mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

 

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.

wssalaam.

 

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.

 

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

 

Please elaborate...

 

ashrafiya's website lists ubaidullah khan azmi as a member of it's advisory committee:

http://aljamiatulashrafia.org/details_jamia.php?lang=EN

though azhari miyan's name appears in the list, it doesn't mention him as a member.

 

in support of blatant kufriyat?

 

we can hide our brother's mistakes

 

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.

 

may be, but have you gone through the drama that SS was playing in below posts with chronology?

 

and THAT is EXACTLY what I understood from it.

because I know that was the first time UKA's name was brought up on the forum.

 

at least the mods/admins of this forum, for others i don't know 'diloN ka hal'. but i do trust your words, and other mods will not have any issue with it, i am sure.

 

why are you making posts so dramatic against brother SunniStudent?

 

who all are included in this "we"?

 

no need for a challenge, we can trust your words.

 

in this thread i said:

and THAT thread is EXACTLY what i was referring to when i said it.

http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/aqs-ulterior-motives.11490/#post-48712

post #48 (dated nov 2, 2014) of the linked thread is the point in my life when inquisitive introduced this ubaidullah character. i have no idea if i might have read his name in passing in a paper or something, but the honest to God truth is that that is the time i consciously knew this character exists

i challenge anyone to show me where i have mentioned this character before that thread, be it positively or negatively.

in this thread, i said "a few days back" but that's my non-cognizance of how fast time flies! i was referring to that thread.

as for this thread, i will come back to it.

 

sulh kulliyat = perennialism

 

i noticed it, but i think AQ can explain better, but apparently his statement in this thread is not correct. he might have forgotten. i can admit that i superficially saw the posts in that thread when it was active but i don't remember reading about UKA. but, AQ was active in that thread and here too. so he should explain.

 

Good catch!

 

Hmmmm Janaab AQ was also active in that thread.. But in this thread he said;

......
Seems like UKA is known or has been heard of in the past, especially by someone who is aware of the current issues at mubarakpur.