mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

and alahazrat's analysis is as relevant to mufti nizamuddin sahib's point as ever.
----

mirza maz'har jaan e jaanaN did not name ram and krishna. he simply assumed on the basis of the qur'anic verse that there might have been pious people in this region too and even prophets perhaps. but he did not say ram and krishna.

mufti nizamuddin sahib snips off that part:


===================================

in other words according to mufti nizam sahib:

1. mirza maz'har jan e janan called ram* with kamal o takmil. alahazrat did not rule kafir nor called it kufr.

2. obaidullah said: ram ka pavitra wujud...etc., and i did not call him kafir.

3. if obaidullah's statement was kufr, then that of mirza sahib is shirk e akbar.

-----

sub'HanAllah!


*one can try a tall-ta'wil of this by saying that mufti sahib was only saying "buzurgs" as mentioned in the fatwa; he did not accuse mirza maz'har jan e janaN of calling ram as the buzurgs of kuffar. but i am sure context and other factors cannot be ignored. secondly, if he denies that he mentioned 'buzurgs' are 'ram etc.' he defeats his own argument of 'is se bada kufr shirk e akbar hai'.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

interestingly, this very fatwa has a point that i mentioned earlier concerning mufti nizamuddin sahib's first fatwa.

i had said earlier: that instead of dismissing that "such an ibarat is not found in fatawa ridawiyyah" gives an impression that it is absolutely not found there, whereas it is only not found in those words, verbatim.

----
see how alahazrat does it. someone says mirza maz'har sahib said so and so.




alahazrat replied that it is NOT found and mentioned what was found.

----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

the complete fatwa: vol.14/p.657 and p.658




​

 

from 11.22 to 12.04 mufti nizamuddin sahib says [summarised and rephrased]: "if ram spoke the truth, don't muslims speak truth? if ram fought injustice, don't muslims fight injustice? therefore, telling truth and fighting injustice are commonly found traits, not specific traits of kafirs. thus, if ram was praised for such traits, why should it be kufr?"

----
where did you find ram's evidence in fiqh or tarikh books?
obviously, you go back to tawatur e hunud for the "fact" that he was truthful, fought injustice etc. and it is from that very source that they believe raam to be their god.

so you take that ram exists, he was truthful and fought injustice, based on their own katha/stories.
and ignore that the very same katha/stories exalt him as god.
and then praise ram for being truthful and that he fought injustice (because you don't believe that he is god).

----
the citation of mirza sahib and alahazrat's comments are presented with a slant and to absolve himself of any intellectual dishonesty, mufti nizamuddin sahib dismisses it as "alahazrat did not agree etc., because of the right every mujtahid has to his view..."

sub'HanAllah.

----
alahazrat's classic lines come to mind (incidentally in the same fatwa that nizamuddin sahib mentions):

ya mahz anyab e aghwal o rijal e bustan e khayal ki tarah awham e tarashidah hain; tawatur e hunud agar hujjat nahiN to un ka wujud hi na saabit; aur agar hujjat hai, to usi tawatur se un ka fisq o fujur o lahw o la'ab saabit; phir kya ma'ani ke wujud ke liye tawatur e hunud maqbul aur aHwal ke liye mardud mana jaaye?

http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...a-on-obaidullah-azmi.12433/page-18#post-53903

 

and exhortation to follow the sunnat of ram sharif*

http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/aq-feedback-offshoot-of-ubk-thread.12446/#post-52981





*read the post for reasons why that is used.
regardless, astaghfirullah, wa'l iyadhu billah.

 

http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/aq-feedback-offshoot-of-ubk-thread.12446/page-4#post-53004

and other posts in that thread.

 

there is nothing new, previous articles presented the same arguments. quite unsatisfactory response.

 

the references are mixed up, sometimes irrelevant or out of context, and the explanatory details are skipped. I wonder what he says about the dajjal of the era TuQ.

he openly accepts that "kufr ki wajah se kaafir ki tazeem karna kufr hai". sadly, he does not want to apply it to Obaid's antics.

and the explanation of "tawatur from hindus" is really horrific. so should we deem their "oft-repeated monkey miracles" as true?

astaghferu-Allah alAzeem.

 

incredible.

 

Mufti Nizamuddin sahab responds to the alleged or possible, real or perceived, objections against his fatwa on obaidullah :

youtube - part 1 -

part 2 -

------

for those who don't have youtube - part 1 - http://picosong.com/jZJA/

part 2 - http://picosong.com/jZSw/

 

another piece here too by Murshid Ansari. http://www.slideshare.net/sunnicreative/kaba-47691258 (will comment on this later if i run into some time)

 

i just got this from someone. still reading it.

 

it seems our deobandi fans too have recently mentioned this issue, albeit independent of Nizamuddin sab and obaidullah

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/exaggerated-statements-by-ahmad-rida-khan/

the idiot himself hasn't quoted any comparison with the hindus' idol, yet he questions us on it!!!

and when did we graduate from "qabar pujaris" to "barelwi brothers"? what's he trying to do here?

 

i think that murshid guy was trying to assert the fact that Ala Hazrat didn't do takfeer of the mawlana in question for guessing that ram or kishan might have been past prophets or awliya, whereas takfeer has been made on obaidullah for praising ram's characteristics that are universally accepted as good (truthfulness, compassion to poor etc.)

what he misses is this:

obaid praised ram in front of those who worship him
the mawlana in question is only guessing in front of Muslims (from what i understand in the fatwa)

there is a big difference between acknowledging (implicitly or explicitly) the fact that hindus worship ram and then praising him in front of them;
and some Muslim guessing something in front of other Muslims. when you're praising their false deity in front of them, you are essentially deliberately or unintentionally telling them to continue worshiping that false deity or to continue staying hindu.

-----

just now (within last 2 weeks) i also asked to the same Jilani shaykh regarding someone who says "maybe buddha was a past prophet" and he also gave almost the same reply as Ala Hazrat that the person who says this can't be ruled kafir because he is only saying "maybe", which essentially means that if at all he was, the case of buddhists now is the same as christians, which really doesn't hurt a Muslim's 3aqidah.

that's coz on matters on which we have no revealed knowledge, articles of faith simply don't begin with or include 'maybe's and 'might have been's and so on.

making definitive statements on people for which nothing has been revealed to us, like that dumb deobandi who alleges that shankar and parvati are Adam and Hawwa (3alaihumas salam); or hanson who tries to definitively say that buddha is actually Khidr 3alaihis salam wal 3eyadhu billah is a totally different ball game, and they need to be severely rebuked for that.

obviously, conversely speaking, throwing in a maybe on an article of faith for which we do have certified revealed knowledge is outright kufr, like the rafidis inserting maybe's on the truthfulness of the Quran.

-----

we praise 3Eisa 3alaihis salam in front of the christians because the Quran establishes his prophethood, and when we do praise him, we mention him as a prophet and slave of Allah and stress that he never asked anyone to worship himself PLUS we are supposed to tell the christians to give up on calling him as "son of god" and give up on their belief in the trinity.

comparing praise of 3Eisa 3alaihis salam in front of christians to praise of ram in front of hindus isn't comparing apples to apples. it's quite disingenuous if done deliberately.

praising ram in front of hindus is really like praising TRINITY (as opposed to Sayyidina 3Eisa 3alaihis salam) in front of christians!!!! no sane Muslim would ever do that, for if someone does it, he is really telling the christians to continue wallowing in the shirk of trinity!

------

case in point - zakir nayak

so what's the fatwa on him when he says in front of kuffar that 'maybe vedas were once heavenly books but now changed' (same case as Torah and Injeel)?

he too openly says in front of kuffar about 'maybe ram was a past prophet' (there are deobandis too who say maybe ram was actually Haam bin Nuh 3alaihis salam)

what will be the ruling on him when he tries to tell hindus to come to a common word between us and them (he extrapolates the ayah on ahlul kitab to include hindus as well) and then tells them the verses from their own vedas regarding monotheism and calls them to Islam? very ironically, despite his jahalat he doesn't make a mockery of the verse like the "sufis" of the common word team do. they have stated unequivocally that their aim is not proselytizing or asking the christians to convert!!!!

to the christians we say that the Injeel was true when it descended but is not tampered, and for this we have proof from our tawatur.

can nayak say to the hindus definitively that the vedas or gita or so on were actually heavenly books if some hindu takes him up on his word and asks "so hindus too are just like ahlul kitab for you"?

------

it's one thing talking about ram or sita or krishna who we know, through the hindus, to have human form

what about ganesh? (the idol with the head of an elephant and human body)

what about hanuman? (a monkey)

during that hanson's buddhism essay fiasco, i quoted a passage from Jaa al-Haqq on the forum. it can be read online -

https://archive.org/stream/SaeedUlHaqFeTakhreejJaAlHaqVol1/Saeed-Ul-Haq-Fe-Takhreej-Ja-Al-Haq-Vol-1#page/n391/mode/2up

see from bottom half of page 391 until page 392

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

 

relevant clip from the fatwa of alahazrat raDiyallahu anhu vol.14/p.658

 

that it is not necessary to read the fatwa in full until the end; take what you think suits your purpose and leave the rest.

 

I know exactly what you meant, brother Abdul Qadir. there is a HUGE difference in reminding / pointing out a mistake if there is a lapse by a scholar, and in TEACHING A SCHOLAR, in the subject in which he is a SCHOLAR.

As far as teaching the same person 'worldy matters'- well then you are diverting the subject; in that case the teacher is actually the expert, and the Islamic scholar is a student of that knowledge.

Your command over english is not that poor, NOT to understand the difference.

My answer is: does making a mistake (except committing outright kufr) make a scholar a non-scholar?????

 

what's his point?

 

Sidi inquisitive and mawlana noori please do not drag us British Pakistanis in to this debate

 

i don't agree with you.

i believe any non-prophet is susceptible to one or more or all of these - innocent lapses, mistakes, blunders, falling into sin, ego trips etc.

you know what i meant brother. by teaching in post #350 i meant correct any errors (deliberate or unintentional).

plus i don't think the idea of awam teaching (properly teaching) scholars some things about ground realities in the modern world is possible. in a subcontinental context, a lot of scholars are cut off from things like modern science, technology, medicine, economic instruments etc. and this can and does have impact on the fatawa they issue.

so according to you Mufti Nizamuddin and the other muftis attesting his fatwa are scholars or not?