mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    that is interesting. i actually took the text from ubaidullah khan's own istifta. hadn't seen this image in detail.
     
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you will not like me saying this, but i still don't think anything wrong with shaykh yasin's book; and i still think that those two books (attacking shaykh yasin akhtar) are ridiculous and frankly, spiteful 'rejoinder' that revels in ad hominem attacks.

    you mean, people should not take books and comments on face value but rather get involved with pir/shaykh/scholar politics and see who is saying what because of which grouse they had in their long years and what caused the rift and who was responsible for the first attack and so forth?

    why can't people be sincere and forthcoming? why the cloak and dagger and machinations? so it is necessary for a mufti to learn about peripheral issues, motivations and the history of mustafti before issuing a fatwa?

    even after this new information and the background, those two books remain unconvincing.

    ---
    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    PS: AQ posted almost the same time i was writing this.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
  3. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I too hope that those who have signed the wrong fatwa will retract. As of now , all we need to do is follow this thread.

    Mufti sahab knows the statement which is being discussed here and assumed that he either did not check it or is using a heela.
     
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    I too hope that those who have signed the wrong fatwa will retract. As of now , all we need to do is follow this thread.
     
  5. AbdalQadir

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

    did Ala Hazrat speak in cryptic clues when issuing fatawa against thanwi and others?

    just how does Aina-e-Sulah Kulliyat point out to Mufti Nizamuddin's reluctance to issue a fatwa against this obaidullah or others like him? this fatwa apparently is only 3 or so weeks old.

    if these issues have been going on for 20 years, why was the other side silent for so long? why didn't they blast these people DIRECTLY - mentioning names of persons, organizations, institutions, etc. - AND WITH EVIDENCE?

    why was the evidence concealed from the public for so long?

    did the book Aina-e-Sulah Kulliyat or Shaykh Akhtar Hussain's article elaborate the REASONS for stating what they did?

    did they list out the accusations and evidences for what transpired?

    how and why is the awam left to guess work and connecting dots?

    Ala Hazrat has himself said that deobandis and wahabis are heretics but it doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is wrong.

    if thanwi wrote something about basic Hanafi masail of wudu, would you call it as falsehood just because he was a heretic on other counts?

    so can you please elaborate just where exactly and how exactly is Irfan-e-Mazhab a sulah kulliyat promoting book?! - even if this fatwa is wrong (i will write a separate post on my feedback on this particular fatwa after a while)

    --------------

    speaking of naming names:

    just why are you jumping up and down in glee trying to slaughter Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab? at the very least he issued a fatwa on obaidullah mentioning him specifically by name (again, my feedback on it to come later) and put his own name (Mufti Nizamuddin) on the fatwa.

    as for Mufti Akhtar Raza sahab or someone from his side, so far what we have in hand is a GENERIC fatwa on EK SHAKHS!

    you need to go back and ask your teachers if a GENERIC fatwa on ek shakhs, or zayd, or bakr be applied on a SPECIFIC individual mr. xyz? (please bring us all the Hanafi rulings on this issue)

    you say obaidullah pulls the strings at Ashrafia. let me accept that for argument's sake.

    does he also pull the strings at Bareilly?

    what prevented or prevents Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab or a close aide of his from issuing a SPECIFIC fatwa on obaidullah mentioning him by name? go on. answer it.

    your bringing a GENERIC fatwa, and trying to smack it on to a SPECIFIC case is nothing other than playing hide and seek. sorry, but that's what it is.

    so far the GROUND REALITY AS IT STANDS - is this -

    Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab hasn't called obaidullah a kafir or a mubtadi3i. He has put his seal on a fatwa saying his Islam is extant.

    Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab (or anyone from his side) has NOT called obaidullah a kafir or a mubtadi3i. he has attested to a GENERIC fatwa on EK SHAKHS that merely cites a part of obaidullah's speach! this doesn't count for ANYTHING on obaidullah SPECIFICALLY.

    if the ground reality is any different than this, can you please enlighten me?

    ---

    i will post my feedback on Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa after a short while.
     
  6. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    fatwa p 1.jpg


    Brother inquisitive can you please let me know on which date was the fatwa which you have uploaded and claim that Tajush shariah has signed it ,signed? One of the scholars who has signed the fatwa ( see page 2 of the fatwa) has inscribed the date as 5th Jamadi ul Ula 1436, which corresponded to 25th Feb 2015 in India. Do you accept this date ? From where did you get this fatwa?

    Question No 2

    Can you please inform me as to why is the font , colour and brightness of the red underlined part different from the rest of the fatwa?
     
  7. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Sometimes being fair is staying silent on things which you don't have full knowledge of.
     
  8. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    You can call it poorly written and substandard but the fact of the matter is, you have to know the run of events leading to the writing of the book and how it replied to Mawlana Yasins points.

    The signature of Mawlana Yasin shows that the "Ta'assub" of Shaykh Akhtar and Anis Alam was indeed correct.

    It's better not to go off topic but my final word being that, to judge such books and articles, you have to have knowledge of background events otherwise things will seem skewed.
     
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    we have to be just and fair - ALWAYS. i don't know what the motives were, but i stand by my appraisal of that book. it is substandard and overall poorly written. when we criticised it at that time, some people were offended and called me yasini or something like that.

    whether it was then or now - our criticism is based on principles, not on people.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
  10. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    This was the whole reason 'Ayina e SulH Kulliyat' was written. Many people dismissed it and also Shaykh Akhtar Hussains article whereas the truth is, one must know the background behind the events and what has been taking place since the past 20 years.

    Mufti Nizams answer could have been accepted as goodness on his part, were it not for him repeatedly refusing to speak out against people such as Obaidullah.

    Obaidullah even said in his speech that : I am indebted to three people for being the person I am and where I am, they have constantly guided me (blah blah).

    2/3 being Muhammad Ahmad Misbahi And Mufti Nizam.
     
  11. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Ma sha Allah, I applaud your husn e zann but it's naivety.
     
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    1. muhammad ahmed sahib is well-versed in kalam, he could not have been misled by uka's sophistry.

    2. he is an elderly man who's spent his entire life living humbly, teaching, writing books and doing with just the bare minimum. He has rarely been seen venting his anger at students. He gives no attention to many of his personal conveniences and needs. He even used to commute between his home and ahrafiya on over-crowded buses that only north Indians can manage. (Mumbai's buses for example are nothing in comparison to U.Ps and travelling in them during summer's heat merits a medal for sabr in my opinion). hence I think it's unlikely that he had any personal interests in exculpating uka.

    I am at my wits end.
     
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    that is exactly how I felt. it sounds as if uka himself dictated certain parts.

    I spoke to a scholar who told me that uka "supports" ashrafiya perhaps financially and through the political clout he wields. I don't know if he forced/threatned them in some way or other because i find it unthinkable that not just mufti nizam sahib but even muhammad ahmed sahib could jointly be so sloppy. Add to it the fact that ubaidullah has been the cause of umpteen controversies that have kicked up fire storms in ashrafiya and, the scholar told me, many former supporters have dwindled away because of him being given a free rein there. So how could be possible that a fatwa about him was just signed in good faith?

    I hope none of the signatories really subscribe to the fatwa and nor does the mufti sahib himself because all of these are the current helmsmen who will steer ashrafiya for sometime now and if they fail in their duties then the future looks more gloomy than ever for sunni awam and scholarship alike.
     
  14. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    YES, it is in the question posed by UBK too. then, it is all the more lamentable to note the "proficiency / quality" of the "Siraj" at the noble task of giving Fatawa.

    but I have a hunch; UBK - being the sly politician he is - may have spoken to the "Siraj", ensuring a fatwa in his favor, and then provided the question.

    inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

    if only someone could remind the "Siraj" about the following Hadeeth!

    The Holy Prophet said, “When a wicked person (faasiq*) is praised, it angers Allah Almighty, causing the Throne to tremble.”

    (that includes "raam" and UBK")
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i looked at it again - 'azeem naam' could be interpreted as referring to jihad.

    even though he says in the next breath that 'he takes sri ram's name only by his* tongue and does not adapt it in his actions..."



    ------------------
    * i know. i know.
     
  16. Abu Hamza

    Abu Hamza Hanafi-Maturidi

    @inquisitive - I dont respond to personal jives, if you find the fatwa contentious then you should by all means approach him, from what you've posted (also abu Hassan), it does look as if a few CRITICAL things have been overlooked.

    Allah safeguard our Imaan
     
  17. AbdalQadir

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

    in my defense, i had quickly only checked the typed pdf FR (assuming the page numbers would tally with the printed version), and the citation doesn't exist on pg 625, but rather pg 626

    FR Vol 14 Pg 625.jpg FR Vol 14 Pg 626.jpg
     
  18. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Perhaps. But why didn't the verifying signatories notice it?

    My teacher said wonderfully - 'Think twice before issuing a fatwa but think 10 times before signing someone elses! Why put yourself in deep water for someone elses mistake?'
     
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    but the "azeem naam" part is transcribed by UBK himself. mufti sahib didn't notice it perhaps...

    inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
  20. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    I quote uka:

    Astaghferullah alAzeem

    "us azeem naam ko lete hee"

    "Raam naam hai ....... jis ke zariye logon ko sukoon milta hai"

    "saari dunya ka mazhab aap ko chaahiye to hindustan aaiye"

    Astaghferullah alAzeem

    I am sure mufti sahab did not hear these too.
     

Share This Page