mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Unbeknown, Feb 13, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Arshad ul Qadri

    Arshad ul Qadri New Member

    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.
    Unbeknown and Bazdawi like this.
  2. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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
  3. Bazdawi

    Bazdawi Well-Known Member

    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?

    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.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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.
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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.
  7. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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"

    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.
  8. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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

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

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  10. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    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.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  11. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    You were answered here

    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: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
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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:

  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  14. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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.
  15. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  16. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    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.
  17. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i almost agree with this definition except that it should/must be sequential, which you are inserting only to go in circles again; but anyway it is still not bad if it is sequential too.

    no question about it, he should have posted this info with a proof otherwise it was just a piece of information which others may accept or deny.

    i disagree with you, because most of your posts about naqpuri fatwa and the whole issue are enough to cause headache. i am sorry to say that but that is how i feel about your posts.

    this is really hair-splitting. it is very obvious that nizam'ud din sahab knew the reference, he should have honestly mentioned the fatwa with correct wording rather than pretending that he did not find it.

    i already had answered it, see my previous posts. it is very common to make corrections in fatwa. hazrat taj'ush shari'ah might have asked to correct the reference and then signed it.

    even if you don't agree then does it change the fact that mufti nizam'ud din sahab is aware of this change, he still defends his fatwa on uka, and also has found and used the original reference in his speech.

    i am not a mufti nor an alim but i think that there is no difference in 'kuffar kay dewtaoN ki ta'rif krna' and kuffar kay dewtaoN ko izzat dena' because you give izzat (respect) with praises not with criticism.

    also, it is not just ta'rif of kuffar, but ta'rif of their deity

    nizam'ud din sahab changed "dewtaoN ki tarif/izzat' to 'ghair muslim kay fai'l ki tahseen' in his speech and then explains which tahseen is kufr and which is not. he affirms that ala hazrat's rahmahullah fatwa is correct and it means that praising actions of kuffar in their religious actions/affairs is indeed kufr. i ask you is praising ram not the shi'aar of kuffar, ram is their religion, their deity. if praising kuffar's religious affairs is kufr then why not praising their deity?

    therefore, as you said we can disagree, i don't find your reply satisfactory, for;

    - mufti nizam'ud din should have mentioned the mistake in fatwa-1 and provided the correct reference. it was his responsibility to tell why the fatwa-1 was incorrect (in his view of course)
    - he had become aware of the change, but his fatwa remained same
    - in his fatwa he has used the very reference which he said he didn't find (verbatim), and he still thinks that uka is not guilty of the charge. so, does it make any difference whether the actual word was "ta'rif" or "izzat"
    - mufi nizam'ud din himself has acknowledged in his speech that praising the religious affairs of kuffar is kufr, and praising ram is the way of kuffar. since uka praised their deity (as a muslim, not just stating kuffar's aqidah) therefore from his own words uka is a kafir.
    - why did he not talk about 'kuffar kay dewtaoN ko izzat dena', and kept on explaining 'aik ghayr muslim kay fai'l ki tahseen'.

    I have honestly answered your one of the initial questions that you have raised again. now i hope that you explain what difference the change of fatwa can make when mufti nizam'ud din has used the correct version too, yet still he absolves uka.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  18. Bazdawi

    Bazdawi Well-Known Member

    Yawn...I say let's put it to a vote - to ban SS or not to ban.
    Unbeknown likes this.
  19. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    To write in simple words, to provide evidence for any claims made and to be sequential.

    You can see, how I was asking for a simple proof regarding a claim made by Arshad al qadri sahab, but he kept on avoiding. You and every one else knows that it was his shari'i responsibility to provide the evidence. But he didn't. So I thought may be he is not able to understand what I am asking for.

    Here I will give you an example of what I mean by simple English.

    People used Nagpuri fatwa to call Obaidullah Khan a Kafir. But when I asked to prove it, people failed.

    But now you ask me to "directly" address the question which you feel should be answered. I will definitely answer your question, but please do tell me that why is that you don't bring evidence to prove your claim? Why is that now you have shifted from Nagpuri fatwa to this new book? Why is that you did not answer my post regarding "who is fit to lead prayers" ? These are some of my question which you need to answer. The first being, why have you been not able to prove the authenticity of Nagpuri fatwa as per maslak e ala hazrat?

    For your kind information the scans which Arshad al Qadri has posted ( page 71 to page 117) and others said that it is by Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan, if you have read it completely, you must have noticed one thing. It does not deal with Nagpuri fatwa!! No where does it mentions Nagpuri fatwa in detail or tries to justify it!!! What it does is that it has made a lot of questions upon the speech and fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin rizvi sahab!

    So people who were defending Nagpuri fatwa have nothing in the scans uploaded!!

    That is why people will conveniently ignore and avoid the topic of Nagpuri fatwa!!

    You can observe it in your case. You supported Nagpuri fatwa, but when asked to prove, you could not. But now you come back asking me to answer a question which you feel is important. So tell me, why do you shift goal post?

    Anyways, here is a simple answer to your question. Observe the scans below.

    Fatwa 1 is the original fatwa which was issued. Obaidullah Khan Azmi used the same fatwa while sending istifta to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab. The quotes from Fatwa Ridawiya mentioned in this fatwa 1 is not found any where in fatwa ridawiya. You can see that the answer given by Mufti Nizamuddin has the question sent by Obaidullah Khan. It is this quote from fatwa ridawiya which is not found any where.

    Later Fatwa 1 was changed , as can be seen in Fatwa 2. The type set answer was changed with hand written words. Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan's signature which was missing in Fatwa 1 appeared in Fatwa 2.

    Hence , what Mufti Nizamuddin rizvi said is correct that no where these wordings are found in fatwa ridawiya, because he was referring to the original fatwa no 1.

    Please find the scans.

    Do let me know why I should answer all your questions but you don't want to talk about Nagpuri fatwa which you were supporting. Interestingly, the scans uploaded do not describe Nagpuri fatwa! Also, you chose not to reply in other thread regarding "who can lead the prayer". I cannot compel you to participate in any thread or reply to any posts. You should also have the same expectation from me.

    Also, being moderator, you can see who is abusive and is name calling . We may disagree on many issues, but that should not stop us from being honest.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  20. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Arshad ul qadri said

    Bazdawi said


Share This Page