Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Unbeknown, Feb 13, 2016.
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.
sorry about that. something strange happened, i made two similar posts, and deleted one but surprisingly both disappeared. when i came back after some time i saw there are so many posts and mine is after them. so your complaint is right for the post order. now i have gone through all the posts.
i really don't know what happened and what is happening but we need to use some common sense, modifying a fatwa before it was issued is not a crime. we need to see full fatwa issued officially.
as for the signature, i'm surprised how one hand written signature can be removed from same paper. put both images side by side and notice, it looks as if his signature was added, it is darker then other signatures, whereas the other image is completely clean and clear. did somebody do some phtotoshop work?
if you know something then don't play hide and seek game, and post it honestly in full. it is sad for me that two sunni schools are cross with each other. AQ should hold his reins and wait and pray for the good.
another thought: how different is UKa's 'indictment' excuse from hanson's excuse?
here you go:
"For example, I gave a talk to a group of Christian theologians, ministers, and students about the ill effects of usury, in which I argued that Christians had abandoned their prohibition of usury that had lasted for almost two thousand years. I used Dante Alighieri's Inferno as a frame for the discussion. During the talk, I pointed out that Dante viewed the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be upon him, as a schismatic Christian as opposed to a false prophet, as I wanted them to reflect on Dante's subtle acknowledgement of the doctrine of Islam, as argued by the Catholic priest and scholar, Miguel Asin Palacios. Hence I told them that I wanted to "defend Dante a little bit." These Muslims seized upon my use of the word "defend," by which I meant, "explain," which is a synonym of "defend." On this basis, they argued that I "defended" Dante for insulting the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be upon him -- a claim so patently false and unfair, not to mention absurd, that I won't even entertain refuting it."
surely hanson's intentions were 'nobler' than UKA's? He wanted them to acknowledge Islam's hujjah based on someone they admired as a thinker. As opposed to UKA who wanted hindus to acknowledge RAM's teachings, one whom they WORSHIP AS A DEITY!
another important issue that ashrafiya fatwa failed to highlight:
1. Is posing for photo-ops with non-mehram, that too an actress, fisq or not?
2. Bringing this actress into a hallowed institution of sacred knowledge where awliya Allah are resting, is this fisq or not? Before bringing
her in he even had the audacity to say: "Mai jisko yahaN laane wala huN woh sunne ki bhi cheez hai aur dekhne ki bhi cheez hai"
"The one whom I am going to invite is worth listening to and worth looking at". So inciting students of deen to look at non-mehram , and, it can even be said, ZINA OF THE EYES (lustful look as per hadith) is that fisq or not?
3. What is the ruling on attending speeches of such an unrepentant fasiq?
ok, and that's why i say again -
regardless of camps, the ground realities are these:
a - Mubarakpur has exonerated him and accepted his defense.
b - Bareilly has thus far not issued a direct & specific fatwa of kufr on obaid (inquisitive's guess is that it will come within a month)
are we forum members bigger and better muftis or more learned than those of Mubarakpur & Bareilly put together? some of us might be, but the awam still needs official signed and sealed answers to attain closure. see my post #83 in reply to abu Hasan too please.