Zameel is an idiot. No doubt he is probably misrepresenting both Shaykh Foudeh and Imam Nabulusi. The question I have: how on earth can you consider imam Nabulusi a 'learned scholar' if you attribute to him the kufr of the hellfire turning to sweetness? Either the attribution is incorrect (in which case why bring it up to attack his credentials) or you believe the attribution is in fact correct and therefore he can't be a learned Muslim, let alone a learned scholar and all you have to do to dismiss his fiqh views is say so, clearly!
Question: does Zameel think you can believe that hellfire turns to sweetness and yet you can remain a Muslim at the same time?
Question: does Zameel think you can believe that hellfire turns to sweetness and yet you can remain a Muslim at the same time?