[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] Gratitude is only for God, the Lord of the Worlds.
May peace and mercy be upon Muhammad, His Trustworthy.
I seek refuge with God from the accursed Devil.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are studying Surah Tawbah from Ayah 61.
I have already mentioned that up to the end of this Surah
the issue of the hypocrites is under the discussion.
This Surah is about the manifestation of God's wrath, and reward and punishment.
By the means of the Prophet, the dealing of reward and punishment that happened
for the people of Arab, that is detailed in this Surah.
And, as such it has become a microcosm of Qayamah-i-Kubra, a miniature of Qayamah,
which was unleashed unto Arab, and by looking into its account we might learn
that how things will be when the Lord of the Worlds will do the Last Judgement.
Those who rebelled against God, and made polytheism their religion,
their fate was narrated. Those who were engaged in polytheism,
and had been deceitful in their conduct toward the religion,
but used to identify themselves as believers and proclaim faith in Tawhid,
and believed in the Prophets—that is the People of the Book—
it was told how they would be dealt with. Now, the hypocrites are under discussion.
Then, those will be brought in discussion who were sincerely devoted to the Prophet,
but fell into a serious error. So, how God dealt with them then.
Evidently, it can be learnt from that how such people will be dealt with in Qayamah.
The conduct which the hypocrites followed toward the Holy Prophet,
that is being detailed by the Glorious Quran without specifying anyone by name.
Many such examples have passed earlier, and among them was a big one that
these hypocrites started such propaganda about the Prophet that
the collection from Zakah and Sadaqah that are deposited in the state treasury
that are not being spent justly. And, in particular they intended to suggest,
that they were ignored. The Glorious Quran responded to that, and informed that
the collections from Sadaqah, Zakah, and others that are deposited in treasury—
or as they are received by the treasury—no one person has a right on them.
Neither that can be spent to satisfy the people's greed. These are trusted assets,
and their expenditures are fixed. Then, it was narrated what are that expenses.
The government formed in the leadership of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him),
how is it spending the money received from the people, we've discussed it in detail.
In general view, this Ayah is from where the expenditures of Zakah are derived.
I have attempted to explain that the real significance of the Ayah is not so,
that it has been revealed to describe the expenditures of Zakah.
The real implication of the Ayah is, that it has come to reveal,
how the collections from Zakah are being spent in the present context.
But, in relation to that, another point became clear as well,
that what is the kind of responsibility God has determined for the state,
and where and how it can spend from the treasury.
After that, another conduct of theirs is the point of discussion.
God said: 'Wa minhumul lazina yu'zunan nabiya wa yaquluna huwa uzun.'
Among them are those who hurt the Prophet, torment Him, with their tongue;
and, they say, this Person is all ears. Now, I have explained in the last session,
though it is a remark of compliment and one could say it in that sense,
it can be used in a sarcastic manner, and that the hypocrites used to do.
Before this, it has been mentioned in other Surahs as well that,
by taking advantage of certain idioms of manners and the aristocratic culture,
they would ridicule, and had a disdainful attitude toward the Prophet (pbuh).
It is easier to do so as it is veiled, so if one is asked or made accountable,
as what is the meaning of your comment, or what do you mean by saying this.
Then, one has this liberty to explain it that otherwise that he meant such and so,
nevertheless it is obviously understood what is being suggested.
The Glorious Quran says, when they say that this Person is all ears,
if you see from one angle it would seem as if, 'whoever approaches Him,
says anything to Him, He listens to them with care, attention and affection'.
If the same remark is stated in a different manner, it would mean as if,
'He in fact does not possess any divine insight, or any understanding of matters,
nor He is able to judge things and people, all He is just naive and simpleton,
and would listen to anything said by anyone, and would judge on that basis'.
Thus, the same statement that had a gracefulness about it,
or could have been an eulogy for the eminent personality of the Last Prophet,
when the same is said from another point, it becomes a ridicule, and disdainful.
So, the Glorious Quran states what these people say as that;
now it responds to what they say, and look at this how wonderfully it has done so—
We have explained earlier as what they suggested by 'this Person is all ears'—
'qul uzunu khairil lakum yuminu billaahi wa yuminu lil muminina
wa rahmatul lil lazina aamanu minkum'.
And, tell them, those ears for your good. That it, do respond to them so.
In the present times, the religious extremists with regard to these issues
have adopted a rhetoric of death threats. But, look at here for a moment,
how serious the insolence is! And, how despicable the jeering is!
And the Providence, the Knower of the Hearts, is making the observation Himself!
However, do note the commentary as well: 'qul uzunu khairil lakum'.
And, tell them, they are for your own good (i.e. the Prophet's ears).
And, why do He listens to them? Because His faith is in God,
He trusts whoever is faithful to God, and He is all-blessing for those who believe.
So, this is how the Prophet's attitude is, that constitutes his kind leadership,
this is the conduct which is praised elsewhere too, and it is said,
that if a Prophet was rude or strict even in the least, nobody would approach Him.
Affection, kindness, mercy, trust in friends and dear ones—
as it has been said in a Hadith, that for a good ruler, or leader, or guide,
this is a most unbefitting attitude that he finds fault with people.
Rather he engages in good faith only. So, the Glorious Quran has referred to that.
I have written on this that this is a most comprehensive response to the hypocrites—
that they have been answered, and with eloquence.
For the matter, as they say He is all ears, and that He is indeed. But why?
If you hypocrites valued this merciful and kind personality,
then you would know that it is for your own good that He is all ears, that is why.
Listening to everything and responding to it with affection—
this conduct is for your good, for your mercy. Anything good from your side,
any news of your good deeds and goodwill, He is always ready to listen that.
So that it does not become an issue to win the people's confidence,
or, by believing in rumors, of hurting the trust of a faithful companion.
It is when something good, deed or will, reaches to Him, then He thanks God.
It is not that He is all ears to listen about all your misdeeds and conspiracies,
that whatever the inputs He thus receives would be treasured as a souvenir.
That is, He does not pay attention to vices, but when it is something good—
to be skeptical about it, to investigate it further, to pick out faults within it—
this is not the conduct of our Prophet. If it is a good, then it is just so.
In the regard of good, as it has been related in narration,
a Muslim by disposition is guileless, and that is what one ought to be.
But, it is not for the vice, but for the good, so the people trust him.
Thus was the response by God, and then added: in who does He put His faith in?
That is, in God, and those who are the believers.
He is all-blessing for those who have truly put their faith in God.
And, if you pay attention, those who are true believers they deserve such trust,
they should be given this confidence, and they should be trusted as such.
And, it is told, in them the Prophet puts His trust, and listens to them.
Here is a note on this: that if a news of misdeed reaches Him from a nobody,
then He doesn't just believe it—it is specified whom He trusts.
That if a news of misdeed reaches Him from a nobody, He doesn't just believe it.
He believes in God, and nevertheless He trusts those who are the true believers.
What has been reached from the Providence, and from the believers, He does trust.
Hence, when it is from them, He indeed accepts it. He is not your ill-wisher.
Instead, you could see, among you who have accepted the faith in the right manner,
for them He is all-blessing. Here, the ethical arc of the Prophet's character,
especially with regard to leadership, has been so distinctly portrayed.
God bless you, that by reforming yourself you too can become deserving of His favor.
That is, as you say that when this or that person said such and so—
the one suggested here was definitely a believer, or a Companion of the Prophet—
and He readily accepts them. And, then you object that He doesn't trust you.
So, thus God responded, if by reforming yourself you become rightful in conduct,
the blessing and affection others receive from the Prophet can be given to you too.
To note here, that in the Ayah, 'imaan' is followed by both 'be' and 'laam'.
'be' is meant for accepting the faith, and 'laam' is for just believing anybody,
our translation is according to that. So, 'one who believes' is a different case,
and 'to just believe' has a different connotation. The same verb is used,
but a change in conjunction or preposition makes the difference.
If 'amina bi' is said, then it means to believe, to accept, to put faith;
and if it is 'amina li', then it means to accept any thing that is said.
'Wallazina yuzuna rasul-allaahi lahum azaabun aleem'.
Afterward, it is said, having thus spoken of the personality of the Prophet,
as why and to whom He listens, do know this as well that whatever you do—
and do you even think for once?—this is distressful and hurtful to the Prophet.
To hurt as one as the Last Prophet of God! And, you think it would be just excused?
This will have consequences on the Last Day, and do listen to what it is:
those who hurt the Messenger will have a grievous penalty.
Thus, it was told that to hurt and trouble a Messenger, that is a most serious sin.
But as to its consequences, and to not enable encroachment of religion and law,
that will be revealed by God on the Last Day.
'walahum azaabun aleem', that means grievous penalty. Excuse me!
'Yahlifuna billaahi lakum liyurdukum'. Before you, they swear by the name of God,
so that they make you please. That is, when some of their plots are exposed,
any activity is being questioned, and some conduct of their has raised suspicion,
even common people begin to doubt them.
So, it is said, they swear by God to please, to make themselves trustworthy.
It is self-evident, as to why they had adopted hypocrisy,
because social and political conditions changed. To maintain their status quo,
to remain acceptable in public, and to take benefit from whatever they could,
it was inevitable to please the Muslims, so they are trusted.
So, it is told, whenever such a situation arises, they come to you and swear by God,
and their aim is to please the Muslims. On this too, an excellent remark is made:
'Wallaahu wa rasuluhu ahaqqu aiyurduhu in kaanoo muminin'.
Even if they are believers—for they claim they have accepted the religion—
it is befitting that they should please Allah and His Messenger.
That is, why do they come to you Muslims, as what would happen by pleasing you?
Pleasing and displeasing you are related to the affairs of the world,
and the religion is not an affair of the world. It is for pleasing God,
and its result would be declared on the Day of Resurrection.
And if they are indeed believers as they claim in the name of God,
they should have put their efforts in pleasing Allah and His Messenger.
But, instead of turning to God and the Prophet (pbuh), they come to you.
Here is one more interesting thing, though it is said, 'Wallaahu wa rasuluhu ahaq',
but when comes the verb of 'yurduhu', it was not said as 'yuruduhu huma'.
That is, it was not said to agree both, for the pronoun is singular.
I have noted here that the term used is 'yurduhu',
as God and the Prophet are mentioned earlier but the pronoun here is singular,
so it is meant as to please that one. If we pay attention,
this is a criticism on the conduct of the hypocrites,
as it hints to the fact that God and the Prophet's approval is the same.
Such eloquent and suggestive style has been used on many occasions in the Quran,
where just by a change in the pronoun or diction, an important point is made.
Here, the suggestion is that if you please God, the Prophet is pleased too;
and if you please the Prophet, then God is pleased too, as both are one in this.
'Gufta' oo Gufta' Allah Buwad'.
Thus, if they were indeed believers, they would turn to God and the Prophet,
and not where as they have now, and it is for in pleasing or displeasing Muslims,
their worldly interests depend. God and the Prophet, if they had true belief,
would have the foremost recipients of their attention, but they did not do so.
So, if we review the statement, it does criticize the conduct of the hypocrites.
My mentor (Amin Islahi) writes, that often a man's excuse for sin is his worst sin.
If one is made aware of his sin, and one tries to give pretext for that,
and that consequently increased the sin in its severity.
So, often a man's excuse for sin is his worst sin, worse than the actual sin.
The means that hypocrites adopted to give a pretext, that made them more culpable.
If they were honest, truthful and right, they'd try to please God and the Prophet.
Ahead those will be discussed who were indeed truthful, whose faith was firm,
but they fell in serious error, as how was their conduct, what means they adopted,
from whom they sought approval and, when they were caste out, how did they live—
that is an extraordinary narrative. So, in this Surah, they too will be discussed.
The means that hypocrites adopted to give a pretext, that made them more culpable.
If they were honest, truthful and right, they'd try to please God and the Prophet,
instead of swearing falsely to prove their innocence, and the Prophet as credulous.
But, what were they doing? They would approach to Muslims and say:
the Prophet's displeasure is just for He listens to anyone, but we are sincere.
So, on one side, they would mock the Prophet; on other, would please Muslims.
This was such a malicious propaganda against the Prophet,
so that both the aims are achieved at once: their interests remain protected—
the people be pleased as well, if they have any doubts that be dispelled—
and the Prophet is targeted as well. To achieve both these aims,
that was the malicious plot, which is exposed here in the Glorious Quran.
God said: 'Alam yalamu annahu mai yuhaadi dillaha wa rasulahu
fa anna lahu naara jahannama khaalidan fihaa; zaalikal khizyul azeem.'
Don't they know for them who oppose God and His Prophet, there is Fire of Hell,
wherein they shall dwell forever? This is such a terrible disgrace.
The manner, in which I have translated it, yet lacks to express the intensity here.
'Alam yalamu annahu mai yuhaadi dillaha wa rasulahu
fa anna lahu naara jahannama khaalidan fihaa'. Here, before 'fa anna lahu',
a phrase has been added that needs to be repeated for emphasis—'don't they know'.
That, as if they don't know, for each line of the Quran states this fact,
that one ought to be firm on truth, then mistakes would be pardoned,
negligence would be excused, and your repentance would be accepted as well,
and God would clear your path, and you would receive blessings on every step.
But, if one is not firm on truth, then even the mark on your forehead,
a sign of constant prostration before God, cannot save one from the Hell.
The real point is, where does on stand in one's Baatin (what is in the heart).
God said, if you hypocrites really think that you come to the mosque for prayers,
and spend some for formality, and God would be pleased to see that;
God sees your Baatin as what is therein for God and His Prophet—
trust, love, faith and truth—this God would see.
Hence, those who oppose God and the Prophet, and are their enemies,
they do not know that a sort of Qayamah is unleashed here,
and what shall be its consequence?
So, for them is the Fire of Hell, wherein they shall dwell forever.
Then, God said: 'zaalikal khizyul azeem.' Here you hypocrites take it for trivial,
but when the eternal punishment will be revealed, it will be a terrible disgrace,
and you cannot fathom it. Here, for the students of Arabic, there is a note:
in the Ayah, 'fa anna' is in conjunction with 'fa annahu';
and the term 'yuhadidi' describes that conflict where one is a rival to other.
So, a peculiar sentence is used here, and it should be understood,
for the grand style of the Ayah is not felt without it.
Afterward, as said that this is a terrible disgrace, I have elaborated on this—
as to however hard they are trying to save themselves here from the disgrace—
for the statement is made in a comparative manner.
And, why did they please Muslims? To save themselves from disgrace in the world.
So, for them, the disgrace in this world was that important,
that lest their hypocrisy be exposed and they be suspected,
and their public image be not sullied. So, they are cautious for that in this world.
But, however hard they are trying to save themselves here from the disgrace,
a disgrace worse than that awaits them in the end. And, they should think,
what plan do they have to save themselves from that disgrace.
They could deceive here, and those simple folks among Muslims would believe them,
and even some ten or twenty would support them openly. But, what will they do there,
where there hands and legs will betray them, where God will reveal everything,
and their records will be disclosed, what would they do there?
'Yahzarul munaafiquna antunaz zala alaihim suratun tunabbi 'uhum bimaa fiqulubihim'
The hypocrites are afraid lest a Surah is revealed about them,
that will unveil what is in their hearts. So, what the Quran has done so far,
that it's been making an indirect commentary, without specifying anyone,
and has been explaining everything in such a way as by clarifying them by arguments.
Thus, by taking an account of conduct in Zaahir (the apparent) to guide in Baatin.
So, it is said, what they fear, and give justification of sorts to save themselves,
for their issue as that they fear lest a Surah is revealed about them,
that will unveil what is in their hearts. Here, too, certain stylistics are notable,
especially for the students of Arabic. Therefore, I have noted on this:
The main phrase is: 'antunaz zala alaihim suratun tunabbi 'uhum bimaa fiqulubihim'.
The conjuction of 'ala' points here, that it is 'tunaz zala alaihim', not 'ilaihim'.
that 'tunaz zala' here is used as 'tuqra alihim'. A verb has been incorporated,
this is a stylistics of Arabic, as often the conjunction is of different verb,
that preposition or verb is elsewhere, and the conjunction directs to that verb,
the verb provides the meaning, and by combining the both,
using one conjunction and one verb, two conjunctions and verbs are suggested.
So, this stylistic feature has been used at many occasions in the Quran,
and it was a common usage for the contemporary Arabic.
That is, they should be read out it—not that it is revealed but read to them too.
Earlier it is said, the hypocrites in the name of God try to win trust of Muslims.
From all sides, they try to prove that they are right, and their conduct as well.
Here, its context has been related, that their aim is to save worldly interests—
they have public trust—and they think, by swearing on God they make people believe,
there will be no Surah revealed, and they will remain untouched.
So this backstory has been related in Surah Tawbah as why this is happening.
The tone and tenor is much different from the earlier Surahs.
For this is a Surah of finalization, and so everything has been discovered,
and the last warning is being given, thus God's rhetoric is different too.
Hence, the hypocrites fear if all their secrets are exposed,
that though much has already been revealed who knows what Surah would come afterward.
So, it is said, this is their fear, their apprehension as why they swear by God.
'Qulistahziu innallaaha mukhrijum maa tah zarun.' Tell them, mock more for a while,
and God will reveal what you fear, and this is certain, there is sometime though.
So, fool yourself till you can. God has decided, and everything will be disclosed.
Our session is over, this subject is to be continued.
'I say these words of mine, and I seek Allah's forgiveness.'
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
[Hadith] 'An ibn-umar qala qala rasul- allaahi salallaahu alaihi wasallam
baistu baina yadissa bi saif hat-ta yu badallahu wahduhu layushriku bihi shaiyyun
innallaha ja ala rizqi tahta zilli rumhi wa ja ala zillata wa saghaar
ala man khaalifa amri wa man tashabbaha bi qaumin fahuwa minhum.'
It is narrated by Ibn Umar that, the Prophet (pbuh) said,
I have been sent with the sword before Qayamah. This is the same issue as before,
in other narrations, Surah Tawbah in the Quran too relates this subject.
The earlier prophets who were made God's Messenger, they forewarned their people,
and consequently the divine punishment did come to them.
The detail of that divine punishment has been narrated at various occasions,
as what happened with the people of Nuh, and with those of Aad and Samud,
and with the people of Shuaib, and with other people too.
But, in the case of the Last Prophet, the divine punishment didn't come from Heaven.
And, we have seen in this Surah before, the Companions were told to let them know,
that there are two ends: 'ai yusibakumul laahu bi azaabim min indihi aw bi aydina'.
That the punishment will come, either from the Heaven or by our hands.
So, in the case of the Last Prophet, men were made the instrument of God's justice.
As in the narration discussed previously we noted, this fact was made distinct,
this nation will be punished by those among them who would be believers.
It is narrated in an eloquent manner here, that after the Prophet is Qayamah only,
no other prophet or messenger would come in between. By the means of the prophets,
whatever God's dealings of reward and punishment used to happen is now done,
and before Qayamah it is just the Last Prophet who is sent with the sword,
and, instead of divine punishment, His deniers would be dealt thus.
Then, is said: 'hat-ta yubadallahu wahduhu layushriku bihi shaiyyun '.
Apparently, a part of the statement, as according to the grammar of Arabic,
before 'hat-ta' is understood which is guided by the previous one;
and, when deconstructed, the suggestion is, 'I would fight by his means.'
That is, the Last Prophet is sent with the sword, so there will be war and conflict,
up to the point that the prayer of the Only God is established in this land.
So, the Prophet has been appointed that, in the land of Arab,
none shall be worshiped besides God. This has been explained by the Quran as,
'yaqunat din qulluhu lillah'. That, no place for others in this land.
And, this has been made definite till Qayamah by the Prophet:
'la ijtamihu dinaan fi jaziraatil arab'. That is, in the Arabic peninsula,
there will be no other faith. And, the Last Prophet has come to ensure that,
that the Only God shall be worshipped in this land, and none be associated Him.
Afterward, it is said: 'innallaha ja ala rizqi tahta zilli rumhi'.
That, the fact is God has provided my subsistence on the point of my spear.
That is, the Muslims will only focus on this end of the punishment,
and the Companions will travel to the decided place,
and their spears would win them subsistence.
Hence, the booty, gained at the end of conflicts, as we read in Surah Fatah,
by using the term of 'spoils' it has been explained that God has provided thus,
as He has given a great duty, and other things come later.
So, if one wants to do trade, commerce or farming, they could do so,
but that is not the priority here. Now, the foremost thing is,
as you are the companions of the Prophet, and in this hour of reward and punishment,
God has decided to punish the deniers by your hands, that should be your concern.
Thus, their subsistence was provided in that itself. It is described eloquently:
'ja ala rizqi tahta zilli rumhi'. And, God has ensured my sustenance by the sword.
'wa ja ala zillata wa saghaar ala man khalifa amri'.
And, those who disobey me, for them is shame and subjugation.
That is, those who oppose the Prophet, if they survived, they would subjugated,
as it is said in Surah Tawbah: 'hat-ta yutul jizyata ai yadin wa hum saaghirun'.
So, the whole argument has been made here, thus it is said that,
since these are bound to happen, men and spies will be sent, there will be wars,
and do remember: 'man tashabbaha bi qaumin fahuwa minhum.'
That, who will live among people as one of them, will be counted as one of them.
So, whoever wants to be saved, must testify his belief.
This should be kept in mind, in this final hour, who will not declare his faith,
their fate will be the same as that of the deniers and falsifiers.
It is from this topic here, that people have taken out of the context,
and have applied it on the issue of dressing and manners.
What actually has been explained here is, now when spies will be sent—
as is instructed in the Quran too. As when a man shows an Islamic manner,
as in conveying Salaam, so his faith be acknowledged,
instead of replying him in 'lasta mumina'. So, while Muslims were instructed,
others were asked that they express their belief as such.
For if they continued as the same as the polytheists and infidels,
they could meet the same end. There are notes here on it that we should look into.
In relation to this point, the Prophet is sent with the sword ahead of Qayamah,
'ahead of Qayamah' signifies here that He is the Last Prophet.
For before Qayamah, the Completion of the Proof should be done unto the whole world.
Why did God send His Last Prophet? To do the Completion of Proof unto the world.
What else shall be discussed in Qayamah, for the Completion of Proof is ultimate.
After that, it is said that He has been sent with the sword, I have explained it.
For, like others, the people of the Last Prophet weren't sent divine punishment.
Rather, the Prophet and His Companions were ordered, that with their swords,
that they punish the deniers for the latter's' sin.
This narration is from the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, reference no. 18833.
Different books of Hadiths have been referred there as well,
you could look up them, and find this narration there as well.
And, the suggestion that was made about the land of Arab,
that in this land none shall be worshipped except Allah, I have interpreted it as,
that it specifically means Arabia, that God has made the center of Tawhid,
and is for the promotion of His Daawah. It is not for the whole world.
It's only for the land of Arab, as said in the Quran: 'yaqunat din qulluhu lillah'.
And, for that God's law is: 'la ijtamihu fihi dinaan'.
That is the law of God, and the Prophet. has made it clear.
I have already mentioned that, what is said by subsistence has been ensured so,
that is in the booty and spoils that would be gained from those battles,
which would be fought after the Completion of the Proof to exterminate the deniers.
These wars will happen, and in them God will ensure their sustenance,
so nothing to worry, this a mission of God, and He has made provisions for that.
And, the last point, that one who wont separate him from deniers at this hour.
As said, who will live among people as one of them, will be counted as one of them.
So, if one who wont separate himself from deniers at this hour of the punishment,
he will meet the same end as ordered for them in Surah Tawbah of the Quran.
It is noted because the punishment that follows the denial of the prophets,
in that all the judgments are made in Zaahir. And, it is asked of the believers,
they pronounce their faith and get away from others.
So, this topic belongs to this context, and has to be understood in such.
'I say these words of mine, and I seek Allah's forgiveness.'
Now, a break for ten minutes, then the question-answer session.
[Hassan Ilyas] In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful
Assalamu Alaikum.
We are coming to you with this weekly question and answer session
with Ghamidi Saab, directly from Ghamidi Center, Dallas
Let us begin. Ghamidi Sahab, thank you for your time.
In the previous session we had begun this discussion.
Today we will continue with it further, A big change in Saudi Arabia,
At the political stage of the world as well as
in the backdrop of religious movements, whatever identity that was there before,
we can clearly see a cultural shift, a paradigm shift,
the State of Saudi Arabia has decided that whatever had been its views,
those will not continue to remain like that.
You had begun to express your opinion on that topic.
Today we shall carry it on further, do tell us that
Saudi Arabia had for a long enough time not only tried to propagate
a religious thought, not just at the State level
rather, throughout the world rather implemented them practically
in their own country as well.
My first question today to you is
whatever is our traditional interpretation of Deen,
the corpus of 'Fiqh', what are the rights of the State in those,
a practical picture and model of it emerged in the case of Saudi Arabia,
it remained in effect for almost a century,
what in your view is the reason that they had implemented the Shariah,
however, the collective conscience of the public
could not accept it mentally but the moment this change has occurred,
almost all of them now consider it a religious duty
to infringe upon those laws.
[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] To expect a change in the thoughts and nature of the people
using the Government as a vehicle of change,
according to me is like living in a fool's paradise.
This has never happened. The Governments, the collective
organization, the society, and the cultural traditions
may create an environment, and that environment is at times
conducive to certain things, however, religion conquers the hearts
and minds of people. and that is, what it should be.
i.e. when I make the decision that I have to accept Islam ...
I have clarified several times that Islam does not mean
to accept a particular point of view, rather the word itself implies
that in essence, this is to surrender oneself
to the will of Allah (swt).
The point that is generally stated by the people,
that Islam implies peace, is not correct. i.e. Islam means to surrender onself.
To make oneself obedient to the will of Allah.
This terminology has been stated with reference to Syedna Ibrahim
"Aslamtu Li Rabbil Aalimeen". i.e. the acceptance of my Lord,
to regard him as my Master, Owner and the King of this Universe,
to bow to His Will, to spend life seeking His Pleasure,
this cannot be achieved with some physical law,
for this the process is the same which have always been adopted by the Prophets,
i.e. we give Dawah to people, we preach, we conquer their hearts and minds,
we reply to them with answers to their questions,
and remove their suspicions, and in spite of doing all these,
the maximum that we can expect from it is
those people who get this point, those who accept this teaching,
they would lead their life in accordance to it.
So what do you think, the tens of millions of the population,
that is present in the Arabian peninsula,
and even in our country, so is it just the Government
under whose command the people follow Deen?
There are countless people, who offer Salah and observe Sawm,
perform Hajj, try to maintain themselves on moral principles,
they follow the commands of Allah even in the most adverse of conditions.
In their solitude and in public they keep an eye on the Commands of Allah.
Do these people carry out all this due to some Government's orders?
There are doing it for Allah.
So, in essence, this is the objective of Deen.
Hence, this should not give rise to some big worry,
whatever was lying hidden inside, actually has surfaced.
You are aware that even before when people used to go there
and stay for years together, they were familiar with
the internal affairs, they were aware of the
situation inside people's homes, in the same way, how do people
behave in their private life.
They used to say that this is in fact an external imposition of a system,
and there is nothing more to it.
Hence, Islam, in essence, depends on it.
That is a Dawah, a Message, it does not need vehicles such as these.
It will reach its Dawah and its Message on its own terms,
and will reach into the depths of the heart.
"Wa Lillahil Hujjatul Baaligha",
'This is a Hujjat-e Baaligha from Allah', and what are its target?
Those are the heart and the mind.
When those would be conquered, then we will get the real picture.
And this point has also been elaborated by the Quran that
even when the Prophets had come down to the world,
they could never turn whole countries
and the whole majority into submission on this Deen.
Only a few in number were.
It has been stated at multiple places that a small count of them are
those who accept these things.
Why, since we accept this as a Deen,
there are some consequences of it as well.
We have to pay a price for it. And when we accept it practically,
and fulfill the practical requirements of it,
for that as well, we pay a price.
Hence this is a world of conflicting thoughts
in which the human being has been sent.
Why should these expectations be attached to it?
According to me this isn't required at all.
The methodology that has been taught to us by Allah
and Allah's Prophet is that these things which the people
are claiming have appeared, regarding these things,
since these are individual matters, what education is being
received by a person, or how is he driving a car
or what attire has he worn, whether he listens to music or not,
all such things, for them the method of preaching,
advising, teaching, transforming of their hearts and minds should be adopted.
For them that Message of Deen, i.e. Deen actually is the
purification of the heart, of body, of morals,
of the intellect, and one's practices.
Therefore the Dawah for purification should be continuously propagated,
hence the arrangement that was done in Islam,
i.e. the Governments would arrange every week,
i.e. once in a week on the pulpit for Friday con
should advise and teach people.
You see where the mention of Juma occurs in the Quran, there it is written
"Fas'au Ila Zikrillah",
People must move towards the Remembrance of Allah,
so Allah should be remembered.
Reminders are to be given for His Remembrance.
This is the right method. The might of the Government
should be made use of such things and this is the right
of the Government too, those things which either relate
to the infringement of someone's Rights, for providing justice to him, if
we use the power of the Law, or to safeguard people from
someone's tyranny or oppression, so that no injury is committed
against life, property, or honor.
And people do not wreak havoc on the life of the people by misusing their power.
It is used for this purpose and with regard to those things,
there aren't any changes made, it still is the same.
[Hassan] Right. Okay, Ghamidi Sahab, do tell us,
the religious Ulema among us, do they idealize that
if our religious thoughts have the access to the State level,
then the same religious interpretation would be established at every place,
and the way the Ulema wish that people accept the religious thoughts,
the same would be achieved.
Through the example of Saudi Arabia, if we wish to understand from you,
that a specific point of view was patronized at the level of the State,
and we saw that point of view being propagated worldwide,
however, if the mind of a person changes,
then everything starts reversing.
Hence with regard to strategy, our religious Ulema idealize
or rather glamorize that if a servant of Allah owns
that complete religious thought then everything will transform.
How useful will this point be in the practical field?
[Ghamidi] You see, from the practical point of view,
it had been very effective. And it always is very effective.
We know that whenever a thought is politically dominant,
then it has far-reaching consequences.
The Western thought, which has some great virtues too,
however, its flaws remain concealed due to its dominance at the gobal level.
Hence, if this happens at the State level,
national or at the international level, has its own effects.
There are very few people who on the basis of intellect, knowledge,
or reasoning accept things.
For most people these (other) things are influential.
You are aware that this has happened in our history as well.
i.e. when our dominance was established on a large scale
then how its effects were seen in Iraq and Syria?
All these regions were not of the Muslims.
The people here were not the followers of Islam.
Their language and culture changed and so did many other things.
These effects happened in India as well.
It happened in other parts of the world too.
i.e. there cannot be two opinions with regard to these effects.
The real question is whether Islam wishes to make
use these effects in this manner? No, it has set its limits.
And those limits are, several things which are
related to individual matters, there the attitude would
be of preaching and advising.
There is absolutely no right given either in the Quran
or in any Hadees for any Government.
This is a fulfillment of human liberty.
And it is such a thing which if not kept in consideration
then it directly interferes with Allah's Scheme of things.
And those things which relate to the rights of people,
or which relate to the safeguarding of people's lives, property, and honor,
this power may be used for such matters.
So it is the balance in this, that takes us to the right destination.
When we become imbalanced with respect to a particular point,
then apparently we might see it making an exceptional impact,
however, that won't be real, and that objective won't be achieved as well.
Hence, the way a person starts sermonising that
people would manage to protect themselves, they would guard their rights
through preachings and advice, and the attitude regarding
the offenders is right that they should be referred to
Psychiatric Clinics for their reformation.
Then this would be an attitude that lacks balance.
This would be against human psychology.
No State or System can work successfully in this manner.
If we establish such a Government or society,
which is neither even sensitive on these matters,
which I stated just now, i.e. redressal against
infringement of Rights and against offenses on
lives, property, and honor.
Then we would find the development of anarchy.
An environment of lawlessness would develop,
the country would go to the dogs, none would be ready to lend
their ears to anyone.
Hence this would be a lopsided attitude or an extreme.
The second extreme is when a Government surfaces
and considers its views, ideology, and religious interpretations as correct,
and starts to impose them by force on all people.
What would this result in?
This would result in that for the time being we
would make them follow it, however, underneath it, there would
be simmering lava.
And this will result in constraints being made
on people's liberty, and freedom.
The natural virtues that otherwise would have
developed in a person and in an environment in which people
should listen to different thoughts and the natural development of the
intellect will also come to a stop.
We have a similar experience in another ideology which was not based on religion,
it was done in China and the erstwhile USSR, and is even now being done
in various places.
So both these experiences form the two extremes.
We should seek refuge in Allah from both.
The point that has been taught by Islam is that
for those things, we would adopt the path of
mere preaching and advice for matters relating to individual life.
And those matters where others' rights are infringed upon,
or others are subjected to oppression, tyranny or excesses,
there the power of the the law would be made use of.
While discussing a topic I have said this earlier as well,
that this balance can only be taught by none other than the Book of Allah.
And those people who spend their lives based upon
"Bighairi Hudam Wala Kitabim Muneer"
And accordingly, make decisions,
there both these extremes do come into existence.
i.e. either that extreme or this extreme,
this philosophy has also been told to us that
a classless society would come into existence,
people would against their nature just shed away those practices.
And such a time is not a far cry, just some environment
and some economic relationships need to change over time,
however, history is chiding itself that nothing of this kind can take place.
However, momentarily, this picture was shown,
If we read the book 'Maho Saale Aashnaai' by Faiz Ahmed Faiz,
and see the picture of the paradise that he portrays to us,
there it seems that the dream of human beings has come true.
However, when those iron curtains were pulled down, the reality became evident.
Hence this implies that it is the book of Allah
which in accordance with the Scheme of Allah,
and as per the 'Fitrah' (Human Nature) of a human being,
that Fitrah which has been created by Allah,
which He has pronounced, "Firat Allahillati fataran Naasa Ilaiha",
it is just the Book of Allah, which can create that balance,
and this is not just a human thing, he actually sways between the two extremes.
So in the way, a philosophy came into existence in the last century,
and based upon that philosophy two mighty empires had established,
rather a superpower was established, such might was achieved,
so the foundations of that philosophy were laid on imbalance,
measures against the human Fitrah had been adopted in it.
Ultimately that philosophy had to accept defeat.
And its spell vanished within a short span of 60 to 70 years,
exactly the same situation will happen in the states that are based on religion.
When new people would take birth, the newer generations would appear,
when they will acquire education and would come out of
their specific backdrops, they would be equipped with ideas of liberty, freedom,
and they would form opinion about things,
then such rebellions would surface, like what we are seeing now.
Therefore, why can't we adopt the path
which Allah and His Prophet has guided us for,
there we can maintain a balance in society for centuries.
Deviations would be found, all these things would be there,
however, the methodology that has been established by Allah (swt)
and His Prophet as his Sunnah, if we keep that in focus, then we
would not meet such tragedies.
[Hassan] Right, Ghamidi Sahab, we take this topic ahead,
please tell us that when the Saudi Sovereign stated
his religious vision about the Sultanate,
the two basic points were that the legislations based upon the
Quran is possible while there won't be any legislation
based on 'khabar-e Vaahid', other than in the case that,
it reaches the level of 'Mutawatir'.
When this point came forward, generally, people were
of the opinion, perhaps this is more or less the same point
which is often and on stated by Ghamidi Sahab.
on the authenticity of Khabar-e Vaahid.
I wish to ask you that the religious vision that has been presented,
does it hold any similarity or resemblance to your point of view?
Or do you hold a different point of view?
[Ghamidi] I do not have any interest in such things.
These are people's decisions.
And I would like to clarify once again that this is not my point of view.
[Hassan] Okay.
[Ghamidi] What I have always said is that, our Deen has been received
by us in two forms.
One is the Quran, which is the Book of Allah,
and the second is that Sunnah which had been established
as the Sunnah of the Prophets, which have been continued
further, after their affirmation and confirmation by the Prophet,
there were some additions and amendments and
some changes were made as well.
Both these things are our Deen, and how have both these been transmitted?
Both have been transmitted through 'Ijma And Tawatur'.
The Quran as well as the Sunnah has been transmitted in this manner.
For this, neither were we dependent on any research,
nor dependent on some group of Aimma-e Rijaal (science of men/narrators)
Neither did we depend on Bukhari or Muslim.
These are in fact being transmitted over generations
through the 'Ijma' (Consensus) and 'Tawatur' (Practice) of the Muslims.
And for this we have the Conclusive Proof of God's Truth.
What is Allah's Deen? It is the Quran and Sunnah.
Both these things are totally ascertained,
The complete Deen is contained in them.
We take them as the basis to understand the complete Deen.
And we propagate them.
As far as Ahadees are concerned it is the history of the Prophet (pbuh).
The Sahaba (Companions) of the Prophet have seen and heard him,
and have reported them further down the line.
Whatever comes to us on such occasions is in fact the division of the Hadees.
i.e. with regard to Hadees the discussions have started that
which among them are 'Ahad', i.e. only one person is singly
narrating something, which are the ones which
have narrators in a greater number, and which are the ones which
can be termed as 'Mutawatir'.
Hence these are in fact discussions and debates about the historical corpus.
It is an altogether different topic if required we can
discuss it on some occasion.
However, my point of view is quite clear and fixed that
Deen is in the Quran and the Sunnah, whatever we get in Hadees are in fact the
understanding and manifestation of Deen, it will be the reporting of the
life of the Prophet (pbuh), it will be the Seerah and the
biography of the Prophet (pbuh).
And for such things the primary source is Hadees,
we will refer to it, and as far as the Deen is concerned,
it has along with its creed and practices
been completely stated in the Quran and the Sunnah.
This is quite a different issue.
[Hassan] Right, Ghamidi Sahab, we move ahead.
Do tell us, you have, with regard to the status of this land,
elaborated in detail to us from the Quran itself
and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) as well,
the question is, whatever, is being seen in the Kingdom,
concerts, music, and dance events are being inaugurated,
and similarly, international celebrities are coming down,
all of it is happening which takes place commonly
for entertainment in most countries, so the point of view,
which you had stated about this region and this land with regard
to its special status, so whatever is taking place right now,
what should be the attitude of the scholars?
Whether they should condemn or make it permissible?
Can this be tolerated considering the special sensitivity with respect to this land?
Or is it just for the 'Haramain' (The Two Holy Masjids),
and outside it, they do whatever they wish.
[Ghamidi] In the last session this had been clarified,
i.e. one, there are the Haramain, or we may say Mecca and Medina,
the status of these two cities in this land is again quite special.
i.e. these two cities hold the status
of the Center of God's Deen in this whole universe.
These are the cities of the two Masjids.
The one in Mecca is also Masjid-e Haram, actually, that too is a Masjid which
was built by Hazrat Ibrahim.
We may say that the second and the biggest phase of Prophethood,
and it may be called the most distinct phase,
Syedna Ibrahim (pbuh) had been its pioneer.
He built it. And the second Masjid was built by the last Prophet of Allah.
Therefore the Prophethood ended upon it.
These cities likewise should be maintained as the cities of Deen.
with regard to their ambiance and environment,
with regard to its teachings and instructions,
if a person residing there is not comfortable with its atmosphere,
it is an ambiance for 'Ibadah' (worship) like we expect in a Masjid,
so the whole city should therefore be in conformity with it.
This should be taken care of by the Governments and the people as well.
If a person does not have the capacity for patience
then he may move on to other cities.
This was regarding Harmain, i.e. the status of Mecca and Medina
where the two Masjids are situated.
I am repeating again, the decorum that we maintain for a Masjid,
the same decorum should be in consideration for them.
The whole city should thrive on those principles and facts,
should be maintained, and all those things should be kept in consideration.
The rest of the Kingdom has a general status.
However, that general status is special as compared to the rest of the world.
Since there cannot be accommodated anything except the Deen of Allah,
it implies that in totality, the whole ambiance should be
in line with the Deen of Allah.
The ulema will draw attention too, they would speak on it,
and advise as well. Now where the limits have been crossed,
what can be tolerated, and which will be subjects
made for preachings and advice, all these topics can be
discussed, however, in the general environment which prevails
in the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, it is the demand of Deen,
that it should be of the dominance and superiority of Deen.
This is the Center of our Deen.
[Hassan] Okay Ghamidi Sahab, please do state,
when you say that this whole region should
maintain such an environment, so there are five other
countries in the region as well, the United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, all of these constitute the
Arabian Peninsula, so the question that comes to mind,
as you often talk of democracy, so if democracy is established
in this region then the majority would
make decisions in their own way, there are a lot of
requisites for a democracy, there the opposition
is also present to criticize, freedom of expression
thought and action exist too, then how can the sanctity
of this region be maintained when molded in the democratic system
of the present times.
[Ghamidi] We have to tell the people this, that they must maintain this.
i.e. to maintain its sanctity neither the Angels will come nor any
particular family would be called for. The people will have to be talked to.
The Muslims that live there. They will be told.
When their majority will accept it, understand and take care of this,
then the environment will be maintained.
If it doesn't exist, we should study the history of Bani Israel.
Palestine had the same status. How did Allah (swt) deal with them?
Hence, this is not done, that to maintain this the people
are deprived of their rights. That their freedom is seized.
Or monarchy of a family is imposed upon them.
Or a monarchy composed of a few families is imposed upon them.
Whatever points are being expressed that this is the requisite for Deen,
that Deen has given this status to this land.
We have to maintain the predominance of Deen over it.
Who is being told all this?
To the people who have accepted Iman, Muslims.
So the more this will happen among the Muslims,
accordingly, it will have its manifestation.
And if this is not found among Muslims,
then what do you think, we won't let anything appear outside
while internally everything would be going on.
[Hassan] Right, right, Ghamidi Sahab.
The last question for today's session, there were talks about
the banning of Tableeghi Jama'at, and the reasons that
were presented were that they are the people of Bid'at,
and their books contain Weak Narrations.
The question in principle to you is that does it fall in the
jurisdiction of any State that they, on the basis of people's
E'tiqaadaat (Religious creed), put a restriction on
their arrival or departure, and stop the promotion of someone's views,
and if there has been a ban imposed on a harmless Jama'at
such as the 'Tableeghi Jama'at' in the Muslim Kingdom, then how do you see this?
[Ghamidi] Wasn't there any ban for the formation of any Jama'at?
i.e. 'Jama'ats' (Religious Groups) cannot be formed in a Monarchy.
When the Jama'ats are formed, or organizations are made,
then it is obvious that the monarchy will feel threatened by it.
So, monarchy, in essence, is not permissible.
The restrictions imposed by them, obviously aren't permissible too.
So in our Deen, restrictions or ban cannot be imposed
on someone's thought or point of view. Albeit, we can caution people for
some Bid'at (Innovation in Deen) or for a practice of Shirk (Polytheism).
Or the Governments elaborate upon these realities
in the 'Juma Khutbah' (Friday Sermon).
This is the Right of every Government.
However, this will be achievable through preachings and advice or recommendations.
there isn't any question of banning it.
There it is not that this restriction has been imposed now.
The restriction has been there forever.
I had gone there for Hajj in 1987 for the first time,
then too it was clear to me that though the people of Jama'at Islami
and Tableeghi Jama'at, and the way friends get together,
or by using the word 'Friends', it was done,
however, the systematic forming of a Jama'at had never been permissible there.
I think that the point which is being circulated is not correctly done,
i.e. in the Juma Khutba (Friday sermon) for example, if the quotes
of Ulema (Religious Scholars) or of Fuqaha (Experts on Islamic law)
are being told, or their Fatwa (Decree)
is being stated, then it is preaching and advice,
and nothing more than this.
The restrictions had been there earlier and are there now as well.
It will stay as it is till the time Monarchy exists there.
When the Democratic System would be formed there based on
"Amrahum Shura Bainahum", then such restrictions cannot be imposed.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, we complete our time allocated,
the major change happening in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
and how it is perceived by Ghamidi Sahab with regard to religion?
What is the religious point of view?
And what were the societal causes that provided a catalyst for such a change?
We will be at your service again.
Thank you very much Ghamidi Sahab for your time till now.
[Translated by Shoeb Khan Edited by Faizan Rashid]