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

the istifta sent to Muti3ur Rehman sab mentions Ziaul Mustafa sab's fatwa. can you advise where is Ziaul Mustafa sab's signature in the fatwa 1 or 2 in post #1 of this thread.

 

Janab Abul Hasan sahab, if this makes it easy for you, then in sha Allah, I will reply to you in this thread. Please don't split it further.

 

for quick reference the original thread is here:
http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/mufti-nizamuddins-fatwa-on-obaidullah-azmi.12433/

i have also pinned the threads in the hanafi fiqh forums.

 

evidence needed. SAREEH kalima-e-KUFR is not kufr? then which kalima-e-kufr is kufr?

or is there another category, I duuno, "super-sareeh" kalima-e-kufr which is kufr?

or maybe it's mufti nizam's istilaH 'kalimat-e-kufr-e-shani'i' which is kufr?

alahazrat has used the term 'sariH kalima-e-kufr' to rule the person kafir. see the scans of FR fatwa posted in#33 for proof.

I am asking ss to prove this in my capacity as a moderator, this 'great position of authority and responsibility' which he has been kind enough to remind us of.

----------------

besides if someone rules a person kafir based on kufr-fiqhi he does not become a kafir himself - or else all those fuqaha will become kafir - based on hadith ss and mufti nizam use to scare their opponents - but the principle derived from the hadith is itself kufr fiqhi and not kufr kalami - so how can the deniers of kufr-fiqhi use it to adduce their pov? then they would themselves become kafir in the light of the hadith. and on and on. {note to self: good example circular reasoning].

The general basis for apostasy is stated by Alahazrat thus:
Jurists [fuqahā] have ruled that one who rejects an absolute precept [qaţýī] is a kāfir; but theologians [mutakallimūn] specified that it is kufr only when an Essential [đarūrī] is rejected and this [latter] is the safest position.

(quote from mfm)

 

those who are not talking to me can close their eyes and ignore this post. As a member of the forum I have a right to reply to any post and I will.

SS said:
Now we ask this Mufti sahab and Janab Abul Hasan sahab to give reference from just one book for the quote. Only one book on this planet. The fact is that this statement is not present in any book of fiqh and fatawa. And if Abul Hasan says, a similar statement is present in fatwa ridawiya, then the reply is : That statement of Ala Hazrat does not contain the word "irtadaad".

So agree that either this Baharaichi mufti sahab has misquoted/ fabricated a quote of Ala Hazrat or agree that he has lied when he wrote that. To prove me wrong, just get me one reference from so many " kutub".

brothers please tell me what the underlined words mean and whether the snippet below is found in a book from this planet or is it of extra-terrestrial origins:

 

For the convenience of brothers who might not be following this thread diligently here's a list of places where sidi AH spoke about the kufr of uka's words:

Post #15
even though the snippet of the original istifta is misleading, which gave obaidullah the chance to do another istiftaa; but i think the fatwa is itself correct. obaidullah should do tawba and tajdeed iman.

Post #31
the attribution to fatawa ridawiyyah is correct. but mufti nizamuddin sahib has either not checked it, or else he is using a heela for his statement. because, indeed, that mentioned in fatwa #1 does not exist on the referenced page IN THOSE EXACT WORDS.

however, the citation is reasonably accurate in conveying the meaning of the fatwa. lo, here is the snippet from the very page referenced: vol.14/p.625

http://sunniport.com/index.php?attachments/fr14-625-jpg.1818/

Post #33
the first fatwa (in the UBK case) is not very clear, though it cites FR. but alahazrat's fatwa is apt and fits obaid azmi like a glove. here is the fatwa in full.

Post#53
that is interesting. i actually took the text from ubaidullah khan's own istifta. hadn't seen this image in detail.
(which shows that sidi aH had written the previous posts from uka's own istifta and FR, the purpoted teHreef not being a part of his analysis)

Post#82
people keep forgetting that ta'wil is not in sariH statements; and ta'wil is admissible only where there is ambiguity.

even an illiterate muslim will tell you that praising ram in a ram-katha is kufr. and obaidullah, is not even trying to find diplomatic words; rather his eloquent praise and "zor e bayan" are self-evident.

Post#140
i dare mufti nizamuddin or any mufti to say that the fatwa with changed words or unchanged words (we will call it v1 and v2) is not congruent in spirit and meaning to the fatwa in fatawa ridawiyyah.

why did mufti nizamuddin summarily dismiss in his fatwa in ambiguous words. honest and sincere mufti will not play like this. he will show how it is incorrect or point out that there is a fatwa in fatawa ridawiyyah, EXACTLY on that page, but the v1 fatwa is cited incorrectly. look what mufti nizamuddin says:

"haaN main ne fatawa razwiyah mutarjam wa ghayr mutarjam donoN meiN is maqam par woh ibarat talash karney ki koshish ki magar na mili. yahaN fatawa razwiyah ka Hawalah ghalat diya gaya hai. wAllahu ta'ala a'lam."

a lay reader based on mufti nizamuddin's reputation will think that it does not exist AT ALL. whereas, the fact of the matter is that it does not exist VERBATIM. which i noted. and i gave him the benefit of doubt that he used this 'heelah' of 'non-existing' based on "non-existing verbatim".

given that you are asking so many questions, why didn't mufti nizamuddin point out that it was taHrif shudah or whatever? why wait until it was posted on a forum and discussed?
...
i have said it plainly, that in spirit, and in conveying the meaning, the first fatwa in both v1 or v2 versions, is congruent to alahazrat's fatwa referenced. you seem to see a huge difference. fine. i am waiting to see your proof that there is the difference of the sky and the earth between these two versions.

in the meantime, here is a short istiftaa for mufti nizamuddin or sunnistudent:

kuffar ke devtaaoN ki ta'areef karna kaisa hai? kya ye sareeH kufr hai? masalan, kya darj zayl alfaz kufr haiN?

"sri ram ka wujud aysa paak aur pavitr wujud hai; unka character itna nirala, pyara aur be misaal hai, ke jo intellectual class hai, jo cheezon ki gahrayi mein utar kar un ki haqiqatoN ki ma'arifat hasil karta hai, woh sri raam ko imam e hind maanta hai.

raam naam hai sach'chayi ka, jo jhoot ko parajit karta hai.

raam naam hai mazluum aur dukhi logoN ki Himayat ka, jo zulm ki gardan pakaRta hai.

raam naam hai sooraj ki us raoshni ka jiskey zari'ey andhere door hotey hain.

raam naam hai chand ki us chandni ka jiskey zari'ey logoN ko sukun milta hai.

raam naam hai us ThanDi hawa ka, jo jhulsati huwi dhuup meiN insan ke liye chatar chaya ban jaati hai."

bayyinu tu'jaru.

......
or if you are referring to the fatwa #1 which is apparently tampered or altered - i am telling you one last time. i don't care.

Post# 222
prove is a very strong word. i consider it to be wrong because i believe that obaidullah's ram-bhakti speech has kufri kalimat and mufti nizamuddin's fatwa absolves him.

i believe obaidullah khan's speech at ram-katha is ugly, and kufriyat. i believe that any self-respecting muslim should refute it - and ulama of ashrafiyah who signed the second fatwa (i.e., mufti nizamuddin's fatwa) should have at least warned people and the mustafti to not repeat such a thing, even if they believed that they could absolve obaidullah from kufr. a mufti's responsibility is not just to issue a fatwa and get done with it - he also gives advice and is mindful that the fatwa can become a precedent for such events in the future.

----------------------------------------------------END OF QUOTES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ss is speaking a different tone now see post#162

Also see post#119 and post#193

 

Once again, I am not talking/ replying to any one on this topic except Janab Abul Hasan. I will not start this discussion in PM with any one. Those who wish can give "evidence" to Abul Hasan sahab to prove that Nagpuri fatwa is correct and as per this fatawa Obaidullah Khan is now outside the fold of Islam. Abul Hasan, you need to bring some solid evidence, or else remember the ruling of calling a Muslim as a " Kafir".

 

In Support of Nagpuri Fatwa , a fatwa came from Bahraich sharif. We call this Bahraichi fatwa.
Abul Hasan said ( post 298)

I hope by now Janab Abul Hasan would have read this fatwa.

On page 3 of this fatwa it is written :
" ..Aur kutub fiqh wa fatawa mein musarrah hai ki kuffar ke devtaon ko izzat dena aur un ke liye ayse kalamaat istemaal karna jin se in ka aijaaz zaahir ho sareeh kufr wa irtadaad hai"

[ And it is explained in the books of fiqh and fatawa that to give respect to the deities of Kuffar and to use such words for them which gives them honour/repect is sareeh (explicit) kufr and irtadaad]

Observe, this Bahraichi Mufti who uses " books" ( kutub) of fiqh and fatawa. It is a sigha of jamaa ( plural). As per this mufti sahab there are many books of fiqh and fatawa which contains the statement which he has quoted.

Now we ask this Mufti sahab and Janab Abul Hasan sahab to give reference from just one book for the quote. Only one book on this planet. The fact is that this statement is not present in any book of fiqh and fatawa. And if Abul Hasan says, a similar statement is present in fatwa ridawiya, then the reply is : That statement of Ala Hazrat does not contain the word "irtadaad".

So agree that either this Baharaichi mufti sahab has misquoted/ fabricated a quote of Ala Hazrat or agree that he has lied when he wrote that. To prove me wrong, just get me one reference from so many " kutub".


In sha Allah, Abul Hasan's "reply" on Mufti Nizamuddin sahab's speech will be discussed in detail. But before that there are many more things to discuss.

 

In his Istifta to Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi Obaidullah Khan, quoted Nagpuri Fatwa ( 1) which used the phrase " tareef karna kufr sareeh hai" . In reply to this Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi sahab said ' such words were not found at the reference given of the fatwa ridawiya.

To this Abul Hasan replied ( post 372)

It is not one's fault if he doesn't understand the difference between those words. One ibarat takes a Muslim outside the fold of Islam ( fabricated one) and the other ibarat ( original) retains the man with in the fold of Islam.

Yes, it is absolutely not there,since that will mean a person goes outside islam for lazoom also, which is not the case. This again shows Abul Hasan's interpretation.

Abul Hasan, you have mentioned this point of " no difference/ slight difference/ " or words giving similar meaning in many of your posts.

 

The original wordings in the fatwa is " izzat dena sareeh kalma e kufr hai." Any student of fiqh knows that "sareeh kalma e kufr" means "kufr fiqhi". And " kufr fiqhi" does not makes a person go outside the fold of Islam.

But the Nagpuri team wanted to send Obaidullah outside the fold of Islam. So what did they do??? They knew if they quote the original words ( sareeh kalma e kufr) anyone will come to know that this is "kufr fiqhi" which does not take a person outside the fold of Islam. So the task was made easy by changing the fatwa itself!!

The original words------> izzat dena sareeh kalma e kufr hai
was changed to -------->tareef karna kufr sareeh hai, so that Obaidullah can be sent outside the fold of Islam.

Abul Hasan , you do not see any difference in this! But this is just one thing. In sha Allah, as and when I get time, I will quote your texts,in this thread and analyse it in the light of Maslak e Ala hazrat. Hope, we will follow the methodology of Alah Hazrat in takfir.

Note: My work does not give me time to spend time on forum that is why I remain inactive for long time. Today is Sunday so I have time. When I get time, I shall reply, in sha Allah, to Janab Abul Hasan only.

 

The two fatwas can be seen here:

Regarding this Abul Hasan said ( post No 122)

Fatwa No 1: tareef karna kufr sareeh hai.

Fatwa No 2: izzat dena sareeh kalma e kufr hai.

Abul Hasan does not see any difference between these two. The reason is simple. He does not understand the importance of the word " sareeh kalma e kufr".

It should be noted that when fuqaha say " this is sareeh kalama e kufr" (ye sareeh kalma e kufr hai) they mean "kufr fiqhi" and not "kufr kalami".

When some one commits " kufr fiqhi" , it is not said that the person has become ' kafir, murtad or has gone outside the fold of Islam" . The one who commits "kufr fiqhi" is asked to repent , do tajdeed e iman and tajdeed e nikah. ( For details see fatwa ridawiya vol 6. page15)

The Nagpuri fatwa says " the person is outside the fold of islam ( daire islam se baaahar hai) ."

This is said only when it is kufr e kalami.


So Abul Hasan, since as per you, this fatwa from fatwa ridawiya is helping you to send obaidullah khan azmi outside Islam ( but not as per me) , please note it has " sareeh kalame e kufr" , which means " kufr fiqhi". And "kufr fiqhi" entails tawba, tajdeed e iman and tajdeed e nikah.

Now, tell me, how do you deduce from this fatwa that Obaidullah is outside the fold of Islam?

Second, bring " kufr kalami" in his speech, because " Kufr Kalami" makes a person outside the fold of Islam.

Please note, If you bring " kufr kalami" in his speech, prove that it is "kufr e kalami" and also note, in that case, this fatwa from fatwa ridawiya will not be useful for you, since this talks about "sareeh kalma e kufr" which means "kufr fiqhi".

Note: I am replying/ addressing to Janab Abu Hasan Sahab and no one else.