mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

sub'HanAllah.

 

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

 

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.

-----
Shame

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.

 

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"
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in-rajkot-ram-katha-brings-religious-diversity-together-1676119

 

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?

 

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.