Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Unbeknown, Feb 13, 2016.
may be, but have you gone through the drama that SS was playing in below posts with chronology?
and THAT is EXACTLY what I understood from it.
because I know that was the first time UKA's name was brought up on the forum.
at least the mods/admins of this forum, for others i don't know 'diloN ka hal'. but i do trust your words, and other mods will not have any issue with it, i am sure.
why are you making posts so dramatic against brother SunniStudent?
who all are included in this "we"?
no need for a challenge, we can trust your words.
in this thread i said:
and THAT thread is EXACTLY what i was referring to when i said it.
post #48 (dated nov 2, 2014) of the linked thread is the point in my life when inquisitive introduced this ubaidullah character. i have no idea if i might have read his name in passing in a paper or something, but the honest to God truth is that that is the time i consciously knew this character exists
i challenge anyone to show me where i have mentioned this character before that thread, be it positively or negatively.
in this thread, i said "a few days back" but that's my non-cognizance of how fast time flies! i was referring to that thread.
as for this thread, i will come back to it.
sulh kulliyat = perennialism
i noticed it, but i think AQ can explain better, but apparently his statement in this thread is not correct. he might have forgotten. i can admit that i superficially saw the posts in that thread when it was active but i don't remember reading about UKA. but, AQ was active in that thread and here too. so he should explain.
Hmmmm Janaab AQ was also active in that thread.. But in this thread he said;
Seems like UKA is known or has been heard of in the past, especially by someone who is aware of the current issues at mubarakpur.
oops! seems the ahsrafiya fatwa too has multiple versions!
where exactly is the phrase 'with these words'? point no and line no please.
see? we too know how to use red-lines
#129 was at 12:34 am IST
#156 was at 4:32 am IST
it seems sunnistudent has been up all night. And yet he has come up with nothing substantial.
he has been running after chimeras. the sooner he realises this the better.
yes, and he had said:
at that time I really believed him that he did not know much about ubaid. But now, seeing his defence of ashrafiya fatwa and knowing how well-known ubaid is to all who have any connection to ashrafiya I seriously doubt that he was as clueless as he appeared.
he also wrote this:
seems like ss only knows to deal in threats.
Tajushshariah and Muhaddith e kabeer have done their duty by the sunni awaam and came out clean.
The "Pandora's box" has burst and , ironically, it is sunnistudent himself who got whacked by the flying debris!
ALL PRAISE IS DUE TO ALLAH, RABBIL 'AALMEEN.
Ram has no share in it!
for other brothers watching this thread, i did a search on SS posts and found this, therefore it seems that UKA has been an issue for some time.
oh dear! he will not, he already has decided that this fatwa-editing is forgery, and he won't tell the story he knows until we tell him that how did this forgery happen with precise chronology.
he should not, and i cannot talk to a mad man. pardon me if i have made another discrepency or forgery in this post, because i will not respond to you any further, and i am thankful to you that you already have declared that you won't continue any further.
Sunnistudent: let us put aside the authenticity of the fatawa for now and just concentrate on UKA's words.
No more discussion please on forgeries and authenticity and erased and signatures.
Please only discuss UKA's words and actions and let us assume the contentious fatawa don't exist. Their authenticity can be discussed elsewhere at a later stage.
In the perfect world, both sides should be made to watch/hear recordings of Obaidullah's utterances and then neutrally pass the judgement (and I can't see how any side would dare to differ then). It is unfortunate that Ashrafiya fatwa relies on incomplete and misrepresented facts. Any difference between two camps need to be buried and energies should be focused elsewhere.
I am not making any more posts in this thread in near future.
Sincere readers can go through this thread and concentrate on posts made by inquisitive, Noori and Unbeknown. Just look at the difference in their stories. From "both the fatwas of Azhari miyan being correct" to "The correct one is the one with Taajush Shariahs signature' to " there might have been mistake and it might have been corrected".
I do hope that the "other fatwa" of Azhari Miyan ( Since both the fatawa of Azhari miyan are correct) will be found out.
I suggest that SS present the real story (if that's so sensational) behind the fatwa. That will save everybody lot of time and energy. SS, no sarcasm intended here. Tell us the story if that's going to help us understand the issues better.
So far I believe that the so-called "story" is a red herring. Real issue is that Obaidullah can't/shouldn't be absolved. How will the "story" change Obaidullah's crime? Is it an alibi?
Nonetheless, SS should present the story, if that helps provide the necessary context.
I find you really amusing. You really miss the sarcasm in posts.
The inverted commas, I presumed, would give it away but you really are too intelligent for me.
You win. Now can you tell us the " real story" since you are the only person in the whole world who probably knows it.