This is part three of a series of posts on the topic of language, speech, words and utterances, and their relation to blasphemy and disbelief. In particular, this series of posts will be looking at the issue of linguistic and uttered blasphemy in Hanafi law and the Farsi language. These translations are from the book Alfaz-e Kufr Farsi Dar Fiqh Hanafi written by Shaykh Rasul Jafariyan. This book is a compilation of several treatises as well as Shaykh Jafariyan’s own articles and analysis of this phenomenon. What follows in this first post is a continuation of a discussion from part 1, between pages 101 to 113.

---

One hundred and fifty-six words authored by the scholars of Balkh

Translation: Abu al-Fadl Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Nasr

Additionally: One hundred and forty-four more words of alfaz al-kufr

Several Persian treatises, included in a collection housed at the Fatih Library in Istanbul (manuscript no. 5426), were copied by a scribe in the year 726 AH. Among them, the fifteenth treatise is on alfaz al-kufr, which is presented here. An image of this manuscript, cataloged as no. 135 in the Mojtaba Minavi Library, was digitized and graciously shared with me by the esteemed Mr. Jawad Beshri.

At the end of the fourteenth treatise in this collection, it is written: “Alfaz al-Kufr by Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Nasr, may Allah illuminate his grave.” However, the introduction to this treatise states: “The translator of these one hundred and fifty-six words is Abu al-Fadl Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Nasr.” If the second sentence explains the first, then Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Nasr should be considered the translator of this treatise. Unfortunately, a brief search did not yield any information about him, though it is hoped that further research may uncover more details about his identity.

Two additional sections, one containing 60 words and the other containing 94 words, have been appended to this treatise, resulting in a total of 310 words and phrases. Thus, in conclusion, it is written: “Dear followers of the faith, as you study these three hundred and ten words, you will avoid the false sayings of the misguided.”

According to the introduction, the foundation of these 156 words was a text sent by the religious leaders of Balkh to the leaders of Transoxiana. In it, they articulated their stance regarding words considered blasphemous or suggestive of innovation. They emphasized that only a “pious Sunni monotheist” could purify their language from words of blasphemy and innovation.

Thus, at least the first part of the treatise, namely the 156 words, appears to lack a specific author and was the collective work of the “scholars of Balkh.” Although the manuscript was copied in 726 AH, the composition of the original text likely does not date much earlier than this.

Categorization of Verbal Kufriyat in the Present Treatise

The available treatises in this field often have thematic categorization; however, the current treatise, while mostly grouping similar cases together, does not follow a thematic structure. It instead places theological issues, legal rulings, and other topics side by side and explains their judgments. Nevertheless, this treatise presents a kind of classification worth noting. This categorization is divided into three sections:

1. Definitive Kufr: The first section discusses cases where, according to the scholars of Balkh, the utterance is definitive kufr, and there should be no doubt in declaring the person a kafir unless there are cases where interpretation (ta’wil) is possible.

2. Conditional Kufr: The second section addresses phrases where the response depends on the intention behind the utterance. For example: “If by this, they mean such-and-such, they become a kafir, but if they mean otherwise, they do not.”

3. Risk of Kufr: The third section deals with phrases that pose a significant risk or danger but are not explicitly considered kufr.

Overview of Verbal Kufriyat

This classification, while implicitly present in the treatise, can be formally outlined as follows:

Disrespecting Religious Symbols

Reviewing the cases of takfir reveals various criteria. The primary criterion is the denial of tawhid (oneness of God), nubuwwah (prophethood), and ma’ad (resurrection), either explicitly or based on the theological beliefs of the Maturidi school. Beyond denying core principles, expressing doubt, or showing contempt and disdain for any aspect of religion, becomes a basis for takfir.

For instance, it is not necessary to deny the prophethood of Adam to be considered a kafir. Merely saying: “Adam wove cloth, so are we the children of weavers?” …or mockingly stating, “If someone narrates the story (of Adam), they dismissively reply: ‘We’ve heard this many times!’”…results in kufr due to the belittling of Adam (a).

Similarly, belittling scholars, knowledge, or the Shari’ah also leads to the threshold of kufr, as any form of disrespect toward religion or its symbols draws a person closer to the realm of disbelief.

Joking About the Qur’an

Joking about the Qur’an seems to have been common since classical times. Such jokes often involved using Qur’anic expressions with parallels or similarities in colloquial Persian, or leveraging shared words between Persian and Arabic in inappropriate contexts. These jokes essentially misused Qur’anic language to craft awkward proverbs or sayings.

The principle is clear: “If someone denies a verse of the Qur’an, they become a kafir.” Naturally, this denial is an explicit matter. However, instances of disrespect toward the Qur’an, such as reading it accompanied by a drum in a way that trivializes it, are also condemned: “If the Qur’an is recited while playing drums or musical instruments, the person becomes a kafir.”

Mocking the names of Qur’anic surahs was also widespread. For example, someone might joke: “Did you recite ‘Alam nashrah’ so much that it grabbed you by the collar?”

Or another instance: “While bringing a cup, they jokingly say ‘wa ka’san dihaqa’” [a verse about a cup being filled]. “If someone then jokes with ‘wa al-nazi’at’ by saying ‘nuz’an’ or ‘naz’an,’ they become a kafir.”

Another common practice was to mockingly say to someone who frequently recited Surah Tabarak (Surah Mulk): “Did you peel¹ Tabarak?” It is noted in the fatwas: “If someone says: ‘You peeled Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad [Surah Ikhlas] or peeled it out,’ they become a kafir.”

Similarly, if someone recites Surah Yasin for a dying person, and another says: “Do not put Yasin in the mouth of a dying person,” they become a kafir. Or if someone jokes: “Is there anything shorter than Inna A’taynaka [Surah Kawthar]?” they are labeled as a kafir.

In this perspective, any joke about the Qur’an or its verses is strictly unacceptable.

Respect for Religious Knowledge and the Kufr of Insulting Knowledge and Scholars

One notable aspect of these takfirs is the emphasis placed on the significance of religious sciences. According to these jurists, insulting the sciences of Shari’ah, discrediting them, or belittling them constitutes kufr. Statements such as: “These sciences are all fabrications,”
“This is all a charade,” “What can the scholars do?” or even remarks like: “Today, wealth is power; what use is knowledge?”
“Knowledge cannot be put into a bowl of stew,” or: “Being corrupt is better than being a scholar,” are all grounds for kufr.

For instance, if a wife tells her scholarly husband: “Curse be upon you, the scholar,” this is considered kufr due to the disrespect shown toward Shari’ah.

Similarly, if someone says: “Scholars deceive Muslims with tricks,” it is deemed an act of kufr. A story is even cited about the takfir of someone who made such a statement by one of the jurists.

Insulting knowledge and scholars holds a critical position in the ideology of takfir. For instance: “If someone says: ‘What they call knowledge is nonsense,’ or ‘What they teach is deception,’ and this is said to reject knowledge, they become a kafir.”

However, not all insults toward knowledge are considered explicit kufr. In some cases, they are categorized as grave errors or great dangers, terms used for actions close to kufr.

For example: “If someone unjustifiably insults or curses a scholar or jurist, it may be considered a danger of kufr.” Mocking the issuance of religious rulings by a jurist or scholar is also seen as a significant offense. “A commoner saying: ‘Don’t become a scholar because it leads nowhere,’ or calling a scholar ‘a petty scholar’ or an ‘Alawi ‘a petty ‘Alawi,’ could pose a significant risk.”

Some insults may be even more vulgar, but a jurist is required to address them appropriately. For instance: “If someone says: ‘Such-and-such knowledge is in such-and-such a woman,’ If this refers to religious or doctrinal knowledge, they become a kafir. If it concerns jurisprudential issues, it poses a grave danger.” Similarly: “If someone dismisses the fatwas of religious leaders saying, ‘This is nothing,’ or ‘I won’t follow this,’ it constitutes a significant error and requires disciplinary punishment.”

In addition to scholars, the term “rectifier” (مصلح) also appears in this context: “If someone sees a rectifier and says, ‘Seeing this man is like seeing a pig,’ it constitutes a significant error.”

Magians, Jews, and the Issue of Takfir

Doubt expressed about someone’s Islam plays a significant role in triggering takfir. This can occur in various forms, such as a wife calling her husband—or vice versa—a disbeliever or a Jew. While accusing someone of being Jewish held significant negativity among Muslims, the situation was far worse for accusations of being Magian or Zoroastrian in Central Asia.

The term “Magian child” or “infidel child” was commonly used in the Persian vernacular of Central Asia, and this is explicitly mentioned in the fatwas: “If someone says to their child, ‘You Magian child! You infidel child!’ there is a difference of opinion among the scholars.”

Another notable case involves wearing a Magian cap: “If a Muslim wears a Magian cap, there is a difference of opinion among scholars. Some unconditionally declare it kufr, while others say if it is done out of necessity—due to cold or heat—or because a cow will not give milk unless this cap is worn, it is not kufr. However, if it is worn without necessity, it constitutes kufr.”

In general, if someone calls another person a “Zoroastrian” or a “Jew,” and the latter responds, “I am such,” they would be deemed a kafir.

For example: “If a wife calls her husband a Magian,” and he responds, “Indeed, I have been a Magian for some time,” he becomes a kafir. Similarly, if someone says, “If I don’t buy such-and-such, I will become a kafir,” or “I will wear a Magian cap and thus become a kafir,” they are also considered a kafir. Binding the zunnar (a girdle worn by non-Muslims) or praising Christians and their practice of wearing the zunnar is likewise problematic. For instance: “If someone says, ‘Among Christians and Jews are better teachers than Muslims,’ this act may lead to kufr.”

If a wife refers to her husband with terms like, “You Jew!” or “You Magian!” and the husband responds, “Labbayk”, meaning “Yes, I am at your service,” he becomes a kafir.

Statements such as “The Magian faith is better than Christianity” also reflect tendencies that could result in kufr. Additionally, the inclination toward celebrating Magian or Zoroastrian practices might involve a risk of kufr. For instance: “If on Nowruz someone sees the Magians gathered and says, ‘What a good custom they have,’ there is a danger of kufr.”

The sensitivity toward Nowruz is particularly evident, as expressed: “If someone prepares extra food in their home on Nowruz, following the custom of the Magians, and intends to honour the day, they become a kafir. However, if the intention is solely to feed their family, it is not kufr. Nonetheless, it is recommended not to specify the day for this act.”

The practice of sending gifts on Nowruz also reflects this divide: “If someone sends a gift to a Magian on Nowruz out of respect for the day, they become a kafir.”

Theological Beliefs and Takfir

Disagreements in theological beliefs have long been a basis for accusations of kufr. The authors of these rulings adopt a Maturidi theological perspective, and based on that framework, they label individuals with opposing beliefs as kafir.

For example: Abul Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 AH) is cited regarding someone who considers the oppressive rulers of their time to be just. He stated: “Whoever believes such injustice to be justice becomes a kafir.” This reliance on al-Maturidi’s views highlights the centrality of his theology in the present rulings.

Saying statements that imply a disrespectful anthropomorphism of God, such as: “God has an extended hand” or “God’s foot,” or phrases like “Neither any place is empty of You, nor are You in any place,” leads to kufr. Similarly, saying “One must capture God” is considered a blasphemous statement.

The emphasis on the exclusivity of divine knowledge of the unseen is significant for the authors of these fatwas. For example: “If a wife says to her husband, ‘You know the secrets of God,’ and the husband responds, ‘Yes, I know,’ or ‘Indeed,’ he becomes a kafir.”

Regarding disagreements among scholars, it is noted: “There is a difference of opinion among the scholars about this, as the Prophet (p) himself declared that he did not know the unseen.”

Any association of a partner with God in governance or doubting the execution of God’s commands is considered kufr. For instance: If someone swears by saying, “By God and by the dust at your feet,” they are deemed a kafir. Saying, “Prostrate to God once and to me once,” is also problematic: If the intention behind the second prostration is an act of gratitude, it does not necessarily lead to kufr, but it is still deemed a significant error.

Even common phrases like “O God, do not commit this injustice”—which reflect ordinary grievances—are examined. Scholars differ on whether such expressions lead to kufr.

From a theological perspective, swearing is valid only when made by God. If someone swears by anything else, such as: “By your life” or “By your head,” it is considered dangerous and carries the risk of kufr, though it does not always lead to such a ruling.

The fatwas also reflect opposition to the beliefs of Jahm bin Safwan (a resident of Balkh, executed in 128 AH). His views are criticized, such as: “If someone says: May some of his years be added to your life, or expresses similar notions of the increase or decrease of lifespan, it is deemed a grave error, as such beliefs align with Jahm bin Safwan’s views, which allowed for such changes. However, our belief is that lifespan is fixed, as stated in the Quran: ‘When their time comes, they cannot delay it by a single moment nor bring it forward’ (Yunus: 49).”

Denying any verse of the Quran results in kufr. For example: Rejecting the two chapters of refuge (Al-Mu’awwidhatayn), which some attribute to Ibn Mas‘ud’s omission, is considered kufr, though opinions vary. The authors of these fatwas appear to hesitate in labelling Ibn Mas‘ud’s stance as kufr, potentially out of respect for him.

A peculiar case is highlighted: “If someone claims: ‘Alcohol is not forbidden,’ there is disagreement among scholars.” This hesitation could stem from certain leniencies in Hanafi jurisprudence regarding intoxicants. However, outright denial of the prohibition of alcohol generally leads to takfir.

Another curious ruling states: “If someone wishes that alcohol or incestuous relationships were not prohibited, they do not become a kafir because this is merely a wish, not a declaration.”

The Application of Exclusive Titles to Kings

A brief section of the discussion on blasphemous expressions addresses titles applied to kings. One of the strongest statements in the treatise is: “If someone calls the kings of this era just, there is disagreement about whether they are kafir.”

Other cases involve the use of particular titles that may imply exaggeration, excess, or attributing divine qualities to kings. Historically, there has been debate among scholars regarding the appropriateness of terms like “King of Kings” (Shahanshah) for earthly rulers, as such an ultimate title belongs exclusively to God. Similarly, some, like Al-Mawardi, even objected to using the title “Chief of Judges” (Qadi al-Qudat) for humans.

In the present treatise, an issue arises regarding someone who refers to a king as “Baar Khuda” (literally, “God’s burden” or “Great Lord”). The ruling depends on whether the speaker understands the meaning of the phrase: If the person knows that it implies “God” in the sense of the Great Deity, they are certainly a kafir. However, if they mistakenly think it is just another name or unrelated to divinity, they are not deemed a kafir.

The interpretation of this phrase also matters: If “Baar Khuda” is used in a sense akin to “chief” or “village elder” (kadkhuda), it does not lead to kufr. However, if the word “Khuda” (God) is explicitly intended as part of the phrase, and the speaker regards it as such, they are deemed a kafir.

Prostration and acts of reverence like kissing the hand or ground before kings are also discussed: “If people kiss the hands or ground for kings, or prostrate to them, it is considered a grave danger (khatr ‘azim).” In later critiques of the Safavid Qizilbash practices, bowing and kissing the ground before rulers were condemned based on similar views.

In Arabic texts on blasphemous expressions, such as the treatise by Badi‘ al-Din al-Qazwini, a specific chapter titled “On Rulers and Tyrants” states: “If someone calls a tyrant ‘the Great God,’ they are kafir.” If the same is said in Persian as “Bar Khuda-ye Bozorg,” it is considered blasphemous according to Imam Muhammad ibn al-Fadl, provided the speaker understands its meaning. If they are ignorant, however, they are not judged as kafir.

Another example addresses the sanctity of religious expressions: “If a king sneezes and someone says to him, ‘May God have mercy on you,’ and another person objects by saying, ‘He is a king; he does not need God’s mercy,’ the latter is deemed a kafir for considering the king above divine mercy.”

While prostration to rulers is generally considered a major sin, some scholars differentiate based on intent: If the prostration is an act of worship, it is kufr. If it is intended as a form of greeting, it is not kufr but remains a prohibited act (haram).

Similarly, bowing to the ground or touching it with one’s face is seen as close to prostration, though it does not carry the same implications as full prostration.

Excessive reverence for kings to the extent that it undermines religious values or rituals is also criticized. An example from a fatwa and referenced in this treatise reads: “If a king sneezes, and someone says, ‘May God have mercy on you,’ and another rebukes them, saying, ‘He is a king; do not say this,’ the latter is considered a kafir for implying the king is above needing God’s mercy.”

Interpretation (Ta’wil) and Its Importance in the Matter of Takfir

The concept of ta’wil is mentioned repeatedly in this treatise. It refers to whether a statement, classified as blasphemous or indicative of kufr, can be interpreted in a way that removes its blasphemous implications. In other words, can the statement be understood in a non-offensive or permissible sense? Alongside other conditions, such as whether the individual understands what they are saying or is ignorant of its implications, ta’wil can serve as a way to avoid a ruling of takfir.

Certain statements, however, are deemed so severe by the authors of this treatise that they are considered impervious to interpretation. For example: “If someone says, ‘I am not afraid of the Day of Judgment,’ they are a kafir without any interpretation.”

Nonetheless, there are instances where statements can allow for interpretation. A clear example provided in the treatise is: “Someone is invited to pray, and they respond, ‘I will not pray.’” According to the scholars of Balkh mentioned in this treatise, this statement could have four possible interpretations: If the individual means they have already prayed once and do not intend to repeat it, they are not deemed a kafir. If they mean, “I will not pray for you,” they are also not considered a kafir. If they are confessing a sinful act without denial of the obligation, they are not a kafir. If they say it in the sense of outright denial, “I will not pray because it is not obligatory upon me,” they are deemed a kafir.

It is not just the interpretability of the statement that matters but also the speaker’s awareness of the potential interpretation. If the individual makes a statement without knowing or intending its interpretation, and as the authors state, says something “in rejection of a ruling”, then interpretation does not resolve the issue: For instance, “If someone says, ‘If you do not order us to do this, we will be destroyed,’” they are not considered a kafir if their statement allows for interpretation. However, if they are unaware of such an interpretation and their statement reflects rejection of divine rulings, they are considered a kafir.

A significant part of ta’wil relates to clarifying the speaker’s inner intention. It is essential to know or inquire about the purpose behind their words. The authors particularly emphasize insults or acts of disrespect toward religious symbols, including prophets: “If someone expresses the wish that a certain prophet was not a prophet, if the intention is disrespect or hostility toward that prophet, they are deemed a kafir. However, if the intention is sympathy or compassion for the prophet’s suffering, they are not considered a kafir.”

In a broader sense, ta’wil also applies to the individual’s purpose behind an action that might imply blasphemy.

One of the accusations of kufr concerns wearing a zunnar, which is mentioned several times in this book: “If someone ties a zunnar and enters enemy territory, they are not considered a kafir if their intention is to rescue captives. However, if they go for trade, they are considered a kafir.”

The zunnar was a belt-like cord, often made of silk, that served as a distinguishing mark of Christians in the East, worn around the waist to differentiate them from Muslims. Similarly, the shoulder band for Jews held the same ruling. Most cases involving such doubts in rulings are conditional, depending on the individual’s intention and inner belief. For example: “If a husband beats his wife and, in her anger, she says to him, ‘I disavow your religion,’ the ruling depends on her intention: if she refers to the religion of Islam, she is considered a kafir; but if she refers to his habits and behaviour, she is not considered a kafir.”

Names Mentioned in This Treatise

As noted, the translator of this treatise is Abul-Fadl Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Nasr, whom we currently do not recognize. The original text was authored by the scholars of Balkh and addressed to the Imams of Transoxiana.

Four individuals are mentioned in the treatise. First, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 AH), from whom a positive statement regarding rulers and justice is cited. Second, Jahm ibn Safwan (executed 128 AH), whose negative view about life spans and the increase or decrease of one’s years is quoted. A statement is also attributed to Hammad ibn Abi Hanifa (d. 176 AH), saying:

“Whoever dies and does not know that they have a Creator, or that there is another abode after this one, and that oppression is forbidden, we do not consider them a Muslim.”

A story from the time of al-Ma’mun (d. 218 AH) is also included, where the Caliph ordered the disciplining of a scholar due to disrespect toward religious rulings.

Additionally, there is a mention of Tarawih prayers, suggesting that if someone says it was an invention of Umar, their faith is at risk. Another anecdote relates to an insult directed by a shopkeeper toward a scholar, which is attributed to Bakar Fazl Bukhari, likely referring to Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Fazl al-Bukhari, a mid-fourth-century scholar.

This is a summary of the treatise. We now proceed to the main text, presented exactly as it appears in the manuscript, preserving its original orthography.²

1. Translator’s Note: The word peel here is a metaphor for peeling the skin of something by scratching at it a lot.
2. TN: The translation of this treatise in English will be published in the next part of this series.