mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

and

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.

 

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.