Kufr Returns or Not?

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Noori, Mar 23, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i did not, but all admins and mods will delete your posts if they don't qualify as per the conditions agreed by us.

    i don't agree that your post # 5 should be deleted, therefore it is restored.

    however, your post # 5 is in clear violation of the condition # 2 and # 3

    don't tell us that you don't consider him an scholar, because your point of view has no value to us, otherwise you don't have regards for the signatories of the fataawa too.

    your grudge against sidi abu Hasan on takfir issues is due to his siding with the fatawa on UKA, therefore you seek every opportunity to have a take on him. sorry, clear violation.
    Bazdawi likes this.
  3. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Noori, did you delete my three posts? Out of the 7 conditions laid by you, Which rule did I break?
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I am sorry, but even in this latest reply of yours you have not kept up the " sequence". Post 43 was a response to all the conditions which I agreed to .

    Sequence ? When I stated clearly in post 43 that I have accepted these conditions... you did not say anything.

    To avoid ' lengthy' post, I agree to what you have stated:


    Shukriya. Don't worry, I won't be even reading posts in that thread.

    Please dig up my posts sequentially.
  5. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    yes, you did, because you said in your post # 71

    your denial is about the condition # 6 in my post # 69. how come you ignore your clear denial in post # 71 and dig up your own quote from post # 43 which cannot be a response to my post # 69. now it is not about being sequential but about your denial made later that i did not state it before.

    your quote from post # 43 is about abu Hasan. see you said in your post # 39 that
    to this i responded in my post # 42 that

    to this you replied in your post # 43 that

    so it has nothing to do with my condition 6 re-stated from my post # 37

  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    unfortunately your posts are [almost] always lengthy, kindly try to be concise.

    thank you, i appreciate that.

    thanks again.

    okay, in the new thread it will be between you and me only, no other member will be allowed to post in that thread including sidi Abu Hasan. I will create a separate thread for others to make comments about our discussion. all members will be allowed to post there (the thread dedicated to discuss our debate) or in any other thread (of course i mean about uka issue) except you. you will not be allowed

    - to reply in the thread dedicated to discuss our debate

    - to post in the threads you mentioned above

    - to post in any other new/old thread which discusses uka issue

    because it will violate the conditions 2,3, and 4 that you already agreed.

    yes, agreed. see my response above again.

    of course there is no restriction on either of us to seek help from others. why do you mention it?

    no need to request, only you and i will be posting in that new thread, if anyone makes an (intentional/unintentional) post, i will move it to the thread dedicate to post comments on our discussion.

    after we both agree to all the conditions/amendments/addendum, we shall first see whose demand is/was to discuss Naqpuri fatwa. whoever made this demand should acknowledge it before we proceed to discuss the fatwa. i haven't yet dug up your posts but i'm pretty sure that it was your demand. i don't know why you are pushing it in my mouth now. anyway, we will see.

    let me know if it is okay now, and we begin the actual debate.
  7. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    No, I didn't.

    See my reply in post no 43. I said

    I made it very clear ,the conditions which I accepted. Since we are going sequentially, 43, comes after 37. You never contested my conditions mentioned in post 43.

    I am not asking you to deprive any member of their rights as a forum member. Let them post in the other thread. There are at least two threads discussing this issue. First Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvis fatwa and second, sunni student analysis. Who ever wishes can post anything related with this issue in any of these two threads.

    Recall, you said

    Why did you ask me to forget abu hasan? You and every one else could have replied in that thread as well. So let others post in two other thread related with the issue.

    Yes, it is we. You and me. So let others stay away from this particular thread ( which will be a new thread).
    Actually, you have not laid down any condition which tells that I cannot start a new thread. So I can always 'jump from one topic to another'. The condition which you have laid down and to which I have agreed is:

    Why is that others , whom you want to join in our discussion, can not reply in issues related with bareilly vs any other camp, if I start one? When they can join in our discussion why not in other thread? I hope you do not proclaim yourself to be the lone flag bearer and defender of mufti akhtar raza rizvi's view. And if others can reply, then why this condition? The only reason is you don't want to be distracted in other threads where scholars of bareilly are mentioned. I respect this and have accepted your condition.

    I will be distracted if others would post in our discussion. If members have something to post on the issue, who is stopping them? Why are they waiting for our discussion to begin? What ever "others " will post in our discussion will be either a reply or a comment or a question to whatever discussion will take place between you and me. Why should others join in a debate between you and me?

    They are free to post anything related with the issue in other threads related with the topic. Their rights on forum is not deprived. You have asked me to debate/ discuss and if you allow them to participate in our discussion them this is against the rules of debate and discussion. The question is : Why do you want others to join our debate? If you allow others to join our debate then you are depriving your and my right of proper debate/discussion.

    Now, please don't say they have right to participate in a debate between you and me!

    I am not asking you to curtail their 'rights'. Just ask them to post, if they wish, in other threads related with the issue. I hope every one will listen to your request. And if any one apart from abu hasan and you were interested in talking to me on this issue, they would have asked me to start a discussion like you did. And before you asked me to start this discussion, abu hasan started a thread entitled " sunni students analysis.....", which is still available for everyone to read.

    Yes, you will not be distracted as long as it is their responses. But you will be tempted or distracted if I mention about Bareilly scholars. But I will be distracted if some one posts in a debate/ discussion between you and me. After all,its between you and me.

    Ok! OK !

    But why? After all you said:

    I know what all will be 'useful' post near you. You , yourself is pointing out that their useless posts will be removed, which implies, their 'useful' post will be retained. They can make these useful posts in two other threads related with the issue. Don't tell me that you want others to participate in this thread to make useful posts related with our discussion/ debate! In fact, by putting forward this remark you are hinting others to make useful posts!

    Please note:

    1.I don't think you should have any problem if the debate /discussion is between you and me only. I guess you too want the debate be between you and me only. Isn't it? But you are concerned about the rights of other members.

    2. You came forward ( as a single individual) to start discussion/debate with me and leave abu hasan for a while . I accepted.
    3. You have put forward 7 conditions for this debate/ discussion. I have accepted 6 of them.
    4.Kindly, ask other members not to post anything in our debate/ discussion. At least make this request , if you really want it to be between you and me. Whether others respect your request or not is a secondary issue.
    5. Since you do not want to deprive them of their ' rights' , let them post , in two other threads related with the issue. I don't see any reason why others would participate when the debate is between you and me. In this way their right to post on the forum will not be deprived.
    6. If 'sidi' abu hasan or others want to help you, they can always send you messages in PM or in other thread. Don't ask them to help you by making useful post in the thread where our discussion will take place.

    7. I am sure if you make request others will listen to you.

    In the next post, please make a request to all forum members to refrain from posting anything in our debate/ discussion,which will start.

    I agree to your proposal of discussing Nagpuri fatwa. Please state what is your stand regarding this fatwa.
  8. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i guess you missed my post # 37, i said there
    the reason is very simple, all other members have equal rights to express their thoughts. you are being restricted so that we can focus on issues otherwise you will be jumping from one topic to another, this is not the case with others when they share their thoughts on this issue. i will not be distracted because i need not to care about their responses

    no, i really don't want you to reply to sidi abu Hasan, and i would prefer that he should not post anything on this issue specially in the thread of our discussion. i would also appreciate if others don't post anything too, but just because to make you happy i cannot revoke their rights to participate on the forums. i hope that abu Hasan will accept my request, but as i said earlier that i am moderator and he is admin.

    i will take special care to remove useless posts of other members, and those that are only meant to deride at you.
  9. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Yes, I agree to your demand of debating/ discussing Nagpuri Fatwa. I still stick to my claim that it is your proposal, but I have no problem at all. You said

    So let us be sequential. As I stated earlier

    I said here (post 1)


    Since this was stated in post No 1, this should have been discussed first. However, I have no problem in discussing Nagpuri fatwa with you.





    Not acceptable.

    I fail to see your wisdom of putting forward this condition. If the debate/ discussion is between you and me, why should others be allowed to post in that thread? Let us see what you have said:

    This condition was not stated earlier. You are not ' re-stating' it, but adding a new condition, which is not acceptable to me.

    And now you want me to reply to sidi abu hasan indirectly! I don't understand that if the debate/ discussion is between you and me, why do you want others to participate? Please note, neither abu hasan or any one else should be allowed to participate in that thread. Those who may like to give their arguments , may do so in PM.

    You said

    So you might feel distracted if some scholars are mentioned in altogether a different thread. But you won't be distracted if others make post in this thread!!

    And then you said, regarding abu hasan

    I insisit that no one, except you and me should be allowed to post in that thread. If every one, including abu hasan is allowed to post in that thread,then why did you ask me to forget abu hasan for a while? Then why did you say it is "between you and me" ? What is the need for you to jump in? I don't see benefit in that, except what I have witnessed in the past.

    Condition 6 is an addition and is against what you have said earlier. Hence it is not acceptable to me.

    Fine. Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan ( MARK) Rizvi won't be mentioned as you might feel distracted.

    1. All these conditions are applicable only until this debate/ discussion lasts.

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

    3. I agree to your proposal of discussing Nagpuri fatwa. Please state what is your stand regarding this fatwa.
  10. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    my response to some of your concerns when i presented my conditions earlier.

    no, reason given in the previous posts

    yes, again it will violate the conditions set

    your use of the word 'fabricated' is completely incorrect; however, yes i mean the first fatwa which was not signed by hazrat taj'us shari'ah because that is your actual demand i.e. discuss first fatwa issued from nagpur

    i've given you my rational

    ignore him, you may feel distracted too therefore you can reply him in PM. i would prefer that he (sidi abu Hasan) should not directly or indirectly mention you, but he is admin therefore i cannot force him. however, you cannot demand that he should not post anything regarding uka issue as long as you are not the target of his post.

    same as above, i can stop you but not him

    sorry, i don't remember. i might have done it mistakenly. i will check and will undelete if it was my fault.

    i'm not feeling insecure, i'm simply setting rules so that i can have a healthy and focused debate with you. if you think that way i cannot stop you.

    not only sidi abu Hasan, but any member has that right, and even you too can participate in other debates/discussions/threads. it is only the uka issue and all other related issues that you brought up that you are forbidden to debate, that too only until we aren't done with first fatwa. you have been jumping here and there without listening therefore this is my own decision that i won't let you mess around as long as we are discussing first fatwa.

    if you really behave nice, and discuss on issue like a gentleman than nobody would have an issue with you as well. you may not agree to our point of view and say that you aren't messing with the forum, but all admins/mods and many senior members feel like that. so, for the sake of proving your point, i request you that you accept my conditions and focus on one debate.

    let me know if anything is still not clear, but please don't drag it too long
  11. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS, these are the conditions that you must agree before we start our discussion, however condition 5 is not mandatory for you.

    1) we will go sequentially and first will discuss nagpuri fatwa -1. you said that it is my demand, and my claim is that it is yours, we will see, if i find it that it is my lack of comprehension then i won't hesitate to accept my mistake, for now this is our topic. right?

    2) as long as we are discussing fatwa-1 you cannot make posts regarding other issues related to uka, 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.
    the reason is that even if that issue/post/thread is not related to uka but you may find it an opportunity to release your resentment for them in your heart, and i might feel distracted.

    4) You are welcome to post in the thread you want me to continue our discussion, 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.
    to me it is not a new condition but only a positive manner of involving in debates. if you think it is a new condition then i don't require it from you but i will make it necessary upon myself that i don't use foul language, or object on your intentions.

    6) all other members will also be allowed to post in that thread, however we (i.e. you and I) must not respond to them, no matter how reasonable they may sound. i mean we cannot quote their posts, and directly address them; however, if necessary we must state it in our own words and give our comments or use it as our own argument. (this way you may get a chance to indirectly respond to sidi abu Hasan too, though i would like that he doesn't get involved at all)

    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

    any of your posts will be deleted if they don't satisfy above criteria, however you may notify me if i (mistakenly) delete anything and you felt that all conditions were met. in that case i will review and take appropriate action or will explain my reason.

    feel free to add your conditions too, we will start our debate once we both agree to these conditions. i will respond to some of your points that you asked earlier concerning these conditions tomorrow inshaAllah.
  12. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    thank you, and appreciated. sorry for my retorts, i am only serious to discuss first fatwa.
  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I highlighted re-state to remind you that re stating should not take so much time.
    Take your time. I will check later
  14. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    tick, tick, tick........

    oh sorry! i was just looking at the watch to see how long you can wait to hit on your keyboard :)

    i know it is an unnecessary post too, but in hope to make you realize, and to request to be patient.
  15. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    besides you have problems with your reading comprehension too, even though you are quoting me but you aren't reading, i said

    so wait for me to re-state.

    i request you to hold yourself from making unnecessary posts, though i won't delete them as long as you are addressing me or discussing the first fatwa.
  16. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    why are you in so hurry? be patient, you will get it inshaAllah.

  17. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran


  18. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    oh really? great. don't worry bystanders are watching.

    if you give your keyboard a little rest and wait. but i'm sure you cannot hold yourself from replying even this post. :).

    no SS no! no please no! wait! wait! please wait! .. :)
  19. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Let everyone see who has " comprehension" problem.

    You said
    I replied

    You said:

    To this I proved that it is your demand and even agreed to it.

    And you have still not put forward your conditions!

    Noori, just do it.
  20. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    you've got lot of time, that is why i said you flood forums. my two words 'certainly not' were enough. i don't care what you and abu Hasan discuss in PMs, single or multiple issues.

Share This Page