mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

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.

 

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.

wassalaam.

 

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

 

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.

 

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'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

NO TAQLEED IN AQIDAH.


* 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.

 

"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.

 

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?

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.