dus hou mij bijzonder weinig bezig met 'winnen' van jou. Wel apart dat je toch de tijdverspilling en vertrekken niet waar maakt, dan help ik je wel door de komende paar uur even zelf te vertrekken. Misschien tot zo poepie, misschien dat ik dan nog meer kan genieten van je inhoudelijke inzichten.
2NutZ	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:15
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:14 schreef Triggershot het volgende: [..] Als je hier komt reageren met het idee van verliezen/winnen dan snap ik je verwarde gedrag wel wat beter. Maar ik moet schijten, op tijd de trein pakken en nog wat dingen voor ik van het weekend mag genieten, dus hou mij bijzonder weinig bezig met 'winnen' van jou. Wel apart dat je toch de tijdverspilling en vertrekken niet waar maakt, dan help ik je wel door de komende paar uur even zelf te vertrekken. Misschien tot zo poepie, misschien dat ik dan nog meer kan genieten van je inhoudelijke inzichten. Ik had je al toestemming gegeven voor het laatste woord hoor, schuim niet te veel.
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:15
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:13 schreef geavanceerd het volgende: [..] Ik heb geen eigen defininite van jihad of wat een jihadist is. Het is ook niet productief om dat te hebben, want dan ga je naast de realiteit lopen. Het is hun wetgeving, zij bepalen wat wel en niet een jihadist is, en alleen door die te kennen kun je die effectief bestrijden. Als je je eigen definities en interpretaties hanteert dan verdwaal je, en dat zie je bijvoorbeeld met de introductie van het woord islamist gebeuren. Het woord bestaat niet in de islam of in de islamitische wereld, het is puur een woord dat in het Westen ontstaan is om het verband tussen islam, moslims en politiek kunstmatig te kunnen scheiden. ""He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad". Als de moeder zichzelf gaat opblazen en daarbij een vermomming nodig heeft, bijvoorbeeld een bos bloemen om de bom in te verstoppen, en je geeft haar met dat doel een bos bloemen, dan lijkt het dat je wel binnen de definitie jihadist valt. Daarnaast is jihad niet uitsluitend fysieke oorlogvoering. quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:13 schreef ems. het volgende: [..] Nog een overeenkomst inderdaad. Zeggen dat de moslims die zich niet gedragen zoals wat zij moslim vinden geen moslims zijn. Dat doen de keurige moslims natuurlijk (meestal dan) net zo goed over de jihadisten. Feit blijft dat het allemaal moslims zijn. [..] Of iemand wel of geen bloemen geeft aan z'n moeder zegt exact niets over of hij een jihadist is of niet. Voor zover jullie daar waarde aan hechten, beloofd kom hopelijk vandaag of later het weekend terug met een reactie, voor nu ffkes kusjes
#ANONIEM	vrijdag 22 september 2017 @ 15:16
	quote: Op vrijdag 22 september 2017 15:15 schreef 2NutZ het volgende: [..] Ik had je al toestemming gegeven voor het laatste woord hoor, schuim niet te veel. Waarom blijf je dan reageren. Eerst kom je je vertrek niet na en nu blijf je reageren. Hierna niet meer doen zodat ik feitelijk het laatste woord heb aub.