mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    jazakAllahu khayran. I was told that he visited the mazar of hafidh-e-millat and also delivered a speech but didn't know it was inside ashrafiya grounds.
  2. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    I am not sure if all members are aware of this: Taj ushSharia and Allam Zia ul Mustafa visited Jamea Ashrafiyaa just 2-3 weeks ago, and the ulema and students - all those present - renewed their pledge to Maslak e Ala Hazrat. Many of them also gave Baiyah on the blessed hands of Taj ushShariah.

    instead of talking about "this or the other camp", we must focus on (on this thread) the issue of UKA's rotten speech, in the light of Shariah - not from where the fatawas are coming from.

    I am sure many of the forum members know and understand the correct ruling on UKA's utterances.
  3. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    I am sure many of the forum members know and understand the correct ruling on UKA's utterances.
  4. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    brother Aqib, nothing taken personal. you didn't get my post, that's ok. re-read it please.

    i don't speak in cryptic clues. we all know there is intra-Sunni politics between Bareilly and Mubarakpur. i will be satisfied* if i see an answer from anyone (shaykh) representing "his camp".

    * satisfied as in, satisfied that he issued a direct and specific statement on obaid, regardless of if it actually convicts or exonerates him of riddah.
  5. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    AQ, don't contradict yourself. First you said "YES" to my question. Then in the very next sentence you say "that he is aware of obviously".

    So you agree Taj ushSharia is NOT responsible for everything. He is supposed to answer only when things are brought to his notice.

    so why all the hue & cry about not having a fatwa from HIM? Or is it that you will get satisfied only when you see an answer from him and none other?

    my humble advice: don't take it personal, don't type rebuttals just for the sake of debating.

    as brother Inquisitive said, Shaykh Akhtar Raza's position will soon be found out - although it is a generic topic.
  6. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Give it a month and there should be something out to satisfy you. I've not heard there is or isn't but chances are that its likely.
  7. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    yes. on everything that concerns Sunni Muslims, specially faith-based matters more than fiqh based furoo3i matters, that he is aware of obviously. he is after all, the Qadi for a lot of indian Sunnis. also his close aides/mureeds should bring such matters to his notice for the welfare of the awam.

    sorry brother. i have no sympathy for karamaat when discussing issues of 3aqidah and shari3ah, regardless if they are purportedly of Akhtar Raza Sahab, or Ilyas Qadri Sahab, or Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab.

    the time and place for discussing karamaat (and i don't deny his or anyone else's karamaat, if any) is in matters of fadail and not in discussions on deen itself.

    indeed. that's why i keep asking if he or his close aides or associates have issued fatwa against obaid by name.

    maybe i don't. so if someone knows, can he please advise of Tajush Shari3ah's fatwa on obaid specifically, or advise if it's in the pipeline?
  8. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    What Is Aqdas Misbahis take on this? He may be able to speak directly to Mufti Nizam or Mawlana Yasin Akhtar.
  9. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    that would make "raam" higher in status than all the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent, including Sultaan ul Hind Khwaaja Ghareeb Nawaaz, including all the Awliyaa of Hind, including all the mashaykh of most members on this forum and including (I assume), the shaykh of AQ (from the sub-continent).

    i don't think any muslim can digest that.

    and "hind" means - as per UKA - all Hindus and Muslims - "hum".

    just saying that Kuffar are better than Muslims, is KUFR in itself.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
    inquisitive likes this.
  10. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    aH, jazak Allahu khayraa for the reminders.

    i think we both don't mince our words and are straight shooters. so here's my thing on THIS issue:


    1. i've been told there is a technical and fiqh difference between


    it seems according to the other side, that the muftis who signed the first fatwa from the Bareilly side are not dummies. the fatwa was changed (by pen) due to reasons of some fiqh technicalities and implications, and not just to tally with Ala Hazrat's own wording. apparently it was a carefully engineered change to handle possible future rebuttals or currently existing rebuttals.

    my sarcasm in this comment was lost on inquisitive and maybe you too

    apparently (and this is what i've come to know from the other side) there are legal and fiqhi technicalities between "tareef karna" and "izzat dena" and between "sareeh kalimae kufr" and "kufre sareeh". i don't know what they are, and will need my time to do my reseach.


    2. it seems that the Mubarakpur side genuinely believes that what obaid did was "tareef" and not "izzat" and there are fiqh technicalities he can get off on, notwithstanding his affidavit on his intentions. and that's why the other side changed the wording of the fatwa.

    apparently there are treatises from fuqahaa like Ibn Humam and Ibn Nujaym or others on this issue. (i need to research on this issue)

    it seems to the Mubarakpur side that the Bareilly side simply can't issue a DIRECT & SPECIFIC fatwa of riddah on obaid for these and some other reasons.


    me neither. i respect Akhtar Raza Sahab, Nizamuddin Sahab, Muzaffar Shah Sahab, Ilyas Qadri Sahab, Shah Turabul Haq Sahab, and others for fiqh rulings and indeed do my own research where humanly possible. in fact i'm a bit more heterodox and take opinions of other Sunni Hanafi 3ulema outside of the subcontinent or Fatawa Ridawiyya too.

    i'd love to go with my impulsive gut feelings and dil ka fatwa on this, but, as i said the ground realities are this:

    a - Mubarakpur has exonerated him and accepted his defense.
    b - Bareilly has thus far not issued a direct & specific fatwa of kufr on obaid (and the other side thinks they can't and won't for both technical fiqh and other reasons)

    the sum total of which is - the ground reality as it stands is that despite knowing his utterances, NO SIDE has called obaid a kafir or even a mubtadi3i.

    two Sunni sides, both of whom i respect, have NOT issued a fatwa kufr on this guy, either for fiqh reasons or (very sadly) for political reasons. it's not like a case of qaradawi saying something and one of us summarily dismissing it.


    if i go with my usual self, and i can, i'm basically even bypassing Bareilly, leave alone Mubarakpur.

    that's why you will see my insistence on a SPECIFIC BY NAME fatwa on obaid from the Bareilly side.

    right now, i'm just curious as to what those fiqh technicalities are that supposedly can or will exonerate obaid and can cause one side to refute and rebuttal the other, and how and why, if at all, those technicalities will affect their ifta and internal Bareilly-Mubarakpur politics.


    hence my sukoot to wait till i learn more on the fiqh issues of the matter, to get my head and my fiqh straight on this guy and what he did at that time - and i meant it when i said:

    i honestly intend to ask a NON-DESI (anti-deo) Hanafi shaykh i trust regarding this issue of izzat and tareef, and also the Shar3i admissibility or inadmissibility of obaid's defense regarding the godhra backdrop.


    i should have said this in my last night's post but i was busy in a bunch of other things at home while posting and didn't organize my thoughts or that post properly. and i completely agree with your mentioning of aimma and aalihatuhum. i accept my mistake. jazak Allahu khayraa.

    i DO stand by my words that Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab SHOULD have highlighted the bid3ah of misguidance in basic Sunni beliefs that post 911 perennialists have come up with - namely that jihad is only something to be done for self defense. and fwiw, even the Bareilly side should have done it.


    i am on NO side on this issue - not Bareilly, not Mubarakpur, despite having sincere good friends on both.


    hope that explains how/why i'm not my usual self on this guy and his audio.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  11. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    Do you mean that he is responsible for issuing a fatwa regarding everything that happens in India - whether it is brought to his knowledge or not?? We know he is a Wali, for sure, and is now famous for his several Karamaat - but that is not his sole responsibility.

    if others have issued the decree, it absolves him.

    don't make assumptions, AQ. how do you know?

    if others have issued the decree, it absolves him.

    I know of several instances when this great Shaykh, refused to enter the house of well-known "sunni" persons who had invited deviants to their homes.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    AQ is running here and there for no reason. ok, i am not a mufti.

    i heard/read about obaidullah's speech only yesterday. we knew for long that he was a politician and known to say unpalatable things - but i didn't expect this level of degradation.

    i suggest AQ to read his own comments on threads related to nazim qubrusi meeting the pope; and his colourful language concerning that meeting. how is obaidullah azmi's speech any different? rather it is worse because nowhere did sh.nazim praise paul or trinity or give dars from trinity in a mass.

    obaidullah's claim that he went to morari bapu for a muslim cause is a weak at the least if not a false pretense. why did he not go to BJP and RSS cadres or make a speech in their majlis? obviously, his political party would have expelled him. but still, going to a ram-katha and praising ram (who is considered as their deity) can spawn so many ta'wils.

    let us go a bit further. even tahir jhangvi in his multi-faith gathering did not say that HE, as a muslim believes in ram or buddha as people with "exemplary character, beautiful and lovely..." [ad nauseum]. he only said go ahead and call your lord in your own tradition.

    i think AQ was on the right track, but as soon as the bareilly/mubarakpur angle was brought in, he probably lost his way. i respect mawlana akhtar raza khan and mawlana nizamuddin as sunni ulama. but i don't accept everything they say as a blind muqallid. alHamdulillah, i can refer to books of shuruh and usul and do research on citations by myself; and i don't accept everything they say without any reservation, particularly if i find the argument/reasoning unconvincing. [brothers who may want to call me arrogant and other things, may please start a new thread and spare this one.]



    so, if the qur'an mention "aalihatuhum" you are allowed to call ram: the god of india? or ilah-e-hind? check this one.

    dear AQ, you forgot that he did not mention imam as in aimmata'l kufr (who were to be killed), but as imam in 'the highest rank, beyond which there is no other'.

    people keep forgetting that ta'wil is not in sariH statements; and ta'wil is admissible only where there is ambiguity.

    i am not from mars, not even from uk or turkey. and i still don't know how this attending of ram-katha advances the cause of muslims; and how magically muslims become protected from hindu mobs (unless you believe in morari-bapu's billah).

    even an illiterate muslim will tell you that praising ram in a ram-katha is kufr. and obaidullah, is not even trying to find diplomatic words; rather his eloquent praise and "zor e bayan" are self-evident.

    inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
    Ghulam Ali, Noori and inquisitive like this.
  13. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Someone please explain to AQ that OA has only recently admitted he said those statements (within the past week) and therefore, it may take some time for the fatwa naming him to be released.

    The first fatwa was generic, it was probably hinting towards OA but there was no concrete evidence that he said those statements and therefore, issuing a Fatwa of Kufr on him for those statements was not possible.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  14. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    It is really surprising that a senior moderator makes a comment without actually reading the posts in the thread.In sha Allah, will reply at night.
  15. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i don't see that it is an issue when it is present in fatawa razawiyyah. may be the print was light therefore someone made it bold with pen.

    why is it suspicious to you?
    inquisitive likes this.
  16. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i don't see that it is an issue when it is present in fatawa razawiyyah. may be the print was light therefore someone made it bold with pen.

    why is it suspicious to you?
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    please lets not make it an issue of sides. and no one's beaming over anything. All that's happening is unfortunate. How can a sunni feel gleeful about anyone falling into kufr/gumrahi? Or about senior shuyookh issuing incorrect fatwas - whether under duress or otherwise?

    I have come to assume that most of the regular members posting here are sincere people looking for answers and asking questions but each one has a different mode of thought. If we keep our discussions acadmeic and free from name calling - and baiting - I think we can have far richer and fruitful discussions.

    All senior scholars. May Allah (ta'ala) guide them where they are wrong and forgive their lapses and give them the courage to serve sunnis without fear of repercussions from people. What's happening between them is the ploy of shaytan to weaken the sunnis.

    Please keep these obvious things in mind and keep praying for sunni unity.

    The friend, I spoke to him yesterday, he is crestfallen. Every where is chaos, suspicion and uncertainty.

    sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2015
  18. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    don't forget that the mustafti (obaid) is certainly also getting an unintentioned push from bareilly since no mufti from there is willing to level a charge of kufr against him mentioning him personally by name

    as per obaid's defense, the words were not of praise of their deities (and hence kufr) but rather of indictment, that is, to establish hujjah on them based on their own precepts to refrain from attacking Muslims (this is the legal technicality in this and this is why i will stay silent now and ask another non-desi Mufti about this since i don't trust either side in india to rise above the politics of it all. i'm saying it plainly and openly)

    very well. you tell me when they heard the audio.

    apparently (according to unbeknown) this obaid character was notorious for a uttering a bunch of other kufriyat and khurafat, and Molvi Zia ul Mustafa sahab was aware of it all.

    yet why wasn't a fatwa/statement issued against ANY of his khurafat earlier on?

    firstly i'm not assuming good of obaidullah, nor slandering Tajush Shari3ah, but if you must take it in that direction

    Tajush Shari3ah being Tajush Shari3ah has a duty towards the Muslims of india. it seems he is himself reluctant to issue a statement of takfeer or tabdee3 against obaidullah. why is that so?

    even if he or any of the signing muftis heard the speech only at the time of signing the fatwa - why are they NOW silent on obaidullah as a person? why don't they mention him by name?

    your shuyukh haven't called him a kafir or a mubtadi3, and yet you go as far as calling him a munafiq? what is the reason for that? (and yet, i'm the foolish jahil)
    Abu Hamza likes this.
  19. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    in which case each and every scholar who knows about UKA is guilty.

    I don't know how true is this but I have been told that one of the major reasons for Allamah Zia-ul-Mustafa sahib leaving ashrafiya was this same guy after he had praised khumaini - allamah sahib asked those who concerned to either ask him to repent publicly or ban him from ever giving speeches in ashrafiya. But people did not take heed, the contention grew and ultimately led to allamah sahib's leaving ashrafiya and UKA becoming even more entrenched in ashrafiya's activities and even more bold.

    My friend who I spoke about in the other thread, says that when he went to ashrafiya to study there were many senior students who loved allamah sahib and spoke of the good ol days when he used to teach there. Whenever Allamah sahib visited students gathered around him to speak to him, greet him and do musafah.

    But when he was leaving ashrafiya a few years down from that time, he says, the situation had turned so bad that students were chanting MURDABAD for Allamah sahib - students of the very same institution to which he had devoted his life !! :(

    who are responsible for this? they'll have to answer on the day of judgement.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  20. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    You really are a foolish jahil.

    How do you know when they heard this audio?

    Assuming good for Obaidullah, the hypocrite, trying to slander Taajush Shariah.

Share This Page