Kufr Returns or Not?

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan, I have agreed to discuss with Noori, the validity of Nagpuri fatwa .
    At any time, you are free to join and provide shari'i evidence on the basis of which you declared Obaidullah Khan azmi, a kafir, in March 2015.

    Please note, this thread is not related with Nagpuri fatwa. Let this be very clear.

    It is altogether a different topic.

    The issue in this thread is , why will kufr not return on those who called Obaidullah a Kafir by name in the month of March 2015?

    For a while, even if I agree to your ( wrong) view that Nagpuri fatwa was correct, still the point is , Nagpuri fatwa was not on an individual by name ( shakhshi) , how can that be used to call Obaidullah a Kafir?

    I have mentioned this before hand, lest you or Noori say that " If the Nagpuri fatwa was correct, then why will kufr return"?

    So please note, even if I accept your ( wrong) view that Nagpuri fatwa was correct, still you need to prove why will kufr not rebound on those, who used that fatwa to call a muslim, a kafir by name.

    You also said

    Please tell me, how " rebounding of kufr" is related with Ismayil dehlavi and also provide reference where did Ismayil dehlavi said " tawassul and shafah" to be "kufr" and if so, why did ala hazrat not declare Ismayil a kafir?

    Note: Noori, please note, this has nothing to do with correctness of Nagpuri fatwa. So don't tell me to 'forget' abu hasan. As agreed, on Nagpuri Fatwa issue, I won't discuss with abu Hasan, unless it is agreed by.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2016
  2. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Fine. Do provide me list of scholars whom you do not want to be " involved ".

    Also, first fatwa does not have name of Mufti Akhtar Raza Rizvi, so if I discuss fatwas issued from him, will that be accepted?

    Do let me know if by first "first fatwa" you mean the fabricated one, ( which has Mufti Akhtar Raza's signature), which was actually ' second fatwa" , if that is the case, please make it clear. Or best, list the names of scholars whom you do not want to be " involved".

    Also, there is already a thread ," who is fit to lead prayer", that involves ulama from nagpur, braily and ghossi, will that be locked too ?

    These are sincere questions and I will in sha Allah, try to cooperate with you and accept all your rules and conditions as long as Obaidullah issued is not resolved.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2016
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Yes, agreed.

    No sir. you may see it only as a fiqhi issue, but we as site admins see it as messing arround and creating distraction from other issues. we will delete your posts if they invlove ulama of the first fatwa whether they are from nagpur or braily or ghossi ect.

    You are welcome to post in the above thread you want me to continue, and create new threads which do not invlove baraily vs ashrafyah, or braily vs [any other camp] issues. trust me we will do it only to satisfy your definition of simple english - i.e. being sequential. also, honestly speaking, why do you want to busy yourself in multiple debates specially related to those you oppose. isn't it wise to deal each debate sequentially?

    So, please cooperate and be generous upon us in order to allow us some space for we all (including you) have other responsibilities.

    all other members will also be allowed to post in that thread, however niether you nor i will be obliged to respond to them, no matter how reasonable they may sound.

    I also assure you that i will delete all snide remarks targeted at you, if i don't leave a pm in my inbox.
     
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Ji. Agreed. Please reply in the thread entitled " sunnistudent's analysis....." since that is dealing with Nagpuri fatwa.

    This thread is about a different topic.
     
  5. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I won't create any new thread pertaining to the topic of Obaidullah. It was Abu Hasan who created a new thread " sunnistudent's analysis.....".

    I started this thread last night ( kufr returns or not) because Abul Hasan wrote about kufr " not rebounding" and he said something about ismayil dehlavi in that original thread dealing with Obaidullah Khan azami. I posted an audio verdict by Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan rizvi , which is relevant to this topic.

    I hope, from now on wards Abu Hasan alone with reply in this thread. Those who have valuable suggestions and refutations can send private message to Abu Hasan.

    I won't reply anyone else in this present thread ( Kufr Returns or Not ?)

    I hope this won't prevent me from starting other threads, which has nothing to do with this topic. Threads about blood donation, giving khilafat to those who come on TV etc... these are purely fiqhi topic.
     
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Thank you, i appreciate. Now it is between you and me, forget abu hasan for a while.
     
  7. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    On the matter of Obaidullah khan, earlier I replied to Abu Hasan only.And I mentioned it very clearly that I will address only Abu Hasan on this issue. Recently, you joined in and I said, that I will reply to Noori or Abu Hasan only , on this matter. My post is available on forum to testify this.

    On other matters, I never said that I won't indulge with others or won't talk to others. So what you are suggesting me in (1) above, has already been said by me, pertaining to this topic.

    Abu Hasan started a thread " sunnistudent's analysis..." , I thought Abu Hasan will participate in discussion. But you can see, others joined in there, just to abuse me.

    Similarly, I have now started "Kufr returns" thread and I said it right at the beginning, , this thread is directly addressed at Abu Hasan. I don't understand why others, who have no idea about validity of a newspaper report, join in there. Khair.

    I replied to Arshad al qadri, because he repeated his claim , with no proof. I didn't reply to him when he made his claim for the first time, a few months back. This time I asked proof only to show how people make claim and run away when asked for proof.

    If you want that I indulge with pazdawi , then I have no issues. Let him participate in the thread" who is fit to lead prayers" or if you want I can refute his claim, where in he repeated , what Abu Hasan said, viz:

    This was originally said by Abu Hasan, pazdawi just repeated it. If I wanted I would have shown that this very claim is a lie and can prove this from Abu Hasan's post it self!!

    But I just avoided it, since at present I am more interested in Obaidullah's topic and Nagpuri Fatwa and most importantly using Nagpuri fatwa to make takfir e shakhshi. If I am proven wrong, I will do public ruju here on forum and I expect the same from others. Guiding principle will be maslak e ala hazrat.

    I am not in a hurry. As it is ,I don't get time except on Thursday and Friday and some times I don't have access to internet on these two days. So I am not in a hurry. You bring your evidence and May Allah ta'ala help all of us to accept the truth. Ameen.
    I will reply when I get time and I don't expect you either to reply regularly. I understand we both have other things to do in life.

    was salam
     
  8. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS despite that you are replying to every single line of every member you pretend that you don't want to indulge with anyone else, therefore i would request you that (1) you don't reply to anyone else and (2) you don't create new threads, as you said you want to deal with it sequentially, right?

    abu hasan may or may not reply to you, but i will come back to you to inshaAllah, therefore i would request you that you don't flood the forum.

    i will discuss the nagpuri fatwa first inshaAllah, just cool down, and wait.
     
    Ghulam Ali and Bazdawi like this.
  9. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Shukriya for your valuable post. Let this come from Abu Hasan and the whole issue is resolved!

    Some one posted his support for Baharaichi fatwa. Abul Hasan said he has not yet read this fatwa completely. But he did quote this fatwa/or mentioned it once . ( All this is available on other thread,I am writing as per my memory. Minute details can differ).

    When I refuted this Baharaichi fatwa , Abu Hasan replied" I never agreed to this fatwa".

    So If I reply you, it will not be a reply to Abu Hasan.

    Let Abu Hasan write the same things and I shall reply.

    Some how your this post is so valuable that it has given me enough information about your fiqh knowledge. Let Abu Hasan use it.
     
  10. Bazdawi

    Bazdawi Active Member

    1) Common Muslims in India
    2) due to fear of persecution and life
    3) are forced
    4) to give up their lands for hindu temples

    Somehow, this is the same as:

    1) a "muslim" politician with influence
    2) with no fear of persecution from kafirs
    3) willingly
    4) praises Raam in a hindu gathering

    Open your eyes SS! aH does not need me to speak up for him but even someone blessed with a few specks of intellect could see why the people in the first would not be ruled kafir.

    If factors 2 and 3 did not exist for the latter Muslims, and they, out of their own free will and happiness, gave their lands to hindus to help them build temples then it would be a different ball game.

    Yet, SS will keep raving on about how he has proved that black is white and white is black and how stupid everyone else is for not being able to see this.
     
    Noori and Ghulam Ali like this.
  11. Ghulam Ali

    Ghulam Ali Active Member

    Assalaamu Alaykum wa RahmatUllahi wa Barakatuhu to all my beloved Sunni Brothers and Sisters.

    This Brings back some painful memories!
     
  12. IslamIsTheTruth

    IslamIsTheTruth Well-Known Member

    Can someone please ban this guy sunnistudent.
    I've never seen someone so over zealous as this.
    Talk about a broken record!
    Get a hobby.
     
    Ghulam Ali and Bazdawi like this.
  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I have a strong doubt that Abu Hasan will delete this post when he wakes up from his sleep. But I will still post it, to prove how people bring their nafsanic desire into shariah.

    ---

    In Bihar some Muslims donated land for a Hindu temple. They did not give money, but land. The temple so constructed on that land will become a headquarters of shirk and kufr. This was discussed here


    http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/bihar-muslims-donate-to-hindu-temple.12617/


    Mufti Abu Hasan writes:


    This is yet another classic from our forum based Mufti!

    In some remote cases Muslims are compelled to give chanda ( money) for Hindu festivals like Dushera, Ganesha etc to local Hindu goons. But this is not a common occurrence in India. However, Muslims being asked to " donate" land, even forcefully is not heard off, even once. And suppose , we get some case of this 'land donation" as well, then how will that case be utilized for legitimizing the case of Bihar? Suppose such a case is found in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, then based on which principle will that be used for the northern state of Bihar? Observe how Abu Hasan says" hence the action".

    In this case, based on his experience , Abu Hasan is giving tawil to the actions of those who donated land. He is taking historical context into consideration and also the" situational and circumstantial" reason for this act.


    ---

    Forget about calling this action as 'kufr' or 'haram' our Mufti Abu Hasan sahab is justifying it!!

    You see, a head quarters of shirk is being constructed , but Abu Hasan does not feel disgusted at all! Now, if I would have refuted him here, he would have certainly felt disgusted!

    So the problem is 'nafs'.

    Others take what ever Abu Hasan says, so he treats them with respect. Since I ask questions, Abu Hasan calls me mad / immature ...or any word which he likes.

    Arey bhai sahab, aap gaali dete rahiye, main aap ko tokta rahunga , nahi to aap jald hi mujaddid honay ka elan kar dengein.
     
  14. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan wrote

    Hazrath Abu Hasan sahab, can you please tell me ( without abusing me) that ismayil dihlawi , who termed such things such as tawassul and shafa;ah , which are proven by qur'an and sunnah , to be kufr, still Ala Hazrat, did not declare Ismayil to be kafir... Why?

    .
    Also, please let me know who risks "rebounding" of kufr" and who is " he" in your statement.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  15. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    This post will be a clear example to show who plays tricks and who has comprehension problem.

    ----
    Abu Hasan said


    To this I asked (post 1 of this thread)

    To this Abu Hasan replies

    This is what Abu Hasan does, always.

    I asked him to prove why in Obaidullah's case kufr will not return on those people who called him Kafir as of March 2015 and Abu hasan replies " in some cases kufr returns and some cases kufr does not return".

    Now this is Abu Hasan. But, I and not he,have comprehension problem.

    If one observe Abu Hasan's posts one can see, where ever he doesn't know something, he will raise a question posing as if he wants to know "your view".

    He kept asking me for "kufr kalami " and " kufr fiqhi" . Literally cried, for reference from "new edition". When he found out,now he acts as if he was only trying to know my "view".

    Abu Hasan is good at translation. But raise a fiqh issue, he goes quiet. See here


    http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/not-fit-for-leading-prayers.12730/




    .
     
  16. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    .
    was salam.
     
  17. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    .



    yahee to chah raha tha..


    suniye!

    Ruling from Mufti Akhtar Raza Rizvi

    http://picosong.com/EAdJ




    Anees Ahmad Bangalipanja Shakeen Bangalipanja Ke Yahan Hona Karar Paayi .Hum Log Wahan Mawjud Rahe ,Intezaar Karte Rahe ,Molvi Ghulam Muhammad Khan Majlis Me Nahi Aaye Aur Is Silsile Me Waqtan Fawaqtan Tehriri Tour Per Guftugu Hoti Rahi Lekin Wo Isee Per Ade Rahe Shamim Noori Beshaq Kafir Hai. Aur Iska Koi Saboot Muhayya Nahi Ker Sakey. Lehaza Hukm E Kufr Unper Lauta. Aur Aakhri Waqt Tak Yeh Koshish Ki Jaati Rahi Ke Mufti Sahab Rujoo Karle Lekin Unhone Rujoo Na Kiya Unke Wafat Ke Baad Barso Ke Baad Yeh Mashoor Kiya Gaya Ke Unhone Tauba Rujoo Ker Liya Hai, Mager Unki Woh Tauba Saabit Nahi Hai .Khud Husaini Miyan Ke Khilaf Jinse Yeh Bayan Mansoob Hai Unhonne Ghulam Muhammad Khan Sahab Ki Namaz E Janaza Nahi Padhi Aur Bil Aakheer Jab Unse Is Silsile Me Sawal Kiya Gaya Toh Unhone Ek Tehreer Mere Pass Bheji Isska Khulasa Yeh Hai Ke Shamim Noori Ki Taqfeer Ke Taaluk Se Gulam Muhammad Khan Ne Koi Rujoo Nahi Kiya. In Baaton Ki Roshni Me Yeh Baat Saaf Ho Jaati Hai Ke Unka Urs Manana Logo Ko Gumrah Karna Hai Aur Jaante Hue Us Urs Me Logon Ki Shirkat Haram Baddkaam Baddanjaam Hai !

    ---


    So Mufti Ghulam Muhammad Khan rizvi,( khalifa of mufti e azam hind rh) who died some 13 years back, kufr returned on him, as per Mufti Akhtar Raza...because Mufti ghulam muhammad khan issued a fatwa of kufr upon a person, but was unable to give shari'i evidence. Hence kufr lauta !!!

    Abu Hasan, you and people like you ( who ever they may me) will not be allowed to make mockery of din. You cannot call any one kafir unless you have a shari'i daleel.

    Now listen and propagate!

    Some people like Abu Hasan , who have no knowledge of basic fiqh, act as mufti on forum. Unless, you bring shari'i evidence, I am not leaving you. You need to do tawba , or kufr returns, as per mufti akhtar raza. Enjoy.
     
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  19. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    .

    You have posted scans without comment, translation, deduction even before this issue of "kufr returns" was started.

    Just check and apologize again, this time for writing wrong thing on this forum.
     
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i deleted the post because you diverted it with another fatwa.

    now, will you get us a fatwa on this claim?
     

Share This Page