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

    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.



    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
    Haqbahu likes this.
  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    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.
    Haqbahu likes this.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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

  4. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

    Nizamuddin Sahab knows everything that's going on with Obaidullah. After all isn't he the great tahqiq master of this modern era?!:rolleyes:
    ghulam-e-raza and inquisitive like this.
  5. AbdalQadir

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

    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!
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
    Haqbahu and Noori like this.
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    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.
    AbdalQadir likes this.
  7. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    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

    Noori likes this.
  8. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

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

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

  11. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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.
    Abu Hamza, AbdalQadir and Noori like this.
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    see photos: here and here. Not embedding them for obvious reasons. besides these there are others which have appeared in local hindi newspapers.

    I cant believe that ashrafiya is now officially permitting people to attend speeches of a politician such as this (provided the fatwa is authentic in its entirety). What's the need for his speeches, have all the authentic sunni ulema taken up reclusion?

    All the while I was reading it I was anticipating atleast a harsh reprimand to uka asking him to desist from such speeches and do tawba as a precaution. But it never came.

    Our institutions are facing a crisis of courage. Tahir jhangvi comes to India and most of the sunni scholars are silent. Khushtar noorani interviews him and even publishes it yet they are silent.

    UKA brings the actress jaya-prada right into ashrafiya, scholars quickly vacate the scene but no one stops him. He takes the actress to the mazar of Hafidh-e-Millat and still there is silence. And then a fatwa emerges with quite a list of signatories which says there's no harm in attending his speeches!


    no he didn't say it at all. I haven't listened to the audio clip either yet even in the part that he himself has quoted in the istifta all he comes across as saying is:

    "ram stood for truth and honesty and peace. where's your truth and honesty and peace?"


    where is the walwalah and josh for shariah that was a hallmark of ulema even as late as the times of Mufti-e-Azam? and that's just yesterday!

    one scholar told me that there are scores of tahir jhangvis in india who are lying low and biding their time, just waiting for the senior scholars to be taken away, then we will hear such things being said from the pulpits that none of us would ever had thought possible.

    I see that the ball's begun rolling already..........
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    compared to ram-bhakti, it is like a drop of wine wilfully dropped in a glass of water - before proceeding for salat.*

    which is a grossly misunderstood concept and i mentioned imam ghazali and nawawi's opinion in TKM. there is another furu' here.

    those who called khan kafir, said so based on what they perceived as kufr - and praise of gods of kuffar (that is, those they call as gods; la ilaaha illa Allah). even if they are mistaken, they cannot take the ruling of "rebounded kufr".

    many people mistake this with alahazrat's explanation concerning wahabi/ismayil-dihlawii making takfir. because, ismayil termed such things which are proven by qur'an and sunnah as kufr, (such as tawassul and shafa'ah) he risks the "rebounding of kufr".

    but in case of obaidullah khan, it is about kufr and kafirs; so hypothetically, if he still escapes the ruling of kufr, those who ruled him kafir cannot be ruled apostates. because they did so based on their good-faith and support of islam. if it is a roulette (either you or i) then no one can be ruled kafir!

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    *this is because of the mistaken analogy given by obaid and others; unlike alahazrat's example for khalil ambhatti's quoting shaykh abdul haq.
    Ghulam Ali and Noori like this.
  14. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    This isn't his first excessive statement. Many years ago, as many people know, he called Khomeini as 'Nayib-e-Payghambaran' and yes, this is not hearsay but witnesses can be provided.

    The signatories on Mufti Nizams Fatwa include:
    1) Muhammad Ahmad Misbahi Sahib
    2) Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi Sahib
    3) Abdul Mubin Nomani Sahib

    The harshest parts of his Fatwa were when he described Obaids actions as "Forget Kufr, not even Haram. In fact, praise-worthy" and then he went on to label those who ruled him as Kafir as apostates themselves.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    obaidullah is a politician. it would be funny if it were not tragic (and though i laughed* spontaneously at this, i did istighfar for it is a serious thing. may Allah ta'ala protect iman of muslims).

    the part obaidullah did not send to ashrafiyah:

    jab main aaya to meri begum ne bhi mujh se kaha ke main morari bapu ko jab bhi TV par dekhti hun to jab tak unka poora prawachan nahin sun leti hun main band nahin karti hun. meri taraf se bhi unhen aap aadab kahiye ga. aur agar mauqa mile to morari bapu ko salam karne ke liye ek second apna telephone pe de dijiye ga ta ke un se baat karne ka hameN saubagh hasil ho jaye.

    (astaghfirullahi'l azeem. wa laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah)

    for those who don't understand urdu; he says;

    "when i was coming here, my wife told me that whenever i see morari bapu on tv, i don't switch it off until i have heard his session (dars/lesson) completely. please give him my respects to (morari bapu) and if you get a chance, give me a second to speak on phone to morari bapu and give him salam and that i get the good fortune (saubhaghya) of speaking with him."

    aysa lagta hai ke janab hi nahin sara kunba hi ram bhakat hogaya hai. na'udhubillah.

    sub'HanAllah. wa la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

    *if i may clarify: the laugh was one of derision and disbelief, not approval and praise. al-iyadhu billah.
  16. AbdalQadir

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

    jazak Allah for pointing that out.

    i haven't heard the audio yet and just going by the quoted fatawa (jpegs)

    PS - again - i am not a fan of Obaidullah and didn't even know this character existed until a few days back. i also am not leveling any accusations against any Mufti Sahiban ruling for/against this guy.
  17. AbdalQadir

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

    i believe so too.

    because even though the fatwa is rather generic, the fragment of speech cited is Obaidullah's, although it is cited only partially and the context has not been given as he has presented the full context in his istifta to Mufti Nizmuddin sahab and also made a clear declaration of his intentions.

    yes but he won't know of ram through any means other than what the hindus have informed him of ram and claim about ram. this is a given.

    true they didn't mention Obaidullah by name. but they have clearly stated that "aisa shakhs dairae Islam se baher hai" citing a fragment of his speech.

    1 - you aren't even a student of knowledge in front of Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab ;)

    2 - but here's your dilemma brother. of course the first fatwa is correct, but it is correct with a few riders
    a) it doesn't factor in the entire speech, only quotes it partially
    b) it doesn't factor in Obaidullah's intentions to indict the hindus according to their own ideology
    c) by your own admission, it doesn't mention Obaidullah by name!

    so you're stuck in this chicken or egg problem in regards to the specific or generic if you talk about Obaidullah's specific case;

    unless of course you only imply generic ruling for generic context, and in such a case no Muslim on earth would disagree with you.

    PS. i didn't know of this Obaidullah except through this forum a few days back. i am not speaking for or against him or for or against Mufti Nizamuddin or Mufti AKhtar Raza sahab. i just find this discussion stimulating.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    he also praises ram for : be-misaal character (though you can dismiss it as a figure of speech without being literal)

    "sirajul fuqaha" probably glossed over the praise of ram.

    is aatankwad ke khilaaf sri raam ne jihad cheRa tha.

    main bapu ki maujudgi meiN apna saubagh samajhta hun apne vicharon ko aap ke samne do char minute....
    AbdalQadir and Noori like this.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i quickly read the istifta/fatwa ON ubaydullah khan; and then istifta by the accused and fatwa by mawlana nizamuddin.

    and then started listening to the clip. immediately i went back to istifta and checked but a small part is missing in the istifta by the accused sent to ashrafiyah.

    @3.05 to 3.15: ubaydullah khan says:

    imam se bada kisi ka darjah nahin hota. hindostan meiN sab se baDey us insan ko, imam e hind ke naam se doctor sir muhammad iqbal ne yaad kiya hai.​

    and thereafter, his praise of ram is HIS own description - there is no possibility of "attributing" those statements to another unless it is a different dialect of urdu following a grammar with subject/predicate alien to us.

    he clearly says: 'main ne as a musalman ram ko kis tarah dekha...'

    besides, why did he go to morari bapu?

    obaidullah khan starts with the hindu-muslim bhai bhai concept. agreed, in today's changed world, and circumstances in india, politicians have to be tactful and we can cut some slack. as we too say that we have to WORK with hindus together - but never that we share the same ideology or religious beliefs. it is just that we live in the same country and are willing to cooperate and be together in peace even though we do not agree with your religious ideas.

    mujhe achchi tarah se yaad hai...

    ..vp singh sab ne mujh se kaha tha, ke obaidullah bhai, kabhi mauqa mile to morari bapu ke darsan zarur karlijiye. aaj hum is raam katha mein hain aur morari bapu hi ko haq pahunchta hai ram ki katha bayan karne ka.

    obaidullah khan's istifta is skewed and slanted. he is INDEED praising ram in front of hindu gathering, gathered for a ram-katha. there is not even the excuse of a common gathering for common benefit of muslims. he is there just to gather brownie points (as AQ says) and he could have kept quiet or said something very generic. instead, he calls ram, imam-e-hind and insists that imam is a high rank.

    that he is talking of jihad - which nizamuddin sahib has mistaken to clarifying our position is actually an apology. instead of saying jihad means fighting for truth, and also that jihad is Haqq for istiylaa of the name of Allah (but we are not doing it because we do not have an imam with an army).

    obaidullah says that ram was doing jihad with ravan, to not only liberate sita but all sitas until judgement day! he has actually mixed up both islamic concepts of jihad and qiyamat - to describe a hindu mythological figure and their purported god.

    al-iyadhu billah.

    even though the snippet of the original istifta is misleading, which gave obaidullah the chance to do another istiftaa; but i think the fatwa is itself correct. obaidullah should do tawba and tajdeed iman.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
  20. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    I believe the former Fatwa was aimed and targetted at Obaidullah but there was a faint possibility that the voice has been forged, therefore his name was not written but left generic.

    What Obaidullah did inform us in his query was that:
    1) Those are his words and the clip has not been forged. This is regarding the clip.

    2) Regarding the actual intention of the Qayil, it can be said that he intended to present the thoughts and beliefs of the Hindus to them but he says in the speech

    "Mai ne as a Musalman Ram ko kis tarah dekha"

    This explicitly means that this is how HE (the speaker) views Ram. Not how the Hindus view him.

    This Fatwa is relatively new, no one has labelled Obaidullah a kafir as of yet. Muftis have only labelled his words as Kufr. The difference between Luzoom and Iltizam.

    However, according to me, the speech is Ghayr Muawwal. The first fatwa is correct.

Share This Page