mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.
-----

 

i have undeleted it, the post #77, go and check.

 

it was post 79, right after my post # 78, while probably i was on a previous page and didn't see post above it. actually i don't like the 'new-post-on-top' style, the older style was good i.e. latest at the bottom.

 

dear brother i honestly told you what happened to my posts, and when i came back again, i found the post which you complained about and there were many posts underneath which i hadn't seen. as for my post comparing the two images, i took them from your post, and i had read all the posts before posting it. i have mentioned that even when i apologized, i found more posts. may be this is due to clicking on the alerts which took me to old post while more posts had been made, and i didn't notice that i'm on a previous page. anyway, no need to be james bond.

as for my comments in post no 28, and 32, yes i admit that to you they would appear unpleasant, though i only suspected. but okay, for the record i take my words back unconditionally. i would love to see our ulama united. however, i would like to know the story that you have. i have mentioned what's my opinion about the fatwa, and it is the real issue.

even when i'm going to post it, i can see that there is a new alert

 

Noori's remarks concerning Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi sahab and Jamia Ashrafiya Mubarakpur. This is for records.

Post No 28

Post No 32

----
Before I start discussion about the fatwa uploaded by Inquisitive, I need to make one thing clear, which has just cropped up in this thread. It is concerned with Noori's post, hence I will mention all posts with number and timings ,where necessary.


In post No 48 I raised a question regarding different font,colour and brightness of certain words present in the fatwa uploaded by inquisitive.
In post No 63 ( Time: 1:07 am) I posted two different fatwas showing the differences.

Approximately 11 hours after my post ( no 63) Noori replied.

Noori said in post No 78 ( Time: 12:17 pm)

Approximately after 15 minutes I answered Noori's remarks.

I said ( post No 79,12;33 pm)

Three hours later Noori replied ( post No 96, 3:47 pm)

Noori, can you tell me when did I complaint about the "post order"? Please pin point the post No.

The issue regarding two different fatwas ( one being fabricated) was discussed in post no 63 . Why did you make a post( 11 hours after this) without going through the discussion?

When did the two posts disappear? How does your both the posts disappearing explain that your post ( no 78) was valid? You made your post ( no 78) at 12: 17 pm . Suppose this was one of the posts which you wanted to delete .It still tells that you made this post without reading the previous texts.

----

Once we are done with this, In sha Allah, I will start the original topic started by Inquisitive. I hope Inquisitive won't disappear this time again, like it happened the last time.

 

see the word taHseen itself means to admire or praise or compliment and so alaHazrat's fatwa is that:

one who praises even so much as the actions* of a kafir is a kafir​

*I assume it means actions with religious significance such as religious rituals

 

yes, but then he took his favor unconditionally back though he forgot to remove his like, and now it looks that he has changed his mind once again. he is free to make his own opinion but he should be respectful, when you talk about ulama then pushing your opinion/question/thoughts bluntly is also not right. despite being ridawi i've been deleting inquisitive useless posts, and requesting other brothers to have respect for ulama. i won't be happy if either side is found guilty, and would love to see that this mr. uka doesn't cause a fitnah among sunnies.

when i read uka's words i felt it disgusting, and after reading the whole thread i'm convinced that uka is guilty and ashrafyah fatwa is not correct (leaving circumstances/associations/politics aside).

but instead we make this fatwa a reason for a split, we should seek unity (though ashrafyah needs to take major step)

 

I've been writing an exam so I haven't been following the entire thread but I humbly request people not to belittle Allamah Muhammad Ahmad Misbahi Sahib. May Allah Ta'ala protect our Ulama and guide them forever.

 

the malady is - it seems Ala Hazrat's crystal clear words are not enough.

not belonging to any camp - but I note that brother AQ put a "like" on the fatwa of Jamea Ashrafiyyah that exonerates UKA. (post # 1)

 

In sha Allah, I will first take up the issues and posts made by brother Noori and then Inquisitive. And then I shall address the issues raised by our learned brothers such as Unbeknown, Aqib al Qadri and others.

 

see the two versions side by side


by putting the two versions side by side i can easily tell that right side image is the first version. there is no pen editing and, there is no signature of hazrat taj'ush shari'ah; whereas on the left side copy the same paper has folding signs on it and pen editing with taj'ush shariah's signature (if it is his signature). assuming that the signature on the left copy is indeed by taj'ush shari'ah, then it is quite possible that before signing the copy he might have asked to correct fatawa razawiyyah quote.

 

AQ, your point is taken, in positive light. but why did it take you so long to say that a fatwa from Bareilly shareef would be useful for the "awaam"? well we will honestly try, to put the issue to rest, in sha Allah.

I hope that other forum members will not clamor to see fatawa ALSO from Ghosi shareef, Jamea Nizamiya, etc, etc, etc to finally decide.

I never assumed that bro. But the issue seems crystal clear - unless we have some stubborn guys who want to go around in circles, seeking fatawa from everywhere - like we had for dajjal tahir padri.

 

right. point taken

i would request other brothers that they should not mention mufti nizam sahab only as "siraj" in their posts. would you like if other members mention hazrat taj'ush shari'ah hafizahullahu ta'ala or other ulama like this? i too disagree with the fatwa from ashrafyah, but we should not bring our personal attachments into objective discussion.

 

I think that the above hair-splitting is a red-herring.

Write another fatwa/article analysing the correctness of that fatwa - but what about alahazrat's fatwa LAST paragraph:

inke devtaoN aur peshwaoN aur mazhabi jazbaat ka i'izaz dar kinaar (is a lot more worse, infact) inke kisi fi'il ki taHseen hi kare ba ittefaq e atamm kafir hai

what really needs to be discussed and researched is that is his excuse of 'wanting to prove from their own words - WITHOUT EVEN SEEMING TO' can be admitted or not.

Do those who are looking at the difference in the two version mean to say that:

kuffar ke devtaon ko izzat dena sareeh kalimae kufr hai - is correct and - kuffar ke devtaon ki tareef karna kufre sareeh hai is wrong?

is kuffar ke devtaon ki tareef NOT "inke devtaoN aur peshwaoN aur mazhabi jazbaat ka i'izaz" ??


tareef is different than i'izaz - true - praise is different than respect - true - but praise does not imply respect?

X wears a zunnar - he is kafir. X praises the false deities of kuffar - he is not kafir ??

-------------------

for the record - I have no doubt UKA has uttered kufriyat but I am not doing takfir of UKA yet because the waters have been muddied !!!

 

I raised this issue because:

1. the indicting fatwa clearly mentions that attending speeches of such a person is not permissible
2. UKA himself asked in his istifta whether his gatherings can be attended
3. Ashrafiya fatwa clearly states in point no. 2 - Iski taqrireN sunna jaiz hai

so if at all they are going to issue another fatwa they had better not ignore this point

 

really sad, but let's not jump to another issue, this thread is only to discuss uka's kharafat.

 

oops! more posts, while i was composing my previous one.