mufti nizamuddin's Fatwa on Obaidullah Azmi

[sunnistudent]

----

In one it says "Tareef Karna" and in another it says "Izzat Dena".

Nevertheless, don't think it makes a big difference.

So if those words do not make any difference [ as per you], why was the fatwa changed??? You need to tell me why was the fatwa changed.

 

[ghulam-e-raza]

[Edit- uploaded wrong one, reuploading shortly]

Sorry guys, turns out the one I uploaded is missing some of the signatures hence I have removed it...as this was going around all the Ulama and they were signing it one by one, and whoever took this picture took it before all Ulama had signed (confirmed this with a brother who was present there).

 

[sunnistudent]

I am uploading two versions of the fatwa.

Version 1 : Which is uploaded by brother inquisitive . Please observe the red ,highlighted part. Observe the text written by pen ( on a fatwa which was typed on computer) . Also observe a 'scrambled signature' in oval.

Version 2 : Which was uploaded by brother ghulam e raza. Observe the original typed text ( compare the text with version 1) and also the 'scrambled signature' is missing in this version.

Inquisitive said

Some People even removed Taaj al-Shariats name from some images.

Please tell me , which version is to be relied and why was the changes made? From which version was Tajusshariah's name removed?

If version 1 ( which is uploaded by you) contains Tajusshariah's name, then why do you say some people removed his name?

If version 1 ( uploaded by you) does not contain Tajusshariah's name ( and it was originally present) , then why did you upload such a version?

 

[sunnistudent]

Sorry guys, turns out the one I uploaded is missing some of the signatures hence I have removed it...as this was going around all the Ulama and they were signing it one by one, and whoever took this picture took it before all Ulama had signed (confirmed this with a brother who was present there).

All the ulama were signing it and one of those aalim took the picture and sent it to Obaidullah Khan Azmi . Right? Because Obaidullah Azmi has quoted the original reply in his istifta, which means he was aware about that reply only and nothing else.

I don't want to comment upon your reliable source of this story, but please think before accepting any story. Read the fatwa quoted by Obaidullah Khan in his istifta. Is it version 1 or version 2?

The real story is not what you have been told. It is different.

 

[AbdalQadir]

Version 1 posted by Sunnistudent above says - kuffar ke devtaon ko izzat dena sareeh kalimae kufr hai

(the red part has been edited by handwriting and is a verbatim same usage of words from FR, rest of the fatwa is typed)

Version 2 says - kuffar ke devtaon ki tareef karna kufre sareeh hai (the entire fatwa is typed, blue part is what has been replaced by the handwriting. this is the one obaidullah cites in his istifta to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab)

if there really is no difference between tareef karna and izzat dena, then why change it?

same applies to sareeh kalimae kufr and kufre sareeh - why change it if the meaning is same?

these are VERY VALID questions - for if the meaning stays the same, why play with minor semantics and make changes? can't be just for cosmetic surgery.

or were a multitude of "Mufti's" so sloppy that they signed one thing without seeing, and then felt the need to change it to something else? (we're putting "Siraj" in inverted commas for his mistakes, so we must apply the same standard elsewhere too)

another thing is that there is no single main mufti who has issued the fatwa and then the others attested to it. it seems everyone who signed it is the issuing mufti. or perhaps everyone is an attesting mufti. if there is one main issuer of the fatwa, can he be named please so that we know Mufti Sahab X ISSUED the fatwa, and the other Mufti sahiban attested to it.

----

it is obvious obaidullah sought a counter-fatwa against the fatwa issued against a fragment of his speech (GENERICALLY mentioning EK SHAKHS)

so when exactly was the first fatwa against him published?

if his speech is old, why was the first fatwa published 10-12 years after the speech, and that too GENERICALLY? why wasn't the awam warned about this fitnah before SPECIFICALLY mentioning him by name?

if the 3ulema of Bareilly believe in ihtimal of the audio being doctored and have withheld from SPECIFIC takfeer of obaidullah (or even tabdee3 for that matter), why are their students and common folk attacking this guy?

shouldn't they first ascertain that those whom they consider their teachers and spiritual guides also first declare this guy SPECIFICALLY as a kafir or mubtadi3?

 

[AbdalQadir]

now for AQ's feedback on Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab's fatwa -

firstly, i only speak for myself, regardless of what people with star studded eyes think about who or what or which side i supposedly represent or stand against. it's a no-brainer i'm not a mufti, so my opinion is just that - an opinion.

1. the audio clip of obaidullah seems like blatant brown nosing as far as mannerism and tone goes, but that's only my subjective judgment and irrelevant to the textual ifta.

2. his textual istifta gives his reason and intention as protecting Muslims from mobs of kuffar (apparently in the times of riots*) and indictment against the kuffar and establishing hujjah against them using their own role model, thereby deterring them from harming Muslims, all at the request of fellow Muslims.

3. it is very tempting to go with "gut feeling"and conjecture that he's a politician and that by default means he is lying, however in a matter such as takfeer, we need clear EVIDENCE to prove he is lying. that he said that he was looking forward to meet morari from the 90's simply doesn't establish that he lied about point 2. above (despite what i feel about his verbal gestures in the audio and despite the fact that the audio isn't factored into the written fatwa).

4. therefore, unless we have EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise, we have to go with his defense of himself and his stated intentions in his istifta, as the rule is to go to maximum extent possible to avoid takfeer. and yet, despite knowing the communal riots backdrop, i can't get over his audio (assuming it is really his voice), i can only adopt sukoot on the guy, till i get another Mufti's (i won't get it from Bareilly or Mubarakpur) opinion on his indictment of hindus cum purported praise and adoration of ram and morari - (if you have a problem with my stance thus far, and i'm just a common nobody, you should also note that NO respectable Mufti sab on this or that side states SPECIFICALLY that obaidullah is a kafir, NOT Mufti Nizamuddin sahab and NOT Mufti Akhtar Raza sahab, although if i was obaidullah, i would most certainly do tajdeed-e-iman and nikah)

5. his usage of imam-e-hind for ram doesn't necessarily have to be taken in a negative way against him. the Quran mentions aimmatal kufr in 9:12

6. my gripe is with his portrayal of jihad as something merely for self defense. this apologia a major bid3ah of misguidance in these post 9/11 times. he shouldn't have touched on the topic of jihad in his speech, and even if he did touch on it, deliberately or accidentally, at a sensitive time (riots etc.) fast forward to this day, Mufti Nizamuddin sahab SHOULD have clarified now, that jihad can be offensive too. why should we feel shy from our religion when the kuffar openly state they go to war to spread democracy. Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab should have asked him to do tawba from this bid3a, even if it was committed in distress in troubling times. it may be hubris on my part, but i believe Mufti Nizamuddin Sahab was wrong there for not highlighting an ugly bid3ah of misguidance. i will also get another non-Bareilly and non-Mubarakpur (non-desi) mufti's opinion on his conflating the jihad with ram and sita and qayamat issues.

* apparently it was godhra riots time.

---

i called the guy another tahir in an impulsive moment. in retrospect, i think he being a politician has very tight ropes to walk on - which goes back to my initial post on this thread - our 3ulema HAVE TO establish guidelines on just how far we can and can't go as Muslims in political discourses in countries like india. considering the riot times and his stated aim to protect Muslims, i don't think he is like tahir, on that particular count at least. (unless it's his habit)

---

Allah knows best. and if i have uttered any kufr knowingly or unknowingly in this post, i seek His refuge and forgiveness and renew my faith by the shahada laa ilaaha il Allah Muhammadur Rasool Allah. i take contemporaries with a pinch of salt. i resign my opinion on this guy or this matter to what would be the Prophet's 3alaihis salam, opinion on this guy and this matter, and on all guys and all matters.

 

[AbdalQadir]

i can understand why obaidullah would present a partial quote of his speech to Mufti Nizamuddin sahab.

why didn't this Abdullah guy from bombay present the full speech in his istifta to the other muftis? they could have surely come up with more charges on him.

 

[sunnistudent]

Those who issued the fatwa after listening to the recorded speech,took the most serious utterances in that speech which as per them constitutes kufr. Hence they cited that usage as the basis of issuing fatwa. If any one thinks that any other utterances in that speech constitutes kufr, please bring it to the light of any Sunni mufti , so that he can issue a fatwa. Any fatwa can be discussed on internet but lets not use internet for issuing fatwa of kufr .

 

[inquisitive]

It's not a major question at all.

One version was never meant to be uploaded and the other version was changed with the consent of all the Muftis. They chose to use a word similar to Fatwa e Ridawaiyya, instead of a synonym.

The correct one is the one with Taajush Shariahs signature.

You can't blame the Muftis for someone uploading it before permission.

 

[Unbeknown]

What foul play do people suspect if:

1. some words were changed
2. identity of the mustafti is not established
3. a signature was added later on
4. the crime was committed a decade ago (does that make it any less heinous?)

that Taj al-shariah's signature was removed (if it was) is probably something to raise eyebrows about. Because then we are faced with the question, was it removed or was it added later on?

the most I can see in this is lack of co-ordination.

the fatwa from mubarkpur is all in order and tidy because - it was ensured by the mustafti that no stone be left unturned in exonerating himself of the charge of kufr. For all we know he must have demanded that he wanted these four people and no on else to sign it, put their seal and show their unconditional support for him. Or tell me are all fatwas from mubarkpur signed by so many people?!

SS seems to know 'exactly' what happened, so why not tell us? And please provide proofs for everything.

What I cant get over is the fact that obaidullah has played a game to have himself acquitted without even the slightest reprimand, nay, with praise and to the beat of drums!

-------

You cant compare a multi-version fatwa with suspicious origins, but correct in the essentials, to a well-established fatwa, which is incorrect/misleading for the most part.

Lets say the former fatwa was drafted by some unknown people, jealous of UKA, or even his political rivals and then they forged some signatures and attributed the fatwa to senior scholars. Then circulated it on social media and even sent it to UKa himself. This is all wrong but the basis of the fatwa is ala-hazrat's own fatwa from the FR.

I don't care if an alien from Mars wrote it just to see how humans react when caught on the wrong foot!

-------

I do not agree to most of AQ's analysis of the fatwa from mubarakpur or UKA's intentions (i know you have not asked me to) for a few simple reasons:

1. uka's antics are well-known in ashrafiya and there is little chance that only the quoted part of the speech was known. As brother Noori stated, why was he not asked to produce the full speech?

2. Under no circumstances is anyone allowed to utter kufriyat except in life-threatening situations. Okay, lets assume he never wanted to meet morari and simply lied during the speech but that does not change the import of the rest of things he said even if we assume that he had the best of intentions.

3. So what good did his praise for a hindu diety bring to the muslims of gujrat? He himself says that morari had protected the muslims of his area during the riots. Did morari or anyone from his side tell him that he he didn't praise ram they'd unleash another godhra in kutchh? If anything, his speech was not needed at all!


Why didn't taj al-shariah warn people against him before? I don't know where to start...

as for guidelines: Say anything you like and go anywhere you like, just don't commit kufr nor fall into gumrahi. Until further notice.


Allah know best.

 

[AbdalQadir]

that's simply beautiful and heart warming, brother inquisitive - the desire to copy paste exactly from Fatawa Ridawaiyya and avoid as much as a synonym.

The correct one is the one with Taajush Shariahs signature.

so is the one without his signature not "correct"???? (even though the difference is only of synonyms)

which one is the one with Tajush Shari3ah's signature?

is Tajush Shari3ah the original mufti who ISSUED the fatwa or one of the major muftis who attested to it?

please advise who is the first mufti who ISSUED the fatwa?

please also answer my following questions in post #65

if his (obaid's) speech is old, why was the first fatwa published 10-12 years after the speech, and that too GENERICALLY? why wasn't the awam warned about this fitnah before SPECIFICALLY mentioning him by name?

if the 3ulema of Bareilly believe in ihtimal of the audio being doctored and have withheld from SPECIFIC takfeer of obaidullah (or even tabdee3 for that matter), why are their students and common folk attacking this guy?

shouldn't they first ascertain that those whom they consider their teachers and spiritual guides also first declare this guy SPECIFICALLY as a kafir or mubtadi3?

i will ask other questions later and address your other points in another thread.

 

[Unbeknown]

they could have surely come up with more charges on him.

I don't know how many of you here browse the urdu websites or whatsapp. But I have been told that people have levelled several more minor charges such as:

1. His wife watches t.v and listens to non-mehrams
2. His wife is desirous of speaking to a non-meharm
3. His wife wishes to give salam to a non-mehram
4. Meeting morari was described as 'darshan' (which has a connotation of 'blessed')
5. UKa has no qualms announcing all this publicly

 

[AbdalQadir]

4. the crime was committed a decade ago (does that make it any less heinous?)

the status of the crime (or lack thereof) stays intact

what is heinous is the fact that great scholars waited until NOW to bring it to public attention!

it certainly raises eye brows as to why Tajush Shari3ah and his side didn't issue a fatwa against this character right then and there?

if they are issuing fatwa against him now, they need to answer to the awam why they waited all these years! if they can't, in my book THAT is the heinous part!

were they in a private correspondence with this obaid guy like Ala Hazrat was corresponding with thanwi?

---

AND AGAIN - so far NO FATWA has been issued by Bareilly mentioning obaid SPECIFICALLY BY NAME!

can someone state why please? (DESPITE the crime being so utterly ugly and heinous!!!!!!!!)

the supporters of that side seem to be beaming over a GENERIC fatwa not realizing that their OWN SHUYUKH have so far not issued a SPECIFIC FATWA/STATEMENT on obaidullah!

 

[inquisitive]

You really are a foolish jahil.

How do you know when they heard this audio?

Assuming good for Obaidullah, the hypocrite, trying to slander Taajush Shariah.

 

[Unbeknown]

if they are issuing fatwa against him now, they need to answer to the awam why they waited all these years! if they can't, in my book THAT is the heinous part!

in which case each and every scholar who knows about UKA is guilty.

I don't know how true is this but I have been told that one of the major reasons for Allamah Zia-ul-Mustafa sahib leaving ashrafiya was this same guy after he had praised khumaini - allamah sahib asked those who concerned to either ask him to repent publicly or ban him from ever giving speeches in ashrafiya. But people did not take heed, the contention grew and ultimately led to allamah sahib's leaving ashrafiya and UKA becoming even more entrenched in ashrafiya's activities and even more bold.

My friend who I spoke about in the other thread, says that when he went to ashrafiya to study there were many senior students who loved allamah sahib and spoke of the good ol days when he used to teach there. Whenever Allamah sahib visited students gathered around him to speak to him, greet him and do musafah.

But when he was leaving ashrafiya a few years down from that time, he says, the situation had turned so bad that students were chanting MURDABAD for Allamah sahib - students of the very same institution to which he had devoted his life !!

who are responsible for this? they'll have to answer on the day of judgement.

 

[AbdalQadir]

the fatwa from mubarkpur is all in order and tidy because - it was ensured by the mustafti that no stone be left unturned in exonerating himself of the charge of kufr.

don't forget that the mustafti (obaid) is certainly also getting an unintentioned push from bareilly since no mufti from there is willing to level a charge of kufr against him mentioning him personally by name

Under no circumstances is anyone allowed to utter kufriyat except in life-threatening situations.

as per obaid's defense, the words were not of praise of their deities (and hence kufr) but rather of indictment, that is, to establish hujjah on them based on their own precepts to refrain from attacking Muslims (this is the legal technicality in this and this is why i will stay silent now and ask another non-desi Mufti about this since i don't trust either side in india to rise above the politics of it all. i'm saying it plainly and openly)

How do you know when they heard this audio?

very well. you tell me when they heard the audio.

apparently (according to unbeknown) this obaid character was notorious for a uttering a bunch of other kufriyat and khurafat, and Molvi Zia ul Mustafa sahab was aware of it all.

yet why wasn't a fatwa/statement issued against ANY of his khurafat earlier on?

Assuming good for Obaidullah, the hypocrite, trying to slander Taajush Shariah.

firstly i'm not assuming good of obaidullah, nor slandering Tajush Shari3ah, but if you must take it in that direction

Tajush Shari3ah being Tajush Shari3ah has a duty towards the Muslims of india. it seems he is himself reluctant to issue a statement of takfeer or tabdee3 against obaidullah. why is that so?

even if he or any of the signing muftis heard the speech only at the time of signing the fatwa - why are they NOW silent on obaidullah as a person? why don't they mention him by name?

your shuyukh haven't called him a kafir or a mubtadi3, and yet you go as far as calling him a munafiq? what is the reason for that? (and yet, i'm the foolish jahil)

 

[Unbeknown]

the supporters of that side

please lets not make it an issue of sides. and no one's beaming over anything. All that's happening is unfortunate. How can a sunni feel gleeful about anyone falling into kufr/gumrahi? Or about senior shuyookh issuing incorrect fatwas - whether under duress or otherwise?

You really are a foolish jahil.

I have come to assume that most of the regular members posting here are sincere people looking for answers and asking questions but each one has a different mode of thought. If we keep our discussions acadmeic and free from name calling - and baiting - I think we can have far richer and fruitful discussions.

All senior scholars. May Allah (ta'ala) guide them where they are wrong and forgive their lapses and give them the courage to serve sunnis without fear of repercussions from people. What's happening between them is the ploy of shaytan to weaken the sunnis.

Please keep these obvious things in mind and keep praying for sunni unity.

The friend, I spoke to him yesterday, he is crestfallen. Every where is chaos, suspicion and uncertainty.

sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam

 

[Noori]

Can you please inform me as to why is the font , color and brightness of the red underlined part different from the rest of the fatwa?

i don't see that it is an issue when it is present in fatawa razawiyyah. may be the print was light therefore someone made it bold with pen.

why is it suspicious to you?

 

[Noori]

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?

i don't see that it is an issue when it is present in fatawa razawiyyah. may be the print was light therefore someone made it bold with pen.

why is it suspicious to you?

 

[sunnistudent]

i don't see that it is an issue when it is present in fatawa razawiyyah. may be the print was light therefore someone made it bold with pen.

why is it suspicious to you?

It is really surprising that a senior moderator makes a comment without actually reading the posts in the thread.In sha Allah, will reply at night.