mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Unbeknown, Feb 13, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    no need to hack. he is a member of the advisory board and can just order it to be put up.

    then we wont believe them, the urs-e-azizi speech has put our husn-e-zann to rest.
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    why are people ignoring the elephant in the room? UKA said this on March 22/23 (urs-e-azizi):

    56:28 - I told them that I am sending the cassete based on which the fatwa of kufr has been given. Listen to it in full, transcribe it, get each and every word written, if there is even a minutest denigration of the shariah, I will not repent behind closed doors but in front of lakhs of public and scholars Ubaidullah Khan Azmi will repent.

    so after the fatwa which was released on March21 the mustafti claims he had sent the cassette - "LISTEN TO IT IN FULL"- the muftis do not deny this - and yet we are to assume that only 'part' of the speech was known?


    brother Aqib's point in #227 is absolutely valid.

    that line is on page1 of the istifta - whereas the line brother Aqib is referring to is on page2 right at the top: "baqi zaroori hisse ko chhod diya"

    then further down he states: "mai apni taqreer ka wo zaroori hissa yahaN naql karta huN"


    1. Nagpur istifta has a part of the speech.
    2. Ashrafiya istifta has a larger part of the speech
    3. Mustafti claims he had sent the entire speech

    phew! all this has been said before yet the same old points are being raised . . .
  3. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    My mistake in typing. It was 148. I have been told the reason for editing. I have no issues and I am sorry for hurting you. But that was not my intention. walekum as salam.
  5. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    We don't have to " mean " anything. He mentions this , right at the beginning : "meri taqreer ka ek na mukammal hissa pesh kiya hai".

    He did not present full speech and hence the fatwa was as per istifta.
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    post # 168 is mine responding to AQ, see even you can't mention your post correctly. i've never edited your post, but i do edit my posts a lot because i make a lot of mistakes usually grammatical and typos.

    i request you to pardon me from any discussion with you in this regard, i already have mentioned and thanked you. i commented because you just came back with same delusions again and demanding people to acknowledge the crime of forgery. aap ko aakhri martabah door say salam.
  7. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    nevertheless, it is agreed that Obaidullah did present "a larger text" of his speech to Ashrafiyyah that contained the words of contention. right?

    It also means means that Obaidullah did not present the full facts (or the full speech) to Ashrafiyyah.

    and so the fatwa from Ashrafiyyah must be "disregarded" or deemed "incorrect" because of the incomplete speech. and the muftis (from Ashraffiyya or Bareilli shareef or Ghosi etc) must listen to the FULL SPEECH and then decide.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  8. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    The original speech which was delivered was of more than 1 hour. Please note, the 9 minute clip circulating around on internet is not" full speech".
  9. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    technically, NO. because Obaidullah copied his full speech INTO the istifta.

    so the fatwa from Ashrafiyyah is on the istifta, that includes the full text of the speech.

    the speech itself is the core of the istifta.

    (check out Obaidullah's words of complaint at the begining of the ïstifta)
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  10. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Jazak Allah khair brother.


    For your kind reminder, the fatwa is based on the istifta and not the speech. Hence if you say, the fatwa is wrong, it has to be analyzed in light of the istifta and not the speech. I hope the point is clear. What ever you have mentioned in your posts, is from speech. The original istifta which was sent to scholars at Nagpur, did not contain the entire speech. It quoted a part of the speech. The same istifta was then sent to mubarakpur along with the answer. Hence if you say, the answer given by Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi is wrong, you need to remember that the fatwa was given to the istifta.

    Independently , you can write anything you wish or issue any fatwa on the speech. But the fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi is on specific istifta. Hence if you still say that the answer is wrong, you need to prove it, in the light of the istifta sent to Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi.

    Brother, You said you are not interested to know about it. So just leave it. At some point this issue will certainly come again. Hope we will tackle it again.

    I have not asked any question. I have asked you to prove your claim, which you should have given when you made that remark. Please remember if you are using speech to analyse the fatwa given by Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi, you are 100% wrong. Others did not bother you to prove it, I asked it. It is not a question.

    Just a reminder from your forum rules.

    Now let us see , what you wrote

    Though you have used a conditional phrase of " if" right at the beginning of your statement ,it is not valid, because you did not research before making this post. Here is the analysis:

    1) Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi, signed the fatwa on 21 March 2015 ( see page 6 of his fatwa posted on your forum)

    2) Obaidullah Khan delivered the speech on the night of 22 March 2015 . ( Technically speaking he delivered the speech on 23 March 2015, because the kul sherif was at 11: 55 pm on 22 March. Obaidullah Khan took mic after that, hence it was 23 rd ) .

    3) Hence if you would have done little homework , you would not have used this 'if'. There is no hurry in declaring 'kufr' for sunni scholars, especially keeping in mind that you have the above policy for deobandi scholars

    3) I have saved your remarks regarding Obaidullah Khan's speech no 2. I am sure, we all agree that there are scholars in India who are more learned than you. Let us see, if these scholars ( say Tajus shariah and Muhaddith Kabeer) issue a fatwa in agreement with your view .

    4) I will not participate in any discussion pertaining to this speech ( no 2) as of now. In sha Allah, will wait.


    I read your posts and found that you have compared Mufti Nizamuddin's fatwa in light of the speech delivered my Obaidullah Khan and not the istifta raised. I am a human being and might have missed your analysis in the light of istifta ( and not speech). In case any of reply is based on istifta,please mention the post number. I am sorry, if I missed this point in any of your posts.

    Again, I am talking about the fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi ( which is answer to an istifta) and not the speech of Obaidullah.

    [quoteand 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.[/quote]

    Brother, tambih, is not required in matters where iqamat e hujjat or itmam e hujjat is done. Kindly refer to fatwa rizviya, volume 6 ( old edition) ,where these types of matters are discussed. Not even in one masla has Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri Barkati rahmatullah alayh given tambih where iqamat or itmam e hujjat was done.Second, you need to prove kufriyat in the quoted text in the istifta, not the speech.


    I am discussing Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi's fatwa, not Obaidullah khan's speech.

    The original questioner ( Abdullah) did not quote the entire speech but only a part of speech. If I go by your logic, then the muftis should have insisted on complete speech, where as they answered in the light of the quote mentioned in istifta.

    Now, that the whole world knows and Obaidullah Khan, has accepted that it is his speech, we wait for a specific fatwa on Obaidullah Khan from these scholars who have issued a general fatwa and hence is not applicable on Obaidullah Khan.
  11. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    G sir jee. But I never left. I said, I won't be posting for a while, because I have a to travel a lot.
    It was not my side of the story. It is your forum,which has a fabricated fatwa floating around, I asked the person who uploaded it to get its authenticity. But the answer I got was (1) He lives in UK and (2) Administrator is not interested in knowing the truth of the fatwa.
    My question is still for those who are interested in knowing the truth, for those who are not,let them forget.

    By the way, can you tell me, who did the holy act of editing my post ( no 168)? I will be concentrating on your and abu Hasan's post.

    Please don't edit any of my post or your post, which you type in reply to my post, in future. This is only a request.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    dear brother, after the last exchange, i assume we withdrew from this.

    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.

    you said you would not engage until the story of the first fatwa - v1 and v2 etc. was told by others. i told you that i don't know. as for demanding it from inquisitive, you have done it. you did not reveal the suspense and after a heated exchange, you went silent.

    now you have come back asking more questions. (please note i have not asked you any questions). my position

    i suggest you do your research - it is the speech that i have referred to.

    i try to be as open as i can and i have mentioned my thoughts in this thread; including many places why i think mufti nizamuddin sahib's fatwa is wrong. i do not understand your new initiative, nor do i want to guess what might be the reason.

    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.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS you are back again without telling your-side story. So far it is only you who has been only asking questions.
  14. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Don't tempt the forum might just regret it.
  15. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

  16. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Can you please explain which "second' speech you have mentioned here? I ask this, because after the first speech from which istifta was sent by " Abdullah" to scholars at Nagpur conference, there have been two more speeches of Obaidullah Khan which has been uploaded on your forum. First, a clipping in which Abdur rahman tabani ( from malegaon ) explains the wordings of Obaidullah Khan and second , a speech at Urs of Hafize millat.

    Kindly pin point as to which speech you mean when you write " this second speech'.
  17. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Let us not discuss why I am doing and what my intentions are.

    abu Hasan, please prove that the fatwa of Mufti nizamuddin rizvi is wrong.

    Please, don't come back with bundle of questions. You have said that the fatwa is wrong. Now prove it. This should not be difficult. I am here, in sha Allah.
  18. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

    Yes. That's a good point that you have put forward. Shocking!
  19. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    What I personally found most shocking was, they were ready to call Sunni Muftis as Kafir if they regarding Obaidullah as a non-Muslim.
    chisti-raza likes this.
  20. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

    Very disappointed in Mawlana Ahmad Mishabi Sahib. Thought he was different.

Share This Page