Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by inquisitive, Jul 22, 2015.
alice in wonderland....
so not only did ubaid azmi help morari in his image re-building by attending his 2013 'function', praised him on the stage in ashrafiya and in his istifta by calling him 'insaniyat pasand'. His kufr appears to be a punishment for these blatantly anti-mulsim crimes.
The 'muftis' who have left no stone unturned in supporting this hypocrite will have to answer for a lot.
Abu Hasan writes ( For details see post 34, this thread)
As per Abu Hasan the general situation of Muslims in India is not safe. They live in an environment of fear and terror.
Abu Hasan writes ( post 23, main thread)
O Abu Hasan,how do you know he is lying? Did you ask him? Obaidullah wanted to meet him but he couldn't. During 2002 when Morari was trying to control Hindu mob by organizing some function,Obaidullah landed up in that city. Morari is a Mushrik, no doubt in that. But with in Mushriks, there were some who were opposed to killing Muslims. The local Muslims asked Obaidullah to join this function so that Muslims whose life, honor and property were being damaged, could send some positive signal to their killers.
What happened with the Muslims of Gujrat in 2002 can be read here:
You need to prove that he is lying. Can you? No, you can't, because , later you said ( post 82, main thread)
Do you see how you contradict yourself? Kisi musalman ko kafir banane ka shauq itna badh gaya hai?
Remember , this has nothing to do with Nagpuri fatwa, because the ifta does not mention these details and the Mufti sahibaan did not think it was necessary to ask anything!
In sha Alla ,later
Engineer ..... head in a farcical spin it is. Probably from dementia related to fitna blog he runs with cronies of new Nizamuddeen sect.
The main thread concerning Obaidullah Khan Azmi was started on 25 March 2015.The thread can be followed here:
The first post in this thread contains fatwa by Mufti Nizamuddin Rizvi sahab . The istifta sent to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab contains the Nagpuri Fatwa and the fatwa is sought on the Nagpuri fatwa along with other issues.
Nagpuri fatwa says:
"...lehaza aisa shakhs daire Islam se baahar hai, is per tauba, tajdeed e iman aur agar biwi rakhta ho to tajdeed e nikah fard hai....."
The English translation would be :
" ..... hence such an individual is outside the fold of Islam. It is fard upon him to do tauba ( repent), do tajdeed e iman and if he has a wife, to do tajdeed e nikah"
With in a few minutes after the first post was made, another post was made , which contained audio recording of Obaidullah Khan's speech, as said by the person who uploaded it. Fine
With in minutes after this audio recording was uploaded , Mufti Abu Hasan of Sunni port said ( post 15, main thread)
This is another classic from our brother Abu Hasan!!
With in minutes,our Mufti Abu Hasan sahab was able to full fill and cross check all the requirement laid down in the books of fiqh for issuing a fatwa of takfir and after this he issued his fatwa!Observe the last part of his statement!
So as per Abu Hasan Nagpuri Fatwa is correct. Fine. But, O Abu Hasan did you read Nagpuri fatwa ? Did you read this part of the Nagpuri fatwa
(" ..... hence such as individual is outside the fold of Islam....)
If you really read this part, then why did you not mention this in your "thinking"?
This is the highest level of "Muftipan"!
As per Abu Hasan, the fatwa is correct. The fatwa says the person is outside the fold of Islam. Abu Hasan leaves this part and says "Obaidullah Should do tawba and tajdeed iman".
This is enough to show the level of knowledge Abu Hasan in the field of fiqh.
O Abu Hasan, do you even realize that if it was only to do tauba, tajdeed iman and tajdeed nikah" then there was no issue! Because this is for Kufr Fiqhi and Obaidullah did it in front of thousands of scholars, students. This incidence has been published in book as well!
But Abu Hasan, do you understand the part of Nagpuri Fatwa which says" hence such as individual is outside the fold of Islam..."
Do you realize it, is kufr e kalami ?
Now in the next few pots I will again show the methodology of Ala Hazrat and compare with methodology of Nagpuri scholars and Abu Hasan.
Two important point for Abu Hasan.
1) You can see, you have agreed to Nagpuri fatwa on 25 March 2015, when I did not even join this discussion. So, you have to and you must prove your claim in the light of methodology of Ala Hazrat.
A gentle request/ reminder.
Unless you do this , I will not answer any of your question now. Please note. If you do not like this, you can ban me. But I will keep asking you for your evidence and won't answer any of your question.
2) While proving your point you have to take into consideration the "maslak of Ala Hazrat" whose one point , in the filed of takfir is :
In sha Allah, other requirements and conditions will be discussed later.
Please note, unless you prove this, I won't answer any of your questions.
Abu Hasan writes in his book " Minhaji Fata Morgana" ( MFM) ,p 42 ( internet)
On the same page Abu Hasan gives the reference for the above statement as :
So it is present in Fatawa Ridawiyah, Vol 21, p.186. Fine. I have attached this page with the relevant part highlighted in red. It contains original Arabic along with Urdu translation.
The Arabic part is: من استحسن فعلا من افعال الكفاركفرباتفاق المشاءخ
And the Urdu translation of the above Arabic text is : Jis shakhs ne kafiron ke kisi kaam ko achha samjha to wah ba ittafaq mashaykh kafir ho gaya.
The English Translation ( By Abu Hasan) of the above Arabic text is :
Whosoever considers any [religious] action of the disbelievers as commendable has committed kufr, as agreed by all scholars.
First Question: Which is the correct translation and which one do you accept?
a) has committed kufr ( kafar- Arabic)
b) has become a kafir. ( Kafir ho gaya- Urdu)
Second Question: Do you say that committing an act of Kufr makes a man 'kafir"? Yes or No
Third Question : Abu Hasan, will you tell me ,some day, why have you added "religious" with in brackets from your side? It is not present in Arabic or Urdu text , then why have you added this? Just tell me Abu Hasan!!! But, wait!! I know and understand why have you added that word 'religious'. But I want some of the "internet based mujtahids, to think over it!!!
Let us now analyse this .
Word to word translation :
Whosoever considers any action of the disbelievers as commendable has committed kufr, as agreed by all scholars.
Let us list some of the action of the disbelievers. Observe it says" any action".
1. A Kafir in Varanasi gets up early morning and goes for a long walk.
2. A Kafir in Syria eats beef daily.
3. A Kafir in Mozambique climbs on a tree everyday.
Suppose a Muslim considers all of the above actions commendable. Will it be said that this Muslim has committed Kufr? Yes or No?
And what about this!
Sachin tendulakr is a great batsman.
Hatim Tai used to help poor and needy.
Rustam was a great wrestler.
And what will we do with so many Arabic poets who were kafir and their works are being taught in madaris even now! Their Arabic literary skills are praised by the Muslim scholars. What do we do now, O Abu Hasan?
Suppose a prompt reply comes that these 'actions' are 'general actions' ,which are done by even Muslims, so it cannot be called as ' kufr".
So what is the meaning?
Another reply comes: One will said to have committed an act of 'kufr", if he considers any 'religious' action of the disbelievers as commendable.
( Observe this: Had it been black and white, you would not have added "religious". Since fiqh is implied , you added " religious", though it is not in the original text)
So let us say people agree to the translation provided by Abu Hasan. Now let us see what is Abu Hasan's translation.
Abu Hasan's translation:
Whosoever considers any [religious] action of the disbelievers as commendable has committed kufr, as agreed by all scholars.
Now let us list some of the 'religious' action of the disbelievers.
1.Helping poor and needy is a religious action in Hinduism .
2 Giving charity is a religious action in Hinduism.
3.Helping orphans is a religious action in Christianity.
4.Protecting modesty and chastity of a woman is a religious action in Sikhism.
5. Speaking truth is a religious action in Jainism.
6. Stopping and suppressing evil is a religious action in Hinduism. etc , etc
These teachings are present in either their books or in the explanations/commentary of the basic books.
What now, O Abu Hasan? Now if a Muslim considers the above mentioned " religious action" of the disbelievers as " commendable" will he be said to have committed " an act of kufr" ? And suppose these actions are performed by the biggest kafir on the earth, if the kafir is praised , not because of his kufr, but because of these " religious" action, will it not be a "bigger kufr"? Tell me Yes or No and the reason for your answer.
And why not? The first kufr being considering" religious action" of disbelievers as commendable and the second kufr being praising the biggest kafir, but not because of his kufr but because of the above mentioned " religious actions"!
Suppose now another reply comes . By actions, it is meant those " religious actions which are specific to that religion or is a hall mark of that religion and / or is against Islam. " And much more can be added to this.
In sha Allah will add some other time.
O Abu Hasan, I do not want you to answer any of the questions which I am asking in this thread.
But you will have to answer just one question. And in fact it is not a question. It is a proof you need to bring to support your claim.
In the main thread, with in a few hours after the fatwa was uploaded, concerning Nagpuri fatwa you said , you 'think" the fatwa is correct. Just prove that and nothing else. But remember we are following methodology of Ala Hazrat.
Concerning Baharaichi fatwa ,I wrote ( 4, this thread)
In reply to this Abu Hasan says ( 41 this thread)
Since I mentioned addition of "irtidad" Abu Hasan noticed it. And because I didn't mention, clearly the blunder in this Baharaichi fatwa, Abu Hasan could not pin point it!
O Abu Hasan, Observe! This is the complete statement in Baharaichi fatwa ( p 3) which I am presenting in Roman Urdu. Please notice the highlighted words
" ..Aur kutub fiqh wa fatawa mein musarrah hai ki kuffar ke devtaon ko izzat dena aur un ke liye ayse kalamaat istemaal karna jin se in ka aijaaz zaahir ho sareeh kufr wa irtadaad hai, jaisa ki fatwa ridawiya mutarjim jild 14 safah 625 mein hain “kuffar ke mazhabi jazbaat aur un ke devtaon aur peshvaon ko izzat dena sarih kalma e kufr hai”.
Abu Hasan, do you observe how this Baharaichi Mufti Sahab has either not understood the concept or has deliberately attributed something wrong to Ala hazrat. After writing his view( which cannnnot be found in any book on this planet) he continues with “ jaisa ki” and then quotes Ala Hazrat’s statement!
I have already mentioned the difference , when fuqaha use the word “ sarih kalma e kufr” and “kufr wa irtadad”, they have different meaning.
In short, for fuqaha:
Sarih kalma e kufr IS NOT EQUAL to “kufr wa irtadad”.
Since both usage has different ruling with regard to "iman " Islam" and " nikah" , they are in black and white.
Bahariachi Mufti sahab uses “ kufr wa irtadad” and then he says “jaisa ki” and then quotes Ala hazrat’s statements which has “ sarih kalam e kufr hai”
I repeat what I said earlier
Now we ask this Mufti sahab to give reference from just one book for the quote. Only one book on this planet.
( I have removed Abu Hasan because he made it clear earlier, he has not read the fatwa and/or does not agree to everything in it. Something of that meaning)
Interesting thing to Notice: Abu Hasan who was the first to propagate Obaidullah Khan Azmi as Kafir, by name ( even Nagpuri Fatwa didn't do that!) right in the beginning of the main thread, with in hours after the fatwa was posted, is now reluctant to even talk about it! But I won't leave him. He will ask every relevant and irrelevant question related with my post ,but when asked to prove his stance, will quietly ignore it or come back with questions. When required I will support my claim with Abu hasan's posts dating 5 years old and more. In sha Allah more to come.
I wrote ( 19, this thread)
This makes it very clear that when I compiled my answers to the questions raised by Abu Hasan, I Used old edition.
Then I wrote ( 36, this thread)
Since Abu Hasan has used scans and reference from New Edition and I only shared the scans which he had posted, so it is clear that why new edition was used . The New edition, which Abu Hasan has used for his books like MFM, TKM etc, has translation.
Now I will share the scan used by Abu Hasan , which is incomplete along with the complete scan of that page. I will discuss this in future, In sha Allah.
but, reading your posts i feel that from head to toe you are only tongue.
what is your history
i will stick to my resolution of not getting involved in the 'discussion' with SS. however, i find a few things intriguing:
why is fiqh "black and white" here?
surely, if one commits sareeH kufr, it is deemed irtidad, isn't it? within the context of this quote, in this fatwa from bahraich that is cited by SS, i don't see any harm in the additional "irtidad" IF the word "sareeH kufr" is justified. [please note, that until now, i have not accepted SS allegations concerning this fatwa]
Allah ta'ala knows best.
i shouldn't be interrupting the flow in full force, but a small question: did alahazrat translate the ghamz al-uyun passage in his fatawa? SS should know because, he references the old edition sans translation.
@ss brother with every new post your arguments are getting sillier. please don't waste precious hours of ramdan like this. we have seen such posts plastered all across wahhabi/deobandi forums and can tell them from a mile.
incorrect translation. deliberate or due to spleepiness I don't know but makes a BIG difference. since you are so learned please correct it or we will consider it intentional misdirection on your part.
finally, the elusive 'teHseen' gets translated. big sense of anti-climax.
teHseen = likes/improves/enhances/enriches? which dictionary do you use brother?
see even in your translations you are following the path of the two fatwas before - changing the meaning of alahzrat's words to suit your purpose - that of defending a ram-praiser. sigh.
without sounding like a pretentious, love-all arbitrator - i just want to take the liberty to address any deobandi opportunists or rafidi idiots from yanobody reading this thread. we may argue internally within ourselves, but at the end of the day we (and both these brothers) are following our elders of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Ala Hazrat's, and the Ahlus Sunnah elders' methodology is this:
1. we will go to the maximum extent possible to look for the faintest hint of Islam in a person
2. if there is no excuse of Islam left, we will not hesitate to pronounce heresy or takfeer of even those who were formerly our colleagues or associates or brothers or even fathers
we are still one against the heretics like deobandis, wahabis, shias, tafdilis, and sulah kulli perennialists (this dispute between these two brothers is about establishing if obaid really is a sulah kulli perennialist or not in light of the methodology of the Ahlus Sunnah)
Another post of Abu Hasan which shows his expertise in Fiqh!
Abul Hasan writes: ( 33, main thread)
After this Abu Hasan posts a scan fatwa from Fatwa Ridawiya. The scans can be seen attached with this post. Abul Hasan has scanned only a part of the answer, But I have translated complete thing, so that no doubt remains.
The istifta which was sent from Gujarat is concerning a Muslim educational conference in which the members of education committee had an agreement with Hindus. One of the points of agreement was :
" Hum Hamare mulki biradaron ke jazbaat aur unke devta ki baton ko , inke peshwaon ko izzat detay hain. Wah bhee aisee hee izzat hamari taraf rakhein,aisee bhee ummeed rakhtey hain"
[We give respect to the feelings of our fellow countrymen, the teachings of their deities and elders. It is hoped that they too will have similar respect towards us.]
In reply Ala Hazrat writes ( I am not quoting ayat of Quran Sharif quoted by Ala Hazrat):
..... kuffar ke mazhabi jazbaat aur unke devtaaon aur peshwaon ko izzat dena sarih kalma e kufr hai
( to give respect to the religious feeling of kuffar and to give respect to their deities and elders is sarih kalma e kufr)
Ala Hazrat writes further
"In ke devtaon aur peshwaon aur mazhabi jazbaat ka aijaz darkinar jo inke kisi fael ki tahseen hi kare ba ittafaq aimma kafir hai "
[ Forget about honoring their deities and elders and their religious feeling, if some one likes/improves/enhances/enriches any of their action, then by the consensus of the scholar he is a kafir]
Ala Hazrat writes further:
It is written in Ghamz al Uyoon
" jis ne kisi kafir ke amal ko achha gumaan kiya wah bil ittifaq mashaykh kafir hai"
[ The one who considers any action of a kafir to be good, then by the consensus of the mashaykh, he is a kafir]
Ala Hazrat writes :
' In logon per farz hai ki aisee bataon se tauba karein, tajdeed e islam karein, tajdeed e nikah karein"
[ It is fard on these people that they do tauba ( repent) from such things, do tajdeed e islam and do tajdeed e nikah]
As per Abul Hasan
Sleepy now. In sha Allah, tomorrow or day after tomorrow when I come back from work, I will show the expertise of calling this fatwa as " fits obaid azmi like a glove" by Abu Hasan and his expertise.
Meanwhile, Abu Hasan will tell me , why did Ala Hazrat include " mazhabi jazbaat' ( religious feeling) in his answer, when the questioner said" mulki biradaron ke jazbaat" ( the feelings of our fellow countrymen).
All Abu Hasan has to do is , ponder, why did Ala Hazrat, include that from his side? You see, everything is not " black and white"! Fiqh is implied! And to understand Ala Hazrat one has to study his books under a sunni scholar, not making fun of them.
Time to him give. The Engineer (SS) at work he is. Surfacing, revealing himself he has.
In Bihar some Muslims donated land for a Hindu temple. They did not give money, but land. The temple so constructed on that land will become a headquarters of shirk and kufr. This was discussed here
Mufti Abu Hasan writes:
This is yet another classic from our forum based Mufti!
In some remote cases Muslims are compelled to give chanda ( money) for Hindu festivals like Dushera, Ganesha etc to local Hindu goons. But this is not a common occurrence in India. However, Muslims being asked to " donate" land, even forcefully is not heard off, even once. And suppose , we get some case of this 'land donation" as well, then how will that case be utilized for legitimizing the case of Bihar? Suppose such a case is found in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, then based on which principle will that be used for the northern state of Bihar? Observe how Abu Hasan says" hence the action".
In this case, based on his experience , Abu Hasan is giving tawil to the actions of those who donated land. He is taking historical context into consideration and also the" situational and circumstantial" reason for this act.
This is one of the prerequisite of issuing fatwa, especially in the matters of takfir.
Ala Hazrat writes:
Many a times context , circumstances and the earlier said things, decide the ruling on a matter ( Al Motamad, p 157)
But you see, the Nagpuri fatwa based on the istifta sent by some Abdullah, does not mention complete speech and the circumstances under which it was said! So this is our Mufti Abu Hasan. Two different policies !!
More from Abu Hasan!
Abu Hasan writes : ( 21 main post)
I am sure by ' those' Abu Hasan does not mean some tom and harry because they are not certified to issue a fatwa, more so on takfir. So by"those" Abu Hasan means " scholars". Fine. Also, it is clear by 'Khan" Abu Hasan means " Obaidullah Khan" whose case is being discussed.
Now Abu Hasan should bring one fatwa which was issued before the date on which Abu Hasan made this post, in which Obaidullah Khan was specifically , with name was called kafir.
This should not be difficult for Abu Hasan and if he cannot get this , then tell me O Abu Hasan, why should I not believe that you are using this forum to spread your thoughts, views and desire and not the truth? Just tell me!
that last statement quoted above is a fancy spin of ram-praiser-defenders. so don't expect us to swallow it.
ss, with due respect, do you take us for fools or what? you are simply wasting your time. if you don't have something substantial to add please wrap up this discourse. you can add as many exclamations as you like and keep your caps locked but that won't change fiction to facts.
Abu Hasan writes [ MFM, Internet)
Observer " religious" with in brackets and then read the statement without " religious" and ponder over the difference in ruling!
Abu Hasan writes [ MFM ,Internet]
Observer: On account of his religion.
If some traits which are considered good by Muslims, if that trait is praised, it will not be a kufr. O Abu Hasan, don't you know this?
In sha Allah, Abu Hasan's writings from his books and posts will be presented to show his coherence.
Since Abu Hasan has started making fun of Sunni scholars. Let me remind him one thing and elucidate on it.
Showing disrespect to scholars of religion is Kufr. [ See Bazaziya and Ghamz uyoon)
Can I use this fatwa and start calling everyone who shows disrespect/makes fun to (sunni) scholars as Kafir? No I can't !
Because it is written in its explanation that this will be "kufr" only if the scholar is disrespected /made fun of because of "his ilm".!
That is, if some scholar who has some bad habits, such as backbiting, dividing muslims by politics etc, if he is disrespected then it will not be "kufr"! Similarly it is written 'showing disrespect to a Muaddhin is kufr. Again, this is kufr, only if the Muaddhin is disrespected just because of his giving adhan, not for other reasons. Is it so difficult, Abu Hasan??
Another mastery of Abu Hasan. He writes [ post 21 main thread]
This is classic Abu Hasan!! If some one perceives something as 'kufr" the doer of that "kufr' action will be called Kafir, as per Abu Hasan!!
Ala Hazrat writes :
" There is a difference between luzoom and iltizaam. The words/ statements can be " kalma e kufr" and to say ' Kafir" to the one who spoke that words, is another thing. We will take precautions as long as we get even the weakest( daeef sa daeef) possibility/ condition ( ihtamaal) and will be scared to issue to issue the order( hukm) of "kufr" ( Salla's Suyuf al-Hindiya, p 22)
Hope you understand that " daeef se daeef ihtamaal" is a clear indication of tawil ba'eed.
O Abu Hasan, those who are not following the methodology of Ala Hazrat are indeed on the wrong path! Just observe his methodology and compare it with Nagpuri methodology and ruling!! Don't you realize the difference between a statement being kufr and the one who spoke that statement is called " Kafir"?
Explaining "Lazoom" Ala Hazrat writes:
..and the true finding ( tahqeeq) is that it is NOT kufr. It is biddah, and gumraahi wa dalaalat wa gumraahi.
More from Abu Hasan!
Mufti Mutiurrehman Rizvi sahab quotes Obaidullah Khan ( see his fatwa p 11). He quotes: ( Abu Hasan 379 main thread)
After this Mufti Mutiurrehman Rizvi sahab writes:
" jo intellectual hinduon ka musallama hai" ( That Ram returned hate with love is agreed by the intellectual class of Hindus).
Abul Hasan writes :
Showing his ignorance, Abu Hasan adds :
This is not Mufti Mutiurrehman Rizvis Tawil, but this is understood by Abu Hasan of Sunniport!!
Abu Hasan, have you read books of munazara and logic? Though you call this " logic" of ( mufti) mutiurrehman!!
O Abu Hasan, the meaning of this argument is that since the intellectual class of Hindus consider Ram to be a man who returned hated with love, THEN WHY DO YOU HINDUS ARE INSTIGATING ( starting first) HATE AND BLOODSHED FROM YOUR OWN SIDE FIRST! BECAUSE THIS IS MORE NEGATIVE THAN RETURNING HATRED WITH HATRED and your Ram returned hatred with love .
Abu Hasan's doesn't understand how a counterargument is made . But that is not a problem. The problem is that he uses his understanding to make it an understanding / tawil of mufti mutiurrehman rizvi sahab.!
In sha Allah, later