Return to Video

Hazrat Ali (ra) aur Ameer Muawiya (ra) Ka Ikhtilaf - Part 11 - Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

  • 0:05 - 0:06
    [Ilyas Hasan] In the name of Allah,
    the most Merciful,
  • 0:06 - 0:07
    the most Gracious. Assalamu Alaikum!
  • 0:07 - 0:10
    We are coming to you directly from
    Ghamidi Center, Dallas
  • 0:10 - 0:12
    with this weekly question and answer
    session with Ghamidi Sahab.
  • 0:12 - 0:13
    Let us begin…
  • 0:13 - 0:14
    Ghamidi Sahab, thanks a lot
    for your time.
  • 0:14 - 0:18
    Over the course of last ten sessions,
    Ghamidi Sahab, from you,
  • 0:18 - 0:22
    we had begun to understand the nature
    of the struggle, disagreements
  • 0:22 - 0:27
    and political disputes between
    Syedna Ali (ra) and Ameer Muawiya (ra).
  • 0:27 - 0:30
    We had a long conversation in the
    last ten episodes.
  • 0:30 - 0:32
    All the four fundamental questions
    regarding the matter were discussed.
  • 0:32 - 0:34
    We have titled this series as:
  • 0:34 - 0:37
    A Unique Viewpoint to Understand
    the Disagreements.
  • 0:37 - 0:39
    Since you have concluded your
    discourse about the matter,
  • 0:39 - 0:41
    today I want to begin the process,
  • 0:41 - 0:43
    that would stretch into the
    following episodes as well,
  • 0:43 - 0:45
    of presenting you with the doubts,
    questions,
  • 0:45 - 0:47
    and queries for further explanation
    that your viewpoint raises
  • 0:47 - 0:50
    and I want you to answer them
    one by one…
  • 0:50 - 0:52
    We have titled this series
    ‘unique perspective…’
  • 0:52 - 0:53
    What was the reason?
  • 0:53 - 0:56
    Let me put forth the first question in
    light of the title itself.
  • 0:56 - 0:59
    Till today, whenever somebody has
    discussed the historical matters,
  • 0:59 - 1:05
    he begins with citing the giants like
    Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Saad, Ibn Hisham,
  • 1:05 - 1:07
    and the great works like
    Futuh al-Buldan, etc.
  • 1:07 - 1:09
    In other words, they cite the
    historical works
  • 1:09 - 1:12
    and they quote the sayings of the taab'een
    and the Sahaba.
  • 1:12 - 1:15
    The matter of our discussion was
    a historical event.
  • 1:15 - 1:18
    However, in the ten episodes you
    did not even mention a single book,
  • 1:18 - 1:19
    you did not give a single reference…
  • 1:19 - 1:23
    The conversation was about history
    and the sources, citations,
  • 1:23 - 1:27
    and evidences of history were not
    even discussed.
  • 1:29 - 1:35
    [Ghamidi] What is history?
    Especially, what is Muslim history?
  • 1:36 - 1:38
    How should we see it?
  • 1:40 - 1:43
    In the process of retracing the history,
  • 1:43 - 1:46
    what should the decision of accepting
    or rejecting something based on?
  • 1:47 - 1:51
    I have my own approach of looking
    at and thinking about it.
  • 1:51 - 1:54
    And I would like to explicate it for you.
  • 1:54 - 2:01
    Everyone knows about the first
    era of our history,
  • 2:01 - 2:04
    in which the apostleship of the
    Prophet (pbuh) commenced,
  • 2:05 - 2:11
    the Companions (God be pleased with them)
    served the cause of Islam,
  • 2:11 - 2:20
    then the caliphate was established, and
    then it transformed into monarchy.
  • 2:20 - 2:25
    This initial phase of history spans
    approximately across 150 years…
  • 2:26 - 2:32
    In this early phase, there was
    not a single historian proper.
  • 2:33 - 2:34
    [Ilyas] What does it mean…
  • 2:34 - 2:37
    [Ghamidi] People usually do
    not know about this.
  • 2:37 - 2:40
    Or, if they know it, they don’t pay too
    much attention to it.
  • 2:40 - 2:43
    In other words, no historian chronicled
  • 2:43 - 2:46
    the history of the first 150 odd years
    of the Muslim history.
  • 2:46 - 2:50
    As history is written, the historian…
  • 2:50 - 2:54
    For instance, there are the sciences of
    religion,
  • 2:54 - 2:58
    the Quran and the books of Hadith exist;
  • 2:59 - 3:04
    however, as someone decides to
    become a scholar of these sciences,
  • 3:05 - 3:08
    he ceases to approach things in the
    manner of a layperson.
  • 3:09 - 3:11
    Instead, he would understand the art,
    the science,
  • 3:11 - 3:14
    he would delve into its complexities,
  • 3:14 - 3:18
    he would fulfill the demands the science
    makes on him, explore its details ...
  • 3:18 - 3:21
    As he would pass through the different
    phases of inquiry in the field,
  • 3:21 - 3:23
    then he would offer the fruits of
    his intellectual labor
  • 3:23 - 3:27
    in the shape of commentary on the subject,
    or its explication or interpretation.
  • 3:27 - 3:28
    That is the way it is, right?
    [Ilyas] Absolutely!
  • 3:28 - 3:31
    [Ghamidi] It is the same for every
    science in the world.
  • 3:31 - 3:33
    All of us observe the world.
  • 3:33 - 3:36
    However, when a scientist
    observes the world,
  • 3:36 - 3:38
    the nature of observation
    is totally transformed.
  • 3:38 - 3:42
    In a similar way, how is history
    transmitted to the succeeding generations?
  • 3:42 - 3:49
    If you pay attention, one segment of
    history is what I call established history
  • 3:50 - 3:51
    In other words, it is that
    part of history
  • 3:51 - 3:54
    that does not require a
    historian for transmission.
  • 3:54 - 3:56
    It is transmitted through the
    continued consensus
  • 3:56 - 4:00
    of the whole community –
    a race, a class, a group.
  • 4:01 - 4:04
    Its facts are known to everybody.
  • 4:05 - 4:08
    For instance, the Mughal or the
    Ottoman empires were established.
  • 4:08 - 4:12
    Or, the Prophet (pbuh) was ordained as
    the messenger of Allah in Arabia.
  • 4:12 - 4:13
    He belonged to the Quraish.
  • 4:13 - 4:17
    He spent such and such a number of years
    in Mecca and then moved to Medina.
  • 4:17 - 4:21
    He settled in Yathrib and, then, it was
    named as Madinat-un-Nabi.
  • 4:21 - 4:23
    The battles of Badr and Uhud took place.
  • 4:23 - 4:27
    These are the historical facts
    whose transmission,
  • 4:27 - 4:30
    in this manner of abstraction or brevity,
    does not require a historian.
  • 4:31 - 4:35
    Now, this portion of history would
    be automatically transmitted
  • 4:35 - 4:39
    whenever a large enough group
    comes into existence
  • 4:39 - 4:44
    and transfers its heritage to
    its succeeding generations.
  • 4:44 - 4:48
    This is the process of transmission of
    history through consensus and continuity.
  • 4:48 - 4:51
    The Quran was transmitted via
    the same mode.
  • 4:51 - 4:56
    In other words, it was not the case that
    a printing house was set up
  • 4:56 - 5:00
    and Allah made special arrangements
    and, as a result,
  • 5:00 - 5:04
    the Quran came forward in the
    printed form.
  • 5:04 - 5:06
    Such was not the case, right?
  • 5:06 - 5:09
    Instead, what was the approach
    that was adopted?
  • 5:09 - 5:13
    The believers or the audience of the Quran
    in the Muslim community heard it,
  • 5:13 - 5:17
    those who knew writing wrote it down,
    others memorized it,
  • 5:17 - 5:20
    and it began to be transmitted through
    continual adherence
  • 5:20 - 5:22
    in spoke and written form.
  • 5:22 - 5:26
    The same thing happened with the Sunnah.
    And it was the same with history as well!
  • 5:26 - 5:32
    In other words, a large portion of history
    was transmitted in the same way.
  • 5:32 - 5:34
    There are significant events in history
  • 5:34 - 5:36
    about which there is no room for
    doubt or discussion.
  • 5:36 - 5:44
    Then, there is the portion of history that
    was not transmitted along these lines.
  • 5:44 - 5:48
    It is this portion of history that
    requires a historian’s pen.
  • 5:48 - 5:53
    In other words, an expert of the craft
    or someone inclined toward it
  • 5:53 - 5:59
    or someone who makes it his life’s calling
    has to come forth and
  • 5:59 - 6:00
    start writing history.
  • 6:00 - 6:07
    You are familiar that, for a long time,
    Muslims launched campaigns against India.
  • 6:07 - 6:11
    Muhammad Ghauri, Mahmud Ghaznavi,
  • 6:11 - 6:13
    and many others were involved
    in these campaigns.
  • 6:13 - 6:15
    However, there is no history of
    these events in Sanskrit…
  • 6:15 - 6:19
    because the Hindus did not have
    the tradition of historical writing.
  • 6:19 - 6:22
    Even the source of the false allegations
    levelled against the Muslims
  • 6:22 - 6:27
    regarding this period of time is the
    work of the Muslim historians.
  • 6:27 - 6:29
    There is absolutely no
    record in Sanskrit.
  • 6:29 - 6:31
    In other words, they did not possess a
    tradition of
  • 6:31 - 6:33
    this kind of historical writing.
  • 6:33 - 6:35
    Religious history is a different
    subject altogether.
  • 6:35 - 6:37
    Right now, I am not discussing that.
  • 6:37 - 6:41
    In our tradition, it was not the case
    that during the Prophet’s (pbuh) time,
  • 6:41 - 6:48
    one of the companions decided to write
    a history of the Prophet's era.
  • 6:49 - 6:50
    That is how it is, right?
  • 6:50 - 6:53
    We make a decision: I would become
    a scholar or a scientist, etc.
  • 6:53 - 6:55
    Back then, nobody decided
    to become a historian.
  • 6:55 - 6:58
    Right now, the topic of our discussion
    is not the reason behind this fact.
  • 6:58 - 7:00
    The fact, however, is that nobody decided
    to become of historian.
  • 7:00 - 7:03
    And nobody among the tabi’iin (the
    generation that followed the Companions)
  • 7:03 - 7:04
    was a historian.
  • 7:04 - 7:08
    Thus, during this phase of
    approximately 150 years,
  • 7:08 - 7:12
    no historical text from the pen of a
    historian was written down
  • 7:12 - 7:14
    and no such thing was transmitted.
  • 7:14 - 7:19
    As the people started being born
    who would go on to write history…
  • 7:19 - 7:22
    For example, Ibn Ishaq’s name
    comes up first in the list.
  • 7:22 - 7:26
    However, we only get to know of
    Ibn Ishaq’s history through its references
  • 7:26 - 7:27
    in other texts.
  • 7:27 - 7:31
    His own writings were lost and, thus,
  • 7:31 - 7:33
    could not become a part of the
    historical record.
  • 7:33 - 7:36
    Or, let us take the examples of Ibn Saad
    and Ibn Hisham,
  • 7:36 - 7:39
    who has written the
    Prophet’s (pbuh) biography.
  • 7:39 - 7:43
    And only afterwards … in fact, toward
    the end of the 3rd
  • 7:43 - 7:46
    and the beginning of the 4th
    centuries A. H.,
  • 7:46 - 7:50
    that the historians that you
    mentioned emerged.
  • 7:50 - 7:53
    Today when we utter the words
    ‘a century and a half’,
  • 7:53 - 7:56
    ‘two centuries’, ‘three centuries’, etc.,
  • 7:56 - 7:59
    do you realize what these words signify?
    [Ilyas] Three hundred years …
  • 7:59 - 8:03
    [Ghamidi] In other words, it is not the
    duration of a couple of days.
  • 8:03 - 8:08
    About the first 150 years of our
    civilisation, we have the original sources
  • 8:08 - 8:10
    we have the historical material,
  • 8:10 - 8:13
    but we do not have a historical account
    of the period written by a historian.
  • 8:13 - 8:14
    [Ilyas] It is a profound point,
    Ghamidi Sahab.
  • 8:14 - 8:18
    [Ghamidi] The layperson is usually
    unaware of this point
  • 8:18 - 8:22
    and he imagines whatever he comes
    across in Tarikh al-Tabari
  • 8:22 - 8:28
    must be the transparent truth of
    the situation, almost akin to revelation!
  • 8:28 - 8:31
    It is the contemporary historian
  • 8:31 - 8:34
    whose account becomes the
    source of a period’s history.
  • 8:34 - 8:36
    However, we do not have any such thing
  • 8:36 - 8:38
    insofar as the earliest period of our
    history is concerned.
  • 8:38 - 8:40
    If you find someone, please
    inform me as well!
  • 8:40 - 8:42
    I am a student of knowledge; I
    would be greatly happy if there is one.
  • 8:42 - 8:43
    However, there is absolutely none.
  • 8:43 - 8:44
    [Ilyas] What difference does it make,
    Ghamidi Sahab,
  • 8:44 - 8:45
    whether there is a contemporary
    historian or…
  • 8:45 - 8:47
    [Ghamidi] Who would write
    down the history?
  • 8:47 - 8:50
    If there is no contemporary historian,
    where would the history come from?
  • 8:50 - 8:52
    [Ilyas] From people’s accounts?
  • 8:52 - 8:55
    [Ghamidi] History would come into
    existence
  • 8:55 - 8:58
    only when someone decides to
    write it down.
  • 8:58 - 9:06
    History qua a historical text,
    history as a craft,
  • 9:06 - 9:10
    history in the form of results of inquiry
    cannot emerge without the historian.
  • 9:12 - 9:17
    In the world we are living in right now,
    most of the happenings are recorded,
  • 9:17 - 9:21
    and the contemporary writers
    write as well…
  • 9:21 - 9:25
    For example, Quaid-e-Azam’s personal
    secretary
  • 9:25 - 9:29
    wrote a small biographical
    sketch of Quaid's life.
  • 9:29 - 9:32
    His sister, Fatimah Jinnah, too
    wrote book about Quaid’s life.
  • 9:32 - 9:34
    These are the contemporary historians.
  • 9:34 - 9:36
    How does a contemporary historian –
  • 9:36 - 9:40
    and I emphasize, historian –
    write the history of the present?
  • 9:40 - 9:44
    On the one hand, he has access to the
    discourse of the community on which
  • 9:44 - 9:47
    there is agreement, that I referred to
    as consensus and continual adeherence.
  • 9:47 - 9:50
    You don’t need to take this part
    from any single source.
  • 9:50 - 9:52
    It is the writing on every wall.
  • 9:52 - 9:56
    However, as the contemporary historian
    notices that certain people are saying
  • 9:56 - 10:00
    certain things, they are narrating certain
    incidents, he doesn’t just write it down.
  • 10:00 - 10:03
    Instead, he will cross-examine
    the narrators.
  • 10:03 - 10:06
    He will try to dig deeper
    into the matter.
  • 10:06 - 10:10
    He will ask the relevant people about
    whom the incident is being reported.
  • 10:10 - 10:12
    If someone is saying something about me…
    Excuse me!
  • 10:15 - 10:21
    Say, someone asserts something about me…
    and I am living during the same time.
  • 10:22 - 10:23
    He is narrating an event…
  • 10:23 - 10:29
    The task of the historian is not simply to
    write whatever Tom, Dick or Harry says.
  • 10:29 - 10:30
    Instead, the historian would reason,
  • 10:30 - 10:32
    since the person implicated in
    the reported incident is alive,
  • 10:32 - 10:33
    he must be asked about it.
  • 10:33 - 10:36
    If someone asserts Ghamidi was
    born in the year 2000 A. D.,
  • 10:36 - 10:41
    the task of the historian is to ask
    me about my birthdate.
  • 10:41 - 10:45
    Do you know the fact that it took the
    historians
  • 10:45 - 10:49
    seven decades to specify Allama
    Iqbal’s birthdate
  • 10:49 - 10:52
    and he is one of the greatest
    personalities of our recent past?
  • 10:52 - 10:54
    They simply did not know when
    Iqbal was born.
  • 10:55 - 11:00
    The irony is even the birthdate Iqbal had
    himself penned down turned out to be false
  • 11:02 - 11:05
    There are times when a person
    himself makes such errors.
  • 11:06 - 11:10
    So, when you pick up the pen and
    write history as a historian,
  • 11:10 - 11:14
    you sift through everything, the events
    and the incidents,
  • 11:14 - 11:16
    through the process of such inquiry.
  • 11:16 - 11:20
    And since you have access to the modes
    of ascertaining or falsifying reports…
  • 11:20 - 11:22
    In other words, the moment you are
    doubtful about something,
  • 11:22 - 11:25
    you go and ask the relevant people.
  • 11:25 - 11:27
    All this is grist to the historian’s
    mill.
  • 11:27 - 11:30
    For instance, Abu Huraira (ra)
    has narrated a hadeeth.
  • 11:30 - 11:33
    It is known to everyone when
    he accepted Islam.
  • 11:33 - 11:37
    Now, it is clear that the incident being
    reported in the narration
  • 11:37 - 11:40
    refers to the time of the construction
    of the Prophet’s Mosque.
  • 11:40 - 11:42
    It is impossible that Abu Huraira (ra)
    would have been
  • 11:42 - 11:43
    a direct witness to the incident.
  • 11:43 - 11:44
    What does it mean, then?
  • 11:44 - 11:46
    It means that Abu Huraira (ra) has heard
    of the incident from another companion.
  • 11:46 - 11:48
    And it is part of his approach that,
    sometimes,
  • 11:48 - 11:50
    he narrates a particular tradition
    without referring to the companion
  • 11:50 - 11:51
    who might have been the original source.
  • 11:51 - 11:52
    It can be inferred from a number
    of narrations.
  • 11:52 - 11:54
    A historian would ask questions;
  • 11:54 - 11:57
    he would try to find out where the
    information came from…
  • 11:57 - 12:00
    because he has turned it into
    his occupation.
  • 12:00 - 12:04
    History is unfolding today as
    well … however,
  • 12:04 - 12:06
    you and I are not interested in
    how things happen,
  • 12:06 - 12:09
    how they are written about, or whether a
    news item in a newspaper
  • 12:09 - 12:10
    is true or fake, etc.
  • 12:10 - 12:13
    Without bothering about all these details,
    we might still commentate about the events
  • 12:13 - 12:15
    However, the historian is concerned
    with precisely these matters.
  • 12:15 - 12:18
    Let me give you an example from our
    own society:
  • 12:18 - 12:20
    Dr. Safdar Mahmood passed away recently.
  • 12:20 - 12:24
    He had decided to investigate into and
    clarify doubts about Pakistan’s history.
  • 12:24 - 12:27
    You should read his writings.
  • 12:27 - 12:31
    He analyzed and debunked countless
    commonly held beliefs and ideas
  • 12:31 - 12:35
    about the history of Pakistan.
    And these are not small things…
  • 12:35 - 12:40
    For instance, the legend that
    Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah
  • 12:40 - 12:44
    wanted Jagannath Azad to write the
    first national anthem of Pakistan.
  • 12:44 - 12:47
    Or that at some point he had said that he
    had nothing but
  • 12:47 - 12:49
    counterfeit coins in his pocket?
  • 12:49 - 12:53
    Every single claim about events demands
    investigation and inquiry by the historian
  • 12:53 - 12:56
    because it is his craft and his science.
  • 12:56 - 12:58
    Thus, first we must understand
    the fact that
  • 12:58 - 13:00
    for the first two centuries the nascent
    Muslim civilization
  • 13:00 - 13:02
    was totally devoid of any historian
    at all.
  • 13:02 - 13:04
    Not a single historian was born in
    this period.
  • 13:04 - 13:07
    In other words, the initial period of our
    history
  • 13:07 - 13:09
    is devoid of contemporary historians.
  • 13:09 - 13:12
    And when the historians emerged,
  • 13:12 - 13:15
    they obviously did not encounter
    a tradition of historical writing.
  • 13:15 - 13:18
    In other words, it is not the case that
    among the Companions
  • 13:18 - 13:19
    there was a historian who
    left behind a written history.
  • 13:19 - 13:21
    And among the successors of the
    Companions,
  • 13:21 - 13:23
    there too were a bunch of historians
    who left historical texts.
  • 13:23 - 13:24
    It was not the case.
  • 13:24 - 13:27
    And the new historian encounters these
    historical texts.
  • 13:27 - 13:29
    Instead, what did the first
    Muslim historians encounter?
  • 13:29 - 13:33
    One, the history transmitted via consensus
    and continual adherence,
  • 13:33 - 13:34
    i.e., the established history.
  • 13:34 - 13:37
    What is the second source
    they are faced with?
  • 13:37 - 13:39
    It is the ‘individual reports’
    (akhbar-i-ahad).
  • 13:39 - 13:43
    However, it is ‘historical material’,
    not history per se.
  • 13:43 - 13:49
    Even in the third and fourth
    centuries A. H., Tabari and others
  • 13:49 - 13:53
    were still transmitting ‘historical
    material’ [and not history per se].
  • 13:53 - 13:56
    However, they were the contemporary
    historians of their own period.
  • 13:56 - 13:59
    In other words, they are writing
    about two classes of events.
  • 13:59 - 14:04
    They are writing the histories of
    their own era as contemporary historians.
  • 14:04 - 14:07
    Read the two forms of writing
    comparatively and
  • 14:07 - 14:08
    you’ll realize the difference.
  • 14:08 - 14:11
    Ibn Khaldun wrote the history of his own
    time
  • 14:11 - 14:13
    as well as of the early phase
    of Muslim civilization.
  • 14:13 - 14:15
    Compare the two and you would get to know…
  • 14:15 - 14:19
    The contemporary history passes
    through the process of historical inquiry.
  • 14:19 - 14:23
    And when it comes to the first
    phase of Muslim history,
  • 14:23 - 14:27
    they present you with the record of the
    ‘historical material’ of the time.
  • 14:29 - 14:33
    Everyone should understand the difference
    between history and historical material.
  • 14:33 - 14:37
    Perhaps the people who just
    pick up a book
  • 14:37 - 14:41
    and jump headlong into it do not realize
    the magnitude of their error.
  • 14:41 - 14:45
    So, what is the nature of
    this ‘historical material’?
  • 14:45 - 14:47
    The nature of this ‘historical material’
    is this:
  • 14:47 - 14:50
    One, there is the established history
  • 14:50 - 14:53
    transmitted continually via the consensus
    of the community.
  • 14:53 - 14:55
    There is no room for debate about
    these matters
  • 14:55 - 14:57
    for which the historian doesn't need access
    to special sources for them.
  • 14:57 - 14:58
    It is the writing on every wall.
  • 14:58 - 14:59
    These matters are on everybody’s tongue.
  • 14:59 - 15:01
    Everybody is acquainted with these facts.
  • 15:01 - 15:03
    Thus, established history was transmitted
    along the generations.
  • 15:03 - 15:07
    It was transmitted along the same lines
    as the Sunnah and the Quran.
  • 15:07 - 15:12
    Thus, there is a portion of history that
    does not demand any discussion.
  • 15:12 - 15:14
    It is transmitted via the consensus
    of the community.
  • 15:14 - 15:16
    Second, there are the individual
    reports (akhbar-i-ahad).
  • 15:16 - 15:18
    It means the incidents (and details)
    reported by individuals –
  • 15:18 - 15:20
    one, two, three, four...
  • 15:20 - 15:24
    Individuals claim to have heard,
    seen, observed something…
  • 15:25 - 15:29
    You can further divide this material
    into two parts.
  • 15:30 - 15:34
    One part is that which simply describes
    an event (bayaan-i-waqiya).
  • 15:34 - 15:36
    What does it mean?
  • 15:36 - 15:40
    For instance, an individual reports that
    he participated in the Battle of Siffin
  • 15:40 - 15:43
    and that he saw such and such a
    number of people were killed in the battle,
  • 15:43 - 15:46
    or that a gathering took place on
    such and such an occasion.
  • 15:46 - 15:47
    This is the reporting of events.
  • 15:47 - 15:50
    In other words, it simply means,
    for instance,
  • 15:50 - 15:53
    the individual reported such and such
    a number of people were killed,
  • 15:53 - 15:55
    or who killed whom, etc.
  • 15:55 - 16:00
    It is simply the reporting of the event
    and it does not raise any moral questions.
  • 16:00 - 16:04
    Ibn Khaldun has rightly said
    about such material that
  • 16:04 - 16:07
    as long as it coheres with the historical
    context,
  • 16:07 - 16:09
    there is no reason to object to it.
  • 16:09 - 16:11
    It is considered as valid
    historical material…
  • 16:11 - 16:13
    For instance, how many people were
    martyred in the Battle of Badr?
  • 16:13 - 16:16
    Which prisoners were returned for
    ransom in the Battle of Badr?
  • 16:16 - 16:22
    Which relatives of the Muslims took
    part in the battle?
  • 16:22 - 16:26
    It is simply the reportage of events that
    do not raise any moral questions.
  • 16:26 - 16:28
    With respect to the reportage of events,
  • 16:28 - 16:31
    the criterion of acceptance is their
    correspondence
  • 16:31 - 16:32
    with the existing circumstances.
  • 16:32 - 16:35
    In Al Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun
    has emphasized,
  • 16:35 - 16:38
    when it comes to the commands
    and prohibitions of Allah
  • 16:38 - 16:41
    and the Prophet (pbuh), first of all we
    would investigate the chain of narration,
  • 16:41 - 16:43
    and when we encounter the
    report of an event,
  • 16:43 - 16:44
    first we shall see whether or not
    it corresponds
  • 16:44 - 16:46
    with the historically existing
    circumstances of the time.
  • 16:46 - 16:47
    Thus, in case of the events,
  • 16:47 - 16:49
    their correspondence with the
    circumstances is looked into.
  • 16:49 - 16:53
    It means that the event is acceptable
    in relation to the situation
  • 16:53 - 16:55
    and context in which it is reported.
  • 16:55 - 16:57
    For instance, if someone claims that the
    number of Muslims
  • 16:57 - 17:01
    in the Battle of Badr was 313…
    It is the reporting of an incident, right?
  • 17:01 - 17:03
    And the second person
    claims: ‘No, they were 415.’
  • 17:03 - 17:05
    Given the context, it would be
    acceptable.
  • 17:05 - 17:08
    I chose this example because
    in the latter wars,
  • 17:08 - 17:11
    one person would claim the number
    of martyrs to be 25,000
  • 17:11 - 17:14
    and another individual
    would report 45,000 deaths…
  • 17:14 - 17:17
    It is the same kind of narrative people
    use to describe
  • 17:17 - 17:18
    the gatherings at Mochi Gate:
  • 17:18 - 17:20
    the metaphor used is
    ‘a swelling sea of people’.
  • 17:20 - 17:24
    I am sharing with you my own experience
    that on one occasion
  • 17:24 - 17:28
    when the number of people in a
    Jamaat-e-Islami procession
  • 17:28 - 17:34
    was actually counted, after ten thousand
    people there was no space
  • 17:34 - 17:36
    left at the Mochi Gate.
  • 17:36 - 17:40
    However, everyday discourse we use
    phrases like ‘lakhs of people’,
  • 17:40 - 17:43
    ‘a swelling sea of humanity’, etc.
  • 17:43 - 17:45
    An event is reported in this
    manner as well…
  • 17:45 - 17:47
    However, in history, we look
    at the correspondence
  • 17:47 - 17:49
    between the reported event
    and the historical circumstances.
  • 17:49 - 17:51
    Ibn Khaldun has given an example.
  • 17:51 - 17:53
    If, for instance, someone claims to
  • 17:53 - 17:56
    give the population numbers of
    Israelites and states
  • 17:56 - 17:59
    that they arrived and pitched their tents
    in such and such a ground.
  • 17:59 - 18:02
    Now, if it not possible to establish
    a relation of correspondence
  • 18:02 - 18:04
    between the size of the place and
    the number of the people,
  • 18:04 - 18:06
    then we shall have to consider it to
    have been a miracle, right?
  • 18:06 - 18:08
    Thus, such reported events are accepted
  • 18:08 - 18:10
    when they correspond to the
    circumstances of the time.
  • 18:10 - 18:13
    It is because that is our only way
    to asses the validity of these reports.
  • 18:13 - 18:15
    So, the information about events,
  • 18:15 - 18:20
    in their discrete form, whether
    they are individual reports…
  • 18:20 - 18:27
    Indeed, in my view, I think Syed Abul
    Alaa Maududi was absolutely correct
  • 18:27 - 18:31
    in saying in Khilafat-o-Muluuqiyat that,
    when it comes to historical events,
  • 18:31 - 18:34
    it is unnecessary to insist upon a chain
    of narration like that of the Hadith.
  • 18:34 - 18:37
    Otherwise, you would be left
    with nothing called history.
  • 18:37 - 18:41
    It is not possible to hunt for such
    rigorous chains of narration in this domain.
  • 18:41 - 18:44
    People report something: if it
    coheres with the circumstances
  • 18:44 - 18:47
    and it does not violate commonsense
    and reason,
  • 18:47 - 18:49
    the historian too would narrate it
    in the same manner.
  • 18:49 - 18:54
    If somebody provides you with some
    information about Dallas or about Lahore,
  • 18:54 - 18:57
    in general you are going to accept it
  • 18:57 - 19:00
    as long as it is not dissonant with
    the circumstance in either place.
  • 19:00 - 19:02
    In this case, it is also not necessary
  • 19:02 - 19:06
    to demand chains of transmission on the
    lines of 'I heard it from so and so.'
  • 19:06 - 19:08
    It is impossible to dig up all the
    chains of narration in history.
  • 19:08 - 19:10
    So, what is the first part of history?
  • 19:10 - 19:14
    It is the portion that contains the
    information
  • 19:14 - 19:16
    based on consensus and
    continuity of the community.
  • 19:16 - 19:18
    I pointed out that disagreements
    are not possible in this domain.
  • 19:18 - 19:21
    The second portion consists
    of those individual reports,
  • 19:21 - 19:23
    with or without chains of narration,
  • 19:23 - 19:27
    that report incidents that correspond
    with the circumstance of the time.
  • 19:28 - 19:30
    It is great if the reports have
    a chain of narration as well…
  • 19:30 - 19:32
    However, even if it isn’t there, it
    doesn’t matter to their acceptability.
  • 19:32 - 19:34
    So, this is the second portion
    of history.
  • 19:34 - 19:37
    The third portion of history is that
    which raises moral questions.
  • 19:37 - 19:41
    Moral questions are not ordinary
    questions.
  • 19:42 - 19:44
    Do you realize the meaning
    of moral questions?
  • 19:44 - 19:46
    Blame is levelled against someone.
  • 19:46 - 19:47
    [Ilyas] About their intentions or motives
    of their actions?
  • 19:47 - 19:50
    [Ghamidi] Blame is inscribed
    onto intentions, actions, speech.
  • 19:50 - 19:54
    If you say that a certain individual
    stood up in Siffin
  • 19:54 - 19:57
    and uttered blasphemous words…
    It is speech, right?
  • 19:57 - 20:01
    If you say, the person X strangulated
    the person Y,
  • 20:01 - 20:04
    even though the person Y was
    not even fighting X.
  • 20:04 - 20:08
    So, there are allegations
    and blame, right?
  • 20:08 - 20:11
    And what is the Islamic principle
    in this matter?
  • 20:11 - 20:14
    Should I accept it simply on the
    basis of Tabari’s writings?
  • 20:16 - 20:20
    In other words, what principle does
    Islam teach us about everyday life?
  • 20:20 - 20:22
    [Ilyas] Walā taqfu mā laysa laka bihi ‘ilm
  • 20:22 - 20:26
    [Ghamidi] Thus, it raises certain thorny
    moral problems, right?
  • 20:26 - 20:28
    So, if such an event or incident
    has been reported…
  • 20:28 - 20:31
    In other words, if it is about a
    companion of the Prophet (pbuh)…
  • 20:31 - 20:33
    in reality, the status of the companions
  • 20:33 - 20:35
    is too great to even discuss them
    in this context.
  • 20:35 - 20:36
    If it is about a common Muslim;
  • 20:36 - 20:38
    in fact, even a common Muslim
    has a great stature.
  • 20:38 - 20:43
    If a moral accusation is made
    against any human being,
  • 20:43 - 20:49
    it won’t be accepted simply because
    it is reported in Tabari’s Tarikh.
  • 20:49 - 20:51
    Forget about Tabari’s Tarikh,
  • 20:51 - 20:53
    even if the accusation has an
    authentic (sahih) chain of narration,
  • 20:53 - 20:54
    it still won’t be accepted.
  • 20:55 - 20:57
    Would you accept an accusation of
    fornication
  • 20:57 - 20:59
    based on an authentic chain of
    narration?
  • 21:00 - 21:02
    It needs inquiry, verification.
  • 21:02 - 21:05
    I am not asserting that it would
    simply be rejected.
  • 21:05 - 21:09
    However, the matter is no longer
    simply about reading something
  • 21:09 - 21:15
    in Tabari’s or Ibn Kathir’s or
    Ibn Asir’s or Ibn Khaldun’s writings.
  • 21:15 - 21:17
    That is no longer the case…
  • 21:17 - 21:21
    In the first two portions of history,
    there is no problem.
  • 21:21 - 21:24
    In this, I am trying to answer the
    question
  • 21:24 - 21:27
    tackled by Maulana Syed Abul
    Alaa Maududi,
  • 21:27 - 21:29
    when objections were raised
    about his book Khilafat-o-Muluukiyat.
  • 21:29 - 21:32
    It is the same topic and that is
    why I referenced Maulana Maududi.
  • 21:32 - 21:34
    As objections were raised,
    Maulana retorted:
  • 21:34 - 21:37
    Are you insisting that I should explicate
  • 21:37 - 21:39
    the chains of narration of historical
    events
  • 21:39 - 21:42
    and start evaluating the biographies
    of the narrators?
  • 21:42 - 21:46
    These activities are necessary for the
    words and
  • 21:46 - 21:47
    deeds attributed to the Prophet (pbuh).
  • 21:47 - 21:49
    However, it is not necessary for history.
  • 21:49 - 21:52
    Otherwise, history as a branch of
    knowledge would cease to exist.
  • 21:52 - 21:54
    And which nation is there in history
    that would make sure that
  • 21:54 - 21:56
    the proper chains of narration are there
    in case of history?
  • 21:56 - 21:58
    In my opinion, Maududi’s point is
    totally correct…
  • 21:58 - 22:00
    but about the first and the second
    portions.
  • 22:00 - 22:04
    However, this reasoning cannot hold
    for the third portion of history –
  • 22:04 - 22:06
    pertaining to the attribution of
    moral blame.
  • 22:06 - 22:10
    In this case, it is indispensable that
    whenever you encounter an accusation…
  • 22:10 - 22:12
    And the accusation might also pertain
    in the context of religion:
  • 22:12 - 22:14
    someone made an innovation
    in the religion,
  • 22:14 - 22:18
    someone tampered with the
    religion on some occasion,
  • 22:18 - 22:21
    someone adopted a misguided
    interpretation, etc.
  • 22:21 - 22:24
    All these are religious accusations…
    And what are the moral accusations?
  • 22:24 - 22:28
    For instance: he killed an innocent man;
    he oppressed someone;
  • 22:28 - 22:31
    he stole a certain object from
    the public treasury; etc.
  • 22:31 - 22:33
    All these are moral accusations…
  • 22:33 - 22:37
    Historical traditions have no
    status in these matters.
  • 22:38 - 22:41
    The historical material would have
    to pass through rigorous analysis.
  • 22:41 - 22:44
    Every single aspect of the report
    would be taken up and analyzed.
  • 22:44 - 22:45
    And what would the analysis
    constitute of?
  • 22:45 - 22:48
    First, the original narrators
    would be identified.
  • 22:48 - 22:52
    The point of time would be identified
    when the report first emerged:
  • 22:53 - 22:56
    for instance, was it the 2nd or
    the 3rd century?
  • 22:56 - 23:00
    If there is such a discussion, I can cite
    dozens of reports
  • 23:00 - 23:04
    that were first reported in
    the 5th century.
  • 23:04 - 23:06
    However, people narrate them in such
    a way
  • 23:06 - 23:08
    as if it had unfolded in front of their
    own eyes.
  • 23:08 - 23:10
    No earlier historian reports them.
  • 23:10 - 23:14
    Now, if the report contains accusation
    and attribution of guilt,
  • 23:14 - 23:18
    if it contains moral reproach
    against someone,
  • 23:18 - 23:22
    then I shall inquire into it to
    ascertain its truth and plausibility.
  • 23:22 - 23:25
    And in the process of ascertainment,
    every incident would be analyzed:
  • 23:25 - 23:28
    when was it first reported,
    who reported it, etc.
  • 23:28 - 23:32
    I have no objections if the events of the
    first and the second type are reproduced
  • 23:32 - 23:35
    by even babblers like al-Waqidi,
  • 23:35 - 23:39
    or even someone like and Lut bin Yahya,
    I don't mind.
  • 23:39 - 23:43
    However, insofar as the events of
    the third type are concerned,
  • 23:43 - 23:45
    I would consider the identity
    of the narrator,
  • 23:45 - 23:48
    who is the source of the report,
    when did the report first emerge,
  • 23:48 - 23:50
    what is the nature of its chain
    of narration if it has one…
  • 23:50 - 23:52
    Its chain of narration would
    also be analyzed.
  • 23:52 - 23:55
    Its correspondence with the circumstances
    of the time would also be considered.
  • 23:55 - 23:57
    In this process, the whole history of the
    report
  • 23:57 - 24:00
    would be brought forth and
    closely examined:
  • 24:00 - 24:03
    when did the tradition first emerge;
    what phases of narration
  • 24:03 - 24:04
    has it passed through;
  • 24:04 - 24:05
    how did it first emerge, etc.
  • 24:05 - 24:07
    It would also include scrutinizing the
    political leanings of the narrators:
  • 24:07 - 24:12
    whether they are the Partisans of Ali
    and are speaking about Muawiya (ra)
  • 24:12 - 24:14
    or if they are the Partisans of Muawiya
    and are speaking about Ali (ra).
  • 24:14 - 24:17
    Sympathies on both sides would be
    enquired into…
  • 24:17 - 24:20
    And, of course, you are familiar
    with the lies, distortions,
  • 24:20 - 24:23
    and the motivated nature of
    political propaganda.
  • 24:23 - 24:26
    Therefore, it would have to pass
    through rigorous analysis
  • 24:26 - 24:28
    for ascertainment of truth.
  • 24:28 - 24:32
    In our tradition, however, because of
    the absence of this
  • 24:32 - 24:35
    process of historical analysis and
    because of sidestepping its principles,
  • 24:35 - 24:38
    there are no conclusive truths with
    respect to these matters
  • 24:38 - 24:40
    in the early period of our history.
    And what is the result?
  • 24:40 - 24:42
    Every man opens a book
  • 24:42 - 24:45
    and extracts from it the
    narrations that suit his temperament.
  • 24:45 - 24:49
    The narrations are imbricated into
    the political propaganda of the time…
  • 24:49 - 24:51
    Look at what is happening today,
  • 24:51 - 24:55
    how opposing politicians invent stories
    about each other, relate falsehoods.
  • 24:55 - 24:58
    Consider what is happening on the
    social media these days…
  • 24:58 - 25:00
    And I am sorry to put it like this,
  • 25:00 - 25:03
    whatever is happening today used to
    happen back then as well.
  • 25:03 - 25:07
    And both sides would be engaged
    in these kinds of activities.
  • 25:07 - 25:09
    Thus, this portion of history
    has no relation to…
  • 25:09 - 25:13
    Insofar as the first two types
    of history are concerned,
  • 25:13 - 25:17
    I discoursed upon it and narrated
    the events as they are reported.
  • 25:17 - 25:19
    And I also cited historical traditions:
    for instance,
  • 25:19 - 25:22
    when I spoke about the election
    of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
  • 25:22 - 25:25
    I narrated them; they are the traditions
    of reportage of events (bayaan-i-waqiya).
  • 25:25 - 25:29
    However, I have still not touched the
    moral questions raised by certain reports.
  • 25:29 - 25:30
    And when we talk about the
    moral questions,
  • 25:30 - 25:32
    the reports and traditions would
    have to pass through
  • 25:32 - 25:33
    all the stages of ascertainment of
    truth
  • 25:33 - 25:34
    through historical analysis that
    I just outlined.
  • 25:34 - 25:37
    [Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, it was the first
    question about the unique viewpoint
  • 25:37 - 25:41
    you have put forth about the conflict
    between Ali (ra) and Muawiya (ra).
  • 25:41 - 25:42
    Today I presented the first difficulty in
    front of you
  • 25:42 - 25:44
    in the 11th session of the series.
  • 25:44 - 25:46
    There are about a dozen or
    more doubts and questions…
  • 25:46 - 25:48
    For instance, about history: if no
    historian was present
  • 25:48 - 25:49
    among the first generations,
  • 25:49 - 25:51
    then how do we claim about the hadith
    attributed to the Prophet (pbuh)
  • 25:51 - 25:53
    that they are equivalent to
    historical record.
  • 25:53 - 25:56
    And what must be the viewpoint to assess
    predictions made in the hadith?
  • 25:57 - 26:01
    There are questions about the people
    who murdered Uthman (ra),
  • 26:01 - 26:04
    Ameer Muawiya’s (ra) selection and
    options he had,
  • 26:04 - 26:06
    Yazid’s measures, and about Hussain (ra).
  • 26:06 - 26:08
    There are numerous questions and
  • 26:08 - 26:10
    we shall ask you to answer
    each one of them.
  • 26:10 - 26:11
    We have run out of time.
    We shall meet again.
  • 26:11 - 26:14
    Thanks a lot for your time till now!
Title:
Hazrat Ali (ra) aur Ameer Muawiya (ra) Ka Ikhtilaf - Part 11 - Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
Description:

more » « less
Video Language:
Urdu
Duration:
26:24

English subtitles

Revisions Compare revisions