mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Your questions are irrelevant SS. Make another thread about how the fatwa is "fabricated" or "forged", don't spam this thread.

 

The more people write here, new things will keep cropping. Now we have "BOTH VERIONS" of azhari miyan's fatwa!! Where as it can be seen in the fatwas that only one fatwa has the signature of Azhari Miyan! Every one can see .

Just read previous posts, how inquisitive has said and Noori has assumed/ guessed/ deducted that once the "mistake' was noted in the original fatwa, it was corrected and then Tajushshariah signed it .

But now "Both versions" of azhari miyan's fatwa are said to be correct. I will wait to see the "other" one. Hope one night is sufficient to arrange it.

You just added a new twist to the story that "both versions" of azhari miyan's fatwa are correct. You decide with Inquisitive ( and Noori,if needed) and let me know.

as salamu 'alaykum.

 

disclaimer: while i composed this, there were a number of posts. haven't read them.

----
aw come on. if i had time i could also go into "reading" between the lines and begin attributing malicious intent to your posts. i will just try this reply, and i will say it bluntly that your comprehension is either poor or you are over-reacting. if i begin to catch you for your english expressions, it will be a long night - and i don't know how old you are, but i am too old for such games.

let it go.

look at your demeanour. you are speaking in clues and hints - and accusing us of insincerity and all the time denying that you are not playing hide and seek! why should *i* interrogate inquisitive?

---

in this line you are accusing us that we are false. as for veiled allegations:

for example, here you accuse noori of making changes unfairly:

you are saying that he is not entirely honest.

here you are accusing of Allah-knows-who of wanting to be a mufti.

obviously, you are not accusing that i am a mufti, but it is a snide remark.

as i said, i don't have all night to waste. but i am humouring you.

----

so what about it? where is your usual garrulousnes here?

i dare mufti nizamuddin or any mufti to say that the fatwa with changed words or unchanged words (we will call it v1 and v2) is not congruent in spirit and meaning to the fatwa in fatawa ridawiyyah.

why did mufti nizamuddin summarily dismiss in his fatwa in ambiguous words. honest and sincere mufti will not play like this. he will show how it is incorrect or point out that there is a fatwa in fatawa ridawiyyah, EXACTLY on that page, but the v1 fatwa is cited incorrectly. look what mufti nizamuddin says:

"haaN main ne fatawa razwiyah mutarjam wa ghayr mutarjam donoN meiN is maqam par woh ibarat talash karney ki koshish ki magar na mili. yahaN fatawa razwiyah ka Hawalah ghalat diya gaya hai. wAllahu ta'ala a'lam."​

a lay reader based on mufti nizamuddin's reputation will think that it does not exist AT ALL. whereas, the fact of the matter is that it does not exist VERBATIM. which i noted. and i gave him the benefit of doubt that he used this 'heelah' of 'non-existing' based on "non-existing verbatim".

given that you are asking so many questions, why didn't mufti nizamuddin point out that it was taHrif shudah or whatever? why wait until it was posted on a forum and discussed?

why should only you be asking questions?

is it not a mufti's responsibility to clarify, or is it sufficient for him to just take the literal word and issue a fatwa and get done with it?

when it suits you, we are ignorant; when it suits you we are wilfully misrepresenting it.

i have said it plainly, that in spirit, and in conveying the meaning, the first fatwa in both v1 or v2 versions, is congruent to alahazrat's fatwa referenced. you seem to see a huge difference. fine. i am waiting to see your proof that there is the difference of the sky and the earth between these two versions.

in the meantime, here is a short istiftaa for mufti nizamuddin or sunnistudent:

kuffar ke devtaaoN ki ta'areef karna kaisa hai? kya ye sareeH kufr hai? masalan, kya darj zayl alfaz kufr haiN?

"sri ram ka wujud aysa paak aur pavitr wujud hai; unka character itna nirala, pyara aur be misaal hai, ke jo intellectual class hai, jo cheezon ki gahrayi mein utar kar un ki haqiqatoN ki ma'arifat hasil karta hai, woh sri raam ko imam e hind maanta hai.

raam naam hai sach'chayi ka, jo jhoot ko parajit karta hai.
raam naam hai mazluum aur dukhi logoN ki Himayat ka, jo zulm ki gardan pakaRta hai.
raam naam hai sooraj ki us raoshni ka jiskey zari'ey andhere door hotey hain.
raam naam hai chand ki us chandni ka jiskey zari'ey logoN ko sukun milta hai.
raam naam hai us ThanDi hawa ka, jo jhulsati huwi dhuup meiN insan ke liye chatar chaya ban jaati hai."​

bayyinu tu'jaru.

=================

of course, you are playing hide and seek. if you cannot understand the meaning of that english idiom, it is not my problem. you probably need to spend some time with an english teacher. as for my "politeness", thanks. i appreciate the compliment.

---

don't act stupid. why are moderators suddenly the most important people around?

we have clearly mentioned, and everyone who visits the forum knows that moderators do not claim to be special. it is just that it is cumbersome for us to have two logins - one with mod access and another without. we need mod-access to do housekeeping etc. and we have said it time and again that we are like other posters when it comes to discussions.

this is no exception. when you have already asked that question (and i assume you know why already) what do you expect us to do? regardless, that question is not important for me at least. i have only two points: obaidullah's attending ram-katha and his ram-bhakti and that mufti nizamuddin gave him a clean chit.

my world does not revolve* around contemporary personalities. if i see something which is wrong in my opinion, i make it known assuming that it is a responsibility to do so. wa billahi't tawfiq.

ok then, i am as a moderator asking you: what do you know about it? why have you been hiding this all along? is it not playing hide and seek? if you thought that noori was saying that you were counting to 100 in a corner, you are sorely mistaken.

'expect you to explain': YES. because it is YOU who is making hte commotion that ta'rif karna and i'yzaz have a huge difference. so we are asking you how.

look, look. who speaks.

which rule book?

as if you are prompt and as if i am demanding you to answer or else i will send a death squad to your door. what rubbish. learn to talk like an adult.

not my business and i am not interested. i am not interested in pir/madrasah politics. i am a muslim - a proud muslim. i see that a politician who claims to be a muslim and apparently is a faarigh from madrasah, as a muslim praises hindu gods; my ghayrah is perturbed. when a mufti gives him a clean chit, i am offended as a muslim. and i will protest.

if you do not have ghayrat e islami, it is not my problem.

go ahead. it is free and you have been using plenty of credits. accusation is free.

and by the way, where did i accuse you of hiding someone? just asking because, i don't remember accusing you of 'hiding someone'. please correct me.

-----

you are mad.

trust me, i won't lose sleep over your readiness or your opinion. don't think too much about yourself.

did i tell you that i am informing you? i only stated my case. why is this becoming a you vs. me debate?

---

why do you accuse us of knowing this?

don't be an idiot. who is avoiding who? which is the fabricated fatwa? is the fatwa by mufti nizamuddin, a fabricated fatwa? or if you are referring to the fatwa #1 which is apparently tampered or altered - i am telling you one last time. i don't care.

 

You fool of a took! I meant the one signed by Muftis of Bareilly and [those of] [edited by noori: no personal attack] of Mubarakpur.

 

Of course not at all! But you do have right to accuse others.

I am not interested to know how you know or what you make from whose posts. I said what you wrote.

I have asked again and again, who forged the fatwa? I said, the moment it will be discussed here, I will start the discussion. I raised the question first, which needs to be answered first. Why are people shying away?

You must have misread or misunderstood .

I will wait until you, or any other moderator or the forum owner brings the fatwa story here. Once you do that we will discuss the fatwa.

In case you have not read my questions in the previous posts, I will mention again. ( This is valid for inquisitive as well)

1. When was the first fatwa signed ?

2. Who noticed the wrong reference to fatwa ridawiya in the fatwa first?

3. Who made changes in the original fatwa?

4. When Tajusshariah signed the fatwa ( after correction, as per inquisitive ) , what was the time gap from the issuance of first fatwa to Tajusshariah's signing the fatwa?


These are very simple questions. More so, because Inquisitive said

Notice 'either' of the fatwas, as if they signed two times. Anyways, brother Inquisitive, please contact your trusted brothers and get us the answer. Once you do that I am here , in this thread, discussing everything which Unbeknown wants.

Now,Unbeknown does not need proof from this forum where sunni scholars have been called non-sunni. So I will not mention that again.

Inquisitive, please help us. Just get me the answers to those simple questions and we begin. Please keep in mind that Obaidullah Khan had access to the original fatwa. He read it so carefully that he was able to pin point the wrong reference towards fatwa ridawiya in his istifta. FYI, the seminar at Nagpur finished on 24th Feb 2015. The first fatwa bears the date 25 Feb 2015. Please tell these things to your friends and ask them when did Tajusshariah sign the fatwa.

Simple. You answer these questions and in sha Allah, we begin issues raised by abul Hasan and Unbeknown. Your answer will help all of us. I have noted that you do not consider any difference between those words and abul Hasan will let me know his answer, soon. In sha Allah.

 

Wonderfully put.

 

this is the first impression I had when I read obaid's istifta - that by adding the rest of the part he had only dug his grave deeper.


Allamah sahib has explained clearly that 'tahseen' is 'ta'reef' and thus BOTH VERSIONS of azhari miyan's fatwa ARE CORRECT - and based on direct references from Al ATAYA AN-NABAWIYYAH FIL FATAWA AR-RIDAWIYYAH!

sunnistudent, your burden lessened. no need for your 'real' story. keep it to yourself.

I am off to bed. good night.

 

Following on from this, have also confirmed via Mawlana Ashiq Saheb that Huzur Taajush Shari'ah has indeed signed this.

 

then its not incumbent upon me to chase wild horses when I don't want to ride them.

that inquisitive lives in the uk, I surmised from some of his posts. I don't know for sure.

oh yes I will! I have been wanting to do this since that other thread. But not before you break that suspense.

you promised to break the silence at night, I am in India, it's night time now, and I have been waiting all day.

you said you knew the 'real' story:

thank you.

I have nothing more to say to you until you begin explaining the differences between ta'reef/ta'zeem/tahseen.

 

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

What do you mean by the word "forged"?

 

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.

 

where did i suggest that?! or did you misread or mistype something perhaps?

 

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:

http://thesunniway.com/AllamahSaheb-UrsEFaqihEMillat2015.mp3

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.