SunniStudent's "Analysis" of Abu Hasan's Posts (Obaidullah Issue)

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by inquisitive, Jul 22, 2015.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    to aH.

    I was fervent for a detailed reply of yours but it would be an insult to intelligence and a waste of the great ni'mah of Allah (time!) to do such.

    Rather, I suggest you start another thread to analytically and systematically refute the "efforts" of Mufti Nizam and Mufti Mutee absolving obaid of kufr.

    قالوا سكتُّ وقد خوصمتُ قلتُ لهم إنَّ الجوابَ لبابِ الشرِّ مفتاحُ
    والصمَّتُ عن جاهلٍ أو أحمقٍ شرفُ وفيه أيضاً لصونِ العرضِ إصلاحُ
    أما تَرَى الأُسْدَ تُخْشى وهْي صَامِتة ٌ؟ والكلبُ يخسى لعمري وهو نباحُ
  2. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan wants to show disrespect to sunni scholars but wants people to give him respect! Respect is earned not demanded!

    Abu hasan has made many remarks in his post ( 69 , this thread) but I won't reply to all of them. Because this is what Abu Hasan wants, to divert the topic from his support of Nagpuri Fatwa to other issues!

    Now read the entire post ( no 69) by Abu Hasan and observe one thing very carefully. Abu Hasan has not quoted even once the condition Ala Hazrat has laid down for calling some one as " Kafir". Ponder over this issue!

    The Question comes to mind , why has Abu Hasan done this? The answer is simple! On 25th March 2015, Abu Hasan declared his fatwa/opinion that Obaidullah Khan is a 'kafir', though the Nagpuri fatwa does not mention any name in it.

    I repeat this: Abu Hasan cannot prove the correctness of Nagpuri fatwa in the light of methodology of Ala Hazrat,so he will raise other issues again and again. ( This is his third attempt!)

    When we present the case of deobandis to sunni arab scholars, which book do we give? Tamhid e Iman or Hussamul Harmain? Abul Hasan knows that for a specific individual ( to be declared kafir) a fatwa by name is required. But observe how Abu Hasan changes this topic when he says
    One needs to observe Abu Hasan's post very carefully to understand how he builds up his case. At first he calls Obaidullah 'Kafir' and then he mentions "others" or" some" call him kafir. The fact is that no one called Obaidullah Kafir when Abu hasan wrote these posts! But he is creating a "mob mentality" by openly inviting lay man to call Obaidullah as " Kafir'.

    As I have mentioned before, Abul Hasan will divert this this thread towards "kufr kalami and kufr fiqhi" because he cannot prove the authenticity of the Nagpuri Fatwa as per methodology of Ala Hazrat! Abu Hasan made his reply on 25 March 2015, at that time I didn't join this thread/discussion.

    Abu Hasan writes:

    O Abu Hasan have some ghayrah! If answering /explaining a question /term/issue decides sincerity ,then how can you even talk about sincerity ? If you are sincere then the first thing, which is also a shari'i requirement is to prove the authenticity of the fatwa which you supported!! How can you even talk about "sincerity" in this issue? Check it out!

    1) You supported a fatwa on 25th March 2015. ( If you were sincere you would have proved your standing in the light of methodology of Ala Hazrat, you didn't !)

    2) You used that general fatwa upon a specific individual, that is Obaidullah. ( If you were sincere you would have proved that how this general fatwa is applicable on a specific individual, you didn't )

    3) I asked you a question first. ( If you were sincere you would have replied to it) But you didn't and came with your set of questions!

    and then....

    4) You ask me a question, and I said, it will be answered only if you prove your claim. Just because your question was not answered you talk about " sincerity" !! Come on Abu Hasan!

    An interesting thing to observe!

    What is the name of this thread? Who named it?
    Answer:SunniStudent's "Analysis" of Abu Hasan's Posts (Obaidullah Issue). It was named by Abu Hasan!

    So it is clear, Abu Hasan has made posts regarding Obaidullah in past and I was analysing his posts! So all which was required was that Abu Hasan should first clear his standing/ decision/opinion mentioned in the previous posts! But what does Abu Hasan want? He wants to now 'analyse" my post which are analysing his posts!! O Abu Hasan, do you realize how you are behaving?

    To support what I said earlier ( that Abu Hasan will either try to change the topic or raise questions) here is another example:

    Abu Hasan said

    This is Abu Hasan's attempt to divert the topic! And if I reply, he will succeed. So Abu Hasan, we are back to what I said:( 12, this thread)

    Compare this with what Abu Hasan understood :

    And Abu Hasan thinks his understanding is high!

    O Abu Hasan, if you ever want to analyse your understanding of fiqh and methodology of Ala Hazrat read what you posted:

    ( 15)


    O Abu Hasan ( see, I address you) you have come up with what was told about you! Now being a forum admin, you can start a new thread and lock it as you do (locked!) and start talking about "kufr kalami and kufr fiqhi", because you have been unable to prove how Obaidullah is kafir in the light of Nagpuri fatwa, as per the methodology of Ala Hazrat!

    Observation: See how Abu Hasan uses" we" and 'us" in his post 69. Just read carefully.

    The best thing from Abu Hasan is this:

    You proved me correct Abu Hasan!

    ( 19)

    See Abu Hasan, how I have understood your methodology !

    Declaration: Who ever has called Obaidullah a Kafir ( including Abu Hasan) it is a shari'i requirement to either prove that he is a kafir ( as per maslake ala hazrat) and if one cannot prove then , they all must do ruju.

    This will remain my final stand on this topic,which has always been my stand, right from the beginning

    Last edited: Jul 22, 2015
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    uh, okay. alright. point taken.

    initially, i did not want to reply to SS posts. because, i think he has a serious problem in understanding english and even harmless statements are routinely misinterpreted by him. secondly, both his reasoning and learning need to improve considerably before one can hold a dialogue with him. he needs to master the skill of identifying strawman-arguments. as if confusing and mixing up issues wasn't enough, he freely indulges in personal attacks, though he claims that he is not interested in 'zaatiyat'. it is best to avoid arguments with such people and let them think that they've won the trophy.

    unfortunately, his wild throws have poisoned the pond. agreed, ours is a small community and hardly anybody looks at it as a serious resource - some people just use it for bookmarks and to kill spare time - but still, in my naive mind, i think there are a handful of people who could be misled by claims of SS as THE authentic position. so, i will attempt to sort and clarify issues; wAllahu'l musta'an.

    i asked the questions in post #14 in this thread for the same purpose.


    1. we all know that SS wants me to prove nagpur fatwa correct.

    2. we also know that SS has said that the nagpur fatwa is not correct.

    3. SS considers it as incorrect because the nagpur fatwa says: "dayira e islam se bahir hai".

    4. according to SS, this ruling: "dayira e islam se bahir hai" is issued only in cases for what he calls "kufr kalami".

    5. according to SS, such a ruling is not issued in cases of "kufr fiqhi"

    6. we also know that SS thinks that i don't understand either of these terms; and until recently, i didn't even know about this.

    now, we can all nod our heads and argue about x number of issues; but unless we get the definitions right, there is no way we can arrive at a conclusion. anything i say, he will dismiss: "you don't know kufr kalami/kufr fiqhi; go and attend fiqh classes, even beginners know this."

    thus, in the interest of a sincere and fruitful discussion, i said, please give us the definitions and implications of these terms and give us references for the same. once we agree on these terms, we can proceed to investigate other things.

    but SS is incensed, he fumes and frets and refuses to enlighten us. is this the way sincere people behave?

    my questions are not to stump you. please read the post again, and i have clearly explained the objective of those questions and getting the definitions right; i had said:

    because, you do not accept that i understand the terms "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami" - and the logical next step is for you to furnish the definitions and their implications. these are not irrelevant questions. i believe that answers to these questions will lead you into the light. wAllahu a'alam.

    it is strange, that he ridicules me for not having understood "kufr fiqhi" (KF) and "kufr kalami" (KK) and when asked for a definition he says:
    to my question #7, "if one commits "kufr e kalami" what should he/she do other than tawbah, tajdid-e-iman and tajdid-e-nikah? what ELSE?"
    he pointedly refuses to explain.

    ignore the slur; he concedes that alahazrat used the term kufr fiqhi. surely, SS should say something about "kufr kalami" as well?

    nevertheless, he had earlier given us a reference and insisted that we should find it out for ourselves, even after i frankly admitted that i didn't have the edition with me at hand. when asked for the categorisation of "kufr e fiqhi" and "kufr e kalami" he said:
    since SS refused to relent, i called home and had the pages photographed from my copy of FR. notice that i could not find it on p.150 (perhaps it is thus on HIS copy, wAllahu a'alam). yet, i couldn't find any mention of kufr e kalami, nor the 'categorisation' on that page. (dear SS, if you don't understand english, please ask for help, instead of imagining demons and slaying dragons).

    if this was done by me, SS would have an elaborate theory of the deceit and subterfuge and the evil in such a plot. but i just went back to p149. you will notice the "kufr fiqhi" mentioned there. however, i am interested in the definition and implication of not just this, but "kufr kalami" as well.

    which implies that he knows them, but refuses to explain and clarify.

    now, SS says:

    in other words, he has no value for whatever i say; yet, he wants me to give him answers. khayr, wa billahi't tawfiq.

    somewhere SS said:
    but going by the questions you posed as samples, it is clear that you are utterly ignorant of basics of forming argument and analogies.

    he says:
    amazing comprehension! as for mutiyu'r raHman, who quoted it:

    حفظت شيئا وغابت عنك أشياء

    now, go back and read it - and why should it not apply to obaid's istfta and nizamuddin sahib's fatwa? and mutiyu'r rahman's fatwa adds one plus one and comes out with a grand total of one hundred and eleven!

    من جهل بأهل زمانه فهو جاهل

    anyway, now SS should explain the terms "kufr fiqhi", "kufr kalami" etc. and the rest of my questions. if he cannot do that by next week, it will be clear that he is himself ignorant of what he claims to know and is simply dropping names to disguise his ignorance.

    i will discuss these issues in a separate thread, in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqihi.

    shami, v8,p30.jpg shami, v8,p31a.jpg

    FRold-v6-p150.jpg FRold-v6-p149.jpg
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2015
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

  5. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan writes ( post 14)

    Eid holidays are over!

    In sha Allah will visit Abu Hasan's forum once in a while, ,if I get time, to see if our learned brother has given any evidence to support his standing on Nagpuri fatwa,which he has used it on Obaidullah Khan.
  6. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan writes ( post 27)āq-e-ummat.9403/#post-44296

    So if Abu Hasan is calling Obaidullah Khan as "Kafir', then as per Abu Hasan Obaidullah has denied a daruri aspect,and if not, then Abu Hasan is not following the methodology of Ala Hazrat. I hope Abu Hasan will prove his stand regarding Nagpuri fatwa .

    Imagine, if it would not have been writings of Ala Hazrat, people would have tried to make fun of shariah by giving fatwa as per their desire. May Allah save us from this sin. Amin.

    Mujaddid e deen o millat per lakhon salaam!
  7. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan, if you find some "weight" in any of your "supporters" post, please do not hesitate to post it from your account. In sha Allah,it will be replied accordingly.

    Also, you may contact murideen of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan , whose signature is seen on the Nagpuri fatwa. I have openly said this fatwa is against the methodology of Ala Hazrat. The murideen of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan can send their daleel/evidence/ reply to Abu Hasan (Forum Admin). Only posts from Abu Hasan will be replied in this thread.
  8. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    btw which idiot will want to send 'some positive signal' to his killer? o_O
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    sunnistudent wrote:

    قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
  10. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan wrote:

    قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
  11. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    More from Abu Hasan ( Must be read carefully)

    Abu Hasan writes ( post 3)

    O Abu Hasan, will you be kind enough to tell me who gave people ( including you) the right to call Obaidullah Khan as " Kafir"? And why are "things in context" so important in this case and not in others?

    How can ' we' be " in a spot"? Did you forget what you wrote in another post?

    Abu Hasan wrote ( post 21)

    Abu Hasan's knowledge of Ismayil Dehalvi's case is great!! In sha Allah, will take this issue ,later.

    So Abu Hasan and others can continue to call Obaidullah as " Kafir" , even though we do not have a fatwa which is specific on the name of Obaidullah!

    And we will not be "in a spot" in this case! Why? Because Abu Hasan says:

    O Abu Hasan, will you be kind enough to tell me who ruled Obaidullah 'Kafir"? Please do it. And also tell me what is the "good-faith and support of Islam" which you find in that fatwa?

    O Abu Hasan , if the background of any event is so important , then tell me why was Hyderabadi Mufti laughed upon, when he said the questioner should not send half speech and that too without context? Tell me why is " background" of an event is important when you think so and when others think the same about another event , why is that not important?

    And now observe this marvelous reply from Abu Hasan! ( post 96)

    You may not be a Mufti, but you certainly behave like a Mufti! But fail to prove what you claim/ support!! And I do not want to talk about the blunder which you have written in these lines!

    This is a classic example where some people use Ala Hazrat's name when they need it, but when they find Ala Hazrat's methodology is against their desire/ shallow knowledge, they quietly forget Ala Hazrat!

    Regarding tamhid iman and naming, Abu Hasan will never tell me why was takfir not done till it was the issue of imkan and takfir was done only when the writing related with wuqu became clear? Why were people named specifically in Hussam al harmain?

    Abu Hasan writes:

    The things which are "peripheral and non-issues" according to Abu hasan is the fabrication of the fatwa ! ( See post No 1 of this thread)

    Since Abu Hasan does not understand the difference between 'kufr sareeh' and ' sareeh kalma e kufr' , he thinks this is just a peripheral issue!
    Since Abu Hasan does not know that a specific fatwa is required on name in this case, he thinks a fatwa from bareilly namig Obaid is not required! Why do we need it, when we have an internet based Mufti who is declaring people Kafir by name!

    This also shows that Abu Hasan has not studied Raddul Muhtar ( Vol 8 page 30) in which an important discussion regarding issuing fatwa is discussed. This has been cited by Mufti Muteeurrehman Rizvi sahab as well in his fatwa!

    In sha Allah many more things will be discussed in the light of Abu Hasan's post!

    Abu Hasan need not answer any of my questions raised in this post. Just prove how is Nagpuri fatwa which you supported is correct.

    People made fun of Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi's fatwa, which is 100% correct.

    Those who supported Nagpuri fatwa, are silent now! All they need to do is prove how is Nagpuri fatwa correct and how is Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi's fatwa wrong.

    But no! We will talk on everything, but not the Nagpuri fatwa which we supported!

    In sha Allah will start another thread on this forum, related with fiqh to expose the double standard of a few people on internet.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2015
  12. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan writes ( post 3)

    Bold text in Abu Hasan's post must be read carefully .( emphasis added) . We do not need background of event in any other case except Tahir's case, isn't it? Regarding " possibility of interpreting things", we do not know tawil baweed and tawil qareeb, but love to declare that a particular statement has no possible tawil! But when asked to prove, we will talk about everything, except the topic.!

    If Abu Hasan would have read Ala Hazrat's discussion on Ismayil dehalvi, he would not be behaving like a way he is behaving. Or perhaps he has read ,but might have forgotten. In sha Allah, will add to this thread.
  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan wrote ( post 13)
    But I will not hesitate to propagate some one as Kafir, without any evidence!

    Abu Hasan wrote ( post 43)

    And whose job is to find out in Obaidullah's case? It is not a "job", it is a religious requirement, which has been overlooked. Don't know why? Was it due to lack of fiqh expertise? Or was it due to group fighting going on between sunni scholars in India? Or was it some other reason? Only Allah knows. But the religious requirement of research before issuing a fatwa of takfir has not been followed.

    Abu Hasan writes (post 7)

    My English is not good, so I don't know what is the arabic/urdu word for "whether expressly or implied". But If Abu Hasan would have used the original words ( Arabic or Urdu), then I would have surely discussed it in this thread. We have discussed the standing of Ala Hazrat with regard to Lazoom in one of my previous post in this thread. Tawil ba'eed is accepted and followed by the Mutakallimin. Ala hazrat followed the methodology of mutakallimin.


    Now we see, Abu Hasan has 2 policies! One for others and one for himself.

    O Abu Hasan, if you agree to follow the methodology of Ala Hazrat in all cases, then prove how is Nagpuri fatwa , which you agreed to on 25 March 2015, is correct? Prove that Obaidullah is " daire Islam se baahar hai", in the light of Maslak e Ala Hazrat.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  14. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan said

    Brother Abu Hasan ,quit playing games.

    I have told you, I am addressing my posts/replies to you and do not read any one's reply in this thread.
    Stop diverting the topic to rafidi persian text. Your job is simple.On 25th March 2015, you agreed to Nagpuri Fatwa. Just bring evidence to support your claim. After that if you wish, we can look into any persian or zulu text.
  15. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I said

    Abul Hasan replied

    This is Abu Hasan's understanding!

    If an intelligent child is taught what is " mid-night" ( and he later translates a page containing this term) and one expects that now the child will understand what is " mid-day", then no one says" mid-night is EQUAL and INTERCHANGEABLE" to" mid-day". Since Abu Hasan doesn't want to talk about Nagpuri Fatwa , he will play every trick to divert the topic. I will not be surprised if he bans me for exposing his habit.

    Abu Hasan translated the term " hukm e fiqhi". It is clear that Abu Hasan must have understood the meaning of this term before translating. And if he has really understood the meaning, then it should not be difficult to understand the meaning of " kufr fiqhi"!

    Now for a while, let me act like Abu hasan!

    1) The Urdu Tamhid e Iman contains the term" hukm fiqhi", Abul Hasan, tell me what is the english translaion of it and why?
    2) Which all book has this term" hukm fiqhi" ?
    3)what is your understanding of this term?
    4) What all are the other categories/types of "hukm"?
    5) Which all scholars have agreed to this term?
    5) Is it clear cut or implied?

    etc etc

    Just Observe Abu Hasan! He is now interested in "kufr fiqhi" and is asking me if I agree with some persian text or not?
    Makes me laugh! O Abu Hasan, the administrator of this forum! You agreed with Nagpuri Fatwa on 25 March 2015, bring evidence to support it or agree that you were wrong. Once you do that, I will answer all your questions.

    As I have told before, Abu Hasan,will ask all relevant and irrelevant question but will not even agree to talk on Nagpuri Fatwa!! Keep observing!

    Abu Hasan, I will not answer your question till you bring your evidence to prove that Nagpuri Fatwa is correct. Don't spend your time, reading my posts. Just use all your resources to prove that Nagpuri fatwa is correct.

    Second request/ reminder: Unless you prove how your stand on Nagpuri Fatwa is correct, with evidence in the light of Maslak e Ala Hazrat, I won't answer any of your question.

    Go back to main thread and read your post dated 25 March 2015. If I had asked you a question on that day ,to bring your evidence to prove the authenticity of the fatwa, I suppose you would have replied me with the following questions:
    1) Why do you think Nagpuri fatwa is wrong?
    2) What is your ruling on Obaidullah?
    3) What do you say about those scholars who testified the Nagpuri fatwa?
    4) Is salah behind those scholars right,as per you?
    5) What do you say about children born to those scholars who signed that fatwa?

    etc etc ( I too can coin questions like you)

    In short, it is a habit of Abu Hasan that if he is asked to bring evidence for his stand/claim, he comes back with set of questions!


    O Abu Hasan, just a simple thing. Prove that your standing on Nagpuri Fatwa is correct. Leave Kufr fiqhi and hukm fiqhi.These terms were not known to you until a few days back. So just leave them and act as if it is 25 March 2015. Now prove your stand.

    Second thing
    I am not interested in analyzing your knowledge of fiqh. But this thread will certainly open the eyes of those who take fatwa from you. Example: Your standing on Nagpuri fatwa and your going one step ahead and using that fatwa on Obaidullah.

    O Abu Hasan, come out of this ' between you and me". Just prove your claim on Nagpuri fatwa. That is all.

    Now re-read post 55 in this thread.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    so according to you SS, "hukm e fiqhi" is EQUAL and INTERCHANGEABLE to "kufr e fiqhi".

    after all the drama and theatrics, SS still cannot give a simple answer to these plain and straightforward questions. there is no need to get all upset and embark on a fact-finding mission to examine and evaluate my understanding or knowledge of fiqh. thanks for the report card, but can you please answer the following questions?

    are the terms "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami" used by ulama in books of fatawa or fiqh? if so, where? and if so, what is the definition and what is the implication of both?

    did i make a sweeping statement that such a categorisation is not found in any book, anywhere on the planet?*

    khayr. pardon me once again for interrupting you.
    go ahead and vent your spleen.

    *AQ was kind enough to post a rafidi source in persian, though it appears he couldn't make head or tail of it. and even if he did, he still requested a qualified opinion by those who know persian - wadood in this case. it is not known whether SS agrees with the description on that page.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  17. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Abu Hasan quotes Ala Hazrat in ' The Preamble to Faith': ( Internet,p.64)

    Neither Abu Hasan nor any of the Nagpuri Mufti Sahibaan can prove that Obaidullah rejected any necessary aspect of religion. That why in future we will see some Mufti sahibaan denying that they ever signed this fatwa ! Since the fatwa is against " maslak e ala hazrat" they will chose to remain silent. Ego prevents some of us from declaring that we were wrong, but we do not fail to pose ourselves as ' sufis'!

    On internet, we will observe, that those who were shouting" kafir" " kafir" will slowly come down to " kufr kufr" ! ( Save their posts!)

    Interestingly, in the Urdu Tamhid e Iman we can see a term " Hukm Fiqhi". Abu Hasan translated it, but not sure if he understood it, or else, why did he ask for " kufr fqhi". If he would have understood " hukm fiqhi" , he would not have asked for " kufr fiqhi".

    Many a time people translate books, without understanding the meaning of the term!

    Abu Hasan quotes Ala Hazrat in the same book:

    Note,"remotest possibility" is tawil ba'eed!

    Now it is upon Abu Hasan to prove that the question sent to Nagpur in which Obaidullah Khan's words are quoted ( and the fatwa of takfir ( by an unknown mufti) is issued on these quoted words) has the following things: ( As per Maslak e Ala Hazrat)

    1) Obaidullah denies any daruriat e deen in the Quoted sentences sent to Nagpur.

    2) The quoted sentence has kufriya wordings.

    3) If it has Kufriya wordings, prove that there is no possible tawil of those sentence as per Mutakallamin.

    4) Prove that the fatwa issued on " ek shakhs" is applicable on Obaidullah Khan Azmi

    5) If you agree that fatwa on " ek shaks" ( an individual) is not applicable on a 'specific' person, then what is the ruling on those who are using Nagpuri Fatwa to call Obaidullah Khan as " Kafir".

    6) It is responsibility of all "murideen" of all peer sahibaan who signed that fatwa ( Including Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan ) to prove that the Nagpuri fatwa is correct in the light of Maslak e Ala Hazrat. ( Example: The sentences are kufriya, No tawil in the quoted sentences and rejection of daruriat e deen)

    Abu Hasan and all those who were supporting Nagpuri Fatwa cannot prove that the fatwa is correct.( remember:lehaza aisa shakhs daire Islam se baahar hai) But ego prevents them from accepting that they were wrong!

    One does not become a sufi or a faqih by translating texts. One needs company of a faqih to understand fiqh.

    Declaration: If Abu Hasan proves that Nagpuri fatwa is correct, I will do ruju on this forum and will accept that I was wrong. The decision has to be in the light of maslak e ala hazrat!
    Observe, they will talk everything, from logic to politics, but this one fatwa they cannot prove to be correct.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    حبك الشيء يعمي ويصم
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    lol love it :)

Share This Page