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
conquest of Makkah, when Muslims had achieved religious freedom and ensured
safety, the duty of migration was annulled”
religious freedom was the objective of those Muslims for which they had to bear
persecutions at Makka
If a man can explain God well enough so that he is satisfied, his view
and explanation of God is too small.
We can’t encompass the attributes of God
believe that the prophet sallalahu alaihi wasallam is noori bashar (human and
light. Deobandis say he is not light.
visit the shrines and ask Allah for forgivness and other blessings with
tawassul [source] of saints. Deobandis deny the creed of tawassul and tell
claim that barelvis are “grave-worshippers”.
say the Prophet knows ilmul ghaib by the blessings of Allah but deobandis say
he does not know ilmul ghaib.
differences are very common among barevlis and deobandis.
In the first centuries of Islam,
three major sects, Sunnis, Shias and Kharijites appeared. All of them developed
their respective jurisprudential schools [madhhab], adopting different
metholdogies of jurisprudence.
For example, Sunnis are divided
into four major schools, Hanafi, SHafii, Maliki and Hanbali.
Shias are classified into three
major schools, Fivers, Seveners and Twelvers.
Other sub-sects of Shias, such as
Qarmatians, Fatimids, Ismailis, Assassins of Alamut and Druses emerged from one
of the three major sects of Shias, the Seveners.
In recent days, Sunnis are
divided into (1) Salafis (aka Wahhabis)/ahle-hadith, 2) Deobandis and 3)
Barelvis. In Kashmir and other parts of India and Pakistan, Deobandis and
Barelvis say they follow the path of Sufism but they follow Sufism in their
respective ways. Deobandis follow Sufism much like wahhabism but Barelvis
follow Sufism in their own ways with creeds of tawassul, ilme ghaib, etc.
What is common among all
claimaints of Sunni Islam is that all of them claim to follow the Quran and
Hadith. Wahhabis follow their own literal interpretation of these two essential
sources of Islam. Barelvis and Deobandis also follow the Quran, Hadith, Ijtihad
and Qiyas. Barelvis and deobandis may follow any one of the Ashari and Maturidi
schools of Islamic theology and one of the Hanafi, Maliki, SHafii and Hanbali
schools. Additionally Barelvis in India and other countries choose one of the Sunni
Sufi orders like Qadiri, Chishti, Suharwardi, Razvi, Barkati, Naqshbandi. In Kalam
[theology based on Quran, Hadith and rationality], most Sunni Barelvis in India
and Kashmir follow the Maturidi school of Islamic theology and the Hanafi
madhhab of jurisprudence.
ISIS is based on Salafi version. Tahreek-e-Taliban
is based on Deobandi. Apparently most deobandis from India and Pakistan disassociate
themselves from Taliban but some of them feel pleasure to be associated with
them. A newly rising group in Pakistan, TLP claims to follow the path of Barevli
Sufi Sunnis, while some other Barelvis in India and Pakistan disassociate themselves
In short, it will be a great deal
of effort for new readers to understand all claimants of Sunni Islam and to
decide which one is the actual Sunni version of Islam.
يا أخي أبا سعيد ! سألتني
قائلا "كيف تقول الهجرة لا تجوز من دار الحرب؟ وما هي الأدلة التي تدل عدم
جواز الهجرة عند الحنفية؟"
يا أبا سعيد ، أعتقد أنك
لم تفهم مقالتي مقاصدها وسياقاتها فكتبت هذا التعليق من دون فهمها. كتبت هذه
المقالة في سياق الهند والمعلوم أن الهند ليست دار الحرب.
والهند هي دار الإسلام عند
الحنفية. وذكر الإمام أحمد رضا عن الفتاوى الهندية عن السراج الوهاج عن ظاهر
الرواية "إنما تصير دار الإسلام دار الحرب عند أبي حنيفة رحمه الله تعالى
بشروط ثلاثة : أحدها إجراء أحكام الكفار على سبيل الاشتهار وأن لا يحكم فيها بحكم
الإسلام" (اعلام الأعلام بأن هندوستان دار الإسلام)
وعن الفصول العمادية أن
دار الإسلام لا يصير دار الحرب إذا بقي شيء من أحكام الإسلام وان زال غلبة أهل
وعن منثور الإمام ناصر
الدين دار الإسلام إنما صارت دارالإسلام بإجراء الأحكام فما بقيت علقة من علائق
الإسلام يترجح جانب الإسلام
(العطايا النبوية في
الفتاوى الرضوية ج 14)
The Chinese government is currently operating prison camps holding almost millions of Muslims.
Over half of the population of Xinjiang, a province in Northwest China, is made up of the Muslim population and the majority of Muslims in this region are ethnic Uighurs according to The New York Times (NYT). Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that the Chinese government has tried to integrate this region for decades, but its efforts increased in the nineties after a previous period of lax government.
The state has increasingly moved Han Chinese, the majority ethnicity in China into Xinjiang and displaced Uighurs; HRW reports that in 1949, 75% of Xinjiang was Uighur and 7% Han, but now the province is 46% Uighur and 36% Han. The Chinese government has even gone as far as renaming the “Arabic sounding” Aiyi River, to the Mandarin, Diannong River, according to The Independent.
NYT reports that after a peak in anti-government violence in 2014, which killed hundreds, China instituted the “Strike Hard” plan.
Under this measure, the government has placed thousands of security personnel in the region, drastically increased surveillance and forced people to register if they want to attend mosques. The government has also imprisoned hundreds of thousands in what it calls “transformation through education.” The government also forced citizens in the capital district, of Xinjiang, Urumqi to install surveillance apps on their phones and if asked they have to hand them over to security personnel for inspection according to NYT.
The government has also confiscated the passports of many Muslims, and Muslims studying abroad were all forced to return to China in 2017 according to HRW. It goes on to report that in April 2017, China outlawed “abnormal” beards, veils and has banned parents from naming children Islamic names.
When the government arrests individuals under these new laws, if they are charged at all, conditions in the prison camps are torturous. NYT reports that prisoners are forced to renounce aspects of Islam, learn Chinese culture and in some cases are physically tortured. This mass imprisonment is depopulating small minority towns according to NYT.
NYT also interviewed a Muslim that the Chinese government had formerly imprisoned. The government arrested Abdusalam Muhemet for quoting a passage from the Quran at a funeral. He was thrown in a cell for seven months and spent a further two months in a re-education camp. He said that prisoners were forced to write “self-criticism essays” and had to sing patriotic songs with verses like “Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China.”
The mass imprisonment in the region is stark; although the Xinjiang has 1.5% of the population, 20% of the prisoners in China come from this region according to NYT. To afford the increase in prisons and surveillance, the government spent nearly $8.7 billion on security in Xinjiang in 2017 and doubling the previous year’s budget.
With this new budget, the government can afford to set up checkpoints throughout the province, search peoples homes for prayer mats and forbidden books and employ “Party Work Teams” according to NYT. These work teams move into villages and encourage neighbors to inform on each other.
In addition to the ‘Strike Hard Initiative’, the Chinese government has instituted “Physicals for All.” Under this plan implemented in Xinjiang, Chinese officials collect biometric data on all residents between the ages of 12 and 65, according to HRW. This biometric data includes pictures, fingerprints, iris scans, blood samples and DNA samples; “focus personnel,” people considered to be subversive, as well as their families all have to give biometric data regardless of age.
As of Nov. 1 2017, HRW reported that 18.8 million people in Xinjiang had their biometric data collected. Officials say that the initiative is in place to increase public health in the relatively impoverished region.
Despite reports of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, there has been relatively little international attention on this issue.
Vice President, Mike Pence, said in a speech that the Uighurs were being oppressed and noted that the behavior of the Chinese government is “abhorrent,” and the State Department has acknowledged that China is detaining “hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions [of muslims]” but the United States has taken no action according to NYT.
The only other significant international reactions to the ethnic cleansing, as reported by NYT, occurred on Aug. 10 when a United Nations panel asked Chinese diplomats about the abuse of Muslims within China. The officials said that the measures were in place to bring stability and unity to the region. This is the same government that HRW reports has endorsed the genocide of Rohingya in Burma as a firm response to “Islamic terrorists.”
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?