Kufr Returns or Not?

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS you really don't want to debate and cannot focus, i won't waste my time in replying every other post of yours if it is not related to nagpuri fatwa. feel free to call me whatever you like but be courageous to have a real debate. i see that you don't want to start the debate actually, until i don't reply every single line of your post, then you reply,t hen i, then......

    you are excellent indeed at beating about the bush.

    feel free to assume (because i can't stop you from assuming anything) whatever you said to be correct, and then move forward.

    will you?
  2. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    And you are not a spokesperson of sidi abu hasan. Isn't it?

    It was sidi abu hasan who invited me to talk to him in PM . He started a private thread and invited me. I think more than one thread. The thread is still open.

    Ideally he should himself state in PM. Even if you are his spokesperson, that does not mean you speak for his PM chat. He stared it , so he will end it in PM, not you.
  3. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    When I said " tell me ", I thought you will reply with some rational arguments. But you proved yourself to be " another" genius.

    If you are honest and know that being a forum moderator will not give you any advantage in the akhirah, if you are not being just, then please note:

    1) It is your sidi abu hasan, who raised Obaidullah's issue in Mufti Akmal's thread. It is your sidi who is discussing obaidullah issue in multiple threads. You and 'everyone ' else can understand why he does this.

    2) In Mufti Akmal's thread I made request to all forum members to give link for the question to which Mufti Akmal replied since syed muzaffar shah's clip has reply from mufti akmal and not the question.

    This had nothing to do with Obaidullah. But you still deleted this, why?

    3) I said, I won't be discussing Obaidullah issue in other thread. But you are so insecure about mufti akhtar raza and molvi zai al mustafa that you said that I should not discuss anything related with these movis! Why?

    4) Your sidi abu hasan can engage in debate/ discussion with multiple people on different topics, but you want me to raise one issue at a time. Why?
  4. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    certainly not.

    i will come to your first point later inshaAllah, if i'm mistaken then i will take my words back, but i don't think it is the case.
  5. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I know you won't like it , but here is your lie.

    I said here (post 1)


    This was the first post and I made it very clear what Abu Hasan has to prove.

    Hope, you will read that first post. You can't bring any post before the first post of the thread.

    Now lets come to the point.

    not abu hasan alone, but all those who have signed and attested it.

    It was abu hasan who started the thread " sunni student's analysis of abu hasan's post". What happened in that thread can be seen by "everyone" by reading posts in that thread.

    And as a result you said:

    Why Noori said this can be seen by "every one" by reading posts in " sunni student analysis thread" and " kufr returns thread"!

    Noori, FYI, I will continue to discuss with abu hasan in PM and I hope that should not bother you, as his embarrassment will not be exposed. abu hasan informed " everyone" that he has been talking to me in PM. Hope you won't list a condition of not talking to abu hasan in PM !
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    do you run a circus? can't others watch and appreciate your intelligence about only one topic. your posts in multiple post related to multiple debates revolving around uka will certainly create distractions.

    can't you really focus on one thing at a time?
  7. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i deleted it. deal with abu hasan's double standards when you are done with nagpuri fatwa

    i am not shy at all, i would love to speak on his behalf, but the truth is that i took this initiative of debating with you upon my own discretion while sidi abu Hasan forbade me, you too have quoted my previous statement next.

    my statement that you give as a proof is a condition to have a debate with you, see you can't understand simple statements, while i had given the reasons in post # 40, i wrote.
    i made it clear in my post # 50 as well, please read one more time
    if you cannot move forward then you can call me his self-appointed spokesman, because he didn't ask me to, rather he says that is is of no benefit to talk to you.

    see, you are changing grounds, otherwise you have been stubbornly and persistently demanding to prove nagpuri fatwa 1. are you afraid to discuss your very first demand? don't forget your definition of being sequential please.

    agreed, as long as the quotes are related to approval or rejection of nagpuri fatwa - 1. they shouldn't be related to other debates like the title of this thread. so, feel free to quote abu Hasan as long as those quotes are relevant to the debate of proving/rejecting nagpuri fatwa.

    i will list conditions in a separate post next, though i have mentioned them earlier too. don't worry, i will re-state them in bullet form and won't add new conditions.

    give your brain a little rest and relax for i won't put this clause. cheers.

    to me it seems that you are afraid, therefore you are unnecessarily dragging the issue to include abu hasan.

    wait for my next post for conditions.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
  8. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Noori, will you be kind enough to explain this:

    Tell me, and I know ,I can not demand, but as you said " others " are watching, that how does my discussion with 'sidi' abu hasan effects debate between you and me?
  9. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Noori or some other moderator deleted my post in which "sidi" abu hasan was exposed of his double standard and lack of knowledge. I have saved that reply and when ever you are done with Nagpuri debate, I will in sha Allah upload it again.

    In another thread abu hasan said

    To this I replied:
    Mufti Alert: Read post 7 of "kufr returns" thread to get the answer.

    Noori or some other honest moderator, deleted my reply.

    After this Noori writes :

    I made only one post related with abu hasan's double standard and you call it flooding the forum. You may be shy to admit it, but you do act like abu hasan's spokesman. Here is the proof.

    Your sidi is making mockery of shariat and you are conveying his "interest" to me.

    Please list your conditions in detail. And once you have listed all your conditions, please do not change anything in it. You might like to consult sidi in laying down conditions.

    My demand was to prove how abu hasan called obaidullah a kafir in march 2015.But I know sidi and you cannot prove that. So I accept your demand to discuss on Nagpuri fatwa. Please note, I am talking about the first Nagpuri fatwa. ( One without Mufti Akhtar Raza azhari's signature)

    I accept this debate proposal. Now, don't tell me in this debate I should not quote those who are involved in it! If we are discussing Nagpuri Fatwa, attested by molvi zia al mustafa and others, then it is natural for me to quote all those who attested this fatwa . Ala hazrat has used this methodology. For example, when he refutes ismayil dehlawi, he quotes shah waliullah rh, because shah waliullah rh was considered correct by ismayil dehlawi and he followed his tariqat. Similarly, when we will discuss Nagpuri fatwa, previous fatwas of those molvis who attested will be discussed. All discussion will be in the light of maslak e ala hazrat.

    List down the detail and final conditions from your side. Please don't put a clause that " conditions can be changed as and when required or else you will be banned".

    In fact, you don't really need a reason to ban me. You can just do it. But I won't give you any chance from my side.

    Put down your conditions.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
  10. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i can and i will, otherwise we cannot debate. i'm not an spokesman of sidi abu Hasan, but i deem it appropriate to limit you from flooding the forums and demanding that he must respond to you.

    now this is a final call, take it or leave it. if you don't agree to my conditions then i'll have to ban you. join some other forum to expose abu Hasan.

    i want to satisfy your demand to debate on nagpuri fatwa and being sequential, otherwise i know you are an impossible person to debate with; not because you are intelligent but rather due to your poor comprehension of very simple arguments.

    that is the sole reason that i want to confine you to debate on only one topic, and that too only with me.

    tell me do you want us (you and me) to continue, or you will be joining somewhere else?
  11. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Noori, this is what you said

    and then



    Noori, please speak for yourself and not abu Hasan. He is more capable and I guess knowledgeable than you. He can represent his self. I don't think he needs a spokesperson.

    Second, you said, he doesn't want to debate me. But you can see how he makes another lame effort in post 45 ( this thread). Also, I am not debating him. He needs to either prove that his verdict in March 2015, in which he stated that Obaidullah is a kafir , is correct. Or abu hasan must do public tawba.

    Third. you can see in another thread [ mufti akmal challenging syed muzaffar shah ,who is a khalifa of mufti akhtaz raza rizvi], how abu hasan has raised "kufr returns" issue of obaidullah khan in that thread. He mentioned this because mufti akmal said that in case syed muzaffar shah fails to prove his claim of kufr, the kufr will return on him. I have saved abu hasan's analysis of that bayan! Har baar naya gul khilate hain hazrat abu hasan!

    Noori, I have a simple solution.

    You speak for yourself and put forward your conditions for talking to me. You, me and 'every one else' knows that abu hasan, you and me are three different person. So don't lay down conditions between me and abu hasan for talking to you.

    I agreed to all your conditions, but you can see , abu hasan brings the topic again in another thread. So henceforth, represent yourself on forum. Don't be a spokesperson for abu hasan.

    Don't try to avoid topics related with mufti akhtar raza rizvi or molvi zia ul mustafa rizvi. When issues between mufti akmal and syed muzaffar shah can be discussed,why not other scholars? I am saying this, lest you put forward a condition that "if you want to talk to me, don't start any issue related with scholars from nagpur, ghosi and bareilly". I agreed to even this condition, but abu hasan brings these issues in another thread. So he broke the rule and not me. Hence you need to put forward news rules for discussion between you and me.

    You are not the only one can who defend stand of mufti akhtar raza rizvi or molvi zia al mustafa rizvi. So even if both are busy, others can reply.

    How protective of abu hasan! Can't he reply himself?

    So don't bring abu hasan between you and me, since abu hasan has not accepted the conditions which you asked me to accept.

    On fatwa issue, i will refute abu hasan. Let him reply, if he can or else ,or do tawba.

    Please confine the discussion between me and you. You can't put a condition that " if you want to talk to me, stop bothering abu hasan or stop refuting him or stop commenting on his posts " etc. I agreed to all of this but since the other side did not follow, now I am not bound to accept it.
  12. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    answering SS is like answering a riddle which has no answer, or has so many an answers that the questioner can always say "no; you are wrong", but the questioner never comes up with the right answer himself.

    So instead of wasting our time in this game, we throw the ball in his court:

    SS should inform us of HIS understanding of the following, and only then will the Muftis on this forum be able to answer him, and the laymen be able to understand him.

    a. the complete and detailed definition of KUFR KALAMI and KUFR FIQHI
    b. when does Kufr return upon the accuser and when does it not.

    and SS may also any other valuable points of Kufr / Irtidad, as he may deem fit which, in his opinion, the forum members do not know.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i have said it very clearly that

    all of your questions to abu Hasan have sprung up from different threads related to uka-takfir issue.

    also you seem to be obsessed with proving that sidi abu Hasan is just a layman with no fiqh knowledge and in doing so you have been very cheeky which everybody can notice except you.

    if your agenda is to malign aH, and you want to remain insolent to him then i quit discussing with you on nagpuri fatwa before we start.

    if you actually want to prove the correctness of mufti nizam's fatwa and you cannot do so until you EXPOSE sidi aH's lack of knowledge then you are making mockery of your own, because he is not a signatory of the first fatwa.

    i demand that you must stop chasing him on any debate that revolves around the topic of uka, for one very simple reason that he is not interested to debate with you. sidi aH suggested that i should not waste my time with you as well. however, i still will continue with you assuming that you are sincere in explaining and discussing why the ulama of first fatwa are/were wrong and mufti nizam'ud din sahab is correct.

    i once read a nice saying of perhaps khalil jibran that those who are very quick at throwing questions are very poor at giving answers. therefore, i hope that you will not prove yourself a thick person with no answers but always loaded with doltish questions.

    surely i will, as explained above you need to decide what is your main contention (a) the nagpuri fatwa or (b) sidi aH's knowlege? i will not accept further discussion/elaboration/ on this hang-up of yours. I would request you to focus on actual contested nagpuri fatwa discussion. otherwise, i would be right to assume that you are already running away before taking a start.
  14. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS no more posts from you untill i reply to your last post, otherwise i will delete them. I am busy, even i just skimmed through sidi abu Hasan's post, i will deal with your last post in a couple of day. I request you that you hold yourself untill then. Thank you in advance.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    when it is convenient to you, i am a 'mufti' [of course, i know that you are being sarcastic; but that is that point]:
    and when it is convenient to you, i am a layman:
    i do not even know basics of fiqh
    lest someone assume it is rhetoric, he clarifies and says unequivocally:
    i will not contest this particular statement of yours. indeed, i do not consider myself an aalim, but i don't think i am a layman either - though, you have every right to consider me as such.

    having said that, why then are you so persistent for my answer? why is it that you are pursuing me? if you don't consider me an aalim (which in itself is fine and i have no complaints about that) why do want me to clarify these issues of fiqh?

    let us be frank and honest. if your sole objective is to prove that i am next-to illiterate in fiqh, i have told you not to waste your time. i do not agree with your extreme view that i don't even know basic fiqh; but rest assured, i am not going to announce my being a mujaddid anytime soon.
    so. why are you so desperate for an answer from a layman, that has become an obsession with you?
    why do you want a layman to bring sharayi evidence? see, you can just dismiss everything that i have said by the simple sentence above:
    end of story. you don't need to waste your valuable time disproving a layman's opinion.

    see. you are not interested. i won't post instances where you simply wanted to show my lacking in fiqh.

    perhaps, you are worried about the forum members who are probably fooled about this pretender who 'acts like a mufti'.
    and perhaps you are persistent to clarify this to all those people who take whatever i say.

    i will suggest a few options.

    go ahead and clarify in the light of fiqh, how my statement of 'kufr will not rebound always' is incorrect. and explain to these laypeople that in each and every situation of takfir 'kufr WILL rebound'. just needling me, or challenging me with questions merely to prove my incapability will do you no good. as you pointed out, nafs is a dangerous enemy within. if i answer you just to prove you wrong, it will do me no good. so, leave me, and proceed to clarify with sharayi daleel why i am wrong and why that statement is incorrect.

    suppose, it was a genuine query - assuming (Allah forbid!) that you did not know the difference and you were asking for your own knowledge and education. still, i will not reply. knowledge is not gained by grabbing at someones collar and shaking the answer out of them. if you want to know, ask humbly and as a seeker - not in the arrogant fashion of 'i demand an answer.'

    you can ask as many as you want, but i am not wasting my time replying to you. because you are not only stupid, you also have a criminal streak of distorting statements just to prove a point. as if you do not believe in judgement day. al-iyadhu billah. for example, in this very thread:

    is this the truth? i won't tell you to be ashamed, but is this the truth? you played around without giving the reference (that is a scan as it is common practice nowadays). i strongly suspect that you hadn't seen it either until then; yet, i won't accuse you of that. thereafter, i arranged to get it from my old copy. yet, you manage to distort the truth only to belittle me. why is the accusation of lying?

    sub'HanAllah. check these posts #56, #40. anyway, i asked my brother to scan the pages (as the old edition is not available with me - which i have clearly mentioned) and posted it here: #69. notice, that he never gave the reference of kufr fiqhi, himself - not even in the old FR, he referenced. check the page numbers. khayr, these are small distractions - and there is no point in flogging such trivial things.

    who can argue with you when you display such acrimony, scant regard to common decency?

    i post the link once more. if you had read this post with an open mind and tried to solve those questions, in the spirit of fairness, the entire brouhaha could have been avoided. it was post #14 on that thread.

    thereafter in post #21 i clarified:

    another example:
    someone who lands from mars today, and reads this description of yours may think that aH woke up one day and listlessly, logged in to sunniport. he couldn't see anything posted for four days (which he had been checking every few hours, sadly) so he said, ah, i must do takfir of someone today. he couldn't find anyone at that time except the ghazi, the mujahid - the defender of sunnah and vanquisher of bid'ah, obaidullah khan azmi, whose life is spotless as that of an angel. ah, here is the man. i should make of him. and aH made takfir without any sharayi daleel.

    sub'HanAllah. is this what you mean? the point is, takfir of obaid was made on a basis - that he praised hindu idols. now, whether this takfir was right or wrong, or takfir was done in haste, is moot; but, the fact remains that takfir was not made without any basis. there WAS a basis and there is a confession of the speech by the accused himself attested by a famous mufti and seal. you can differ that the speech is not kufr (as mufti nizam ruled) but there is no doubt that the speech was made. unless of course, you have your own fanciful version such as: 'in some function..'

    i won't be surprised if you go about throwing thousand of my quotes lopping them left and right showing how i have been even more wicked than you are. don't bother, because i won't answer you.

    it is my habit to mention what the scan relates to; in the past, i would translate everything that i cited. but then, people like nawaz (in his various guises) began to post swathes of text without translation. i would still pick out the relevant portion - which i assume was what he was insinuating at; then there would be denials etc. so with nawaz, i specifically force him to take a stand and comment - and only then you are able to corner him. else, he will post a lopped of quote and smirk.

    the impression you have given is that you refer to alahazrat's fatawa ridawiyyah, old edition without translation. alahazrat hardly translates the evidence that he cites - and most of the time, the citation is in arabic/farsi and he proceeds to give his opinion based on it. this has nothing to do with my forcing nawaz to take a stand. only someone outright stupid will consider them as the same.

    now, in our case - i cited texts as evidence to my position - and posed the question why khawarij are not ruled kafir. you should be able to show the flaw in my comprehension of these texts and give the correct meaning. instead, you are making an issue of my not translating it.

    as for your playing fast and loose, i don't want to waste my time proving how dishonest you are. it is between you and Allah ta'ala. but notice, that all this fuss - you STILL did not show or define kufr kalami and kufr fiqhi, despite mocking my ignorance. is it that you don't know yourself?
    why, have you forgotten already - or were you not aware at that time:
    why are you asking a layman to translate or comment it for you?

    now, don't turn this around to ask even more stupid questions. i am forced to post this after you are pestering me. when you consider me as a layman, and have absolutely no value for my opinion - why ask for it? just so i make some gaffe and you scoff at me? in other words, your objective is not side with haqq, but only to find faults and humiliate me. what else is it then? why do you want me to answer all your questions? does nizamuddin answer every single question posted to him by ulama and non-ulama alike?

    is there any evidence for this? will you get a fatwa or issue one yourself?

    you are asking this question merely out of hatred and you desire to find faults with my posts. you well know that it was an implied statement. there are actions which are forms of shafa'ah and tawassul which ismayil dihlawi classed as shirk. everyone knows this. you want me to produce a statement that is verbatim.

    if i have to do things like that, you have a very large window of excuse:
    yea, when you write and make mistakes you have all the excuses. but others are angels. they should never make any mistake, and it is impossible that an error might have been committed because of carelessness and haste. when you go silent, you are busy and you have other work to do. but when others 'disappear' it is because they are unable to answer you.

    you even plead ignorance of commonly understood english terms, just to escape. see post #59.
    what is the point of explaining anything to you? when it is conducive to you, you want me to give you arabic words for simple english words. sub'HanAllah.

    as for kufr kalami, i asked you some questions - instead of answering, you distorted that to prove my apparent ignorance:
    you asked me to forget shame somewhere below. so i won't ask you whether you have shame. don't you remember our PM, where we discussed ibarat from shami etc? i am not trying to prove that i know better than you. but a man ought to be just and upright.

    life is too short to spend it trying to win an argument, particularly with an idiot. when such a great faqih like alahazrat can be belittled by people who are not even worthy of reading the names of his books, why should it matter for me who is no more than a beginner-student?

    i refuse to engage with SS for the following reason - nas'alu Allaha al-`afiyah.

    PS: irrespective of his antipathy, he has asked some questions which i think i can reply. in sha'Allah, i may answer - with the permission of Allah and His tawfiq. but not in the near future as i foresee - illa ma sha'Allah, and perhaps not on the forum. wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2016
  16. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan, I would like to remind you, what Noori wrote:

    so bear in mind that " others" are monitoring this discussion.

    In case some people are thinking why those three cities were mentioned by Noori, then the answer is Mufti Akhtar Raza Rizvi lives in Bareilly ( hence bareilly) the fatwa was issued from Nagpur ( hence nagpur) and molvi zia al mustafa lives in ghossi ( hence ghossi). Though I don't understand what was the reason for including ghossi in this list.

    Now leave aside everything related with Obaidullah since we have seen what you can say on that matter.

    Lets just talk about Ismayil dehlavi. You wrote:

    1. Which explanation of alahazrat are you talking about?
    2. In which book Ismayil dehlavi called tawassul and shafa'ah to be kufr?[ Book name with exact quotes and publishing details]
    3. And if so, why did ala hazrat not declare him kafir?
    4. who is " he" in your quote?

    I am not asking question related with " rebounding of kufr" as it might give Noori a chance to say " this is related with Obaidullah". ( Note: I have agreed not to talk to you on Nagpuri fatwa, as Noori wanted. If you wish, we can talk about your other posts related with Obaidullah, in which Nagpuri fatwa and your support for it and deduction from it will not be discussed.)

    Just basic 4 questions related with ismayil dehlavi and your quote.

    Noori, hope now you won't say " stop asking questions to Abu Hasan".
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2016
  17. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I have accepted your conditions of :

    1)not mentioning any scholar involved in Obaidullah's case from bareilly, ghossi or nagpur, in disputed matters.
    2) Not starting any thread which involves scholars from above 3 cities, in a disputed manner/ topic.
    3) Not starting any thread in which there is a difference of opinion between mufti akhtar raza rizvi and ashrafiya scholars.
    4) Not discussing with Abu Hasan, regarding validity of Nagpuri fatwa, as long as you are discussing with me.

    I will not agree to you, if you say, that I should not argue or discuss with Abu Hasan on anything he says on this forum, because Abu Hasan is neither an aalim nor from bareilly, ghosi or nagpur.

    If you can convince me that " kufr returns or not" is related with Obaidullah's case, I will agree to it, provided you provide a rational argument.
    Or if you say that I must follow even this condition, because you are a moderator, then I will have to accept it, but that will be a compulsion. I sincerely hope that you can prove it.

    And the last, hope you won't tell me not to ask what Abu Hasan wrote about Ismayil dehlavi. It has nothing to do with any of these things.
  18. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Sorry, this is your point of view and i don't agree with it, it is not a different issue. you cannot dictate us. if you want to have a positive disscusion then forget all other issues realted to uka or that originates from it, or if it involves those you oppose. period.

    do you want to discuss the nagpuri fatwa with my given conditions?
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2016
  19. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran


    I hope you have not included abu hasan in "ulama", because I do oppose him in some of the issues. But since he is not an aalim, neither does he stay in bareily, ghosi or nagpur, hope you won't delete my posts in which I oppose or argue with abu hasan.

    And please note " kufr returns or not" , has got nothing to do with any aalim involved in Obaidullah's case, so please don't lock it. It is directly related with Abul Hasan's post.
  20. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    I have very clearly stated it, let me say it one more time that as long as we are discussing fatwa-dispute on uka (starting with nagpure fatwa), we will not allow you to create new threads or make posts in existing or new threads (created by others, which we may delete as well) if it involves the ulama you oppose in this particular case of uka regardless that the issue in those other threads concerns uka or not. the reasons are very obvious

    1) you may intentionally or unintentionally try to divert the direction (all those guys who don't agree with you may feel like that)
    2) we may find refuge in those threads by keeping you busy there (if i put myself in your shoes)
    3) i didn't agree to that but you included being sequential in your definition of simple english, so i would like to respect your definition
    4) i am not a genious who can debate on multiple issues simultanously. You may suggest that i should not get into those discussions, but it is a natural tendency that we pay special attention to all the actions/statements of those who we have issues with (of any sort)
    5) we are the admins/mods and we have all the rights of moderation. you may call us rude or arrogant, but we (may be it is only i because we site admins/mods have not discussed about it yet) want to give you limited room to continue positve discussion, and save others from deluge of posts from you.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2016

Share This Page