AL BAYAN - Surah AT TAWBAH - Part 20 - Verses 61 - 64 - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

[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]