mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Unbeknown, Feb 13, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

  2. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Aqdas probably has contact with Mufti Nizamuddin, and other scholars such as Allama Yaseen Akhtar. any information?

    [edited by noori: inquisitive be fair, and don't try to drag people into debates, don't act like ghulam]
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2015
  3. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    that happens when juhaala think they know more than the scholars. and this is already a bane, a huge crisis in our society.

    awaam need solutions - yes.
    the awam seeking an answer and approaching a better, upright scholar - YES.

    awam teaching scholars - a resounding NO.
  4. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    huh? the awam need solutions to their issues, not be caught between a clash of (Islamic) titans; that is what i said.

    but yes, if need be, the awam too can teach scholars, if they have exhibited lapses in their behaviour.
  5. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    the awaam need to teach the scholars?
  6. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    now you understand what i was saying earlier. btw, the Arab shaykh i asked through a friend is Shafi3i, i didn't get a chance to ask his cousin, also a Sayyid & Qadiri Shaykh who is Hanafi

    yes his communique is also typical UP-bihar style bhaiyyagiri nothing more

    it's on my mind to post some general istifta and then maybe we can all work together on translating them in Urdu and sending it out to scholars in all directions. scholars can fight their fights and mix their grudges in fiqh, but we as awam need solutions in our religious rulings and not be caught in their crossfire.
  7. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    after re-reading this I think this sounds a bit strange to call this an 'aqida'. It can be called a legal ruling on which there is ijma' of the ummah.

    But the same can be re-phrased as: "Belying Allah ta'ala and His Messenger (peace be upon him) is kufr".

    Then the question is: "Is extolling a deity of the hindus belying Allah ta'ala and His Messenger (peace be upon him)?"

    And the unanimous answer is a resounding YES.

    Fatawa Ridawiyyah, Nagpur fatwa, bahraich fatwa, mufti nizam fatwa in Fatawa Markaz-e-Darul-ifta and fatwa from an arab, sayyid, jilani, hanafi, non-deo-supporting shaykh!
    inquisitive likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    what is the meaning of this verse?

    particularly, when christians worship sayyiduna yisa alayhi's salam?

    then according to this "murshid" fellow, if christians worship sayyiduna yisa alayhi's salam, does he become their "devta"? al-iyadhu billah.
    thus according to his own logic, he ("murshid" azmi) is calling a prophet as a "devta of kuffar", just because a few kuffar worship sayyiduna yisa `alayhis salam.

    if he cannot agree with this, even though this is by naSS - that christians worship sayyiduna yisa alayhi's salam - then why should the sun and moon be considered devta of kuffar, just because some kuffar worship them?


    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    hint for the gumrah "murshid": check tafsir nayimi.

    the difference between sun, moon and ram, krishna is this:*

    Last edited: Apr 23, 2015
    AbdalQadir and Noori like this.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    how much did obaidullah pay this murshid ansari? his whole maqalah is stupid, and it appears that he is overwhelmingly ignorant notwithstanding his smarty comments. looks like instead of wasting his time doing a BA, he should have gone to an upright scholar to learn basic aqidah TaHawiyah sharif.

    his maqalah is of the category, where a person asked a scholar: "how will you do iftar if the sun won't set until midnight?"
    Ghulam Ali and inquisitive like this.
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    exactly. If the mapping is incontrovertibly established then there's no denying that the thing is kufr.

    In the present case it's -"praise of pagan deities" - which is not a definition of a new creed or an explicit repudiation of a daruri precept but note that we have all agreed that it's kufr - because it's being an implicit denial of a daruri precept is well established.

    Our proof for this is what Alahazrat wrote in FR and apparently Mufti Nizam too.

    Suppose it were that this fatwa was not present in FR. Then what would we do?

    Their being no taqleed in aqida I would argue that this is kufr.

    Then the last thing we are left with is whether we do takfir or not.

    For this we need a Mufti - to consider all possible aspects and context. For this we have three opinions of takfir two from India and one which you posted. Mufti Nizam's reasons for abstention from takfir are unacceptable so now we have no strong proof against takfir.
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Consider both these statements which you gave as examples:

    1. 'we shall remember the love of krishna and the optimism of the sikhs'
    2. "we wish our christian brothers a merry christmas"

    You cannot argue they are kufr of ANY kind unless you prove that they're in direct or indirect opposition to a daruri or qatyi aspect of deen.

    Consider why Imam Azam (raDiyAllahu'anhu) included 'wiping on leather socks' in his listing of the beliefs of ahlussunah.

    And once we do that we will say that 'repudiating a daruri or qatyi* aspect of the deen' is kufr. This is our aqida. And there's no taqlid in aqida.

    What I am trying to say is that in matters of imaan & kufr you cannot talk in terms of 'words' and 'actions' alone - the topic of 'belief' or 'creed' will come into the picture.

    Hope I've explained myself well.


    *as per the jurists
  12. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    my understanding is similar to yours that lafzi or 3amali kufr eventually do map back towards ae3teqad. like if someone says "prayers are just a bodily exercise" he becomes a disbeliever for having belittled prayers, which are a daruri or qat3i aspect of deen.

    but i think the implicit mapping and explicit repudiation is what makes the difference, and hence the ikhtilafat of the fuqahaa on certain actions or sayings of kufr. when i say fuqahaa, i'm not talking about contemporaries.

    Allahu a3lam. i too am open to correction.
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I have quoted all this to argue that a person is considered an apostate when he commits lafzi or 3amali kufr because, and as the term 'kufr' itself suggests, in both cases there occurs an implicit denial of a daruri or a qatyi aspect of the deen - even though there may not be an explicit repudiation of either type.

    In other words both lafzi and 3amali kufr map back to one or more i'itiqadi kufriyat.

    This is my understanding. I am open to discussion and or correction.

  14. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i understand. but the basic principle in itself (namely, no taqleed in 3aqidah) is not exactly 100% relevant or applicable here.

    my point is that he isn't exactly trying to state or formulate or prove an article of faith

    it is similar to the statements like "we wish our christian brothers a merry christmas" of jifry
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Quotes from TKM:

    Imām Nawawī defines apostasy thus:

    Apostasy: To sever the [bonds] of Islām, whether intentionally or by saying or doing something that is disbelief. Regardless of whether such a thing was said in derision, or in denial or actual belief [in such kufr]. [Thus,] whosoever disbelieves in the Creator or Messengers or belies a Messenger or considers a ĥarām acknowledged by ijmāá,38 like adultery, as ĥalāl or vice-versa; or rejects that deemed obligatory by ijmāá or vice-versa. Or intends to become a kāfir on the morrow or vacillates40 concerning the issue – in all such cases, the person becomes an apostate.

    [Among] actions that cause apostasy: any deliberate action which explicitly mocks religion, repudiation and disparagement of religion such as casting a copy of the Qur’ān in the garbage or prostrating to an idol or to the sun. However, children, the insane and those under duress are exempt from this ruling [if they utter words or commit deeds that cause apostasy.] Apostasy committed by an inebriated person is valid, just as his Islām is valid; and the testimony concerning apostasy is absolutely admissible..


    It is easy to enter Islām, by uttering the Testimony; but one can also go out of it by uttering a word of kufr; and this does not contradict Imām Ţaĥāwī, when he said:

    ...the opinion of Ĥanafī scholars that a person shall not go out of faith except by disavowing that which made him enter it in the first place.

    Because uttering kufr willingly
    is disavowing the Testimony. Indeed one word can cast a person in the depths of hell, as mentioned in a famous hadith narrated by Abū Hurayrah (raDiyAllahu'anhu) , in which RasūlAllāh (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

    Verily, a slave [may] utter a word that merits the pleasure of Allāh táālā, [and the person is] unaware of it; but still Allāh táālā will raise him in rank because of it. And verily, a slave [may] utter a word that angers Allāh táālā, and the person does not realise [its gravity,] even though he falls into fire because of it.


    Imām Fađl ar-Rasūl explaining the generic ruling of apostasy says:

    Things that negate submission which we have mentioned earlier citing Ĥanafī sources: words and actions which indicate disdain [for religion] such as murdering a Prophet – in which, contempt is obvious – or that which is in effect belying [the Prophet] or disputing anything that is proven to have been declared by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and is considered an Essential Article such as: resurrection, reward, the five prayers etc. In some issues, the ruling varies concerning those being in the presence of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who are not.


    Álī al-Qārī says:

    You should also know, when a person utters words of kufr knowing what they mean, without professing that belief, and says it without compulsion and of his own free choice, such a person will be ruled kāfir. This is based on the preferred opinion of some scholars who said that faith is a composite of attestation and acceptance [taşdīq wa’l iqrār] – and by uttering such words, the person has changed acceptance to repudiation.
    ...A group of scholars have said: “We do not make takfīr of anybody among Ahl al-Qiblah.” This negation is generic, together with the knowledge that among people of Qiblah are the hypocrites who disbelieve in the Book, the Sunnah and consensus with far more vehemence than Jews and Christians.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I said: "These are about a different issue but the basic principle is the same"

    I do not understand why this distinction matters here.

    Do you mean to say that in case something is a lafzi or 3amali kufr then it's not an issue of aqida? And that taqlid is therefore jaiz in these matters?

    Then what is it that you find problematic in the following statement:

    'we shall remember the love of krishna and the optimism of the sikhs'.
  17. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

  18. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    the existence of Abdullah from Mumbai was questioned by ubaidullah azmi, the existence of 'Murshid Ansari' is even more questionable and serious as Abdullah was just a questioner and murshid is writing in reply.
  19. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    murshid ansaari's article is quite funny, i don't know if it was dictated by ashrafyah ulama, or he came out in their defense.
    inquisitive likes this.
  20. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    the obaidullah thing is not an issue of defining an 3aqidah, like tahir's saying christians and jews are "believers".

    it is an issue of something being ruled as lafzi or 3amali kufr, and the iltizam or luzum pertaining to it, which is similar to tahir's wembley circus 'we shall remember the love of krishna and the optimism of the sikhs'.

Share This Page