mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

 

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.

 

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")

 

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.

 

@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

 

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

 

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?'

 

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

inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

 

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.

 

interestingly, alahazrat's fatwa and the istifta was related to some program in gujrat in 1916!

---

the first fatwa (in the UBK case) is not very clear, though it cites FR. but alahazrat's fatwa is apt and fits obaid azmi like a glove. here is the fatwa in full.

 

title should be changed to 'siraj al-fuqaha''s ghalat fatwa', i hope that mufti sahab will retract and will not make it an issue of ego/self respect. ashrafyah is a big institute, and we don't want to see it turn into another minhaji camp.

 

the attribution to fatawa ridawiyyah is correct. but mufti nizamuddin sahib has either not checked it, or else he is using a heela for his statement. because, indeed, that mentioned in fatwa #1 does not exist on the referenced page IN THOSE EXACT WORDS.

however, the citation is reasonably accurate in conveying the meaning of the fatwa. lo, here is the snippet from the very page referenced: vol.14/p.625

 

Nizamuddin Sahab knows everything that's going on with Obaidullah. After all isn't he the great tahqiq master of this modern era?!

 

obaidullah also says to the hindus

"mein ne ap ki dua se 42 mulkon ka daura kiya hai"

in the end again he says

"ap ki duaon ke sath rukhsath hota hun"

---

i agree that the audio speech is appalling, and this guy's nothing other than a tahir.

i think both Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab and Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab should be placed in a corner in regards to ruling on this guy - in public gatherings they should be made to listen to his speeches (in entirety) and they should be queried SPECIFICALLY ON THIS GUY.

i take back my words unconditionally. from his manner and tone and the context (of the audio), it doesn't look like he was there to indict the hindus, but rather for brown nosing.

---

again, our 3ulema should be problem SOLVERS, not problem announcers or worse yet problem makers!

 

i hope and pray that ashrafiyyah ulama have not stepped into it due to some recent fatwa disputes with other sunni ulama, it looks af if they are becoming secular. May Allah guide us all. mufti nizam sahab should clearly state whether he has listened to uka's speech in full or not? whether he gave fatwa only on the part quoted by uka or not? and what stopped him asking uka to provide original speech?

i have seen mufti sahab's books which i admire and have added to my scribd space, but this fatwa is really awful.

 

one of the little things which make a big difference.

I used to live in mortal fear:

a. of calling someone who uttered blatant kufr/blasphemy as kafir and taking the hukm of 'rebounded kufr' on the one hand and

b. of considering a kafir to be muslim and thereby falling into kufr myself on the other hand

that was until sidi abu Hasan clarified the correct meaning of the hadith in TKM and in reply to my follow-up questions based on it's first two chapters.

barakAllahu feek

wassalaam.

 

Abu Hasan, what should be the next steps taken? How can this issue be resolved? What questions should be asked to both sides?

 

Abu Hasan, I don't think you are aware of what is happening in India. If this was a one off case, it would be excusable but this is a recurring thing. I know for certain that Mufti Nizam has heard the entire speech of obaidullah.

The problem isn't with the Husn e Zann, the problem is protecting Kufr. Husn e Zann would give Obaid a way out. This Husn e Zann has lead Mufti Nizam freeing him from Kufr and praising him for his statements.

 

lol

 

giving him husn-e-zann: he was misled by obaid's plea that "he was insisting on our jihad in their midst.."

to be honest, though i felt that it was a stretch, but given the principle of attempting to find an excuse to absolve a muslim of kufr, i thought the fatwa of mufti nizam sahib to be passable BASED on obaid's istifta. thanks for posting the original clip, as it puts things in perspective and in context - and removes the ilal on which mufti nizam's fatwa is based.

---
1. obaid went to a ram katha - hindu gathering wilfully. though he gives the background as being insisted upon by muslims of gujrat who were besieged by hindus and the backdrop of riots in which muslims were killed and looted. but obaid is lying - he says that he was looking forward for this meeting with morari bapu since 90s!

2. his words were in praise of ram - his OWN words, not just citation (as he tries to throw in iqbal) but HE insists that it is his belief and as HE understand and HE knows ram.

3. terming the mythical fight of ram's with ravan as 'jihad'

4. praising morari bapu and gloating over it. dragging even the begum and that she is an avid follower of ram-katha. alas! begum sahibah should be advised to watch madani channel instead...

Allah ta'ala knows best.