Book Release : The Truth About A Lie

Discussion in 'Ridawi Press' started by SaadSohail, Nov 20, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the book was being revised and i had other things to do. in sha'Allah, the second edition will be released soon.
    wa billahi't tawfiq.
  2. Shaahid

    Shaahid New Member

    Someone please share the download link for this book
  3. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Well-Known Member

    Assalamu alaikum
    Something that I have discussed with some local ulema. I am attaching the relevant scans here as well from Fatwa Fazul Rasool.
    It would be great If Abu Hassan expands on this in his upcoming revised editon/version in sha Allah.

    1) The Birth of a Prophet After Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is Mustahil Aradi and NOT mustahil Dhati.
    What this means is that Allah could have willed otherwise BUT since He has informed us of His Decree that Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Last Prophets we know then that the birth of a Prophet after himصلى الله عليه وسلم WILL NEVER EVER be.

    2) The Pardon of Kafir is Mustahil Aradi and NOT mustahil Dhati (according to the Asharis).
    What this means is that Allah could have willed otherwise BUT since He has informed us of His Decree that mushrikeen will be in hellfire forever, we know the Pardon of a Kafir will NEVER EVER be.

    3) Nazir of Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is Mustahil Dhati.
    What this means is that idea of his Equal is rationally absurd and intrinsically impossible.
    1) Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the last of the Prophets (seal of Prophets).
    2) To claim that there could be another Khatimul Ambiya (Seal of Prophets).
    3) is rationally absurd. Because Affirmation of (2) would imply negation of (1). (This also entails KUFR)
    4) This absurdity is similar to saying 2+2=5 or something is existent and NOT existent at the same time.

    Attached Files:

    • 1.png
      File size:
      195 KB
    • 2.png
      File size:
      241.4 KB
    • 3.png
      File size:
      180.2 KB
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  4. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    Shariah Board of America (Deobandis) affirming the ugly belief of lying being included in Divine Power here.
  5. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    Here Faraz gives the correct answer and explanation to rational possibilities / why the 180 on the issue of lying...
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    maybe needs to be reworded. will pay attention to it in the upcomind revised edition.

    in sha'Allah.
  7. Juwayni

    Juwayni Veteran

    Page 17:

    It is says words and letters are accidents, and then further below it says according to Imām al-Ashʿarī kalām nafsī "includes both words and meanings and are Pre-eternal."

    However, we know 'letters and sounds cannot be beginninglessly eternal. Not a single one of them, and not a series of them' (Shaykh Abu Adam).


    Attached Files:

  8. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    I'm curious to know what books of aqidah do the deos teach at their seminaries. Do they actively teach such nonsense? Or do they teach from traditional Sunni texts but in a twisted manner? Or do they skip the topic altogether?
  9. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    Ya Hayyo, Ya Qayyoom, Ya Awwalo, Ya Aakhir
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2016
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the answer is an unequivocal, absolute, clear, unambiguous and an emphatic 'IMPOSSIBLE'.

    al-iyadhu billah - only a filthy mind and a heart in which iman has not entered will ask such a question, unless it is a just rhetorical question to emphasise that such a thing is an absolute impossibility. because Divine Power is related to mumkinat - not muHalat and wajibat.

    نسأل الله العافية

    edit [28.9.2016]: brother abdalQadir pointed out that a 'no' could be wilfully misinterpreted by zanadiqah and turned around to mean that we attribute 'inability' to Allah ta'ala - al-iyadhu billah. indeed, one should say 'it is precluded from Divine Power' instead of saying 'unable to do it'. wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
    Aqdas likes this.
  11. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    I stumbled across this site where when questioned about imkan al-kadhib, the deobandi asks in return: "Does Allah have the ability to exterminate himself?"

    Unless I'm mistaken, I believe he is advocating Allah ta'alas existence as being a mere possibility only!
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    on his blog, at the start of the section dedicated to the refutation of the kadhdhabiya, regarding the belief of 'imkan al-kadhib', shaykh Abu Adam writes:

    This is one of the most blasphemous beliefs a human can have, and now some deviants claim that this is the belief of Sunnis.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    and by the way, we hanafis/maturidis have a slightly differing view on qub'h al-aqli.

    shaykh zadah in his naZm al-farayid explains it thus:

    nazmalfarayid, p30.jpg
    Shahzaib and Bazdawi like this.
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    that kadhib is muHal does not need proof; it is a foregone conclusion and it is actually a premise.

    otherwise, if you admitted that kadhib was possible, then what is the guarantee that the verse is true:


    and if the above is not truthful - al-iyadhu billah - then how can you trust any information from the qur'an?

    if you did not believe that kadhib was muHal, it would raise questions on the truthfulness of everything.

    o muslim, think about your grave - ismayil, gangohi, nanowti are all dead and rotten. mar kar matti me milgaye, chamar se bhi zaleel.

    nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    and taftazani?

    ya sub'HanAllah, only a devbandi can be so shameless - when you see that there isn't a drop of water on their face, know that they are devbandis. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

    take taftazani in his sharh al-maqaSid. he is saying it is muHal. he is not saying it is mumkin. this is the argument that we see in sh.mawaqif.


    sh.maqasid 4-158.jpg

    sh.maqasid 4-159.jpg
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    NOTICE that this is being said in the sharh of iji's statement: "frankly, i could not make out the difference between "flaw in Action" [naqS fi'l fiyl] and "rationally ugly" [qub'H al-aqli]; indeed, both are one and the same thing."

    what sharif says upon this is a dialectical statement and should not be taken in isolation as the standard position of sharif himself, or that he is conveying the standard position of ash'aris. what he says is:

    1. according to you, there is nothing qub'H aqli; it is known only by shara'a

    2. according to you, anything Allah ta'ala does cannot be termed ugly. Actions of Allah ta'ala are never ugly.

    3. thus, according to you - if kadhib is NOT ugly rationally, then it can be admitted in the actions of Allah ta'ala.

    4. according to you, kadhib is a flaw (this is mentioned in another place in an entirely different discussion)

    5. that would necessitate that the Actions of Allah ta'ala can be flawed, because you have also said that kadhib is a flaw.

    6. now tell me, how will you resolve this paradox?

    for an astute reader, the rejection of kadhib is implicit in this statement itself! because, if the ash'aris considered that 'kadhib is mumkin for Allah ta'ala', the whole argument of sharif is pointless. because the above argument hinges on the common agreement that "kadhib is muHal"

    if kadhib were mumkin, the ash'aris would simply. "oh yes. there is no contradiction. kadhib is not a flaw and not rationally ugly. we already admit it as mumkin. so what is your argument about?"

    there is another thing that is implicit here - if ANY of the ash'aris had said that "kadhib is mumkin" sharif would not have raised this objection. and given that allamah sharif is among the authorities in the subject, it can be safely assumed that no ash'ari had ever said that 'kadhib is mumkin'.

    i mean, it is so childishly simple - but then nobody taught the devbandis to think. they just mindlessly defend their moronic elders.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Noori likes this.
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as for the statement: 'how will our companions who reject qub'H aqli be able to answer the objection...'

    just think. if ash'aris believed in imkan kadhib, they would say: "hey, we accept that kadhib is possible - move on. no contradiction."

    and even more importantly - if allamah sharif KNEW that some ash'ari admitted 'imkan kadhib' he would not even have raised this objection in the first place!

    the devbandi reads half a statement which in his deranged mind vindicates his mullaji and doesn't care whether this is insulting to Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala. but gangohi nanotwi and thanawi should be vindicated at all costs.

    al-iyadhu billah.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    imkan kadhib is an invalid belief.

    none of the imams accepted it as valid. the devbandis employ the method of filibustering. zameel uses this. and that mufti adam uses it.
    i don't know whether they are really poor in writing, or whether they intentionally try to confound people by complex constructions and rambling.

    utter nonsense. instead of pouring bilgewater just deal with proper quotes of ayimmah which i have listed in 'truth'.

    the guy who wrote the stuff has no idea of what he is talking about, just hotch-potch from his devbandi elders without pausing to think, and most of the time assuming that their devbandi elders are unmistakably right.

    what does nazzam have to do about this and what has Husn-qub'H got to do with this?

    ash'aris said kadhib is muHal because it is a flaw.
    maturidis said kadhib is muHal because it is a flaw - as well as the fact that some things can be rationally known to be ugly.

    devbandis are utterly shameless and they try to bring proof from those texts which slap their faces left and right. here let me post a few pages from sharh al mawaqif. you tell me whether any of them admits this ridiculous belief of "Allah ta'ala can lie"

    besides, if you read it well, he says that falsehood has to be negated from both kalam lafzi and nafsi - because anyway there isn't difference except superficial which was admitted to explain certain issues related to kalam.

    in sha'Allah, we will release a better formatted edition, and expand upon some.

    wa' billahi't tawfiq.
    Ghulam Ali and Noori like this.
  20. Abu Darda

    Abu Darda New Member

    Shaykh Abu Hasan, please shed some light on this 'reply' which says imkan ul kidhb is a valid belief:

    Reply & Clarification on Imkan al-Kidhb

    This is a response to Ihsān Ibn Sharīf regarding his post on the issue of Imkan al-Kidhb and the position of the Ulama’ of Deoband, his post can be seen here:�... The entirety of your post will not be answered point by point however, the general objections which you are in a misunderstanding regarding, will be addressed and insha’Allah it will remove any doubts or confusions. First your statement will be presented followed by the response.
    You said: “Clearly here the author [of al-Muhannad] ascribes the theoretical possibility of Allāh acting contrary to what He promised and that such a thing is capacitated within the Qudrah of Allāh.” Response: It is necessary to differentiate between two different concepts:
    One is the logical or rational possibility (imkān ‘aqlī) of a proposition, and the other is its occurrence or materialisation.
    For Allāh to act against what He has promised is rationally possible, but its occurrence is impossible. A “rational possibility” does not preclude the impossibility of actual occurrence. It only means that the proposition is not in itself inconceivable: the mind does not preclude its possibility a priori.
    Allāh’s power connects to everything that is logically/rationally possible. To say otherwise would be to attribute a deficiency to Him. As the mutakallimūn said: "قدرته تعالى يعم سائر الممكنات" "كل ممكن مقدور" "المقتضي للقادرية هو الذات والمصحح للمقدورية هو الإمكان". Al-Dawwānī said to not have power of some things that are possible (mumkin) is an imperfection, which is not possible for Allāh. (العجز عن البعض نقص وهو على الله تعالى محال)
    Consider the propositions: "a wicked and wretched disbeliever like Fir'awn is put into Jannah" or "a pious believer is put into Jahannam." There is no rational absurdity in these propositions. The mind does not regard these as inconceivable or impossible in themselves (unlike, for example, the propositions: “the number 2 is odd”, “8 is a prime number” and so on). Hence, the Qudrah of Allāh connects to them as Allāh has the power to do everything that is rationally possible. Similarly, the mind does not preclude the possibility of these things even after Allāh's promise. Allāh's promise that a pious believer will not enter Jahannam does not make it rationally impossible for a pious believer to enter Jahannam. Hence, the Qudrah still connects to it. Yes, the promise makes its occurrence impossible.
    This was precisely the response of the Ash'ari theologians to the arguments of the Mu'tazila (particularly, the followers of Naẓẓām) that "punishing a pious believer" and other apparently ugly acts are not in Allāh's power. In response to this argument of the Naẓẓāmiyya, it states in Sharḥ al-Mawāqif: “The response is that there is nothing ugly in relation to Him because everything is subordinate to Him, thus He may do with it as He pleases. And even if it is accepted that the act is ugly in relation to Him, the most that can be said is that it won't occur due to the presence of something stopping it, i.e. its ugliness, and that does not negate power over it.” (والجواب أنه لا قبح بالنسبة إليه فإن الكل ملكه فله أن يتصرف فيه على أي وجه أراد، وإن سلم قبح الفعل بالنسبة إليه فغايته عدم الفعل بوجود الصارف عنه وهو القبح وذلك لا ينفى القدرة عليه)
    The same thing is mentioned in other works, like Sharḥ al-Maṭāli', Ṭawali‘ al-Rūmi and Sharḥ al-Ṣaḥa'if. Quotes can be found at the following link:
    The mistake of the Mu'tazila (Naẓẓāmiyya), in the words of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, is as follows: “They presumed that purifying Allāh from despicable and ugly things is only by negating His power over them. In doing so, they are like one who flees from rain and stands under a drain!” (توهموا أن تنزيهه تعالى من الشرور والقابئح لا يكون إلا بسلب قدرته عليها، فهم في ذلك كمن هرب من المطر إلى الميزاب)
    This is precisely the mistake made by those who say Allāh does not have the power to act against what He has promised or He does not have the power to create a speech that does not conform to reality. They say: We can only say He is free from these things by negating His power over them. But the Ash'ari theologians responded that by negating His power, you are limiting the power of Allāh. There is no rational absurdity or impossibility in these propositions, so they must fall under His power. Yes, their occurrence from Him is impossible because His divine intent does not connect to them on account of His wisdom, fairness and so on.
    On the question of kidhb/kadhib itself, it is first necessary to the understand the nature of kidhb. Kidhb is defined as the act of producing a sentence that does not conform to reality. As the Deobandi author of Juhd al-Muqill states, we all agree that after Ādam (‘alayhissalām) ate from the tree, it was in the power of Allāh Ta'ala to produce the sentence "Ādam disobeyed His Lord" (عصى آدم ربه) and then to send it down to a chosen prophet. Not only does everyone agree that it is in His power, but they agree that it actually happened, as it is in the Qur'ān. Now, if hypothetically Ādam (‘alayhissalam) actually did not eat from the tree, would producing this sentence and sending it down on a chosen prophet be excluded from the power of Allāh? It is obvious that if it is in His power after Ādam (‘alayhissalam) ate from the tree it would also be in His power before this, and it would also be in His power in the hypothetical situation that he never ate from the tree. The Qudra of Allāh does not change. It does not become limited or constrained. Yes, there are things that are within the Qudra of Allāh which will actualise and others that will never actualise. But this is due to the divine will (irāda), and not due to any limit in the Qudra.
    It is important to understand what "kidhb" means in this context. (See: muqaddima 4 and 6 from the link given above). "Kidhb" does not characterise a person. Nor is it an intrinsic characteristic of speech. A "speech" in and of itself is not described as "truthful" or "false." It is only described in this way relative to its context. For example, the proposition "Zayd is standing" in one context would be described as "true" and in another context as "false." Hence, "true" and "false" neither (primarily) characterise a person, nor are they intrinsic qualities of speech. In our context, kidhb means: producing a speech that does not conform to reality. In other words: does Allāh have the power to create a speech that is untrue, and then send it down to a chosen prophet or angel? It is clear that since "kidhb" is not primarily a characteristic of a being/person, nor intrinsically a characteristic of the speech itself, it does not entail any change within the Dhāt (Being) of Allāh. Moreover, there is nothing in this proposition – i.e. "words/sounds coming into existence that give a meaning that does not conform to reality" – that is intrinsically impossible. Hence, the Qudra definitely connects to it, based on the fact that the Qudra connects to everything possible.
    A question that some people have at this point is the nature of Allāh's "speech." For a full discussion on this issue, see muqaddima 4 from the link given above. In brief, there are two kinds of speech as it relates to Allāh:
    1. One is a single, undifferentiated, simple attribute subsisting within the essence of Allāh. This is commonly known as “Kalām Nafsī.”
    2. The second is the words and sentences arranged by Allāh, created into sounds or letters, and then brought down to one of His creatures. This is known as “Kalām Lafẓī.” [وليس كلام الله تعالى إلا ما رتبه الله تعالى بنفسه من غير واسطة والكلمات لا تعاقب بينها فى الوجود العلمي حتى يلزم حدوثها وإنما التعاقب بينها فى الوجود الخارجي، وهو بحسب هذا الوجود كلام لفظي]
    It is important to understand that the single undifferentiated attribute of “Kalām Nafsī” does not itself consist of statements, whether declarative, imperative or otherwise. Rather, these statements exist only within the “Kalām Lafẓī.”
    [A technical point: Allāh’s knowledge of the meanings of the contents of the “Kalām Lafẓī” is eternal, but the Kalām Lafẓī itself is originated. Sometimes, Allāh’s eternal knowledge of the meanings of the Kalām Lafẓī is also referred to as “Kalām Nafsī”, which can be a source of confusion. The term “Kalām Nafsī” therefore sometimes refers to the eternal attribute of speech in Allāh’s Dhāt, and sometimes to Allāh’s knowledge of the meanings contained within the Kalām Lafẓī]
    Hence, the Kalām Nafsī itself – that is a single, undifferentiated, attribute within the Dhāt – does not consist of “meanings”. It only “connects” to the meanings found in the Kalām Lafẓī just as the Qudra connects to creation. The Kalām Lafẓī also “points to” the Kalām Nafsī just as creation points to Qudra. It doesn’t “point to” it in the sense of words pointing to their meanings, but in the sense of an effect pointing to its cause or to its point of origin. [أقول: ليس معنى كونه عبارة عنه أنه عينه كما قال بعد هذا: أن القرآن عبارة عن هذا المؤلف المخصوص والنحو عبارة عن القواعد المخصوصة، وذلك ظاهر ولا أنه دال عليه بالوضع لأن المدلول الوضعي له هو المعاني الوضعية الحادثة، بل معناه أنه دال عليه عقلا، ودلالة الأثر على مبدئه فإن النطق الظاهر فى الإنسان كما يدل على مبدء له يغاير العلم والقدرة والإرادة كذلك فى الباري تعالى يدل الكلام اللغظي على مبدء له يغاير سائر الصفات]
    [For a more thorough discussion, with extensive quotes from the Ash‘ari theologians, see muqaddima 4 from the link given above].
    The point to take away from this technical discussion is that the speech that is an intrinsic attribute of Allāh Ta'āla (i.e. the Kalām Nafsī) is not under discussion here, as "ṣidq" and "kidhb" do not even enter into the realm of possibilities when we talk about "Kalām Nafsī". "Kalām Nafsī " is neither "inshā" (imperative, interrogative etc. statements) nor "khabar" (declarative statement). It only connects to these types of statements, in just the same way the “Qudra” connects to creation. Hence, "truth" or "falsehood" are inconceivable (ghayr mutaṣawwar) when we talk about "Kalam Nafsi."
    The speech we are talking of in this context is, thus, the created speech that is arranged by Allāh Ta'āla without the intermediary of any other sentient being, which is then brought down to one of His creatures. This is also part of Allāh's "speech" as it is not the speech of any other being. Now, this speech is always true because Allāh is truthful, but that does not mean His power over producing an untruthful statement in this speech is negated. This in a nutshell is the Deobandi argument.
    You said: “How do you know that 4:87 and all other Āyāt where He states he is truthful isn’t a lie and actually ended up occurring? – The fact is you don’t when the possibility is attributed to Allāh’s Qudra.”
    Response: There are two ways in which something can be said to be unbefitting of Allāh. One is that it entails a contradiction and absurdity. For example "ẓulm" with the meaning that Allāh meddles in another's ownership without his consent (التصرف في ملك الغير بغير إذنه). This is impossible and does not fall in the Qudra of Allāh since it entails an absurdity. Nothing falls outside the ownership of Allāh, so ẓulm with this meaning cannot apply to Allāh. Such things are intrinsically impossible. Other examples are creating another "God" (how can something created be uncreated?), eating/drinking (how can a Being without body or need eat/drink?) etc. Another way in which something is unbefitting Allāh is that it is against His nature. Despite being possible and being included under His Qudra, such things cannot emanate from Him on account of His nature of fairness (‘adl), wisdom (ḥikma), truthfulness (ṣidq), mercy (raḥma) etc.
    An ordinary example is a very pious person who is known to be very pious. Now if an allegation was to be made against this person, our immediate response would be: "he couldn't have done such a thing!" Not that it is not possible (i.e. he had the ability to do it), but it goes against what we know of his nature and of the way he behaves and conducts himself. In the same way we know Allāh is fair and truthful. This is our experience and knowledge of His nature. He will not punish a pious believer though He has the power to, and He won't reward a wretched disbeliever though he has the power to. In the same way He will never issue a statement that does not conform to reality, though it is within His power to do so. The Ash'ari theologians who said doing so is within His power clearly mentioned that it is known by necessity that it will not occur from Him based on our knowledge of His nature.
    It states in Sharḥ al-Ṣaḥa'if:
    قلت: إن فعل القبيح من غير حاجة محال، فإن أردت أنه محال لذاته فذلك غير مسلم لأنا نعلم ضرورة أن ذلك الفعل لا يقتضى عدمه لذاته، بل نعلم أن نسبة وجوده وعدمه إلى ذاته واحدة، وإن أردت أنه محال لأن الله تعالى قادر حكيم لا يريد أن يفعل مثل ذلك الفعل، فذلك مسلم، لكن ذلك لا يوجب انتفاء القدرة عليه، بل تركه بقدرته وإرادته
    “If you mean that an ugly act is intrinsically impossible, we don’t accept that, because we know that there is no intrinsic necessity of that act being non-existent. In fact, we know that to attribute its existence and nonexistence to His Dhāt is one and the same. But if you mean that it is impossible because Allāh is a Wise Agent, and He would not intend to do something like that – this is accepted. But this does not entail He lacks power over it. Rather, He avoids it by His power and His will.”
    It states in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid:
    فإن قيل: التمسك بالكتاب والسنة يتوقف على العلم بصدق كلام الله تعالى وكلام الرسول عليه السلام ودلالة المعجزة وهذا لا يتأتى مع القوم بأنه خالق كل شيء حتى الشرور والقبائح وأنه لا يقبح منه التلبيس والتدليس والكذب وإظهار المعجزة على يد الكاذب ونحو ذلك مما يقدح في وجوب صدق كلامه وثبوت النبوة ودلالة المعجزات، قلنا: العلم بانتفاء تلك القوادح وإن كانت ممكنة في نفسها من العاديات الملحقة بالضروريات
    “If it is argued: Adhering to the Book and Sunnah depends on knowledge of the truth of the speech of Allah & the Messenger (upon him peace) and the evidence of miracles. This will not be possible if we believe that He is Creator of everything, even ugly things, and that deception, trickery, lying and producing a miracle at the hand of a liar and such things… are not ugly for Him. We answer: Knowledge of the negation of these things that are possible in themselves is based on our knowledge of the normal way [that Allāh operates] (‘ādiyyat) which are annexed to those things that are known by absolute necessity.”
    For other similar passages, see the link given earlier.
    A lot more could be said about some of the misunderstandings in your post, but the above was written only to bring a bit of clarity to the debate; rather than to get fixated on some technical issues and errors. By keeping the above explanation in mind, it should not be difficult to understand some of the problems with your reasoning and the quotes that you bring to substantiate your points.
    One more point that needs highlighting, however, is that while the Naẓẓāmiyya amongst the Mu‘tazila limited the Qudra of Allāh, and said He does not have the Power to punish a pious believer or to reward a wretched disbeliever etc., another group amongst the Mu‘tazila, known as the “Mazdāriyya,” said that not only does He have power over these things but He may even do them! They believe it is possible for a lie or injustice (in the sense of punishing a pious believer) to actually occur! The Ahlus Sunnah are in between these two extremes. While they do not negate Allāh’s power over these things – as they are rationally possible, and everything rationally possible is included within Allāh’s Qudra –, they clearly state that these acts are unbefitting of Allāh and thus their occurrence from Him is impossible.
    Note: Brother Ihsan recently contacted me and mentioned that he has since changed his view on the issue (in light of the above response to him) and now believes there to be valid ikhtilaf.

Share This Page