AQ feedback - offshoot of UBK thread

i don't think there is any harm per say if a mufti assists the mustafti to word his question properly and intelligibly after ascertaining all the facts from him because not all people know how to write a proper istifta. I have seen this personally where people approach a scholar and ask them to help write the istifta properly.

what is condemnable is the mufti assisting the mustafti in drafting a dishonest and misleading istifta.

 

I personally have no doubt that a Mufti wrote the question for him or told him how to word it.

 

this is not a challenge but a request to you that whoever gave you this info about ta'reef being the subject of treatises, please ask them for the name of the book and relevant passages and post them here. This is not my domain and I do not claim that I can actually analyse those passages but I am sure I can get some scholar to do it for me and also sidi abu Hasan may be able to tell us if following this line of investigation is worth it or if it is just a false scent which will throw us off the track.

Do note that if the purported treatises are really relevant to the subject of this fatwa then they will have implications for this ibarat in Fatawa ridawiyyah shareef and by extension the ibarat in ghamz al-'uyun :

​

I say this because Alahazrat 'alyhirraHmah has added no riders here and we all know that in his fatwa he has distilled treatises and made things easy for his successors by extracting the core of matters from a heap of subsidiary issues and laying it plainly for easy comprehension. Also, another well-known characteristic of his fatawa is that he does not leave any thing unsaid if it has a bearing on the topic of the fatwa.

--------

I think it would be of great benefit for all and sundry if sidi abu Hasan translates this fatwa into english and discusses how beautifully it answers the istifta and leaves no escape routes for people who might be inclined to want their way despite the fatwa. I for one see another stamp of his genius in this fatwa.

--------

Frankly, to me this commotion* about the difference between ta'zim and ta'reef is an attempt to confuse and intimidate the lay people.

It's hanson and his nuances all over again.

Allah ta'ala knows best.


* not referring to AQ here

 

no I am not making guesses here. I am conscious that saying that the muftis themselves drafted the istifta is a serious charge.

we were all making guesses in the following posts:

But now we know that it's not true that the istifta consisted of just a piece of text containing the mustafti's own transcription. The mustafti has publicly claimed, in front of the same group of muftis who issued the fatwa, that he had sent them the full speech and even asked them to have it transcribed if need be. The muftis did not negate this which means it's true. So we have been told what went on behind closed doors by uka himself. Neither did we ask him nor did we use a spy to find out nor are we making wild guesses.

I acknowledge that you did not know of this when you composed your analysis.

wassalaam.

 

due-diligence is the term we use often in our profession.

 

this is your understanding, but mufti nizam sahab doesn't agree with you. in jahan e mufti e azam, in his article 'behr e faqhat kay durr e shahwar' on page 442 (pdf version 444) he writes this



either mufti nizam sahab is not a mahir mufit (i personally believe that he is), or in this case of UKA he didn't do this iltizam (which is the apparent case), and couldn't save awam from a great 'ghalat fehmi'

 

i am not saying that you are totally oblivious of this fact. but rather, countering your analysis - because that specific portion is based on that fallacy. let us not linger on that and move on.
---

here is a quick translation (experts and sibawayhs please do not quibble on exactness of the translation, unless it alters the meaning).

therefore it is permissible to mention a false but hypothetical example when debating with an opponent, until he turns back to the truth; because it is (hypothetical example, but a lie) closer to proving a point and clarifying a doubt.​

notice that mentioning a hypothetical example - is to prove a point in a debate. secondly, one cannot commit kufr just to make a point. thirdly, the purported "point-to-be-made" should be clear - one cannot simply infer all those UNSAID points. i am not an expert, and i don't know if the uSul "dar' al-mafasid awla min jalb al-maSaliH" has any place here; perhaps muftis will consider this as irrelevant here.

now let us say, all this praise of ram by obaidullah was to lead to establish "hujjah" on the khaSm (opponent).

1. what was the hujjah? and how is this related to the praise of ram?
2. who was the khaSm?
3. what was the outcome?​

this is like a man who goes to a bar, sits with drunks, takes a sip (so as to not offend them) from the glass. comes back and tells the mufti that he had gone there to establish hujjah that "adultery is forbidden". and the mufti says, 'indeed, in times of duress, it is permissible to drink wine to save one's life; besides it is a praiseworthy deed to warn people from forbidden things'.

if you haven't seen the similarity, let me help you:

gushing praise of ram - and that ram led a jihad - is to prove to a group of (apparently already docile) ram-bhakts - that they should not terrorise muslims. because jihad is nothing to do with muslims per-se; it is just an arabic term for fighting injustice. so ram's fight against ravan was jihad. please don't abuse the term jihad. also, because ram was a mujahid - you too should become muslims.
​

oops. ok, he didn't say the last sentence.
actually, he said: embrace ram in your lives - rather, he used the hypothetical example to lament - "WE do not embrace ram in our lives."

maybe i am being extreme, but that translates in arabic to sunnat-e-raam. (al-iyadhubillah) and muftis of ashrafiyyah don't see anything wrong in an exhortation to embrace the sunnat of raam sharif. (actually sri translates roughly to sharif* in arabic, hence the term. astaghfirullahi'l azim, please note that i am using qurTubi's clause cited above to the dot. hoping that they return...)

---
in my hypothetical example further above (of drunks and bar) -

where is the connection between drinking - and exhortation of chastity and the mufti's exoneration based on the accused's own account?

Allah ta'ala knows best.


=========================
* platts:

श्री], s.f. Prosperity, happiness, success; improvement; beauty; a name of Lakshmī as goddess of prosperity, &c.; an honorific or respectful prefix to the names of deities and eminent persons, and an auspicious prefix at the beginning of manuscripts, letters, documents, &c. (see śrī):—srī karnā, To commence in the name of Lakshmī, to make a beginning...

 

i didn't know this. i'm just talking for myself based on what i saw here and the fatwa attached. here we are getting into forensics of what happened behind closed doors and so on.

come on brother. see my reply to abu Hasan above.

i'm just mentioning the legal technicality that ANY MUFTI will answer ONLY based on the istifta presented, and nothing outside of it. i've mentioned it on the other thread also.

i don't know if the mufti constructed both the istifta and the fatwa, or advised obaid on what to do, or didn't know anything else other than the question.

what you are mentioning is just YOUR opinion on what you think could have happened. or perhaps you know for sure.

i don't, and i don't assume anything.

 

didn't hint at anything. not that naive either.

tried my best to be unbiased and see and present things from a WYSIWYG perspective.

didn't even think of either extreme

best - Nizamuddin sab just saw the excerpt and knows nothing else

worst - heck, he might have even provided consultation to obaidullah on how to phrase the istifta.

(both extremes and anything in between are possible)

just mentioned that that's a legal technicality that we are all bound by. nothing less, nothing more.

agree 100%

he's a qualified mufti and this kind of thing raises my guards

likewise if a documented fatwa on obaid specific by name doesn't come out from the other side, it most certainly would raise my guards against them as well.

not true. it's the main issue and in fact my first reservation. i also intend to highlight this point in the istifta to other shuyukh (that ram is their idol not just a kafir). the reason i mention kafir at places (more than one) because these supposed fiqh technicalities talk about kafirs, not sure if it also includes their idols. (i don't know the rule)

see this part of post #6 (underlined and bolded now)

And this is where I have a bunch of reservations:

1. The praise of rama, even if obaid says it is implicitly implied “as stated in YOUR (ie hindus) books” (he didn’t say in the speech, but said in the istifta that he described rama as their own books describe him; in the speech he said how he sees rama as a Muslim, we can stretch it to mean ‘as a Muslim going thru their books’)–

Is it just kalimae kufr but doesn’t make him kafir due to the differences between iltizam and luzoom, and the other nuances of fiqh on when and how praising kafirs (remember, rama is not just kafir, but their deity) is acceptable and when it makes one a kafir.

Eg. If you say tendulkar is a great batsman, it doesn’t make you kafir, even though you have just “praised” him.

Apparently (as I’ve been told by the other side) there are fiqh technicalities between tareef of kafir and tazeem and given the circumstances and context and the istifta, he ain’t guilty here.

then it seems he's just shooting himself and all those muftis in the foot.

haven't heard those audios yet. will comment on them when i hear them. just read thru some of unbeknown's transcribing

and honestly speaking, it will be a major fall from grace if obaid has some well known major kufriyat and Ashrafiya camp absolves him.

likewise, if the Bareilly side stays silent mentioning him by name and just makes implications and hints by generalities, they too will be shooting themselves in the foot for more reasons than one.

that's why i said the best thing is for them to engage in a munazira and get it over and done with, and let the Sunni awam breathe some fresh air.

remember some of those days. vp sing, chandrashekhar, etc. pm's were coming and going. remember najmah heptullah and salman khursheed from those times. i honestly dunno about this guy consciously. dunno if i might have seen his name in passing in the papers or something

---

not biased my friend. a very WYSIWYG kinda guy.

i used to be infatuated by keller, jifry, gibril, and nazim once upon a time and used to promote them to friends etc. used to yearn praying Juma behind nazim once upon a time. never had much of an opinion on hanson. for some reason, always thought he was an actor (even when i wasn't aware of his deviancies). same for tahir.

as of now, i'm just holding myself neutral that Nizamuddin sab/Ashrafi side is as much scrupulous and meticulous as Azhari Miyan/Bareilly side. and that's the reason for my sukoot (not that its worth anything) on his fatwa till i get another opinion from someone outside this divide.

plus, i don't think it's too much to ask one opponent in academic and legal matters to state just how the other opponent is wrong! a documented rebuttal of this Ashrafi fatwa (a few more scholars attested it as you know) from the Bareilly side would be much helpful.

if things expose one side as deviants or just people running groupie politics and running shop with desi Muslims, i will not have any reservations speaking against Nizamuddin sab or his associates either, or Allahul Musta3an if entire Ashrafia becomes the new nadwa (or for that matter, the other side).

for Sunniyat's sake we hope both sides uphold the truth and that the fitna is extinguished.

 

thank you for doing that. I was thinking of doing the same although I was thinking of substituting just one jahiliyyah deity for 'ram'.

 

one of the points which you left out is the evasion in point no 3 where the fatwa says: "I looked for that ibarat in fatawa ridawiya but did not find it".

So he can go all the way to "Jame3 Al-Ahkam" to get a conducive leeway but he can't pin point the proper ibarat present in fatawa ridawiyyah just because its damning to the mustafti he wants to shield?!

 

One of the things I wanted to touch on though sidi abu Hasan has done it already:

why the retrogression?

we know that the Muftis were sent the audio, they heard it end to end, they were given the option to transcribe it and double check each and every word. So the mustafti claims to have come clean.

Why then does the fatwa mention only the snippet? Why did they not say that they had heard the entire speech? Is this not deliberate evasion and concealing of facts surrounding the istifta?

At-least this should open the eyes of the muftis. They went to great lengths to absolve him, put their own credibility on the line and he being the politician that he is, in one fell swoop, he has proved them to be untruthful right in front of the public!

At-least he should have stayed with the original "story" that the muftis were sent only the snippet of his speech which he himself had transcribed. Aesop's famous fable of the scorpion comes to mind.

So muftis have this right? To construct both the istifta and then give a reply - 'to match the istifta and not go into "life in general"'? Which great arabic work mentions this 'usool'?

 

it is good that you exercised a lot of husn-zann in analysis of fatwa, hinting that mufti nizamuddin sahib might have just looked at the excerpt and thus issued the fatwa.

----
obviously, an experienced mufti like him need not be told by novices like us, that a mufti should be alert and try to ensure that the mustafti has not worded the question to elicit a favourable answer. this happens all the time, questioners deliberately omit key details to get a fatwa in their favour. novices are advised by muftis to investigate well before rushing to conclusions and issuing fatawa.

in spite of everything, there is so much in that query of obaid (included in the fatwa) that would (or SHOULD) prompt a mufti to investigate further, or at the least be careful in issuing fatwa for the query by adding relevant clauses.

----
now we are told that a cassette was sent to the muftis who apparently, listened to it and STILL issued a fatwa absolving him of kufr.

unlike SS and AQ, we know of obaidullah khan azmi since late 80s. he was a charismatic speaker back then - he became a politician later when vp singh came to power championing muslims and dalits


----

perhaps you have not noticed it. it is about ta'arif of DEVTAS of kuffar - meaning: "praise of idols of the kuffar".

NOT the ta'rif of kuffar. if obaid was only talking of gandhi and chandrashekar as doing jihad, it would be ta'reef and ta'zeem of kafirs. but obaid was talking of raam. because people either don't see - or, are unwilling to see the seriousness of this, here is a small transposition.

hubal 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 hubal ko imam e arab maanta hai.

hubal naam hai sach'chayi ka, jo jhoot ko parajit karta hai.
laat naam hai mazluum aur dukhi logoN ki Himayat ka, jo zulm ki gardan pakaRta hai.
uzza naam hai sooraj ki us raoshni ka jiskey zari'ey andhere door hotey hain.
uzza naam hai chand ki us chandni ka jiskey zari'ey logoN ko sukun milta hai.
laat naam hai us ThanDi hawa ka, jo jhulsati huwi dhuup meiN insan ke liye chatar chaya ban jaati hai.​

now, imagine if this was said in the gathering of arab polytheists, in a gathering of praising hubal, laat and uzza?

----
now, would muftis of ashrafiyah need a lot of peripheral information, and forensic analysis to say that the above statements are kufr?
so how different is raam?


----

well, i have nothing against him - and i regret using a few words/expressions in my rejoinder to him, which in hindsight, was a bad move. i apologise to him for those expressions, though they were not intended, as he perceived them to be; and responded likewise. as for anything he might have said, i have nothing against him..

 

"ChuN kih ye program Ram ke naam se mansoob tha is liye Ram ki amn-pasandi, safayi-o-pakeezgi waghaira se mutalliq Hinduwo ke jo khayalat haiN, unhi ko unke samne rakhte huwe un par hujjat qayim ki"

as far as my limited knowledge goes, this is not acceptable. The main words of Obaidullah which go against this are "main ne as a Musalman" then how can he say that he was just presenting the thoughts of the Hindus to them when he himself has said that this is how I have viewed Ram as a Muslim. Not how the Hindus have viewed him.

We can not do Taweel of such sareeh words otherwise, there will be no end to such Taweels. Regardless of what Obaidullah now says what he meant, we won't and cant accept it.

 

And that’s the little I have to say on the UBK-fatwa issue, and the B vs M situation, and the original thread.

I will not entertain any lack of comprehension by rebutting that. But anyone is free and welcome to present their opinions on me in PM – only so that the threads don’t lose their focus.

jazakum Allahu khayraa

 

I think we need to start fresh with a few different threads

1 – UBK’s misguided speeches – where we members, as armchair critics and living room mujahidin, can link up his youtube videos, audios etc and bash him.

2 – Bareilly ulema bayans/fatawa on UBK – this should be focused on discussing a specific bayan, or specific fatwa based on specific istifta

3 – Mubarakpur ulema bayans/fatawa on UBK – as above, this should be focused on discussing their specific bayans/fatawa on UBK

Plus I wish Sunnistudent comes back to the original UBK thread or this one here and tells us the reason why the original fatwa from Bareilly was altered, and it’s how, when, where etc. and what it has to do with the situation on UBK.

I also wish abu Hasan and Sunnistudent hug and make up. In one of abu Hasan’s books he says that some scans for some old books were provided by Sunnistudent. They have worked as a team before.

i sincerely apologize to any fans on either side of the divide, but i have only tried my best to post as an unbiased Sunni and nothing else.

this statement of mine from post #66 of the original thread of course holds valid at all times

Allah knows best. and if i have uttered any kufr knowingly or unknowingly in this post, i seek His refuge and forgiveness and renew my faith by the shahada laa ilaaha il Allah Muhammadur Rasool Allah. i take contemporaries with a pinch of salt. i resign my opinion on this guy or this matter to what would be the Prophet's 3alaihis salam, opinion on this guy and this matter, and on all guys and all matters.

 

Any fans of either side forgive me for my bluntness but the mawlanas on BOTH sides are not kids.

Their entire lives revolve around fiqh books and legalisms, and the politicized ones of this conflict know better than you or me which argument to use where and how to play this politics.

I think there was a reason the original fatwa from Bareilly was altered with the handwriting. There’s no smoke without a fire.

I don’t know what it is, but what I’ve heard from the other side is that apparently it’s got something to do with these intricate fiqh technicalities between tareef and tazeem of kafirs and when and how they are permissible and when and how they are haram or kufr or riddah.

This forum is not the only place in the world where there’s a big hoo-haa about Nizamuddin sab’s fatwa. It’s been going on in india as well, and the scholars from that side are well aware of it.

I think from their perspective they do believe that the jawab (Nizamuddin sab’s) is correct and valid based on the istifta given. Hence I stated in the original thread that it would be great if the Bareilly side scholars can academically prove it wrong.

As for obaid, I’ve come to know that he’s a shrewd character and he believes he also has a load of dirty laundry (by way of similar perennialist incidences or hobnobbing with hindus etc) on the other side, and that they will think twice before issuing a fatwa on him mentioning him specifically by name.

I for one know how bayans (audio/video) can be denied or beautifully extrapolated out of, alleged to be doctored and so on, especially in politicized scenarios like this. (we're all desis and know how our our politics and bayanbazi work)

And when two sides are biased based on groupie politics, I trust neither.

So I choose to get a third person’s opinion.

And for forming an opinion within the two sides, I want to compare apples to apples.

Bayans to bayans.

Tehreer to tehreer.

General to general. (zayd, bakr, umar, ek shakhs, ek group, ek jamat, etc.)

Specific to specific. (UBK, tahir, salman khan, etc.)

I would love to see a specific TEHREERI fatwa against obaid from the Bareilly side, citing this speech or any other speech so that the awam can compare apples to apples.

For any SUNNIYAT-CENTERED brothers (as opposed to group-centered or pir-centered), especially those living in india, I would suggest the following:

Send multiple istifta to BOTH sides specifically mentioning obaid by name and his various different khurafaati speeches/audios/videos/books etc.

Especially do it in public gatherings and majalis. Also announce the istiftaa in local Urdu newspapers of the community, so that NO ONE FROM ANY SIDE has an escape route or can plead ignorance or say he didn’t get the memo.

See the answers you get and what the daleels given are and compare both sides fatawa – taa ke doodh ka doodh aur pani ka pani ho jaye, which side is sincere to Sunniyat and which side isn’t and just abusing deen and running shop for fame and/or money.

Also, I think it will be a good idea to organize a munazira between both sides on the various USOOLI issues of contention. (mukhtalif feeha masail of fiqh are a non-issue inside both our mazhab (Hanafi) and also the Ahlus Sunnah, salah on train, imamat on microphone, blood transfusion etc. various different Hanafi ulema have differed on various fiqhi masail within the mazhab; notwithstanding the differences between the 4 mazahib)

It’s not for a clash of egos but for the sake of SUNNI UNITY, or else BOTH sides will lose to wahabism and deobandism and so on.

Although I do think it will take a very long time to materialize. tahir’s issues have been going on for years and only recently have ulema (indian) issued fatawa against him. NO ONE in Pakistan has issued a fatwa of kufr on him, afaik. I know I personally even gave a general istifta (but mentioning tahir’s specific speeches and actions in a lot of details) to some Pakistani ulema and they didn’t even want to issue a general fatwa on zayd or ek shakhs!

 

As stated, regardless of what we know about obaid in life in general or not – we can ONLY COMMENT based on the istifta given and the answer given to that istifta.

So inasmuch as commenting on THIS PARTICULAR FATWA is concerned, we have no choice but to keep “life in general” on the side and focus ONLY on the istifta and the jawab.

This is the pretty much the gist of the reason/excuse he presented (choonke until hut chuke hain):



(Sorry I really don’t have the time to translate and transcribe formally. Forgive me for it.)

As he says he said what he said for iqamate hujjat on them based on what THEY think of rama.

As he says, his iqamate hujjat is ONLY for 2 things:

1. Maintaining civil order and peace from the hindu side amidst riots and civil unrest.

2. The image of jihad has been spoiled by terrorists and other kafirs, and as he says, to convey the “real meaning” (asal maeney) of jihad, and defended Islam and Muslims.

He said what he said about rama and jihad in the speech (we’re only going with the transcription in the istifta here) as transcribed in that box.

In Nizamuddin sab’s jawab, this is pretty much the heart and soul of his daleel



1. As per Ala Hazrat and other past fuqahaa, we refrain from takfeer as much as possible until the REASON for kufr (wajahe kufr, I have’nt checked the wordings in Tamheed yet) is not clear as sunshine AND there is no faintest possibility left for judging him Muslim.

2. He also gives a daleel from Imam Qurtubi’s Jame3 Al-Ahkam Al-Quran saying that it IS permissible to lie or make statements that resemble lies in order to establish hujjah and blame upon the opponent.

This below is the text from Imam Qurtubi’s Jame3 Al-Ahkam, that he has quoted. It is found under verse 21:62.

Basically the incident where Sayyidina Ibrahim 3laihis salam broke the small idols and asked them to ask the big idol why he broke them (which is NOT the truth on the outward of the statement as the big idol is not the one who broke the small idols, see hadith mentioned in tafseers and explanations below), and they were forced to say that their “gods” don’t talk.

Al-Waahidi’s tafseer under the same verse has some simple and lucid explanations on the story of Sayyidina Ibrahim 3alaihis salam.

QURTUBI 21:62

وَلِهَذَا يَجُوزُ عِنْدَ الْأُمَّةِ فَرْضُ الْبَاطِلِ مَعَ الْخَصْمِ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ إِلَى الْحَقِّ مِنْ ذَاتِ نَفْسِهِ، فَإِنَّهُ أَقْرَبُ فِي الْحُجَّةِ وَأَقْطَعُ لِلشُّبْهَةِ، كَمَا قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ:" هَذَا رَبِّي" وهذه أختي و" إِنِّي سَقِيمٌ" وَ" بَلْ فَعَلَهُ كَبِيرُهُمْ هَذَا"

TAFSEER AL-BASEET 21:62

والذين أحالوا أن يكون هذا كذبًا تأولوه على ما ذكرنا من الوجوه، وقالوا في قوله لساره هي أختي كانت أخته في الدين، وفي قوله: {إِنِّي سَقِيمٌ} أي: مغتم بضلالتكم حتى كأني سقيم، وأما ما روي عن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم-:أن إبراهيم لم يكذب إلا ثلاث كذبات أراد إلا ثلاث كلمات هن في صورة الكذب في الظاهر، فأطلق عليها اسم الكذب لما أشبهت الكذب في الظاهر، ولم يرد به حقيقة الكذب

I was following up on these and also came across this below from Al-Jassas’s Ahkam Al-Quran, albeit under Surah An3am.

I don’t know if it strengthens or weakens Nizamuddin sab’s case or my reservations on his fatwa but basically the example of Sayyidina Ibrahim 3alaihis salam is to establish proofs for Tawheed and ma3rifat of Allah more than anything else (ie anything else from a3mal like sawm, salat, jihad, etc.)

Sure, that statement from Qurtubi’s tafseer may be and probably is a general permission to extrapolate this principle of using the opponent’s OWN precepts to establish HUJJAH for THE TRUTH upon them – in other matters of deen too – like maintaining law and order or establishing proof for other aspects of deen like fasting or eating meat etc. (stray thought & case in point – so is zakir nalayak following this principle when he tries to prove based on the Vedas that meat is permissible?)

JASSAS SURAH AN3AM (copy pasted from link with slight formatting)

http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/...rtno=0&hflag=&pid=668555&bk_no=4120&startno=1

قوله تعالى : فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَيْهِ اللَّيْلُ رَأَى كَوْكَبًا قَالَ هَذَا رَبِّي سورة الأنعام آية 76 قيل فيه : ثلاثة أوجه : أحدها : أنه قال ذلك في أول حال نظره واستدلاله على ما سبق إلى وهمه وغلب في ظنه ; لأن قومه قد كانوا يعبدون الأوثان على أسماء الكواكب فيقولون : هذا صنم زحل وصنم الشمس وصنم المشتري , ونحو ذلك.

والثاني : أنه قال قبل بلوغه وقبل إكمال الله تعالى عقله الذي به يصح التكليف , فقال ذلك وقد خطرت بقلبه الأمور وحركته الخواطر والدواعي على الفكر فيما شاهده من الحوادث الدالة على توحيد الله تعالى ، وروي في الخبر : أن أمه كانت ولدته في مغار خوفا من نمرود ؛ لأنه كان يقتل الأطفال المولودين في ذلك الزمان , فلما خرج من المغار ، قال هذا القول حين شاهد الكواكب.

والثالث : أنه قال ذلك على وجه الإنكار على قومه , وحذف الألف وأراد : أهذا ربي ؟ ! قال الشاعر : كذبتك عينك أم رأيت بواسط غلس الظلام من الرباب خيالا ومعناه : أكذبتك.

وقال آخر : رفوني وقالوا يا خويلد لا ترع فقلت وأنكرت الوجوه هم هم معناه : أهم هم.

ومعنى قوله : لا أُحِبُّ الآفِلِينَ سورة الأنعام آية 76 إخبار بأنه ليس برب ولو كان ربا لأحببته وعظمته تعظيم الرب.

وهذا الاستدلال الذي سلك إبراهيم طريقه من أصح ما يكون من الاستدلال وأوضحه , وذلك أنه لما رأى الكوكب في علوه وضيائه قرر نفسه على ما ينقسم إليه حكمه من كونه ربا خالقا أو مخلوقا مربوبا , فلما رآه طالعا آفلا ومتحركا زائلا قضى بأنه محدث لمقارنته لدلالات الحدث وأنه ليس برب ; لأنه علم أن المحدث غير قادر على إحداث الأجسام وأن ذلك مستحيل فيه كما استحال ذلك منه إذ كان محدثا , فحكم بمساواته له في جهة الحدوث وامتناع كونه خالقا ربا.

ثم لما طلع القمر فوجده من العظم والإشراق وانبساط النور على خلاف الكوكب قرر أيضا نفسه على حكمه فقال : هذا ربي , فلما راعاه وتأمل حاله وجده في معناه في باب مقارنته للحوادث من الطلوع والأفول والانتقال والزوال حكم له بحكمه وإن كان أكبر وأضوأ منه , ولم يمنعه ما شاهد من اختلافهما من العظم والضياء من أن يقضي به بالحدوث لوجود دلالات الحدث فيه

ثم لما أصبح رأى الشمس طالعة في عظمها وإشراقها وتكامل ضيائها قال : هذا ربي ; لأنها بخلاف الكوكب والقمر في هذه الأوصاف , ثم لما رآها آفلة منتقلة حكم لها بالحدوث أيضا وأنها في حكم الكوكب والقمر لشمول دلالة الحدث للجميع.

وفيما أخبر الله تعالى به عن إبراهيم عليه السلام وقوله عقيب ذلك : وَتِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَا آتَيْنَاهَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِ سورة الأنعام آية 83 أوضح دلالة على وجوب الاستدلال على التوحيد وعلى بطلان قول الحشو القائلين بالتقليد ; لأنه لو جاز لأحد أن يكتفي بالتقليد لكان أولاهم به إبراهيم عليه السلام فلما استدل إبراهيم على توحيد الله واحتج به على قومه ثبت بذلك أن علينا مثله ; وقد قال في نسق التلاوة عند ذكره إياه مع سائر الأنبياء : أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللَّهُ فَبِهُدَاهُمُ اقْتَدِهْ سورة الأنعام آية 90 فأمرنا الله تعالى بالاقتداء به في الاستدلال على التوحيد والاحتجاج به على الكفار.

ومن حيث دلت أحوال هذه الكواكب على أنها مخلوقة غير خالقة ومربوبة غير رب فهي دالة أيضا على أن من كان في مثل حالها في الانتقال والزوال والمجيء والذهاب لا يجوز أن يكون ربا خالقا وأنه يكون مربوبا , فدل على أن الله تعالى لا يجوز عليه الانتقال ولا الزوال ولا المجيء ولا الذهاب , لقضية استدلال إبراهيم عليه السلام بأن من كان بهذه الصفة فهو محدث , وثبت بذلك أن من عبد ما هذه صفته فهو غير عالم بالله تعالى وأنه بمنزلة من عبد كوكبا أو بعض الأشياء المخلوقة.

وفيه الدلالة على أن معرفة الله تعالى تجب بكمال العقل قبل إرسال الرسل ; لأن إبراهيم عليه السلام استدل عليها قبل أن يسمع بحجج الأنبياء عليهم السلام.

So now the question is - based on the istifta given, IS the jawab given correct?

(reminder, we’re NOT looking at “life in general” and obaid’s audios, videos, track record, scandals, etc etc here).

And this is where I have a bunch of reservations:

1. The praise of rama, even if obaid says it is implicitly implied “as stated in YOUR (ie hindus) books” (he didn’t say in the speech, but said in the istifta that he described rama as their own books describe him; in the speech he said how he sees rama as a Muslim, we can stretch it to mean ‘as a Muslim going thru their books’)–

Is it just kalimae kufr but doesn’t make him kafir due to the differences between iltizam and luzoom, and the other nuances of fiqh on when and how praising kafirs (remember, rama is not just kafir, but their deity) is acceptable and when it makes one a kafir.

Eg. If you say tendulkar is a great batsman, it doesn’t make you kafir, even though you have just “praised” him.

Apparently (as I’ve been told by the other side) there are fiqh technicalities between tareef of kafir and tazeem and given the circumstances and context and the istifta, he ain’t guilty here.

2. By his own istifta, he apparently wanted to establish hujjah to tell hindus to maintain peace and civil order.

Ok, perhaps he established hujjah on the hindus to maintain civil peace and order. That this particular group of hindus was already peaceful and not hostile to Muslims, as he stated in his istifta, is irrelevant. We can give it away to encouraging them to carry it on and others to follow suit. Also whether someone actually followed his hujjah or not is irrelevant since results are not in our hands. Our responsibility is just to establish hujjah.

3. Secondly, he wanted to establish hujjah to explain the correct meaning of jihad that it’s not terrorism.

He messed up big time there. The summary of the speech stated in the istifta is that jihad is ONLY self-defense and fighting against terrorism. He could have very easily avoided this by saying that our religion forbids us from killing women & children even in actual wars, from even cutting down trees or ransacking livestock, etc etc. He could have avoided talking about offensive jihad (given the sensitive circumstances at the time) but deliberately restricting the meaning and definition to self-defense and fighting terrorism is abetment to the ugly bid3ah that jihad is only self-defense. Furthermore, I think only an idiot would need to establish hujjah on self-defense. Self-defense is a very basic human (and even animal) instinct and no society or law on earth requires self defense to be justified in principle. (The courts can only ask you to PROVE that you genuinely acted in self defense).

4. He said rama did jihad to rescue the honor of sita and also rescued the honor of all sitas till day of judgment. hindus believe in reincarnation, and rama and sita are fictitious characters. What’s the point after explaining jihad (even if the distorted mubtadi3i version) to go out of his way and say that rama the mythological character did it?

End result – I really have my reservations on Nizamuddin sab’s fatwa saying that what obaid did is “apne mazhab ka difa3” and “ghayron par iqamate hujjat”.

There is no mention of Tawheed or Risalat to subscribe to “apne mazhab ka difa3” (mazhab here obviously refers to Islam and not Hanafi, given that it is a Muslim vs hindu scenario). If the mazhab part is given away to his explanation of jihad, then it is a “ek ae3teqadi bid3at ka difa3” and not apne mazhab ka difa3.

The maximum that can be said is he established hujjah against civil strife.

Given obaid’s reasons and Ala Hazrat’s stated principle mentioned above (avoid takfeer to max extent possible) AND this purported fiqh technicality between tazeem and tareef on which topic there are Arabic treatises by major fuqahaa – I choose to adopt sukoot over the fatwa itself and get a second opinion from a non-desi Sunni scholar, who will not see things through the Bareilly-Mubarakpur-politics colored goggles.

Also note that obaid is alive and CAN & SHOULD be summoned to explain his position and intentions by ulema of both sides.

I will translate and transcribe the fatwa by Nizamuddin sab and obaid’s istifta and also add the footnotes to desis nuances and send it to some non-desi shuyukh, when I run into some free time.

Again, I am only talking about the istifta and the fatwa here and not anything outside of it.

 

The istifta was GENERAL mentioning ek shakhs and a piece of text was given which showed a praise of the hindu deity rama.

As far as I remember, there was no mention of any audio recording in the istifta itself.

The answer given is the obvious answer any Muslim teaches (or should teach) to his five year old.

I agree with it wholeheartedly.

 

Any mufti, regardless of his right or wrong intentions, can answer ONLY BASED on the istifta presented.

No mufti on earth will veer away from the istifta presented.

The Bareilly side, from my understanding – were presented a textual istifta about ek shakhs and they answered.

Nizamuddin sab’s fatwa too is based the textual istifta attached to it. There is no mention of an audio in it.

As far as the fatawa or commenting on them is concerned, the muftis or us awam can NOT veer out of the stated isitifta into “life in general”.

This is a basic rule we all need to keep in mind.