Fourthly - AQ comments on Nizamuddin sab’s fatwa.
As stated, regardless of what we know about obaid in life in general or not – we can ONLY COMMENT based on the istifta given and the answer given to that istifta.
So inasmuch as commenting on THIS PARTICULAR FATWA is concerned, we have no choice but to keep “life in general” on the side and focus ONLY on the istifta and the jawab.
This is the pretty much the gist of the reason/excuse he presented (choonke until hut chuke hain):
(Sorry I really don’t have the time to translate and transcribe formally. Forgive me for it.)
As he says he said what he said for iqamate hujjat on them based on what THEY think of rama.
As he says, his iqamate hujjat is ONLY for 2 things:
1. Maintaining civil order and peace from the hindu side amidst riots and civil unrest.
2. The image of jihad has been spoiled by terrorists and other kafirs, and as he says, to convey the “real meaning” (asal maeney) of jihad, and defended Islam and Muslims.
He said what he said about rama and jihad in the speech (we’re only going with the transcription in the istifta here) as transcribed in that box.
In Nizamuddin sab’s jawab, this is pretty much the heart and soul of his daleel
1. As per Ala Hazrat and other past fuqahaa, we refrain from takfeer as much as possible until the REASON for kufr (wajahe kufr, I have’nt checked the wordings in Tamheed yet) is not clear as sunshine AND there is no faintest possibility left for judging him Muslim.
2. He also gives a daleel from Imam Qurtubi’s Jame3 Al-Ahkam Al-Quran saying that it IS permissible to lie or make statements that resemble lies in order to establish hujjah and blame upon the opponent.
This below is the text from Imam Qurtubi’s Jame3 Al-Ahkam, that he has quoted. It is found under verse 21:62.
Basically the incident where Sayyidina Ibrahim 3laihis salam broke the small idols and asked them to ask the big idol why he broke them (which is NOT the truth on the outward of the statement as the big idol is not the one who broke the small idols, see hadith mentioned in tafseers and explanations below), and they were forced to say that their “gods” don’t talk.
Al-Waahidi’s tafseer under the same verse has some simple and lucid explanations on the story of Sayyidina Ibrahim 3alaihis salam.
QURTUBI 21:62
وَلِهَذَا يَجُوزُ عِنْدَ الْأُمَّةِ فَرْضُ الْبَاطِلِ مَعَ الْخَصْمِ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ إِلَى الْحَقِّ مِنْ ذَاتِ نَفْسِهِ، فَإِنَّهُ أَقْرَبُ فِي الْحُجَّةِ وَأَقْطَعُ لِلشُّبْهَةِ، كَمَا قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ:" هَذَا رَبِّي" وهذه أختي و" إِنِّي سَقِيمٌ" وَ" بَلْ فَعَلَهُ كَبِيرُهُمْ هَذَا"
TAFSEER AL-BASEET 21:62
والذين أحالوا أن يكون هذا كذبًا تأولوه على ما ذكرنا من الوجوه، وقالوا في قوله لساره هي أختي كانت أخته في الدين، وفي قوله: {إِنِّي سَقِيمٌ} أي: مغتم بضلالتكم حتى كأني سقيم، وأما ما روي عن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم-:أن إبراهيم لم يكذب إلا ثلاث كذبات أراد إلا ثلاث كلمات هن في صورة الكذب في الظاهر، فأطلق عليها اسم الكذب لما أشبهت الكذب في الظاهر، ولم يرد به حقيقة الكذب
I was following up on these and also came across this below from Al-Jassas’s Ahkam Al-Quran, albeit under Surah An3am.
I don’t know if it strengthens or weakens Nizamuddin sab’s case or my reservations on his fatwa but basically the example of Sayyidina Ibrahim 3alaihis salam is to establish proofs for Tawheed and ma3rifat of Allah more than anything else (ie anything else from a3mal like sawm, salat, jihad, etc.)
Sure, that statement from Qurtubi’s tafseer may be and probably is a general permission to extrapolate this principle of using the opponent’s OWN precepts to establish HUJJAH for THE TRUTH upon them – in other matters of deen too – like maintaining law and order or establishing proof for other aspects of deen like fasting or eating meat etc.
(stray thought & case in point – so is zakir nalayak following this principle when he tries to prove based on the Vedas that meat is permissible?)
JASSAS SURAH AN3AM (copy pasted from link with slight formatting)
http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/...rtno=0&hflag=&pid=668555&bk_no=4120&startno=1
قوله تعالى : فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَيْهِ اللَّيْلُ رَأَى كَوْكَبًا قَالَ هَذَا رَبِّي سورة الأنعام آية 76 قيل فيه : ثلاثة أوجه : أحدها : أنه قال ذلك في أول حال نظره واستدلاله على ما سبق إلى وهمه وغلب في ظنه ; لأن قومه قد كانوا يعبدون الأوثان على أسماء الكواكب فيقولون : هذا صنم زحل وصنم الشمس وصنم المشتري , ونحو ذلك.
والثاني : أنه قال قبل بلوغه وقبل إكمال الله تعالى عقله الذي به يصح التكليف , فقال ذلك وقد خطرت بقلبه الأمور وحركته الخواطر والدواعي على الفكر فيما شاهده من الحوادث الدالة على توحيد الله تعالى ، وروي في الخبر : أن أمه كانت ولدته في مغار خوفا من نمرود ؛ لأنه كان يقتل الأطفال المولودين في ذلك الزمان , فلما خرج من المغار ، قال هذا القول حين شاهد الكواكب.
والثالث : أنه قال ذلك على وجه الإنكار على قومه , وحذف الألف وأراد : أهذا ربي ؟ ! قال الشاعر : كذبتك عينك أم رأيت بواسط غلس الظلام من الرباب خيالا ومعناه : أكذبتك.
وقال آخر : رفوني وقالوا يا خويلد لا ترع فقلت وأنكرت الوجوه هم هم معناه : أهم هم.
ومعنى قوله : لا أُحِبُّ الآفِلِينَ سورة الأنعام آية 76 إخبار بأنه ليس برب ولو كان ربا لأحببته وعظمته تعظيم الرب.
وهذا الاستدلال الذي سلك إبراهيم طريقه من أصح ما يكون من الاستدلال وأوضحه , وذلك أنه لما رأى الكوكب في علوه وضيائه قرر نفسه على ما ينقسم إليه حكمه من كونه ربا خالقا أو مخلوقا مربوبا , فلما رآه طالعا آفلا ومتحركا زائلا قضى بأنه محدث لمقارنته لدلالات الحدث وأنه ليس برب ; لأنه علم أن المحدث غير قادر على إحداث الأجسام وأن ذلك مستحيل فيه كما استحال ذلك منه إذ كان محدثا , فحكم بمساواته له في جهة الحدوث وامتناع كونه خالقا ربا.
ثم لما طلع القمر فوجده من العظم والإشراق وانبساط النور على خلاف الكوكب قرر أيضا نفسه على حكمه فقال : هذا ربي , فلما راعاه وتأمل حاله وجده في معناه في باب مقارنته للحوادث من الطلوع والأفول والانتقال والزوال حكم له بحكمه وإن كان أكبر وأضوأ منه , ولم يمنعه ما شاهد من اختلافهما من العظم والضياء من أن يقضي به بالحدوث لوجود دلالات الحدث فيه
ثم لما أصبح رأى الشمس طالعة في عظمها وإشراقها وتكامل ضيائها قال : هذا ربي ; لأنها بخلاف الكوكب والقمر في هذه الأوصاف , ثم لما رآها آفلة منتقلة حكم لها بالحدوث أيضا وأنها في حكم الكوكب والقمر لشمول دلالة الحدث للجميع.
وفيما أخبر الله تعالى به عن إبراهيم عليه السلام وقوله عقيب ذلك : وَتِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَا آتَيْنَاهَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِ سورة الأنعام آية 83 أوضح دلالة على
وجوب الاستدلال على التوحيد وعلى بطلان قول الحشو القائلين بالتقليد ; لأنه لو جاز لأحد أن يكتفي بالتقليد لكان أولاهم به إبراهيم عليه السلام فلما استدل إبراهيم على توحيد الله واحتج به على قومه ثبت بذلك أن علينا مثله ; وقد قال في نسق التلاوة عند ذكره إياه مع سائر الأنبياء : أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللَّهُ فَبِهُدَاهُمُ اقْتَدِهْ سورة الأنعام آية 90 فأمرنا الله تعالى بالاقتداء به في الاستدلال على التوحيد والاحتجاج به على الكفار.
ومن حيث دلت أحوال هذه الكواكب على أنها مخلوقة غير خالقة ومربوبة غير رب فهي دالة أيضا على أن من كان في مثل حالها في الانتقال والزوال والمجيء والذهاب لا يجوز أن يكون ربا خالقا وأنه يكون مربوبا , فدل على أن الله تعالى لا يجوز عليه الانتقال ولا الزوال ولا المجيء ولا الذهاب , لقضية استدلال إبراهيم عليه السلام بأن من كان بهذه الصفة فهو محدث , وثبت بذلك أن من عبد ما هذه صفته فهو غير عالم بالله تعالى وأنه بمنزلة من عبد كوكبا أو بعض الأشياء المخلوقة.
وفيه الدلالة على أن معرفة الله تعالى تجب بكمال العقل قبل إرسال الرسل ; لأن إبراهيم عليه السلام استدل عليها قبل أن يسمع بحجج الأنبياء عليهم السلام.
So now the question is - based on the istifta given, IS the jawab given correct?
(reminder, we’re NOT looking at “life in general” and obaid’s audios, videos, track record, scandals, etc etc here).
And this is where I have a bunch of reservations:
1. The praise of rama, even if obaid says it is implicitly implied “as stated in YOUR (ie hindus) books” (he didn’t say in the speech, but said in the istifta that he described rama as their own books describe him; in the speech he said how he sees rama as a Muslim, we can stretch it to mean ‘as a Muslim going thru their books’)–
Is it just kalimae kufr but doesn’t make him kafir due to the differences between iltizam and luzoom, and the other nuances of fiqh on when and how praising kafirs (remember, rama is not just kafir, but their deity) is acceptable and when it makes one a kafir.
Eg. If you say tendulkar is a great batsman, it doesn’t make you kafir, even though you have just “praised” him.
Apparently (as I’ve been told by the other side) there are fiqh technicalities between tareef of kafir and tazeem and given the circumstances and context and the istifta, he ain’t guilty here.
2. By his own istifta, he apparently wanted to establish hujjah to tell hindus to maintain peace and civil order.
Ok, perhaps he established hujjah on the hindus to maintain civil peace and order. That this particular group of hindus was already peaceful and not hostile to Muslims, as he stated in his istifta, is irrelevant. We can give it away to encouraging them to carry it on and others to follow suit. Also whether someone actually followed his hujjah or not is irrelevant since results are not in our hands. Our responsibility is just to establish hujjah.
3. Secondly, he wanted to establish hujjah to explain the correct meaning of jihad that it’s not terrorism.
He messed up big time there. The summary of the speech stated in the istifta is that jihad is ONLY self-defense and fighting against terrorism. He could have very easily avoided this by saying that our religion forbids us from killing women & children even in actual wars, from even cutting down trees or ransacking livestock, etc etc. He could have avoided talking about offensive jihad (given the sensitive circumstances at the time) but deliberately restricting the meaning and definition to self-defense and fighting terrorism is abetment to the ugly bid3ah that jihad is only self-defense. Furthermore, I think only an idiot would need to establish hujjah on self-defense. Self-defense is a very basic human (and even animal) instinct and no society or law on earth requires self defense to be justified in principle. (The courts can only ask you to PROVE that you genuinely acted in self defense).
4. He said rama did jihad to rescue the honor of sita and also rescued the honor of all sitas till day of judgment. hindus believe in reincarnation, and rama and sita are fictitious characters. What’s the point after explaining jihad (even if the distorted mubtadi3i version) to go out of his way and say that rama the mythological character did it?
End result – I really have my reservations on Nizamuddin sab’s fatwa saying that what obaid did is “apne mazhab ka difa3” and “ghayron par iqamate hujjat”.
There is no mention of Tawheed or Risalat to subscribe to “apne mazhab ka difa3” (mazhab here obviously refers to Islam and not Hanafi, given that it is a Muslim vs hindu scenario). If the mazhab part is given away to his explanation of jihad, then it is a “ek ae3teqadi bid3at ka difa3” and not apne mazhab ka difa3.
The maximum that can be said is he established hujjah against civil strife.
Given obaid’s reasons and Ala Hazrat’s stated principle mentioned above (avoid takfeer to max extent possible) AND this purported fiqh technicality between tazeem and tareef on which topic there are Arabic treatises by major fuqahaa – I choose to adopt sukoot over the fatwa itself and get a second opinion from a non-desi Sunni scholar, who will not see things through the Bareilly-Mubarakpur-politics colored goggles.
Also note that obaid is alive and CAN & SHOULD be summoned to explain his position and intentions by ulema of both sides.
I will translate and transcribe the fatwa by Nizamuddin sab and obaid’s istifta and also add the footnotes to desis nuances and send it to some non-desi shuyukh, when I run into some free time.
Again, I am only talking about the istifta and the fatwa here and not anything outside of it.
