By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age
03 October 2018
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is
reported to have said that the Hijrat (migration) to Madinah or any other
place, after the conquest of Makkah, was no longer binding. This Hadith should
be regarded as one of the Islamic exhortations of why Muslims living in the
democratic countries like India do not need Hijrat at all.
The main point of Hijrat in Islam in the
early Prophetic era was the fact that Muslims were not allowed to profess and
practice their Religion in Makkah, nor do they had any
constitutionally-approved right to claim their freedom of practicing their
Religion. But the scenario is different today. For example, India
constitutionally guarantees full freedom to profess and practice any religion
and propagate it. Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed
by Article 25-28 of the Constitution of India.
After the conquest of Makkah, in the 8th
year after the Hijrah, most of the Arabian Peninsula communities willingly
embraced Islam. It was around this time that Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)
is reported to have said, "لا هجرة بعد الفتح" which means “there is
no [more] Hijrah (migration) after the conquest [of Makkah]”. (Sahih
al-Bukhari: 2912). In ‘Fathul Bari’, the commentary on Bukhari, it is recorded
that leaving one’s hometown for the purpose of migration is no longer
compulsory. Muslim exegetes use this hadith as an argument to support the view
that Muslims cannot leave the country which bestow upon them religious freedom
This Prophetic saying encouraged Muslims
since then on to stay where they were and to worship God Almighty elsewhere.
Freedom to worship God Almighty and practice Islam was the main reason of
Hijrat in the early period of Islam and when the necessity was met, migration
was prohibited. It is for this reason migration [Hijrat] from India to
elsewhere is not allowed for anyone, as India constitutionally ensures freedom
to worship and practice Islam.
This view that Indian Muslims do not need
Hijrat gained massive support from Sunni-Sufi Muslims of India known as Barelvis
and they were the first ones who refuted baseless arguments of the Deobandi
clerics who had encouraged Hijrat from India to another country. This
refutation later made all Muslims feel that India constitutionally guarantees
religious freedom and security and thereby they no longer carried out the
theory of inspiring Indian Muslims for Hijrat. Now some clerics are reported to
have repeated the same ideology of encouraging Hijrat from India on the points
that Muslims and their religious freedom are no longer safe in India.
One must know that as long as the Indian
Constitution does ensure fundamental right of religious freedom and security,
one should not view any of the incidents like lynching, killing, riot or any
illegal happening as an argument to claim justification for Hijrat. There are
indeed happenings of such heart-wrenching incidents on a regular basis but the
Indian Constitution has nothing to do with provocation of such incidents. Those
responsible for such incidents must be brought to court of justice, regardless
of religion, caste and color. Such happenings should be viewed as just vs.
unjust, good vs. bad, and not as Hindus vs. Muslims.
One must also know that in some cases it is
Muslims who kill Muslims; it is Muslims who illegally occupy the land of other
Muslims. One Muslim brother illegally occupies the land of his own brother and
for that matter he even plans to kill him. Should we then blame Islam or
Musalmaniyat for such crimes? No, we should not. Surely It is greed, lust and
Shaitaniyat which is alone responsible for such crimes and thus if Muslims
commit such crimes they should be seen as criminals, and not as Muslims.
Similarly in cases when some Hindus kill Muslims in lynching or elsewhere,
these Hindus should be seen only as criminals and not as Hindus. Though only in
few cases, there are of course the cases in which Hindus are reported to have
been killed by Muslims, but this too should not be seen as Hindus vs. Muslims
but as just vs. unjust. To resolve such problems, one must not forget that, we
have Indian Constitution and Court of Justice; which is supported by all
Indians including Muslims, Hindus and other non-Muslims.
The extremist people who want to throw
Muslims out of India and those extremist who want to encourage Hijrat from
India should know that togetherness at least to the extent of peace and
coexistence is essential to ensure progress of India.
The implication of the above discussion is
that Hijrat cannot be justified on the basis of some unjust cases which are not
supported by the Indian Constitution.
The Indian Constitution in its various
articles directly or indirectly ensures religious freedom and security for
every citizen. It is the main reason that one should not call for Hijrat.
Another reason can be deduced from the
explanation of the Quranic verse which reads,
“And to Allah
belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is Allah’s
Entity [Allah’s Mercy is directed towards you]. Indeed, Allah is
All-Encompassing and the All-Knowing.” (2:115).
Why Did Hijrat Need In Islam?
The extremist mindsets often quote the
Quranic verse 8:72 to call for migration, but they do not consider the context
and circumstances of the revelation of this verse, as God Almighty says,
those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in
the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - they are allies of
one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no
guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the
religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and
whom is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do." (8:72).
Concerning this verse in today’s context
some questions arise. Are today’s Muslims whom they are calling to migrate
identical to the early Emigrants? Is it allowed for them to migrate from India
which grants security and religious freedom to them?
Associating the condition of today’s
Muslims to that of the early Emigrants mentioned in 8:72 is extremely injustice
and violation of the Quran. It is extremely essential for today’s followers of
Islam to understand the background of the early Emigrants.
Who were these Emigrants mentioned in the
verse 8:72? They were those Muslims who had no religious freedom in Makkah. In
other words, Makka did not have any constitution granting freedom to practice
religion and ensuring security. The early Muslims repeatedly suffered heartless
oppression, torture, and abuse for thirteen years. They were those Muslims who
were not allowed to fight even in defence in Makkah but were commanded therein
to persevere patiently. Every day these early Muslims would come in the
presence of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in a state where either someone’s
head was broken, or hand was badly damaged. They were those Muslims whose
co-religionists had been brutally killed in Makkah. Hadrat Bilal was rolled on the glowing
embers. Yasir and his wife Sumaiyah were wounded with spears. Not to speak of
the poor and the helpless, even the blue-blooded could not go unmolested. For
instance, Hazrat Osman’s uncle would tightly wrap him in a fresh animal skin,
and throw him in the scorching sun. The searing sun, profuse sweat and foul
smell of the skin would choke his breath and be unbearably excruciating and
Similarly, Hazrat Abu Bakr was once
subjected to such a cruel and painful torture that he lay unconscious for a
long time. For as long as 14 or 15 years, these Muslims suffered religious
persecutions, insults, outrages and injuries at the hands of their persecutors.
They bore all these indignities with the utmost humility and patience. When the
aggression and ruthlessness of the pagan Arabs grew more hotly than ever, Allah
commanded these Muslims to migrate. These Muslims carried out Allah’s command
worshipfully and migrated to Madina –nearly 300 miles away from Makkah. Still
the animosity of the inveterate enemies of Islam had not subsided. They
inflicted fresh injuries on the Muslims; robbed them of the peace of mind and
heart. A band of pagan Arabs would raid the pastures of the Muslims and take
away their cattle. If they encounter a lonely Muslim, they would not hesitate
in killing him mercilessly. It was then these Muslims were allowed to fight back
in defence and ensure peace and religious freedom.
Indian Muslims Do not Need Hijrat
As for the context of Muslims living in
India, they have their country’s Constitution that characterizes rights of
security and religious freedom. The situation of these Muslims is completely
different from that of the early Muslims in Makkah or the early Emigrants
mentioned the Quranic verse 8:79. It is therefore not appropriate to use this
verse to incite Muslims for migration.
This idea can also be deduced from the
historical fact that after the conquest of Makkah, when Muslims had achieved
religious freedom and ensured safety, the duty of migration was annulled, as
demonstrated above in the Hadith which implies that there is no more hijrat
after the conquest of Makkah. It is therefore not allowed for any extremist
cleric or any scholar to call Muslims to migrate from India to elsewhere, for
the simple reason that India guarantees religious freedom and security.
A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is
an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar) with a Sufi background and
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in
Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In
Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women
in West, Islam Women and Feminism
I have just gone through GGS “Refutation of
Jihadists’ Understanding of the Hadith, ‘I Was Commanded to Fight the People
until They Testify that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah”
What I am refuting is the Hadith itself in the
light of the Quran and also his understanding of the Hadith and that of Allama Adnan Ibrahim. What these people are saying
is that the Hadith does not apply today or to all the Mushrikin of the world, but
applied to the Prophet (pbuh) and the Mushrikin of Mecca of the Prophet’s times.
is a complete falsehood in the light of the Quran and did not apply even to the
Prophet and the Mushrikin of Mecca because the Quran:
1. Permitted war only against the religious
persecution and until the persecution was brought to an end.
2. In no verse does the Quran say “Fight the People until They Testify that there is no
god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. This hadith violates verse 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion”.
3. The Prophet never followed the hadith and always acted against what it
says and in complete conformity with what the Quran says.
I have also gone through GGS article on verse 2:256.
It is a wishy-washy article and there is no clear unambiguous affirmation that “Let
there be no compulsion in religion” is an eternal, inviolable law of Allah that
was never violated by any of the Prophets of Allah. If he had taken this
position, he would have rejected the hadith under discussion as it is not possible to
unambiguously affirm 2:256 and not reject the hadith since they are the
opposite of each other. This is precisely the state of Islamic scholarship. No
clarity on any issue.
The satanical hadith has influenced many scholars
and even Kanzul Iman to misinterpret the Quran. The proof is provided in the following
article which discusses how various scholars have misinterpreted verses 8:36 to
38 and the correct meaning:
Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding
The Kanzul Iman says that
the fight against the polytheists was until they “Kufr Se Baaz Aye Aur Islam Laye” whereas the
Quran simply says that the fight is until they give up the fitna of religious
persecution and until the law of Allah prevails (the law of Allah also includes
“there is no compulsion in religion” and the fight was precisely to make this
law of no compulsion in religion to prevail and not to compel the Mushrikin to
accept Islam). The influence of the hadith is obvious on even the moderate scholars
like Javed Ghamidi and Waheeduddin Khan as brought out in my article: The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine
I have been consistently propagating the
correct meaning and arguing against the misinterpretations and I am glad that
it has had the desired influence on Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqui. I acknowledge that:
He has come around to the view against abrogation
of any Quranic verse which is a huge change in him considering that all Classical
Islamic Scholars believe in abrogation. I have been consistently arguing
against the false concept of abrogation of any verse of the Quran and the fact
that no verse of the Quran contradicts another.
He has also been trying to explain away the Satanic
hadith without rejecting it outright. The hadith is false is proved by verse 9:1
to 3 which does not allow the Prophet to wage war until they proclaim, `There
is no deity worthy of worship except Allah' but allows the Mushrikin to migrate within the
amnesty period of four months and retain their faith if they so wish to do so.
I have brought out in my article dated 28 March, 2015, The
Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The
“Not a single person was killed for simple unbelief
and the principle of “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and “To (peaceful
rejecter of faith ) be his way and to me mine” was never violated.”
glad that GGS also endorses the law of “No compulsion in religion” but this is
after I have been consistently propagating the right view and against the wrong
My comment is against all the scholars who
have undoubtedly misinterpreted the Quran in the light of the false hadith and continue
to do so.
The hadith falsely attributes to Allah
what Allah could never have commanded the Prophet and falsely attributes to the
Prophet what he could never have said. Allah commands the Prophet to:
if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and
trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Why would Allah exhort peace in the Quran
and separately command the Prophet to “fight
against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship
While all of the Prophet’s behaviour is in
accordance with the Quran, not a single deed of his is in accordance with the
cited hadith. The hadith is a lie and blasphemes Allah, the Quran and the
Prophet. It is inspired by Satan to mislead and must be rejected outright and
not explained away.
The readers must know that “there is
no compulsion in the DIN (Religion)” is binding for all time to come.
I have covered this topic in short
in my article referenced below;
Rights of Non-Muslims
Living In Minority – Part 1 – Freedom of Religion
While interpreting the hadith “I have
been commanded to fight …….”, one should focus on the meaning of the Quranic
verse which says “there is no compulsion in the Religion [DIN]” and try to
interpret this hadith in such a way which conforms to the Quranic verse. If one
fails to take out such meanings, one should follow the Quran. this is the
balanced view which has been unanimously agreed by all the scholars. There were
some classical scholars who were unable to take out the meaning of this hadith
in accordance with the QURANIC VERSE 2:192, they left the hadtih and followed
the very principle derived from the QURAN WHICH reads “there is no compulsion
in the Religion”. However they did no adopt extremist nature and thus they did
not use abusive language thinking that it might really be the saying of the
beloved Prophet and that it had some hidden meanings in conformity with the
Quran. This was the balanced nature of such scholars who made implications as
per the historical context and juristic methodology and finally reached the
meaning of the QURANIC VERSE 2:192.
Newageislam.com has posted a speech
which talks about implications of the hadith often misunderstood by jihadists
and their hidden followers. This has been shown to Naseer sb but despite that
he is using abusive language.
The scholars who are very balanced
with regard to ahadith do not use such abusive language even if the ahadith are
weak in their chain of narration, what to speak of saheeh, mashhoor or
of Jihadists’ Understanding of the Hadith, ‘I Was Commanded to Fight the People
until They Testify that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah’
How can an ignorant know that even the scholars of QURAN AND AHADITH use
a principle which is binding for all time to come that if any hadith disagrees
with the Quranic verse one will have to compulsorily follow the Quran and leave
ahadith. This is regardless of the fact that some ahadith apparently disagree
with the Quranic verses but when interpreted in their right application they
happen to agree with each other. Today hardly can we find such scholars who
have this sort of insight. But it is God Almighty whom He gives insight and in
the past indeed there are certain Mujtahid scholars who did this sort of work.
It is actually satanic mind which
wrongly interprets the Quran and ahadith. It is satanic mind which in the name
of the Quranic verse 9:5 and in the name of certain ahadith is creating terrorism
in the land.
The Quran, Ahadith, Vedas, Ramayana,
Mahabharat, Bible and other religious books have war-related narratives and
statements. Does it mean their respective followers should use abusive language
for their respective religious books? No not at all. If one starts using
abusive language, there will be corruption on the entire earth. Perhaps this is
the reason that the developed countries have made certain laws to respect
Terrorist minds can use their
respective religious books for their nefarious deeds. Even hate mongers or
abusive persons can use them for creating fitna in the land. In my opinion this
is sheer tyranny and evil activity and nothing else.
One should respect religious books. If
one does not follow any religious books, one should not abuse other’s religious
books. This is the religious right, the breech of which is really objectionable
in every law – even in the UN’s ARTICLES.
Does UN allow such freedom to use
abusive language? Does any country allow using such freedom to abuse any
religious books? No not at all. But if anyone supposedly does so, I will never
agree with it because my religion Islam prevents me calling other’s religions
One should be very honest here to
judge in his own heart that which religious book in this world has no
war-related narratives. I can show from every religious book such world
war-related narratives, but will never think of any sort of abusive terms. But Naseer
sb has repeatedly used abusive language for Hadith. I have learnt that
war-related narratives have certain context and circumstances.
I agree that Islam is the most
misused religion of this world. Misuse of Islam is not restricted to the Quran
but also to ahadith and other religious books. Even religious scholars are sometimes
misunderstood. But this does not behove a good scholar to use abusive terms for
his misunderstanding. The fact is that 99% of MUSLIMS follow the Quran and Ahadith
in this world but unfortunately only the handful terrorists are using such
war-related verses for their nefarious verses.
Any statement, any law of this modern
world, any logic or anything can be misused by anyone. But misuse of anything
should not make others abuse that law or that thing. Instead that act of
misusing should be criticized.
There are people who laugh at America
or India or any country or any law or UN etc. They say they have the people who
been responsible for this violence or that violence. But I do not agree because
only the wrong people are wrong and the entire nation or country should not be
blamed for that.
Even UN has allowed fighting in defense;
does it then mean one should attack Burma and give it the name of self-defense?
Does it mean one should attack civilians and pundits in Kashmir? Does it mean
to kill Syrians, Iraqis, and Palestinians? Does it mean to attack Muslims and
non Muslims – all in the name of self defense or under the excuse of
eliminating terrorism? The entire world is flat in disastrous war and hate. I do not like any violence, any war, any
oppression, in any country, be it my country or other’s. I only want the people
to live in peaceful coexistence.
As for religious books having
war-related narratives, they have particular meanings and certain context. Only
the experts can interpret them well.
In context of hadith which has
unfortunately been abused by Naseer shb has certain context. The reliable
scholars checked its chain of narration in such a hard criteria which if
applied in today’s modern world, then nothing of the means of media will be
reliable. This hadith had certain amount
of zann [perception] which does not amount to become mutawatir hadith having
full surety. Hadith not being a mutawatir means it has some level of zann being
it hadith or not. Regardless of whether this has 90% or 70 % or 60 % chance of it being a hadith,
the scholars interpreted this hadith with all their historical accounts and
other jurisdict implications in such a way to convince the world that this
hadiht can’t be literally understood well. It literal interpretation does not
conform to the QURANIC VERSES. And of course the most popular view of the
classical studies is that if any hadith apparently disagrees with any verse of the
Quran, one should try to make tatbeeq first, if it is not possible, then one
should act according to the Quran and leave the hadith because of its chain of
narration. This was and is the moderate and very balanced view. But unfortunately
bereft of such sense, there are the people who because of their ignorance start
abusing anything. May God ALMIGHTY SAVE US FROM SUCH IGNORANT PEOPLE WHOSE MISSION
CAN ONLY HARM THE SOCIETY!
Those who are hate mongers or use
abusive language should be away from interpreting such ahadith. Anyway those
who use abusive language for any religious books will have to face their fate
on the Day of Judgment and of course God Almighty knows what best judgement for
such abusive persons is, as Naseer sb is repeatedly using abusive
language for a hadith which has many technical implications?
What defined the Khwarij? It is their definition of Kafir. There were no Khwarij during the Prophet’s (pbuh)
times and there were no ahadith until the 250 hijri.
The Khwarij considered Muslims who do not conform to their
definition of Islam also as Kafir. Every sect of Islam considers a person who
leaves their sect and joins another sect as murtad and kafir fit for the death
punishment. Every such sect with such beliefs is therefore Khwarij in their
beliefs. According to the Justice Muneer Commission Report, this includes every
I belong to no sect and I do not even consider the
non-Muslim as kafir. Read: Revisiting the Meaning of Kafir. I am therefore
among the very few Muslims who is not a Khwarij while the rest are.
Why is there such Jihalat among the Muslims that they blindly accuse others of what they themselves are?
Just one example of a
The Tafseer of
Ibn Kathir on verses 2:191 to 193 and 8:36 to 8:38 quotes a Hadith collected in
the two Sahihs in which the Prophet (pbuh) is alleged to have said:
«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ، حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ، إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَل»
(I was commanded to fight
against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship
except Allah.' If and when they say it, they will preserve their blood and
wealth from me, except for its right (Islamic penal code), and their reckoning
is with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honoured.)"
The abovementioned Hadith
has not only distorted the message of the Quran, but made Muslims believe in a
false history of early Islam. It is believed perhaps by all scholars, that the
Christians and the Jews under the political authority of the Prophet (pbuh)
were given the option to pay Jizya or face war, but the polytheists had no
choice but to accept Islam or be killed. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
Consider verse 9:29 translated by Yusuf Ali:
Fight those who believe not
in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by
Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they
are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing
Who are the people who do not believe in Allah and the last day?
Are they the Jews and Christians? Certainly not! The only people the Quran
accuses of not believing in Allah and the last day are the “Mushrikin” or the
polytheists. There are numerous verses that speak of the Jews and the
Christians but not even one verse accuses them of not believing in Allah or the
last day. There are also numerous verses that speak of the “Mushrikin” which accuse them of not
believing in the last day and associating partners with Allah or disbelieving
both in Allah and the Last Day (44:35, 50:3, 56:47). How do the scholars then
connect this part of the verse with the Jews and Christians and not with the
“Mushrikin” or the polytheists? They are misled by the quoted Hadith according
to which, the Mushrikin forfeited their right to life if they did not accept
Islam and therefore there was no question of their being given the choice of
paying Jiziya and continue to live as polytheists. A truly satanic Hadith
is made to prevail on a very clear message of the Quran!
The Jews and the Christians
are accused of not holding that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and
his messenger (4:161, 5:42, 5:62,63) and not acknowledging the religion of
Truth. The subject of the latter part of the verse is therefore the Jews and
the Christians. The verse therefore covers the Polytheists, the Jews and the
Christiana and all of them are given a choice to willingly pay Jiziya or face
Mushrikin covered by Verse
9:4, had the right to pay Jizya and keep their faith. The scholars including
the moderate Javed Ghamidi hold the hadith to be correct and argue that 9:29
does not apply to the Mushrikin, and that even those covered by 9:4 had no
choice but to accept Islam or get killed as per 9:5 after the term of their
Such an understanding
violates 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Verse 9:4
covers those people who had never fought the Muslims or broken their treaty and
therefore not liable for any punishment. How could these be killed then if they
agreed to pay Jizya and retain their faith?
The Mullahs do not
care. They go by the hadith. To them the Mushrikin had no choice but to
either accept Islam or be killed irrespective of whether they had
fought/persecuted the Muslims or not!
There is evidence from the commentaries
that Mushrikin remained even after verse 9:5 was revealed, the four month
period of amnesty had elapsed and the treaties of those covered by 9:4 had
expired. These were then Jizya paying Mushrikin and the scholars are wrong to
think that those covered by 9:4 did not have the right to retain their faith.
There is also evidence from the commentaries that the Muslims harassed such
Mushrikin arguing that their "shirk" itself was "fitna" and
made their lives miserable. It was Umar Bin Khattab who protected them from
such harassment and said that there could be no "fitna" by a minority
and their fitna was only when they enjoyed power and were in a majority.
The effect of the Satanic hadith is that no Mullah takes 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" seriously let alone treat it as an eternal law of Allah that cannot be compromised under any circumstances. Even verse 9:5 does not compel those convicted of grave offences to accept Islam and gives them a choice to migrate to a neighboring land.
Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi sb,
Why r you debating with such guys who do not know any
basics of Islam. Khawarij were the biggest claimant of the Quran and drew their
swords against Hazrat Ali in the name of following Quran. Khawarij even rose
against the prophet sallahu alaihi wasallam in one of mosques. You know what
the prophet then said. This man is not less than those khawarij.
I do not know more about Islam and as far as I know
that you must be knowing that one group of khawarij rejects ahadith. Such blasphemous
language can’t come from a muslim. It is their place their power and their
You r true when you said they are working on certain
agendas. To add to your line please be sure that it is such people who provoke
muslims all around the world and then say this is violent and that is violent. Actually
it is not these people but their masters who do so. You belong to Sufism and Sufism,
for that matter, kept themselves away from bad people.
You are a learned man and know that only the faithful people
are disturbed at such blasphemous language. Unfaithful do not worry about
anything. They just worry their wealth and affluence. You know better than me
that our God Almighty is the most powerful and He is seeing everything and when
something goes beyond the limits He knows what He should do. And with this idea
you should not get disturbed at such agendas.
I have followed your articles and comments which have
benefitted me many times. Not only me but other colleagues of mine also took
benefit from them. Please share you email or contact number I shall talk to
Satans are those who concoct the meaning of the Quran
to play their agendas.
Satans are those who concoct the meaning of ahadith to
play their agendas.
And thus satans are those who call the religious books
God Almighty alone knows how to punish such greater Satans.
Salman Rushdie wrote “Satanic verses”.
Naseer wrote, “The satanic ahadiths”
I do not see any difference between these two agendas.
The person who does not respect ahadith can’t be respected by me. Therefore
I am not using “Mr. Or sb” for him. Of course there are some concocted “sayings”
which are not ahadith. But this Naseer has generally attributed this abusive
term to Ahadith.
Astghfirullah. How have I come to face such unwanted debate?!!!
I do not want this Naseer to come to write any comments under my
article or else I will have to stop writing here as he will get more chances to
speak his blasphemous thought.
The question you asked,
is answered in my first comment on the subject By
Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 2:20:12 AM.
I reproduce the
relevant portion that answers your question below:
“Chinese Muslims being persecuted for
their religion and being forced to abandon it, may not have a choice to
migrate, and such Muslims are covered under 4:98 and 99”
The above was only by example. There can
be many more.
is from another comment under GRD’s article on the same subject:
The best way to counter such nonsense is to quote the universal rule for
all times about migration contained in the verses 4:97 to 100 from which
migration is mandated only when you are prevented from practicing Islam and
when you are capable of migrating. We also learn from other verses, that
the minimum practice to be considered a Muslim is to establish regular
congregational prayer and spending in charity.
What is also clear from the verses, is that belief alone is not enough
since we may continue to hold on to our beliefs even when prevented from
practicing Islam. What clearly matters more is practice and those who do not
practice Islam, wrong themselves.
not quote the notes to the verses unless you agree with these. I do not agree
with the nonsense of the bigots or with what the satanic ahadiths say. Please stick to the
literal meaning of the verses.
‘‘نصیر احمد ’’ صاحب!
آپ دعوی کرتے ہیں کہ آپ قرآن مجید کی اطاعت کرتے ہیں اور
معاذ اللہ ہزار بار استغفرا للہ کے آپ اپنے مضامین اور ان کے تحت ہونے والے ڈیبیٹ
میں لکھ چکے ہیں کہ اللہ تعالی بھی کافر ہے ۔پھر سے استغفر اللہ والعیاذ باللہ ۔اس
طرح کا خیال رکھنے سے ابلیس بھی شرماتا ہے ۔آپ چاہے جو بھی تاویل بھی کرے لیکن یہ
بات یاد رکھیں کہ اللہ تعالی کی جو صفات ہیں اس میں کوئی کمی واقع کبھی نہ ہوگی
۔نقصان تو یہ ہوگا کہ آپ دنیا و آخرت میں
بھی رسوا ہوں گے۔
آپ نے اپنے کمینٹ میں امام احمد رضا ، مودودی ، دیوبندی سب
کو گمراہ لکھا ہے ۔ہم یہاں امام احمد رضا کے تعلق سے گفتگو کریں گے ۔امام احمد
رضا کے عقائد و نظریات نصوص قاطعہ سے مدلل
ہیں ۔خیر نصوص قاطعہ کیا ہوتی ہیں ان کے بارے میں آپ کو پتہ ہی نہیں!
آپ علم ومعرفت سے معذور ہیں اسی لیے اس طرح کا خیال رکھتے ہیں۔ اجمالا یہ کہ
توبہ کیجیے اور اس طرح کے گمراہ کن خیالات سے بچیے۔
اللہ تعالی کے کلام کی عظمت کیا ہے اس کا اندازہ آپ نہیں بیان کر سکتے
۔خود قرآن مقدس نے اسے بیان کیا اور ہم سب کے رسول صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے اس کی
وضاحت کی ۔
قرآن ہمارے نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم پر اترا اور جہاں جہاں
قرآن کی آیت کو سمجھنے کے لیے وضاحت کی ضرورت پڑتی ہے ہمیں سنت رسول کو ہر حال
میں اپنانا پڑے گا ۔یہ غلط فہمی اپنے ذہن کے حاشیہ میں بھی نہ لائے کہ سنت رسول کی
تدوین دوسری یا تیسری صدی میں اول بار ہوئی ۔اس سلسلے میں ہزار سال سے زائد کی کتب ہمارے سامنے موجود
ہیں۔اور اس طرح کے بیشتر اعتراضات مع جوابات ہزارہا کتب میں موجود ہیں۔اتنے
اعتراضات کے جوابات دئے جا چکے ہیں جو شاید آپ کے حاشیہ خیال میں بھی نہ ہوں گے ۔
آپ تو بس ایک بات رٹ چکے ہیں کہ سنت کی تدوین دوسری تیسری
صدی میں ہوئی ۔۔۔۔یہ ایک ایسا خیال جو
مستعار ہے اور جس کی تردید ہزارہا کتب میں زبردست ہو چکی ہے ۔آپ اگر آپ ان
جوابات کو پڑھنا چاہیں تو بتائیے میں آپ کو کتاب تجویز کر دوں گا ۔
جو لوگ امت کے خیر خواہ ہوتے ہیں انہیں ہی تبلیغ دین واصلاح
امت کی توفیق ہوتی ہے ۔لیکن چونکہ آپ حاسد علمائے دین ہیں تو آپ کو اس کی توفیق
کیسے ملے گی؟ اگر اتنا ہی زیادہ آپ نفرت کرتے ہیں علمائے دین سے تو یہ مطالبہ لکھ
ڈالیے کہ میری نماز جنازہ بھی کوئی عالم دین نہ پڑھائے ۔آپ اپنی نفرت میں جیتے
رہیں آپ کا اعمال آپ کے ساتھ ہی رہے گا کسی اور پر اس کا وبال ہرگز نہیں۔
ہم مسلمانوں کا دین اسلام ہے ، قرآن وسنت اور اجماع ہمارے
اصول شرائع ہیں ان سے ایک انچ بھی انحراف نہیں کر سکتے ۔قرآن وسنت سے ماخوذ ہمارے
سامنے ایسے اصول وضوابط ہیں کہ ہر دور میں پنپنے والے مسائل کا حل نکالا جا سکتا
ہے ۔ہمیں کسی بھی غیر شرعی ایجنڈہ کی ضرورت نہیں
ہے اور نہ کبھی ہوگی ۔ہزار ہا لوگ اپنا نام بدل کر کوئی مسلمان نام رکھ کر
تو کوئی کچھ نام رکھ کر ، خود سے تو جھوٹ بول ہی رہے ہیں مگر ساتھ ہی ساتھ فتنہ و
فساد کا باعث بن رہے ہیں ۔
آپ کو کسی مسئلہ کا علم نہ ہوتو سوالیہ انداز میں اپنی بات
رکھئے ۔اس کا جواب طلب کیجیے ان شاء اللہ جواب ملے گا لیکن انداز تکلم شائستہ اور
مہذب ہو تو اچھا رہے گا۔ طعن و تشنیع سے گریز کیجیے ۔
میں آپ کو بحیثیت سائل دیکھتا ہوں لہذا سائل کے انداز میں ہی سوال پوچھیے ۔
ڈیبیٹ ان سے کیا جاتا ہے جو ماہرین ہوں ۔آپ میرے عمر کے کم
ہونے کا اندازہ لگا کر یہ نہ سمجھیں کہ میرا مطالعہ بہت کم یا محدود ہوگا ، میری
زندگی کا ہر لمحہ فقہ کے جزئیات اور اس کے رموز واسرار کو بہترین اصول وضوابط کی
روشنی میں سمجھنے میں گزار تا ہوں ۔خیر واللہ اعلم بالصواب ۔
آپ کے پاس کوئی اصول نہیں جو کچھ ہے وہ آپ کا اپنا گڑھا
ہوا ہے لہذا کسی بھی زاویہ سے یہ قابل التفات یا قابل تسلیم نہیں۔ہم جن اصول
وضوابط کی بات کر رہے ہیں وہ چودہ سو سالہ تاریخ کے تمام علوم ومباحث کا نچوڑ ہے
جن کی بیناد کسی فرد واحد کے خیالات محض سےمتزلزل نہیں ہو سکتی ۔
یہ وہ اصول وضوابط ہیں جن کی روشنی سے ہر دور کے نئے نئے
فتنوں کا سد باب کیا جا سکتا ہے ، ہر دور میں
پید اہونے والے مسائل کا حل نکالا جا سکتا ہے ۔
اگر آپ واقعی اسلام کو صحیح اور انصاف پسند نگاہ سے پڑھنا
چاہتے ہیں تو پہلے اپنے ذہن کو ہر زہریلے
تاثیرات سے پاک کیجیے اور تواضع وانکساری کےساتھ کسی اچھے ماہر سے زانوئے تلمذ کرکے ان اصول وضوابط کو پڑھ لیجیے کیونکہ انٹرنیٹ سے خود سے پڑھ کر مہارت کا دعوی کر لینا عقل سے
باہر ہے ورنہ تو کوئی بھی میڈیکل سائنس انٹرنیٹ پر پڑھ کر کسی کا آپریشن کر نے
والی دکان کھول کر بیٹھ جائے تو کوئی اس کی زحمت نہ کرے گا کہ اپنا آپریشن
آپ سے کرائے ۔آپ سمجھ گئے ہوں گے ۔
ایک ضمنی بات ذہن نشین کر لیجیے کہ اصول شرائع قرآن وسنت سے ہی ماخوذ
ہوتے ہیں۔جن کی روشنی میں دنیا میں ہونے والے ہر دور کے ہر مسائل کا سد باب کیا
جاتا ہے ۔