mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

i almost agree with this definition except that it should/must be sequential, which you are inserting only to go in circles again; but anyway it is still not bad if it is sequential too.

no question about it, he should have posted this info with a proof otherwise it was just a piece of information which others may accept or deny.

i disagree with you, because most of your posts about naqpuri fatwa and the whole issue are enough to cause headache. i am sorry to say that but that is how i feel about your posts.

this is really hair-splitting. it is very obvious that nizam'ud din sahab knew the reference, he should have honestly mentioned the fatwa with correct wording rather than pretending that he did not find it.

i already had answered it, see my previous posts. it is very common to make corrections in fatwa. hazrat taj'ush shari'ah might have asked to correct the reference and then signed it.

even if you don't agree then does it change the fact that mufti nizam'ud din sahab is aware of this change, he still defends his fatwa on uka, and also has found and used the original reference in his speech.

i am not a mufti nor an alim but i think that there is no difference in 'kuffar kay dewtaoN ki ta'rif krna' and kuffar kay dewtaoN ko izzat dena' because you give izzat (respect) with praises not with criticism.

also, it is not just ta'rif of kuffar, but ta'rif of their deity

nizam'ud din sahab changed "dewtaoN ki tarif/izzat' to 'ghair muslim kay fai'l ki tahseen' in his speech and then explains which tahseen is kufr and which is not. he affirms that ala hazrat's rahmahullah fatwa is correct and it means that praising actions of kuffar in their religious actions/affairs is indeed kufr. i ask you is praising ram not the shi'aar of kuffar, ram is their religion, their deity. if praising kuffar's religious affairs is kufr then why not praising their deity?

therefore, as you said we can disagree, i don't find your reply satisfactory, for;

- mufti nizam'ud din should have mentioned the mistake in fatwa-1 and provided the correct reference. it was his responsibility to tell why the fatwa-1 was incorrect (in his view of course)
- he had become aware of the change, but his fatwa remained same
- in his fatwa he has used the very reference which he said he didn't find (verbatim), and he still thinks that uka is not guilty of the charge. so, does it make any difference whether the actual word was "ta'rif" or "izzat"
- mufi nizam'ud din himself has acknowledged in his speech that praising the religious affairs of kuffar is kufr, and praising ram is the way of kuffar. since uka praised their deity (as a muslim, not just stating kuffar's aqidah) therefore from his own words uka is a kafir.
- why did he not talk about 'kuffar kay dewtaoN ko izzat dena', and kept on explaining 'aik ghayr muslim kay fai'l ki tahseen'.

I have honestly answered your one of the initial questions that you have raised again. now i hope that you explain what difference the change of fatwa can make when mufti nizam'ud din has used the correct version too, yet still he absolves uka.

 

Yawn...I say let's put it to a vote - to ban SS or not to ban.

 

---
smile

To write in simple words, to provide evidence for any claims made and to be sequential.

You can see, how I was asking for a simple proof regarding a claim made by Arshad al qadri sahab, but he kept on avoiding. You and every one else knows that it was his shari'i responsibility to provide the evidence. But he didn't. So I thought may be he is not able to understand what I am asking for.

Here I will give you an example of what I mean by simple English.

People used Nagpuri fatwa to call Obaidullah Khan a Kafir. But when I asked to prove it, people failed.

But now you ask me to "directly" address the question which you feel should be answered. I will definitely answer your question, but please do tell me that why is that you don't bring evidence to prove your claim? Why is that now you have shifted from Nagpuri fatwa to this new book? Why is that you did not answer my post regarding "who is fit to lead prayers" ? These are some of my question which you need to answer. The first being, why have you been not able to prove the authenticity of Nagpuri fatwa as per maslak e ala hazrat?

For your kind information the scans which Arshad al Qadri has posted ( page 71 to page 117) and others said that it is by Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan, if you have read it completely, you must have noticed one thing. It does not deal with Nagpuri fatwa!! No where does it mentions Nagpuri fatwa in detail or tries to justify it!!! What it does is that it has made a lot of questions upon the speech and fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin rizvi sahab!

So people who were defending Nagpuri fatwa have nothing in the scans uploaded!!

That is why people will conveniently ignore and avoid the topic of Nagpuri fatwa!!

You can observe it in your case. You supported Nagpuri fatwa, but when asked to prove, you could not. But now you come back asking me to answer a question which you feel is important. So tell me, why do you shift goal post?

Anyways, here is a simple answer to your question. Observe the scans below.

Fatwa 1 is the original fatwa which was issued. Obaidullah Khan Azmi used the same fatwa while sending istifta to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab. The quotes from Fatwa Ridawiya mentioned in this fatwa 1 is not found any where in fatwa ridawiya. You can see that the answer given by Mufti Nizamuddin has the question sent by Obaidullah Khan. It is this quote from fatwa ridawiya which is not found any where.

Later Fatwa 1 was changed , as can be seen in Fatwa 2. The type set answer was changed with hand written words. Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan's signature which was missing in Fatwa 1 appeared in Fatwa 2.

Hence , what Mufti Nizamuddin rizvi said is correct that no where these wordings are found in fatwa ridawiya, because he was referring to the original fatwa no 1.

Please find the scans.

Do let me know why I should answer all your questions but you don't want to talk about Nagpuri fatwa which you were supporting. Interestingly, the scans uploaded do not describe Nagpuri fatwa! Also, you chose not to reply in other thread regarding "who can lead the prayer". I cannot compel you to participate in any thread or reply to any posts. You should also have the same expectation from me.

Also, being moderator, you can see who is abusive and is name calling . We may disagree on many issues, but that should not stop us from being honest.

 

Arshad ul qadri said

Bazdawi said

---
smile

 

let us break it so that we can understand and discuss it in your simple english or urdu. i will appreciate if you directly address the questions, so that we don't waste time in useless debates from either side.

ignore the line about 'muhadith kabir..', it deosn't matter whether nizam'ud din sahab considers him among his teachers or not. i know these are not the most important questions, but let us start for the start. we will move on to next questions if you have satisfactorily replied.

 

SS is correct in asking you to provide a proof, if you cannot then why did you make it public. also, janab shaykh al hadith sahab should not fear for his dunya, his own and others' deen should really matter to him.

no worries, use your time better elsewhere.

 

what is your definition of 'simple english'? i find your posts very difficult to read and incoherent. i have admitted many a times that i am very poor at english. i merely understand simple english (even urdu), but your writing style is quite difficult at least for me, either you write very eloquent and above the average english or it is vise versa.

besides, when you cannot understand plain urdu, why people should waste their energies to argue with you in simple english? would you bother to answer the questions asked by hazrat taj'ush shari'ah? urdu will be perfectly fine.

 

brother please don't be hasty. your posts are beneficial and we will like you to be around. People like ss are the exception and not the rule. Most of us here have seen many like them and are not misled by their antics. Even though some of them, in their own dreamworld, think that people are swallowing their lies.

Bazdawi was merely pointing out what additional steps could be taken to assure people about the retraction. He was not forcing that work upon you.

I can understand that if he can get pressurized into signing it, it will be even more difficult for him to retract publicly. We know obaid is a thug and must have his "gang" on ashrafiya premises too and as you said, mawlana is elderly and not in a state to grapple with hooligans. I thank you for sharing this bit of info.

Anyways, mawlana's retraction is not the only proof of the fatwa being wrong. It is just another one.

yes. it's very easy. just click on his profile-picture which appears next to his posts. You will see a popup displaying info about him and there will we a few links in blue color. One of the says "ignore". Click this link. If you can still see his posts let me know.

 

There is no need to be derogatory, I was trying to be as polite as I could with you.

I was merely trying to point out that you 'telling others to verify' is the same as what SS is doing, just on the opposite site.

و خالق الناس بخلق حسن

 

Really? Ya Allah, I can't believe the stupidness on this forum. Heard many before about the degradation. but this is absolutely time wasting.
Did you actually read what I wrote, I am not interested if you deem it acceptable or not, I already forsew that people would deny hence made it very clear "Please verify".

There is a difference in Tawbah being accepted and accepting a Qawl from an Adil Mastur Al Hal person regarding. You are in no position to tell me to be quiet because the Shariah does not require me to do so in this matter. My goal was simply for people to verify about this finding, hence I explicitly said Please verify.

Really dumb people around here. Keyboard wanna be Alims who cant understand and differentiate.

Admin please delete my profile dont know how to. I am never returning to this. Wasted my time on this forum.

 

It may be enough for but it is not enough for other people. I am not saying this in a attacking manner but whilst upholding the Shariah, we should not overlook other things. There is a manner in which tawba should be done, rules regarding it, when it is accepted and so on.

For you, it is enough because you heard it from them without a medium, or if there was a middleman, you deem him aadil. However, we don't know who you are, we don't know you asked, we don't know what Shaykh ul Hadith repented from.... we cannot just accept the word of a stranger from the internet.

So they are aadil and mastur al haal? How very strange.

Take it from a neutrals point of view - SS is saying he has not retracted [this madman also says he has proof] and you are saying he has retracted [you are saying you have proof] so what is a neutral person from the internet meant to assume? Whose word should he accept? We don't know you, we don't know if you are aadil, we don't even know the minutest thing about you [and there is nothing wrong with wanting to keep privacy on forums] but when it comes to doing Rujū on a majorly disputed Fatwa, I can say with certainly, the testimony of a stranger of the Internet will not be enough for most people.

Regarding this matter, you can either:
1) get a written or oral retraction from shaykh ul Hadith
2) ask the muftis you mentioned to give it in writing that they testify that Shaykh ul Hadith has retracted
3) if you cannot do the above two actions, and cannot provide any proof then with all politeness - better to just stay quiet about it!

 

Missing the point, for me it is enough to have heard from two collegues senior professors of Ashrafia of him who are trustworthy in their Qawl and discussed this with him. And this is for me in the light of Shariah sufficient to convey the message. Ram-Praiser-servant claimed that it was not and attributed it towards de Deen of Allah and did so by this Iftiraa.

I agree that Sheikhul Hadith should do it publicly, but to consider what I have done against the Shariah is SS Bid'ah. A Tawba not being accepted and what is required to accept that he did Ruju are two different matters. He retracted and I have heard it from two Adil Mastur al Hal. And they can be asked again. Wassalaam

Sjaitaan did an excellent job by ram-praiser-servant to distract the Deen from being protected, slandered me, Bid'ah and avoided the main issue. SS=ShaitaanStudent.

 

Agreed. However, you are overlooking a major issue. Shaykh ul Hadith Sahib attested this Fatwa publicly, it is common knowledge that he signed the initial fatwa of Mufti Nizamuddin. He must also retract his fatwa publicly. It is not enough that a few scholars are aware of his retraction and it is not binding upon the laymen to go and ask him.

He must do a public retraction, whether it be verbally or through writing. This is that the generic rule - a person must repent in the same way he sinned; if he sinned in private, a private repentance is enough but if he sinned openly, then is repentance must also be in open.

I remember reading a Fatwa of Ala Hazrat whereby he stated that - if a person sinned in front of a hundred people and he repented in front of 99 of them people, his tawba will not be accepted. [Maybe someone can provide a reference]

 

Advice to brother Arshad [and others] :

This raving fool likes demeaning and insulting the Scholars, as he has demonstrated many times priorly.

You should ignore this obstinate mad-engineer and leave him to his ramblings.

If you respond to this mad engineer and his rants, you will not gain anything but anger and pity.

I urge everyone to ignore him.

 

smiley

you innovate your own rulings and slander another, attribute it to the Shariah (bid'ah), then quote your own text from your own rulings, and claim to pinn as if it had a base in the first place.

You are the one claiming I am lying in my personal hearing, so it is Shari'atan upon you to prove my lie. And it is not the other way around. Many Fiqh cases are build upon this principle. To declare this as against the Shariah is to declare all those Abwab in Fiqh-matters unislamic.
And yes you can still acquire info with them and show proof of it. Your Bid'ah and lie upon the Shariah is enough to declare your statement as unreliable.

 

OK. Pinned!

 

My statement and reference and asking people to verify it with them, from the very beginning suffices in the light of the Shariah. And am not blameworthy if an Ubaidullahs/Nizamuddin Ram-praiser-servant does not want to accept it. And a retraction can be verbally, it is not contrary or against the Shariah to base this upon Ulama who work with Sheikhul Hadith and talked and discussed with him, sit next to him, this is your Ram-praiser-servant way of working to state or indirectly claim it is, or to claim it is a slander. You claiming that it does not, is your Bid'ah upon the Shariah.

I Urge everyone not to give any attention to the distraction, but read the Radd of Mufti Akhtar Raza which I shared post #403. It shows clearly how manipulative and deceptive Nizamuddin works with Shariah and Fatawa. Glorifiying the Qawl and deed of Ubaidullaah and attributing it towards the Shariah.

 

No it does not. This is not where you make your own laws.

The scholar who made the attestation is alive. He has not done any public ruju. Those two person who say that the scholar has done ruju, they too have not provided any public statement.

The least you can do is get an audio recording from Mufti Shams or Mufti Miraj.

Just get me the proof. It is so simple. Isn't it?

I know you will write posts after posts, do everything, but can not get me the proof. I will accept your audio recordings if the speaker mentions his name and date.

 

People be aware of the real danger, the danger that a Qabeeh feel and qawl such as "teaching Mushriks how holy their Ram is in their Mahfil in which he is considered a god" is considered as a good thing. If this is not Qabeeh what will be left in our Deen? What will our Muslim brothers and sisters do in the future making this deceptive interpretation of Nizamudding a Sanad? Verily we will see our children become Tahir ul Qadri, and his servants.

Read the epistle of Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan which I shared post #403.

 

My statement and reference and asking people to verify it with them, from the very beginning suffices in the light of the Shariah. And am not blameworthy if an Ubaidullahs/Nizamuddin Ram-praiser-servant does not want to accept it. And a retraction can be verbally, it is not contrary or against the Shariah to base this upon Ulama who work with Sheikhul Hadith and talked and discussed with him, sit next to him, this is your Ram-praiser-servant way of working to state or indirectly claim it is, or to claim it is a slander. You claiming that it does not, is your Bid'ah upon the Shariah.

I Urge everyone not to give any attention to the distraction, but read the Radd of Mufti Akhtar Raza which I shared post #403. It shows clearly how manipulative and deceptive Nizamuddin works with Shariah and Fatawa. Glorifiying the Qawl and deed of Ubaidullaah and attributing it towards the Shariah.