Further on Communal Harmony

This is a follow up note on our recent discussion happened over the religious harmony video [Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8liXJfq_xWo&t=91s%5D. In the response i explained: “how important it is to know the right understanding of a concept we believe in”. Only if we know what we believe in, 1) we will be able to reconcile our belief with our self, and 2) to an extension reconcile and live with peace with others. Knowing the differences is almost as important than knowing the communalities and gray areas. Further understanding the right concept gives us an opportunity to assess our own position as well, to whether we should carry on the belief system we are taught to or not. This is a stance taken when A) we are mature enough to question the status quo and B) ready to accept alternative options with peaceful reconciliations with whom we love and value to our life.

The next big question is: How does it work in different age groups, different social classes and different belief systems? Especially how the differences and commonalities are taught to younger generations?

I think the pertinent theme in the video portrayed is a very innocent lesson being taught by an innocent kid to an old man (a Muslim figure), that there is no difference in Gods people believe in, whether be a “Hindu idol present in a Mandir (referred Bhagwaan)” or Muslim’s God being remembered in a mosque (referred “Allah”). Is there a scope of disagreement in this proposition? Let’s see.

First of all the portrayal of the old man here is questionable as he is unable to explain the answers of young kid with right wisdom and correct understanding. The old man might be hesitant in receiving the offering for so many reasons. One conspicuous reason could be the “aastha” associated with an act of religious ritual. He must have been cautious that if he takes what is not supposed to be his, that may offend the family of that kid. We see these kinds of issues in society not only in religious circles but in our social transactions. Regarding the brief discussion of presence of Allah in Masjid and Mandir, the premise of kid’s argument is, what i will call is very innocent and natural. On the other hand, the response of old man is not so wise and in line with the Islamic teachings of such a discourse in hand.

Leaving religion aside, the old man should have explained the kid that this food is meant to be received by the person whom it is intended for (Obeying parents is more important here). For the sake of argument if we take in consideration that the child has got a notion that the food is being offered to a “God”, the old man should have explained that the food is made for mortal being like humans and animals and not for God. Instead, food can be given to poor and needy directly without any ritualistic means of religious nature.

For the question on, if Allah is everywhere, why is not he present in the Mandir, or conversely if we call referred deity “Bhagwan” to be present everywhere, why is he not in the Masjid, let’s analyse this premise in some specifics here. First of all, the deity referred in Hinduism (taught to general hindu masses) are considered as the intermediaries or tools (as swami Jaggi Vasudev aka Sadhguru refers in his talks) to practice spiritual exercise in an effort to realise divine presence, referred “God” in some sense. In Islam the term Allah is used for one God, who is the reason for all existence we see and is the creator of this space and time continuum we see and experience. There is a distinction in the concept in Islam as we believe Allah to be ultimate creator and separate from its creation (in an empirical sense), however Allah’s knowledge encompasses all the creation. This contrast is referred as Pantheism (in Hinduism) and Monotheism (in Islam). So for Muslims, a mosque is not a place where God or its any intermediaries exist in any form we can rationalise, however it is just a place where Muslims gather to remember Allah. Allah is beyond what we can comprehend or imagine and is not limited to a specific piece of land. The importance of Masjid exists as its sole purpose of existence is to facilitate group prayers and imparting religious knowledge. Nothing less nothing more. Whereas in Mandirs, we have specific deities, the priests, offerings and specific rituals of religious importance. This is the reason kid’s mother sent the food for a Pandit, as it is with a belief that with some rituals associated with specific jaap/mantras if the food is served to poor, ultimately its equivalent form will reach to the soul of deceased in heavenly realm. However, if the same food is served in Masjid, A) A masjid do not entertain food and religious rituals to satisfy any dead person in heavenly realm, B) It will be dishonest for a masjid Imam to take the food and upset the daughter (or son) of the dead person. The portrayal of old man’s hesitation reflects point (B), as in Indian subcontinent, getting offended on religious grounds cost dearly, even life and especially if you happen to be a minority [“Muslims minority in Hindu majority” or “Hindu minority in Muslim majority”].

How can we explain this difficult situation to a 7 years old kid?

Well, it starts at home. It starts with rising above superstitions and a sincere reconciliation with what we believe in. The Imam could have explained what is “God”, “Soul” and “Nature”  and should have advised the kid to feed the poor instead of offering on an idol (if the kid was a Hindu) or a dead person in a grave (if the kid was a Muslim). Parents should look for an opportunity to work on religious ethos, rather than dry practises. It is important to give a poor and needy a blanket, rather than offering chaadar on Dargah and feed the poor directly rather taking a redtape route via a stone idol in Mandir. If we practice religion with the right spirit, in line with scriptures and question superstitions, we will live a life of love and our actions will cement the differences, else we will be fighting on differences created by politicians and religious gurus. Religion is to acknowledge the spiritual component of our self which calls for being Good and tells us to avoid immoralities, and if we escape this calling we are just another animal in a race of survival of fittest, where nothing is Good or Bad, except to survive and excel in the race. We choose what we are destined for.

 

 

Decoding components of destiny

The subject of destiny seems to be complex if we seek an immediate answer, in terms of the way we want to understand topics in 5 minutes YouTube session. In recent times with the advent of information age, humanity at large is seeking a more quick impatient lifestyle. We started to appreciate Industrial revolution in colonial past and we matured to be in this age of free thinkers, which (it seems) enabled us to have tools and technology at our disposal like never before. The mesmerising effect of the magical encounters made people to be more earth-centric (materialistic) forgetting hereafter, equipping themselves with enough reasons to not believe in what is beyond this material life.

The reason it seems to me has never been the case of Islam vs. science but people falling under what is termed as “category mistake”. What it means is that people accept an explanation of “how/why something works” as “who made it working”? Science addresses “how/why” aspect, whereas Islam addresses “Who/Reason” aspect [1]? This distinction is presented as a question to humanity in Quran in following verse.

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and Earth? Rather, they are not certain.” Holy Quran 52:36

As an example, in day to day life we know that motion of any object we see around follows a set rule of nature, which was explored and put forth lately by Isaac Newton in classical laws of mechanics (Category 1: How/Why) [2], however mere existence of these laws will not set a ball in motion. We will need an external agent who initiates the motion (Category 2: Who/Reason). Scientific philosophy at best keeps silence over category 2 when it comes to the origin of universe (to the extension existence of energy, creation of matter, matter getting life i.e. totipotency [4] and life getting a consciousness), whereas zealots with atheistic allegiance make it a matter of certainty that there is no God and universe popped out from nothing just like a bunny from a magic hat. This is an irrational proposition[3].

Having said that, the subject of this discussion here is destiny and the understanding of this subject can not be dealt in isolation with the concept of divine. Those who reject divine, can not comprehend destiny, free will and reckoning. In simple terms, if you reject the concept of a divine supreme as a creator and perceive this life just as a meaningless array of sequence and events propelled by cold, blind, random physical processes, there is no reason for a discussion over destiny. The life under such assumption is an “accident”, devoid of any meaning. In strict terms, the evolutionary core engines namely “survival of fittest” and “mutation” (discussed in context of biological evolution) drives a cruel flow where love, joy, pain, sorrow, sacrifice and overall human creative capacity is nothing but some chemical reactions. This is more extreme (blind faith) to believe that the creative capacity of human beings (expressed in poetry, engineering, humanities and different arts) emanates from random, cold, blind chemical reactions. How can something gives rise to a quality which in itself do not contain [5]?

In early school days, if we recall, we all have studied basics of relations and functions. There in we study dependent and independent variable in following way (equation #1).

y = f (x)  <= equation #1

Here y is a variable which depends on a variable x. the letter f denotes some kind of relationship between x and y which depends on attributes of “the system” under investigation. The system itself should have a capacity to entertain the variable x, and a capacity to produce an output y. If the system do not have such capacity, the function do not exist. Alternatively if a system (i.e. function) exist and is producing some outputs as y, there has to be some input which manifest as a processed result, we term as output. Here we can ask a question: “Do we know a system/function which produces a fine-tuned, measured output without any input and without a system (in existence)”? Think for while, have we ever had a magical moment in our life experience (talking empirically) where we witness a system which is producing an output without 1) an input being provided, and 2) a system processing the input?

In mathematics, such a relation between x and y is called a “function” where x is an independent variable. What we mean by an independent variable here is that the value of x in respect to the system (i.e. f ) and output (i.e. y ) is independent. It can assume any value it like. However the system must be able to process the value x and the output y will always (necessarily contingent upon) depend on x. One other interpretation of such interdependent relationship is that, for multiple values of x, we can have same value of y; but it is not possible to have multiple values of y for same value of x. In simple terms, it is possible that you were at home at both 9AM and 10AM, but it is not possible for you to be at home and in office (5KM away from your home) at the same time 9AM. Why? Since your position (specifically material position, not talking a skype chat or video conference) is dependent on time, and your existence in time domain is contingent on the value of time. Is it possible for you to escape this contingency?

With the above example, if we go back to equation #1 we realise that the events in this materialistic realm like the “spatial existence” of any person (y) is dependent on a system (f) which is this space-time continuum (heavens[6] and earth and overall cosmic movements) and an independent variable we call as time (x). Here the independent variable x (which is “time”) is a “perceived outcome” of the events (which work in synchronisation) resulted by the perceived relative motion of planet earth, sun and moon, giving us a meaning of our mortal position [material sensory]. In general terms we call this “perceived output” as morning, noon or evening or week, months or years or hours, minutes and seconds to the milliseconds and microseconds. Here “You exist” (i.e. y, the output) in “This Moment” (i.e. x, the input) as a result of  “Cosmic Movements” (i.e f, the system).

spatial existence = f (time) <= equation #2

material existent position = space-time-continuum (this moment) <= equation #3

Here we should also appreciate that there exist a relationship between the independent variable time and the cosmic movements in space time continuum as well (as i hinted in previous paragraph), in a way that the independent variable time (which we perceive as independent on planet earth) is a dependent variable on the outcome of cosmic movements. Just imagine someone in a place devoid of any relative motion between his material presence and its surroundings. Will time exist for that person? If there exist a possibility of biological progression of human body in that state (hypothetically, highly improbable though), how the ageing experience will be interpreted as we have no relative motion (i.e. no day/night)? Let’s also ponder over the “question of a function” whose output is the cosmic movements. We are going in the direction of general and special theory of relativity, but without going in much details, we can comprehend that the existence of a necessary independent function necessitates for a logical conclusion of what we perceive as a moment which gives us a material meaning. In a pure theistic term, this implies “since i exist, a creator exist”, else i do not exist [taking in consideration not only the material laws, but the life governing laws and its source]. This understanding is of a paramount importance as it will serve as a foundation to further explore possible discourse of Destiny.

Till now i have tried to put forth a reasoning in terms of basic mathematical logic of relations and function, as 1) this is very easy to reflect upon for people who know even basic mathematics and 2) functions are the basic building blocks of all the systems we observe in nature. Now, let us explore few specific examples.

Destiny in a simple term is defined as “the events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future”. It also refers to the hidden power believed to control future events called fate sometimes. How does it fit in the design of universe we see around? Can we have a logical construct to rationalise this term? To understand this, let us investigate this term in some details.

Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are holding a ball and you release it. Where the ball will go? If i ask you, what is the destiny of a ball (in terms of its future position) when you release it from a height? You will answer, it will fall to the ground. We know this destiny of a ball “based on our experience”. There is nothing special about this answer as we all know that everything on the earth is attracted to earth, and we are witnessing it since long, making it no miracle to predict its future state. Although there is a precise equation which governs the movement of ball, but we do not realise its existence unless we explore it (we do not see the law, but we experience its existence). Just to demonstrate it, if i ask another question: “what is the speed of the same falling ball after 10 second?”. Now this is complex as “speed” is a derived term (it amounts to the magnitude of motion contained in an object), and can not be seen in the units of meters and seconds with our eyes (unless we are in a car and see it in meter reading), though we can see the movement and say it is fast, slow or at rest. However if we know the laws of gravity and the relationship between speed, time, acceleration and “Gravitational constant”, we can tell that the speed of ball after 10 second will be approximately 98m/s. How do we get this number “98m/s”? We got this number by decoding one of the laws of nature and knowing the constant (the gravitational constant) by which material objects attract each other, and the relationship between associated variables namely speed and time. In another way, we were able to predict the future value of a property associated with a matter by knowing the rules in which it operates. In more general way we can say that we predicted the “destiny of speed” of a moving ball by knowing the details of forces it was acted upon.

This was a very simple example to explain how destiny operates and how can we predict the destiny of any system, or the property of a system if we know the constants and variables associated with its existence. The same holds true for other natural laws like electrostatics, magnetism etc. We may have various theories and explanations for laws, but the point is, if we understand the equation of interactions in a law, it gives us an insight to understand its current and future state. In scientific terms the objective of such an analysis is always to know “how a stuff works”? The question “why” remains unanswered and is left to other interpretations as this is not the subject of science to deal with these questions. The interim whys can be answered in developed theories and these theories have a lifeline as they are always subjected to be reviewed against another better explanations (or better complied with the established facts and more precise experimental outcome). The logical conclusion of a supreme being as a lawgiver of all these experienced laws is something detested by atheistic community, and they try all the possible theories to reject God. They develop theories like multiverse and existence of material particle popping in some special nothingness but will not accept any theory of religious sources. To me such a proposition arises with the lack of self introspection and a predestined divine will for people who ignore the self innate calling for echoing the definition of good and bad within themselves.

There are other laws beyond inert material laws, like the laws which govern life, its existence and its propagation. We know that at some point in time, long ago, universe came in existence with matter and associated energy. There are a set of laws we know and understand about matter and energy. In explaining life, at some point of time we know that the cold, dark, blind physical process (as some scientists see (not the most), and atheists to an extension believe in it) got life like property in the development of prokaryotic cells, and then eukaryotic cells and then to various other complex life forms. There is a hidden underlying law there as well which we understand in terms of totipotency, survival of fittest, biological evolution or sudden mutations. We also see that these life forms were diversified and different ecosystems exists to support and nurture them. At a next stage we see one specific life form getting the property of “consciousness” (to be self aware and to name, classify and understand actions) and acting as a builder for this planet earth making an impact no other species has. So, why the matter was originated? Why it got life? Why life gets a consciousness? And then why one life got consciousness to such a degree? Is it all random or there is a purpose? It is debatable and not part of this article.

What if we know all the laws and all the equations of this universe? not only the material, biological and psychological laws, but the laws that give rise to these laws and the source where it ultimately originates. If we know all the laws, and all the dependent laws, and ultimately the source of laws, we will be truly in a position to see the future state of material, life and consciousness we call destiny. The answers of an ultimate destiny and our actions impacting the future state of our destiny will only be understood if we are such a reference frame where we have explanations for each and every laws which govern us [in a sense outside the realm of this space and time].

Is it possible? Hopefully i will explore some more key points in another article.

References:

[1] The Qur’an, Chapter 52, Verses 35 and 36.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics
[3] This argument has been inspired by and adapted from Idris, J. (1994) The Contemporary Physicists and God’s Existence. Available at: http://www.jaafaridris.com/the-contemporary-physicists-and-gods-existence/ [Accessed 23rd November 2016].
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency
[5] Chapter 5. The divine reality: God, Islam and the mirage of atheism by Hamza Tzortzis
[6] Here Heavens means anything except earth. Please do not confuse this with Paradise, which is opposite to Hell and exists in a form we can not comprehend with our limited sensory faculties now.

 

 

 

 

 

On the Day Of Judgement

Chapter 37

A Question to Resurrection Deniers

11. So ask them ˹O Prophet˺, which is harder to create: them or other marvels of Our creation? [908] Indeed, We created them from a sticky clay. [909] 12. In fact, you are astonished ˹by their denial˺, while they ridicule ˹you˺. 13. When they are reminded, they are never mindful. 14. And whenever they see a sign, they make fun of it, 15. saying, “This is nothing but pure magic. 16. When we are dead and reduced to dust and bones, will we really be resurrected? 17. And our forefathers as well?” 18. Say, “Yes! And you will be fully humbled.”

The Deniers After Resurrection

19. It will only take one Blast, [910] then at once they will see ˹it all˺. 20. They will cry, “Oh, woe to us! This is the Day of Judgment!” 21. ˹They will be told,˺ “This is the Day of ˹Final˺ Decision which you used to deny.” 22. ˹Allah will say to the angels,˺ “Gather ˹all˺ the wrongdoers along with their peers, and whatever they used to worship 23. instead of Allah, then lead them ˹all˺ to the path of Hell. 24. And detain them, for they must be questioned.” 25. ˹Then they will be asked,˺ “What is the matter with you that you can no longer help each other?” 26. In fact, on that Day they will be ˹fully˺ submissive.

The Misleaders vs. the Misled

27. They will turn on each other, throwing blame. 28. The misled will say, “It was you who deluded us away from what is right.” [911] 29. The misleaders will reply, “No! You disbelieved on your own. 30. We had no authority over you. In fact, you yourselves were a transgressing people. 31. The decree of our Lord has come to pass against us ˹all˺: we will certainly taste ˹the punishment˺. 32. We caused you to deviate, for we ourselves were deviant.” 33. Surely on that Day they will ˹all˺ share in the punishment.

Khattab, Dr. Mustafa. The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation (“Allah” edition) (Kindle Locations 10165-10195). Siraj Publications (Canada), Furqaan Foundation (US), Darussalam (internationally). Kindle Edition.

اسلام اور ریاست — ایک جوابی بیانیہ‘‘ پر تنقیدات کے جواب میں لکھا گیا

[’’اسلام اور ریاست — ایک جوابی بیانیہ‘‘ پر تنقیدات کے جواب میں لکھا گیا۔]

اِس میں شبہ نہیں کہ خلافت کا لفظ اب کئی صدیوں سے اصطلاح کے طور پر استعمال ہوتا ہے، لیکن یہ ہرگز کوئی دینی اصطلاح نہیں ہے۔ دینی اصطلاحات رازی، غزالی، ماوردی، ابن حزم اور ابن خلدون کے بنانے سے نہیں بنتیں اور نہ ہر وہ لفظ جسے مسلمان کسی خاص مفہوم میں استعمال کرنا شروع کر دیں، دینی اصطلاح بن جاتا ہے۔ یہ اللہ اور اُس کے رسولوں کے بنانے سے بنتی ہیں اور اُسی وقت قابل تسلیم ہوتی ہیں، جب اِن کا اصطلاحی مفہوم قرآن و حدیث کے نصوص یا دوسرے الہامی صحائف سے ثابت کر دیا جائے۔ صوم، صلوٰۃ اور حج و عمرہ وغیرہ اِسی لیے دینی اصطلاحات ہیں کہ اُنھیں اللہ اور اُس کے رسولوں نے یہ حیثیت دی ہے اور جگہ جگہ اُن کے اصطلاحی مفہوم میں استعمال کیا ہے۔ لفظ ’خلافت‘ اِس کے برخلاف عربی زبان کا ایک لفظ ہے اور نیابت، جانشینی اور حکومت و اقتدار کے معنی میں استعمال ہوتا ہے۔ یہ اِس کے لغوی مفاہیم ہیں اور قرآن و حدیث میں ہر جگہ یہ اپنے اِن لغوی مفاہیم ہی میں سے کسی ایک مفہوم میں استعمال ہوا ہے۔ چنانچہ قرآن کی جو آیات ’خلیفہ‘ اور ’خلافت‘ کے الفاظ کو اُن کے ترجمے میں بعینہٖ قائم رکھ کر لوگوں کو یہ باور کرانے کے لیے پیش کی گئی ہیں کہ قرآن نے یہ لفظ کسی خاص اصطلاحی مفہوم میں استعمال کیا ہے، اُنھیں کسی مستند ترجمے یا تفسیر میں دیکھ لیجیے، حقیقت اِس طرح واضح ہو جائے گی کہ آپ کے پاس بھی تبصرے کے لیے کوئی الفاظ باقی نہیں رہیں گے، جس طرح کہ میرے ناقدین میں سے ایک صاحب علم کے پاس نہیں رہے ہیں۔ میں یہاں دو جلیل القدر علما کے تراجم پیش کیے دیتا ہوں۔ ملاحظہ فرمائیے:

۱۔ سورۂ بقرہ (۲) کی آیت ۳۰۔

’’اور جب کہا تیرے رب نے فرشتوں کو، مجھ کو بنانا ہے زمین میں ایک نائب۔‘‘ (شاہ عبدالقادر)

’’اور جب کہا تیرے رب نے فرشتوں کو کہ میں بنانے والا ہوں زمین میں ایک نائب۔‘‘ (مولانا محمود الحسن)

۲۔ سورۂ ص (۳۸) کی آیت ۲۶۔

’’اے داؤد، ہم نے کیا تجھ کو نائب ملک میں، سو تو حکومت کر لوگوں میں انصاف سے۔‘‘ (شاہ عبدالقادر)

’’اے داؤد، ہم نے کیا تجھ کو نائب ملک میں، سو تو حکومت کر لوگوں میں انصاف سے۔‘‘ (مولانا محمود الحسن)

۳۔ سورۂ نور (۲۴) کی آیت ۵۵۔

’’وعدہ دیا اللہ نے جو لوگ تم میں ایمان لائے ہیں اور کیے ہیں اُنھوں نے نیک کام، البتہ پیچھے حاکم کرے گا اُن کو ملک میں، جیسا حاکم کیا تھا اُن سے اگلوں کو۔‘‘ (شاہ عبدالقادر)

’’وعدہ کر لیا اللہ نے اُن لوگوں سے جو تم میں ایمان لائے ہیں اور کیے ہیں اُنھوں نے نیک کام، البتہ پیچھے حاکم کرے گا اُن کو ملک میں، جیسا حاکم کیا تھا اُن سے اگلوں کو۔‘‘ (مولانا محمود الحسن)

’نائب‘ اور ’حاکم‘ کے الفاظ اِن آیتوں میں ’خَلِیْفَۃ‘ اور ’اِسْتِخْلَاف‘ کا ترجمہ ہیں اور صاف واضح ہے کہ اپنے اندر کوئی دینی مفہوم نہیں رکھتے، الاّ یہ کہ کوئی شخص یہ دعویٰ کرنے کا حوصلہ کر لے کہ عربی زبان کا ہر وہ لفظ جو قرآن میں استعمال کیا گیا ہو، دینی اصطلاح بن جاتا ہے۔

یہی صورت حال احادیث و آثار کی ہے۔ اُن میں بھی لفظ ’خلافت‘ اور اِس کے تمام مشتقات اُنھی مفاہیم میں استعمال کیے گئے ہیں جو اوپر بیان ہوئے ہیں، یہاں تک کہ جانشین کے معنی میں لفظ ’خَلِیْفَۃ‘ خود اللہ تعالیٰ کے لیے بھی استعمال ہوا ہے۔ یہی سبب ہے کہ ’ہدایت یافتہ حکومت‘ یا ’نبوت کے طریقے پر حکومت‘، جیسے مدعا کو ادا کرنا مقصود ہو تو اُس کے لیے یہ لفظ تنہا کافی نہیں ہوتا، بلکہ اِس کے ساتھ ’راشدہ‘ اور ’علیٰ منہاج النبوۃ‘ جیسی تعبیرات کا اضافہ کرنا پڑتا ہے۔ ہمارے علما نے اِسی طرح کی تعبیرات کو مقدر مان کر خلافت کو ایک اصطلاح بنایا ہے۔ اِس لحاظ سے یہ مسلمانوں کے علم سیاست اور عمرانیات کی ایک اصطلاح تو یقیناًہو سکتی ہے، جیسے فقہ، کلام، حدیث اور اِس طرح کے دوسرے علوم کی اصطلاحات ہیں، مگر دینی اصطلاح نہیں ہو سکتی۔ اللہ اور رسول کے سوا کسی کی ہستی نہیں ہے کہ وہ کسی لفظ کو دینی اصطلاح قرار دے۔ یہ اُنھی کا حق ہے اور کسی لفظ کے بارے میں یہ دعویٰ کہ وہ دینی اصطلاح ہے، اُنھی کے ارشادات سے ثابت کیا جائے گا۔ یہ ابن خلدون کے مقدمے سے ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

رہی یہ بات کہ دنیا میں مسلمانوں کی ایک ہی حکومت ہونی چاہیے اور یہ اسلام کا حکم ہے تو قرآن سے واقف ہر صاحب علم جانتا ہے کہ وہ اِس طرح کے کسی حکم سے یکسر خالی ہے۔ دو حدیثیں، البتہ اِس کے حق میں پیش کی جاتی ہیں: اُن میں سے ایک یہ ہے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا: بنی اسرائیل پر نبی حکومت کرتے تھے۔ چنانچہ ایک نبی دنیا سے رخصت ہوتا تو دوسرا اُس کی جگہ لے لیتا تھا، لیکن میرے بعد کوئی نبی نہیں ہے، حکمران، البتہ ہوں گے اور بہت ہوں گے۔ پوچھا گیا: اُن کے بارے میں آپ ہمیں کیا حکم دیتے ہیں؟ آپ نے فرمایا: پہلے کے ساتھ عہد اطاعت کو پورا کرو، پھر اُس کے ساتھ جو اُس کے بعد پہلا ہو۔* دوسری یہ ہے کہ جب دو حکمرانوں کی بیعت کر لی جائے تو دوسرے کو قتل کر دو۔ ** اِس دوسری حدیث پر تو اگرچہ سند کے لحاظ سے بھی بہت کچھ کلام کیا گیا ہے، لیکن برسبیل تنزل مان لیجیے، تب بھی یہ حقیقت ناقابل انکار ہے کہ اِن حدیثوں میں وہ بات ہرگز نہیں کہی گئی جو اِن سے ثابت کرنے کی کوشش کی جاتی ہے۔ اِن میں جو کچھ کہا گیا ہے، وہ یہ ہے کہ مسلمان اگر اپنی حکومت کے لیے کسی شخص کے ہاتھ پر بیعت کر لیں اور اِس کے بعد کوئی دوسرا بغاوت کر کے اٹھ کھڑا ہو اور لوگوں کو بیعت کی دعوت دے تو ہر مسلمان کو پہلی بیعت پر قائم رہنا چاہیے۔ نیز یہ کہ اگر دوسرا اپنی حکومت کا اعلان کر دے اور کچھ لوگ اُس کی بیعت بھی کر لیں تو اُس کو قتل کر دیا جائے۔

یہ، ظاہر ہے کہ ایسی ہدایات ہیں جن کی معقولیت ہر شخص پر واضح کی جا سکتی ہے۔ چنانچہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے دنیا سے رخصت ہو جانے کے بعد جب انصار میں سے ایک شخص نے یہ تجویز پیش کی کہ انصار اور مہاجرین، دونوں میں سے ایک ایک حکمران بنا لیا جائے تو سیدنا عمر نے اِسی اصول پر فرمایا کہ یہ تو ایک نیام میں دو تلواریں ہو جائیں گی اور صدیق اکبر رضی اللہ عنہ نے بھی اِس موقع پر لوگوں کو متنبہ کیا کہ ایک ہی مملکت میں دو حکمران نہیں ہو سکتے۔ اِس لیے کہ اِس کا نتیجہ یہی نکلے گا کہ سخت اختلافات پیدا ہو جائیں گے، صلاح کے بجاے فساد بڑھے گا، پورا نظم منتشر ہو کر رہ جائے گا اور رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے لوگوں کو جس طریقے پر چھوڑا تھا، اُس کی جگہ یہ بدعت لے لے گی کہ ایک ہی مملکت میں دو لوگ حکومت کر رہے ہوں گے۔ ***

اِن روایتوں کی نسبت اگر خدا کے پیغمبر کی طرف صحیح ہے تو آپ نے جو کچھ فرمایا، وہ یہی تھا۔ اِن سے یہ بات کسی منطق سے بھی برآمد نہیں کی جا سکتی کہ اسلام نے اپنے ماننے والوں کو دنیا میں ایک ہی حکومت قائم کرنے کا حکم دیا ہے اور اسلام کے داعی اگر کبھی امریکہ، برطانیہ یا دنیا کے کسی دوسرے ملک میں لوگوں کی اکثریت کو مشرف بہ اسلام کرنے میں کامیاب ہو جائیں تو اِن احادیث و آثار کی رو سے وہ اپنے ملک میں اپنی الگ حکومت قائم نہیں کر سکتے اور اگر کریں گے تو گناہ گار ہوں گے، جس طرح کہ اِس وقت پچاس کے قریب ممالک کے مسلمان ہو رہے ہیں۔
علما کو متنبہ رہنا چاہیے کہ خدا کے دین میں جو بات جتنی ہو، اُسے اتنا ہی رکھا جائے۔ یہ کسی عالم اور فقیہ اور محدث کا حق نہیں ہے کہ وہ لوگوں کو ایک ایسی بات کا مکلف ٹھیرائے جس کا مکلف اُن کے پروردگار نے اُن کو نہیں ٹھیرایا ہے۔ چنانچہ میں نے لکھا ہے اور ایک مرتبہ پھر دہرا رہا ہوں کہ جن ملکوں میں مسلمانوں کی اکثریت ہے، اُن کی ایک ریاست ہاے متحدہ کا قیام ہم میں سے ہر شخص کی خواہش ہو سکتی ہے اور ہم اِس کو پورا کرنے کی جدوجہد بھی کر سکتے ہیں، لیکن اِس خیال کی کوئی بنیاد نہیں ہے کہ یہ اسلامی شریعت کا کوئی حکم ہے جس کی خلاف ورزی سے مسلمان گناہ کے مرتکب ہو رہے ہیں۔

[۲۰۱۵ء]

_____

* بخاری، رقم ۳۴۵۵۔ مسلم، رقم ۱۸۴۲۔
** مسلم، رقم ۱۸۵۳۔
*** السنن الکبریٰ، بیہقی، رقم ۱۶۵۴۹۔ ۱۶۵۵۰۔

____________

https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/blog/5aa583115e891e8f44a39f3b

Khilafah by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

It is an undeniable fact that for the past many centuries, the word khilafah is being used as a term. However, it is certainly not a religious term. It needs to be understood that religious terms cannot be coined by scholars like Razi, Ghazali, Mawardi, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Khuldun. Similarly, not every word which Mulims start using in a particular sense becomes a religious term. On the contrary, religious terms can only be coined by God and His messengers, and are acceptable only when their meaning as a term is validated from the Qur’an and Hadith or other divine scriptures. Words as sawm, salah, hajj and ‘umrahetc are regarded as religions terms because God and His messengers have accorded them this status, and have used them at various instances as terms. On the other hand, the word khilafah is a word of the Arabic language and means “vicegerency,” “succession,” and “political authority.” It is used as a common Arabic word in one of these meanings at all places in the Qur’an and Hadith. It may be noted that certain verses of the Qur’an have generally been cited to convince people that they are used as terms. In all such verses, people have actually not translated the words khilafah and khilafah in the translation of the verses and have kept them intact in their original Arabic form. By doing this they want to give the impression that these words have been used as terms. If all these verses are looked up in any authentic translation, one will be at a loss to understand how this inference was made, just as one of my critics seems to be at a loss at the inferences made by me!

Presented below are the Urdu translations of two very competent scholars:

1. Verse 40 of Surah Baqarah

And when your Lord said to the angels: “I have to make a na’ib(deputy) in the earth.” (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)

And when your Lord told the angels: “I will make a na’ib (deputy) in the earth.” (Mahmud al-Hasan)

2. Verse 26 of Surah Su‘ad

O David! We have made you a na’ib (deputy) in the country; so govern people with justice. (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)

O David! We have made you a na’ib (deputy) in the country; so govern people with justice. (Mahmud al-Hasan)

3. Verse 55 of Surah Nur

God has promised that those among you who have accepted faith and have done righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times make them hakim(rulers) in the country the way He made hakim (rulers) those prior to them. (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)

God has promised those among you who have accepted faith and have done righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times make them hakim in the country the way He made rulers those prior to them. (Mahmud al-Hasan)

The words na’ib and hakim used in these verses are translation of the Arabic words khalifah and istikhlaf, and it is quite evident that they do not have any religious connotation in them except if a person claims that every word used in the Qur’an becomes a religious term.

Similar is the case with the Ahadith and Athar. The word khalifah and all its derivatives are used in them in the same meanings as the ones stated earlier. So much so, in one Hadith, the word khalifah is used for God Himself in the meaning of “successor”. It is for this very reason that when meanings such as “rightly guided government” or “government in accordance with the way of prophethood” need to be expressed, then words such as rashidah and ‘ala minhaj al-nubuwwah have to be appended with the word khilafah. By regarding such appended words to be understdood with the word khilafah, our scholars have made khilafah a term. As such, it certainly is a term of political science and sociology of the Muslims just as the words fiqh, kalam, hadith and other similar ones have become terms, but it cannot be regarded as a religious term. No one except God and His Messenger has the authority to coin a religious term. This is solely their prerogative. If some word is regarded as a religious term, then it has to be deduced from the words of these two authorities. It cannot be adduced from works like the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.

As far as the view is concerned that according to Islam there should be only one global government in the world, it is evident to every person of learning that the Qur’an is absolutely devoid of any such directive. Two Ahadith are, however, cited in favour of this view. One of them is: God’s Messenger (sws) is reported to have said that prophets ruled the Israelites; so, when one of them passed away, another would take his place; but there is no prophet after me; however, there will be rulers and they will be plenty. It was asked: “What is your directive about them O Prophet!” He replied: “Fulfil your oath of allegiance with the first one and then with the one who is the first after him,” (Bukhari, no. 3455; Muslim, no. 1842). The second Hadith is: “When the oath of allegiance is pledged to two rulers, kill the second one,” (Muslim, no. 1853). Though this second narrative is not sound as far as its chain of narration is concerned, yet even if it is regarded to be correct, it is an incontestable reality that none of these Ahadith state in any sense what has been derived from them. What is said in these narratives is that if Muslims pledge their oath of allegiance to a ruler and then another person rebels against him and invites people to pledge allegiance to him, then each Muslim should adhere to his first oath of allegiance. Moreover, if the second person claims to be their ruler and some people even pledge their oath of allegiance to him, then he should be executed.

Such is the nature of these directives that their cogency can be made evident to every person. Thus, after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) when a member of the Ansar tribe suggested that a ruler each from the Ansar and the Muhajirun should be appointed, ‘Umar (rta) on this very principle opined that two swords cannot exist in one sheathe, and Abu Bakr (rta) also cautioned people at this instance that a state can only have one ruler. This is because such an arrangement will result in severe differences, disorder instead of order will arise and the discipline of the state will be ruined, and instead of [following] the way on which the Prophet (sws) left his people this religious innovation that one state will be governed by two rulers will emerge. (Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, no. 16549, 16550)

If the ascription of these Ahadith to the Prophet (sws) is correct, then they imply what has been explained above. No logic can adduce from them that Islam has directed its followers to set up a single government in the whole world. Similarly, no reasoning can deduce from these narratives that if the adherents of Islam are able to convert the majority of people of other countries to Islam, then they cannot set up their own government and if they do so, as in the case of today’s fifty odd Muslims countries, they will be regarded as sinners.

Scholars of Islam must bear in mind that the precepts of God’s religion must remain pure and unaltered. No scholar, jurist or Hadith doctor has the authority to make people liable for a directive for which the Almighty has not made them liable. Hence I have written and would like to repeat that the establishment of United States of Islam based on the union of countries in which Muslims are in majority can be the desire of every person and we can also strive to fulfil this desire, but this view has no basis that such a union is a directive of the Islamic shari‘ah defying which Muslims are committing a sin.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/blog/5aa583115e891e8f44a39f3f

The Moon’s Size

“One of the sign of hour is that people see a new moon and think, due to its size, that it is two days old.”

In fact, I have heard this remark on countless occasions from Muslims who see a new moon; because it is over thirty hours old, which is when new moons are normally sighted, they think it is too big to be a newborn crescent and declare that is at least two days old.

This results from people’s alienation from natural order and the fact that few modern people ever observe the phases of the moon from birth to conjunction and rebirth.

In another extraordinary hadith, the Prophet s said, “Among the signs of the end of time is that the crescent will be seen with the naked eye, and it will be said, “This is two days old.”

In another variant, the narration states,

“Among the signs of the end is the hopping of the crescents (intif’ju l-ahillah).”

Imam al-Ghum’rÏ’s interpretation is that the news of the crescent will spread immediately throughout the world. [Since the word is taken from the hop of a rabbit (intafaja l-arnab, the rabbit hopped)]. And God knows best.”

— Taken from a lecture series by Sh Hamza Yusuf.

Image courtesy: https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/393150242460084986/

$2.12 Sex.

The subject of women safety, empowerment and equal rights have been always an interesting topic for media. Talking the issue in Indian context, the rape incidents serve just one tool in the hand of politicians and media circuits to capitalise the event. I never get the point of heated debate, water cannon agitations and cursing the ruling government. If we think logically we have enough rules, legislations and administrative infrastructure to deal with these incidents. However in spite of all the massive police force and intellectually enlightened population of metros the cases of sexual offence seems not to be subsiding.

It is interesting though to note that people in general do not have a definite moral stand on the validity of goodness for the offences. Personally to my knowledge more than 90% of colleagues and people i know from India use sexist slangs in informal chats. They keep on having a browsing eyes to women and do not consider this to be an offence. This is quite natural to men in general and is considered cool to use “F” and “M” and other words to give a subconscious sense of sexual offence while joking and checking out the next walking girl on street. They think themselves responsible enough and the act to be mature enough. There is no good and bad to it, that’s what they say.

In general everyone is having a single opinion over gender discrimination, harassments, molestation and rape. However when it comes to nudity, pornography, prostitution, drugs and alcohol the opinion differs. Let’s think a bit more.

In a recent news (NDTV/Washington Post) on 29th November 2015 there was a disturbing news. Actually not so disturbing. As i discussed with few people and most of them do not give any uncomfortable gesture. The news was over the condition of Greek women and the prostitution market. It says:

“Young Greek women are selling sex for the price of a sandwich as six years of painful austerity has pushed the European country to the financial brink, a new study showed Friday.”

Read full story : https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/young-greek-women-selling-sex-for-the-price-of-a-sandwich-new-study-shows/2015/11/27/c469695e-94d9-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html

Screen Shot 2019-03-10 at 10.15.09 am

If this news was published in a way that in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran or any muslim society the condition of women is such and such then of course, well we can imagine the overflow of anti Islamic sentiments.

This is quite possible many rich Indians would have planned their trip to Greece. You don’t get such bargains daily.

The point here is that if a society accepts selling sex as a commodity, they should not complain about harassment, abuse and rape. Once you are in market and you sell “nudity” in the name of art, practice informal sexist remarks in the name of “free speech”and cheat your partners, as a society you do not hold any moral standard for men women relationship. In the absence of standards you can’t define rules and eventually this hits back occasionally.

Some of my friend think prostitution is OK. There is nothing wrong in it. However if i ask them if they would like their sisters, mothers, wife and relatives in the business; some says No and some sports a casual yes silence. Well if it generates money its OK. If you endorse such view how can you complain about a poor who do not get a good sex experience and is frustrated with his spouse. If he sees a beautiful girl passing by he is just attempting to fulfil his need which the society as a whole has allowed in the name of art and culture. For him she is not a rape victim. She is just an unwilling sperm recipient.

We are equipping young generation with sick minds by allowing free pornography, underprivileged with drugs and alcohol to get themselves free. Prostitution as a free market where all the foundation of family values are massacred. Once the hearts and minds are corrupted, there is no turning back. Addiction demands more and there are plenty of options. If not, while drunk, they lose control and seek what some society elites term as crime.

Rape incidents are the outcome of hypocritical stand of society over moral standards. Period.

In coming times and is happening recently, that this business of seeking desires is promoted as escort services and other heavy dictionary terms. You will either loose the definition of family and will exist as a singular fun seeking creature like Satan, or will experience intermittent jerks of rape incidents. You will never be safe in balancing morality and your desires.

Solution:

In the absence of moral standards in current society, Islam is the only way which defines and maintains the morality of women, family values and society. To know further i encourage readers to go through following Videos.

Hitting Women: Hitting Women – That’s Messed Up – Nouman Ali Khan

Nudity: To Cover or Not? – That’s Messed Up! – Nouman Ali Khan

Marriages: Forced Marriages – That’s Messed Up – Nouman Ali Khan

Status of Women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-WRz9S0hw

Men are not equal to women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7_H7QPnSJg

Thank You.