mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

 

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.

4.42:
is aatankwad ke khilaaf sri raam ne jihad cheRa tha.

4.52:
main bapu ki maujudgi meiN apna saubagh samajhta hun apne vicharon ko aap ke samne do char minute....​

 

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morari_Bapu
http://www.moraribapu.org

-----
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.

00.38
mujhe achchi tarah se yaad hai...

01.14
..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.

 

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.

 

so the former fatwa is only at a generic level that to praise hindu deities and to beautify their actions is kufr. no Muslim disagrees with that.

it does not contain the name of Obaidullah Khan.

as per Obaidullah's defense in his istifta to Mufti Nizamuddin, and as per Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab's answer: his (Obaidullah's) praising of ram was not a praise but rather an indictment to the hindus, "you say you follow ram. as per your ideology, ram stood for truth and honesty and peace. where's your truth and honesty and peace?". of course these are my words and Obaidullah said it more diplomatically.

---

do you have a fatwa by Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab on the SPECIFIC case of Obaidullah Khan?

surely, we can't have it both ways. when asked about Akhtar Raza sahab's response to the specific case of specific speech by Obaidullah, someone flashes the generic fatwa on praising hindu deities. and when cross questioned about it, people can say it never was specific to Obaidullah. that's just preposterous!

---

the former fatwa cites Fatawa Ridawiyya's Vol 14, Pg 625. maybe there are different prints or the cited page number is incorrect, but that particular page doesn't seem to contain that text.

if someone can find the quoted text in its correct locationin Fatawa Ridawiyya, please bring it forward.

---

all this raises other questions:

1 - can or should Muslims participate in the political process of countries like india or uk or usa, etc.?

2 - if yes, what is the limit of diplomatic tones they can adopt in such political discourses? sure, i would love to hear a Mard-e-Momin grab the microphone at a bjp-sena rally and say "we don't follow the beef ban. i declare tomorrow a slaughter-a-cow day for all Muslims of maharashtra. catch us if you can." but the ground reality is different and in modern secular politics and democracies, most Muslims can't adopt such tones for a multitude of right and wrong reasons. so we need exact guidelines on just how far can diplomatic tones go?

3 - when participating in the political process, what are the guidelines of engaging with kafirs and bad-mazhabs? how far do we go with them? when it comes to being anti-rss, can Sunnis and shias form a unified political front? or when it comes to maintaining peace in india for our sake or standing up against crimes against women, etc. is it ok to participate in a rally together with hindus?

---

we need answers from the 3ulema. it's very easy to announce a problem or slap a label. it's excruciatingly hard to provide a PRACTICAL AND WORKABLE Shari3ah compliant solution!

we need our 3ulema to be problem solvers, not just problem announcers.

the beauty of Ala Hazrat and his fatawa is that he was a legendary problem SOLVER for Hanafis. he didn't just announce problems, he offered solutions too.

 

Abu Hamza, people like you aren't even students of Knowledge infront of some of the signatories such as Mufti Akhtar Rida Sahib.

 

http://vocaroo.com/i/s0rxxvS1Nlai

The audio recording of obaidullahs waz.

 

Yes. I can vouch for this with my life - that Taaj al-Shariat has signed the Fatwa.

There is no mention of Obaidullah in the Fatwa so there is no space to accuse another regarding Luzum and Iltizam.

To praise Hindu Gods is Kufr. To beautify any of their actions is Kufr.

 

brother do you have this from an undeniably reliable source? In the past people have attributed things to hazrat which, upon investigation, have turned out to be untrue.

 

I completely disagree with the Fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin Sahib!

 

I felt like rinsing my mouth just having read that rubbish uttered by u.k.a. . .

 

The signature of Mufti Akhtar Rida is on this.

 

The signature of Mufti Akhtar Rida is on this.

 

brother inquisitive, do you have any idea if Mufti Akhtar Raza sahab or his close aide have issued a fatwa for/against this Obaidullah Khan?

 

Excellent response on the part of Mufti Nizām-uddîn (hafîdhã'hullah)

No surprise as to who made takfeer of Mawlanã Ubaid'ullāh Aãzmi in the first place, the very same people who claim to represent Ãlā'hazrat's maslak (ironically they misquoted him)

If people could grasp the concepts of iltîzaam and luzôom, we wouldn't find ourselves in these situations time and time again.

Allah Almighty knows best.

 

The Fatwa of Sirajul Fuqaha Mufti Nizamuddin Sahib regarding the opponents of Obaidullah Khan Azmi.