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.