mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

Aqib alQadri said:
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.
Click to expand...

that is exactly how I felt. it sounds as if uka himself dictated certain parts.

I spoke to a scholar who told me that uka "supports" ashrafiya perhaps financially and through the political clout he wields. I don't know if he forced/threatned them in some way or other because i find it unthinkable that not just mufti nizam sahib but even muhammad ahmed sahib could jointly be so sloppy. Add to it the fact that ubaidullah has been the cause of umpteen controversies that have kicked up fire storms in ashrafiya and, the scholar told me, many former supporters have dwindled away because of him being given a free rein there. So how could be possible that a fatwa about him was just signed in good faith?

I hope none of the signatories really subscribe to the fatwa and nor does the mufti sahib himself because all of these are the current helmsmen who will steer ashrafiya for sometime now and if they fail in their duties then the future looks more gloomy than ever for sunni awam and scholarship alike.
 
1. muhammad ahmed sahib is well-versed in kalam, he could not have been misled by uka's sophistry.

2. he is an elderly man who's spent his entire life living humbly, teaching, writing books and doing with just the bare minimum. He has rarely been seen venting his anger at students. He gives no attention to many of his personal conveniences and needs. He even used to commute between his home and ahrafiya on over-crowded buses that only north Indians can manage. (Mumbai's buses for example are nothing in comparison to U.Ps and travelling in them during summer's heat merits a medal for sabr in my opinion). hence I think it's unlikely that he had any personal interests in exculpating uka.

I am at my wits end.
 
This was the whole reason 'Ayina e SulH Kulliyat' was written. Many people dismissed it and also Shaykh Akhtar Hussains article whereas the truth is, one must know the background behind the events and what has been taking place since the past 20 years.

Mufti Nizams answer could have been accepted as goodness on his part, were it not for him repeatedly refusing to speak out against people such as Obaidullah.

Obaidullah even said in his speech that : I am indebted to three people for being the person I am and where I am, they have constantly guided me (blah blah).

2/3 being Muhammad Ahmad Misbahi And Mufti Nizam.
 
inquisitive said:
Many people dismissed it
Click to expand...
we have to be just and fair - ALWAYS. i don't know what the motives were, but i stand by my appraisal of that book. it is substandard and overall poorly written. when we criticised it at that time, some people were offended and called me yasini or something like that.

whether it was then or now - our criticism is based on principles, not on people.

wa billahi't tawfiq.
 
You can call it poorly written and substandard but the fact of the matter is, you have to know the run of events leading to the writing of the book and how it replied to Mawlana Yasins points.

The signature of Mawlana Yasin shows that the "Ta'assub" of Shaykh Akhtar and Anis Alam was indeed correct.

It's better not to go off topic but my final word being that, to judge such books and articles, you have to have knowledge of background events otherwise things will seem skewed.
 
fatwa p 1.jpg



Brother inquisitive can you please let me know on which date was the fatwa which you have uploaded and claim that Tajush shariah has signed it ,signed? One of the scholars who has signed the fatwa ( see page 2 of the fatwa) has inscribed the date as 5th Jamadi ul Ula 1436, which corresponded to 25th Feb 2015 in India. Do you accept this date ? From where did you get this fatwa?

Question No 2

Can you please inform me as to why is the font , colour and brightness of the red underlined part different from the rest of the fatwa?
 
inquisitive said:
to judge such books and articles, you have to have knowledge of background events otherwise things will seem skewed.
Click to expand...

did Ala Hazrat speak in cryptic clues when issuing fatawa against thanwi and others?

just how does Aina-e-Sulah Kulliyat point out to Mufti Nizamuddin's reluctance to issue a fatwa against this obaidullah or others like him? this fatwa apparently is only 3 or so weeks old.

if these issues have been going on for 20 years, why was the other side silent for so long? why didn't they blast these people DIRECTLY - mentioning names of persons, organizations, institutions, etc. - AND WITH EVIDENCE?

why was the evidence concealed from the public for so long?

did the book Aina-e-Sulah Kulliyat or Shaykh Akhtar Hussain's article elaborate the REASONS for stating what they did?

did they list out the accusations and evidences for what transpired?

how and why is the awam left to guess work and connecting dots?

Ala Hazrat has himself said that deobandis and wahabis are heretics but it doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is wrong.

if thanwi wrote something about basic Hanafi masail of wudu, would you call it as falsehood just because he was a heretic on other counts?

so can you please elaborate just where exactly and how exactly is Irfan-e-Mazhab a sulah kulliyat promoting book?! - even if this fatwa is wrong (i will write a separate post on my feedback on this particular fatwa after a while)

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

speaking of naming names:

just why are you jumping up and down in glee trying to slaughter Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab? at the very least he issued a fatwa on obaidullah mentioning him specifically by name (again, my feedback on it to come later) and put his own name (Mufti Nizamuddin) on the fatwa.

as for Mufti Akhtar Raza sahab or someone from his side, so far what we have in hand is a GENERIC fatwa on EK SHAKHS!

you need to go back and ask your teachers if a GENERIC fatwa on ek shakhs, or zayd, or bakr be applied on a SPECIFIC individual mr. xyz? (please bring us all the Hanafi rulings on this issue)

you say obaidullah pulls the strings at Ashrafia. let me accept that for argument's sake.

does he also pull the strings at Bareilly?

what prevented or prevents Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab or a close aide of his from issuing a SPECIFIC fatwa on obaidullah mentioning him by name? go on. answer it.

your bringing a GENERIC fatwa, and trying to smack it on to a SPECIFIC case is nothing other than playing hide and seek. sorry, but that's what it is.

so far the GROUND REALITY AS IT STANDS - is this -

Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab hasn't called obaidullah a kafir or a mubtadi3i. He has put his seal on a fatwa saying his Islam is extant.

Mufti Akhtar Raza Sahab (or anyone from his side) has NOT called obaidullah a kafir or a mubtadi3i. he has attested to a GENERIC fatwa on EK SHAKHS that merely cites a part of obaidullah's speach! this doesn't count for ANYTHING on obaidullah SPECIFICALLY.

if the ground reality is any different than this, can you please enlighten me?

---

i will post my feedback on Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa after a short while.
 
Noori said:
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.
Click to expand...

I too hope that those who have signed the wrong fatwa will retract. As of now , all we need to do is follow this thread.
 
Noori said:
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.
Click to expand...

I too hope that those who have signed the wrong fatwa will retract. As of now , all we need to do is follow this thread.

abu Hasan said:
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

View attachment 1818
Click to expand...

Mufti sahab knows the statement which is being discussed here and assumed that he either did not check it or is using a heela.
 
inquisitive said:
to judge such books and articles, you have to have knowledge of background events otherwise things will seem skewed.
Click to expand...
you will not like me saying this, but i still don't think anything wrong with shaykh yasin's book; and i still think that those two books (attacking shaykh yasin akhtar) are ridiculous and frankly, spiteful 'rejoinder' that revels in ad hominem attacks.

inquisitive said:
Sometimes being fair is staying silent on things which you don't have full knowledge of.
Click to expand...
you mean, people should not take books and comments on face value but rather get involved with pir/shaykh/scholar politics and see who is saying what because of which grouse they had in their long years and what caused the rift and who was responsible for the first attack and so forth?

why can't people be sincere and forthcoming? why the cloak and dagger and machinations? so it is necessary for a mufti to learn about peripheral issues, motivations and the history of mustafti before issuing a fatwa?

even after this new information and the background, those two books remain unconvincing.

---
Allah ta'ala knows best.

PS: AQ posted almost the same time i was writing this.
 
Last edited:
abu Hasan said:
that is interesting. i actually took the text from ubaidullah khan's own istifta. hadn't seen this image in detail.
Click to expand...

Other interesting thing which you might have missed is the fatwa ruling quoted by Obaidullah Khan Azmi in his istifta and the ruling contained in the fatwa uploaded by our brother inquisitive. Observe carefully.

Our dear brother inquisitive will have to tell me the whole story of this fatwa and then in sha Allah I will upload the original fatwa. But inquisitive needs to answer those important questions which I have raised. I hope the thread won't be locked!
 
A request to brothers. Keep your questions separate from your posts. I'll answer them but I don't have time to find each of your questions.

Write your questions seperatley.

----------

The reason why the Fatwa was generic was probably because it was an audio clip and they refrained from specifically ruling him a kafir due to the ihtimal of voice being edited etc.

------

@sunnistudent

Some People even removed Taaj al-Shariats name from some images. I don't understand what your question is? Please state it clearly.

If Abu Hasan could separate the thread and leave only the ones related to Obaidullah.
 
In one it says "Tareef Karna" and in another it says "Izzat Dena".

Nevertheless, don't think it makes a big difference.
 
I'm not sure where the version brother Inquisitive originated from. This is the original version I received (apologies for the poor resolution). (I am unsure if the Ulama present thereafter decided to edit the wording)

This fatwa was written and signed during the seminar of the Shar'i Council of India, which happened a few weeks ago, which was attended by the likes of Huzur Taajush Shari'ah and Huzur Muhaddith e Kabeer. Also amongst the attendees (and signatories to the fatwa) was Mufti Meraj Misbahi from Jami'ah Ashrafiyyah.

[Edit- uploaded wrong one, reuploading shortly]
 
Last edited:
Those who know, know.

That's all I will say regarding IMM and ASK.
-----

"Ruswa e Zamana Kitab" - The verdict of Taaj al-Shariat after listening to IMM.
 
@sunnistudent

Some People even removed Taaj al-Shariats name from some images. I don't understand what your question is? Please state it clearly.
Click to expand...



Who removed Tajusshariah's name from the 'image'? How do you know that it was originally present??

My question is :

a)From where did you get this fatwa?
bWhy is it different from the one posted by ghulam-e- raza?
c)Who made the changes after it was signed by the scholars ?
d)The original fatwa was typed on a computer and the scholars signed it. Who made the changes in writing by using pen?
e)Were the scholars who signed the original fatwa , agree to the changes made later on?
f) What was wrong in the original fatwa that it needed to be changed?

There are many questions about the fatwa which you can chose to answer later. Such as :

1) Who is " Abdullah" from Mumbai?
2) What are the names of the scholars who have signed it? Why none of them have put their seal , or proper name or date, except one or two?

3) An audio clipping which was recorded more than 10 years back, is made the basis of the fatwa and you claim that since there was "ihtimal' of the person, hence a 'shakhsi ruling" was not made.
We will discuss questions no 1 to 3 later, but please answer questions a to f

---

Please note, before we discuss the ruling of ' Kufr' on some one , the least we need to do is ascertain the authenticity of the fatwa uploaded by you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top