Debate between Noori and SunniStudent on Nagpuri Fatwa-1

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by sunnistudent, Jun 11, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Noori , if I would have refuted you ( point by point, like sidi was refuted), you would have banned me.But I seriously want to be on this forum. So help me in understanding your new rules . I said earlier itself that you will change rules. My fear has come true. Anyways. I am mentioning the new rules which you have just coined for me.

    Rule 11
    Do not post anything which directly or indirecrly involves baraily sharif or any other alim who is against uka.

    Once the rules were coined, I have never discussed any alim who is against ubaidullah khan azmi. You can " dig" my post and see.
    Note: I consider all those alim who signed Nagpuri Fatwa to be against Ubaidullah Khan. If you have more names apart from the names on the fatwa, then please inform me right away. Or else, only those who have signed will be considered to be " against".

    However, you latest addition of " indirectly involves baraily sharif" is far from my comprehension. Please explain it to me in detail, so that you don't face the embarrassment of amending rules again. By " Baraily sharif" what do you mean? Who all represents " Baraily sharif"? Once you explain this, I will not mention those things/ people, directly, indirectly or remotely. This is important because in future you may relate anything with " barailly" saying it is "indirectly" related. So please explain this vague term. Shukriya

    Rule 12
    condition 4 no more valid.kindly do not let SS make any post in any other thread.

    Rule 13
    you can force us to ban you by making another post criticizing sidi abu hasan

    Hehe. OK.

    During the course of our discussion ,if required and needed can I criticize Mawlana Qamaruzzaman azmi, Shaykh Yaqubi, Shaykh Nazmi, Shaykh Hisham etc? Please don't say No, because none of them are anyway related to Nagpuri Fatwa and your forum already has a lot of criticism against these scholars. I understand your loyalty and emotions, but be just. Don't ban me for criticizing you or else, how will I debate?

    Remember, you have agreed that these rules are to be practiced as long as our debate lasts. Once the debate is over and it is proved that Abul Hasan calling Obaidullah Khan Azzmi a kafir, was wrong in the light of 'maslak e ala hazrat", these conditions will be lifted.

    Be a man and stick to the rules which you have coined.Bakri ki maan kab tak khair manayegi

    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    @ admins/mods: condition 4 no more valid, kindly do not let SS make any post in any other thread, and in this thread too he is only allowed to post about the issues he has agreed with me.
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS if you cannot understand simple words then there is no way that you can debate on more complex issues. Tauqeer is not alim and signatory of NF, but you posted it to create fitnah against ulama e baraily. if you are serious in debate then please do not post anything which directly or indirecrly involves baraily sharif or any other alim who is against uka.

    You were banned by sidi abu hasan because of your disgusting post in another thread, not because you attacked sidi abu hasan but due to posting an audio supposedly attributed to son of hazrat taj'us shariah, which if true, then it is just a personal shortcoming, it does not involve any religious issue, but it was a shameful act of yours to do backbiting, that too in the holy month of ramadan. Asjad raza is not a signatory of NF1, but you want to relieve your malice against his father. So, please do not play with words, and follow the rules. Do not think that you have any special rights here.

    You again reviled sidi abu hasan which you agreed that you will not. If you want to escape our debate then you can force us to ban you by making another post criticizing sidi abu hasan, or any alim against uka, we can make your life easier.

    You have been unbanned upon my request, but now you won't be allowed to post anything except in this thread and that too about our debates, if you don't listen then we won't regret to expel you from this place.
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Rule 3 and 4.

    Tauqeer Raza is not an aalim and is not a signatory to NF.

    This issue of Tauqeer Raza, visiting Deoband, is not " braily vs any other camp". If you say so, then tell me which is the "other camp"and prove that this 'other camp' has opposed " ulama e baraily".

    Noori, please enlighten.

    If you feel like, please provide a shari'i evidence that Tauqeer Raza has been " rejected" by " ulama e baraily". This is optional.
  5. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    all admins and mods will delete your posts if they find that they violates the conditions set. Your malice against ulama e baraily is at its pinacle that you would not spare a chance to malign them even if they themselves condemn it. Toqeer raza is an absolute idiot and rejected by ulama e baraily. Your posts were in violation of rule 3 and 4.

    i don't think i have used foul language, perhaps you are looking for your praises. each party involved in debate tries to prove the other party wrong, that is you and me are doing. I didn't say you are lying or being dishonest, i just said you tried to trick me, and debating parties try to bring their oponent around their arguments and avoid letting themselves stuck into their opponent's argument. there is no wrong in it if done with honesty, and blameworthy if dishonesty is invloved. in fact i had that condition on my mind when i wrote it, and i did not feel that i am calling you dishonest, but you know better about yourself.

    saying that you are rambling and playing around is not foul language either, again it is what the ivolved parties try to do. yes you can complain if i call names or curse at you, or being insolent to you. So, please think positive.

    where did i change the rule? I copied these rules from previous thread where we agreed to first decide whose claim is to debate on NF-1, if you are trying to get away from this then this is anither story. I hope you won't make it an issue because down in your post you one more time have agreed to it.

    Yes i acknowlede that i have been unable to get some good amount of time to go through your posts, and i do acknowledge that if i find that it was me who made this claim first then i won't shy away to accept it. I excpect the same from you inshaAllah.

    feel free to highlight my words that you think should be marked as foul language, i will either explain or avoid them. does this make sense?

    as for your analysis, it is useless because i haven't started yet.

    kindly ignore typos, my ipad is behaving crazy.
  6. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

  7. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Please dig up my posts and present your result here.

    No, it has not got off my mind. I am waiting for you to come with your points.

    I am not playing around. A gentle reminder: It is you who came in to save someone who was answer less. It is you have deleted my post.

    I too can use words with evidence to show it is you, who is "playing around". Don't just put forward the rules, try to follow it.

    Yes.You will see many more things gradually. But don't change your rules, saying I didn't see this before!

    I told you long back that I am ready to discuss even this issue . I told you to dig up my post sequentially .

    When I have agreed long back and it is available on record, why are not digging my posts?

    The link was posted for you to make it clear that which is NF-1 and my argument in the first post.

    You said in post 53

    To which I replied in post 55

    Analyze this:

    1. You said my first demand was to discuss NF-1. Till date, you have not brought any evidence to prove that this was my " first demand". If you will not be able to prove that this was my first demand, I hope you will openly admit your mistake.

    2.I refuted you by showing you the very first post of the thread where I asked abu Hasan "tell me, how do you deduce from this fatwa that Obaidullah is outside the fold of Islam?"

    3. For me it doesn't matter whether, you want to discuss NF1 or answer the first question which I asked to abu hasan .

    4. If you want to go sequentially , then you need to discuss the first point I raised in first post of this thread:

    5. In case you fail to prove that my first demand was to discuss NF1 ,you will admit that it is you who is rambling and playing around.

    Just prove that my first demand was to discuss NF1

    In case you can't prove it, I am still open to discuss it.
  8. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    you are not getting it.

    you tried to trick me to accept that it was my claim to discuss NF-1 in post # 71 in Kufr Returns or Not? thread, the emphasis on "your" is by you.

    to this i replied in post # 74

    and you agreed to it in post # 76
    so, though NF-1 is the core point of debate which we both have agreed, yet we both have also agreed to first decide/clarify that who demanded to discuss NF-1 first. yes, condition 1 of this thread is about NF-1 which we shall discuss, but perhaps this side debate has got off your mind that we argued in Kufr Returns or Not? thread

    it is a very petty issue to discuss, but the reason i insisted (and you are trying to get away after pushing it in my mouth) is that it will show your rambling and playing around rather than answering simple questions.

    now i see that i had said that before we proceed on NF-1 one of us has to acknowledge the claim (see above quote).

    i'll see if i get time to settle this side issue before ramaDan so that after ramaDan we discuss NF-1, however i do not promise.
  9. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Fatwa No 1 was marked "1" in post No 1 of this thread. It is this fatwa which is Nagpuri Fatwa -1.

    This was the thread which abu Hasan created solely for the purpose of " analysis". You can see my claim in post no 1 of that thread.

    In sha Allah, will send you a reminder after Ramadan.
  10. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Yes of course we shall discuss nagpuri fatwa-1 but there is a side argument pending that who demanded to debate nagpuri fatwa-1 first. so, when we have dicused that argument with or without agreement we shall start NF-1. here in the clause "first" is in relation to second fatwa.

    I am sorry that I have been unable to start the discussion, the delay is from my side but I have been so busy and during the ramaDan it will be too difficult for me; therefore I request you to wait another month, inshaAllah after ramaDan we shall start. Do send a reminder if it gets late after ramaDan.

    Thank you for your patience.
  11. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Now put forward your claim regarding this fatwa.
  12. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    for a quick reference, following is the list of conditions we have agreed upon.

    1) We will go sequentially and first will discuss nagpuri fatwa -1

    2) As long as we are discussing fatwa-1 you cannot make posts regarding other issues related to Ubaidullah Khan Azmi, or that sprung up from those threads dealing with this issue regardless whoever created that/those thread(s)

    3) You cannot create new threads or make new posts in other threads to discuss anything about those ulama who are part of the first fatwa or they side with it

    4) You are welcome to post in this, and create new threads which do not involve baraily vs ashrafyah, or braily vs [any other camp] issues. condition 3 must not be violated though

    5) Neither I nor you will use foul language or try to prove that the other party is lying or dishonest (
    optional for you, mandatory for myself)

    6) Except you and me, other members WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to post in this thread (i will remove them if they do, because we don't have a mechanism to restrict users)

    7) Huzur taj'ush shari'ah is not a signatory of the fist fatwa, but you cannot post anything about him because it will violate condition 3 and 4

    following were your conditions which i agree

    8) All these conditions are applicable only until this debate/ discussion lasts

    9) The debate/ discussion will be as per maslak e ala hazrat, the usool and methodology of ala hazrat as understood from his writings

    10) There will be a separate thread for others to make comments about our discussion in this thread. all members will be allowed to post there except you. YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED;

    - To reply in the thread dedicated to discuss our debate

    - To post in any other new/old thread which discusses UKA issue, or which originates from it
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    @All Forum Members & Admins/Mods: Only SS is allowed to post in this thread.

    @SS: i will first list all the points/terms here that we have agreed upon, so that we abandon previous thread and make a clean start. We can reference posts from the previous thread.

Share This Page