Side-Issues of the Mufti Nizam Fatwa/Obaidullah Issue

Discussion in 'Bickering' started by AbdalQadir, Jul 20, 2015.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

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

    this issue and its accompanying side issues have become the online equivalent of a school brawl. henceforth, i'm only gonna address this thing by PM to the relevant posters concerned.
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    it is plainly visible that I was replying directly to ss and did not touch on any comment/argument made by aH. There's no question of 'bolstering' anything. This is one of AQ's standard line of defense, "look you do it too".

    If merely opposing ss means bolstering aH's argument then I was bolstering AQ's argument too since he too considers ubk a murtadd as opposed to ss who considers him a brave-heart champion of Islam.

    whereas AQ's silence on ss's illogical arguments was telling given his outspokenness against other similar posters.

    I also wonder where he witnessed ss's fiqh expertise to be able to compare it to aH's. I don't remember reading any serious stuff posted by ss. But it's a different matter if he was referring to his dear blog where the great guys 'substantiate their allegations'.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    oh, yes. and lost, is also the ability to form a sound argument without resorting to fallacies or burning strawmen or putting words in others' mouths. so also is the practice of keeping the context; the little sentence or part that is cited is used as an absolute: upon which all real and imaginary motivations, implications of that statement are derived.

    did i ever say or imply that? all i said was you should have listened to the clip by now.

    charity begins at home. all i did was, pointed out that you didn't listen to the clip and you should have. i don't have a grand plan to micro-manage your life, nor will i send you a form to fill in your daily work-hour sheet. only you (or perhaps SS) can extract such a meaning from my post.

    i didn't know that you were as poor as SS. lament the lost art of reading yet again. the "super-faqih" is not even an allegation, but said in a comment that criticises your methodology.

    so here is the dumb-down: "perhaps you believe everything SS says about me, and THEREFORE you seem to have admitted his claim as valid assumption that needs proof and hence embarked on a search to find that term. (PLEASE, don't ignore the "perhaps"). but you never thought of asking him to furnish the definition and implication - even though he chided me for not knowing the term which according to him, which even first level in ifta-classes know." btw, i had already said it thus in the very post, which you snipped. here is the full sentence:
    by googling "kufr kalami" instead of insisting that SS provide the definition. remember the context, it is not just the word "bolster".

    unbeknown does not claim to be neutral. frankly, i wish he didn't make those comments - though everybody has a right to discuss the issue itself. btw, for perspective, here is what i said originally:
    it was a mildly sarcastic comment, yes; and yes, it was aimed at you, for giving us a rafidi link to sort it out, clearly assuming that SS is right and aH doesn't understand the terms. and no, i was not deriding anyone. it was said in the context of the links you gave us to sort out the "kufr kalami/kufr fiqhi" concept.

    who asked you to pledge unquestioning loyalty to their "camp" and sing qasayid about them? who asked you to consider obaid a murtad? thankfully, you don't accuse them of baying for your blood for not agreeing with them.

    only for others. we are pure and unimpeachable.

    on the contrary, i sincerely believe/d that you posted it for future reference. in fact, it is bleedingly obvious and you have expressly said that in another post. [#395, main thread]

    i was only saying that you should listen to the speech in question, before arguing about it and providing what-if scenarios etc.
    all i said was: 'why don't you listen to the clip'. it is thus you take criticism. sub'HanAllah.

    exactly. if you are fair, you will notice that i ASKED SS to explain. even if you assumed that i had not done research, or even if you agree to what SS says: 'aH didn't even know these terms until now', the right thing is to ask SS to explain it, instead of giving me links to books. if it is just about links to PDFs, i have more than 200 books on kalam/aqidah and 100 books on usul al-fiqh. i too can simply mention names of books and ask him/anyone to sort this issue out. would that be acceptable to you?

    if my questions on the SS-Analyis thread are wrong or needless, please explain why so or correct them.

    when you feel victimised, every statement appears as an attack upon your august and immaculate person.

    if you sincerely believe this, then you should also accept this principle: everyone who mentions a term or claims to know the term should be the one to explain it. the first part of the statement is quite valid and i will cite it soon again, in sha'Allah. but the second part is your own standard. why should anyone "show clearly" obaid is like tahir? just because YOU have declared that tahir is a litmus test, it becomes a fiqh principle?


    anyway, it is my opinion that the tone, the voice etc conveys information that cannot be captured in transcribed text. when you listen to obaid's speech, you will (probably) see why some of the ta'wilat proffered by those who exonerate him look absurd.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    nas'alu-Allaha al-aafiyah
  4. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have moved the posts from the other thread and renamed the "heart-throb" thread to a more applicable one.
  5. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    That's better. In that case, one camp is right and another is wrong; right? So which camp is right? Is Mufti Nizamuddin wrong in his disingenuous support and obfuscation of the issue? Apologies if you said this umpteen times and I haven't caught your drift.

    My charge against SS was/is the same. I don't give a damn to Nagpuri, Bahraichi etc. fatwa and forgeries; simply tell me if Obaidullah is wrong (a murtad or kafir or fasiq, whatever be the category). SS is yet to form a stand.

    I don't belong to any camp. As I said, I wish this hadn't cropped up in the first place. But now that it has surfaced (and in the light of information that I have managed to digest), I am simply disappointed with anyone who seeks to exonerate obaidullah. You don't have to belong to a camp but calling them maulvis and partisan is cheap. Why is it that I am not the only one who finds your positioning odd. Okay, Unbeknown belongs to a camp but aH doesn't (although you may call me as aH's blind follower).

    _ _ _ _

    Several posts that have been made on this subject appeared just hours after 1TM (1st Taif Massacre) sent across his disgusting emails. Probably you have the same source of information or another (notice that I didn't say or mean that you have any association with 1TM). The mother thread has grown too long and has been split into several sub-threads (and I have a laptop close to giving up its ghost), otherwise I would have pin-pointed the posts.
  6. IslamIsTheTruth

    IslamIsTheTruth Well-Known Member

    Pull the other one. You know very well which two you made a comparison with in the past*
    Initially that was hilarious but you've took it to a whole different level of comedy.
    Have you ever thought about going on stage?
    Your claim now is even more absurd then the mihajis who think Tahir is a mujaddid and sheikh ul islam.
    It's obvious who the cult groupie really is.

    [edited by noori]personal attack deleted.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2015
  7. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    you are oblivious to your own limitations and shortcomings and when some one shows you a mirror you fly at him in rage and wrath. you do not know how to take criticism.

    thank-you. need not say anything further.
  8. AbdalQadir

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

  9. AbdalQadir

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

    abu hasan mentioned that and spoke about my involvement on this thread and how i'm supposedly bolstering SS argument. incidentally, he didn't have a problem with you openly bolstering his argument.

    true, but there's a difference between "promoting" and presenting/trying to see both sides of the argument. in this case it was the latter, albeit i was gonna do it later.

    pathetic and disgusting. if you want to misrepresent, misquote, and lie about a person, the least you can do it is do it after his death, and not to his face.

    what did i say i'm neutral on - obaidullah overall or obaidullah in the ramkatha incident? the urse hafize millat speech pertains to the former (overall obaid bio) and i said i didnt hear it. as for the latter, i stated my position. i do however want to see what are the defenses presented from the muftis ruling in favor, and hence the linking to the relevant defenses from what you call a substandard blog.

    let me ask you directly, why is it substandard and fitnah?

    if it is full of false allegations, why aren't you or others doing something to refute the false allegations and expose them?

    all i see you saying is "it's fitnah" without saying how so. at least the guys on there are substantiating their allegations.

    not very different than gibril merely saying "they're speaking against mawlana nazim" as a refutation to the ahbash's allegations against him.

    nice. this kind of word play might work with the wahabis, but not internally with Sunnis. it was a sarcastic comment aimed at either SS or me or both. yes he didn't say directly to anyone but the implication was clear that it was meant to deride one or both of the people he's talking about.

    pathetic and disgusting one more time. you snipped off: with abu Hasan of course doing work for Sunniyat in good caliber english.

    english language skills aside, fiqh-wise or as students of knowledge, i see them both equally knowledgeable and well read. you are welcome to disagree.

    i don't know which other two people you're talking about, but if it is who i think it is, my opinion has now changed and i think one of them is far superior to the other. of course you would think so about the other one. Allah knows best and ground realities are open for all to see.

    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    it's really a headache when I have to point out the obvious.

    the word 'debate' was not used in reference to ss posts but the entire corpus of posts that have been written so far. ss posts don't qualify as a debate.

    al slight correction, an aura of greatness should only be created around a person after youv'e atleast gone through his work which you're promoting.

    i never said it but it does show a sense of responsibility if the who is obviously excited about the videos and posts actually takes time out to study them before moving further and keeping on importing more and more substandard stuff from an equally substandard blog. You don't need to act as conduit to fitna you know? atleast not until you're willing to speak for/against it rather than sit on the sidelines and merrily watch people arguing and jumping in occasionally with a 'i haven't heard it yet so i am still neutral'.

    I don't need to speak for him but since you asked I'll like to point out the obvious that he didn't call anyone a super-faqih. go read again.

    as expected :)

    yeah we know the other two people who you think are on equal standing. so not surprised at all. objectivity. right.

    I knew this was coming but its is milder than I expected. one good thing atleast.

    sigh. its no use.

  11. AbdalQadir

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

    oh yeah.... i'm "neutral" for calling obaid a murtad for the ram katha act!

    notwithstanding wanting to know more about the character, and stating unequivocally that i see tahir as a benchmark of this filth (within subcontinentals) and want to see more how obaid compares to him.

    reading really is a lost art it seems.

    i think you and others like you are annoyed that someone can consider obaid a murtad and still not pledge unquestioning loyalty to your camp and sing qasaid about your camp! (i dunno if Mufti Nizamuddin's supporters would be equally annoyed. if they were here in as much numbers, i might have known)

    honestly, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sherkhan for twisting people's words and positions like that.

    no i don't and i can say it on oath.

    if that is so, it is coincidental. can you post one sample email, and also my post on sunniport right after it, just so i know what you're talking about.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  12. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Earlier (when it came to padris, nazims, hansons of the world) AQ was hyper-critical mounted on moral high horse. Now (when it comes to obaidullahs, ashrafiyyahs of the world) AQ is hypo-critical seated on the "neutral" fence. What a fall from high horse! I understand that AQ has an long-standing, barely disguised axe against Bareilly camp (not sure why), but to to be coloured by that and suddenly call this a camp debate is very jaundiced.

    I receive regular spams from "1st Taif Massacre", which I believe also gets sent to aH, Noori etc., calling names to Azhari miyan. I am not sure if SS (sunnistudent) is masquerading under 1TM email handle. AQ probably receives the same emails and is first to post them on sunniport.

    I agree that it is very painful to see Ashrafiyyah abdicate their duty/responsibility for the sake of a "tuchha" politician. For long we have looked up to Mufti Nizamuddin's fatwa for guidance. This rift in sunni camps over what should have been a very straight-forward ruling on obaidullah is the most unfortunate development for sunnis in India.
  13. AbdalQadir

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

    since you've seen the other thread, you'll know this is the word abu Hasan has used.

    so an aura of greatness should only be created around the name of someone you approve of?

    someone told me i don't know much about him. i told him to enlighten me and present some evidence for it. that person then doesn't say anything about Muti3ur Rehman any more.

    i don't know why you think it is impossible for someone to read a forum or a blog post but leave aside any text or video attachment accompanying it for later.

    just answer this - is it sarcasm or not when abu Hasan starts by using the same word against others?

    you might consider this place as a school and abu Hasan as the headmaster with the God-given rights to scold anyone, but I DON'T.

    you might think only abu Hasan can criticize others and he is above and beyond criticism, only because he has done some good work in english. i don't.

    i only addressed him in the same language he addressed me. apparently it's not disrespectful when you or abu Hasan dish it out! it's only disrespectful when it comes back to you!

    he pounced on me for absolutely no reason at all (with soo az-zdhann, hubris and sarcasm), and more than amply deserved what i said to him. i am not at all sorry for the way i addressed abu Hasan in that thread.

    apparently, abu Hasan is the boss of me and i need to answer to him what i have been doing with my time!

    notice how he talks there as if i am answerable to him and as if i owe him answers and explanations for why i did and didn't do this or that.

    he couldn't see that the reason i linked obaidullah's speech on that heartthrob thread was so that i could listen to it some time (something i stated explicitly). if i had any sneaky intentions, i wouldn't even bring it up and quietly stay away from that thread, much less link up the speech.

    maybe this should be a reminder to all of us that we should go by the apparent and not work on second guessing intentions.

    so apparently abu Hasan is piqued that i consider Sunnistudent as some super-faqih! (super-faqih is his word)

    how dare i not think the same of abu Hasan?

    for the record, i think both of them are great with the forensics of the Sunni-deobandi conflict about who said what, when they said it, when it was responded and counter responded and so on. other than that i think they're both on equal standing, with abu Hasan of course doing work for Sunniyat in good caliber english. i'm not saying this just now to escape your nonsensical comments, but go back to that 'aq feedback on ubk' thread and in the first few posts you will see that i have appraised both SS and aH as brothers who have done valuable work together.

    maybe this should let you and abu Hasan know that i read your posts as well.

    i said right on the main ubk thread (#395):

    but apparently this wasn't good and kind enough for you and abu Hasan, and abu Hasan has to go all gung ho on me with you cheering on from the sidelines.

    if either of them are angered with each other, they shouldn't take it out on others.

    by the way i forgot to respond to this point of abu Hasan previously:

    abu Hasan, the reason i posted the link to the book was because as per Sunnistudent, it has the discussion on what he is talking about. since you're the two guys involved in this debate, either Sunnistudent himself should have cited the relevant passage, of if you are interested you should do some research on what he is talking about and hopefully enlighten others as well.

    but i do agree, this has become a groupie browbeating contest for a lot of reasons, right or wrong.

    can you reference my lecture on Sunni unity?

    bring what up?

    the fight between Sunnistudent and abu Hasan is their business. i wasn't interfering in it.

    if you're talking about the fatwa by Muti3ur Rehman sab, then you guys as mods need to issue guidelines on what can and can't be posted or linked, and in which months of the year.

    in any case i gave you my very honest appraisal of the issue in that main ubk thread, in that same post #395. summarily, ulema of both sides can engage in sophistry and word play in fiqh till the cows come home. let both sides show clearly how ubk is or isn't like tahir.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  14. AbdalQadir

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

    i could say more too, and will, but in private.
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    debate? there's no debate going on.

    All i see is ss's desperate attempts to retain readers of that pathetic blog he or his likes run. He doesn't mind supporting kufr and downplaying it's enormity by engaging in wordplay and un-apologetically nonsensical blabber. He's least bothered about anything else so long as he gets to vent his deep seated animosity toward ulema-e-haqq. He just wants to prove that anyone supportive of any aalim who supports bareilly shareef is a jahil and not worthy of attention. In doing so he is exposing no one but himself.

    you yourself have been copy-pasting stuff from that flea-ridden blog even before the irfan-mazhab-o-maslak thread. to what end I do not know. you even copy-pasted mut'ur raHman sahibs description from there - creating an aura of greatness around his name- then you say haven't read it!

    and have you forgotten that you were egging abu Hamza on when he called inquisitive a 'modern day khariji'?

    after-all this you have the nerve to lecture us on sunni-unity and what not.

    I also take strong exception to your sarcasm against aH calling him a 'super-faqih'. He is one of the few people writing for authentic sunniyat in the english language and as such deserves respect (irrespective of what he thinks of himself). He has criticized me too but I don't remember answering back in such a disrespectful manner. you could have explained your position politely.

    as I said a lot could be said. you shouldn't have brought this up during ramadan.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    reminded me of this:

    sorry to say but you simply do not have the moral high ground to make such statements

    a lot has been said already and more could be said.

  17. AbdalQadir

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

    for the record, i was genuinely following the debate between SS and aH without any bias or desire to interfere, albeit with the hope that the cited evidences or terms or the purported quotes become clear. hence i requested wadood to translate that persian page and not one of them. i dunno if aH is being sarcastic there or not, but he doesn't have any right to guess on my intentions (other thread, and perhaps this too), that i have stated clearly now.
  18. AbdalQadir

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

    come on brother. no need to get flustered at me. i don't need to prove my bipartisanship to you or anyone but lately i haven't had the time to listen to speeches or watch videos any longer than a mere 3 or 4 minutes, for the last few months.

    if you see the main thread, based on your or unbeknown's transcription of the said speech, i have said that it seems obaid is just like tahir. furthermore, i was the one who started that thread on obaid's bio and stated unequivocally that for me tahir is the benchmark of perennialist filth and i would like to see how he compares to tahir.

    if you see the main thread, regarding murshid ansari's first article that i posted and did read properly, i stated that it's typical UP-bihar style bhaiyyagiri.

    you probably forgot to notice all that!!!

    yeah i have posted miscellany that doesn't require an analysis or serious thought or contemplation. what does that have to do with anything fiqh.

    give me an example of where i have been involved in the debate ever since i posted my stance, both on my feedback thread or the main thread.

    you're wrong in your assumption.

    i do read the posts on the forums, and in the same manner that i read other casual stuff. but any serious book or something from a real or perceived REAL LIFE mawlana (on any side), i want to read it more seriously with proper concentration.

    i wasn't bolstering his position, but hoping that he would explain the fiqh points he is presenting better, and since you too are a super faqih, at least you'd have a friendly nudge. there was no other aim behind it other than the fiqh details of the matter coming to light, be it by you or Sunnistudent.

    it wasn't involvement in the debate, it was spectating it.

    and i don't play tag team either, on the forum or off of it. i told you before too, i only go by what you see is what you get. you are welcome to think i don't have a mind of my own and am a blind sheep.

    no it is their own irresponsible behavior and attitude in dealing with the issue, nothing to do with my alleged partisanship.

    other than that, suffice it to say, that for me this whole thing is a damn mess and a major disappointment from all sides, pro and anti scholars, as well as forum members, including you and sunnistudent, for a lot of reasons that i would rather talk about on PM.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    why not? don't tell me you don't have time - you have posted links from news sources and iqtibasaat and opinionaat and lengthy clarificatinaat/defensaat of your own posts since that time. why don't you listen to it? and if indeed, your excuse is genuine, then the prudent thing for you, is to keep away from the debate and not get involved at all.*

    are you reading SS posts? if so, then your silence is abnormal - at any rate, unlike your voluble self. notwithstanding SS' filibuster, the fact remains that UBK's speech is thousand times worse than nazim qubrusi's brown-nosing to the pope.

    update: it just occurred to me that you are certainly reading SS posts; and you deem him to be some super-faqih, because you resorted to google to find out the terms "kufr fiqhi" and "kufr kalami" but didn't have the heart to even nudge SS to reply. i may be wrong in such an assumption, but it appeared as if you were trying to bolster the positions and claims made by SS. and posting the fawatiH al-raHmut is of what use? if i wanted to do the same, i can post links - nay full pages and passages - from scores of books of uSul. but i am not interested in winning a browbeating contest on an internet forum.

    SS posted a reference from FR, old-edition and has avoided to give at least the chapter name or some direction to find the fatawa in the new-ed. but the truth came out later that he does not have access to it. is this the way of sincere folk who are sincerely seeking truth. and on top of this, *I* am playing games. sub'HanAllah.

    strangely, mawlana yasin akhtar has gone silent [or has he?]. perhaps he doesn't know anything - maybe, sometime soon, he will pen an eloquent analysis as a companion piece to "irfan e maz'hab o maslak".

    note to unbeknown:
    thanks for the relevant clips. helps in the perspective.
    as if SS reads your post - or if he reads, as if he understands the implication! his needle is stuck on one groove and is not moving further.

    *frankly, i think you are in a dilemma. you seem to have some antipathy toward mawlana zia'ul mustafa and bareilly ulama for whatever reason. and in this case, even though you may agree with them (as you cited the arab-sunni scholar fatwa and reiterated that as your stand) on this particular issue, the latent partisan feelings stop you from coming all out on this issue.

    as for myself, i reviewed the irfan e maz'hab o maslak, and found nothing wrong with it, as i have said earlier and instantly made some enemies. interestingly, many of those who were refuting it, were making silly and illogical arguments, including personal attacks on the author at that time; this time round, it is a role reversal!

    i am reminded of this hadith in sahih muslim (#1850)
    muslim, 1850.jpg

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    it's post#19 from the original thread.

    btw, the link's working fine in my browser. I'd double-checked before posting. perhaps your account settings (oldest post first) are messing things up.

Share This Page