mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Tawbah,

He doesnt deem his his actions or deeds as done in the Ram Katha as wrong, he said it explicitly at the Urs last year. But he only does it Ihtiyatan because the Nizamuddin team told him to do.

It is like doing zina, and then claiming nothing is wrong with it, but just in case he will repent (while still considering it good). Now his Aqaaid on being it Jaaiz and so forth comes all on Nizamuddin. If it is Kufr, then Nizamuddin will be blameworthy for Rida bil Kufr, and so is Ubaid. Ubaid however will be saved since he is an utter jahil and accepted it as Hasan because Nizamuddin taught him so, but Nizamuddin wont be since he acted as a Yahudi Alim.

They try to deceive Allah but are only deceiving themselves.

[edited noori-personal attack removed] when the Noble Messenger and Allahs Deen was fouled by Nizamuddin he did not once criticize. But when "one little Lafz is said against Nizamuddin or Ram Praiser Ubaid, everyone loses their minds."

You admins are totally worthless, please admin erase my profile. Or at least show me how I can erase my profile.

 

Where is this tawba?

 

i was informed that he had done tawbah in public. i took it at face-value and did not see the need to verify. unless it is contested, i assume it to be reliable news.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

this is an accusation, we don't know what is in his heart. yes we don't agree with him and consider him with the wrong party. SS doesn't understand simple argument, yet we cannot blame for his real intention which we don't know.

yes, this is true, SS has been acting like serlock holmes, and trying to make a big issue out of plain words.

now, if you don't want to see his posts addressing you then you also should not address him, otherwise SS will be running after you, whether you like it or not.

if uka has proclaimed his tawbah then of course we cannot call him a kafir. i haven't listened to the audio that SS shared, but i can trust sidi abu hasan. however, uka's tawbah doesn't acquit mufti nizam'ud din and other signatories from their erroneous and corrupt fatwa, they certainly need to do ruju' to nip the fitnah in the bud.

 

Thank you he is now away from my view.
I will just upload new findings and docs.

Just a reminder, Nizamuddin and his team of ulama, are not interested if the Deen is harmed by their fatwa or a falsehood is attributed towards Allah and His Noble Prophet, or that his Fatwa will have as result that people will start praising Ram in Ram Kathas etc.

Their only goal is to sanctify Ubaid even if it goes at cost of the Deen, Allah and His Noble Prophets respect.
I have another audio in which he was openly addressed in Ghosi by Muhaddith e Kabeer in which he purposely kept silent when Ubaid called a Qatí heretic as a Naaib of the Prophets. He refused to criticize Ubaid on this matter and to defend the noble Messengers.

Nizamuddins servants such as SS are here only to distract from this one goal: protecting the Deen and respect for the Shariah. So if there is a Lafzi mistake all efforts is being made the topic change towards this. Ubaid is like their messiah which is worth this all. If you people have any respect for this goal of protecting the deen you are obliged to erase him. He does not contribute towards this one goal, but rather the opposite.

Make this forum rather a place where people can find these books and radd upon their Maslak-e-Raam.

PS I still have doubt whether ubaid is a kafir, but team nizamudding works in such corrupt ways it cant be traced back what ubaid meant in which context, he was instructed to mean such and so, even if he meant it otherwise. They even on behalf of him presented Tawilaat instead of retrace and interrogate him.
The only thing that matters is that our next generation are protected from what Nizamuddin attributed as a good thing towards Allah and His noble Messenger. Peace and Blessings are upon Him.

 

If the same argument comes from Abul Hasan, I shall reply.

Please excuse me in this thread. I will reply either to Noori or Abul Hasan

 

So according to your rationale, every person who commits explicit kufr or apostasy needs to have a fatwa, with his name, declaring him an apostate or a heretic or that person cannot be labelled a kafir?

P.S
I am not on anyone's 'side' but I consider myself a neutral but your temerity is quite disgusting. You need to learn some manners before addressing senior scholars, whether you like them or not.

 

I see.

No mufti has yet issued a fatwa of kufr on Obaidullah by name. Abu Hasan can think what ever he likes.
But for Abu Hasan, there is a big problem now. He was arguing in the other thread regarding usage of the term" kufr fiqhi" and " kufr kalami", and asked me to give its reference from books. Interestingly, the two books released against Mufti Niazamuddin rizvi sahab's fatwa , have used these two terms many times!!

So when a man like you, who is unaware of these terms, he thinks some one a kafir, then not that person, but you should fear for your iman.

 

i sincerely expect nizamuddin sab to do tawbah and retract from his erroneous fatwa.
i hope and pray that he does that, rather than being humiliated.

nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.

 

i don't have to do tawbah. i considered obaidullah a kafir after what he did in his ramkatha AND after listening to the full audio. i don't consider him kafir now, as he has done tajdid iman (assuming he didn't lapse back into morari bapus arms).

as for nizamuddin and his camp.




wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

As Noori has said " for others to see".

So I hope, all those who have real interest to " see", they can read this thread and " see"

http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...s-of-abu-hasans-posts-obaidullah-issue.12699/


In one of the post on this forum Abul Hasan sahab said" Kufr did not return". ( he was pointing about those who issued fatwa of kufr)

In sha Allah, will start a new thread , again to show fiqh of Abul Hasan. Bhai sahab, aaram se rahiye.

 

I know you are busy with work and so am I . I am not saying that not replying does not mean going silent for ever. Take your time and so will I. When you get time, please reply. Thank you for not banning me.

And as I understand , you will ban me only if I go against your forum rules. In sha Allah, that shall not happen.

Just don't delete my threads. You can chose not to answer, like here

http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/not-fit-for-leading-prayers.12730/

Your not answering here does not mean , you are answerless. It is just that you don't have time. In sha Allah, later

 

no sir. i left you raving like a madman, because you are incapable of understanding a simple argument.
i don't want to waste my time with someone like you - you are incapable of understanding 'simple' english.

i was only telling you something you didn't know. read the passage from mawaqif. it may do you some good.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

you are really amusing SS. but anyway, i will come back after a while, meanwhile you can rejoice and claim that guys went silent . still, we won't ban you inshaAllah for everyone to see the truth.

 

You were answered here

http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...s-of-abu-hasans-posts-obaidullah-issue.12699/

Re read it, especially your references from tamhid and other works of Ala hazrat.

In case you find that you have a habit of quoting one rule in your book and applying different when asked to prove, then here is another of your hall mark:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/sayyiduna-ameer-muawiyah-رضي-الله-ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ-عنه.13051/

(Post 31)

As I said, you need to publicly make tawba for calling a muslim kafir by name, when no Mufti did it. May your ego not prevent you from not doing so. ameen

 

do you really wish to see an objective analysis of nizamuddin sahib's and mutiyu'r rahman's opinions?

my advice to you: don't push things too far. and remember the [implied] advice of imam iji in mawaqif:

 

In case you are relying on the scans uploaded by Arshad al Qadri, then I suggest that you get the complete book and read it thoroughly. Because on page 56 of this book the author has said that " sareeh kalma e kufr" is not specific and limited to " kufr fiqhi" but this term ( sareeh kalma e kufr) is used also for "kufr kalami' and he has given reference from fatwa shareh Bukhari Mufti sharif al haq amjadi rh. ( The name of the chapter in the book is : Nagpur se jari hone wala fatwa sahih hai )

This argument of author makes my claim weak which I have mentioned in the other thread. But as I said the refutation to this work has been written and I do not want to upload it right now.

Let people read these 2 books, bring points from those books , here on forum and let it be academic .

As you said, " at least others will see it".

I am not running away and In sha Allah, will discuss with you in this thread. As and when you get time, please put forward your argument , and as I get time, I shall, in sha Allah reply.

 

G bhai sahab. Let us make dua that we find the truth and also make dua that once we find the truth, Allah give us tawfeeq to accept it. Because many a time, even when truth is found, people don't or can't accept it, unless Allah gives tawfeeq.

A clear example is that the books released do not describe Nagpuri fatwa, but people will still do not accept that the fatwa was wrong.

And in another thread, a wrong fatwa was issued , many people signed it. When asked to prove its authenticity , people went silent, because some peer sahab has attested it.

 

I consider that you have read the other thread in which we have discussed the difference between the two fatwas. Mufti Nizamuddin rizvi sahab clearly told that he did not find the said statements/ verdict with those words anywhere in fatwa ridawiya.

There is a lot of difference between the wordings of those fatwas. The books released on this matter too accept it.

The fatwa was released by the Nagpuri scholars on internet. And this is how Obaidullah Khan received the fatwa copy. When it was pointed out ON INTERNET that there is no such statement in fatwa ridawiya, next day, fatwa was changed and then uploaded.

Whose fault was it too release fatwa on internet? Who was the scribe? Those muftis who signed it, were all unaware of the gross mistake?

It is amusing to see that you do no hold them responsible who signed a wrong fatwa, then released it on internet!

If you say that a mufti needs to pin point a wrong reference mentioned in an istifta, then please start another thread. We can discuss even this issue in the light of maslak e ala hazrat.

Yes, he still defends his fatwa. And this is what is the academic discussion which we can indulge in. But there is no place of Nagpuri fatwa in it. It is wrong. If not, please prove its correctness.

Alternatively, if we set aside Nagpuri fatwa and want to talk about Obaidullah's speech , I am ready to do so.

Don't be in a hurry. We will see so many mistakes mentioned in the book which you are reading. Mufti Nizamuddin rizvi's speech is on youtube. We will compare it with the transcribed speech mentioned in the book. If we find that some one has erred, hope we all will agree.

Fatwa 1 is incorrect as per everyone. Those wordings are not there any where in fatwa ridawiya. You yourself said,

Please understand that, it was not about the wrong' reference' but the wrong 'words' itself. Wrong reference means , the statement is present some where, but instead of Vol 4 , I say Vol 5. But this is not the case here. Here the wordings of the fatwa itself are not found any where in the fatwa ridawiya.

Please let me know, how it is responsibility of a Mufti to provide correct reference of something which is totally absent? Please note, the istifta was not to know whether these wordings are present in the book or not? Or whether what are the actual wordings present in the book? The istifta was whether the Nagpuri fatwa is correct or not. Had it been the first case, then the ' responsibility' which you are talking about was there. But this was not the case. And now ,please provide a reference that it is a responsibility of a Mufti to correct a wrong worded and wrong referenced statement mentioned in an istifta seeking fatwa about validity of another fatwa.

I don't understand you have really not read the other thread or you are just repeating.

Please see,

Fatwa No 1: tareef karna kufr sareeh hai.

Fatwa No 2: izzat dena sareeh kalma e kufr hai.


The ruling depends on those words and I have discussed the difference between them. So you are talking about "tareef" and " izzat" but not mentioning or understanding the difference between" kufr sareeh" and " sareeh kalma e kufr".

The ruling of fuqaha and mutakallimun will depend upon "kufr sareeh" and " sareeh kalam e kufr". Please read the other thread in which this issue has been discussed in detail.

Also note, since I am answering your questions, the moment I ask you to prove correctness of Nagpuri fatwa , please don't go silent. Either you say that you don't agree with it or prove it is correct.

And if not , then tell me , why should we discuss about this latest book and not about the original Nagpuri fatwa, which you supported.

 

no need, he has the right to explain his point of view. i hope and pray that he finds the truth, if not then at least others will see it.