AQ feedback - offshoot of UBK thread

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by AbdalQadir, Sep 29, 2015.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    on the main thread i said in post #395 (and before that in #360)

    indeed, for all of us to properly understand the issue, i said in post #360

    what about praising contemporary hindu idols in front of those who worship them - like the dead and rotten mukhannath "sathya sai baba"?

    let us try to see this in the case of this sai baba guy ---

    some hindus worship this sai baba guy who died in the recent past.

    so if obaidullah were to address a gathering of those hindus and say sai baba (according to his bhakts) stood for honesty , compassion to poor, blah blah blah, would it still be ruled kufr by those who rule it kufr for obaidullah to praise ram for his universal good qualities listed out in hindu books? if yes, they're being consistent in their approach regardless of right or wrong in the answer. if no, then they're being inconsistent and need to state what makes ram different from sathya sai baba.

    heck replace ram with rajnikant, a film actor whom some hindus in the south have made a temple for and placed his idol in it (afaik). so if obaidullah addressed those particular bhakts of rajnikant and said he's a great actor, he does great fight sequences, he's honest, gives charity blah blah blah, would it be ruled kufr or not????

    i had the question (phrased differently) asked to the same Arab Jilani shaykh, and his reply was:

    any word that is meant to encourage kufr or praise kufr or make a kafir think that we approve his kufr or respect his religion: is indeed kufr.


    so if someone were to go to the temple in chennai where imbeciles worship rajnikant and praised his acting only to appease them and their deen, this is also kufr


    just updating the thread because i believe i said so in the past that i will query this question as well. (this was my position before too, but i asked the shaykh to be sure)

    not interested in entertaining any personal jabs (all are welcome to it, though), or allegations of alignment to this or that camp, or dwelling over the politics between the two camps.
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    just a pointer. 'majhool' is a technical term in the mustlahaat of hadith. A narrator can be majhool even if his entire name including his middle and last names are known. It has nothing to do with names but with how little background info about the individual in question is available. Presence of a majhool rawi makes the hadith chain daeef but this weakness is considered a minor type of da'af.

    I do not know if the term 'majhool' has a different defn in fiqh-books.

    Using 'zayd' 'amr' 'bakr' for protecting the identities of those under discussion: can they be called - pseudonyms or incognitos?

    I think that apart from the reasons sidi abu Hasan mentioned, the use of these terms also broadens the application of a fatwa since any individual whose words/actions answer precisely to those for which the fatwa was issued will take the same ruling as mentioned in that fatwa. Of-course, it will take a qualified person to judge whether the two cases are exactly identical or only similar and thus whether the fatwa applies to the latter case or not.

  3. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    can you please name a few attesters and also the name of the khalifa?

    jazakAllahu khayran.
  4. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    A fatwa has been issued by the name of 'Sahih o Barhaq Fatwa' by a Khalifa of hudur Taaj al-Shariat
  5. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    the proper question to ask would be can a general fatwa on a majhool person be applied on a specific person as well - especially in matters of takfeer? alternately, we should both also look up the issue in fiqh books.

    well i didn't start the debate. though i am guilty since i got sucked in and went along with it. if you notice post #57 was supposed to be a closing comment (from my side) on the issue, but some cross questioning started nicely and then some hairsplitting and then it went downhill. i like your humility. if you insist that you're an idiot, i too must insist that i'm neurotic!
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Brother AQ you can go back to your Arab shaykh and ask him if first fatwa which is generic applies to a specific person specially ubk. It was far more easier than debating with idiots (if unbeknown doesn't mind, but I am indeed).
  7. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i think i got sucked in a bit too much into the desi Sunnis issues due to unbeknown's and Noori's persistent cross-questioning and hairsplitting of my words. i want to go back to the part that concerns me the most, wherein i said:

    this part below was honestly referring to the big picture and general situation with Sunnis. the pride part really was aimed equally at both sides of this intra-Sunni divide. for my part, i'm interested in the political aspect of it, the ISLAMIC ONE between Muslims and kafirs, and how to evade perennialism.

    my lack of trust for both sides is secondary and a non-issue in the big picture and as and when i see more evidence to trust this or that side more, or less, is only something for me to work out.

    they're very welcome to. it's the cross questioning and interrogation that gets to me, specially when repeated explanations of where i'm coming from don't help. your post came like a refreshing tag in a very tiring tag team match. (despite the fact that you're only posting for yourself, and i post for myself)

    Ghulam can.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    patience AQ, patience. you might feel frustrated, one may feel inclined to say such things to your reasoning too;
    but resorting to this won't resolve this thread.

    the name and shame concept is generally discouraged, unless that is the last resort or it is a necessity.

    i do not know how many fatawa books you have seen, but even going by FR, you will see that most of the fatawa say x,y,z. zayd, amr, bakr. this is not because people are afraid (always) to name those people involved in that question, but for a few valid reasons:

    - to keep anonymity of those involved, to protect their honour. because if the fatwa goes against them, they shouldn't feel piqued because they were named and stop them from accepting the truth. this is a natural response, whether you like it or not.

    - to keep muftis unbiased; if they recognise the name, they may (certainly not all) for one reason or another, hesitate or skew the fatwa in favour or against the people involved. a case in point is UBK fatwa from ashrafiyah. would they issue a similar exoneration if it was concerning a person zayd and not ubaidullah himself?​

    notice my post #25 on this thread. alahazrat's fatwa is apt for obaidullah's case; suppose, i were a mufti and someone asked me the same question as in fatwa #1, my response would be a one line: "yes the qayil is kafir. he needs to do tajdid iman and nikah" and cite alahazrat's fatwa in full.

    now, in tamhid iman, alahazrat hardly names any of the devbandis - do you suggest that he was afraid of devbandis or that he was talking about someone else and not thanawi and gangohi?

    as i wrote to SS earlier, all these peripheral issues are non-issues. why was the original fatwa altered? who altered it? what is the reason behind it? why is a fatwa from bareilly naming obaid, hitherto absent? and based on that particular premise: "bareilly is hesitant to issue a fatwa naming obaid" you can go on making wild speculations: "there are skeletons in the closet" "they are afraid of exposure" etc.

    there no need to complicate the issue further, by drawing in rivalries and disaffection among contemporaries.

    the main issue is:

    1. obaid uttered kufr.
    2. a group of muftis (as i understand there are more than 100 attestations to this fatwa) ruled it kufr.
    3. mufti nizamuddin sahib exonerated him AND suggested that the muftis who made takfir (in this case) could have become kafir themselves*

    in recent weeks, more data has come to light:

    1. obaid claims to have sent the whole speech to ashrafiyah muftis; a claim he supposedly made in front of public and attendance of the said muftis.
    2. absence of denial by those muftis, hitherto leads us to believe that he INDEED sent them the cassette of the complete speech.
    3. whether they heard it in full is debatable - (i wrote a post which i deleted it immediately fearing that passions would be fanned).
    4. obaid has made false claims in his istifta - time of speech etc. (he claims 2003, but it appears to be 2013)

    what we hope to see:
    1. retraction by mufti nizamuddin and a ruling that obaid's speech contained kufr and he has to do tawba and tajdid of iman & nikah;
    2. clarification that they were mistaken/misled/confused/threatened whatever.

    by the time i wrote this, there are more replies:
    well, no one can beat you on name-calling here.

    the other slip in the fatwa, that has largely gone unnoticed is that mufti nizamuddin sahib's postulates on takfir speak of "respecting kafir" "kafir ki ta'zim o ta'rif" [page 5 of the fatwa], whereas this is an issue of "kafiroN ke ma'bud/devta/Sanam ki ta'zim aur ta'rif"

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    *though it was implied by citing those hadith, he did not expressly claim that those who wrote the fatwa #1 or attested it had become kafirs.
    Contemplating Sufi and Noori like this.
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    read the two lines and notice the difference in meanings. Both start with 'IF' but tail onto completely different contexts.

    It never appeared to me that you were drooling on him or I would have said so. I just pointed out that when you have no choice but to accept that one of the PERCEIVED sides is right you quickly move on to another point where you can find a fault with them. You still have not acknowledged that given their circumstances the 100 muftis issued the best fatwa they could. It does not matter to me in the least that you have not. I had given up on you after the IMM thread. But since I saw you making all those other good posts I had no choice but to assume that you were ill-informed and leave it at that.

    I don't remember insulting you for the sake of it - yes, I have spoken my heart about what seems to be the reason behind your carefully chosen words when you mention one side or the other. I see this clearly. the words you use are not random. Perhaps you are doing it subconsciously.

    well how does that matter to me? you WILL trust/mistrust based on your own standards. I cant GET anyone to trust a certain person or group.

    that's another wrong assumption. I have better things to do than fight forum wars. After speaking to that Mufti who is also a signatory I realized that they are on a completely different planet. People who sit here and harp on about a lot of things are just kids in front if them living in their own cyber-bubbles and think that's all there is to the world.

    I'll leave the above statement as an exercise for people to see for themselves the slant and the careful choice of words.

    IslamIsTheTruth likes this.
  10. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    seriously brother, it is becoming pathetic. i didn't go soft on obaid. as soon as the matter was clarified to me, i said he's a murtad. if you have reading comprehension problems, i can't help it.

    i was saying 'if he is sincere' in a conditional sense to imply 'if he is as sincere as he claims in his istifta'. it wasn't admiration or husn az-zdhann for him. it doesn't mean i'm drooling over the guy's charisma! funny you didn't pick on my comment when i said previously 'if obaid was sincere, he would have also sent his istifta to Bareilly as well' back then you agreed with me.

    you started insulting me only because i refuse to budge on this "politics" and refuse to trust either side, so i responded showing you just how entangled your mind is and how you can't even see proper reason in your bid to one-up on me.

    as far as personal argumentation is concerned, let me tell you my final word plain and simple

    yes i consider Nizamuddin sab's fatwa as bogus and his daleels on obaid's stated 3udhr as inadmissible, and in the words of a shaykh i trust, "nonsense" and "silly".

    that does NOT mean i trust the Bareilly side (add as many cities as you want. you know well that i am referring to the group with Tajush Shari3ah) any more than Nizamuddin's side UNLESS i see a DOCUMENTED refutation of Nizamuddin's fatwa OR a fatwa on obaid by name. if and when i see such a document, i will certainly trust them more than the Ashrafiyan muftis who have absolved obaid of kufr.

    go on. call me ugly, biased, enemy of shuyukh, disrespectful, arrogant, whatever you want. let's finish it here. you win.
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    You can go on insulting shuyukh by calling them politicians and keep going soft on a POLITICIAN, saying 'if he is sincere. he said so in his own istifta'. So your insulting me is no big deal. People better than me are not safe from your diatribes.

    that is not news to me. They are two separate issues.

    1. Bringing taHreefs to escape from a fatwa.
    2. Fatwa being on zayd or specific person.

    I thought you will come back with a daleel but you returned with insults.

    it is relevant. Or, as I said, we are still not through with the deobandis.

    there are better ways. Jingoism is not the best approach. If all options are exhausted maybe then we will be left we no other choice.
  12. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    it is not mischief making. it is about iman and kufr and if someone is absolving people of riddah, that mufti needs to be taken to task, lest he does ruju3 humbly.
  13. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    you spew utter jahalat! your reasoning is pathetic.

    that they are lies or not is irrelevant.

    obaid added a bunch of factors on a fatwa that might have been specific in nature but was aimed at a majhool person. he probably went crying to his muftis because of the very specific nature of it.

    i tried to do the same thing with tahir. i described very specific things and asked for a fatwa on ek shakhs. unfortunately for me it didn't happen.

    Ala Hazrat issued a specific fatwa against thanwi and co. (after years of pursuing the matter).

    Ala Hazrat didn't issue a fatwa on a majhool "ek shakhs" and then the deobandis kept building up on it!
  14. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    ok, but does spoken bayans and khutba's count? because there sure is a war goin on on that front!
  15. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    it's not even a fatwa to start with, leave alone applying or not applying to uka or anyone from a legal perspective.

    as i said, it's just a shaykh's educated feedback/comment i needed PERSONALLY to form an informed opinion on the Ashrafiya fatwa. i have said it before too but you insist on being argumentative.
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    This is general information for everyone who is following this thread:

    1. The signatory I spoke to has told me that more muftiyan kiraam have signed the takfir fatwa after it's initial release at the Nagpur seminar.

    2. Know that the divide is not Bareilly-Ashrafiya. I have now come to realize that it's another red-herring to try to frame it thus. It's about not letting some ashrafiyan muftis exonerate uka for his kufr, whatever might be their intentions behind doing so.

    3. A new fatwa against uka is welcome but against ashrafiyan muftis is not. They should not be allowed to split over a politician. The people who care for sunni unity have concluded that the best approach is through dialogue which might eventually lead to them doing ruju'.

    4. The signatories are not busy singing 'WE HAVE OVERCOME' in chorus. They know that the other side has seriously erred and are doing what they can to resolve the issue amicably.

    5. A Fatwa-War can never be a solution to this problem.

    6. I suggest people that who are thinking of sending istiftas to any side limit it to the questions about uka and not goad the muftis to give a hukm on ahrafiyan muftis. Don't let mischief makers get any mileage out of this travesty.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    you keep assuming a lot of things about people you don't agree with. Any reader can plainly see that the only thing I have taken exception to is the way you keep on calling the shuyookh 'not-objective' 'chess games' and what not - and from the start of this discussion you have been using this 'general fatwa' argument as the spring board to launch these attacks - intentionally or OTHERWISE.

    And let me correct you - it's BAREILLY-GHOSI-JAMDASHAHI-NAGPUR-ASHRAFIYA side and not just Bareilly-Nagpur.

    I was content with the fatwa then and am content now. I knew the ashrafiya fatwa was wrong the moment I read it - see my very first post in the thread if you wish.
  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    obaid added a bunch of lies to make it appear palatable. Going by your logic alahazrat and then his khulafa would have had to keep on issuing fatwa after fatwa because the deobandits kept on adding ta'weels which were in-fact taHreefs and which you called 'variables'. If these so-called variables had any strength it would have been an altogether different matter.

    you are the non-scholar making this claim. The burden of proof is on you and make sure you give examples.

    I have spoken to one signatory and Allamah Zia-ul-Mustafa too said the same thing in the speech - that the fatwa DOES apply to uka.

    Now you prove that it doesn't.

    You concocted the terms 'General' and 'Specific' and then got lost yourself.

    Go and read the fatwa again - it is HIGHLY SPECIFIC - minus the name. It is about a specific event and specific words.

    You think those 100 muftis were nuts that they signed that 'general' fatwa? It takes 100 muftis to do that?

    The surprising thing is that UKA himself agrees that the fatwa is on him and so went to get a counter-fatwa. He even said in the urs-speech "Mujh pe fatwa lagane wala mufti kya hoga.." and here you are trying to prove that the fatwa doesn't apply to him!

    Why don't you call-up uka and let him know that the fatwa does not apply to him and so he should just chill out?
    IslamIsTheTruth and Noori like this.
  19. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    how come that arab jilani sayed response applies to uka?
    Unbeknown likes this.
  20. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i'm really unable to comprehend why you guys can't see that obaid ADDED a bunch of variables (communal riots, partial quotation, i wanted best for Muslims blah blah). he didn't just humbly accept to making the speech. this generic fatwa is NULL & VOID as far as obaid's istifta is concerned, and i am saying this from a fiqh point of view, not for any sympathy for him

    plus i asked for any fiqh reference that a generic fatwa on a majhool person can be applied to a specific person and unbeknown blew a fuse.

    i don't think i am being biased. i am going by what i perceive to be legalisms and i am very open to being shown where/how i am wrong in my understanding of those legalisms!

    i would appreciate if now we can look at things from a fiqh perspective regardless of interpersonal scuffles and our opinions on each other.

Share This Page