mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Yes brother I agree with you.* As AQ said previously,

. So what's better than asking your own murshid and his organisation for a ruling?

AQ, please (this is a request), or if anyone else can put forward the inquiry for a ruling on Obaidullah Azmi by name, send through your question here and I will send it through to Dawat e Islami and Ilyas Qadiri Sahib** for a ruling. A brother is prepared to put his name on the request for a ruling and publish it.

I will also try to send the question to Hashmi Mian Sahib to get a ruling from him on Obaidullah Azmi by name.

* That we seek a new ruling based on the facts that are now present.
** AQ's murshid and his murshid's organisation

 

Yes brother I agree with you. As AQ said previously,

. So what's better than asking your own murshid and his organisation for a ruling?

AQ, please (this is a request), or if anyone else can put forward the inquiry for a ruling on Obaidullah Azmi by name, send through your question here and I will send it through to Dawat e Islami and Ilyas Qadiri Sahib for a ruling. A brother is prepared to put his name on the request for a ruling and publish it.

 

to brothers AQ, chisti-raza, Aqib alQadri: Sending the old fatwa and seeking a ruling on it is utterly pointless and will achieve exactly nothing.

Whether you send the istifta to bareily, baghdad or karachi you cannot turn a blind eye to the latest developments. It's no use going back to the Jurassic age!

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

The istifta should include of the following things at the very least:

1. UKA's speech at gandhidham, if the speech is more than 9mins then it will be better if someone can get the entire speech. I don't know if it would be a good idea to order the katha#734 from here.

2. UKA's speech uploaded by the person from malegaon.

3. UKA's 22nd March Urs Speech at Ashrafiya

4. If people really want this, the ashrafiya and bareily-shareef fatwas.

5. Point out that one day after the asharfaiya fatwa was issued the mustafti claimed that he had sent the entire speech to the muftis and the muftis did not deny this, neither then nor as yet.

6. It has now emerged that the istifta sent to/written at ashrafiya contained a lie - that the speech was given in 2003 in the aftermath of the godhra riots. The fact is that the speech was given in the vestiges of 2013, perhaps to gain hindu votes in other places, or perhaps to woo Sharad Pawar (the tyrant who has always been an enemy of the muslims and was responsible for the murder of several muslims during the riots of the 70's) whose NCP party he joined in july 2014. See him with pawar here.

7. What is the wisdom behind the principle stated in jami al-aHkam. How does it explain Sayyiduna Ibarhim's ('alayhis salaam) actions and how can it be used and abused. Please explain it with examples.

8. UKA's campaigning with non-mehrams, posing for photo-ops with them and shamelessly bragging about it.

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

unless the new istifta contains all of the above details it will remain incomplete and alienated from ground realities and therefore any fatwa issued on it's based will be inconsequential and pointless.

Allah ta'ala know best.

 

brother, why should the question specifically be by me.

besides, DI and Ilyas Qadri sahab are urdu speakers. they can easily be forwarded Nizamuddin sahab's fatwa and asked is it correct or not; that is -

based on what the mustafti said in the istifta and the reasons and excuses cited, is the fatwa given by the mufti based on the daleels he gave - correct or not? if it is not correct, what is the ruling on the mustafti; and what is the ruling on the mufti issuing the fatwa?

it's that simple.

 

AQ, can you please send me the question to submit to Dawat e Islami and Iyas Qadiri Sahib so that we can obtain a fatwa from them on Obaidullah Azmi by name? You can post the question here. A brother here is prepared to send it to them using his full name for the fatwa.

 

google translate

everything from the speech is quoted so it IS the same speech.

 

which also means that instead of iqamate hujjat for Islam and muslims, he gave the hindus themselves a hujjat - they can now say, "look even muslims agree that ram existed and he is the IMAM of India"

wonderful application of the principle from Imam Qurtubi's jami al aHkam

a round of applause for KHATEEB-UL-HIND....

 

right then, here are some quick facts:

this is the official list of all kathas with their dates and venue.

The last entry for 2013 is No. 734, venue: Adipur, Gujrat date: 28.12.2013 - 05.01.2014

Adipur is in gandhidham (use google maps). The dainikbhaskar article was published on 30.12.2013

The news piece heading is: Ram is the Imam of Hidustan, Mawlana Azmi

A question: why would the paper publish a decade old article right in the midst of an on-going ram-katha and that too in precisely the same location?

too many similarities to be coincidences?

 

'nice' pose: http://i10.dainikbhaskar.com/thumbnail/320x278/web2images/www.divyabhaskar.co.in/2013/12/30/7792_untitled-33.jpg



Editing Notes:

1. This post was edited on 13/09/2015 because I noticed that the image had been quietly taken down from the original link (I noticed this when I wished to show the image to a scholar).

2. The only deeni platform where this image was posted was sunniport or atleast this was the first one (to the best of my knowledge). This would mean that a forum visitor noticed this and alerted the people (ir)responsible for having it removed. I have a strong hunch that it was sunnistudent or one of his 'friends' who run the infamous blog floated with the sole purpose of bad mouthing ulema-e-deen, even if it means supporting the praise of demi-gods.

3. Finally this means that the closet of obaidullah camp is bursting with skeletons and the proverbial 'tinka' is glaringly visible in the pretentious beard of the 'chor'.

4. Note how stealthily they work for their cause and on the other hand fool the masses by raising an unholy ruckus over a minor alteration (intentional or otherwise or perceived) in the wording of the correct fatwa.

5. Here is a list of places where the image is now available:

http://imagebin.ca/v/2FVBWBHCwZ9J

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=t8vxg5&s=8#.VfViRRFViko

http://s30.postimg.org/azfutw7vh/obaid_azmi_ramkatha.jpg?noCache=1442144872

 

well, this is certainly an interesting find.

just to be sure, how do you know that the speech was given in 2013 and not that the article was published in 2013?

I am asking because I don't understand gujrati much and the article just states a few things about uka praising ram and meeting morari (based on the little I could make of the gujrati words).

if found to be true I can only imagine the repercussions this would have.

I think it must not be too difficult to ascertain if we can get in touch with someone living in gandhidham....

 

http://m.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/Bh...speak-in-gandhidham-ramkatha-4478962-NOR.html

the speech took place in 2013

 

in his article 'behr e faqhat kay durr e shahwar' published in jahan e mufti e azam on page 442 (pdf version 444)

 

What book is that extract from?

 

mufti nizam sahab himself admits that they do this due diligence, but unfortunately not in uka's case;

 

another noteworthy passage on FR page 10669:

 

what did Alahazrat say about fighting alongside hindus for the independence of India? Apparently he said in the risala al-nabigh an-noor that it is not the fight for islam. See the following index of masa'il which is from page 10171 of DI's edition of FR.




As per the index, this mas'ala appears in the text of the risala after the refutation of abdul-majid-daryabadi and slightly before the reply to question no. 4. I read those pages a few times but could not locate the exact statement. I even used the search function of DI's software version of FR but without success. Help would be appreciated.

--------------
Kindly note that this is not an exercise in futility since in the Urs speech UKA had categorically said that gandhi, bose et al. had done jihad. The muftis did not stop him form saying this. After reading a few passages from al-nabigh and muhajjatul-mu'tminah I feel that had alahazrat been around today he would have censured these people very very severely.

Brothers who have been following the thread will notice that it was this urs-speech that made me lose my tether. I feel as if I have been cheated personally for all the trust and faith I had put in these muftis.

I hope they come out with a detailed fatwa that addresses all three of uka's speeches and also let us know exactly why was uka given 74 mins of the urs-celebration to address personal issues and say such things 'ram was bahadur, bahaadur aadmi ko bahaadur nahi bolenge?'

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

@SS - brother, you are contradicting yourself.

First you say 'we don't have to mean anything'. and then you confirm exactly what I meant, by saying "he did not present full speech"...

also check out my post 239 and that of brother Unbeknown at 232

 

I find it hilarious that [edited by noori: no personal attack please] SS is saying the fatwa is forged without any proof whatsoever.

 

@SS

Please send the link of the original (2002) FULL SPEECH to the forum.

Brothers will try to get the fatwa based on the full speech - if indeed the "missing part" has any relevance to the subject.

the "balance" (missing part) of the speech - which Obaidullah chose not to write in his istifta, could contain ONLY the following:-

1. words unrelated to the kufriyyat he uttered (political rambling, economy, history etc)
2. words which could pin him further

If the "missing part" did have some "solid reason" for absolving Obaidullah from the charges, HE WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY INCLUDED that in the istifta.

which leads to the same conclusion, that the 'larger text' Obaidullah presented in the istifta, is actually what the muftis needed to consider.

 

I think few brothers here are nitpicking about who (which brother) said what and what that means. Such waste of time - reminds me of the proverb "baal ka khaal ukhdana" (means 'to painstakingly separate the skin fragment from every hair strand'). Hacked this, tampered that - spare me the conspiracy theories. Just cut to the chase.

All I care about is - if Mufti Nizamuddin were to be presented the full speech, will he pass the fatwa of kufr on Obaidullah. As SS says, Mufti sahab hasn't heard the full speech. Now present him the full speech and all previous such speeches of Obaidullah and get a fresh fatwa. That's all I care for. Will Obaidullah be absolved or indicted?

Problem (to me, may be not for all over here) is that Obaidullah is getting away with murder and he is now posing with 'this' fatwa to claim his innocence. I am not interested in finding fault with Mufti Nizamuddin. I am only interested in finding whether Obaidullah has committed kufr in sum (and some) of his speeches and utterances.

Will SS bother to get fresh Ashrafiya fatwa? Just say - yes or no.