mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Prove this claim that the Fatwa is forged [edited by noori: personal attack removed]

    What do you mean by the word "forged"?
  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    perhaps he is referring to my post where i have suggested that taj'us shari'ah might have signed it later and would have asked to correct FR quote. see my post # 104. which (the change in fatwa) SS is calling a forgery. it is better we all keep quiet and wait for hazrat taj'ush shari'ah's response on brother aqib's query to him.
  3. AbdalQadir

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

    where did i suggest that?! or did you misread or mistype something perhaps?
  4. ghulam-e-raza

    ghulam-e-raza Well-Known Member

    Huzur Muhaddith e Kabeer did a speech a couple of days ago at Urs e Faqih e Millat. In the speech Allamah Saheb himself reads the ruling out and says that Huzur Taajush Shari'ah is amongst the signatories. Allamah Saheb mentions UKA by name and says (paraphrased) that we did not mention a name in the fatwa but then Ubaid himself sent the istifta to Mubarakpur with what he said (now giving proof that he did indeed say this). Allamah Saheb also talks about the fatwa by Mufti Nizam.

    This is the recording:
    Unbeknown likes this.
  5. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    When did I write or accuse you of accepting the fatwa on face value or accepting it without ascertaining its authenticity?Please tell me. I wanted ( and still want ) you to ask inquisitive about the fatwa he posted. Did I not write this? ( Post 120)

    Tell me when did I say that you have accepted the fatwa without checking it???

    He did not answer any of those questions ( from a to f).

    I didn't know that he lives in UK or Bhiwandi or Thana. Neither am I supposed to guess that after he wrote:( post 25 and post 46)

    But you definitely seems be to be knowing that he lives in UK. When inquisitive was asked simple questions regarding the authenticity and the origin of the fatwa, he could have simply told that he has received it through email or what ever the source was. What prevented him from making this simple statement??? I have raised the issue of fatwa uploaded by him in more than five post.

    And if you can speak for him, like you are doing now, why didn't you make a post stating that inquisitive does not live in India and he has received this fatwa from some electronic source? Why did you stay quiet??

    I never said I know everything. But being a forum moderator , you have been bestowed right to accuse others.

    Why didn't "everyone" ask inquisitive about the fatwa story? Does every one know that inquisitive lives in UK? If that is the case, then why didn't any one write that inquisitive has received this fatwa from electronic source and does not vouch for it's authenticity ? Don't we have two past records of inquisitive sharing wrong information on this forum? Do I need to pinpoint that thread?

    Do you really want me to show you how many fatwas have been issued on this forum, accusing authentic sunni scholars of being non-sunni?

    Please prove it. If you can't, I will take it as moderator's privilege.

    Since I made first post in this thread, I have been shouting to prove the origin and originality of the fatwa. I made direct questions to inquisitive and moderators, but it is of no use. Inquisitive has made two wrong posts in past. This is his third case. My insisting to find the authenticity of the fatwa,if is taken as challenge by you, then I can't help it. I will still insist to know the whole story of the fatwa.

    Wrong on what? Accepting a forged fatwa or showing no interest to investigate the truth of the fatwa?

    That might be your understanding. I need not agree to it. But you might be interested to know that going on the same principle, a 'Mufti' issued a fatwa on Mawlana Tatheer Ahmad Rizvi Barelwi ( he lives in bareilly) , to which the latter refuted through through his one book and the second is soon to be published.

    I accept that you did not believe the kufr because of the fatwa posted by inquisitive , but it was solely because of your understanding of the plain urdu.

    Wrong on what? Why is that you make one post addressing me and raise a question, which you want me to answer? And a simple question which I have been shouting is not answered ? Tell me why?

    I stick to the fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi .

    Will you be kind enough to tell me what is your view/ understanding/ fatwa on those who forged the fatwa? You need not know simple Urdu for this. Just let me know your understanding.
  6. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    From what I have heard and some posts by brothers on this forum, I understand the following.

    i) The Fatwa was written and signed by some Muftis, but not yet signed by Taaj al-Shariat and some other Muftis. (This version has also been uploaded). It has the jumla - "Tareef Karna" and it hasn't been edited by hand. This is the version which reached Obaidullah Khan

    ii) The Fatwa was then reviewed by scholars (Or Taaj al-Shariat, as Abdal Qadir suggested) who thought that they could change the words a bit to make it closer to the Fatwa e Ridawiyya extract. My guess is that they used a whitener to erase 'Tareef karna' and then wrote it by hand. This was the only version which was to be released.

    w'Allahi b'Allahi t'Allahi, this is the story as far as I know. I don't know of any supposed tampering as SS has claimed but I was told by a few brothers that they know without doubt that Taaj al-Shariat signed and they are sincere brothers (Whom I consider aadil) and therefore I have no reason to doubt their words.

    I am not in direct contact with anyone who signed either of the Fatwas but through a few brothers who are, I am regularly updated as to what is happening. I trust these brothers and therefore, whatever they say is hujjat for me.

    If you know what Mufti Nizam knows about this supposed tampering, then please do inform us. Taaj al-Shariat is present and we can ask him whether he signed or not if you have any doubts.

    This is me telling you my side of the story, now your turn to spill the beans.
  7. AbdalQadir

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

    wrt AQ's post #117 stating my stance,

    in that post, i have linked two of my previous posts #66 and #84. please just ignore the links and manually visit the post #'s.

    the relevant fragment from #66 is already quoted into #117 as well.

    #84, all of it is relevant to my stance thus far.
  8. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    If you are true, you will prove when and where I made veiled allegations.

    Regarding ta'assub.That might be your opinion about me. I can't change that, neither am I interested what you think of me.
    But a gentle reminder about how just you are : See your post. ( No 31)

    This is called being just! You are intelligent enough to ponder over it. No, this is not at all being mutassib!

    And this is example no 2 of your being just! Noori accused me of "playing hide and seek". How politely you use the word " pointed out".

    Now that you have known the forgery and different fatwas and I requested the forum moderator to inquire about the whole story about the fatwa, did you or any moderator bother to find out? No. Because that is not important for you. But you expect me to explain the difference now. Why? When you don't bother to even ask question regarding that fatwa, why do you expect me to explain when you want?
    Didn't I write that I am not running away , in sha Allah and am ready to discuss every aspect of fatwa BUT first the authenticity of the fatwa posted on your forum needs to be ascertained.

    You have quoted inquisitive's statement on "being no difference". As per me there is a difference, which I have promised to put on the forum, as per the understanding of Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi and all those people who realized it and fabricated it.

    Now will you be kind enough to tell me your view about there being a difference or not for the words under consideration.

    Remember you are not the only one to ask questions. You have not asked questions regarding the forged fatwa, which was your responsibility as a forum owner, so don't expect others to answer when you want. Please tell me who forged the fatwa? Why are you not finding out? Shall I accuse you ( like you accused me ) of hiding some one?

    He made the claim of 'post order" which he has not able to prove. This is example No 3 of your being just, when you accuse me of "taking away" the focus.! This is after I made it clear ( in post no 120 ) that in sha Allah I am ready to discuss each and every aspect of fatwa. How am I taking away the focus? Check my previous posts when I made it clear more than one time that I am ready to discuss fatwa, provided the authenticity of the fatwa uploaded on this forum, is first decided.

    These points are important because you think so? Right? And the issue that a tampered fatwa is being circulated on your forum with no stamp on it, is not important. Right?
    Before you informed me that these are the 'main points', didn't I agree to discuss each and every point of the fatwa.? ( Hence your three imp points). Did I ever say, I am not ready for it? I raised an issue with Noori,(because he is the senior moderator) regarding ascertaining the authenticity of the fatwa and not inquisitive because I can show you two examples on your forum when inquisitive made ( wrong)posts and when inquired, he vanished for a while.
    Masha Allah! This is a good way of avoiding answering any question related with the fabricated fatwa!
    Has any one denied that Obaidullah Khan made a speech ? You say Mufti Nizamuddi Rizvi absolved him . then tell me who labelled charges against him?
  9. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SS brother I don't think it was that difficult to comprehend what did I mean by post order, but once again I explain - when I posted the post you complained about I hadn't read many posts below it because i didn't notice, and my post appeard at the position I was not assuming it to be (because I didn't notice other new posts), therefore I acknowledged that YOUR COMPLAINT IS RIGHT BECAUSE SEEING MY POST AT THAT NUMBER MADE YOU ASSUME THAT I MUST HAVE SEEN THOSE POST BELOW. this is What I meant by 'your complaint is right for the post order'. Time and again I have acknowledged on this forum that I am very poor at English. Other English masters here can help us if still I'm not clear to you, though sidi Abu Hasan has already tried.

    Anyway, like AQ did, I too openly offer that you can call me whatever you like in PM or in this thread. I won't respond, I only like to hear your story, don't try to sidetrack.

    P.S: I have re-setup my iPad, all init caps are due to autocorrect.
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    sidi abu Hasan posted while I was typing but do note the same concerns.
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    since I have been named directly let me answer for my part:

    At no point have I taken the fatwa at face value - in fact I was the first to question if the source was authentic - I have said already that I don't care who wrote the fatwa or who changed it - all I care about is UKA's words praising a hindu deity and ashrafiya fatwa letting him off completely, without so much as a reprimand. That the fatwa contained a reference and it was incorrect was said at the beginning, then sidi abu Hasan posted the correct scans.

    Later it turns out the fatwa was altered. The first person to bring the alteration to notice was SS, and he himself did all the questioning to inquisitive. He came up with replies that he could. I did not pay much attention to them because he lives in the UK and it was evident that he was sent the scans by someone so he could not know as much as people in the thick of it all - and then - here's SS claiming to know everything and everyone wanted to hear his side of the story. But seems we still have to wait to hear it.

    so who issued a fatwa here? you have proved time and again that you have a lot of arrogance. Instead of speaking plain as everyone was doing you go about arrogantly challenging people to do this and that before you will open your cards. If we are wrong and you know what's right why all this beating about the bush. Thankfully, I don't need a mufti to tell me that what UKa said on that unfortunate night was kufriyat - luzumi or iltezami is to be seen. Whether ta'wils can be made is also a separate discussion.

    I am all ears. My urdu is certainly not the best and I am on the look out for answers myself. Unfortunately for me, the ulema I contacted are all too busy to go through this fatwa and respond.

    Now please don't come back to say how did I decide that the utterances were kufr if my urdu is not best - I did not say I can't understand plain sentences.

    if you read as carefully as you read post nos. you'd see I am asking questions and trying to understand what the import of those words could be - and whether tahseen can be taken to mean praise and what that would mean for the phrase 'ta'reef karmna'.


    Now it would be better if you said all that you have to say and then show how all of us were wrong. Rather than waiting for all to answer, then stick to it, then you will march in and prove us all wrong.

    Even before you start answering, kindly do us a favor and let us know your own position on the two fatwas and UKA's speech. That would let us know how seriously or otherwise to take you.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it is clear that your thinking is clouded by ta'aSSub and you are blindly firing in all directions; even making snide remarks and veiled allegations.

    i am not asking because, you have already done that. and noori also pointed out that if you know, why don't you tell it, instead of creating a suspense. all this drama and whodunnit is pointless - i didn't check inquisitive's fatwa-image because i relied upon obaidullah's citation in HIS istifta. besides, as inquisitive has already said: i don't see any difference. if you SEE it, go ahead and explain.

    you are beating around the bush with noori's stray remark of 'post order'. he clarified and you are doing all this to take the focus away from the wrong fatwa issued by mufti nizamuddin sahib.

    let us not be distracted by side issues; these are the main points:

    1. obaidullah azmi made a speech. [acknowledged by him in his istiftaa]
    2. some people consider this speech as kufr and consequently, the speaker as kafir and required to do tajdid iman and nikah.
    3. mufti nizamuddin issued a fatwa faulting the other fatwa (quoted by obaidullah) and clearing obaidullah of kufr and haram.

    now, whether the original fatwa has a story behind it - and whether it was altered, forged, disfigured, falsified etc does not change the fact that obaidullah khan made a speech; and that mufti nizamuddin absolved him.

    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Nothing. He said "so your complaint is right for the post order ". I complained about the post content , not order.
  14. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Again? Brother, its not about your being sloppy( twice) in quoting post number. It is about your attributing me the complaint about " post order". It is simply not there in any of my post. Please look carefully. Its not there.


    1)Lets not pass fatwa here, unless we are certified Muftis! People didn't notice the difference between the fatwa quoted in the istifta of Obaidullah Azmi and the one uploaded by inquisitive.They didn't notice the over writing/ tahreef, in the fatwa uploaded by inquisitive. There are other shortcomings in the fatwa uploaded by inquisitive, which in sha Allah we will discuss later. Remember Obaidullah Khan is still alive.

    2) Those who are analyzing the kufr present in the speech of Obaidullah Azmi, should ask a simple question to themselves, why did those who issued the fatwa of kufr, pinpoint only one kufriya sentence? As per people on this thread, there are "many" kufriya statement present in the speech of Obaidullah Azmi. So why did they mention just one? We will discuss each and every point raised concerning those "kufr", later in sha Allah. As of now it is clear that these words were said by Obaidullah Khan. We wait for a specific fatwa of Kufr on Obaidullah Khan. Wanna be muftis should read about the difference between the two cases.


    Now I will start discussion concerning the fatwa uploaded by Inquisitive.

    Inquisitive uploaded a fatwa of Kufr upon an individual and said:
    Post No 4
    Post No 10
    Post No 25
    Post No 36
    Post No 46
    Post No 56
    Post No 57

    Post No 69

    A couple of Noori's post. His other posts will be highlighted as and when required, unless our brother uses his moderation right and makes changes later.

    Noori's post

    Post No 28

    Compare this with post no 25 by inquisitive.

    Post No 97

    Post No 104

    Noori, would you be kind enough to answer these questions?

    1) The fatwa was uploaded by inquisitive. Then why are you not asking him about the detail story of this fatwa? Why are accusing me of playing hide and seek game?

    2) A fatwa was uploaded on a web forum, which you are moderating. You do not have minimum qualification to compare that fatwa with the reference it contains, then why do you discuss this issue?

    3) Now that we have seen ( and you have agreed) that there is a tampering in the fatwa, why are you "assuming" things? Why ' ifs' and "might"? Don't you know that the basic necessity is to inquire about the authenticity of the fatwa?

    Open Request to Noori and all those who have actively participated in this thread.

    Please tell me the true story as to how the fatwa changed ? What ever story you will tell me , I am going to accept it, but please make sure that it is a correct one ( verified from inquisitive , because he is the one who uploaded it ) . Please tell me , when was the first fatwa signed ? When was it found that the reference to fatwa ridawiya is wrong? Who found the mistake? Who corrected it and when did Tajusshariah sign it?

    Please remember if you all are sincere ( Abu Hasan,unbeknown, aqib , chisti raza ) then, tell me these simple things about this fatwa. Why are you all not asking inquisitive? I assure you that whatever story you are going to tell me regarding how the fatwa changed from version 1 to version 2, I will accept. Just make sure, you stick to it. Tell me the entire process of how fatwa changed ?

    Academic discussion

    After the above query regarding fatwa is answered, we will move to the academic discussion about the fatwa. Unfortunately, people do not know the difference "tareef karna and izaat dena" , people do not know the difference between " sareeh kufr and kalma e kufr" and want to be mufti here. More interestingly, Unbeknown and Aqib sahab are quoting " Tahseen" text from Fatwa Ridawiya and making their decisions. In sha Allah, we will discuss all this and I hope no one leaves this thread.
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    just to refresh people's memories. This is what was written in MFM:

    Question #2: Is it permissible [for Muslims] to go in the company of Hindus making a commotion with loud singing of their religious songs and music? And to carry their religious books like Ramayan with esteem and reverence in a carriage and attend a gathering of Hindus where they shout their religious slogans such as: “Long live Ramachandra”.

    Answer #2: The questioner asks, whether these acts are permissible or not; he should be asking whether these are kufr or not! Ask whether the wives of such people have gone out of wedlock or not! In Jamiý al- Fusulayn and Minah ar-Rawd al-Az’har:

    Whosoever goes to the platform of infidels becomes a kafir; Áli al-Qari said, it means, a [religious] gathering of disbelievers; because that is meant for advertising their kufr; and this person has as good as aided them in doing so. Allah táala knows best.

    In another fatwā Alahazrat writes:

    It is forbidden and impermissible to participate in and assist in [religious] ceremonies and rituals of disbelievers because Allah táala says: “Do not aid sin and transgression”.

    In another fatwā:

    It is written in Fatawa Žahiriyyah, Ashbah wa’n Nažayir, Minah al-Ghaffar, Durr al-Mukhtar etc: “To show reverence to a kafir is kufr.”


    now its up to every sane minded, thinking individual to decide if ram-katha gatherings are 'platforms of infidels' or 'equal opportunity da'wa platforms'!

    and was UKA not showing 'reverence' to 'bapu' by mentioning his meeting as 'darshan' besides other things?

    see more 'da'wa' at ram-kathas - perhaps more people wish to emulate UKA and "give proof of their iman"
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it appears that you didn't understand what noori said and you suspect motives behind his posts. what happened was only this much:

    1. noori said that it is not a big deal about the alteration in the fatwa and he wondered aloud that the print might have been light etc. (#78 and #79)

    2. you criticised him in post #80 thus:
    3. noori in post #97 apologised:
    what he is saying is: he had an issue with posts and together he mentioned that he had not seen your posts. he acknowledged it and went back to read, and came back.

    4. all said and done, you say in post #110:
    you don't have to be james bond to figure that out. noori already acknowledged it more than once.

    my question to you: what exactly is your issue with noori?
  17. AbdalQadir

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

    the problem with heated threads like this is people get lost in group loyalties & emotions (this guy "liked" that post and didn't like this and so on) and jumble that up with objective analysis of the situation and fiqh issues; and the problems only get compounded as the post counter keeps increasing and people respond to various different fiqh and personal comments all in the same breath - and then a lot of the meaningful stuff of substance gets buried and embedded deep inside slabs of text.


    brother Noori, i respect all ulema. but i also call a spade a spade. there is a Bareilly vs Mubarakpur divide for any right or wrong reasons and i for one don't chose to act as if it doesn't exist or that there can be a possibility of something being motivated by group loyalties.


    just for the record, as far as i am concerned - yes i am well aware of my swerving positions on this thread. and this is my honest stance on this issue as of now. please refer to this quoted below part of my post #66

    for these reasons stated in post #84

    i am very curious about these fiqh technicalities that can or can't exonerate obaidullah and have crept into the Bareilly vs Mubarakpur divide. i am still apalled by obaidullah's audio and see it as something someone like tahir would say, but these purported fiqh technicalities that i have been informed about have set up a speed breaker in front of me. so i choose to investigate this matter outside of the Bareilly vs Mubarakpur divide or for that matter outside of subcontinental ulema, and watch this case as it unfolds.


    brother Aqib - come on brother! do we need to spell everything out like Noorani Qaida? indeed, a fatwa from Bareilly (SPECIFIC to obaid) would be useful to the awam.

    at least then we can compare apples to apples! specific fatwa by name to another specific fatwa by name.

    right now people on this thread are comparing apples to oranges -

    Bareilly's GENERAL fatwa to Mubarakpur's SPECIFIC by name fatwa!

    i hope you can see my post history and how much i value Tajush Shari3ah's fatwa (specific, by name) for safeguarding the awam against dajjal tahir. let me say it unconditionally again - i salute Tajush Shari3ah's fatwa on tahir and believe it is a blessing for Sunnis of the subcontinent.

    in any case, i believe now the job of the 3ulama of Bareilly will be very easy. now they have 2 options:

    1 - issue a SPECIFIC by name fatwa on obaidullah, OR
    2 - issue a radd and rebuttal-fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin sahab's fatwa - surely, if people like us on forums can find out the obvious mistakes in it, the 3ulama can refute it handsomely and shred it to smithereens, academically of course, within the dairae adab of fiqhi ikhtilafat - yes or no?


    that's all i'm going to say on this thread till i do my own research and come back with something from fiqhi substance point of view.

    all personal attacks are most welcome by PM. my (online) face is available for all to spit at.


    PS. i speak ONLY for myself. no group, no scholar, no institute.
  18. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    My sloppiness that I can't check my own post number. I don't need a certificate of honesty from anybody, Allah is the witness. Come to the point and shed some light on the fatwa background.
  19. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    I have already sent the question to Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab, and hopefully he will reply soon; until then, I suggest, let's not waste time picking on each other.
  20. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I am not trying to be jamed bond. I can still show the discrepancy in your "honest" admission. I have quoted timings so that those who think and can investigate can see the loopholes in your admission. Please record that I do not accept your story. Discussing that that will not serve any purpose in this thread, so I leave it for now.

    Post No 78 and 79 is both by you, not me. Please don't mess it.
    Post no 77 is by Unbeknown.

    As I said before, I can show the discrepancy in your story, by using timeline. But that will not solve the real purpose.

Share This Page