mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

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

    the status of the crime (or lack thereof) stays intact

    what is heinous is the fact that great scholars waited until NOW to bring it to public attention!

    it certainly raises eye brows as to why Tajush Shari3ah and his side didn't issue a fatwa against this character right then and there?

    if they are issuing fatwa against him now, they need to answer to the awam why they waited all these years! if they can't, in my book THAT is the heinous part!

    were they in a private correspondence with this obaid guy like Ala Hazrat was corresponding with thanwi?


    AND AGAIN - so far NO FATWA has been issued by Bareilly mentioning obaid SPECIFICALLY BY NAME!

    can someone state why please? (DESPITE the crime being so utterly ugly and heinous!!!!!!!!)

    the supporters of that side seem to be beaming over a GENERIC fatwa not realizing that their OWN SHUYUKH have so far not issued a SPECIFIC FATWA/STATEMENT on obaidullah!
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I don't know how many of you here browse the urdu websites or whatsapp. But I have been told that people have levelled several more minor charges such as:

    1. His wife watches t.v and listens to non-mehrams
    2. His wife is desirous of speaking to a non-meharm
    3. His wife wishes to give salam to a non-mehram
    4. Meeting morari was described as 'darshan' (which has a connotation of 'blessed')
    5. UKa has no qualms announcing all this publicly
  3. AbdalQadir

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

    that's simply beautiful and heart warming, brother inquisitive - the desire to copy paste exactly from Fatawa Ridawaiyya and avoid as much as a synonym.

    so is the one without his signature not "correct"???? (even though the difference is only of synonyms)

    which one is the one with Tajush Shari3ah's signature?

    is Tajush Shari3ah the original mufti who ISSUED the fatwa or one of the major muftis who attested to it?

    please advise who is the first mufti who ISSUED the fatwa?

    please also answer my following questions in post #65

    i will ask other questions later and address your other points in another thread.
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    What foul play do people suspect if:

    1. some words were changed
    2. identity of the mustafti is not established
    3. a signature was added later on
    4. the crime was committed a decade ago (does that make it any less heinous?)

    that Taj al-shariah's signature was removed (if it was) is probably something to raise eyebrows about. Because then we are faced with the question, was it removed or was it added later on?

    the most I can see in this is lack of co-ordination.

    the fatwa from mubarkpur is all in order and tidy because - it was ensured by the mustafti that no stone be left unturned in exonerating himself of the charge of kufr. For all we know he must have demanded that he wanted these four people and no on else to sign it, put their seal and show their unconditional support for him. Or tell me are all fatwas from mubarkpur signed by so many people?!

    SS seems to know 'exactly' what happened, so why not tell us? And please provide proofs for everything.

    What I cant get over is the fact that obaidullah has played a game to have himself acquitted without even the slightest reprimand, nay, with praise and to the beat of drums!


    You cant compare a multi-version fatwa with suspicious origins, but correct in the essentials, to a well-established fatwa, which is incorrect/misleading for the most part.

    Lets say the former fatwa was drafted by some unknown people, jealous of UKA, or even his political rivals and then they forged some signatures and attributed the fatwa to senior scholars. Then circulated it on social media and even sent it to UKa himself. This is all wrong but the basis of the fatwa is ala-hazrat's own fatwa from the FR.

    I don't care if an alien from Mars wrote it just to see how humans react when caught on the wrong foot!


    I do not agree to most of AQ's analysis of the fatwa from mubarakpur or UKA's intentions (i know you have not asked me to) for a few simple reasons:

    1. uka's antics are well-known in ashrafiya and there is little chance that only the quoted part of the speech was known. As brother Noori stated, why was he not asked to produce the full speech?

    2. Under no circumstances is anyone allowed to utter kufriyat except in life-threatening situations. Okay, lets assume he never wanted to meet morari and simply lied during the speech but that does not change the import of the rest of things he said even if we assume that he had the best of intentions.

    3. So what good did his praise for a hindu diety bring to the muslims of gujrat? He himself says that morari had protected the muslims of his area during the riots. Did morari or anyone from his side tell him that he he didn't praise ram they'd unleash another godhra in kutchh? If anything, his speech was not needed at all!

    Why didn't taj al-shariah warn people against him before? I don't know where to start...

    as for guidelines: Say anything you like and go anywhere you like, just don't commit kufr nor fall into gumrahi. Until further notice.

    Allah know best.
  5. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    It's not a major question at all.

    One version was never meant to be uploaded and the other version was changed with the consent of all the Muftis. They chose to use a word similar to Fatwa e Ridawaiyya, instead of a synonym.

    The correct one is the one with Taajush Shariahs signature.

    You can't blame the Muftis for someone uploading it before permission.
  6. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Those who issued the fatwa after listening to the recorded speech,took the most serious utterances in that speech which as per them constitutes kufr. Hence they cited that usage as the basis of issuing fatwa. If any one thinks that any other utterances in that speech constitutes kufr, please bring it to the light of any Sunni mufti , so that he can issue a fatwa. Any fatwa can be discussed on internet but lets not use internet for issuing fatwa of kufr .
  7. AbdalQadir

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

    i can understand why obaidullah would present a partial quote of his speech to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab.

    why didn't this Abdullah guy from bombay present the full speech in his istifta to the other muftis? they could have surely come up with more charges on him.
  8. AbdalQadir

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

    now for AQ's feedback on Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa -

    firstly, i only speak for myself, regardless of what people with star studded eyes think about who or what or which side i supposedly represent or stand against. it's a no-brainer i'm not a mufti, so my opinion is just that - an opinion.

    1. the audio clip of obaidullah seems like blatant brown nosing as far as mannerism and tone goes, but that's only my subjective judgment and irrelevant to the textual ifta.

    2. his textual istifta gives his reason and intention as protecting Muslims from mobs of kuffar (apparently in the times of riots*) and indictment against the kuffar and establishing hujjah against them using their own role model, thereby deterring them from harming Muslims, all at the request of fellow Muslims.

    3. it is very tempting to go with "gut feeling"and conjecture that he's a politician and that by default means he is lying, however in a matter such as takfeer, we need clear EVIDENCE to prove he is lying. that he said that he was looking forward to meet morari from the 90's simply doesn't establish that he lied about point 2. above (despite what i feel about his verbal gestures in the audio and despite the fact that the audio isn't factored into the written fatwa).

    4. therefore, unless we have EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise, we have to go with his defense of himself and his stated intentions in his istifta, as the rule is to go to maximum extent possible to avoid takfeer. and yet, despite knowing the communal riots backdrop, i can't get over his audio (assuming it is really his voice), i can only adopt sukoot on the guy, till i get another Mufti's (i won't get it from Bareilly or Mubarakpur) opinion on his indictment of hindus cum purported praise and adoration of ram and morari - (if you have a problem with my stance thus far, and i'm just a common nobody, you should also note that NO respectable Mufti sab on this or that side states SPECIFICALLY that obaidullah is a kafir, NOT Mufti Nizamuddin sahab and NOT Mufti Akhtar Raza sahab, although if i was obaidullah, i would most certainly do tajdeed-e-iman and nikah)

    5. his usage of imam-e-hind for ram doesn't necessarily have to be taken in a negative way against him. the Quran mentions aimmatal kufr in 9:12

    6. my gripe is with his portrayal of jihad as something merely for self defense. this apologia a major bid3ah of misguidance in these post 9/11 times. he shouldn't have touched on the topic of jihad in his speech, and even if he did touch on it, deliberately or accidentally, at a sensitive time (riots etc.) fast forward to this day, Mufti Nizamuddin sahab SHOULD have clarified now, that jihad can be offensive too. why should we feel shy from our religion when the kuffar openly state they go to war to spread democracy. Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab should have asked him to do tawba from this bid3a, even if it was committed in distress in troubling times. it may be hubris on my part, but i believe Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab was wrong there for not highlighting an ugly bid3ah of misguidance. i will also get another non-Bareilly and non-Mubarakpur (non-desi) mufti's opinion on his conflating the jihad with ram and sita and qayamat issues.

    * apparently it was godhra riots time.


    i called the guy another tahir in an impulsive moment. in retrospect, i think he being a politician has very tight ropes to walk on - which goes back to my initial post on this thread - our 3ulema HAVE TO establish guidelines on just how far we can and can't go as Muslims in political discourses in countries like india. considering the riot times and his stated aim to protect Muslims, i don't think he is like tahir, on that particular count at least. (unless it's his habit)


    Allah knows best. and if i have uttered any kufr knowingly or unknowingly in this post, i seek His refuge and forgiveness and renew my faith by the shahada laa ilaaha il Allah Muhammadur Rasool Allah. i take contemporaries with a pinch of salt. i resign my opinion on this guy or this matter to what would be the Prophet's 3alaihis salam, opinion on this guy and this matter, and on all guys and all matters.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
    Abu Hamza likes this.
  9. AbdalQadir

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

    Version 1 posted by Sunnistudent above says - kuffar ke devtaon ko izzat dena sareeh kalimae kufr hai

    (the red part has been edited by handwriting and is a verbatim same usage of words from FR, rest of the fatwa is typed)

    Version 2 says - kuffar ke devtaon ki tareef karna kufre sareeh hai (the entire fatwa is typed, blue part is what has been replaced by the handwriting. this is the one obaidullah cites in his istifta to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab)

    if there really is no difference between tareef karna and izzat dena, then why change it?

    same applies to sareeh kalimae kufr and kufre sareeh - why change it if the meaning is same?

    these are VERY VALID questions - for if the meaning stays the same, why play with minor semantics and make changes? can't be just for cosmetic surgery.

    or were a multitude of "Mufti's" so sloppy that they signed one thing without seeing, and then felt the need to change it to something else?
    (we're putting "Siraj" in inverted commas for his mistakes, so we must apply the same standard elsewhere too)

    another thing is that there is no single main mufti who has issued the fatwa and then the others attested to it. it seems everyone who signed it is the issuing mufti. or perhaps everyone is an attesting mufti. if there is one main issuer of the fatwa, can he be named please so that we know Mufti Sahab X ISSUED the fatwa, and the other Mufti sahiban attested to it.


    it is obvious obaidullah sought a counter-fatwa against the fatwa issued against a fragment of his speech (GENERICALLY mentioning EK SHAKHS)

    so when exactly was the first fatwa against him published?

    if his speech is old, why was the first fatwa published 10-12 years after the speech, and that too GENERICALLY? why wasn't the awam warned about this fitnah before SPECIFICALLY mentioning him by name?

    if the 3ulema of Bareilly believe in ihtimal of the audio being doctored and have withheld from SPECIFIC takfeer of obaidullah (or even tabdee3 for that matter), why are their students and common folk attacking this guy?

    shouldn't they first ascertain that those whom they consider their teachers and spiritual guides also first declare this guy SPECIFICALLY as a kafir or mubtadi3?
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  10. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    All the ulama were signing it and one of those aalim took the picture and sent it to Obaidullah Khan Azmi . Right? Because Obaidullah Azmi has quoted the original reply in his istifta, which means he was aware about that reply only and nothing else.

    I don't want to comment upon your reliable source of this story, but please think before accepting any story. Read the fatwa quoted by Obaidullah Khan in his istifta. Is it version 1 or version 2?

    The real story is not what you have been told. It is different.
  11. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I am uploading two versions of the fatwa.

    Version 1 : Which is uploaded by brother inquisitive . Please observe the red ,highlighted part. Observe the text written by pen ( on a fatwa which was typed on computer) . Also observe a 'scrambled signature' in oval.

    VERSION 1.jpg

    Version 2 : Which was uploaded by brother ghulam e raza. Observe the original typed text ( compare the text with version 1) and also the 'scrambled signature' is missing in this version.

    Inquisitive said

    Please tell me , which version is to be relied and why was the changes made? From which version was Tajusshariah's name removed?

    If version 1 ( which is uploaded by you) contains Tajusshariah's name, then why do you say some people removed his name?

    If version 1 ( uploaded by you) does not contain Tajusshariah's name ( and it was originally present) , then why did you upload such a version?
  12. ghulam-e-raza

    ghulam-e-raza Well-Known Member

    Sorry guys, turns out the one I uploaded is missing some of the signatures hence I have removed this was going around all the Ulama and they were signing it one by one, and whoever took this picture took it before all Ulama had signed (confirmed this with a brother who was present there).
  13. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    So if those words do not make any difference [ as per you], why was the fatwa changed??? You need to tell me why was the fatwa changed.
  14. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran


    Who removed Tajusshariah's name from the 'image'? How do you know that it was originally present??

    My question is :

    a)From where did you get this fatwa?
    bWhy is it different from the one posted by ghulam-e- raza?
    c)Who made the changes after it was signed by the scholars ?
    d)The original fatwa was typed on a computer and the scholars signed it. Who made the changes in writing by using pen?
    e)Were the scholars who signed the original fatwa , agree to the changes made later on?
    f) What was wrong in the original fatwa that it needed to be changed?

    There are many questions about the fatwa which you can chose to answer later. Such as :

    1) Who is " Abdullah" from Mumbai?
    2) What are the names of the scholars who have signed it? Why none of them have put their seal , or proper name or date, except one or two?

    3) An audio clipping which was recorded more than 10 years back, is made the basis of the fatwa and you claim that since there was "ihtimal' of the person, hence a 'shakhsi ruling" was not made.
    We will discuss questions no 1 to 3 later, but please answer questions a to f


    Please note, before we discuss the ruling of ' Kufr' on some one , the least we need to do is ascertain the authenticity of the fatwa uploaded by you.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
  15. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Those who know, know.

    That's all I will say regarding IMM and ASK.

    "Ruswa e Zamana Kitab" - The verdict of Taaj al-Shariat after listening to IMM.
  16. ghulam-e-raza

    ghulam-e-raza Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure where the version brother Inquisitive originated from. This is the original version I received (apologies for the poor resolution). (I am unsure if the Ulama present thereafter decided to edit the wording)

    This fatwa was written and signed during the seminar of the Shar'i Council of India, which happened a few weeks ago, which was attended by the likes of Huzur Taajush Shari'ah and Huzur Muhaddith e Kabeer. Also amongst the attendees (and signatories to the fatwa) was Mufti Meraj Misbahi from Jami'ah Ashrafiyyah.

    [Edit- uploaded wrong one, reuploading shortly]
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
  17. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    In one it says "Tareef Karna" and in another it says "Izzat Dena".

    Nevertheless, don't think it makes a big difference.
  18. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    A request to brothers. Keep your questions separate from your posts. I'll answer them but I don't have time to find each of your questions.

    Write your questions seperatley.


    The reason why the Fatwa was generic was probably because it was an audio clip and they refrained from specifically ruling him a kafir due to the ihtimal of voice being edited etc.



    Some People even removed Taaj al-Shariats name from some images. I don't understand what your question is? Please state it clearly.

    If Abu Hasan could separate the thread and leave only the ones related to Obaidullah.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i don't see why it will be locked.
  20. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Other interesting thing which you might have missed is the fatwa ruling quoted by Obaidullah Khan Azmi in his istifta and the ruling contained in the fatwa uploaded by our brother inquisitive. Observe carefully.

    Our dear brother inquisitive will have to tell me the whole story of this fatwa and then in sha Allah I will upload the original fatwa. But inquisitive needs to answer those important questions which I have raised. I hope the thread won't be locked!

Share This Page