mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

apparently, the great 'guys who atleast substantiate their allegations' are not aware of this bit of the sequel either.

 

sorry for re-opening the pandora's box yet again but I think this is important.

I have "heard" that ubaidullah was asked to do tawba after he was done with his urs hafidh-e-millat "speech". Can anyone confirm this? Plus I would like to know what he was asked to do tawba for? what were the words he was directed to employ? an audio proof would be best.

I also wonder why he was asked to do tawba? Note that the justifications for the first 'sahih' fatwa came out in the form of an audio lecture by mufti nizam, articles by ansari (B.A) and a fatwa by mufti mutíurraHman' AFTER the alleged tawba at the 'urs. All of these people are unanimous that ubaidullah is a die-hard champion of Islam and was fearlessly defending it's 'concepts' in a gathering of hindus.

SO the question is was he asked to repent for 'defending Islam'? And why have the esteemed writers failed to take note of the tawba in the articles/fatwas they subsequently published? Why did mufti mutíurraHman not inform us of this development?

 

your understanding is incredible. mantiq (not mantaq) is logic, 'fan e mantiq ki zabaan mein' would mean 'according to the science of logic'. you even don't know this and you are going to prove how sidi abu Hasan is wrong, subhanAllah.

 

just in case, someone misunderstands this to mean fork threads: justifications arguments which are side-issues and not the main topic of this thread.

 

i have split this thread to prevent the discussion from getting washed away in a deluge of who said to whom; as sunnistudent is analysing my posts, i have moved it here:

http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...s-of-abu-hasans-posts-obaidullah-issue.12699/

----
also abdalqadir and others, please understand - if you have to make justifications, arguments whatever, please start a new thread, reference this main one and proceed in that separate thread. i hope you understand.

 

with due respect to the forum owners and abu Hasan, i also use Sunniport as a parking lot (in addition to a Sunni hangout, and a place for exchange of religious ideas). sorry brothers, not saying it in a degrading way.

there are bunches of videos i need to watch, audios i need to listen or pdf's i need to read (be it linked by me or linked by others). many a time i post links of stuff only to come back to it later (sometimes running into months or even years and the thread/discussion has died a natural death by then), if it is an issue that needs analysis, exertion, and serious thought, as opposed to general comments on news etc.

not saying this to diplomatically walk a tight rope away from the feud between the scholars' camps or to avoid being flamed with grilling questions. i have only quickly read/listened thru the content i have myself posted/linked in posts #362, 363, 364, and 375 without giving it any serious thought or contemplation at all. been too busy away from the forum/internet.

indeed, for all of us to properly understand the issue, i said in post #360

what about praising contemporary hindu idols in front of those who worship them - like the dead and rotten mukhannath "sathya sai baba"?

let us try to see this in the case of this sai baba guy ---

some hindus worship this sai baba guy who died in the recent past.

so if obaidullah were to address a gathering of those hindus and say sai baba (according to his bhakts) stood for honesty , compassion to poor, blah blah blah, would it still be ruled kufr by those who rule it kufr for obaidullah to praise ram for his universal good qualities listed out in hindu books? if yes, they're being consistent in their approach regardless of right or wrong in the answer. if no, then they're being inconsistent and need to state what makes ram different from sathya sai baba.

heck replace ram with rajnikant, a film actor whom some hindus in the south have made a temple for and placed his idol in it (afaik). so if obaidullah addressed those particular bhakts of rajnikant and said he's a great actor, he does great fight sequences, he's honest, gives charity blah blah blah, would it be ruled kufr or not????

----

as for the 'jihad is only self defense' mantra - that's a blatant bid3ah of misguidance. period. anyone who peddles that line (in any sequence of words) needs to read some basic Muslim theology, fiqh, seerah and history.

----

i think tahir is the perfect litmus test as far as decent Sunni awam is concerned, for we all know him for the fitnah he is.

i think both these camps need to organize a conference or munazara and say just what makes obaidullah different from tahir. what makes obaidullah right and a spokesperson for Islam/Sunniyat and what makes tahir wrong? (of course the against camp will say what makes him just like tahir and give their evidence for that)

some muftis might not rule against tahir for lack of trust-able eyewitness testimonies and might consider this a vain exercise. we respect the constraints of our mazhab that that can indeed be the case for they might not have credible testimonies from people who witnessed in person tahir committing blasphemies. newspaper clippings, youtube videos etc. might not count as hujjah or evidence in serious ifta and qada (as opposed to us awam on forums). we can get by that and present to them a bio of tahir and his antics, but with a generic zaid or bakr name.

present this character to them and ask them what makes this character wrong and obaidullah right (also present to them a bio of obaidullah and his purported crimes.)

what are the differences between obaid and tahir (or a tahir-like character)?

as far as we awam are concerned, that will explain the issue to us much more clearly rather than scholars on both camp presenting fiqh quotes to and fro.

---

i think the scholars on both sides should organize a munazara and sort this issue out.

most importantly, as far as the awam is concerned, it's not about the personality of obaidullah per se. we as indian Muslims HAVE TO be involved in the political process and discourses with kuffar as far as our times and circumstances are concerned, so the awam needs a benchmark and a set of guidelines on what goes and what doesn't. (those general istifta questions i had in mind are still pending in my list of things to do)

i think the scholars on both sides need to be problem solvers for the awam.

i'll PM you on some other things i don't wish to say publicly.

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

for you.

for me, maulvi sahab is fine for him (regardless of obaid issue). each to their own.

 

No, we 'both' dont know what the reality is, it is used in a negative tone at times but not always, check how many times it is used in a respectful manner in fatawa ridiwiyyah, AQ doesnt have to be from amongst the Ulema but he is obliged to adhere to their way, stop cherry picking, big Ulema have been referred to by their names many a time on this forum without the inclusion of the words "Allama" or "Shaykh" yet no malice or disrespect was intended. In any case, there's no consistency on this forum so theres no point in getting all worked up.


And let me assure you, I do not need you to entertain me, i'm actually quite amused that you thought you were.

Allah knows best.

 

Your wish brother

I need to add posts in this thread. In sha Allah, after Ramadan.

 

i give up.

 

"Fan e mantaq ki zabaan mein" is not " logic" .

 

Hmmm. I think we both know what the reality is in this case.
Maulvi is used by many as a derogatory term.
When did AQ become part of the ulama fraternity?
So please don't patronise me.
Ain't got no time to entertain you after this reply.

 

because you need to understand figures of speech. it [the numbered part] is ascribed towards the said scholar because of his own assertion that it is "logic". see p.11 of his fatwa.

 

There's nothing wrong with the term "maulvi", Ulema use it all the time to refer to sunni scholars.

 

g hazrat, will mention when I raise that issue.

Meanwhile, for your kind attention, you forget to add janab/ maulvi/ mawlana/ mufti with Mufti Mutiurrehman rizvi sahab's name in your post. You said:

I didn't know this is called "logic" and how it is ascribed towards the said scholar. In sha Allah later.

 

Ya AbdalQadir that's Allamah Zia ul Mustafa sahab.
A alim who is more senior in age, 'ilm and taqwa then the likes of Mufti muti'ur Rahman and Mufti nizamuddin.
Please excersise some adab.
You managed to address the latter two as mufti's but deemed it fit to address Allamah Saab as maulvi.
You have done this before to provoke a reaction as you admitted.
May Allah guide us all.
Salaam.

 

please reference statements (as in post number etc.) just to make sure where and what was said by whom. just for my own check, which post of mine are you talking about in the above quote?

 

Not knowing is not a sin or a crime. But acting as a Mufti, when one knows that he is incapable, is a problem.
Doesn't matter whose fatwa you find 'ridiculous', since you are the only one who has said 'kufr' about speech No 2, which we will discuss once we are finished with this speech no 1. Be patient, in sha Allah, I will participate in this thread as and when I get time.

Note: I will be replying/ addressing only you in this thread. Jazak Allah khair for your understanding.

post 362 in this thread has a link to a book on this matter. I have been informed that some one is writing a 'refutation' to this. Just waiting for this.

 

and the mustafti forgot to mention that azmi has misused the microphone umpteen times to abuse senior sunni scholars the latest being at the urs of hafiz-e-millat at ashrafiya when he hinted that all those 100 muftis had become kafir for the fatwa they signed against him.

great pieces of istifta I am witnessing....

 

i await your reply. i will spare you the trouble of proving that that i do not know much, as i readily acknowledge that. now go ahead and shine the light.

i find that 'fatwa' ridiculous.

 

@AbdalQadir so what's your take on this fatwa? you think his analysis is correct and the examples he gave about itimam-e-hujjat fit azmi's case?

where is the itimam-e-hujjat? that gujrati periodical was gloating over 'muslim preacher' calling ram Imam-e-Hind. Said nothing about hindus being ashamed of mis-representing ram. hindus or morari didn't appear flummoxed did they?

and those examples about taHseen of leaders of kuffar - he even mentioned the riwayat from bukhari shareef about those dieties being called 'pious people'- how come he missed Hazrat 'Isa ('alayhissalaam), would have been an even better example, wouldn't it?

Next thing we know azmi and league will start praising greek gods for they too had 'commendable qualities', being deities is just a minor hiccup and can be ignored safely.

Infact Muftis of ashrafiya should issue an edict that it's permissible to praise demi gods so long as the qualities being praised are not directly linked to kufriyat. Which false deity is not attributed with some good qualities? that's what makes people revere them. people don't worship Dracula do they? So when alahazrat forbade praising devtas he thought that the organization in question was praising the devtas for their kufr and not just any normal goodness?

Praising a devta is not kufr mutlaqan? that's what muti'urrahamn sahib is saying.

I do not know much about mufti mti'urrahaman so can't say which camp he belongs to but his admonishing alamah sahib about not doing his tehqeeq before issuing the fatwa applies to him too (with due respect). Did he ask azmi to prove or present witnesses that the speech took place in the backdrop of the godhra riots in 2003? for apparently it took place in 2013.

he didn't touch on begum sahiba's eagerness to meet morari or her watching his programs to completion and azmi boasting about it.

what's happening here - thanks to azmi and his supporters - ram is now being praised on ashrafiya's dias and 'shri ram' is being written all over fatwas (whilst quoting his words).

and why did mufti sahib not do tehqeeq about this fellow from the opposing camp - what hujjat was he establishing when exhorting muslims to come out of their comfort-zones and read and understand the gita (paraphrased)?

and ram did 'jihad' to rescue sita? is that what mufti-e-azam taught mufti muti'ur rahman sahib? Why did alahzrat write about ismayil dehlavi:

woh jisse Wahaabiya ne diya hai laqab shaheed -o-zabeeh ka
woh shaheed-e-laila-e-Najd tha woh zabeeH -e-taigh-e-khayyaar hai

why is fighting against the british to have a secular india not jihad?

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

the entire import of his speech was brown-nosing to morari bapu and here he is being praised for his 'himmat and dileri'......

not amused.