Apparently that tulaib guy is being exposed as an extremely crafty, degenerate person who manipulates multiple women into zina using his "ilmi status". الله اعلم Don't know how much of that is actually true. I am not sharing the thread because the language used is too explicit & Indecent.
can he provide citations for both ibn hajar and al-baji's statements? someone ask him. haven't logged on to x for a couple of days. will do shortly after my posts on threads here. in sha'Allah.
In defending TM, Tulaib went to the extent of using the Prophet's ﷺ Ummi status (as per Ibn Hajar's position) to draw an inappropriate deduction that is not befitting of the exalted rank of the Prophet ﷺ. And he thinks that mentioning "this is not any accusation of deficiency," would be enough to legitimize his statement. If anything, it actually shows that he realizes that there is actually deficiency involved, so in order to absolve himself, he has to make a disclaimer right after. Additionally, he attempts to attribute his own blasphemous deduction to Ibn Hajar and "the Jumhoor."
the kafir orientalist blocked me. probably because i pointed out that his use of "transparently" was not right. i was polite with him and told him nicely that he has not understood our argument. publishing a few papers, he thinks he is some authority. only small minds get offended when one's mistake is called out. regardless, i had said it at the outset that i dont' have time to argue with him. for him, qur'an is business, a profession; that is writing papers etc which will help him in his career. if he is offered a billion dollars to abandon qur'an studies - and never ever to look in the qur'an, and destroy all his research, he will gladly do so. for whatever reasons, he might have chosen this field - it certainly doesn't seem that it is unconditional love for the qur'an. unlike us. for us, the qur'an is our life and dearer than our life. we cannot abandon the qur'an - al-iyadhu billah. we will live and die with it. if need be, we will die FOR it. in sha'Allah (we ask Allah for istiqamah). i had to state this because i had promised to answer him. but he doesn't want to talk. so no need to waste our time. === let us get back to our discussion with tulaib.
two men were arguing about a promise that had to be fulfilled. X had to give Y a gold coin. but X gave him a silver coin. they argued about the promise. X: "the issue is about a coin" Y: "no. the issue is not about a coin, but a gold coin" X: "but we had agreed that it is a coin" Y: "no it is a gold coin" X: "no it is a silver coin" Y: "no it is a gold coin" --- at this moment a third guy Z entered the conversation. and without hesitation he tells Z that he is wrong. "can't you see it is a silver coin? it is NOT a gold coin!" --- delicious fallacies.
yes. but there is a better way to hammer home the point. in sha'Allah. we will come to that. i wanted to write on this comment of tulaib when i first saw his post - then was busy and got some other weeds on the way, that needed to be pulled out.
So is this a correct summary? The issue of differing tawkeed is, in fact, a matter of Rasm. However, since TM did not initially acknowledge this concept (of Rasm) at all in his statements, it is needless to be mentioned at all, as it is irrelevant to the core issue at hand (i.e., the kufr). Yet, Tulaib, in an effort to defend TM, attempted to shift the focus away from the real issue (of kufr) by introducing the previously unmentioned (by TM) concept of Rasm (even though it is valid), thus muddying the discussion. My misunderstanding (albeit irrelevant) was that TM incorrectly attributed an error to a valid grammatical concept, when in fact, he was mistakenly attributing an error to proper usage of Rasm while unintentionally framing it as a grammatical issue. However TM framed the discussion is less relevant. And Tulaib is trying to make the framing more relevant than the actual substance.
no no. you are taking the bait. he moved the goalpost and you are going into this. he also tried to drag in the rasm being tawqifi argument, which i resisted. (there is a difference of opinion among ulama; an overwhelming majority on one side and one or two ulama on other side). look at the first post *i* made on this issue on 21st september. i first received on whatsapp but i hadn't seen this for a day or two. brothers gave me summary and i had ignored. when it was posted here, when i heard him the first time, i said: this guy has no clue of rasm. and then wrote this post. --- is it a rasm issue? yes. so we argued about it being a rasm issue? no. then it IS a rasm issue? no. so that orientalist was right when he said that you were a fool. yeah, when you start reading a novel from the middle, and assume that the the book starts from there, you can get confused. but hey! you called tulaib a moron etc. for calling it a rasm issue and he says that we agree on this, so where is the problem? the devil, my dears is in the details. ---- https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...q-masood-claiming-mistake-in-the-quran.15876/
It’s quite scary how readily people are willing to risk and or lose their iman by defending or applauding defenders of kufr قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ " إِنَّ بَيْنَ يَدَىِ السَّاعَةِ فِتَنًا كَقِطَعِ اللَّيْلِ الْمُظْلِمِ يُصْبِحُ الرَّجُلُ فِيهَا مُؤْمِنًا وَيُمْسِي كَافِرًا وَيُمْسِي مُؤْمِنًا وَيُصْبِحُ كَافِرًا
My question wasn’t answered. Let me try again: If tawkid khafifa is not a grammar issue but a Rasm issue, why aren’t all places in which Tawkid is required consistent in their usage of Tawkid? Let’s assume we have a Mushaf that uses a specific Rasm ul Khatt. In this Mushaf, should not all places of Tawkid be consistent in the usage of a particular Tawkid style (ie either all Tawkeed Khafifa Or all Tawkeed Noon)?
yes. he has silently shifted the goalpost. he is telling us that it is a rasm issue. there are very tasty fallacies there. and he hasn't even realised what he is doing.
But TM didn’t know that it’s a Rasmi issue (assuming it is as per you). He said it’s a “grammatical mistake.” Now let’s assume for a second that he actually meant “Rasm” by the term “Grammar” as you have assumed arbitrarily. Even then, TM didnt say “difference in Grammar.” Instead he said “Grammar mistake.” The important point is that he attributed a mistake to the Quran, when there IS NOT one, especially in this particular context of لنسفعا and لنسفعن. Not only did he attribute a mistake to the Quran, he also explicitly attributed deficiency to the knowledge and scrupulousness of the Prophet ﷺ. And even if it was implicit/implied, it would still be perceived as insult and therefore Kufr. Whether it was intentional, or “unintentional” due to TM’s own (and apparently yours as well) lack of understanding of what the term Ummi means in the context of the Prophet ﷺ, is not admissible as a defense. And neither is one allowed to interpret an explicit (الصريح) statement. ^ Focus on this latter part. And stop getting distracted by semantics.
