mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    The question still stands, in-sha Allah, Mufti Nizamuddin Sahib will retract and do tawba, but, Allah forbid, what if he doesn't ?

    What should we, as laymen, do? Allow the muftis to sort it out themselves (doesn't seem like the akabir ulema from the bareilly side will comment) or try and force a retraction via boycott methods and constant questioning

    We don't want sunni ulema to slowly drift away. the fatwa is a blunder but if it is not retracted and if it is continuously supported then it makes it much more than a blunder.
  2. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Th nizamia fatwa is confusing.

    i think the mufti sahib was trying to say that 'Mufti Nizamuddin fatwa is being tasdiq'd (by various muftis) whereas he should have seen the question asked by abdullah Mumbai to 'Bareilly Ulema' and should have tried to obtain the full speech of Obaidullah Azmi. He should repent for giving such a fatwa supporting obaidullah khan with such weak and fragile daleels and the questioner (Obaidullah Azmi) should do ordered to do tawba'

    One thing is for sure, the fatwa is cryptic and obscure. the question should also have been posted as the istifta may have been worded strangely and contained incorrect information and the mufti gave a reply accordingly.
  3. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    These quotes from shaykh Abu Adam Nauruji aptly summarize the reasons for my current stance:

    The Ummah as a whole is protected, and the Prophet of course, but not individuals. The comment of Al-Fakhr Ar-Raaziyy comes to mind about the ĥadiith which states about Ibrahim having told 3 lies, “I’d rather call all of the narrators liars, than saying that Prophet Ibrahim lied.” Remember that taqliid (imitating others) is of no benefit in Aqiidah matters. What you are saying is, “since these scholars might have said this, (because you don’t know that,) I am not going to say it is kufr,” even though you know without a doubt it is an ugly thing to say about Aļļah. You can do better than that.

    You won’t save our view of scholars who have calamities in books attributed to their name by saying it is not kufr, because idiocy or deviance are the only other options. The only way out is to say that it is a forgery, or a slip of the pen (they had something in mind, but wrote something else by mistake), or in some cases, where it is not far fetched, you can make ta’wiil. This is the sensible way to deal with this, not blindly accepting words found in books.

    There is no taqlid in such an issue, and finding a quote in some book will not help one on the Day of Judgment in something like this. Imagine yourself saying, “but I found this on page 256, volume 4 of book so and so, that it is rationally possible that it is not impossible in the minds eye that you could lie!” Even if you found supporting quotes in one hundred books, by famous authors, this is not an excuse.

    These are about a different issue but the basic principle is the same - no taqleed in aqida.


    And that's exactly what Shayh. Asrar too pointed out to blind followers of Hamza Yusuf. They kept on saying that hamza was correct in asserting that the lahori qadiyanis are muslims. They reviled and argued with those who disagreed with hamza. And then Hamza comes out with a retraction that 'I am not qualified to comment on the issue'. So what benefit did these zombie mureeds gain out of defending hamza? He made them look like fools for their blind defence of hamza. If instead of reviling the scholars who opposed him had they tried to listen and understand and conveyed their concerns to hamza yusuf it would have been beneficial to both them and their shaykh.

    Brother chisti-raza's signature:
    At times a shaykh's followers are his worst enemies.


    we saw something similar in this thread too. sunnistudent kept on defending mufti nizam's fatwa and by extension ubaidullah khan and vehemently opposing and even making sly accusations against people who criticised it.

    But now it appears that even mufti shamsul huda* opposes that fatwa and, hopefully, if we see a retraction from mufti nizam where will sunnistudent stand in all of this?


    * if mufti shams opposes it, it's almost a given that DI will oppose it too even if they don't proclaim it out loud.
    inquisitive likes this.
  4. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

  5. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    "Mufti nizamuddeen ridwi ke jaari karda fatwe ki tasdeeq ki jati hai"

    Which seems to mean that the fatwa in as much as it is based on the istifta and, "not looking at life in general", is correct.
    I dunno but maybe people will want to argue about the fine difference between tasdeeq (authentication) and ta'eed (endorsement). ​

    "mustafti abdullah (mumbai) ke sawal par mufti sahab ko taqreer karne wale ki mukammal taqreer talab karke jawab dena chahiye tha"

    Mr. Abdullah (Mumbai) had not sent the istifta to Mufti Nizam he had sent it to Nagpur!
    Besides this seems to suggest that nizamia mufti HAS access to the full speech and has PROBABLY gone through it.
    So where is HIS fatwa with the proper daleel as he states under?​

    "inhone bina daleel jawab likhkar galti ki hai."

    as I said above this shows that HE KNOWS the daleel (whatever he means by that word)​

    "inko apni islaah karke ainda ihtiyat karna chahiye"

    'islaah' in what way? should he issue another fatwa with the proper 'daleels'?​

    "aur mustafti ko taubah karna chahiye"

    latest twist in the story! we have heard bareilly shareef muftis beings asked to do tawbah because of hasty takfir. Then we heard that Ashrafiya muftis should so tawbah because of a misleading and incorrect fatwa. And now Mr Abdullah should do tawba for something he did not do - he did not send the istifta to mufti nizam.

    It seems everyone besides ubaidullah khan is in need of tawbah. He alone is too pure for this!


    1. UKA had sent the istifta with his explanations to mufti nizam - and said in urs speech he had sent the whole thing - whereas this nizamia fatwa assumes that mufti nizam did not listen to the speech.

    2. Brother Arshad here has told us that uka had given explanations in private. This further strengthens the case for those who claim that uka is completely accessible to people at ashrafiya, especially mufti nizam. If mufti shams ul huda et al. are on this case they must ask uka to prove that the speech was in 2003 and not in Dec 2013. Since this supposed 'illah' is apparently keeping them from takfir.

    3. Mawlana Meraj ul Qadri's signature counts more than his purported hesitations in private. He should issue a full clarification with his signature and stamp if he wants to dissociate himself from the fatwa he formerly endorsed.

    I say this because I cant put it past the uka group to pressurize people to change their opinions. If they can ban a student of deen from exams just to appease a POLITICIAN they can do anything.

    Brother Arshad if you are in touch with anyone from Ashrafiya please request them to issue a fatwa only aftyer getting ALL their facts right and listening to uka's ALL THREE speeches: 1. Gandhidham. 2. Malegaon. 3. Urs Hafidh e Millat.

    4. Nizamia muftis too should issue a proper fatwa after listening to the complete speech and the other two speeches. Their current fatwa has stumbled badly on the facts hence does not carry any weight.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Noori likes this.
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    very strange endorsement. out of 4 lines, the first line endorses the fatwa, and then 3 lines reject it. if fatwa is correct then why mustaftafi should do tawbah?
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    hyderabad joins the fray. blind following and blank cheques. what is happening to muftis these days?
    assuming that the fatwa IS the one being discussed here.

    (ps: a brother sent it to my mail. i was not involved.)

    Attached Files:

  8. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

  9. kaydani1

    kaydani1 Active Member

    Can someone please clarify for me what Mufti Shamsul Huda's position is on this issue.

    Mufti Shams of Mubarakpur who also resides in Hekmondwike.
  10. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Read the fatwa by Mufti Siddiq Bahraichi. It explains why the excuse is inadmissible.

    A bigger scholar than Mufti Miraj and Mawlana Shams has said that Obaidulah is a Kafir.
  11. Arshad ul Qadri

    Arshad ul Qadri New Member

    The depiction of Ashrafia in general as an institution which has defended Uka, is unjust towards the Ulama who did indeed spoke out.
    I merely indicated that the name Ashrafia is being misused. Mufti Nizamuddin is the current principal but he does not represent all the scholars here. Nor do we deem his fatwa representative for the teachings of Huzur Hafiz e Millat.

    Spreading this fitna does not benefit the Ahlus Sunnah across it will only strengthen the deoband who will use this. Many are unaware but actions are being prepared. It will be released very soon.

    Indeed Uka Kalaam is kufriyyah but to state that he is a Kafir is another thing. Even Mufti Miraaj professor at Ashrafia who was amongst the ones who signed the Takfir Ghair Mu'ayyan fatwa, agreed that in the case of Uka it is difficult because of his explanation which he did in private.

    It's no secret, it is a lack of information from your side and Naqis Tahqeeq on which you base your judgement. This is how Zulm and fitna starts.

    I won't respond after this. I opened this account just to protect the Al Jamiatul Ashrafia of Huzur Hafiz e Millat. May Allah Ta'ala safeguard it till Qiyamah.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    @inquisitive we should be polite to all unless there are sufficient grounds to do otherwise. The brother is well-meaning and he is right that we should avoid washing our laundry in public as much as possible. That's not to say that serious issues should be brushed under the rug but we should also take care not to go over board. I wont say much as someone or the other might get offended.

    Do note that he called it a 'fitna' and that's not a small thing to say. The information he provided has helped us put things into perspective and we should be grateful to him.

    This is just a friendly advice and I am not trying to boss you around.

    Ghulam Ali and inquisitive like this.
  13. inquisitive

    inquisitive Well-Known Member

    Errrrrm, maybe cause this was all discussed on the occasion of the urs of hafiz e millat and inevitably, the speech will spread.

    Obaidullah has committed kufr and some muftis have deemed it to be not-kufr. its been a month and the scholars in India are still not making advancements to try and resolve the matter.

    We don't live in a perfect world where everything goes according to how it should. It has spread outside of India and it was bound to considering Jamiatul Ashrafia is the biggest madrasa in India.

    if you were so concerned about it not spreading outside of India then why did you post the message informing us who is which 'side' and other top secret information.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  14. Arshad ul Qadri

    Arshad ul Qadri New Member

    What I don't quite understand is, how come is this even being debated over outside of India?

    The fitna of here should not have spread across. Only bad things will result of this. If the Deoband came to know about this it will be another set back for the Ahlus Sunnah.

    It would be better to remove this topic and let the Ulama here in India sort it out without spreading across. The initial stance is that which imam Ahlus Sunnah has elucidated in fatawa ridawiyyah v14 625. Which is shared by mufti Nizamuddin in his Tabiyyat Iftaa.

    Allah Ta'ala knows best.
  15. AbdalQadir

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

    you missed my point. as moderators, you guys are the qudaat and ameers of the forum, whether your like it or not or realize it or not.

    it's one thing to take one side in a disagreement (obviously, since this is an internet forum and our tools of the trade here are words, opinions and discussions).

    it's something else to start a personal scuffle* or take any side in it, regardless if it is over tahir or obaidullah or something as insignificant as a key-chain. a qadi or an ameer or a khalifatullahi fil internet simply can't enjoy that liberty.

    despite your humility that you (moderators) are just like the other posters, if a moderator participates in a personal scuffle, it is seen as bullying. hence my comment to unbeknown previously, and when he clarified his powers, i did concede that it was a level playing field between me and him; and now my comment to Noori.

    * i do want to reiterate that even the personal scuffles (at least from my side) or only in the moment in the concerned thread. i really don't have any serious issues with any Sunni brothers. that's why i reply to and like unbeknown's posts as and when i see them, despite our heated arguments on certain issues.

    underlined "my point" to reiterate that that's how i see things. i may be wrong. Allahu a3lam.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    to AQ: i can see your point, but the reason why you find yourself in this position is because of your history. you refused to tone down and were itching to go after what is known as the 'bareilly' camp. you may not see it like that - but almost everyone else on this forum sees it so (we can take a poll if you wish).

    if your conscience is clear, i suggest you leave the issue there and take the jibes as a part of the bargain; when you criticise you spare no quarter, and you spare no one. so it is natural when it is your turn, people will hold you to your own demands. besides, you resort to ad hominem when your case is weak. invoking the point that noori is a moderator, or that unbeknown is a moderator - will serve you no good. that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the argument.

    as i see it, those who criticised AQ are piqued at his enthusiasm when criticising the 'bareilly' ulama; though doesn't show the same fervour when talking of the ashrafiyah ulama. his colourful language and blunt kick-sand-in-the-face comments are missing when he talks of the mistakes of ashrafiyah camp. undertone of AQ's critics: "is there more than meets the eye?"

    AQ is piqued that he has already accepted and many times over said that the ashrafiyah fatwa is wrong, so he cannot see what the ballyhoo is all about. undertone of AQ's protestation: "guys, are you stupid? looks like your reasoning is worse than pithecanthropus, you başıbozuks. am telling you i disagree with the ashrafiyah fatwa.."

    perhaps this is the problem with sunnis today. this microcosm of our forum is perhaps an example: instead of arching-over to try and understand the other person's viewpoint, we will arch-over to try and misunderstand and find fault and prove that he is a long as he does not belong to my shaykh's circle.

    so if others don't say it, it means noori is preventing you from saying it? where is your logic AQ? all he said was that YOU are saying so, and HE prefers not to say it.

    as i said above, if you hadn't bee that outspoken and demanding in recent months, nobody would have bothered about it. you must take it in your stride - because that is the image you were comfortable with: uncompromising, blunt, outspoken.

    let us say, everyone withdraws, and we leave things as they are. in the future, you ought to be quite careful of not lambasting any muftis (from bareilly or outside) because, you have indicated that you will keep quiet about a respectable mufti assuming that he has an explanation. those who are arguing are only asking: 'where is this husn-zann and i-will-remain-quiet-until-the-fog-clears demeanour when you were defending shaykh yasin's book.'

    one last thing: the best response in such situation is to withdraw; so long as your conscience is clear, why should you worry about giving clarifications? and calling others as kids, and taunting them for being incompetent moderators is not the way of sincere or just folk. is it that important to prove that AQ is upright and forthcoming? will you lose your sleep, if you KNOW for sure, that a few people think you are a hypocrite?

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Unbeknown likes this.
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    great answer by the late usayd sahib.

    usayd sahib was right on the track but the idiot questioner was stuck in his stupid question.

    the questions are:

    - WHY should you do naman?
    - and if it is necessary, then is it a crime NOT to do naman?
    - which indian law says that it is necessary to do naman?
    - what if you don't do naman? (which the late usayd sahib rightly asked)
    - you can say anything, but is india a hindu nation? if not, which is NOT, (because it is secular), then why should we follow the hindu way of naman whatever?
    - let us say for example, spitting on the earth is the form of respect some group thinks - why should they not force you to keep spitting as a form of respect?
    - none of you should defecate on this "dharti" - consequently, anyone who defecates on open land (which is common in indian villages) should be deemed a traitor and hanged. if you think that feces is your prasad to your dharti-ma, that is another story.

  18. AbdalQadir

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

    brother, you're a moderator so please be fair (i'm not talking about any issues, just the posting itself)

    what on earth do you mean by you didn't do it with me? show me where i have used bad language for or against the first or the second or the third fatwa!

    rather i think this applies to you 'coz i don't know what you're holding against me.

    tell me what exactly do you want me to do after stating my position in unequivocal language?

    can you please elaborate where exactly on this issue i have taken an ego trip? i have been candidly saying my stances right from the beginning.

    it seems the only person who isn't allowed to say that there are politics among the ulama is me.

    and if i initially took sukoot on Nizamuddin's fatwa, i'm taking a side.

    subhan Allah. i've been trying my best not to be argumentative and avoid it, you drag me into it and then act as if i am arguing and wasting YOUR time, when in fact the opposite is the case.

    i would wholeheartedly appreciate and welcome your not engaging with me any further on this issue.

    and on any issue of moderation, i kindly request you to please read & understand people's posts properly before taking issues with them in a not-a-bad-mouth way!

    Last edited: Apr 18, 2015
  19. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    SubhanAllah, I have been deleting/editing/warning the supporters of the first fatwa for bad language, and I didn't do it with you only to avoid this blame. I think you can't get out of your ego and look at things objectively. I have clearly mentioned that I have venerated mufti nizamuddin sahab for his knowledge. I am not sure, but you may only be busy on the forum fighting with your supposed groupies, but I have been prying in my prayers for ashrafyah ulama.

    I don't have any firsthand information on inter-ulama politics, which I know does exist, therefore I have/take no interest in it. Go and check Molana Usaid's thread, I went against brother Aqib, and didn't accept that his book 'Hadith e iftiraq' had anything for sulah kulliyat. Yes, I didn't comment on hazrat taj'ush sharia'h's opinion about the book, because I am not a bad mouth like you, and I would like to assume my self mistaken than such an scholar.

    There was a valid question raised that why a fatwa after 10 or more years on Uka, but new information makes this question void, therefore it is just an assumption that the fatwa is because of inter-ulama politics, specially if you realize what great fitnah the second fatwa can cause among masses.

    Since you have re-iterated that you wholeheartedly accept ruling upon USA, and that the politics among ulama is a seceondary issue, therefore I think that all other posts by you are useless, and wsate of time, there I won't engage with you any further on this issue.
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

Share This Page