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

    this is the audio that brother Aqib Qadiri had posted. I thought it was the same as being discussed here but it's not.

    It has more perennialist filth:

    Again he asks hindus to promote Ram and Krishna!


    Concerning a query about a person who said that Vedas are like the Qur’ān and just as Muslims act upon the Qur’ān, the Hindus should act upon their Vedas, Alahazrat writes:

    To say that the Qur’an is similar to Vedas is kufr; and to ask others to act upon Vedas is to ask them to commit kufr; asking someone to commit kufr is also an act of kufr. In most books, it is written: “To be pleased with kufr, is kufr”.
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I meant it is irrelevant whether it is lesser or more work. What is important is that whether they see the need or not.
  3. AbdalQadir

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

    no way.

    a signed and sealed fatwa is a proper hujjah. and i don't see any reason they can be reluctant or not feel the need to put it on paper if that's their official position.

    we might be living in the age of audio and video technology but tahreer is still tahreer.

    Tajush Shari3ah put his stance on tahir on paper too to establish itmame hujjat. (if i remember his words from memory, "taa ke hujjat tamam ho")
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    that is irrelevant. Its up to them, if they see the need maybe they will. i have no idea.

    listen from 14:00 onwards, the ashrafiya fatwa is quoted and then refuted saying that it's not ta'weel but taHreef to say that he was presenting proofs from their own books to indict them.

    Allah knows best.
  5. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    jazakAllahu khayran.

    usually they video record this event. will it be possible for you to get at least the part when the fatwa was announced?
  6. AbdalQadir

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

    then it's even lesser work for Zia ul Mustafa sab to put this on paper and sign and seal it saying obaid's stated reasons and context and circumstances are inadmissible - yes or no?

    i didn't hear his speech properly. is this your assumption or did Zia ul Mustafa sab say it explicitly that obaid's stated excuses are inadmissible?


    btw, my reservations on Nizamuddin sab's fatwa are exactly those - regarding the reasons obaid stated and the purported fiqh technicalities between tareef and tazeem, etc. and you or anyone on this forum is very welcome to present my reservations to any scholar from the Bareilly side.

    please just wait till my next post. in fact i think i will shut down the browser and compose it in word so as not to be distracted.
  7. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Urs e Azeezi
  8. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    whether they release a new fatwa or not, Allamah Zia ul Mustafa sahib has said it on record that the fatwa applies to him now that he has admitted that the speech is indeed his. Note that by this time the ashrafiya fatwa was out already and so his excuses had been taken note of but were not deemed admissible.

    Refutation of the ashrafiya fatwa, though its needed, I dread to think how much more the bitterness will increase...
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    this is news to me. what was the event? How did the release of this fatwa take place - I mean was it mentioned that the mustafti has said such things and hence we have given this fatwa? I mean did the public know the background as to why the fatwa was issued?

    If it was on stage there must have been nara baazi too, when he was declared "cleared of all charges"?
  10. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    The Saheeh Fatwa was mentioned and released in front of Mufti Nizam and Misbahi Sahib on the stage.

    As for these two scholars, I respect your Husn e Zann, and I don't want to say anything further although much could be said.
  11. AbdalQadir

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

    which is general and doesn't mention obaid by name.

    please try to understand that we need to compare apples to apples.

    we need to contrast SPECIFIC BY NAME fatawa against each other.

    we can't contrast one general fatwa mentioning ek shakhs and zayd and bakr against a specific by name fatwa.

    obaid's istifta to Nizamuddin sab does NOT imply that the general fatwa given from Bareilly applies to him because of the reasons he stated in the istifta --- 'i wanted to indict hindus, godhra riots, it's a partial quotation, full speech, situation, context and circumstances were ignored' etc. etc. etc. --- that those reasons are lies or not is between obaid and Allah but ANY MUFTI ON EARTH WILL ONLY issue a fatwa based on the istifta presented. don't you see many many many fatawa beginning with "madhkoora bala soorat mein" ... (in the stated situation/circumstances....)???

    this is why as far as obaid is concerned, one of the two is required from the ulema of Braeilly if we wish to compare apples to apples -

    1 - either a radd of Nizamuddin sahab's fatwa posted in the first post, OR
    2 - a specific fatwa on obaid mentioning him by name

    sure no worries. you or abu Hasan or anyone else is most welcome to offer your suggestions and i don't have any reservations discussing it with you either.
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I do not know how you will word the 'I wanted to indict them' excuse in the istifta. The speech does not betray in the slightest any indictment of the hindus.

    If I may, i think it will be good if you discuss the istifta that you will be sending with sidi abu hasan and see if the two of you can agree on a common set of questions. That is if abu Hasan is interested and you too think it a good idea.

    For myself, I am not in need of another fatwa. I have agreed to the one from bareily.
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I have said it in more than one posts that I find it hard to digest that such a fatwa came from the pen of the likes of mufti nizam sahib and allamah muhammad ahmad misbahi sahib. I am singling out these two because I know about them, having been told by the ulema I am in touch with.

    I have met mufti nizam sahib and even asked him to pray that Allah ta'ala eases my path to 'ilm-e-deen and in return he blessed me with beautiful prayers. Whatever I have heard about him until now is only good.

    Similarly, misbahi sahib. I have seen him during a fiqhi seminar and heard a lot about him form friends who have studied in ashrafiya. Sidi abu hasan mentioned about finding one's shaykh in minhaj ul abideen, the things i have heard about him are comparable to sufis in atleast the outward. One of his hallmarks is his punctuality and extreme consideration for one's and others' time. For instance, once, during a very cold winter afternoon (anyone who knows the winters of u.p will relate to this) he was offered a plate of some hot pieces of charcoal to warm himself up. He returned it saying, "yeh to fursat walon ke liye hai", "this is for those who have leisure"!

    These are the people whom I would trust more than myself. You might call this naivety.

    You must understand that my judgements are based on what I have heard about them from those whom I trust. I have no other way of finding about them. On what basis should I form my opinions if not on information I have received from trustworthy scholars?

    This fatwa. I will not accept that these two people, especially misbahi sahib, have agreed to it, unless and until I see it written in their own hand writing or voice that they have heard each and every of the praises UKA heaped on ram and do not consider it kufr. And that will be a very sad day for me. So until then I will mantain husn zann that something has occurred behind the closed doors of some office in ashrafiya which has unjustly besmirched the names of these shuyookh.

    Don't think that i am faulting those shcolars of bareilly who have taken the fatwa and their signatures at face value. They are scholars and have their own reference frames. I am a nobody and I fear to take a wrong step on the basis of the paltry info I have.

    I will wait and watch.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

  14. AbdalQadir

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

    very simple solution:

    those who oppose Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa and consider it wrong - should academically shred it to bits in light of Hanafi fiqh.

    since this is a matter of iman and kufr, they might as well use any other mazhab's fiqh, Shafi3i or Hanbali or Maliki would be perfect as well.

    these "those" could be any person on this forum, or their shuyukh. it could be abu Hasan or unbeknown, or inquisitive, or Aqib Qadri, or anyone else.

    i say this very seriously and without any sarcasm - the scholars of Bareilly should be asked to issue an official signed and sealed fatwa refuting Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa showing how it is wrong. in fact they should also issue a ruling on Nizamuddin Sahab himself if they believe he committed kufr by supporting kufr. they have a signed and sealed statement from him. furthermore, they should also include in that ruling all those scholars who attested Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa.

    shouldn't be too hard a job to refute blatant kufriyat and a fatwa absolving the utterer!


    disclaimer - i am NOT saying it as a supporter or representative of Nizamuddin Sahab or Ashrafia. in fact i accept wholeheartedly the GENERAL fatwa from Bareilly. and i have reservations on the SPECIFIC fatwa from Mubarakpur on obaidullah, and as stated earlier, i will be seeking an opinion on it (Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa) from a non-desi scholar (a Jilani Syed, Sunni Hanafi Qadiri, non-deo-supporting) who obviously has nothing to do with this Bareilly-Mubarakpur politics.

    if i was in contact with Ziya ul Mustafa Sahab or Tajush Shari3ah or knew people who were in touch with them, i would be most certainly soliciting their refutation or opinion on Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa as well. i will be explaining my reservations and feedback on this thread shortly in a following post and i hope unlike #66 it doesn't turn out to be a jumble.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2015
  15. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    The main question is, what now? What should be done to resolve this colossal problem?
  16. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Please elaborate...
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

  18. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    in support of blatant kufriyat?
  19. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    we can hide our brother's mistakes
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The more I think about it the more improbable it seems.

    This fatwa from ashrafiya and the signatures. I refuse to believe that no foul play has taken place in the process of getting this fatwa signed and issued.

    do not forget that Sayyiduna Dhun Nurayn's (raDiyallahu 'anhu) seal had been stolen and misused by none other than a trusted aide and a relative at that.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

Share This Page