mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

inquisitive said:
he called Khomeini as 'Nayib-e-Payghambaran'
Click to expand...
compared to ram-bhakti, it is like a drop of wine wilfully dropped in a glass of water - before proceeding for salat.*

---
inquisitive said:
he harshest parts of his Fatwa were when he described Obaids actions as "Forget Kufr, not even Haram. In fact, praise-worthy" and then he went on to label those who ruled him as Kafir as apostates themselves.
Click to expand...
which is a grossly misunderstood concept and i mentioned imam ghazali and nawawi's opinion in TKM. there is another furu' here.

those who called khan kafir, said so based on what they perceived as kufr - and praise of gods of kuffar (that is, those they call as gods; la ilaaha illa Allah). even if they are mistaken, they cannot take the ruling of "rebounded kufr".

many people mistake this with alahazrat's explanation concerning wahabi/ismayil-dihlawii making takfir. because, ismayil termed such things which are proven by qur'an and sunnah as kufr, (such as tawassul and shafa'ah) he risks the "rebounding of kufr".

but in case of obaidullah khan, it is about kufr and kafirs; so hypothetically, if he still escapes the ruling of kufr, those who ruled him kafir cannot be ruled apostates. because they did so based on their good-faith and support of islam. if it is a roulette (either you or i) then no one can be ruled kafir!

Allah ta'ala knows best.



----
*this is because of the mistaken analogy given by obaid and others; unlike alahazrat's example for khalil ambhatti's quoting shaykh abdul haq.
 
see photos: here and here. Not embedding them for obvious reasons. besides these there are others which have appeared in local hindi newspapers.

I cant believe that ashrafiya is now officially permitting people to attend speeches of a politician such as this (provided the fatwa is authentic in its entirety). What's the need for his speeches, have all the authentic sunni ulema taken up reclusion?

All the while I was reading it I was anticipating atleast a harsh reprimand to uka asking him to desist from such speeches and do tawba as a precaution. But it never came.

Our institutions are facing a crisis of courage. Tahir jhangvi comes to India and most of the sunni scholars are silent. Khushtar noorani interviews him and even publishes it yet they are silent.

UKA brings the actress jaya-prada right into ashrafiya, scholars quickly vacate the scene but no one stops him. He takes the actress to the mazar of Hafidh-e-Millat and still there is silence. And then a fatwa emerges with quite a list of signatories which says there's no harm in attending his speeches!

--------------

"you say you follow ram. as per your ideology, ram stood for truth and honesty and peace. where's your truth and honesty and peace?". of course these are my words and Obaidullah said it more diplomatically.
Click to expand...

no he didn't say it at all. I haven't listened to the audio clip either yet even in the part that he himself has quoted in the istifta all he comes across as saying is:

"ram stood for truth and honesty and peace. where's your truth and honesty and peace?"

-------------

where is the walwalah and josh for shariah that was a hallmark of ulema even as late as the times of Mufti-e-Azam? and that's just yesterday!

one scholar told me that there are scores of tahir jhangvis in india who are lying low and biding their time, just waiting for the senior scholars to be taken away, then we will hear such things being said from the pulpits that none of us would ever had thought possible.

I see that the ball's begun rolling already..........
 
inquisitive said:
were when he described Obaids actions as "Forget Kufr, not even Haram. In fact, praise-worthy"
Click to expand...
giving him husn-e-zann: he was misled by obaid's plea that "he was insisting on our jihad in their midst.."

to be honest, though i felt that it was a stretch, but given the principle of attempting to find an excuse to absolve a muslim of kufr, i thought the fatwa of mufti nizam sahib to be passable BASED on obaid's istifta. thanks for posting the original clip, as it puts things in perspective and in context - and removes the ilal on which mufti nizam's fatwa is based.

---
1. obaid went to a ram katha - hindu gathering wilfully. though he gives the background as being insisted upon by muslims of gujrat who were besieged by hindus and the backdrop of riots in which muslims were killed and looted. but obaid is lying - he says that he was looking forward for this meeting with morari bapu since 90s!

2. his words were in praise of ram - his OWN words, not just citation (as he tries to throw in iqbal) but HE insists that it is his belief and as HE understand and HE knows ram.

3. terming the mythical fight of ram's with ravan as 'jihad'

4. praising morari bapu and gloating over it. dragging even the begum and that she is an avid follower of ram-katha. alas! begum sahibah should be advised to watch madani channel instead...

Allah ta'ala knows best.
 
Abu Hasan, I don't think you are aware of what is happening in India. If this was a one off case, it would be excusable but this is a recurring thing. I know for certain that Mufti Nizam has heard the entire speech of obaidullah.

The problem isn't with the Husn e Zann, the problem is protecting Kufr. Husn e Zann would give Obaid a way out. This Husn e Zann has lead Mufti Nizam freeing him from Kufr and praising him for his statements.
 
Abu Hasan, what should be the next steps taken? How can this issue be resolved? What questions should be asked to both sides?
 
abu Hasan said:
those who called khan kafir, said so based on what they perceived as kufr - and praise of gods of kuffar (that is, those they call as gods; la ilaaha illa Allah). even if they are mistaken, they cannot take the ruling of "rebounded kufr".

many people mistake this with alahazrat's explanation concerning wahabi/ismayil-dihlawii making takfir. because, ismayil termed such things which are proven by qur'an and sunnah as kufr, (such as tawassul and shafa'ah) he risks the "rebounding of kufr".

but in case of obaidullah khan, it is about kufr and kafirs; so hypothetically, if he still escapes the ruling of kufr, those who ruled him kafir cannot be ruled apostates. because they did so based on their good-faith and support of islam. if it is a roulette (either you or i) then no one can be ruled kafir!
Click to expand...

one of the little things which make a big difference.

I used to live in mortal fear:

a. of calling someone who uttered blatant kufr/blasphemy as kafir and taking the hukm of 'rebounded kufr' on the one hand and

b. of considering a kafir to be muslim and thereby falling into kufr myself on the other hand

that was until sidi abu Hasan clarified the correct meaning of the hadith in TKM and in reply to my follow-up questions based on it's first two chapters.

barakAllahu feek

wassalaam.
 
i hope and pray that ashrafiyyah ulama have not stepped into it due to some recent fatwa disputes with other sunni ulama, it looks af if they are becoming secular. May Allah guide us all. mufti nizam sahab should clearly state whether he has listened to uka's speech in full or not? whether he gave fatwa only on the part quoted by uka or not? and what stopped him asking uka to provide original speech?

i have seen mufti sahab's books which i admire and have added to my scribd space, but this fatwa is really awful.
 
obaidullah also says to the hindus

"mein ne ap ki dua se 42 mulkon ka daura kiya hai"

in the end again he says

"ap ki duaon ke sath rukhsath hota hun"

---

i agree that the audio speech is appalling, and this guy's nothing other than a tahir.

i think both Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab and Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab should be placed in a corner in regards to ruling on this guy - in public gatherings they should be made to listen to his speeches (in entirety) and they should be queried SPECIFICALLY ON THIS GUY.

to indict the hindus according to their own ideology
Click to expand...

i take back my words unconditionally. from his manner and tone and the context (of the audio), it doesn't look like he was there to indict the hindus, but rather for brown nosing.

---

again, our 3ulema should be problem SOLVERS, not problem announcers or worse yet problem makers!
 
Last edited:
AbdalQadir said:
if someone can find the quoted text in its correct locationin Fatawa Ridawiyya, please bring it forward.
Click to expand...

the attribution to fatawa ridawiyyah is correct. but mufti nizamuddin sahib has either not checked it, or else he is using a heela for his statement. because, indeed, that mentioned in fatwa #1 does not exist on the referenced page IN THOSE EXACT WORDS.

however, the citation is reasonably accurate in conveying the meaning of the fatwa. lo, here is the snippet from the very page referenced: vol.14/p.625

fr14-625.jpg
 
title should be changed to 'siraj al-fuqaha''s ghalat fatwa', i hope that mufti sahab will retract and will not make it an issue of ego/self respect. ashrafyah is a big institute, and we don't want to see it turn into another minhaji camp.
 
interestingly, alahazrat's fatwa and the istifta was related to some program in gujrat in 1916!

---

the first fatwa (in the UBK case) is not very clear, though it cites FR. but alahazrat's fatwa is apt and fits obaid azmi like a glove. here is the fatwa in full.

fr14-625a.jpg


fr14-625b.jpg



fr14-625c.jpg
 
Last edited:
I quote uka:

Astaghferullah alAzeem

"us azeem naam ko lete hee"

"Raam naam hai ....... jis ke zariye logon ko sukoon milta hai"

"saari dunya ka mazhab aap ko chaahiye to hindustan aaiye"

Astaghferullah alAzeem

I am sure mufti sahab did not hear these too.
 
abu Hasan said:
mufti sahib didn't notice it perhaps
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But why didn't the verifying signatories notice it?

My teacher said wonderfully - 'Think twice before issuing a fatwa but think 10 times before signing someone elses! Why put yourself in deep water for someone elses mistake?'
 
abu Hasan said:
or else he is using a heela for his statement.
Click to expand...

in my defense, i had quickly only checked the typed pdf FR (assuming the page numbers would tally with the printed version), and the citation doesn't exist on pg 625, but rather pg 626

FR Vol 14 Pg 625.jpg
FR Vol 14 Pg 626.jpg
 
@inquisitive - I dont respond to personal jives, if you find the fatwa contentious then you should by all means approach him, from what you've posted (also abu Hassan), it does look as if a few CRITICAL things have been overlooked.

Allah safeguard our Imaan
 
inquisitive said:
Perhaps. But why didn't the verifying signatories notice it?
Click to expand...
i looked at it again - 'azeem naam' could be interpreted as referring to jihad.

even though he says in the next breath that 'he takes sri ram's name only by his* tongue and does not adapt it in his actions..."



------------------
* i know. i know.
 
abu Hasan said:
but the "azeem naam" part is transcribed by UBK himself. mufti sahib didn't notice it perhaps...

inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.
Click to expand...

YES, it is in the question posed by UBK too. then, it is all the more lamentable to note the "proficiency / quality" of the "Siraj" at the noble task of giving Fatawa.

but I have a hunch; UBK - being the sly politician he is - may have spoken to the "Siraj", ensuring a fatwa in his favor, and then provided the question.

inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

if only someone could remind the "Siraj" about the following Hadeeth!

The Holy Prophet said, “When a wicked person (faasiq*) is praised, it angers Allah Almighty, causing the Throne to tremble.”

(that includes "raam" and UBK")
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top