mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

AQ, I may not reply for a while and probably won't be able to follow this thread for a while. Just got handed a terribly huge project.

 

For some reason I never got around to actually reading the article and read it just now and I am surprised at how the people have been left to ponder for themselves instead of issuing a clear fatwa - and that took THREE muftis to agree over?!

why are these people doing all this? What's their responsibility as muftis? To issue open-ended "you decide for yourself" articles? Then who do they expect will write the fatwas? Perhaps they have outsourced it to forum keyboard warriors .....

 

this article was published in 12/2011 issue of SDI as per the post by brother miraj here.

I could not find a link so am uploading it here. Note that he says clearly that he got his info from a cd.

 

i am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. i don't have any dispensations or answers.

i am saying i have a bunch of questions on what an "upright Muslim politician" (love the coinage of the phrase) can do or say in his dealings with kafir politicians and religious leaders, given these times of no khalifa and no sultan, and secularism and democracy ruling the roost. i will start a new thread on it.

 

you can ignore the hukm, but it establishes the basis and authenticity of the matter.

---
the seal of mufti nizamuddin confirms that:

a) obaidullah azmi has indeed said those things
b) because the accused is himself the mustafti and that has been stamped and sealed by a reputable institution
c) that the issue is certainly real and enough basis for any serious mufti to take it from there. no one can deny that it as a rumour.

thereafter,
d) the sound clip is identical to that quoted by the mustafti who is also the accused, though there are more incriminating words in that sound clip. there is no reasonable ground to reject it as forgery - UNLESS, obaid claims it in writing that it is a forgery or words were adduced in the clip. [writing is only to ensure non-repudiation].

e) the urs of hafiz e millat and the speech is a public event. is it still necessary for two reliable witnesses to attest that the urs was really held, and that obaid really spoke, and that which is circulated is really obaid's voice (uncut), and that the muftis were really present? or was it a public event attended by thousands (if not more)?

Allah ta'ala knows best

 

we don't re-define hard set boundaries based on changed times. you are free to disagree but I think that unless and until a situation falls into the category of 'umoom al-balwa' (and that's again for qualified muftis to decide) we can't just say 'necessity'. Surely bringing jaya prada into ashrafiya is not a need of the hour. And an upright muslim politician, if there's any such thing, will go out of his way to avoid haram and not look out for non-existent dispensations.

I'll leave you with this statement of azhari miyaN:

"haram chahe mai karuN ya koi kare, kisi ke karne ya na karne se haram halal nahi ho jaega"

 

just so you know, i AM concerned about the fatwa of Nizamuddin sab and wish to see it verified or rejected by an independent third party outside of this Bareilly-Mubarakpur conflict.

---

of course that has no bearing on the fresh new istifta that we will draft and send it to various different muftis to get specific fatwa on obaid by name.

i will wait for the evidences consolidated in one place, then i will post my istifta draft.

 

just so that you know this; I am not concerned about this obsolete fatwa of Nizamuddin Sahib. I don't think that it requires more discussion. A new istifta should be sent through.

 

that's great. please see this other thread, posts #3, #32, #34, #50, #51 if you're in doubt.

anyway, let's not get side-tracked again.

i will wait for a consolidated list of electronic evidences against obaid, and then i will post an Urdu draft of the istifta, that anyone is welcome to tweak on the open forum, and then we will all get to work soliciting responses from various Sunni ulema and institutes of the subcontinent.

 

Yes, I know that you know this full well.

 

you're welcome brother, but you need not be worried about establishing hujjah for me. this isn't a you vs me fight. besides, i already said it on this forum, that i will get the verification/rejection of Nizamuddin sahab's fatwa independently from a non-desi shaykh because i know how the groupie emotions are running on this thread, and also mainly because either side of this politics won't be seeing the matter objectively, or even if they do, they can't be trusted because of their internal dispute.

some people might think Azhari Miyan and his side is an infallible defender of faith. some people might think Ashrafia muftis are infallible defenders of faith. some might think DI or Ilyas Qadiri sahib are infallible defenders of faith.

i think anyone is prone to error and any side of a politicized conflict can have its judgment clouded or be used or abused by opportunists within. so i am seeking a fresh perspective. that's all.

---

just do let me know what do we do if we don't get a fatwa from Azhari Miyan or DI?

 

but it should be a hujjah for you as it is from your murshid and his organisation shouldn't it?

Thanks for making intention into putting in an effort to formulate the istifta.

 

but is that really the same as dancing with movie stars on tv? or is it a necessary part of Muslim indian politics? (not rhetorical questions. i will start a new thread on Muslim politics to ask these kind of questions from a fiqh perspective, and then we can send them to shuyukh)

what will you say about this article and the invitation of shiela dixit and choudhary mateen ahmed (apparently a wahabi)??

http://www.milligazette.com/news/4016-aala-hazrat-library-inaugurated-in-delhi

 

besides, i don't understand how it will be a hujjah for Azhari Miyan's side, since he has excommunicated DI & SDI from Sunniyat.

http://picosong.com/2fzB/

 

i will wait for the "anyone else wants to help out" part on this thread. whoever it is that wants to provide the evidences, please list them all out in one post. you can make a pdf with all the links, pictures, news clips etc. and attach it. and then i will formulate the istifta around it in Urdu.

sorry but i don't see the fruit in scouring thru 280 posts on 14 pages to dig for the evidences against obaid, and then engage in cross questioning and allegations and clarifications and comprehension etc. between us forum members. i think the fatwa by Nizamuddin sahab pretty much has all the meat and potatoes on obaid.

i just obliged to your request to draft the istifta because you're a old friend from the forum. my Urdu really isn't up to Mir Taqi Mir's mark and i don't see how my touch will add a difference to it. there are a lot better folk on here to draft the istifta in Urdu.

---

please just note that this exercise must be done completely in the forum public space, not thru PM's, since it's a mess responding cross questioning of why this and why that.

someone just list out the evidences against obaid in one post. (PS. if they are in any regional languages other than english/hindu/urdu, the person posting the evidence must do the translation as well into urdu)

AQ drafts Urdu istifta and posts it on the forum. other members most welcome to offer suggestions and tweaks etc.

we send the final istifta to:

Azhari Miyan's side (AQ insistence)
DI (chisti-raza insistence)
Ashrafia (AQ & chisti-raza emphasis)

other Sunni darul ifta's across the subcontinent - at least 5 on each side of the border, hopefully those not aligned to either side in the Mubarakpur-Bareilly politics. (AQ emphasis)

 

Every mufti requires solid evidence.

 

I appreciate AQ's points that:

1. Non-indian mufti will require solid evidence to pass a specific ruling. That evidence is available with the accused's signature for only that part of the speech he mentioned in the istifta. For other parts of the speech and the other speeches we will need a witness or some sort of an admission from uka. This is relatively easy for Indian muftis most of all for the ashrafiya muftis as he is a member of it's advisory board.

2. Asking DI for a fatwa can be a good academic exercise and perhaps a hujjat for it's adherents but not for ashrafiya or bareily. Infact DI issuing a ruling on ashrafiya fatwa is all the more improbable since whenever DI needs expert advice/fatwa on a matter they contact the very ashrafiya muftis they are being asked to investigate. So I don't think anything will come out of this.

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

But this does not mean that DI/Arab/Turkish scholar cannot issue a ruling at all. See my post below. They can be presented with the entire picture with speeches transcribed and translated into that language and asked for a general ruling on a person who said and did all those things. People can then draw their own conclusions.

If we're not getting anything more than a general ruling then why send just the ashrafiya fatwa alone? What's the point? Why not send the entire scenario transcribed and then get a general ruling on that?

 

The aim is not to get one or the other mufti to declare obaidullah as kafir. Rather, my over-riding concern is that the entire string of events be analysed and on each part of the string an appropriate hukm be given with the riders that:

1. xyz part could not be verified in a manner which would allow one to pass a ruling of kufr but if true then the hukm stands as mentioned.
2. abc part is can definitely be attributed to the accused and so the ruling on it is such and such.

Then people can draw their own conclusions. Infact this will infuriate azmi so much that he will come forward once again and admit it all and that would be the missing proof.

Do note that mufti nizam had issued a fatwa of gumrahi on tahir in SDI's magazine though his only evidence was videos/CDs etc. someone should go back and verify if this is the case and what evidence did he provide as the basis for the ruling.

 

some points about shariah admissible evidences:

1. Ascription of the speech to UKA was contestable when the bareily shareef fatwa was issued.
2. After the fatwa from mubarakpur it is no longer 'just a youtube link'. UKA has admitted to almost the entire speech in writing and even put his signature with name.
3. The rest of the speech could have been ascertained by cross-questioning him but he saved us the work by claiming that he had sent the entire speech. So the accused has admitted before hundreds of people that he had sent the entire speech and the words are his. Once again this is not a youtube link. Anyone who attended in the urs can give the testimony in this regard.
4. This leaves just the last speech uploaded from malegaon. Again for this a sharai witness or obaidullah himself will have to be questioned.
5. Photo-ops and politics part is for the sharai ruling of fisq and the ruling on attending the gatherings of a fasiq. This event was mass-reported in the papers and media besides the scores of witnesses so I don't know how it's authenticity can be questioned.
6. The date reported by the gujrati paper - again someone present in/around the area can testify in this regard.

 

We should also send the updated istifta to Nizamuddin Sahib. I'm sure that our respected brother SunniStudent has access to him and can get it to him.