Featured Original Articles

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s sectarian views about Sunni Sufis, Barelvis and Shias

A non-Takfeeri Salafi? Is his implicit insult of Shia and Sunni Barelvi Sufi beliefs and practices contributing to their persecution and suffering in Pakistan?

Related post: جاوید غامدی صاحب کا استدلال طالبان کے استدلال سے کیونکر بہتر ہے؟

Recent PEW Survey has revelaed that only 50 per cent of mainstream Sunnis in Pakistan accept Shias as Muslims and that at least 30 per cent of Sunnis think that Sunni Sufi (Barelvi) Muslims are non-Muslims. Reasons for such widespread intolerance about Shias and Sunni Sufi Barelvis are to be found not only in takfiri Deobandi and Wahhabi Salafi madressas and militant groups but also in seemingly moderate Salafi and Deobandi scholars. We present one such example, in this post, of a person who is perhaps one of the most influential semi-Salafi semi-Deobandi clerics in Pakistan’s upper-middle class.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi (born in 1951 in Sahiwal, Punjab) is Pakistan’s leading Islamic semi-Salafi semi-Deobandi scholar who is known for his relatively progressive interpretations of the Quran and Hadith. In his own words, he is inspired by teachings of Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi (1904-1997) and Maulana Hamiduddin Farahi (1863–1930). He is also inspired by teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328). He was also associated with Maulana Maududi for a few years before parting ways with the Jamaat-e-Islami.

He is the founder of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences and its sister organization Danish Sara. According to his own website “Al-Mawrid”: Ghamidi has drawn heavily from the Qur’anic thought of his two illustrious predecessors, Hamid al-Din Farahi and Amin Ahsan Islahi presenting many of their views in a more precise manner. However, many of his contributions to the Islamic thought are original.

On the same website, Gahmidi is claimed to have presented a framework of Islam “Haqiqat-e-Deen” which is a representative of a complete interpretation of Islam in contrast with the two other prevailing interpretations of Islam in the Muslim ummah: the tassawuf-based interpretation and the jihad-based interpretation.

Ghamidi negates Tasawwuf  (Sufism, of Sunni Barelvi Muslims) treating it as a parallel religion to Islam. He also negates violent, Jihadist interpretation and enforcement of Islam.

Ghamidi is known for his non-violent approach to different sects of Islam and also towards other faiths.

Ghamidi is not a Takfeeri. He does not treat Shias or Sunni Sufis as infidels. He treats them as deviant sects of Islam who can be treated as Kafir (infidel) only when a State (Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) formally apostates them (just as the State of Pakistan did in the case of Ahmadis). What is unmistakable in his ideology is the fact that he remains inspired by a Salafi Wahhabi and Deobandi ideology which is borderline Nasibi. Nasibi is a term used for those people who despise the Ahl-e-Bait (family) and Aal (progeny) of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The terms Nasibi and Nasibiat have been adequately explained by eminent Salafi scholar Maulana Muhammad Ishaq in his lecture which was recently published on LUBP.

Ghamidi has a not so subtle anti-Shia and anti-Sunni Sufi tone to his talks. Both Ghamidi and his thought leaders and predecessors (Amin Ahsan Islahi, Farahi, Ibn Taymiyyah etc) are notorious for their Nasibiat, and remain hostile to Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatima, Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain etc. This characteristic is also a feature of other contemporary Nasibi scholars, e.g. Zakir Naik, Farhat Hashmi, Taqi Usmani, Israr Ahmed etc.

In analysing the daily violence against Shia Muslims in Pakistan, one cannot discount the role of idealogues like Ghamidi. While he does not advocate violence, his narrative is one of exclusivism and is an anathema to a pluralist society.  This is precisely the sort of discourse that dehamanizes the other.  Even if Ghamidi does not advocate violence, his narrow and exclusive discourse provides justification to those who want to apologize, ignore and misrepresent the ongoing Shia Genocide in Pakistan. 

It is, therefore, no surprise that despite his non-Takfeeri approach to Shias and Sunni Sufis/Barelvis (something which distinguishes him from Takfir Salafists and Takfiri Deobandis, e.g. Ihsan Elahi Zaheer, Manzoor Nomani, Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, Ahmed Ludhyanvi etc), Ghamidi generally negates almost all traditions in which the Ahl-e-Bait of the Prophet have been praised.

Ghamidi’s views on the great sacrifice of Imam Hussain in Karbala are completely in line with those of Zakir Naik, Israr Ahmed, Islahi, Ibn Taymiyyah etc, although he is not as transparent. He considers Imam Hussain as a leader of illegitimate rebellion and exonerates Yazid from the murder of Imam Hussain and other members of the Prophet’s family. He blames Ibn Ziyad for Hussain’s murder and terms the entire incident as an ‘afsosnak hadsa’ “a regrettable accident”. This apolitical, acontextual assessment of Karbala is in stark contrast with analyses of Karbala by other Sunni and Shia scholars who support Imam Hussain’s just opposition (Qayam) to Yazid ibn Muawiya’s illegitimate rule. It is the same approach to the Ulil-Amr which has resulted in Darbari Mullahs (courtier clerics) and historians who are present in today’s Pakistan in the shape of Haroon-ur-Rasheed, Dr. Safdar Mehmood, Mujib-ur-Rehman Shami etc – who were official historians of General Zia-ul-Haq.

We are not bothered about legitimate historical and interpretational differences in Islam. However, we are concerned that in a society where radical Deobandi and Wahhabi Salafi violence against Shias, Sunni Barelvis, Ahmadis, Christians etc is commonplace, Javed Ghamidi’s unfair Othering of Sunni Sufis and Shias and frequent insults of Shia and Sunni Sufi practices may be contributing to their current persecution and genocide.

Why can’t Shia, Sunni, Salafi etc scholars treat all sects and schools of thought as equally respectable and legitimate interpretation of Islam instead of directly or implicitly declaring each other deviant, polytheist, lesser Muslim or non-Muslim?

In our view, it is legitimate if a person considers Imam Hussain as an illegitimate rebel (Baghi) and Yazid as a legitimate ruler. Also it is legitimate if someone does not believe in Ya Rasullualh, Ya Ali or thinks that Imamat has no basis in Islam. It is equally legitimate if a person believes in traditions that show that Hazrat Umar attacked Hazrat Fatima’s house, the dearest daughter of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), in order to extract oath of allegiance (Bayah) from her husband, Hazrat Ali. Notwithstanding historical differences, our only aim is to discourage a puritanical approach to Islam in which one sect is shown better or inferior than others. The problem with calling each other deviant, particularly by a person of Ghamidi’s stature, is that this leads to further intolerance and othering, which in turn feeds into the current atmosphere of sectarian violence against Shias and Barelvis.

In this post, we provide a collection of video clips and articles by Javed Ghamidi and his team (Al Mawrid) to illustrate our assertion that Ghamidi and his followers are a refined, sugar-coated version of Nasibis (enemies of Ahle Bait), and are a part of a concerted campaign against Pakistan’s most target killed and persecuted communities, i.e., Shias and Sufi Sunnis.

Karbala and Imam Hussain

The following note about Ghamidi is based on views expressed by Sunni and Shia commentators at a different website.

A few years ago, in a TV talkshow (during Muharram) on Aaj and later on Geo TV Ghamidi’s thrust was that Karbala was an uprising against the state and, therefore, wrong. One wonders why his intellectual observations are restricted to Karbala and do not encompass Saqeefa and Jamal? Is it not hypocrisy?

There was a very objectionable statement by a Salafist-Deobandi cleric Tahir Islam in the program “Ghamidi” on GEO TV that “IN THE KARBALA THE WAR AGAINST YAZID WAS THE MISTAKE OF IMAM HUSSAIN”; apparently Ghamidi did not contradict this statement. (April 2007).

Tahir Islam is a disciple of Dr. Israr Ahmed. The discussion in the recorded programme was mainly about what one should do in the face of spread of munkar (evil) in the society. Tahir’s view was that each of us is obligated to stop it bazor-e bazu (with the use of force), if need be. Upon this Ghamidi said that this may lead to anarchy as each individual may interpret munkar differently, and we could be on each others’ throats as a result of this difference in ijtehad by each individual: I may interpret what you were doing was munkar and vice versa. Thus Ghamidi maintained that while the populace at large may do nahi anil munkar bil lisaan, it was only the right of the state do so if the use of force (and possible bloodshed) was foreseen.

Tahir responded by restricting the circle of those obligated to stop munkar to ones who had attained the requisite level of strength (Taliban? Jamia Hafsa?). He said that while the qayaam of Imam Husain in Karbala was as per the Islamic obligation he (the Imam) naudbillah committed khata-e ijtehadi (error of judgement) in over-estimating his strength and not foreseeing the role of Kufis, and was thus (according to Tahir) not successful in his stand.

Ghamidi maintained his view that it was only for the state to do nahi anil munkar if the possibility of resultant bloodshed existed. For him it is perhaps irrelevant that the state then, as now, was responsible for committing and encouraging most of the munkar (evil)!

By saying that only the state has the right to impose nahi anil munkar, Ghamidi implied that the qayaam of Karbala by Imam Hussain against Yazid was illegitimate. Tahir Islam, on the other hand, based his hypothesis on the judgemental error of Hussain. He didn’t disagree with the qayaam of Karbala itself being right.

Ghamidi – supposedly a scholar – is, clearly on the side of the Ulil Amr (State), i.e., Yazeed.

I am not surprised. This khata-e-ijtehadi business has been attributed to Imam Hussain since ages. Whether it was Ghamdi who made the statement, or Tahir Islam or anyone else does not matter. Let us not for a moment forget that however “liberal” and “enlightened” Ghamdi may sound, his knowledge is rooted in the arid and poisonous soil of the early Umayyad historians, and has a discernible Nasibi flavour.

Here’s another clip.

Karbala ka waqia: Ghamidi claims that: “Imam Hussain had reviewed his decision of opposition to Yazid; he wanted to move away from Karbala and even wanted to go to Yazid but Ibn Ziyad’s army did not allow that”.

[youtube id=”sV6cEnV4YI8″ width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Shia Muslims’ response:

[youtube id=”ZUYfHWf-Pe0″ width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Hazrat Ali and Muawiya

Ghamidi rationalizes Muawiya’s mutiny (baghawat) against a legitimate ruler (Hazrat Ali, the Khalifa-e-Rashid). He presents false neutrality between Hazrat Ali and Muaviya and exonerates Muaviah under the cover of Ijtihadi Ghalti and lack of information. Of course, he will not use similar logic to exonerate Abu Jehl or Abu Lahb.

[youtube id=”BTnD-vst_BQ” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Ya Rasoolallah

“Rasoolallah ko hazir nazir samajhna ghaleez tareen shirk hai”

“It is worst form of polytheism to consider Prophet as Hazir and Nazir.”

[youtube id=”ZCJlMJryBkc” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Ya Ali

According to Ghamidi, those who say Ya Ali are polytheists (mushrik) and fools.

“Ya Ali Madad kehna Shirk hai aur aik ahmaqana baat hai”

[youtube id=”8vu4EOYtyYo” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Funeral rituals: Quran Khwani and Chehlum

Qul or Chaliswan najaiz rusoom hain. There is no basis of Qul and chehlum in Islam.

[youtube id=”c4UEVeOmPGo” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Question About A Naat –“Saray Nabi teray Der Kay Sawali”

According to Ghamidi this phrase is completely wrong, Allah and Quran has stopped from it, it has no basis in the Quran or Hadith.

[youtube id=”K-H_FjPv7WE” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Prophet is dead in his grave

[youtube id=”IHLwqqXPBY4″ width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]


According to Ghamidi, Shia Islamic notion of Imamat and Imam Mehdi has no basis in Islam.

[youtube id=”NzCfiqC3TOA” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

There is no Imam Mahdi. No basis in Quran or Sahih Hadith.

[youtube id=”itC2KL_g2mk” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Panjtan Pak

“There is no concept of Punjtan (Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain) in Islam”.

[youtube id=”FDcHbQfGqTY” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]


The Fadak incident: Hazrat Abu Bakr’s decision was according to the Quran in which he did not agree with Hazrat Fatima’s demand/claim for inheritance. There was an internal dispute in the Ahlul-Bayt, therefore, Hazrat Abu Bakr had to intervene to settle the dispute.

[youtube id=”voDalOGkt1o” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Tasawuf / Sufi Islam

There is no basis of Peeri Mureedi in Islam.

[youtube id=”VrZrRc9c46A” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Prophet Muhammad’s parents

Prophet Muhammad’s father is in Hell (Jahannum)

[youtube id=”uX8Sq0ho2s4″ width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]

Abu Talib ki tauba

According to Ghamidi, Hazrat Abu Talib (a.s.), the benefactor of the Prophet was a non-Muslim until his death.

[youtube id=”nMtpIdOAZgc” width=”600″ height=”340″ position=”left”]


Questions and Answers from Ghamidi Team (Al-Mawrid)

Reality of the dispute between the Umayyids and Banu Hashim?

How are you? May God Bless you. You are always been a true source of guidance and inspiration for young youth like me. In era of fitna, you are the true representative of Islam. Please help me, I have got much confusion about the saḥābah….let me clear my question.

The confusion started when somebody asked Dr. Zakir Nayek about Yazīd andkarbala war in a program. He said Radiallah for Yazīd and declared karbalā as a political war. I was shocked, because we have been listening that Yazīd was acursed (mal‘ūn) and a brutal (Zālim) person and the war of kerbalā was the war of truth and falsehood (Ḥaq o Bāṭil). The same reaction was aroused in the Muslim community against him. They started condemning him in conferences. They said that Dr. Zakir is a student of comparative religion, not a good scholar of history and Islam. I also started thinking the same but my heart said that how it can be possible that somebody is authority in comparative religion but not having grip in his own religion. My Confusion increased. I decided to do research on this topic and read many books of different opinions on the topic.

The first book I read was ‘Khalāfat-o-Malūkiyyat’ (somebody suggested it) written by Mawlānā Mawdūdī, and reached the conclusion that Haḍrat Mu‘āwiyah (rta) and Yazīd both were of the same calibre and they really degraded Islam and Haḍrat Ali (rta) and Haḍrat Imām Ḥussain (rta) were true defender of Islam. After that somebody suggested me to read ‘Khilāfat-i Mu‘awiyah O Yazīd’ by Mahmūd Ahmed Abbāsī. That book made me think that in reality Haḍrat Mu‘āwiyah was real defender of Islam and Yazīd was a pious person. On the other hand the point of view of Haḍrat Ali and Haḍrat Imām Hussain was not right. My confusion was doubled. First I was having doubt about Haḍrat Mu‘āwiyah (rta) and Yazīd but now confusion about Haḍrat Ali and Imām Hussain (rta) was also created. I have also been researching Shī‘i point of view about Haḍrat Ali (rta) since long time. Suddenly a new controversy began, when Dr. Isrār Ahmed related a ḥadīth about Haḍrat Ali about forbidding alcohol. The same very harsh reaction was observed in the community. I also listened to the lectures of Dr. Ṭāhir al-Qādri about this. Tension increased because he represented Haḍrat Ali as a supernatural personality with his strong evidences. I am totally confused about the role of Saḥābah, who is right, who is wrong, whom to follow, whom to not, whom to please, whom to deny. Sir, please guide me in this regard. I would be highly thankful to you.


I think the main inquiry you have is summarised with the following statement at the end of your post:

“I am totally confused about the role of Ṣaḥābah, who is right, who is wrong, whom to follow, whom to not, whom to please, whom to deny.”

I am going to answer the above in a very simple (but not simplistic) way and will then share some thoughts with you on the issue of Ali (ra) and Hussain (ra) versus Mu’āwiah and Yazīd:

1. who is right, who is wrong?
As a Muslim it is not your duty to figure this out about people who lived in the past, since your decision about who was right and who was wrong is not going to help any one. .

2. whom to follow, whom to not?
First I am not sure what you mean by following certain Saḥābah, do we have a book of guidance written by any of them?

Second, as a Muslim you should not follow any of the Saḥābah, you need to follow the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, on which all the Ṣaḥābah agree.

3. whom to please, whom to deny?

First I am not sure what you mean by pleasing certain Ṣaḥābah, do you believe that by carrying out certain acts or having some beliefs you will be able to please a Ṣaḥābī that is already dead?

Second, as a Muslim you should not seek to please any of the Ṣaḥābah or any human being, you only need to please your Lord.

Now, as for the personalities you referred to, I think there are a number of things that often people confuse with each other and therefore result in unnecessary tensions like that you mentioned.

As a Muslim and, in fact as a human being we need to always support the Truth and to deny the Falsehood and to help the oppressed and to correct the oppressing. Therefore we have every right to criticise a person who knowingly supports the falsehood and denies the truth.

However, the means by which we come to realise what is the truth and what is the falsehood are very subjective, in particular if the matter we are studying is a historical matter belonging to more than 1400 years ago.

Let’s assume that based on the sources of information that were available to us, we have come to conclusion that A is with the truth and B is with the falsehood. When some one starts praising B and criticising A, we become angry because we think he is praising the falsehood and criticising the truth. The reality is, he is still praising the truth and criticising the falsehood, just like us. The difference is, unlike us, the sources of information that were available to this person have led him to believe that A is with the falsehood and B is with the truth.

We need to appreciate that the often conflicting information that has reached us after 1400 years has come to us through fallible narrators and has been affected by many political and social factors. We can never hold any of this information to be the perfect truth. Therefore we cannot and should not expect every individual to come to the same conclusion that we have arrived. The two totally different conclusions that you have reached by reading two different books is a good example of this.

Please note that I am not saying that we should remain neutral when incidents like Karbalā happen. What I am saying is that after 1400 years it is very difficult to find out exactly what happened and why. If this incident was happening during our time then the situation was different. In this case it was of course our duty to do our best to find out who was right and who was wrong because then we could play a positive role to support the truth and to influence the flow of events.

This however is not the case anymore. Whether we believe Yazīd was right or Hussain (rta) was right is not going to help Islam and Muslims in any way. Albeit it is undeniable that Hussain (ra), a beloved member of ahl al-bayt of the Prophet (sws), did not deserve to be murdered. However whether we believe that he was right in rising against Yazīd or not and that to what extent Yazīd was responsible for this calamity can only be a matter of opinion.

Like every other interested Muslim, I too have my own opinion about the story of Karbalā and people who were associated with it. However my opinion is not going to help you in this matter because like every other opinion it is based on the information that was available to me. I have done my best to make sure that this information is reliable but I cannot deny the possibility that the picture that this information has given me might not be 100% true and that it might not be the complete picture of what happened.

You wrote: “(Dr. Ṭāhir al-Qādri) represented Ḥaḍrat Ali as a supernatural personality with his strong evidence (dalīl)”.

I am more than happy to read these evidences ‘dalīl’s and to comment on them.

Author: Abdullah Rahim

Posted on: 18-Aug-2009



Conditions of Revolt and Jihad


I have read your book “The Islamic Sharī‘ah of Jihad” by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, which arose a few questions in my mind. Please answer my following questions:
a. In which conditions Jihad against the ruler of one’s own Islamic state can be undertaken?
b. When and how can we declare a ruler of our Islamic state a non-Muslim urge people to defy his orders?
c. In battle of Siffīn Hazrat Mu‘āviah revolted against Hazrat Ali so who was at truth, and whose battle can be taken as jihad?
d. Was the battle of Karbala a revolt against the ruler Yazīd? Give your reasons.


Since your answer is on the basis of the “The Islamic Shari’ah of Jihad” by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, I will answer your first two questions on the basis of the same book and the same premises:

a. Which are the occasions when Jihad against own ruler of Islamic state can be undertaken?

According to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, revolt against own ruler can be taken under the following conditions:

– The government should be guilty of openly denying the shari’ah in any way.
– The government should be a despotic one. It has neither come into existence through the opinion of the people nor can it be changed through their opinion.
– The person who leads this uprising should have a clear cut majority of the nation at his back and they are willing to accept him as their future ruler in favor of the existing one.

b. According to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, it is as stated above, that is:
“The government should be guilty of openly denying the shari’ah in any way.” When it says “openly denying” that means no doubts will remain and no judgments are needed.

c. In the context of this writing we consider revolt to be rising against the ruler in order to bring him down. To my best understanding based on the historical reports that have been available to me and I am relying on, Mu‘āwiah was not in the stage of revolt at the beginning. He only disobeyed Ali (ra) and criticized him and demanded the assassins of Uthman (ra). This however later reached to the stage that materialized itself as a full revolt against the ruler i.e. Ali (ra). Based on my understanding, Mu‘āwiah had no right to disobey and fight against Ali (ra).

Having said that, neither of the two sides, in my current view, were doing Jihad. Not every battle in which a group of Muslims are involved is supposed to be Jihad. This was simply a battle between two groups of Muslims, where one group was wrong. The best description of such battle is given in the Qur’an, that is, verse 49:9.

d. To my understanding and based on the historical reports that have been available to me and I am relying on, the battle of Karbalaitself was not a revolt. It was in fact self-defense. Ibn Ziyād had demanded Hussain (ra) to submit himself to him and Hussain (ra) did not consider this fair and legal and considered it a humiliating act. The army of Ibn Ziyād did not allow Hussain (ra) and his caravan to leave and practically forced them to fight and defend themselves. Having said that, to my understanding, the move of Hussain (ra) from Madina and then Mecca towards Kufa was a move towards revolt. It appears that Hussain (ra) was trying to fulfill the conditions of a religiously legitimate revolt. His journey to Kufa was in fact his attempt to find a base and to start to get more and more supporters. When he realized that the situation in Kufa was not what he expected it to be, it was already too late and resulted in the occurrence of the sad events that happened.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Posted on: 02-Mar-2012
Tragic Event of Karbala

I am a student and appreicate the works and views of the religious scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamdi and his School. I rely on their views to know about Islam and to get the solution of religious problems. Please help and guide me for literature to know about the indecent Karbala (with Imam Hussain) in reality rather than the common typical stories.

First please bear in mind that knowing part of the Muslim history is educational, eye opener and interesting but it should not affect our understanding of Islam which as you know should be based in the Qur’an and then Sunnah only.
It is difficult to know the reality of something that happened about 1400 years ago. There are incidents happening at our time yet despite so many technological and audio visual advances and tools we can never make sure that we have some to understand the reality of them.
The problem of the story of Karbala is that it relates to sectarian and political debates, while also related to religion. The incidents like this normally are targets of so many exaggerations and story telling.
On one hand there are sectarian motives to exaggerate about the sad story of Karbala. On the other hand there have been political motives of the state at the time and after that during the Umawi regime to affect the way people would see this incident.
In these cases the best is to read books written by people from various backgrounds. I am not sure whether you are limited to English language or if you can also read Arabic or Urdu. In any case I suggest you need to get hold of some of the books on history where the author simply narrates the records that are usually a mixture of false and truth (like Tarikh Tabari), then also get hold of books written by Shia scholars about the incident and also find some books written by those who have positive views about Yazid.
I cannot guarantee that after such study you will be able to get hold of the reality but at least you will have a good chance to get some balanced views and perhaps some very good questions about the incident of Karbala.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Posted on: 22-Dec-2008

Concept of Imam

Where is this God appointed teacher from whom I may ask my question?

Are you living in this world? There is a man, on this earth, alive and who claims to be a direct descendant of our beloved Prophet, the Imam (leader) of the time and age and the holder of Authority, the Noor (نور) or reflection and glow of Ali. Please do some research and I am sure you will be able find an answer. I have Iman in him, I am his follower, and he is my guide for straight path (sirat-al mustaqeem).
Best of luck !

Let’s keep the level of this dialogue in an academic level rather than informal chitchat. Yes I am living in this world, otherwise I was not able to communicate with you. I hope you do not believe that all Muslims who do not know your Imām (perhaps about 98% of Muslims) are not living in this world!
The problem my brother is that once a group of Muslims starts to associate themselves with beliefs that are not established in the Qur’an, they will then easily spread out into many sects and branches, since there won’t remain any tangible source to stop them from doing so. Given that these groups of Muslims decide to believe in things that are not established in the Qur’ān and given the numerous number of these sects who have separated themselves from the mainstream Muslims, it will be very time consuming to get familiarized with all these beliefs and their details.
When I search books and internet in order to guess who your Imāmmight be, I come up with many results. It depends which sect (from among those who have beliefs not established in the Qur’ān) you belong to:
– If you are an Imāmi Shī‘ī your Imam’s name is Muhammad b. Ḥasan and he is in occultation.
– If you are a Nizari Esmayeelee Shī‘ī then your Imam’s name/title is Karim Agha Khan IV.
– If you are a Mustali (Dawoodi Buhra) Esmayeelee Shia then your Imam’s name is Muhammad Burhaneddin.
– If you are a Mustali (Sulaimani Buhra) Esmayeelee Shia then your Imams are Abdullah ibn Hibatullah and/or Mohammed Ibrahim Ziaee.
And to remain brief I do not add more than other dozen Islamic sects who believe in divine authorities after the Prophet (sws) including some of the Sufi sects.
I can spend the rest of my life trying to figure out who among all these people who somehow claim divine authority is the real Imam. However I do not need to do this. The Qur’an has assured me that all disputes in regard to religious guidance have to be decided on the basis of this Book (2:213; 25:1). I am confident that there is no divine authority after the Prophet because the Qur’an has not informed me about it.
All the above sects have one thing in common, that is, they believe in something that is not found in the Qur’an as core of their religion.
All the above sects also have another similarity. They all claim that they follow Ali (ra).
I would like to conclude this discussion with some relevant statements narrated from Ali (ra) in Nahj Al-Balagha:
وَاسْتَدِلُّوهُ عَلى رِّبِّكُمْ، وَاسْتَنْصِحُوهُ عَلى أَنْفُسِكُمْ، وَاتَّهِمُوا عَلَيْهِ آرَاءَكُمْ، وَاسْتَغِشُّوا فِيهِ أَهْوَاءَكُمْ
Make it (the Qur’an) your guide towards Allah. Seek its advice for yourselves and accuse your views (of being false) based on the Qur’an and regard your desires in the matter of the Qur’an as deceitful. (Nahj-Al-Balagha 176)
جَعَلَهُ اللهُ رِيّاً لِعَطَشِ الْعُلَمَاءِوَعُذْراً لِمَنِ انْتَحَلَهُ، وَبُرْهَاناً لِمَنْ تَكَلَّمَ بِهِ، وَشَاهِداً لِمَنْ خَاصَمَ بِهِ، وَفَلْجاًلِمَنْ حَاجَّ بِهِ، وَحَامِلاً لِمَنْ حَمَلَهُ، وَمَطِيَّةً لِمَنْ أَعْمَلَهُ، وَآيَةً لِمَنْ تَوَسَّمَ، وَجُنَّةً لِمَنِ اسْتَلاْمَ، وَعِلْماً لِمَنْ وَعَى، وَحَدِيثاً لِمَنْ رَوَى، وَحُكْماً لِمَنْ قَضَى
Allah has made it (the Qur’an) a quencher of the thirst of the learned … an evidence for him who adopts it, an argument for him who argues with it, a witness for him who quarrels with it, a success for him who argues with it, a carrier of burden for him who seeks the way, a shield for him who arms himself (against misguidance), …. (Nahj-Al-Balagha 198)

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Posted on: 04-Jan-2010
Aayaat-e Tatheer (Verses of Purification)


Some people say that part of surah al-ahzaab is called “aayate tatheer” and it refers to “ahle bait” comprising Hazrat ‘Alī, Hazrat Fatima and their two children only. Is it true.? Also there is “Aayate Mobahila\”.Some people say that our Prophet (sws) took these 4 people to meet Christians for a “mobahila”. Is this mobahla a good thing? Is it not better to discuss the matter with reasoning?


As for your first question please read the following reply that has been sent in one of our affiliated websites:


I have some confusion over hadith-e-kisa. Because Shia people give it much importance. They say that panjtan pak (ehle-baat) have been addressed in this hadith directly. Would you please clarify the situation by throwing some light on this hadith?

Thanking in anticipation

Question from Pakistan
First let us provide an outline of the Hadith of Kasa and the raised issue for those readers who might not be familiarised with the story.

In its generic form (that could be true according to most of the different versions of the hadith, as will be discussed later), this is the outline of the story:

“The Prophet calls Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussayn -RAhom- and takes them under a cloak with himself and reads the last part of the verse 33:33 and says to the effect that Oh God these are my Ahl Albayt so make them clean (referring to the content of 33:33).”

Our Shia brothers (referring to a particular version of the hadith) argue that this hadith tells us that the term Ahl Albayt in 33:33 exclusively means the above great persons.

This was a summary of the issue under discussion.

Part of what I would like to explain has been posted before in an answer to a relevant question. I recommend that you read that answer before reading the rest of this post. You can find it here:

About the Purity of Ahl’l Bayet (The Prophet’s Household)

If you appreciate what was explained in the above answer you will agree with me that no matter who is meant with the word Ahl Albayt in 33:33, the verse does not imply any extra-ordinary merits (e.g. infallibility) for the addressees of the verse. Accordingly while it is interesting to investigate who the Ahl Albayt are, the result of this investigation (what ever it might be) cannot affect our understanding of our belief as a Muslim.

After this introduction let us look at the word Ahl Albayt and the Hadith that is known as Kasa (Cloak).

My dear brother, we should appreciate that the Qur’an is an Arabic book that has been revealed to people whose language was Arabic. We will misinterpret the Qur’an if we attempt to understand its words in a way that was not (and could not be) understood by the primary addressees of the book. Today if you ask an Arab friend to come to your house with his Ahl Albayt, the default is that he will come to you with his wife and children who are still staying in his house, he might bring his married children and their spouses or he might not. He might even bring a friend if the friend is considered as one of the permanent residents of his house. He will be extremely shocked if he finds that by Ahl Albayt you meant his married children and grand children and NOT his wife. This is because for any Arab, the word Ahl Albayt (which literally means those staying in the house) includes the wife (or wives) of a person. This was in no way any different at the time of the Prophet (pbuh). (It is interesting that even in Iran (being a Shia-Muslim dominated country) people use the word Ahl Albayt to refer to the wife as well as children of a person.)

If you look at any popular book of Arabic words you will find that in the definition of Ahl Albayt, wife (ves) are included. If you look at elsewhere in the Qur’an (11:73) you will find that one’s wife is included in the meaning of the term. If you look at the usage of the term by the Prophet, his wives and his companions (as recorded in the books of Hadith and history) you will find that it was used in its default meaning (that includes wife[ves]).

Now we know that the Qur’an was revealed (not to confuse or misguide people but) to guide people. As such one of the features of the Qur’an that all scholars agree with is its firmness and straightforwardness in establishing the religious concepts. If for any reason, God wanted to change the default meaning of the term Ahl Albayt and use it in a meaning that was not known to its addressees then the style of the Qur’an makes us expect to see this transformation of meaning firmly established in the Qur’an, in particular when (according to Shia brothers) understanding this meaning will have such a huge effect on our belief. Not only this has not happened in the Qur’an but (as I referred to earlier) the term Ahl Albayt has been used in its default meaning elsewhere in the Qur’an.

Let me also reemphasise the point that was made in the above link that the context in which 33:33 is placed in the Qur’an makes it absolutely clear that the phrase Ahl Albayt is used in its generally understood meaning and leaves no room for discussion in this regard.

Furthermore, it should also be clear that hadith is not a source of determining the meanings of common Arabic words and phrases of the Qur’an. Hadith cannot (and is not capable of) changing the default meaning of a word or phrase that is inline with its context.

Accordingly (and this is a very important point which I cannot emphasise enough) it is the Hadith of Kasa that has to be understood by verses 33:30-35 and not vice versa.

Now all the above arguments might make an impression that Hadith of Kasa is a hadith that firmly suggests wives are not included in the term Ahl Albayt. I will try to show you that this is not at all a case in the remaining of this answer:

Hadith of Kasa has been narrated in a variety of forms.

I try to summarise these here:

In some versions it says that the Prophet came out of his house and then covered these great persons under his cloak and then read the last part of the verse 33:33. This version is narrated in some of the books of Hadith, in particular in the book of Muslim: Muslim: 2424, also in (Mustadrak 4707)- Musnafe Ibn Abi Shayba 32102, Sunane Beyhaqqi 2680.

The same sort of story happens in Fatima’s house while Wasila Ibn Al’Asqa is there. He hears that the Prophet reads the last part of the verse 33:33 about Ahl Albayt and then referring to these four personalities says Oh God these are my Ahl and my Ahl are more deserved (for the context of this verse). Wasila asks the Prophet whether he (being always near the Prophet’s house and under his protection) is also among his Ahl, the Prophet says yes. (Wasila was one of the companions known as Ashab Al-Soffa. These were people who had embraced Islam but were very poor and had no places of their own; they were gathered and stayed near the Prophet house). This version can be found in Sahih Ibn Haban, 6976 also in Sunane Beyhaqqi 2690. This is also narrated in the Shia book of Al-Burhan (3:321).

The same sort of story happens in Umme Salame’s house with no additions (no Q.A.). The Prophet says oh Allah these are my Ahl Albayt and my Ahl Albayt are more deserved for this. This is narrated in Musnad Ibn Abi Shayba 32103.

Same story happens in the house of Umme Salame, it is said that the verse was revealed there, then the Prophet asked for these personalities and gathered them under the cloak and read the verse and prayed for them. Umme Salama asks isn’t she his Ahl Albayt, the Prophet says she is of his Ahl and that his Ahl deserves more for this prayer. Mustadrak – 3558:

Same story as above and reference that the verse was revealed before the Prophet’s prayer but no Q.A. between Umme Salama and the Prophet. Mustadrak – 4705- 4708.

The incident happens like in number 3 above with no Q.A. between the Prophet and others after the prayer. The difference is that here it is indicated that the verse was revealed after the Prophet’s prayer. Mustadrak – 4709.

Same story as 4, the verse was revealed before the prayer, Umme Salama asks if she were not his Ahl Albayt, the Prophet says you are in good and you have your own position. Termezi 3205-3787 – Ahmad 26551.

Same story as 4 but in response to Umme Salama the Prophet says “Yes (i.e. you are my Ahl Albayt). Suane Beyhaqqi 2683.

Same story as 4 and in response to Umme Salama the Prophet says, “yes come under the cloak” and she goes under the cloak. Ahmad : 26592. This version is also narrated in the Shia books of Bihar (45:38) and Al-Burhan (3:321) although through Musnade Ahmad.

Now at this stage I do not want to elaborate on the reliability of each of the above versions of the hadith, although by default we expect the first one to be the most reliable (being in the book of Muslim). As it is clear from the above list, the incident has been reported in many different ways, it is possible to say that the incident has happened in different locations and the reports describing the incident in different locations are not necessarily in conflict. On the other hand it is clear that some of the above reports (that are referring to the same location) are in fact in conflict with each other.

I want to point out few facts that can be revealed from the above:

Fact One: Only one of the versions suggests that the verse was revealed as the result of the Prophet’s prayer for the five personalities (number 6). Other versions (some of which are in more reliable books of hadith) are either silent about this or indicate that the verse was revealed before the Prophet’s prayer (numbers 4, 5, 7, 8). This is an important point because if the verse was revealed after the Prophet’s prayer there could be arguments that the verse was primarily revealed for these personalities. However if the verse was revealed before the prayer (as many of the versions of the hadith suggest) then we cannot say that the verse was revealed primarily for these personalities.

Fact Two: In none of the above versions the Prophet clearly suggests that his wife is not from Ahl Albayt. The closest statement to this (Ahl Albayt not including wife) is the version in which the Prophet says you are my Ahl (number 4), but even there the Prophet prioritises his Ahl to his Ahl Albayt in terms of his prayer. As detailed above, there are also some reports that suggest that the Prophet approved the title for his wife (numbers 8 and 9).

Fact Three: The hadith in Muslim (number 1) does not indicate that Ahl Albayt are restricted to these personalities. The hadith in Sunan Beyhaqqi (number 2) is not about Ahl Albayt; in fact it suggests that these personalities are Ahl of the Prophet and not his Ahl Albayt. A companion is also included in Ahl. The rest of the Ahadith are different versions of a same incident that happened in the house of Umme Salama. Many of these different versions are in conflict to each other. Hadith number 4 is also in clear conflict with Hadith number 2 (in terms of who is Ahl and who is Ahl Albayt).

Looking at the other ahadith (other than Kasa) about the phrase Ahl Albayt, I want to establish the forth fact as well:

Fact Four: There are other ahadith in which either the Prophet or his companions or his wives are referring to wives of the Prophet as Ahl Albayt. Some of these are even narrated in Shia books.

We now have two choices:

To look at the above collection of often conflicting versions of the hadith and then to decide what version supports our point of view and stick to that version while closing eyes on the other versions and then try to understand the Qur’an in the light of that very version of Hadith.

To look at the whole picture in the light of the Qur’an to find out what makes better sense and to form or if needed correct our belief accordingly.

I go for the second choice:

Let us assume that all the ahadith were gone and we were left only with the Qur’an. I think any rational thinking human being would then agree that the whole verse of 33:33 refers to the wives of the Prophet.

Now let us add the ahadith to our perspective. In the light of the Qur’an, my rationality tells me that what happens was that (out of his love for his daughter, son in law and grand sons) the Prophet wanted to include these personalities in the primary addressees of the verse 33:33. Therefore he gathered them all close to himself and read the last part of the verse 33:33 to ask the same treatment (as described in 33:33) for them. Upon asking by his wife that if she is also included in this special prayer of the Prophet, the Prophet assures her that she is in a good position (obviously because the verse was initially revealed about the wives). In some of the ahadith it is suggested that this assurance was by saying something to the effect that “you are in good” while in some other versions it says to the effect that “yes you are also from Ahl Albayt”.

As you see, what I am doing is that I am trying to understand and explain the overall content of Hadith of Kasa in the light of the Qur’an. What the Shia brothers tend to do is to use only a specific interpretation of a specific verse of the Hadith of Kasa and then trying to understand the verse of the Qur’an based on this.

According to Shia brothers, belief in the notion of Ahl Albayt is one of the fundamentals of belief in Islam.

The Qur’an is a clear book of guidance and when it comes to the fundamentals of belief we can always see strength and clarity of expression, repeating the concept and stressing on it throughout the Qur’an. This is despite the fact that these fundamentals of belief were not totally unknown by the people for whom the Qur’an was revealed. Think of the concept of Tawhid (Oneness of God), Prophethood, Angels, Divine Books and the Day of Judgement to see what I mean.

Now at the first point I cannot see why when it comes to the notion of Ahl Albayt (as put by our Shia brothers), we only arrive on one verse and yet the verse has to be understood out of the context. Moreover the popular phrase of Ahl Albayt has to be interpreted differently from what is generally understood from the phrase. Also a specific version of a single Hadith (or very few ahadith) should be used to understand the (supposedly) correct meaning of the verse.

If for the sake of discussion we agree that such a vague and misguiding way of expression can be used in the book of guidance to establish a concept, then in the next step, the same problem occurs, this time about the Prophet (instead of the Qur’an) and Hadith of Kasa (instead of the verse 33:33).

The Prophet was a very capable religious leader, he always used to talk very clearly and in important matters he used to repeat his words and make sure that all have understood it. In some occasions he used to ask people “did I deliver the message to you” to make sure no doubts remained.

Now the Prophet (supposedly) wants to establish a new meaning for the phrase Ahl Albayt. I cannot think why such an important matter should be done in the privacy of a house where only one person other than people involved can see it (or based on the hadith from Muslim, in a sudden occasion out of the house). Doesn’t such a big message deserve to be announced formally in the crowd like other important messages that the Prophet delivered throughout his life? If the answer to this is that this was merely an incident and the Prophet did not want to use it to establish the supposedly transformed meaning of Ahl Albayt, then my next question would be, “then from what clear and strong evidence a Muslim of our time (or even Muslims at the time of the Prophet) should come to understand the (supposedly) new meaning of the phrase Ahl Albayt”.
At the end let me repeat what was discussed in the link at the beginning of this response that even if for the sake of argument we agree that Ahl Albayt based on Hadith of Kasa exclusively means these five great personalities, (based on the arguments I put forward in that link) this will not prove anything extra ordinary for them and most importantly will not add any thing to our beliefs as Muslims.

In need of your prayers.

Abdullah Rahim

As for your second question, the cursing has been prescribed as the last measure after bringing all the possible reasons (and seeing pointless arguments that are only coming out of arrogance). You should also note that inviting to “curse the liar” is also an evidence and reasoning in itself. After all, if the opponent is so sure that the person who debates with him is wrong and is a liar then why should he be worried about that person cursing the liar?

The history is evident that this clever “practical reasoning” proved the falsehood of the opponent as they (those Christians) did not dare to accept the offer.

You should also note that this was a specific directive for the Prophet (sws) and is not a general one for all.


Your answer to the second part of my question negates the first part of the answer. This I say because our Prophet (sws) took only those 4 people, not the ahl-e bait. So the Shia brothers seem correct in giving them preference. Please kindly throw some light on this.


In your second question you asked why cursing instead of reasoning so I only wanted to address this issue. As for the Prophet (sws) taking those great people with him, it is the verse of the Qur’an that directs the two sides to bring the close relatives in order to make it very serious and sensitive. I am not sure what this might imply for our Shiabrothers:

– if they consider this to be an honour for Fatima, Hasanayn and Ali (ra-hum) then for sure it is, may God give us their companionship in the hereafter.

– if they consider this to mean that the verse gives these great personalities a privilege over others in terms of political or religious leadership then please explain in what way you understand this from the verse.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Posted on: 11-Mar-2010
Matamdari and Azadari


What is origin of matam and azadari. What is origin of majlis? Do matam and majlis enjoy any religious basis or these are only cultural activities? Is it fair enough to term both matam and majlisinto haram and halal category or one should not bother about this issue. In a relationship like marriage between sunni and shia one should make these things banned to other spouse or to stop him or her for doing this? Please guide.


Even the learned Shia scholars agree that azadari and majlis in the way that is practiced in our era does not have a very long history and has never been part of the religion. This is nothing but obvious as we do not have any records of such type of azadari during the time of the Prophet (sws), companions or their followers. These practices have cultural and sometimes political roots and this is why in every time and every society it is done in a different way.

As for calling them haram, if they are practicing as part of the corpus of religion then they fall in the category of innovation and become haram.

As for stopping the spouse to participate in these events, this is a matter that needs to be considered on the basis of the case in hand. The relationship between the husband and the wife, the background, education, influence of relatives and many other factors make every case different. However in general it seems like advising in these cases (without expecting it to be immediately effective) usually works much better than aggressive enforcement of the view.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Posted on: 24-Jun-2010
Did Hazrat Ali (rta) and other Imams call them Shi’i?


If Shi‘is are wrong in their beliefs according to sunnis then why did their imams who were close relatives of Hazrat Ali (rta) lead them (shi‘is)? Or in other words what did Shi‘a imams call themselves, sunni or shi‘i?


First, we need to understand our religion from the Qur’an. If we can find the belief of Shia Muslims in the Qur’an then it is correct and if not, then it cannot be correct. This is as simple as that.

Second, if we want to use this argument then nearly every belief or every sect in Islam can be argued to be on the basis of correct premises. Shia itself has been divided into tens of branches, some of which are currently existing. The same question can be asked about all these sects of Shia. The correct method of thinking however is to evaluate people by their arguments rather than to evaluate arguments by looking at people who have said them (this itself is an advice that is narrated from Ali).

Third, if you look at the more reliable narrations from Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Ali b. al-Hussain you do not find any explicit references to the core Shia belief (as we know it today). If you look at the narrations from Muhammad b. Ali and Jafar b. Muhammad you will find two types of narrations from them. Those in which they deny any divine status/position and those in which (quite contrary), they consider divine status/position for each other. Technically speaking many of the latter type of narrators can be proved to be unreliable and weak according to the Shia books of Rijal.

My belief is that Shia Imams used to call themselves with the same title that the Prophet (sws) used to call himself, that is, Muslim.

Verse 22:78 considers this title to be fully satisfactory for us and my belief is that the Shia Imams did not ignore this verse but were in fact among the best who obeyed it.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Nahj al-Balaghah

Kindly comment on Nahj al-Balaghah. Is this truly by Hazrat Ali (ra)? I read “Sermon 3: Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah.” Please comment.


The book Nahj al-Balagha is a collection of sermons, letters and sayings attributed to Ali (ra) that was collected by Sayyid Radhi in 4th century (died in 404).

Nahj al-Balagha itself does not have any Isnad (chains of narrators), but it is possible to find the Isnad of much of its contents in other sources. It is not possible to rule an overall judgment about the whole book, in terms of reliability. Rather every sermon, letter or saying should be looked at from other sources separately.

An interesting point about Nahj al-Balagha is that while there are a number of places in this book where it is narrated that Ali (ra) was arguing about his right to Khilafa, in no place in this book is there any reference to him being selected by God to be Khalifa or Imam after the prophet (sws) and there is no reference to him being announced as the prophet’s successor. In fact, in all places where these arguments (in favor of Ali having right to Khilafa) are narrated, they are based on kinship and knowledge rather than being appointed.

The Khutba of Sheqsheqya is one example, where you see that despite apparently very open criticism of other companions, there is no mention of Ali (ra) being appointed by the prophet as his successor. This sermon has a few chains of narrators and none of them are flawless, even according to the books of Rijal of Shia.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Hadith about Twelve Imams

My question is about the hadith about the twelve imams. What is your opinion about that hadith? Is it authentic? If it is than who are those imams which are addressed? Shi’is are very much certain that the referred to imams are their imams. If we say they are wrong then who are the imams? If the Shi’is are right then why don’t we accept their views?

As for the Hadith you mentioned, there are a number of points to consider:
1. Hadith on itself is not a source of deriving our obligatory beliefs. Any obligatory belief needs to have its establishment in the Qur’an. If you know of any verses of the Qur’an that says we need to follow certain individuals after the Prophet (sws) then you need to follow that verse, otherwise people who hold a belief based on Ahadith like what you mentioned need to answer the question that why the clear book of guidance that is supposed to include everything for our guidance has not mentioned an obligatory belief.

2. The Hadith you referred to is narrated by Jabir ibn Thamura who at the time was only a kid. He says that the Prophet (sws) said those words in presence of people. The fact that this Hadith is only narrated by Jabir is quite suspicious.

3. The Hadith is not about 12 Imams. It is about 12 Amirs. Amir means someone who has the power in hand. From among the Imams of Shia only Ali (rta) and for a very brief time Hassan (ra) had power.

4. The Hadith does not direct Muslims to follow these 12 Amirs. In fact it does not even say that these 12 Amirs are rightly guided ones. It merely says that at their time Islam is in powerful position. If it was an obligation to follow these Amirs then (beside the fact that it had to come in the Qur’an as well) the Prophet (sws) would have made sure that everyone had heard it and would have made it very clear that following them were obligation.

5. History informs us of existence of only 11 of the Shia Imams. There is no reliable historical evidence about the existence of the 12th Imam of Shia. The existence of the 12th Imam of Shia is mostly argued based on theological and philosophical reasoning rather than any hard historical facts.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Inheritance of the Prophet


When Hazrat Fatimah demanded her right to the Garden of Fidk her claim was denied by the authorities on the force of the following concoction: “We, the Prophets, neither inheret nor are we inherited.”
In her response Hazrat Fatimah quoted the following five verses of the Holy Qur’an against the concocted ḥadīth:
Sūrah al-Namal, verse 16.
Sūrah Maryam, verse 6.
Sūrah al-Anfal, verse 75.
Sūrah al-Nisa, verse 11.
Sūrah al-Baqarah, verse 180.
The first two verses mention the fact that some of the Prophets inherited and were inherited. The last three verses mention the rules governing the inheritance issues. Hazrat Fatimah said: O son of Abū Qahafah (Abū Bakr), where does the Qur’an say that you inherit the property left over by your father and I am deprived of what my father left? Please comment to this issue sent to me by a Shi‘i brother.


I would like to answer your question from three perspectives, from a broader view to a more technical view:

1. Structural Perspective:

I would like to bring to your attention that the issue of Fadak will only become a religious issue if we look at it as part of a wider religious debate where the subject of Fadak is only one of the many branches of the theory of divine Imamah.

If we look at this branch without looking at the root then we are merely looking at a historical incident that will have nothing to do what so ever with our understanding of Islam and with our life as Muslims.

If we however look at this branch as part of the root then suddenly everything starts to find its right place as a religious (and not a mere historical) issue. From this perspective the real subject of the debate is not over a peace of land, but is over the religious and political authority after the prophet (pbuh). If we accept the view that ‘after the prophet (pbuh) there were supposed to be certain divinely appointed infallible Imams from the generation of the prophet (pbuh)’ then we have no choice but to consider the companions who became Khalifa after the prophet (pbuh) as those who went against a divine law. Consequently, with this understanding, we do not need to even bother looking at the historical details of the issue of Fadak. We can easily and simply declare that Abubakr (ra) oppressed Fatima (ra-ha) by denying her the land of Fadak with the same motive that made him denying Ali (ra) his right to Khilafah.

If we appreciate this perspective, then what we need to do is to concentrate on the root not on the branch. We need to discuss the stance of the Qur’an on Imamah and whether there are any verses in the Qur’an that clearly instruct us or categorically inform us about certain divinely appointed infallible Imams after the prophet (pbuh). If we find such verses in the Qur’an then our stance on the issue of Fadak is predetermined. If not, then the issue of Fadak will be a mere historical issue with no bearings on our religion or on us as Muslims.

2. Methodological Perspective:

Following from the above, another point that needs to be appreciated is that if we hold absolutely no assumptions and prejudgments, then we are simply dealing with a disagreement between two personalities. When we read those reports that have at least a relative degree of reliability in bothShia and Sunni sources we do not find anything to suggest that either of the parties were insincere in their claims. We found both Fatima (ra -ha) and Abubakr (ra) to appear very genuine in expressing their points of views. As for Abubakr (ra) we read reports that indicate his genuine sadness about the fact that he cannot provide Fatima (ra-ha) with what she demands.

By default, in situation like the above, we should assume that perhaps one of the two parties made a genuine mistake in his/her judgement. However it seems like we simply dismiss this possibility and assume that one of the two parties has to be the oppressor! We assume that if we prove Fatima (ra-ha) right then that means Abubakr (ra) was an oppressor and vice versa. We then become defensive in accordance to the sect that we belong to!

The methodological flaw that I see in this approach is that we are approaching the story of Fadak based on an assumption that is not yet discussed and established, and that is, Fatima (ra-ha) was divinely protected from any sort of mistakes (a quality that even the prophet – pbuh – did not have), and that people, including Abubakr (ra), knew this.

Unless the above can be proved we have absolutely no reason to apply such a black and white approach to the story of Fadak.

3. Technical Perspective:
After explaining a broader perspective above, I would now like to make some technical comments about the issue of inheritance, the prophets and the verses of the Qur’an that are often referred to. I would like to make it clear that my intention is not at all to prove one side of the debate wrong. I am only trying to show that each side of the debate have some points, worthy of thinking.

3.1. It is true that the general instruction of the verses of the Qur’an on inheritance is that women should inherit from their fathers (4:11, 2:180, verse 8:75 is also referred to in the question but I do not see it relevant here). However we also know that it is an agreed upon principle among the Shiaand the Sunni schools of thought that the Hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) can excempt or specify a directive of the Qur’an.[1] There are many examples of this, for instance the Qur’an directed the companions to give Zakah to poor, it was only the Hadith and the practice of the Prophet (pbuh) that made it clear that this Zakah was forbidden for his family. Therefore from both Shia or Sunni schools of thought it will not be unlikely to accept that based on a Hadith by the prophet (pbuh) he was exempted from the general rule of inheritance.

3.2. It is true that verses 27:16 and 19:6 are using the derivatives of the word ‘Irth’ (inheritance) for prophets, however a simple search on the use of the derivatives of the word ‘Irth’ in the Qur’an clearly shows that these words have not always been used in the meaning of inheriting money or property. They have also been used for other (yet similar) meanings like leaving a responsibility or receiving a great blessing. For instance we can look at the following verses:

“Then We gave the Book as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our bondmen …” 35:32

“And We verily gave Moses the guidance, and We made the Children of Israel to inherit the Book” 40:53

“It is they (the true believers) who will be the inheritors, who shall inherit paradise, and will remain in it forever.” 23:10

Verses 27:15-17 are referring to the blessings that God gave to David and Suleman. It is in this context that verse 127:6 starts with this statement: “and Suleman inherited from David”. Looking at the context, the inheritance here is the responsibility of being the next messenger of God and the requirements of this responsibility in terms of knowledge and wisdom. Otherwise, if this was about Suleman inheriting only money and property from David then the verse was totally irrelevant to the context and also of little importance in terms of the guidance of the Qur’an.

Same as the above and even more obvious is the verse 19:6. Which one makes more sense, Zakariya praying to God to give him a son so that he could inherit the moneys and properties of him and the family of Jacob (and we know according to the reports that Zakariya was not a wealthy man)? … or Zakariya praying to God to give him a son to carry out the responsibility of prophethood that was running in the family of Zakariya? Look at the reference to ‘Kitaab’ (Book) in verse 19:12 where it says “Oh Yaheya take (and hold) the Book strongly …”. Compare this with the use of the same word (Book) in verses 35:42, 40:53 where it says the Book was inherited.

3.3. When we look at the sources of Ahadith of Shia Muslims, we find in the book Kafi a narration that is considered as authentic by a number of Shia scholars. The narration is as follows:

“… verily the people of knowledge are the inheritors of the prophets. The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 34, section: The merits of people of knowledge and seekers of knowledge)

I do agree that the above Hadith may be interpreted in a symbolic way, as some Shia brothers argue, however the fact remains that what is narrated from Abubakr (ra) refers to a broad concept that is the same as the one that is given in the above Hadith.

3.4. We need to appreciate that if Fadak was to be inherited by Fatima (ra-ha) then by the rules of inheritance it had to be distributed, according to the rules of the Qur’an, between the inheritors of the prophet (pbuh) who at the time included not only Fatima (ra – ha) but also the wives of the prophet (pbuh) and his uncle Abbas (ra). Question remains that on what basis the whole Fadak could have been given to only one of the inheritors. In fact we have reports saying that some of the wives of the prophet (pbuh) demanded inheritance but Ayesha (ra-ha) reminded them that the prophet (pbuh) does not leave any inheritance.

3.5. If Fadak was really the right of Fatima (ra-ha) by the way of inheriting from the prophet of God (pbuh), then it was in fact the duty of the ruler to implement this right. We know that Ali (ra) became the ruler after Uthman (ra) and we also know that he did not transfer the land of Fadak to Hassan and Hussain (ra-huma) as the inheritors of Fatima (ra-ha). Why is that?

In fact we read in Sharhe Nahj al-Balagha (an explanatory book by a Mutzili scholar, ibn abil-Hadeed, on the Shia source of narrations from Ali – ra – we find this report:

“When Ali (ra) became ruler he was referring to the issue of returning the land of Fadak and said: “I feel ashamed of God to return a thing that Abubakr forbade and Umar confirmed (its forbiddance).” (Sharh al-Nahj al-Balagha, 16:252).

Whether the above report is authentic or not,the above question still applies.

Apart from the above, as further reading, you might like to read a rather long narration in Bukhari, vol. 8. Book 80, No. 720. You can find it here: http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_8_80.php

I repeat again that by the above technical points I had no intention to defend one side of the argument. Obviously our Shia brothers explain and justify their stance on the basis of what is narrated from Fatima (ra-ha). I only wanted to explain the other side of the story.

As I explained at the start of this post, there can only be two possibilities:

– The issue of Fadak being seen as a branch of the discussion on the theory of Imamah.

In the above case, the more rational approach is to spend time discussing the core issue (Imamah) rather than wasting time discussing one of the branches of the core issue.

– The issue of Fadak being seen as a stand alone issue, disregard of the discussion on the theory ofImamah.

In this case, this will be merely a historical issue that has no bearing on our understanding of Islam and on our life as Muslims.

I hope this helps and please do not hesitate to let us know if more clarification is needed.

[1]According to our understanding no Hadith can specify general directives of the Qur’an. The point however is whether all the instructions of the Qur’an are equally applied to the prophet (pbuh). We know from the established facts of the life of the prophet (pbuh) and his Sunnah that this was not the case for a number of issues like Zakah for his family, number of wives and obligation of the prayer of Tahajjud. Another way of looking at this is that prophet (pbuh) saying that what the prophets leave is not for inheritance but is for charity, is in fact his will (that according to the Hadith is applied to all prophets). The Qur’an does make it clear that any inheritance needs to be distributed only after implementing the will of the deceased (4:11).

Author: Abdullah Rahim



The Imams and the Ḥadīth Narrators


If there are seven hundred thousand narrators whose life history has been recorded in the books of asma al-rajal through whom we have to glance the very word of Holy Prophet (May peace be upon him) than does this not mean that we are accepting, instead of these 12 persons (shi‘ī imams) who are considered infalliable, whole seven hundred thousand persons as infalliale?


My answer to the above is: Not at all.
Please let me explain in a few bullet points:
1. Shia Muslims consider the 12 Imams to be infallible. They therefore do not find it necessary to rely only on the Ahadith that are reported from the Prophet (pbuh). This is why if you look at the Shia books of Hadith like al-Kafi, al-Tahzeeb, al-Istibsaar and Man La Yahzorahu al-Faqih you will find that the vast majority of the narrations end to one of the Shia Imams (usually the 5th and the 6th Imam). In fact you need to spend some time searching in the main Shia books of Hadith to find a Hadith that is narrated from the Prophet (pbuh). This obviously is because of the fact that Shia Muslims consider the Shia Imams to be infallible and the divine sources of religious guidance after the Prophet (pbuh). Obviously these narrations cannot be considered as Hujjah (indisputable reason and evidence) by non-Shia Muslims who do not hold the same belief.
2. Just as there are rijal (narrators) who have narrated Ahadith from the Prophet (pbuh), there are also rijal (narrators) who have narrated Ahadith from the Shia Imams. If you think accepting the narrations of rijal in non-Shia Hadith means believing that they are infallible, then you have to apply the same assumption to the rijal of Shia books (an assumption that is wrong, as explained in the next point).
3. Accepting a Hadith does not mean to believe its narrators are infallible. If you accept a news that some one gives you does that mean that you consider that person to be infallible? It actually only means that you have trusted that person for that news. Same applies to when people accept a Hadith. It simply means that they have trusted the narrators of that Hadith. There are many scholarly books that give us information about the life and degree of trustworthiness of these narrators (Shia or non-Shia) and there is a whole body of discipline that provides methods and ways to analyse whether a narrator or a hadith can be relied on.
4. The most important criteria for assessment of a Hadith is to compare it with the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Hadith on itself is not a primary source of understanding Islam. Only the Qur’an and the Sunnah are the primary sources of understanding the Qur’an.
Please do not hesitate to write to us if you like any clarification or if you have more questions about this subject.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



The Basis of Imamat in the Quran


Please refer to “Sura Nisa Aya 59 (004.059) which reads:
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.”
My question pertains to the above-mentioned sura. The translation is Yousuf Ali’s. I have seen your take on this Sura, in which you have categorically rejected the Shia’s interpretation that the Shia’s claim that ‘the men of authority’ are their Imams and their masoomiat (infallibility) is proven here. You reason that the Shia interpretation is not according the Qur’an. You further add that if the ‘men of authority’ were maasoom and were to be followed like the Prophet (pbuh), then “if ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger…” part would not have followed the ‘men of authority’ part. What I do not understand that how does the latter part negate the Shia interpretation. It can be said that ‘men of authority’ are the Imams and in case of any dispute the Imams also refer back to Qur’an and Sunnah to pass their judgments. I know that what you claim about this aya can also be true but at the same time the Shia claim also holds promise. At best all that can be said that this aya does not prove for certain the Shia claim, however it does provide a basis for their validity of their Imams; which is exactly your point of view: that all theahadith/riwayaat must have a basis in Qur’an.


Please let me start with commenting on the conclusion you made in your question before giving you a more technical answer about the verse.
You wrote:
“At best all that can be said that this aya does not prove for certain the Shia claim, however it does provide a basis for their validity of their Imams; which is exactly your point of view: that all theahadith/riwayaat must have a basis in Qur’an.”
I don’t see the above statement to be a self-consistent one. If the verse of the Qur’an does not establish an understanding that relates to our faith, then how we can say that it provides the basis for it? What kind of base this is that (as you wrote) does not even provide any certainty about the concept?
My dear brother, if we want to lower our expectations of the book that is supposed to be Mizaan and Furqan (measure and separator for truth) to this level, then we can find basis of almost any sectarian belief in the Qur’an. This is exactly what all the sects of Islam and also those who claimed prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are and were doing. They first decide what their faith is, then they try to find a verse of the Qur’an that can be interpreted as such. This is not the way that we are supposed to learn from the Qur’an. We are supposed to be led by the Qur’an not to lead the Qur’an towards our opinions.
It is beyond my understanding that why the Qur’an needs to be (supposedly) so brief, vague, complicated and implicit about what is supposed to be one of the most important aspects of faith (that is, belief in infallible Imams after the prophet – pbuh). If this verse is supposed to be the basis for such a fundamental theory then in what way the Qur’an claims to have clearly separated truth from the false (2:256)?. To say that the verse you referred to provides the basis for such a fundamental theory, not only degrades the Qur’an but also puts the whole God’s guidance under question.
Now let me make some technical comments about the verse:
1. Expressions always have a clear and a default meaning. We are only allowed to change this meaning when there is a strong evidence for it. Ulil Amr Minkum, simply means “Those in Charge Among You”. This is very crystal clear. To say that this can be only one meaning and another meaning could be Divinely Appointed Infallible Imams simply means to refuse the default and appear meaning of the verse and to assume a very distant and specific meaning for it. This needs a strong evidence in the verse itself and I can not see such evidence. In fact the very point that Ulil Amr are not included as points of reference at the end of the verse backs up its default and clear meaning. So as soon as you agree that the verse can be interpreted in its apparent meaning, you need to do that and to accept that meaning, unless you can bring a strong evidence to suggest that the verse cannot be interpreted as it appears.
2. You wrote ” in case of any dispute the Imams also refer back to Qur’an and Sunnah to pass their judgments”. I’m afraid this is not what the verse is saying. The verse says: “In case YOU had any dispute about something (YOU) refer it to the Qur’an and the Prophet (pbuh).” YOU in the verse cannot mean Ulil Amr. It can only mean those people who were instructed to follow God, the Prophet (pbuh) and the Ulil Amr. It may include Ulil Amr as well but it cannot be only Ulil Amr. If the verse wanted to give the meaning that you suggested, it had to say “In case you had any dispute about something THEY (i.e. Ulil Amr) should refer it to the Qur’an and the Prophet (pbuh).”.
3. If Ulil Amr in the verse referred to infallible Imams, then when it says at the end of the verse that in case of dispute you need to refer to God and the Prophet (pbuh) it would have added Ulil Amras well. In other words it would have said: “and if you disputed in anything then refer it to God and the prophet and the Ulil Amr”. It does not say that, simply because other than God and (with His protection) the Prophet (pbuh), no other infallible source was available or was going to be made available.
4. Look at verse 83 of the same Sura. It says instead of spreading any news related to security or fear, they should have referred it to the Prophet (pbuh) and those in charge. If we consider Ulil Amr to mean Imams that come after the Prophet (pbuh) then what the relevance of this verse was to its primary addressee, that is, the companions? Also, does this mean that at the time of an ‘infallible’ Imam, if there comes a news about security or fear, instead of referring it to the head of the army or other people in charge, we need to keep it secret and only reveal it to the infallible Imam? Is this even practical?
5. Similar to the above, just imagine what could the primary addressees of this verse possibly understand from it if Ulil Amr meant infallible Imams to come after the Prophet (pbuh). Please note that according to the theory of Imamah, the Prophet (pbuh) himself was an Imam, so by definition of this theory the Prophet (pbuh) himself was one of the Ulil Amr. So the verse according to this theory would have the following meaning for its primary addressees: “Obey God and obey the Prophet and THOSE in charge of affairs (that again means the Prophet – pbuh – only as he was the only Imam of his time”!
6. If Ulil Amr meant an infallible Imam (who according to the theory of Imamah can only be one individual at any time) then instead of plural, it should have been singular. It is plural because it simply refers to any one in charge of affairs, which obviously can be more than one person at any time.
7. Obviously following Imams who are divinely appointed and infallible would be a fundamental part of the religion. In that case why only this verse is supposedly referring to this important concept? There are numerous verses of the Qur’an where the instruction is to follow God and the Prophet (pbuh) – 3:32, 3:132, 4:69, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 8:46, 24:54, 47:33, 58:13, 64:12 – why following Ulil Amr is not included in any of these to establish the foundation of the theory ofImamah?
8. In Nahjulbalaghah, a book that is believed by our Shia brothers to contain authentic sermons, letters and statements by Ali (ra), there is a letter to Maalik al-Ashtar, the governer of Ali (ra) for Egypt. This is letter number 53. The letter contains instructions and advice to Maalik al-Ashtar. Part of the letter reads as follows:
“When you are faced with problems which you cannot solve or with a difficult situation from which you cannot escape or when uncertain and doubtful circumstances confuse and perplex you, then turn to Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) because Allah has thus ordered those whom He wants to guide. The way to turn to Allah is to act diligently according to the clear and explicit orders given in His Holy Book and to the turn to the Holy Prophet (s) means to follow those of his orders about which there is no doubt and ambiguity and which have been generally accepted to be correctly recorded.”
It is clear from the above that according to the author of this letter, Maalik was an Ulil Amr and he was advised to follow the instruction of the Qur’an and to refer to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) in case of problems. If to the author of this letter, Ulil Amr meant infallible Imams, then the above advice should have been something to this effect:
“When you are faced with problems which you cannot solve … , then refer it to me (as your Ulil Amr) and I will solve it for you in accordance to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.”
9. The vast majority of Shia brothers in our era (who are Usuli Imami Shia) consider the Qur’an, as we have it today, to be immune of any man made changes. It is perhaps the fact that the verse (as it is) is irrelevant and in fact contrary to the theory of Imamah that has prompted some Shiascholars of the past to quote narrations suggesting that the correct ending of the verse, as it was revealed, was as follows:
“… and if you found dispute on something then refer it to God and the Prophet ‘and the Ulil Amrfrom among you’ …”
(al-Kaafi, 1:276, Tafseer of Qumi, 1:141, Tafseer Ayyashi, 1:254).
May God guide all of us (Shia and Sunni) to understand our religion from the Qur’an and then to evaluate our beliefs accordingly, rather than the other way round. Ameen.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



The Basis of Imamat in the Qur’an II


Thank you very much for your reply. It gives me a great opportunity to correspond with you and learn. My idea is to discuss any Islam-related issue with an open mind. Before I write any further please see my response to your following statements:
My dear brother, if we want to lower our expectations of the book that is supposed to be Mizaanand Furqan (measure and separator for truth) to this level, then we can find basis of almost any sectarian belief in the Qur’an. This is exactly what all the sects of Islam and also those who claimed prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are and were doing. They first decide what their faith is, then they try to find a verse of the Qur’an that can be interpreted as such. This is not the way that we are supposed to learn from the Qur’an. We are supposed to be led by the Qur’an not to lead the Qur’an towards our opinions.
At this point let us make any conclusions such as “.us wanting to lower expectation of the book”, since it is too early to say whether we are lowering the expectations of the Book or may be probing further deep in to the ayas of the Book.
After having received your reply, I feel very encouraged and assured to exchange my views with you. But first I want to have a clarification: this and the subsequent replies are directly from Ghamidi Sahib or someone else?
Now, I come back to the question about Imamah and Sura Nisa Aya 59 (004.059). I am not discussing shiaism. I consider myself a student of Islam and thus consider any explanation and teachings from any source and/or interpretation of Islam (may it be sunnism, shiaism, wahabism, or even Ahmidiyat etc). It is just that during my own independent study of Islamic texts, I stumbled upon the concept of Imamat. When I checked this concept in Qur’an and the parallel Islamic texts of Sunnis it did seem that Imamat found its support (however small or large it may be). After all Al-Azhar university did pass a fatwa validating Shiaism as the fifth option for Sunnis.
When I checked Ghamidi Sahib’s take on Imamat, I found he had rejected it on the reason that it did not find any basis in Qur’an, hence all the reported Ahadith (even by authentic sunni sources) are wrong and not trust-worthy. Well, Ghamidi Sahib’s logic is a strong one, indeed: Qur’an must provide the basis for every Ahadith. Now, applying this same principle of Ghamidi Sahib’s, what could be a justification of 5 prayers whereas the Qur’an (to my knowledge) does not mention the total number of the daily salahs. In one of the ayas of Salah (sorry I do not have the aya no.), Qur’an only mentions three time slots, without mentioning the number of salahs. So, by the same principle of Ghamidi Sahib’s, all the ahadith etc. mandating 5 daily salahs should be rejected and instead only 3 daily salahs should be performed.
Talking specifically about Sura Nisa Aya 59 (004.059), I again say that although it does not prove for certain Imamat, but it also does not say the Ulil Amr cannot be the Shia Imams. On the other hand, if all the ahadith about the Shia Imams (Sunni/shia sources) are taken into consideration then those imams can be said to be the best of Ulil Amr. In other words, Imamat in this sense does not seem to really an un-Qur’anic concept. Now how Shias understand Imamat is a different issue, but I think before challenge the Shia’s current concept of Imamat, we need to prove that the concept of Imams has no place in Qur’an. From what I have seen from your and Ghamidi’s arguments, it cannot be said with certainty that Imamat is an un-Islamic concept.
May God guide all of us (Shia and Sunni) to understand our religion from the Qur’an and then to evaluate our beliefs accordingly, rather than the other way round.


The answer is given by the person whose name is at the end of this post, who is a student of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.
Please let me start with the last line in your post. You wrote:
“May God guide all of us (Shia and Sunni) to understand our religion from the Qur’an”
I would like to make it clear that I am not a Shia or a Sunni, I am only trying my best to be a Muslim.
I would like to comment on your writings in a number of bullet points as there are a number of points that you raised in your response. I am not doing this in the same order as in your post, I would like to start with some fundamental points that you raised near the end of your post:
1. You wrote: ” if all the ahadith about the Shia Imams (Sunni/shia sources) are taken into consideration then those imaams can be said to be the best of Ulil Amr.” I am not sure whatAhadith you are referring to but in any case if this is what you mean by Imamah then I have absolutely no problem with this concept and do not expect this to be in the Qur’an. This will not be a religious subject any more, but will be a historical one, and hugely subjective to the matter of opinion and personal preferences. The only concept of Imamah that I expect to be in the Qur’an is the one that has some sort of divine feature in it (infallibility, appointed by God, obligation to follow only them, etc.).
2. You wrote: “Now how Shias understand Imamat is a different issue, but I think before challenge the Shia’s current concept of Imamat, we need to prove that the concept of Imams has no place in Qur’an.”
I am sorry but I fail to understand the above statement. My understanding is that we are discussing the concept of Imamah, as presented by our Imami Shia brothers (i.e. a God appointed infallible person from generation of the prophet – pbuh – who we as Muslims are obliged to follow). If this is not the concept that we are discussing then there can only be two possibilities:
– We are discussing Imamah in its general meaning of ‘leader’. In this case I have absolutely no disagreement with you. In fact in this meaning I do not even expect the Qur’an to give us any directives. It is a common sense to have leader when such a leader is available.
– We are discussing Imamah in a meaning that you have understood and is more specific than the above general meaning but is also different from the meaning that it has for our Imami Shiabrothers. In this case I would like you to please clearly what its meaning is.
I think we first need to settle the above points and then there might not be any need for further discussion. However for the benefit of those who might be interested, I move on to comment on the other points you raised in your post:
3. You wrote: ” it is too early to say whether we are lowering the expectations of the Book or may be probing further deep in to the ayas of the Book”. This is exactly where I see the problem. Every other matter of faith is clearly and repeatedly not only mentioned in the Qur’an, but is in fact established in the Qur’an. Verses 2:285 and 4:136 are telling us what our obligatory beliefs are and then if you open any page of the Qur’an, you will most probably find at least one of these beliefs being referred to. How come when it comes to the concept of Imamah suddenly we are in need of probing further deep into verses of the Book? How come the style of the Book is changed when it comes to this concept? Either the concept is not an important one or the Qur’an is not consistent in its guidance and does not provide clear guidance as it says!
4. You wrote that you found the support of Imamah in the Qur’an. You also wrote that you agree that the verse 59 in Sura of Nisaa does not prove Imamah. I have a few questions:
– Please let me know what verse of the Qur’an does prove Imamah.
– If you find that no verse of the Qur’an clearly proves Imamah then please let me know what does that tell us? What does this mean to you?
– If you believe that while there are no proof of Imamah in the Qur’an there are evidences of it in the Book then please let me know where these evidences are.
– If you are referring to the same verse in Sura of Nisaa (59) as evidence then I request you to kindly address the comments I made in my first post where I tried to explain for you why to me the verse is not only NOT about the concept of Imamah, but is in fact opposed to it.
5. It is not very accurate to say al-Azhar issued fatwa validating Shia’ism as the fifth option for Sunnies. Firstly it was the personal opinion of the head of al-Azhar at the time. Second if you read the fatwa itself you will see that he is not referring to the beliefs of Shia, he is only referring to theShia as a Feqhi (Jurisprudence) school of thought, this is why he refers to Jafari school of thought. He writes at the end of his letter: ” it is permissible to the non-Mujtahid to follow them and to accord with their teaching whether in worship (Ibadaat) or transactions (Mu’amilaat)”. I have absolutely no problem with the Jafari school of thought as a Feqhi school, in fact I like and at times prefer some of the aspects of this Feqhi school of thought. I do not consider Imam Jafar al-Sadiq as a person who believed in the theory of Imamah or a person who considered himself as a God appointed infallible Imam.
6. To compare prayers with Imamah is like comparing apples with oranges. Prayer is a practice,Imamah is a matter of belief. When it comes to practice we have another source that is Sunnah (note, I am not saying Hadith, by Sunnah I mean the religious practices mostly originated from Nuh (pbuh) and Ibrahim (pbuh), that the prophet (pbuh) established among the Muslims of his time). Having said that, I am thankful to you for raising this example. In fact it is very helpful if we compare the two in the Qur’an. Prayer is only a matter of practice and a concept that people knew even before the prophet (pbuh), yet look how much the Qur’an has invested on it. There are more than 80 verses in the Qur’an where the importance of prayer and some of its conditions are clearly and with no need for too much analysis are given. Naturally after seeing all these, a Muslim will ask, what is this prayer that the Qur’an has put so much emphasis on and then he will seek the Sunnah of the prophet (pbuh) to see exactly how prayer can be performed. Is it not strange that when it comes to Imamah that is supposed to be an important part of our faith (without which, according to those who believe in it, our faith is not complete) there is not even one (let alone 80) clear verse in the Qur’an?
7. You wrote: ” In one of the ayas of Salah ( sorry I donot have the aya no.) ,Qur’an only mentions three time slots, without mentioning the number of salahs. So, by the same principle of Ghamdi Sahib’s, all the ahadith etc mandating 5 daily salahs should be rejected and instead only 3 dailysalahs should be performed”.
You are referring to verse 17:78. The verse is not counting the number of prayers, but is mentioning the time periods during which the five daily prayers need to be read. All the learned Shia and Sunni scholars agree with this in principle. Also please note that the primary source of understanding the number of prayers is not Hadith, but is Sunnah.
8. You wrote: “Talking specifically about Sura Nisa Aya 59 (004.059), I again say that although it does not prove for certain Imamat, but it also does not say the Ulil Amr cannot be the ShiaImams.”
I think it does, unless we consider Shia Imams to be ordinary human beings who can make mistakes and errors and who are not appointed by God and who do not have access to hidden knowledge and who may or may not be followed depending on the majority vote, then I fully agree with you.
However if by Shia Imams you mean the same that Shia Muslims mean, that is, God appointed Imams who are infallible, who have occasional access to the hidden knowledge and who are to be followed by Muslims as an obligation then for the reasons that I explained in my earlier post and the ones I explained above, the verse in fact does rule out such meaning for the term Ulil Amr.
9. From reading your post, I got an impression that you have noted many Ahadith in authentic sources that prove the theory of Imamah. I am not aware of any of these and appreciate it if you please quote a few. It seems like my persistence to bring evidence from the Qur’an has created a misunderstanding that I appreciate there are evidences in the authentic Hadith. I can assure you this is not the case.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Basis of Imamat in the Quran III


In your previous response you mentioned:
1. You wrote: “If all the ahadith about the Shia Imams (Sunni/shia sources) are taken into consideration then those imaams can be said to be the best of Ulil Amr.” I am not sure what Ahadith you are referring to but in any case if this is what you mean by Imamah then I have absolutely no problem with this concept and do not expect this to be in the Qur’an. This will not be a religious subject any more, but will be a historical one, and hugely subjective to the matter of opinion and personal preferences. The only concept of Imamah that I expect to be in the Qur’an is the one that has some sort of divine feature in it (infallibility, appointed by God, obligation to follow only them, etc.).
2. You wrote: “Now how Shias understand Imamat is a different issue, but I think before challenge the Shia’s current concept of Imamat, we need to prove that the concept of Imams has no place in Koran.”
I am sorry but I fail to understand the above statement. My understanding is that we are discussing the concept of Imamah, as presented by our Imami Shia brothers (i.e. a God appointed infallible person from generation of the prophet – pbuh – who we as Muslims are obliged to follow). If this is not the concept that we are discussing then there can only be two possibilities:
– We are discussing Imamah in its general meaning of ‘leader’. In this case I have absolutely no disagreement with you. In fact in this meaning I do not even expect the Qur’an to give us any directives. It is a common sense to have leader when such a leader is available.
I say:
As I understand, Ghamadi Sahib reasons that since the concept of Imamat has no basis in Koran, all the ahadith/riwayaat on Shia Imaams are invalid. It seems that Ghamidi Sahib did not care to study those shia sources on Imamat because he has ruled them out due to the reason mentioned earlier. Now, my only aim is to establish whether ‘Shia Imaams’ is a valid notion or not. I divide this exercise in two steps: the first step is to see whether does Koran leave any room for special people who are nominated/ recommended/ proposed/ appointed by our Prophet (PBUH) as the leaders of ummah, and the second step is to see whether are those special people worthy of the attributes such as infallibility. So for now I am only focused on the first step independent of the second step. So, right now, I do not care that the Shias think these special people are their Imams and are infallible.
As I understand, if Shia Imams are just the best of Ulil Amr, then you have “absolutely no problem with this concept and do not expect this to be in the Qur’an. This will not be a religious subject any more, but will be a historical one,…..”. If you (or Ghamadi Sahib) have no reservations with this, then why not study the Shia (historical) sources on these ‘ best of Ulilo Amr’. If our Prophet (PBUH) nominated/recommended/proposed/appointed special people for leadership after him, is He (PBUH) doing against the commandments of Koran (Allah)? I can think of two answers to the question: (1) there is no need for Koran to say anything about it (but this will be a very weak argument. It will be better if this act of our Prophet (PBUH) has some basis from Koran), or (2) Koran says something, even generically, validating this act of Prophet (PBUH), like verse 59 sura Nissa. Through this verse, Allah commands us to follow Ulil Amr, and our Prophet (PBUH) then nominates/appoints some special people who are the best leaders of Muslims among the whole Ummah. Now, whether these special people (Prophet appointed/nominated Ulil Amr) are infallible or not, may not be very important right now. All that matters is that they were nominated/appointed as the Muslim leaders by our Prophet (PBUH) whose ‘Ita’at’ is a must on us, whose act or words are not against the word of Allah. You also say “It is a common sense to have leader when such a leader is available.”.

I was trying to find what I would consider as the best representative of your approach to understanding Islam and I found this statement:
“The basis does not have to be a clearly written aya on Imamat itself, but can also be an all inclusive statement of Allah that also covers the Shia Imams, which our Prophet (PBUH) can elucidate in abundance. If such a hint is mentioned … in Koran, then the Shia sources on Imamat … become valid, become worth-exploring, cannot be rejected merely because it has no hint in Koran.”
I would like to comment on the above statement from two perspectives, the methodology and the content:
In terms of methodology:
I think the above approach treats the Qur’an not as the definite book of guidance but as a poetic or mystical book that can lead the reader to almost any direction, depending what hints the reader might perceive in it. Apart from the fact that this treatment is against the verses of the Qur’an itself, it also has a huge practical problem:
Why should you limit yourself to the 12er Imami Shias? Why not searching the truth by reading the sources of other sects of Shia who have different Imams like Zaidi Shia, Esmayeelee Shia and the rest? Moreover, I can assure you that one may easily find something in the Qur’an that one may perceive as a hint supporting Bahai faith, Qadyani faith, Ibadi faith, Nation of Islam faith, Druze faith, Alawi faith, etc. so why not reading all those sources in search of the truth as well?
So basically you will have to spend your entire life reading about any sects of Muslims that has been emerged trying to find out which one might be the true one. While this is an admirable search for the truth and will be a very educating experience, this sought after guidance is far from the guidance that the Qur’an has promised to be so clear and vivid (2:256).
The only way to come out from this never-ending wondering around different sects is to practically accept the Qur’an as the definite authority and not a book that limits itself in giving only hints about some of the most important beliefs in Islam (that is the theory of Imamah).
In terms of content:
I have a number of reservations about the premises behind the above statement:
1. You refer to hint and general inclusiveness of the verse 4:59. I don’t see that. I have tried to write in my past posts why verse 4:59 to my understanding is in conflict with the concept of Imamah. I have not yet seen you addressing these points.
2. Why do you invest so much on what you consider a hint in a verse of the Qur’an but do not give much credit to the many verses of the Qur’an that go against the theory of Imamah, including those verses that praise the companions and indicate that we need to follow their path (e.g. 9:100)? Don’t you think that these verses are directly or indirectly against the theory of Imamah? Is God misguiding us? He has not given us a single verse to clearly instruct us to follow certain infallible Imams but then he praises the companions a lot and gives us a verse like 9:100 that explicitly advises us to follow their path, the same people who ‘assumingly’ took away the right of those Imams and misguided people as the result. Is this what the Qur’an refers to as clear guidance?!
3. You wrote the prophet (pbuh) has elucidated on Imamah in abundance. I am not sure narrations you are referring to. There is absolutely no reliable reference to the Shia concept of 12 Imams in the mainstream sources. Even in Shia sources you can hardly find a narration by the prophet (pbuh) instructing about the 12 Imams that would be considered as reliable even by Shia standards.
4. You refer to Shia sources on Imamah. Let us be specific. The main Shia sources are as follows:
– Nahj al-Balagha attributed to Ali (ra). Not only there is nothing about the Imamah theory in this book, there are plenty there that goes explicitly against the theory of Imamah. You can find the book here, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ please have a look and see if you can find any reference to the theory of Imamah in this book. Please see if you can find even one tiny suggestion by Ali (ra) in this book that he was the divinely appointed Imam and that he was appointed by the prophet (pbuh) as Khalifa and that people were supposed to follow divinely appointed Imams after the prophet (pbuh).
– Sahife al-Sajjadya by Ali ibn al-Hussayn. Please read prayer number 4 in the book http://www.al-islam.org/sahifa/dua4.html and consider whether it encourages people to follow Imams from generation of the prophet (pbuh) or (as the Qur’an advises us – 9:100) to follow the companions of the prophet (pbuh)? Do you not see any hints there against the Shia theory of Imamah?
– Narrations from Muhammad ibn Ali (known as Imam Baqir) and Jafar ibn Muhammad (known as Imam Sadiq) in the collections of narrations by Shia scholarship. Yes you will have plenty of explanations about the theory of Imamah in these books however there are two major problems:
a. Many of these narrations are considered as weak even by Shia standards.
b. You can easily find narrations in these books that go against the theory of Imamah
I would also like to address some of the secondary issues that you mentioned in your post:
Secondary issues:
– I really cannot understand your argument about the letter of Sheikh Shaltut. As I wrote a simple reading of the letter makes it crystal clear that Sheikh Shaltut was referring to the juristic school of thought in Shia and not their beliefs.
I am not sure what you mean by relating this to a book that is supposedly a discussion between a Shia scholar and a Sunni scholar from al-Azhar. You might be interested to know that there is a huge controversy about the reliability of this book, meaning, whether it was really a debate between a Shia scholar and a Sunni scholar. It is considered as reliable only in Shia sources. I find it very difficult to accept that the person who was arguing with the Shia scholar in this book (if existed) was a scholar. Please let me know if there is anything in this book that you think proves Shia’ism and I am more than happy to comment on it.
– You wrote in response to my comment on verse 17:78:
“What you are saying about the slots not being the number of prayers can be argued as a personal interpretation”. I can only repeat what I wrote:
“The verse is not counting the number of prayers, but is mentioning the time periods during which the five daily prayers need to be read. ALL THE LEARNED SHIA AND SUNNI SCHOLARS agree with this in principle. “
I am not aware of any reliable Shia source that interprets this verse the way you are interpreting it. Therefore while my interpretation is in principle the same as the interpretation of all learned Shiaand Sunni scholars, it seems like it is your interpretation that is a personal one.
– You wrote: “who will interpret Allah and Prophet for the solutions to their dispute?”
First please note that verse 4:59 has full application only for those who lived at the time of the prophet (pbuh). During those days any dispute could easily be removed by the direct guidance of God through His prophet (pbuh). As for when the prophet (pbuh) is not there I have already posted a letter from Ali (ra) in the Shia source of Nahj al-Balagha that seems to be an answer, and the answer as you see is denfintly not an inflallible Imam who would help us out. I copy it again:
“When you are faced with problems which you cannot solve or with a difficult situation from which you cannot escape or when uncertain and doubtful circumstances confuse and perplex you, then turn to Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) because Allah has thus ordered those whom He wants to guide. The way to turn to Allah is to act diligently according to the clear and explicit orders given in His Holy Book and to the turn to the Holy Prophet (s) means to follow the Sunnah of the prophet who all agree on with no dispute.”
Anything that cannot be resolved by the above directive can be resolved by consultation as mentioned in the Qur’an (42:38) which yet is another verse of the Qur’an that goes against the theory of Imamah.
– You wrote: “As I understand, Ghamadi Sahib reasons that since the concept of Imamat has no basis in Koran, all the ahadith/riwayaat on Shia Imaams are invalid. It seems that Ghamidi Sahib did not care to study those shia sources on Imamat because he has ruled them out due to the reason mentioned earlier.”
I think there is a misunderstanding. I can assure you that these Shia sources have been studied in scholarly level among our colleagues.
However both Shia and Sunni scholars agree that a narration that is not inline with the Qur’an is not a valid one. It will go against logic and honesty if a scholar finds that a narration is against the Qur’an but still accepts it. This is about the narrations in Shia sources that are narrated from the prophet (pbuh). You may know that vast majority of the narrations in Shia sources do not even go back to the prophet (pbuh) but go back only to the Shia Imams (normally Imam Baqir or Imam Sadiq). Obviously one first needs to believe in divine position of these Imams before accepting them as absolute and unchallengeable source of guidance. Logically this acceptance needs to be authorised by an external divine source (the Qur’an) and not by these sources themselves.
So basically if you are referring to studying Shia sources for the sake of scholarship and knowledge then I think not just Shia sources but we need to study as many sources as possible. However when it comes to understanding our religion, the source can only be the Qur’an and not narrations and writings of different sects of Muslims, being Shia, Sunni, Sufi, etc.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



The Obligation to follow Ahl-e-Bayt


Thank you very much for your answer regarding Offering Prayer according to the Shi‘ī Fiqh. Actually, my would be doesn’t have any problem if I still follow my fiqh school but I am trying to see if it is possible to practise Islam in a same way in order to teach our children one way for wudu, praying and fasting because, for example, if we pray differently, how our children will pray?
That’s why to me it is very important to agree with him on a way to bring up our children later, and to think of all the problems which may occur in the future, and this, of course, before getting married.
If you don’t mind, I would also like to ask you another question as I am trying to know more aboutshia/sunni beliefs. I found out that there are many sunni ahadith which tell us to follow ahl al-bait:
Tirmidhi, vol.5. Page 626, Hadith 3788 / Mustadrak al-Hakim, Vol.3, Page 160, Hadith 4711: ” Verily I am leaving in you that to which if you firmly hold onto you will not go astray after me; The Book of Allah and my family the Ahl al-bait. These two will not be separated until they meet me at the Fountain (of Kawthar), so look (take care) at how you deal with them after me.”
-Both al Tabrani’s Al-Mujma` al-Kabir and Rafi`i’s Musnad, quoting Ibn `Abbas, state that “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, has said: `Let whoever is pleased to live like me and die like me and inhabit Eden’s Paradise which my Lord cultivated take `Ali as his master after me, and let him obey whoever he places in charge over him, and let him follow the example of my Ahl al Bayt after me, for they are my progeny: they are created of my own mold and blessed with my own comprehension and knowledge. Woe unto those who reject them and separate me from them! May Allah never permit them to enjoy my intercession.'”
-Al Matir, al Barudi, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Shahin, and Ibn Mundah have all quoted Ishaq citing Ziyad ibn Matraf saying: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying: `Whoever wishes to live my life and die my death and enter the Garden which my Lord promised me, the Garden of eternity, then let him take `Ali and his progeny after him as his masters, for they shall never take you out of guidance, nor let you stray.'”
-Similarly, Zayd ibn Arqam is quoted in one hadith saying: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, has said: `Whoever wishes to live like me and die my death and inhabit the perpetual Garden promised to me by my Lord, let him take `Ali as his master, for he shall never get you out of guidance, nor shall he let you stray.'”
– Sahih Muslim, Vol.4, Page 36, hadith 1837/ Musnad Ahmad, Vol.5, Page 492, hadith 18780 / Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Vol.4, page 62, Hadith 2357: “I remind you of Allah (to fear Him) about my Ahl al-bait”.
-Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Vol.3, page 122, Hadith 2251| Al-Shifa, Vol.2, Page 48: “Make the love of our Ahl al-bait compulsory for whoever meets Allah having love for us shall enter paradise with our intercession and By He in whose Hand is my life no deed will benefit a servant except by recognizing our right”
And, there are many other ahadith.
Thus, my question is how sunnis explain them?
Thank you again very much for explanation and for your answers.


First, I answer this as a Muslim not as a Sunni Muslim, if you are interested in a Sunni Muslim to answer your questions then please send your question to the Sunni websites. Al-Mawrid website is not associated with any sects.
Second, it is of course good that you are trying to bring some harmony in between by performing your prayers in the Shia way. While I believe that there is no religious problem in a Shia and a Sunni Muslim marrying each other, I would like to bring to your attention a point that is more important than the differences in prayers.
If the brother you mentioned is a typical Shia brother than you need to be aware that the differences is not only in the way we pray and in who to prefer among the companions and the family of the Prophet (pbuh).
The main difference between a Shia Muslim and a mainstream Muslim (including a Sunni Muslim) is that according to a Shia Muslim, after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) there were 12 God appointed infallible Imams from the generation of the Prophet (pbuh) who were supposed to be followed by Muslims and that it is only their guidance that is the true guidance. Who ever tries to take their place and become the leader of Muslims is a transgressor and is disobeying God. According to them the last Shia Imam went to occultation around 1100 years ago and is supposed to return before the end of the world to bring justice to the world.
Since you referred to your future children, I thought warning you that I think it will be deciding about fundamental concepts like the above that will be the future challenge of your children. This is not necessarily something bad, every individual needs to find his way through challenges. It could be a blessing for children to have open minded and tolerating parents from two different schools of thought.
You wrote: ” I found out that there are many sunni’s ahadith which tell us to follow ahl el beit”.
The primary source of understanding our faith as Muslims is the Qur’an. We first need to consult the Qur’an to understand our religion. We can then look at Ahadith as secondary sources for more details, however in doing that we can only accept those Ahadith that are inline with the Qur’an.
Don’t you think that if we were supposed to follow the Ahl Al-Bayt of the Prophet (pbuh) – particularly in the specific meaning that Shia Muslims interpret the meaning of Ahl-Albayt – then it was only natural that we should find an instruction about this in the Qur’an?
Are there any verses of the Qur’an that tells us or informs us (with no need for analysis and sectarian interpretations) that we should follow Ahl-Albayt (meaning Ali – ra – Hassan and Hussan – rahuma – and nine specific descendants from the generation of Hussain – ra)?
If we cannot find such a verse in the Qur’an, what does this absence of such a fundamental information from the book of guidance tell us?
On the other hand, let us see, do we have any verse of the Qur’an that informs us that we should follow the path of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh)?
“And the forerunners of Mohajerin and Ansar and also those who followed Them in good are those who are Well-pleased by Allah and they are Pleased with Him and He has Prepared for them Gardens in which Streams flow, to abide therein forever; And that is the Great Achievement.” (9:100)
Don’t you think that if we were supposed to follow Ahl Albayt then in the above verse instead of ” the forerunners of Mohajerin and Ansar” we should have “Ahl-Albayt”? or at least we needed to have a verse stronger than the above about following Ahl-Albayt?
And I can quote a number of other verses of the Qur’an with similar question.
Now as for the Ahadith you mentioned, we also have Ahadith that suggest that the Prophet (pbuh) said we needed to follow his companions. So which group of these Ahadith should we follow? Are we supposed to first decide which faith we want to have and then simply find Ahadith that are inline with that faith? Perhaps a safer and more logical way is to learn our religion from the Qur’an and then when we find a Hadith we test the authenticity of the Hadith based on the Qur’an.
You quoted six Ahadith, I can tell you straightforwardly even without looking at their chains of narrators that 5 of them are definitely fabricated or have been reported inaccurately or because of not knowing the context and the background of the Hadith its apparent meaning is different from its intended meaning.
This is because these five are apparently adding an important concept to the corpus of religion that our primary source of guidance (the Qur’an) does not support. Also these five are not reported in the books of Hadith that are considered as the most reliable books which suggest the possibility that the narrators and the chain of narrators are weak.
As an example you can find detailed analysis of the first narration (which is a version of a Hadith known as Hadith al-Theqelayn) here:
I didn’t think that you were interested in a very technical reply but if you like I am more than happy to examine the narrators of the other Ahadith as well (although as I wrote, once we establish that it is not inline with the Qur’an then this further examination of narrators will be only academically interesting otherwise it is not even needed).
The only Hadith from the ones you quoted that is not out of line with the Qur’an is the one in the book of Muslim: “” I remind you of Allah (to fear Him) about my Ahl al-bait”.
The above Hadith simply advises Muslims to respect and to take care of the family of the Prophet (pbuh) (and in Arabic, Ahl Al-Bayt includes wives as well). I cannot think of a Muslim who does not love Ahl Al-Bayt and does not respecting them. Loving and respecting some one however is not equal to exclusively obeying him/her as a divine source of guidance.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Blessing the Prophet (sws)

There is a Quranic verse which states that Allah and His Angels send their blessings (i.e recite darood) to bless the Holy Prophet. I am very much confused about the interpretation of this verse. Why does Allah send blessing to the Holy Prophet? Is it in line with the other verses of the Holy Quran which portray Allah as Al-mighty and Omniscient?
Secondly, what is the meaning of “Aal-e-Muhammad” in the Darood that we recite so often? Many of my Shia and Sunni “Syed” friends claim that it refers to the descendants and family of the Holy Prophet, and not to the Ummah of the Holy Prophet in general.

What follows the verse you refer to and a simple transition:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. Believers! Send blessings on him as much as you can. (33:56)

We seek Allah’s blessings for the Prophet (nusallī). We ask for God’s mercy on him. On the contrary God blesses the Prophet (yusallī). He blesses the Prophet and showers His mercy on him. In Arabic many words are used in opposite meaning in different contexts, for example we say ‘taaba al rajulu’meaning “the man repented” and “taaba Allah” meaning “God accepted the repentance.”
As for the word Aal it takes both the family and the followers. In the Holy Qur’an the Almighty variously says that the Almighty punished Aal-e-Firhawn. It is evident that the punishment was not meted out only to the family and progeny of Pharaoh. He did not have any offspring and the punishment struck his followers as well. In certain connotations the word excludes the member of the family. When we say that the Almighty blessed the family of Abraham we exclude the transgressors among them since the Almighty made it clear that his favors would not be bestowed upon the transgressors among his family.

Thus we can say that the word encompasses the family and the followers both. It cannot be confined to the family in all cases. It can even exclude the family members from its application in some other instances.
We believe that the word in the Durood should be explained in the light of the Holy Qur’an. How was the family of Abraham blessed? According to the Holy Qur’an the progeny of Abraham was blessed as they were raised over other nations and were made guides for mankind. They were given special status of Shahdah al annas (being witness of the truth against other nations of the world). The same status was transferred to the Bani Ismael (Ismalites) who replaced the Israelites. Therefore the prayer is not confined to the progeny of the Holy Prophet (sws). Rather it takes the family to whom the Prophet belonged and his followers as well.

Author: Tariq Mahmood Hashmi



A Discussion on Sufism, Epistemology, and Usūl

This discussion took place last year through e-mails among a number of students at McGill and Concordia Universities in Montreal, Canada. The gist of the original is presented here for the readers. (Editor)
Hassan A Mian’s letter:

Assālāmu ‘alaykum
The Divine inspiration of the Sufis, that you have criticised in your article ‘Tawhīd in Sufism’ (http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/jlaued97.html) in the monthly Renaissance, is a knowledge gained by experience and should not be commented on until it has been witnessed by the heart of the critic. Here is a good piece of advice: leave that which does not concern you. We have been told by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace):
From the excellence of one’s Islam is to leave that which does not concern one. (A sound (hasan) hadīth, transmitted by Tirmidhī and others)

Asif Iftikhar’s response:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
The question is not only about the source of the knowledge but also about the certitude that is ascribed to it. Sufis claim direct knowledge for themselves through the same Divine source that was the basis of Divine guidance given to the Messengers of God and His prophets (For example see, Shah Muhammad Ismā‘īl, ‘Abaqāt, ‘Abaqah 11, al-Ishārah al-ijmāliyyah ila marātib kamāl al-nafs). In al-Munqad min al-Dalāl, Ghazālī explains the level of certitude that the Sufi attains (which by no means is less than the certitude in religion granted to the Prophets of God):
In the next place I recognized that certitude (al-‘ilm al-yaqīnī) is the clear and complete knowledge of things, such knowledge as leaves no room for doubt nor possibility of error and conjecture, so that there remains no room in the mind for error to find an entrance.

In case there is any doubt about the source of such certitude, consider what he writes in the same treatise:
From the time that they set out on this path, revelations commence for them. They come to see in the waking state angels and souls of prophets; they hear their voices and wise counsels. By means of beholding heavenly forms and images they rise by degrees to heights which human language cannot reach, which one cannot even indicate without falling into great and inevitable errors. The degree of proximity to Deity that they attain is regarded by some as intermixture of being (hulūl)), by others as identification (ittihād), by others as intimate union (wasl). But all these expressions are wrong, as we have explained in our work entitled, ‘The Chief Aim’. Those who have reached that stage should confine themselves to repeating the verse ‘What I experience I shall not try to say’; Call me happy, but ask me no more. In short, he who does not arrive at the intuition of these truths by means of ecstasy knows only the name of inspiration (haqīqat al-nabuwwah). The miracles wrought by the saints are, in fact, merely the earliest forms of prophetic manifestation (bidāya al-anbiyā’).

Although the Sufis believe that no further directives are given to them after the Prophet (sws) as far as the content of religion is concerned, yet the fact that they present their ‘prescriptions’ for the ‘application’ of the principles of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah on the basis of their ‘direct and certain knowledge’ and therefore with the same degree of authority that religion itself has is a sufficient cause for concern over innovation in religion and over denial of the end of wahī with the last

Prophet (sws). What then is the philosophical difference in their claims and those of Mīrzā Ghulām Ahmad Qādiyānī except that he was ‘audacious’ enough to term the same idea of his ‘certain knowledge’ wahī? Was his cardinal sin just his error in nomenclature or was his concept too erroneous per se? If the concept itself was wrong, did it become ‘hallowed’ just by being christened as ‘kashf’ of the venerated Sufis? Isn’t that argumentum ad hominem in the first case and argumentm ad vericundiam in the latter one?

Hassan A Mian’s rejoinder:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
The condition for the acceptance of any spiritual inspiration or intuition is that it does not contradict the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. This is agreed upon by the Sufis, who say, ‘any inward that contradicts the outward is misguidance’. These spiritual inspirations and intuitions occur to all sincere Muslims.

Asif Iftikhar’s response:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
All true ‘devotees’ are committed to their respective religions. But that is not a necessary criterion for the truth of what they follow (argumentum ad vericundiam). True Salafis, for example, are as committed to their understanding of Islam as the Sufis are to theirs. Moreover, the question is not what the conditions are for the acceptance of the verdicts Sufis give on the basis of their divine inspiration, but whether the basis for that inspiration itself has any justification in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. Therefore, your response, dear brother, proves something that is not the subject of discussion. To put it simply, let me ask you this question once again: is there any difference in the value of the epistemological certainty of the divine inspiration that the Sufis get and the divine inspiration in religion granted to the Prophet (sws)? If you believe that, unlike the case in the divine inspiration or wahī of the Prophet (sws), there are possibilities of error in the divine inspiration of the Sufis, then this is precisely the claim which is refuted by the assertions of all major Sufis—as is also obvious from the extracts I cited in my last e-mail. On the other hand, if you do believe, as do all major Sufis, that the certitude of the Sufis in their divine inspiration is delivered from all error, then my simple question is: what is the difference between their kashf and the wahī of the Prophet(sws)—except in name? If your response is what the Sufis generally give: ‘we do not bring any new sharī‘ah’, then my question is exactly the one I ask the Ahmadīs: when absolute certainty is ascribed on the basis of divine inspiration to a ‘prescription’ (tarīqah) for following the Sharī‘ah more effectively, then why wouldn’t that ‘prescription’, being a certain command of God given directly to a Sufi/the inspired person, be God’s word itself? In short, why wouldn’t it be an addition to the Sharī‘ah—but obviously with a different name?

Hassan A Mian’s reply:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
What about the word wahī being used in Sūrah Nahl that your God sent a wahī to the honey bee and what about Sūrah Maryam when God sent her (peace and blessings of God on the best woman ever born) His spirit… wasn’t following him binding on her? Was she a prophetess? There is a difference of opinion about that amongst scholars!

Asif Iftikhar’s response:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
And what would that make the bee: a Sufi perhaps?

There is no doubt about the fact that the word wahī is used in different senses in Arabic language and indeed in the Qur’ān. Would you for instance disagree that linguistically the active participle of the word can also be someone other than Allah, for example a human (Qur’ān, 19:11) or even Satan (Qur’ān, 6:121). It’s not only this word but also almost all the terms in the Qur’ān which became specific terms because the Qur’ān gave them a specific connotation. Outside that specific connotation, the word obviously retains its ordinary meanings and usage. Take words as Rasūl or Jihād for instance. I am sure you don’t need me to give you examples of their use as specific Qur’ānic terms as well as words with their usual meanings in the Qur’ān. My question did not pertain to different meanings of wahī but to the specific sense in which it applies to the certain religious guidance received by a Prophet from God. You are therefore, my dear brother, again proving something that is not the subject of discussion. I shall try to make my question as simple as possible this time:

In your opinion, is the value of epistemological certitude in religious knowledge gained by a Sufi through his Divine inspiration the same as the value of epistemological certitude in the Divine inspiration granted to the Prophet by God to reveal His religion to him? In other words, was the religious knowledge of Ghazālī et al that they gained through Divine inspiration delivered from all possibilities of error – just as the religious knowledge of the Prophet was? This is quite simply a yes or no question. Please remember that the question is not about whether or not the knowledge of the Sufis contradicts the Sharī‘ah. The question is about its source and the degree of its certitude. I hope you won’t have any difficulty in answering it this time.

Asif Iftikhar further wrote:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
Regarding your question about Maryam (peace and blessings of Allah be upon her), the question is not whether she was or was not a prophetess (although in my understanding she was at least not from amongst the Rusul, the word Rusul being used here as a specific Qur’ānic term). The question is whether she received the glad tidings from an angel of God after the last Prophet or before him. Another important question is whether the certainty we have on the authority of the Qur’ān that she received glad tidings from God through his angel is also the certainty we can have regarding the claim of a Sufi that he too has been blessed with absolute certainty in religion through Divine inspiration. In the absence of a Qur’ānic nass, what would the basis for your absolute certainty be that a particular Sufi that you have chosen to believe in is, despite his apparent sincerity not lying or, even if he is absolutely sincere, having problems of mental delusion rather than Divine inspiration? Also, if certitude in religious knowledge could be had in this way, why do you suppose all the great jurists had to go to such painstaking measures to find solutions to the problems that confronted them in understanding religion? Wouldn’t an easier alternative have been to resort to a Sufi, who could then have simply invoked the Theophany to resolve all the khilāfiyyāt that fill our fiqh manuals? Of course the Shiites solved this problem by attributing certainty of religious knowledge and infallible piety to their imams while the Sunni jurists, after long efforts, were finally able to discover some kind of rationale for justifying the ijmā’ of their schools to have the same degree of certainty in the interpretation of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah and in their derivations from these sources. The kind of certainty in religious knowledge that the Sufis claim to have – which I don’t know if the majority of the Sahābah ever claimed for themselves at an individual or collective level – is the certainty that at least the Sunni jurists could not by any stretch of imagination hope for themselves at an individual level. It’s quite a surprise really to note that in the Sunni manuals of usūl, at least during the early periods, one doesn’t easily find the Divine inspiration of a Sufi as the third source of certitude in religious knowledge after the Qur’ān and Sunnah and definitely before the Sunni ijmā’.

Hassan’s friend’s response [a scholar]:
Someone who follows their mere whims in interpreting the primary texts is not an upright Muslim, for they are far from the command of Allah, which enjoins us to, ‘Ask the people of understanding when you know not’ (Qur’ān, 16:43). Ibn Abbās (Allah be pleased with him) related that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘whoever interprets the Qur’ān based on mere opinion let them prepare their seat in Hell’. [Tirmadhī and Ahmad, in a sound hadīth].

The commentators on Sunnan al-Tirmadhī explain that mere opinion here means without having the interpretative knowledge to be able to do so, based on the established principles of Qur’ānic interpretation (which requires deep knowledge of classical Arabic, the primary texts, and Sharī‘ah sciences). What your friend has fallen into illustrates why Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, one of the foremost Sunni scholars of the 20th Century, wrote a short treatise entitled, Non-Madhhabism is the bridge to non-religion.

When one veers away from the well-trodden path of Sunni scholarship, as embodied in the scholarly output of the inheritors of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from the four schools of fiqh, one goes from one absurdity to the next. One falls far from the Command of Allah, and on a direct route to loss of religion, faith, and, ultimately, to Hell.

Asif Iftikhar’s response:
My very dear brother
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
May Allah guide us both to his ways and save us from His wrath.

I have been waiting for your answer to my question for some time now. I confess I was a bit disappointed (though by no means surprised) to find out that your response again completely avoids answering my question. The core question, as you will recall, was:

In your opinion, is the value of epistemological certitude in religious knowledge gained by a Sufi through his Divine inspiration the same as the value of epistemological certitude in the Divine inspiration granted to the Prophet by God to reveal His religion to him? In other words, was the religious knowledge of Ghazālī et al that they gained through Divine inspiration delivered from all possibilities of error – just as the religious knowledge of the Prophet was? This is quite simply a yes or no question. (Please remember that the question is not about whether or not the knowledge of the Sufis contradicts the Sharī‘ah. The question is about its source and the degree of its certitude).

Essentially this is the question I have been asking right from the beginning of our discussion. I have tried to point out earlier as well that in none of your responses you attempted to answer this question on the basis of either your own knowledge or that of your scholars. Whether or not the assertions made by your friend in this latest response are correct is a separate question to which I intend to respond soon. But even if I don’t accept the idea that his cliques are the ultimate ‘know all’, how is it a heresy on my part to ask them for their opinion? Why don’t they answer my question for you if you can’t or are reluctant to? I hope the Sunnis too don’t have a policy of hiding their religion.

With respect, love, and lots of prayers

Asif Iftikhar wrote there to Hassan:
Dear Hassan
Here is the first part of my answers – as promised:
Your friend says: Someone who follows their mere whims in interpreting the primary texts is not an upright Muslim, for they are far from the command of Allah, which enjoins us to, Ask the people of understanding when you know not (Qur’ān, 16:43).

My questions are:
1. What meaning is Ibn Abbās reported to have ascribed to the words ahl al-dhikr in the verse 16:43? (For example see Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr).

2. What is Ibn Kathīr’s objection to ‘Abd al-Rahmān’s view on al-dhikr in the Qur’ān?

3. According to your own methodology, what is the occasion of revelation of this verse? If the word originally meant: ‘The People of the Book’ on the occasion of its revelation, what, according to your one methodology, prevents the meaning from not continuing?

4. Also what is the denotation of the word al-dhikr? According to your own methodology, what qarīnah (contextual factor) changes the denotation to the specific connotation that has been given to it by your clique?

5. A translation of the verse reads (from the Majestic Qur’ān – Nawwawī and Ibn Khuldūn Foundations): ‘The messengers We sent before you (O Muhammad) were only men to whom we gave the revelation. Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.’ Is this translation wrong?

6. The footnote to this translation gives the active participle of the verb ‘ask’ as the pagan Arabs and the explanation of ‘The People of the Reminder’ as the Jews (that is The People of the Book).
What objections do you have against this explanation?

7. If I were to say that the verse is telling the pagan Arabs that if they think it strange that the Prophet of Allah is a human, then they should ask The People of the Book (the Jews) whether the messengers before the Prophet were men or not – would my assertion be incorrect?

8. Even if your juristic interpretation is taken correct, the verse says:
‘ask …. if you do not know’. What if you do know? Also, in relation to the given context of the verse, if you know and fully believe that Muhammad (sws) was the Prophet despite being a human, do you still need to ask? Why? Hasn’t the condition of the verse been fulfilled? Why not?

9. When you say: ‘when somebody follows his whims’, in relation to the given context of the verse, you seem to imply that the person follows his desire rather than conscience and therefore deliberately avoids the truth. God could obviously imply this about the pagan Arabs mentioned in the verse on the basis of His Divine knowledge. On what basis do you make such implications about any person today?
More questions will follow soon, inshā Allah.

Hassan A Mian’s reply:
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
People in our tradition have not been idiots. Inshā Allah they are in Paradise. They are the scholars of Sunni Islam who have all concurred that for a person like me and you, we need to follow a Madhab and not use our ‘Aql to interpret the texts (and not to use the sayings of companions without knowing theirs Isnād through traditional scholars as proofs to justify our own whims).

See for example the fatwa of one of the biggest scholars alive in the world i.e. Sheikh Murabat al-Hajj attached to this email. May Allah give you and your friends the tawfīq to understand the gravity of what you are doing in order to harm Islam and Muslims, by sowing seeds of doubt (the work of Shaytān) in Muslims thereby depriving them of their Īmān. May He guide you or if He does not wish to guide you, may He liberate us of your Sharr. (and it would only be time that would prove who is correct and who is wrong as Allah has promised to preserve this Dīn). What you have created is a clique of orientalists in the garb of Islam. I am sorry if it hurts and if it defies your man made logic (defined by people who according to your own testimony are not upright Muslims), but what I am saying comes from the heart and it is enough for me as a proof. As for the answers to your questions, I am not a scholar and consider it bad adab to give my opinion when I am not entitled to. I will insha’ Allah search people of Light to answer your questions. If you are sincere you yourself should be asking these questions to the scholars that Allah has used to guide masses to his Oneness because of their sincerity and sound knowledge: you know who they are and where to find them.

I don’t want you to reply to this e-mail as I am not a scholar of Islam and do not answer questions on Islam. Rather I follow qualified scholarship.

(The fatwa has not been included here as it is on Following One of the Four Accepted Madhāhib rather than to Sufi epistemology. The fatwa is by Shaykh Murabat al-Hajj and has been translated by Hamza Yusuf Hanson. It can be seen on various related websites).

Asif Iftikhar’s response:
My Dear Brother
Assālāmu ‘alaykum
Thank you for being candid with me. The anger with which you speak convinces me that deep down you are sincerely committed to what you believe in as the truth, and, therefore, contrary to the favour you have so eloquently and easily bestowed upon me, I do not assume that your intention is to harm Islam. I am however sorry that I cannot accept your request of not responding to your message as this discussion started as a public debate and must end as such for I do not think it is ethical on either your part or mine to unceremoniously walk out of the discussion for personal reasons. I am therefore forwarding this e-mail to all those who were willingly or unwillingly part of this discussion right from the beginning. However, should you choose not to respond further or to take your time in responding, I shall understand.

As requested by you, I shall not trouble you for now with requests for answers to more of my questions on religion, but now that you have told me that you do not wish to answer any of my questions, I do intend to make a few clarifications in relation to some of the accusations that you made against me. Before I do that, however, I would like to state that I never said you couldn’t go and ask your scholars for answers to my questions. I find it strange that scholars you think I should go to and assume that I know are scholars you couldn’t approach for a yes or no answer to a simple question.1

Is answering a simple question like that one also one of the secrets of the Sufi Divine revelation which the Sufis, unlike the Prophet (sws) in relation to his Divine revelation (Qur’ān, 5:67), are not supposed to disseminate? If that is the case, then at least I can see one difference in the Sufi Divine revelation and that of the Prophet (sws), though I still can’t understand that if something is the truth why ‘exposing it,’ in Ghazzālī’s words becomes an act ‘that amounts to infidelity’ [Ihya ‘Ulumi’l-Din]. Why do we then blame the Shiite imāms for kitmān? Nevertheless, I still await the answer to my question, which is just one of the thousand others that I still have. I have never stopped your scholars from answering them for you. And now I shall try to give my response to the charges you have levied against me.

Can you show me any place where I have said that the scholars in our tradition were idiots? Please don’t put words into my mouth that I have not used. I never said they were idiots. I don’t believe they were idiots. I have stated this earlier, and, I state it now: I believe they were great scholars and very pious people. My own father died with a firm faith in Sufism and the Hanafite tradition. I have never assumed that he will be denied Paradise for that. In fact, I pray every day that he be in Paradise. Similarly, I also believe, as you do, that inshā Allah, the scholars of Muslim tradition will be in Paradise. What I don’t believe however is that they were prophets or infallible or delivered from all possibilities of error in their judgment. Also, I agree that, in religious matters, an ordinary person should follow the verdicts of competent scholars he can trust – unless it is absolutely clear to him that the opinion of a scholar is incorrect in a certain matter. Therefore, if the same faculty which enabled him to trust the scholar in the first place now entails that he look for some other scholar he can trust in that particular opinion, then he has the right, indeed he has the duty, to do that. If he doesn’t find any other scholar, then obviously he has no choice but to exert his own effort to make his decision. What I don’t believe however is that scholarship in the Muslim world has ended with or is confined just to the four Sunni schools. Therefore, if your heart feels that you have to trust a modern scholar belonging to one of these four schools, and that feeling of your heart is a sufficient proof for you, a similar feeling in my heart should give me an equal justification to choose another scholar who does not necessarily belong to these schools. Also, I do not mean to say that the wisdom of the past scholars is worthless or should be ignored for trivial reasons. However, they should not be made into another Deity or a prophet with the belief that they can never, ever be wrong. Furthermore, the following are also my assertions:
1. I give a lot of importance to any consensus of opinion on a matter of interpretation or on an ijtihād in religion in the four schools. But I do not believe that there is any concurrent textual evidence from the original sources of Islam (the Qur’ān and the Sunnah) to suggest that such consensus is delivered from all possibilities of error and cannot be differed from by a present scholar.2

2. I believe that the only two sources which have the level of concurrence (tawātur) that takes them to the point of absolute certitude are the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. These two sources, established by tawātur and ijmā‘ of the Prophet’s companions, go back to the Prophet (sws) himself and contain the ‘content’ of religion, which content then has been interpreted by various Muslims throughout our history. Since these ‘interpretations’ and instances of ijtihād on their basis do not have the tawātur that goes back to the Prophet (sws) himself, we cannot say that there is no possibility of error in them.

3. I believe that all isolated reports (akhbār ahād) are zanni (probable) with varying degrees of probability, but it is legitimate for a competent scholar to draw legal opinions on the basis of such a report if it is sound in transmission, and the basis for that legal opinion already exists in the Qur’ān or the Sunnah or the universal principles of reason, and it does not contradict any of these bases.

4. I believe that there is only one God and that there is no one or nothing like Him. Therefore, I reject and denounce – with all my heart, and all my soul, and all my mind – all assertions on part of any human, howsoever pious he may seem to you, that suggest ideas as: ‘…in reality the Creator is but Creation and Creation is but the Creator. All these are from one reality’ (Ibn ‘Arabi in Fusūs al-Hikm) or ‘ana al- Haqq’. (Hallāj).

5. I also believe that the Prophet (sws) was the last Rasūl and Nabī and no one, howsoever pious he may seem to you, has any credibility in his claim that even after the Prophet (sws), he receives Divine inspiration from the same sources as did the Prophet (sws) and which gives him the same certitude of religious knowledge as was given to the Prophet (sws). Therefore, any tashrih (explanation of Sharī‘ah) or Tarīqah (prescription of a way to follow the Sharī‘ah) on the basis of such a claim amounts to an intentional or unintentional addition to the Shari‘ah.

As far as most matters of fiqh (understanding of the Shari‘ah as it is contained in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah) are concerned, I too base my decisions on the opinions of scholars I have found to be trustworthy in accordance with the methodology I have spelled out above. But, unlike you, I do not have your personal certitude or the Kashf of any Sufi Master to claim with the typical Sufi calm and that another person who professes to be a Muslim has intentions to harm Islam and the Muslims and that he intends to do the work of Satan. I seek refuge of Allah from finding out that on the Day of Judgment a Muslim has the right to hold me by the throat because I was wrong about him in similar claims of mine against him. Nor do I have the certainty to know who – whether that person be a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or someone else – is denying the truth of God’s message after it has become evident to him, and, therefore, my scholars and I, unlike you and your scholars, do not make judgments of Takfīr (in the sense of declaring a person guilty of wilful and deliberate denial of the true faith) – a judgment we believe is the sole right of God Almighty Himself. I do hope you and your scholars realize the gravity of what you do when you declare such a person Kāfir as professes faith in the unity of God and the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood (sws) and in the unaltered authenticity of the Qur’ān and the concurrent Sunnah and accepts the pillars of Islam. Tell me if I’m wrong that some – if not all – of the scholars that you trust in also believe that kafirs like me – of whom the attached verdict of the acclaimed ‘best scholar of Islam alive’ would surely have informed you – ought to be killed if they do not accept your version of Islam – namely belief in the consensus in interpretation of the four schools. My brother, don’t think that people like Uthāmah Ibn Laden don’t have their scholars to rely on – or that they are not sincerely committed to what they believe in or that there are no chances that God will reward them for their sincerity. But that still doesn’t necessarily make them right. This is what I have learnt from my scholars, whom you say are not upright Muslims according to my testimony – a testimony I never gave. My testimony is that they are good Muslims but have their failings and weaknesses, and that they are not the paragons of perfection that are delivered from all possibilities of error, and I reserve the right to disagree with them and follow the verdict of some other scholar in an opinion that doesn’t convince me. As for your charge that I am an Orientalist in the garb of Islam, I will say this: I don’t believe that everything the Orientalists have said is necessarily wrong. However, unlike scholars as Patricia Crone et al, I believe in the truth of Islam as I have explained it in the points enumerated above. I love God and the Prophet (sws) and glorify their names and believe in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah as unaltered, authentic and final Divine guidance. And I respect and honour all the companions of the Prophet (sws) who were true to him (as Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthmān, ‘Ali, Mu‘āwiyyah et al radī Allah ‘anhum). Despite these beliefs of mine, if you still want to call me an Orientalist, that’s your choice. Or you could use some other invective that you like, but don’t insinuate wrongly that I disparage scholars as Abū Hanifah or Mālik or Shāfi‘ī or Ibn Hanbal (may God reward them for their efforts) – who never proclaimed infallibility for themselves despite their immense stature and competence, for, to my mind, they were great scholars and great Muslims – but they were also humans, who could make mistakes and falter. As I love you still as a brother-in-faith whose tears would be my tears and whose laughter would be my laughter, whose dreams would be my dreams and whose prayer would be my prayer, I can only pray: May Allah reward you with a good reward for following your heart even in your hate for me, and that may He also give you the sagacity to love Him with a mind that continues to seek the truth in the spirit that Imam Shāfi‘ī’s words epitomize:
I am convinced of the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it possible that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced that the views different from mine are incorrect, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be right.

1. which was: In your opinion, is the value of epistemological certitude in religious knowledge gained by a Sufi through his Divine inspiration the same as the value of epistemological certitude in the Divine inspiration granted to the Prophet by God to reveal His religion to him? In other words, was the religious knowledge of Ghāzalī et al that they gained through Divine inspiration delivered from all possibilities of error – just as the religious knowledge of the Prophet was?
2. I believe there is no textual evidence to suggest that the ijtihād of a competent scholar – regardless of which tradition he belongs to – or even that of a whole school or all the traditional schools is infallible. The notion that the ijmā‘ of the four schools in Sunni jurisprudence has epistemological certitude in religion, and thus, by implication, the authority equivalent to that of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah is as shaky as it is circular. When the idea gained currency in the fourth century hijrah, the proponents, with an essentially deontological epistemology, had to look to the Qur’ān for textual evidence. Interestingly, few of the verses adduced were relevant. Moreover, there was hardly any consensus on the interpretation of these verses. Having found that the basis for their thesis was not sufficient to afford certitude to their conception, the proponents of ijmā‘ then turned to the Sunnah for support, only to find that there was nothing mutawātir (sufficiently concurrent to become conclusive evidence) there as well. The next stop obviously was hadīth, most of which corpus was in form of akhbār ahād (isolated narrations). These akhbār ahād, according to Sunni usūl al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), were themselves zannī (probable) in varying degrees. Quite obviously, probability itself, regardless of its degree, could not become the epistemological foundation of certitude. Therefore, the jurists came up with a novel concept: that of tawātur ma‘nawī (concurrence of meaning), which they adduced as conclusive evidence based on inductive corroboration. The basic problem is not certitude of what the words in certain narrations mean but whether the words themselves can be traced back to the Prophet with certitude. All other sources gain certitude only when it can be established with certainty that the Prophet himself gave them this position. Since the words of the narrations in question themselves cannot be traced back to the Prophet with absolute certainty, it will be logically inconsistent to assert that certitude of meaning derived from something that does not itself have epistemological certitude can lend certitude to an entirely new concept, that is to ijmā‘. Therefore, in terms of logical consistency, the idea of epistemological certitude through ijmā‘ as a basis for ijtihād and interpretation is essentially based on circular argument. Apart from this major flaw in the foundational argument, there are many other inconsistencies in the whole construct as well as argumentation, which require a separate discussion.

Author: Asif Iftikhar



Regarding Hadrat Abu Talib


Kindly write detailed reply to my following question what do the scholars and muftis of the Islamic sharriah say regarding “Hadrat Abu Talib(RTA)”. Few people call him kafir and they also claim that the kuffar of Abu Talib is proved from clearquranic ayaat and sahih authentic ahadith. Anyone who considers Abu Talib a momin is munkir e quraan, munkir eahadith and is extremely deviated/(gumraah) and is a rafizi shiite. But i’ve heard that many of the legendary Islamic scholars of the past believed that hazrat abu talib was a momin. Kindly issue a deciding fatwa as to what is the true position of ahle sunnat wal jamaat regarding Hazrat Abu Talib. I will always be grateful to you for your kindness.


We appreciate it if you use low case when writing to us as it is not easy to read an all capital question.

Whether Abu Talib was a believer or not has absolutely no religious significance for us. We will not be asked in the hereafter whether we believe that Abu Talib was a believer or a non-believer. Considering Abu Talib to be a believer or not does not make some one Kafir. This is merely a historical issue.

We have no verse of the Qur’an that says explicitly that Abu Talib was Kafir. Those who use some verses of the Qur’an to prove their point on this issue are in fact relying on Ahadith that interpret those verses. On the other hand those who consider Abu Talib as a believer, too are relying on some other reports to that effect.

All these Ahadith and reports need to be studied in detail before forming any opinion about the belief of Abu Talib. The question however is that what good such study will bring to us from religious perspective? In my opinion, none!

Please also note that we are not associated with any religious sect and are not representative of any.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Do Shi’i condemn the Major Companions?


Thank you very much for your reply to my questions. I still need some clarifications: Do Shī‘ī consider the 1st three caliphs (Khulafā-i Rāshidūn), Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah (rta) and Ḥaḍrat Ḥafṣah (rta) amongst enemies of God. And do they consider curse them a virtue?


The Shī‘ī do not consider the first three caliphs Khulafā legitimate and consider them usurpers to the right of Ali (ra) who only believe to be the only legitimate and divinely appointed caliph. Because of this they consider the three Khulafā as those who did not follow the order of the Prophet about Ali (ra). As for ‘Ā’ishah (rta), because of her involvement in the battle of Jamal and because of some other historical Aḥādīth, generally Shī‘ī consider her as one who had enmity with Ali (ra) and his family (Ra-hom). However, there is less sensitivity about Ḥafṣah (rta).
As for whether the Shī‘ī consider it a rewarding virtue to curse the above personalities, I would say that, cursing the first three caliphs Khulafā and in particular the first two is not unusual. This, however, varies among the Shī‘ī. There are Shī‘ī minorities who are more moderate in this regard and do not curse; there are another bigger minority who are on the other extreme and curse these personalities on a regular basis to earn reward. The majority do not mind cursing them but also do not do it on a regular basis.
One of the popular supplications that the Shī‘ī read is called Ziarah Ashura. This is a Ziarah in which the Shī‘ī say salām to Hussain (rta). The Ziarah is generally considered as very reliable and a regular reading of it is recommended. At the end of this Ziarah there is a sentence that says:

O God let the first oppressor to be specifically cursed by me and start (this cursing) with him as the first one. Then (curse) the second and the third and the forth. Oh God curse Yazid as the fifth one and …”

It is generally believed that the first to fourth in the above refer to the first three Khulafā and Mu’āwiyah (rta).

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Significance of Incident of Ghadeer


What is the status of hadīth-e ghadir? Is it true or not as many authentic hadīth books consider it to be true. Secondly in that hadīth one point is confusing that prophet (sws) took Ali’s hand in air and said: “All my friends and allies are friends of Ali”. According to the sunni version: “Everyone whose master is Muhammad, Ali is his master”. My question is that we must consider the fact that all the pilgrims were returning from Makkah and Ghadir is the place from where all were going to depart. At this place and at this moment when most of the pilgrims were there from all the tribes the Prophet must have had something important to tell about Ali and his status. Merely taking it to mean that he wanted to tell that Ali was his friend does not apparently seem to be the purpose. Does it sound proper from the Prophet to stop the people and tell them with great care that Ali was his friend? I think it must have a more important significance.


Hadith of Ghadeer is a reliable Hadith since it has reached us through a number of sources and narrators. Of course there are versions of it that are not reliable however the narration of the main story is a reliable one.
Your question is based on a number of assumptions that to me are not true:

1. The place that the Prophet (pbuh) gave the Khutba was in fact far from Mecca. Most of people who were in Hajj where not there simply because many remained in Mecca and many went to other directions. Ghadeer Khum was in fact a place where people of Madina and surrounding areas were separated. It seems like the Prophet (pbuh) left this message about Ali (ra) to this point simply because it was related to the issue that had raised in the army that was led by Ali (ra). The army consisted of people from Madina and surrounding. If we assume that what the Prophet (pbuh) said had a very important implication for all Muslims, then it would only make sense that the Prophet (pbuh) say it in Mecca and during the Hajj, where he had the most population of Muslims around him.

2. The Khutba that the Prophet gave was not just about Ali (ra). It was a longer Khutba and near the end the Prophet (pbuh) also said that wonderful sentence about Ali (ra).

3. The degree of importance of a message that comes from the Prophet (pbuh) for his followers can only be assessed by looking at whether this message has been also given in the Qur’an or not. It is only obvious that if a message of the Prophet (pbuh) carried so much fundamental importance and added a significant substance to the corpus of religion then it had to be included in the Qur’an, that is Furqan and Mizan. This of course is not to say that what the Prophet (pbuh) said was not important! However the issue is, whether it had implications as important as some Muslims believe it had.

4. The implication of the Hadith of Ghadeer is not depending on the meaning of the word Maula. Maula can be interpreted as friend or master, but what makes us understand the implication of the Hadith is first, whether the issue is also addressed in the Qur’an (see point 3 above) and second what the background of this Hadith was (see point 1 above).

5. One of the best ways of understanding the implications of this saying of the Prophet (pbuh) is to see (through reliable narrations) whether Ali (ra) himself interpreted the Hadith of Ghadeer the way that some Muslims interpret it. As far as I have seen, there is no such reliable narration from Ali (ra) about this, which makes me conclude that even Ali (ra) had not seen Ghadeer the way that some Muslims see it today.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Following Shi’i Fiqh


I wanted to learn the meaning of the expression ‘ul al-‘amr (those vested with authority) in Q 4:59. The verse says:
O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and ‘ul al-‘amr minkum.
TheShi’is take it as a basis for their concept of imamat? Secondly would you kindly tell me if I can follow fiqh-e Ja‘friyah if it appeals me? What about the small differences for example in method of wudu and placement of hands in the Prayer?


Thank you for writing to us. We believe that the words ‘ul al-‘amr minkum refer to the rulers. They do not refer to the religious scholars. As for the question of following fiqh-e ja’friyah it is upon you to decide. Though the questions dealt with in a fiqh are mainly of practical nature and we may adopt any of the existing ones or found a new one yet we must appreciate the fact that fiqh-e ja’friyah is based on belief inimamat which fundamentally differs from the sunni Islam. We do not find the belief in conformity with the basic Islamic beliefs. For example we do not find it possible to hold someone ma’soom (infallible) source of religious knowledge. But the shi’i hold their imams as infallible. In their fiqh the ruling of the imam would be final. This is why we cannot suggest or recommend following this fiqh.

Author: Tariq Mahmood Hashmi



On Appointment of the First Caliph


Several ahadith approve Ali’s (rta) khilafat. Abu Bakar’s (rta) khilafat was either an accident or deliberation. And in the light of the above; was he a true khalifah al-Rasool? Was Muawiya’s decision to appoint Yazid as his successor, legitimate especially in the presence of Hussayn?


Khilafah of Abu Bakr Siddique (rta) was acknowledged by the entire community of the Companions of the Prophet (sws). The Companions as a community, could not have joined hands on deviating from the command of the Prophet (sws). The Holy Qur’an affirms their truthfulness and puts on them the huge responsibility of communicating the religion of God to the world. Since their veracity is confirmed by the Book of God we cannot claim they disregarded the command of the Prophet (sws) regarding imamat of Ali (rta). Who would have known more than them that the Prophet (sws) intended them to take Ali (rta) as a caliph if that was the case? The whole dispute of khilafat, it needs to be appreciated, originates in the fact the Prophet (sws) did not appoint anybody.

I am sorry I cannot comment on the decision of the Caliph Mu’awiyah. This is because I do not and cannot know the ground realities in that time. We believe that Islam does not bestow any special privilege on religious basis to the members of the family of the Prophet (sws).

Author: Tariq Mahmood Hashmi


Invoking a Qur’anic Verse to Prove Imamat of ‘Ali (rta)


“(We sent) messengers as the givers of good news and as warners, so that people should not have a plea against Allah after the (coming of) messengers; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Q 4:165)

The good news could have been the designation of Hazrat Alī as imām after him and the coming of the imāms after Alī. This verse also shows that the Prophet (sws) was only a warner and there will be guides after him.




My dear brother, understanding Islam cannot be based on works of guess and estimation. The meaning of the verse is crystal clear and all the significant experts of the Qur’ān, the Shī‘ī and Sunni, in principle have the same understanding of the “givers of good news” in the verse that is a translation for the word “Mubashshirīn”. According to their understanding, which is also in line with other verses of the Qur’ān, the good news is the fact that those who accept the message of a Messenger will reach salvation and paradise in the hereafter.

If unlike all the Shī‘ī and Sunni experts of the Qur’ān, you believe that “good news” here means the designation of Alī (ra) as the Imām then the onus is on you to prove this. We are supposed to learn our religion from the Qur’ān, not to interpret the verses of the Qur’ān based on our own understanding of religion. What you are doing here is exactly what Alī (ra) has advised us not to do in Nahj al-Balāghah, that is, leading the Qur’ān to our personal beliefs rather than letting the Qur’ān leading us to the correct belief.

The verse has no indication that the Prophet (sws) was not a guide and that there will be guides coming after him. In fact, this goes directly opposite to what the verse is saying. The verse is saying that after the Messengers there remain no excuses for people. A genuine excuse emerges when there is a genuine unfulfilled need. The verse is in fact saying that this “need” is fulfilled with the coming of the Messengers.

I would also like to remind you that according to Shī‘ī, the Prophet (sws) himself was an Imam. Therefore according to Shī‘ī, the Prophet (sws) was also a guide.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Difference between Shi’ism, Sufism and Sunnism and the Rightly Guided Sect of the Muslims

1- Are the human beings kind or evil by nature? Common questions kids ask these days as taught in school? 2- What is difference between sufī, Shī‘ī and Sunnī, which is right path?


My answers to your questions follow:
1- Are the human beings kind or evil by nature? Common questions kids ask these days as taught in school.
According to the Qur’ān human being by nature is a humble entity that likes to be a servant of his Lord. (Q 30:30)
2- What is the difference between sufism, Shī‘īism and Sunnīism? Which is the right path?
Sufis are group of people (some considering themselves as Muslims and some coming from other faiths) who believe in certain mentors (Sheikh) as the medium between God and his servants and are often engaged in doing certain practices (like uttering certain names of God at certain times in specified numbers or using music or chanting in an attempt to find spiritual aspiration). One of the main characteristics of a typical Sufi is that they do not observe rules of the religion they are originally ascribed to (e.g. Islam). They consider these rules to be only for normal (not Sufi) followers of those religions.
Sunnīs are the majority of Muslims who follow the Qur’ān, Ḥadīth and the works of traditional scholars of Islam. Their beliefs and practices are very much influenced by their perception of the opinions of traditional scholars. Apart from the Qur’ān, a major source of understanding Islam for this group is Ḥadīth, specifically the six main books of Ḥadīth known as Ṣiḥāḥ (the sound ones). Sunnīs often use Aḥādīth to interpret the Qur’ān.
Shī‘ī are those Muslims who believe that after the death of the Prophet (sws) there were divinely appointed infallible individuals from the generation of the Prophet (sws), calledimāms, who were and are supposed to be followed. Any understanding of the Qur’ān and Islam according to this group should be through these individuals. Consequently books and narrations attributed to these imāms are considered as the most important sources of understanding Islam after the Qur’ān. These sources are also used by Shī‘ī to interpret the Qur’ān.
The right path in Islam is the one that is relying on fully reliable divine sources, where unreliable sources are not used to interpret these reliable sources. The only fully reliable divine sources in Islam are the Qur’ān (as an independent source) and the religious practices that were established by the Prophet (sws) among his companions, the knowledge of which was transferred, generation after generation, to our time and on which there is general agreement (Sunnah).

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Need for an Imam

Why do we need an Imam?

If by Imam you mean a leader, I think every human being and every civilised society agrees that every group of people with a common goal need a leader to coordinate all the tasks and to guide people towards their goals with the best of his/her abilities.
However if by Imam you mean a divinely appointed person who is supposed to be there for us after the death of the Prophet (sws), then I should say there is no need for such a person and in fact there has not been such a person after the death of the Prophet (sws).
The Qur’ān has made it clear for us that after the Messengers, we do not need any other live and divinely appointed guidance and that the delivering of the message of Islam has been completed at the time of the Prophet (sws):
(We sent) messengers as the givers of good news and as warners, so that people should not have a plea against Allah after the (coming of) messengers; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Al-Nisā 4:165)
This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion. (Al-Mā’idah 5:3)

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Concept of imām in the Holy Qur’ān

Is their a concept of imām in the Holy Qur’ān?

I believe the answer to this question depends on what you mean by imām. If you mean some one who guides others, then yes it definitely exists in the Holy Qur’ān. However if you mean a divinely appointed guide other than a Prophet that is supposed to be followed by people and one that only through his guidance followers of Islam can reach salvation, then the answer is no, there is no such a concept in the Qur’an.

Author: Abdullah Rahim



Ahl-e-bayt of The Prophet (His Household )

Who are the Ahl al-bayt of the Prophet (sws)?

Ahl Al-bayt literally means household and has been used with the same meaning in the history of Arabs, as well as the Qur’ān. Household includes wife/wives and dependants. The meaning can be developed to include other close members of the family as well (like the example of Ḥadīth of Kaasa).

Author: Abdullah Rahim


About the author

Abdul Nishapuri


Click here to post a comment
  • مسلک غامدی بھی انہی قدیم کلامی مسالک کی طرح ہے جس طرح ہمیں کلامی فرقے ماتریدی اور اشعری کے بارے معلوم ہے غامدی صاحب کلام جدید(Modern philosophy) کے ماہر ہیں فی زمانہ کلام و دانش میں غامدی صاحب اپنا ثانی نہیں رکھتے انہوں نے قدیم کلامی مسالک کے طرز پر اپنے فکر کی بنیاد رکھی مگر سو میں سے دس فیصد قدیم سے اختلاف کیا غامدی صاحب مدرسہ فراہی کے تربیت یافتہ مولانا امین احسن اصلاحی کے شاگرد خاص ہیں اس لئے ان کے ہاں احادیث کو وہ مقام نہ مل سکا جو مقام برصغیر میں شاہ عبدالعزیز دہلوی شاہ ولی اللہ دہلوی شاہ اسماعیل سید احمد شہید اور محدث میاں نذیر حسین اور مولانا اسماعیل سلفی کی افکار نے دیا۔
    غامدی صاحب نےامت میں تقفہ فی الدین کی ایک نئی متعارف کروائی جس میں احادیث کو ظنی علم قرار دے کر اس کو اپنے عقل وکلام سے اپنی فکر کے عین مطابق لانے کی کوشش کی ہے

    غامدى صاحب نے الاعلام ميں عربى دانى كے جو جوہر دكھائے تھے ان كا لسانى محاكمہ ڈاکٹر رضوان على ندوى كے قلم سے ملاحظہ فرمائيے۔ يہ عربى تحريريں نحوى اغلاط، بے معنى بھونڈی مہمل ركيك، بے ربط، پر تصنع، عربى نثر كا شہ پارہ ہے۔جس ميں انشاء املاء زبان وبيان فصاحت وبلاغت كے اعتبار سے بےشمار غلطياں ہیں.اساليب عربى سے لا علم يہ عجمى جو ايك مختصر نثر پارہ درست عربى ميں لكھنے پر قادر نہیں، صحابہ كبار حضرت عمر (رضي اللہ عنہم اجمعين) ائمہ مفسرين ،ماہرین لغت كى عربى دانى كو حقارت سے مسترد كرتا ہے.يہ غرور انہیں فراہی اور اصلاحى سے ورثے ميں ملا ہے۔۔۔۔

    بحوالہ:غلاف، ساحل كراچی،جلد سوم، شمارہ 4، ربيع الثاني، 1428هـ/ اپریل 2007م

    غامدى صاحب كى عربى دانى اور جديد وقديم علوم سے واقفيت كا پہلا محاكمہ:
    …….. اپنی ساٹھ سالہ علمى زندگی ميں انہوں نے صرف 122 صفحات عربى ميں لكھے، جن ميں سے صرف 22 صفحات الاعلام ميں موجود ہیں. جبكہ بقيہ 100 صفحات جو عربى تفسير الاشراق اور ميراث پر ايك علمى رسالے كے ليئے لكھے گئے تھے غامدى نے ضائع كر دئيے كيونكہ ان كے قلم سے لكھی گئی عربى ان كے عجمئى محض ہونے كى داستان بڑے كرو فر سے سنا رہی تھی.اس كے باوجود انہیں المورد كى ويب سائٹ پر الاشراق اور خيال وخامہ اور مقامات كا صنف ظاہر كيا گیا ہے جب كہ يہ تصانيف آج تك شائع نہیں ہوئیں۔
    بائيس صفحات كى ايك ايك سطر اور ايك ايك جملے ميں عربى قواعد ، املا ،انشاء،زبان،بيان، نحو ،صرف كى بے شمار غلطياں اسى طرح در آئى ہیں جس طرح ان كے فكر ونظر اعتقادات اور ايمانيات ميں اغلاط والحاد كا گردوغبار داخل ہو گیا ہے۔
    لطف كى بات يہ ہے كہ 1982 ميں لكھی گئی يہ غلط سلط عربى تحريريں 5 اپریل 2007 تك المورد كى ويب سائٹ پر جوں كى توں موجود تھیں۔يعنى ستائيس سال ميں بھی غامدى اور ان كے حلقے كى عربى دانى كا ارتقاء نہ ہو سکا۔ي
    ہ جہلاء آج بھی عربى اغلاط مى تصحيح كى اہلیت سے محروم ہیں۔ علامہ ساجد مير كے بھانجے مستنصرمير نے غامدى كے عربى رسالے ميراث سے 100 غلطياں نكال دى تھیں، الاشراق نامى عربى مسودے كى لسانى اغلاط ڈاكٹر طاہرمنصورى نے خط كے ذريعے واضح كر دى تھیں لہذا غامدى اس دفتر اغلاط سے دستبردار ہو گئے۔۔۔۔۔
    بحوالہ:غلاف، ساحل كراچی، ربيع الثاني، 1428هـ/ اپریل 2007م


  • غامدی صاحب عصری عربی اسلوب سے بے خبر ہیں

    ان مختصر عربی مضامین کے بارے میں پہلی بات تو یہ ہے کہ ان کے اندازِ بیان میں وہ عیب ہے جو عربی زبان میں ’’عجمہ‘‘ یعنی عجمیت کے نام سے یاد کیا جاتا ہے، ساتھ ہی ان کی عربی تحریریں پڑھ کر یہ احساس ابھرتا ہے کہ یہ عربی زبان کے عصری اسلوب سے بے خبر ہیں۔ اُنھوں نے بیسویں صدی کے مشہور ادباء مصطفی صادق الرافعی، لطفی المنفلوطی، محمود احمد شاکر، طہ حسین، احمد حسن الزیات، احمد امین، احمد تیمور باشا وغیرہ مصری ادباء و علماء اور محمد کرد علی، خلیل مردم بک، بہجۃ البیطار، علی طنطاوی شامی اور باد و علماء اور اسی طرح عراق، سعودی عرب اور مراکش کے ادیبوں اور مصنفین کی تحریروں کو نہیں پڑھا ہے، ورنہ ان کی عربی کا وہ اسلوب نہ ہوتا جو مذکورہ بالا تحریروں میں ہے اور جس سے بوسیدگی کی بو آتی ہے۔ یا پھر ایسا معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ کسی طالب علم کے سامنے قدیم عربی کی کتابیں ہیں، وہ ان کے جملے، تشبیہات و استعارات اپنی تحریر میں منتقل کر رہا ہے۔
    غامدی صاحب کی عربی نثر نحوی اغلاط سے پُر ہے

    ہر زبان کا مختلف زمانوں کا اپنا اسلوب ہوتا ہے، اگر آج کوئی چوسر Chaucer شیکسپیئر وملٹن کے زبان میں انگریزی لکھنے لگے یا ولی دکھنی اور میر و سودا بلکہ میر امن کی طرح اُردو لکھے تو یہ مضحکہ خیز اور ناقابل قبول بات ہوگی۔ چلیے اس کو بھی تسلیم کرلیا جاتا مگر کیا کیا جائے کہ ان کی مذکورہ بالا تحریروں میں نحو یعنی قواعد زبان کی ایسی غلطیاں ہیں کہ کسی عرب کالج و اسکول کا لڑکا بھی نہیں کرے گا، بلکہ دارالعلوم ندوۃ العلماء (لکھنؤ) سے شایع ہونے والے عربی ماہنامے البعث الاسلامی میں لکھنے والے نوجوان ندوی بھی ایسی اغلاط نہیں کرتے، مثالیں آئندہ آئیں گی۔ یہ عربی مجلہ پچپن سال سے برابر نکل رہا ہے اور اگرچہ اس میں لکھنے والے زیادہ تر ندوی اساتذہ و طلبہ ہیں، لیکن ساتھ ہی ساتھ اس میں سعودی عرب مصر و شام و مغرب عربی کے اساتذہ بھی مضامین و مقالات لکھتے ہیں، کاش کہ اگر عربی مجلات سے جاوید احمد غامدی صاحب کا تعلق نہیں رہا ہے تو وہ اس ہندوستانی مجلے ہی کو زیر مطالعہ رکھتے تو اُن کو صحیح و دلآویز عربی لکھنا آجاتی، آج اگر کوئی امرؤ القیس کے انداز میں اپنی عربی نظموں میں عقنقل اور سجنجل جیسے متروک اور غیر عصری الفاظ استعمال کرے تو یہ ایک مضحکہ خیز بات ہوگی، عربی زبان کا اسلوب عہدِ اموی اور عہدِ عباسی سے آج تک برابر بدلتا رہا ہے۔ پانچویں و چھٹی صدی ہجری میں الحریری، القاسم بن علی (وفات ۵۱۵ھ) کے لغویانہ انداز نگارش اور مسّجع تحریر نے عربی زبان کو بڑا نقصان پہنچایا، یہ ایک طرح سے لسانی پہلوانی تھی، یہ اسلوب عہدِ نبوی، عہدِ اُموی اور عہدِ عباسی کی سادہ و دلآویز نثر سے بالکل جدا تھا، افسوس کہ چھٹی و ساتویں صدی ہجری اور بعد کے عہد انحطاط میں لوگ اس مصنوعی اسلوب کے اسیر ہوگئے جس میں تکلّف ہی تکلّف اور آورد ہی آورد تھی، اور برصغیر کے علماء و ادباء تو اس متکلّف اور مردہ اسلوبِ نگارش کے ایسے شیفتہ و شیدا بلکہ اسیر ہوئے کہ وہ اپنی تحریروں میں اس اسلوب سے باہر قدم ہی نہ رکھ سکے، عربی دنیا میں پہلے ابن خلدونؒ نے سجع کے ذریعہ عبارت آرائی چھوڑ کر سادہ و متین اسلوب اختیار کیا اور برِصغیر میں یہ امتیاز شاہ ولی اللہ صاحب کو حاصل ہوا، حجۃ اللہ البالغۃ کی نثر سادہ علمی نثر کی مثال ہے۔ مشہور ہے کہ انھوں نے مقامات حریری نہیں پڑھی تھی، اسی طرح تیرہ صدیوں میں برِصغیر کے مایہ ناز اور عرب دنیا میں مُسلم ادیب مرحوم مولانا سید ابوالحسن علی ندویؒ (علی میاں) نے مقامات حریری نہیں پڑھی تھی، اور غالباً ان کے رفقاء مولانا مسعود عالم ندوی مرحوم اور مولانا ناظم ندوی مرحوم نے بھی مقامات حریری درساً نہیں پڑھی تھی، اور راقم السطور نے بھی اپنے یک سالہ تعلیمی قیام ندوہ میں اسے نہیں پڑھا اور عرب ممالک، حجاز و شام جہاں بعد میں میری تعلیم کی تکمیل ہوئی وہاں تو مقامات حریری پڑھائی ہی نہیں جاتی ہے۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ اِس ناچیز کی عربی کتب جو بیشتر عرب ممالک میں چھپی ہیں، اِس مردہ و بے جان اور کرتبی اسلوب سے پاک ہیں۔
    انیسویں صدی عیسوی کے اواخر اور بیسویں صدی کے اوائل میں حریری کے مسجّع و مقفّیٰ نثر کے خلاف بغاوت کا ظہور ہوا، اور علی باشا مبارک، محمد عبدہ، احمد تیمور باشا، احمد زکی پاشا وغیرہ کے اثر سے اس عربی زبان میں لکھنے کی ریت پڑی جو عباسی عہد میں رائج تھی۔ بیسویں صدی کے مصری و شامی اُدبا کے طفیل عربی زبان دوبارہ اپنے عروج پر پہنچ گئی، ندوہ کو چھوڑ کر برِصغیر کے بیشتر علماء و ادباء حریری کے مردہ و بوسیدہ اسلوب کے اسیر رہے۔ حریری کے اسلوب نگارش کو اس مردہ دلہن سے تشبیہہ دی گئی ہے جس کو غازہ و کاجل اور زر و جواہر کے زیورات سے آراستہ و پیراستہ کر دیا جائے


    03-04-12, 06:35 AM #3

    شاہد نزیر
    -: رکن مکتبہ اسلامیہ :-

    تاریخ شمولیت: 2009-06-16
    قیام: کراچی
    جنس: male
    پوسٹس: 679
    پوائنٹس: 328
    غامدی صاحب کی عربی نثر: اغلاط کی نشان دہی:

    ص ۳۵: شرح شواہد لفراہی (۱) چھ چھوٹے صفحات کے اس مختصر مضمون میں (سطر۵) وہ لکھتے ہیں: ’’اذا أراد ان یبلغ ما تحتوی کتبہ ہذا‘‘ یہاں ’’تحتوی‘‘ کے بجائے تحوی بہتر ہوتا کہ اگرچہ تحتوی بھی اس معنی میں آتا ہے، لیکن عصرِ حاضر کے فصحاء زیادہ تر ’’تحوی‘‘ استعمال کرتے ہیں، اور اگر تحتوی لکھنا تھا تو اس کے لیے صلہ ’’علیٰ‘‘ ضروری تھا، عصری عربی زبان میں ایسا ہی ہے۔ یہاں ’’یبلغ بھی کوئی اچھی عربی نہیں، یدرک یا یستوعب بہتر ہوتا، الباحث المستہدی (اسی سطر میں) بوسیدہ عربی کی مثال ہے، ہونا چاہیے ’’الباحث المستطلع‘‘۔
    غامدی صاحب: فاحش نحوی غلطی

    اس کے فوراً بعد دوسری سطر میں ایک فاحش نحوی غلطی ہے کہ موصوف نے ’’بوادٍ قفرٍ ذوعقبات‘‘ لکھا ہے ایک عام عربی داں جانتا ہے کہ یہاں ’’ذو عقبات‘‘ نہیں بلکہ ’’ذی عقبات‘‘ ہونا چاہیے کہ اس سے قبل موصوف یعنی ’’وادٍ‘‘ مجرور ہے۔ اس کے بعد ’’ضفاف‘‘ بھی غیر فصیح ہے، ضفاف (کنارا) نہر کے کنارے کے لیے عام طور پر استعمال ہوتا ہے۔ لغت کی کتابوں میں ’’ضفاف‘‘ بھی وادی کے کنارے کے لیے مل جائے گا، لیکن پہلے تو یہ بات کہ کسی زبان میں بھی نثر یا نظم لغت کی کتابیں دیکھ کر نہیں لکھی جاتی ہے، اور دوسرے یہ کہ وادی یعنی ’’مسیل الماء‘‘ جب پانی سے بھری ہو تو ضفاف کا لفظ استعمال ہوسکتا ہے، ورنہ ’’حافۃ الوادی‘‘ مستعمل ہے۔ اس کے بعد کی دو سطروں میں حقاف و تلاع بھی غیر مانوس و غیر مستعمل الفاظ ہیں، الرمال والتلال زیادہ مناسب ہوسکتے ہیں۔ ایسا معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ مصنف اپنی لغوی مہارت کا اظہار کرنا چاہتا ہے اور اس کوشش میں وہ روانی تحریر سے محروم ہوگیا ہے اور یہ لفظ ’’خبوت‘‘ تو مصنف کے احساس کمتری کی بہت واضح مثال ہے۔ ’’خبوت‘‘، فعل خَبتَ سے ہے یعنی کشادہ و پست زمین۔ یہ لفظ متروک ہے، حتی کہ مشہور و مستند لغوی جوھری نے بھی اپنی صحاح میں اس مادۂ (خ ب ت ن) کے تحت صرف اخیات یعنی خشوع اور عاجزی وزاری کا لفظ دیا ہے، ’’اعمق الأغوار‘‘ موزوں و مقبول ہوتا۔ عربی زبان میں ’’اِخبات‘‘ ہی کا استعمال زیادہ ہے، اور یہی قرآن میں آیا ہے۔
    غیر مانوس، غیر فصیح، مضحکہ خیز اور غلط نثر

    ’’اکثر ماتحجب‘‘ بھی غیر مانوس ہے، ’’کثیرا ماتحجب‘‘ ہونا چاہیے، اس کے بالمقابل قلیلاما ہے۔ قرآن میں ’’قیللاً ماتؤمنون‘‘۔
    ’’فیغوص علیہ‘‘ غلط ہے، یغوص (غوطہ لگانا) کا صلہ ’’فی‘‘ ہے، یغوص فیہ ہونا چاہیے۔ یغوص علیہ کا مفہوم ہوگا: اس کے اوپر غوطہ لگاتا ہے، جو بداھۃً غلط ہے، جب کہ یغوص فیہ کے معنی ہوں گے، اس میں یا اس کے اندر غوطہ لگاتا ہے۔
    مستوی الرجاء بھی درست نہیں، مستوی الأمل ہونا چاہیے، عربی ادب کا ذوق رکھنے والے دونوں الفاظ کے موقع و محل کا فرق جان سکتے ہیں۔
    ’’منتقلاً من بطن الی بطن‘‘ غیر فصیح بلکہ مضحکہ خیز ہے، شاید مقصود ’’بطن الوادی‘‘ ہے، ویسے بطن قبیلے کی ایک شاخ کا نام بھی ہوتا ہے، لیکن ظاہر و عام معنی پیٹ کے ہیں۔ ہونا چاہیے: من وادٍ الی واد۔
    رکیک، بے ربط پر تصنع اور مُہمل عربی نثر

    قام شعوری ذاک خطیباً: متصنع اور مہمل ہے، اور بعد کی دو سطروں میں جاور الفوز، اقوم الی العزم اعقدہ بالثقۃ، فنھضت الی اقلامی، مہمل، رکیک اور تصنع و عجمۃ سے بھرپور جملے ہیں۔ کیا ایک قلم لکھنے کے لیے کافی نہ تھا کہ مصنف صاحب نے بہت سے قلم اٹھائے؟
    ص ۲۶: الشاعر المشہور الاسلامی غلط ہے، صحیح الشاعر الاسلامی المشہور ہے۔ ’’استھلہا یعجب من انکار خولۃ‘‘ رکیک ہے، صحیح ’’استھلہا باستعجابہ من انکار خولۃ‘‘ ہوگا۔ پھر اذطعن فی السن اور ثم اذجرّبہ الکلام بھی رکیک جملے ہیں، اور مفہوم مبہم ہے، صحیح ہوگا: ’’لکونہ طعن فی السن‘‘ اور ’’ثم جرّبہ الکلام‘‘۔۔۔۔۔۔ ’’وشبہ الناقۃ‘‘ بھی بے ربطی عبارت کی خبر دیتا ہے، تشبیہہ الناقۃ بالحمار ہونا چاہیے، یا پھر جملہ یوں ہوگا وحیث جرّبہ الکلام الے ۔۔۔۔۔۔
    غامدی صاحب: املاء کے اصولوں سے ناواقف
    ووصف ناقتہ شبہ الناقۃ بحمار الوحش‘‘ اس طرح شبہ سے پہلے کاما(،) غلط ہے۔
    الکلاء، غلط املاء ہے صحیح ’’الکلأ‘‘ ہے۔
    عن ابناء ہم غلط املاء ہے، ہمزہ جب حالت جر میں ہوتا ہے تو ایک شوشے پر لکھا جاتا ہے ابناۂم اور حالت رفع میں (واؤ) ہو اور حالت نصب میں تنہا لکھا جاتا ہے، مختلف مقامات سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ مصنف کو ہمزہ کے املاء کے یہ قواعد معلوم نہیں۔
    خیومۃ جرم (ج پر فتحہ اور راء پر سکون: ایک چھوٹے قبیلے کا نام) خیومۃ معاجم اللغۃ میں تو ضرور آیا ہے جو خام یخیم خیماً و خیمانا کے ساتھ اس فعل کا ایک مصدر ہے لیکن اِس کا استعمال غیر فصیح ہے، بلکہ اِس موقع کے لیے فصیح لفظ نکوص یا جبن (فرار، بزدلی) ہے، یہ لغت دانی کا بے جا استعمال ہے۔ خیومۃ رجل یا خیومۃ قوم کوئی فصیح عرب لکھتا نہیں ہے۔
    قدیم الفاظ و اشعار یاد کرنا اور اُگلنا زبان دانی نہیں

    حیرت کا مقام ہے کہ مضمون نگار صاحب کو قدیم شاعر مرار بن منقذ کے جاہلی انداز کے شعر کی شرح کرتے ہوئے حرف ’’فی‘‘ اور ’’اعلیٰ‘‘ جیسے عام الفاظ کی شرح بھی کرنا پڑی! انھوں نے اس موقعہ پر درحقیقت جاہلی دور کے اشعار کے اپنے حفظ کا مظاہرہ کیا ہے، قدیم اشعار کو یاد کرلینا اور ان کو اگلنا زبان دانی نہیں ہے۔
    ’’المنصب کا لجذل‘‘ صحیح یہاں منصوب ہے، جیسا کہ ظاہر ہے۔
    فمعنی الترویۃ‘‘۔ صحیح ہے، فمعناہ الترویۃ۔ ترویۃ اگرچہ لغت میں ہے، لیکن زیادہ مستعمل اور فصیح الرویۃ اور التروی ہے۔
    قسم فلان الأمر اذا فکربہ، صحیح فکرفیہ ہے۔
    ص۲۷۔ منتصباً فی مکان اعلیٰ من ہضبۃ مہمل ہے۔ صحیح ہے، ’منتصباً فی اعلیٰ مکان من ہضبۃ‘‘
    غامدی صاحب کا شوق تقعر: مہمل عربی تحریر

    زہیربن ابی سلمیٰ (ذھیر غلط چھپا ہے) کے ایک شعر کی شرح میں مصنف نے جو الفاظ استعمال کیے ہیں: الاجباب، فازعۃ، فاہوی لہا ان سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ موصوف کو تقعر اور اظہار زبان دانی کا بہت شوق ہے، یا پھر یہ کہ وہ سلیس و رواں عربی لکھنے سے قاصر ہیں اور پھر اپنے اس شوق تقعر میں بڑی ٹھوکریں کھاتے ہیں۔ اب یہاں وارد جملوں میں لفظ الاجباب (جمعُ جبّ) مہمل ہے، کیونکہ جُب ایسے کنویں کو کہتے ہیں جو بہت گہرا اور غیر تعمیر شدہ ہوتا ہے، یعنی کچا کنواں، عام مستعمل لفظ ’’البئر‘‘ (الآبار اس کی جمع) ہے، فازعۃ غلط ہے یہاں صحیح ’’فَزِعۃ‘‘ ہے، کیونکہ فازعۃ باب فزع یفزَع فزْعاً سے ہے، جس کے معنی بیزار ہونے اور نفرت کرنا ہیں، جو یہاں مقصود نہیں، بلکہ فاختہ کا ڈر کر اُڑ جانا مفہوم ہے، اور ڈرنے کے لیے یہ لفظ باب فزع یفَزع فَزعاً یعنی باب سمع سے ہے، اور اس سے صفۃ مشبہ (فاعل) فزِع ہے جس کا مؤنث فَزِعۃ ہے۔
    اھویٰ لہا الصقر کی جگہ ہویٰ لہا الصقر ہونا چاہیے، کیونکہ ھویٰ کے معنی گرنا جھپٹنا ہیں اور أھویٰ کے معنی جعلہ یسقط الی اسفل (المعجم الوسیط) گرانا ہیں، اگرچہ قدیم معاجم اللغۃ میں اھویٰ اور ھویٰ ہم معنی لکھا ہے، لیکن فصیح ھویٰ ہی ہے، کیونکہ قرآن کریم میں یہی استعمال ہے، والنجم اذاھویٰ (سورۃ النجم)
    ص۲۸: غلب الکلاب، غلب علی الکلاب ہونا چاہیے۔
    النبت، حیرت ہے کہ زھیر بن ابی سلمیٰ کے شعر کی عربی زبان میں شرح لکھتے ہوئے مصنف کو النبت جیسے عام فہم لفظ کی شرح کرنا ضروری معلوم ہوا!
    غامدی صاحب کی عربی نثر: دو فاحش اغلاط

    ص۲۹: الضاحی کی شرح میں فرمانا لاتظلہ شئی اس میں دو فاحش اغلاط ہیں، ایک تو یہ کہ شئی مذکر ہے، اس کا فعل بھی مذکر ہونا چاہیے، پھر یہ کہ یہاں مطلوب ظل سے ’’یظللہ‘‘ ہے، یُظلّہ نہیں۔
    الاغدرۃ و الحیضان، مصنف کے تقّعر و تعالم کی ایک اور مثال ہے، غدیر و حوض کی معروف جموع غدران و احواض چھوڑ کر یہ غیر معروف جمعیں لکھی ہیں۔
    الحباک والجیکۃ للطریقہ التی توجد فی الثوب المنسوج۔۔۔ غلط اور غیر مفہوم ہے، الخطوط ہونا چاہیے۔ اس شعر میں پانی کی رعایت سے۔
    عبارت گنجلک، شرح و معنی خلاف واقعہ اور مضحکہ خیز

    زھیر بن ابی سلمیٰ (جاہلی شاعر) کے شعر کی شرح کے آخر میں موصوف فرماتے ہیں ’’(الشاہد فیہ) ان الحبک قدا ستعمل فی قولہ تعالی: و السماء ذات الحُبک اللطرائق التی توجد فی قطع السحاب المتجعد الشتوی المراد بالسماء۔
    عبارت میں گنجلک ہے، مصنف سے بات سیدھے طریقے سے نہیں لکھی گئی، ہونا یوں چاہیے: ان الحُبک قدا ستعمل فی ۔۔۔۔۔۔ بمعنی الطرائق۔۔۔ پھر یہ کہ غامدی صاحب نے السحاب کی صفت المتجعد بتائی ہے۔ جو خلافِ واقعہ اور مضحکہ خیز ہے، جعودۃ اور تجّعد بالوں کے گھنگریالے پن کو کہتے ہیں۔ بادلوں میں بالوں کی طرح کا کوئی گھنگریالا پن نہیں ہوتا، البتہ آسمان میں تاروں کی جو ٹیڑھی سیدھی ترتیب ہے وہ، یا کہکشاؤں میں جو پیچیدگی نظر آتی ہے، اس کو بالوں کے تجعد سے تشبیہہ دی جاسکتی ہے۔ اسی لیے لسان العرب میں الحبک کے معنی طرائق النجوم دیے ہیں۔ پھر اس تجعد کو السحاب الشتوی (موسم سرما کے بادل) میں غامدی صاحب نے کہاں ملاحظہ فرمایا ہے؟ اور کیا السحاب الصیفی میں یہ تجعد نہیں ہوتا؟
    مصنف کی یہ ساری شرح قرآن کے مصداق ’’ظلمات بعضہا فوق بعض‘‘ (النور) ہے۔ درحقیقت حُبُک کے ایک معنی بال کا گھنگریالا پن بھی ہے، امام طبریؒ نے جہاں حبک کے دیگر معانی لکھے ہیں، وہاں یہ بھی لکھا ہے: یقال لتکسیر الشعرۃ الجعدۃ: حبک‘‘۔
    آیت قرآنی ’’والسماء ذات الحبکُ‘‘ کی جو تفسیر ہمارے قدیم عرب مفسرین امام طبریؒ ، زمخشری قرطبی اور ابن کثیر وغیرہ نے حضرت ابن عباسؓ اور الحسن البصری کے حوالے سے فرمائی ہے، یعنی ’’طرائق النجوم الحسنۃ‘‘ جن سے آسمان رات کو مزیّن دکھائی دیتا ہے، وہی صحیح ہے اور یہ تشریح اس اصول تفسیر ’’القرآن یفسّر بعضہ بعضاً (قرآن کے کچھ حصّوں کی قرآن کی دوسرے حصّے تفسیر کرتے ہیں) کے عین مطابق ہے۔ قرآن میں ہے: ولقد زینا السماء الدنیا بمصا بیح (الملک: آیت۵) ایک دوسری آیت میں ہے: افلم ینظر وا الی السماء فوقہم کیف بنینٰا ھاً وزینٰھاً (ق: آیت۶) انا زیّنا السماء الدنیا بزینۃ ن الکواکب (الصفت:۶)
    اور اس کی تأیید معاجم اللغۃ اور خاص طور سے لسان العرب سے بھی ہوتی ہے، جس میں حبک السماء کے معنی طرائق اور والسماء ذات الحبک کے معنی طرائق النجوم دیے گئے ہیں، السحاب یا السحاب المتجعد (بادلوں) کا کہیں ذکر نہیں۔ اس ضمن میں اس طرف اشارہ کردوں کہ میرے ذہن میں اس جملۂ قرآنی کی تفسیر میں کہکشاؤں کی بات آئی تھی، اتفاق کی بات کہ یہی تفسیر طبری کے عظیم محقق اور مشہور مصری ماہر لغت شیخ محمود احمد شاکر نے بھی اس موقعہ پر اپنے تفسیری نوٹ میں لکھی ہے، وہ لکھتے ہیں:
    ’’والسماء ذات الحبک‘‘: ہی طرائق الضوء، تری فی السماء فی غیاب القمر وہی ماتسمی بالمَجرّۃ‘‘ المَجَرّۃ عربی میں اور انگریزی میں milky way کو کہتے ہیں۔ بلکہ یہ معنی ہم سب سے قبل امام قرطبیؒ نے بھی اپنی تفسیر میں تحریر کیے ہیں۔ ان کے دیے ہوئے سات معانی میں سے ایک یہ بھی ہے۔ ذات الحبک کے مفسرین اور اہلِ لغت نے دوسرے معانی بھی ذکر کیے ہیں، جو حسن تخلیق، متانت، زینت وغیرہ ہیں، اور ان کی تأیید دوسری آیات قرآنی سے ہوتی ہے، ویسے عربی میں ’’حبک‘‘ کے ایک معنی ہی سخت بندش کے ہیں، اس لیے ہاتھ پاؤں کا فطری طور پر جو مضبوط گھوڑا ہوتا ہے۔ اس کو ’’محبوک‘‘ کہتے ہیں، امرؤ القیس کا شعر ہے:
    قد غدا یحملنی فی انفہ
    لاحق الأیطل محبوک ممر
    یہاں انف تیز رفتاری کے معنی میں ہے۔ (لسان العرب)
    فراہی صاحب و غامدی صاحب نے ’’زہیر‘‘ کا مصرعہ غلط لکھا ہے:

    جاوید غامدی صاحب کے استاد کے استاد فراہی صاحب نے تو اس آیت قرآنی کی تفسیر کے لیے صرف ایک ہی جاہلی شعر لکھا ہے، لیکن اگر وہ تفسیر طبری، تفسیر زمخشری، تفسیر قرطبی وغیرہ دیکھیں گے تو انھیں ’’حُبک‘‘ کی تفسیر میں دوسرے جاہلی اشعار بھی نظر آئیں گے۔ اسی لیے یہ صرف انہی کا کارنامہ نہیں ہے کہ تفسیر قرآن کے لیے انھوں نے جاہلی اشعار کو بنیاد بنایا ہے، فرق صرف اتنا ہے کہ ہمارے یہ قدیم مفسرین صحابہ و تابعین کی تفاسیر کو پہلے ذکر کرتے اور ان پر اعتماد کرتے ہیں، اور بعد میں جاہلی اشعار پر۔ پھر یہ کہ انھوں نے زھیر کا یہ شعر بھی غلط لکھا ہے، موصوف نے جوشعر اپنے مضمون میں پیش کیا ہے اس کا پہلا مصرع یوں لکھا ہے:
    ’’مکلل باصول النبت تنسجہ‘‘ لیکن یہ مصرع تفسیر زمخشری، تفسیر قرطبی اور تفسیر اضواء البیان للشیخ محمد امین الشنقیطی میں: ’’مکلل باصول النجم تنسجہ‘‘ ہے۔
    دوسری صدی ہجری کے مشہور ماہر لغت اور مفسر قرآن ابوعبیدۃ معمر بن المثنّٰی نے اپنی کتاب مجاز القرآن میں بھی النبت کی جگہ النجم لکھا ہے اور یہی جاہلی اسلوب شعر سے زیادہ مناسبت رکھتا ہے، النجم کے ایک غیر معروف معنی نبت با نباتات کے بھی ہیں۔ بلکہ شاید مرحوم فراہی صاحب نے بھی یہاں ’’النجم‘‘ ہی لکھا ہوگا، جبھی غامدی صاحب نے اس لفظ کی تشریح زمین میں اُگنے والی مختلف نباتات سے کی ہے، جس پر میں نے اپنی حیرت کا بھی سابقہ صفحات میں اظہار کیا اور خیال کیا کہ موصوف نے اپنے مضمون شرح شواہد الفراہی میں غلط نقل کر دیا ہے۔ مولانا فراہی سے میرا یہ حسن ظن بعد میں اُن کی تفسیر سورۂ والذاریات دیکھنے پر غلط ثابت ہوا، اُنھوں نے بھی یہاں ’’اصول النبت‘‘ ہی لکھا ہے، جو غلط ہے۔

    ان 2 ارکان نے اس مفید پوسٹ کے لیےشاہد نزیر کا شکریہ ادا کیا ہے ابوابراہیم, محمد آصف مغل

    03-04-12, 06:38 AM #4

    شاہد نزیر
    -: رکن مکتبہ اسلامیہ :-

    تاریخ شمولیت: 2009-06-16
    قیام: کراچی
    جنس: male
    پوسٹس: 679
    پوائنٹس: 328
    غامدی صاحب کا غُرور علم: تضحیک اکابرین

    غامدی صاحب نے اپنے غرور علم (جس کی حقیقت واضح ہوچکی ہے اور مزید ظاہر ہوگی)میں ایک ایسا جملہ لکھ دیا ہے جس سے ہمارے اسلاف (صحابہ و تابعین) حضرت عبداللہؓ ابن عباس، حضرت حسن البصری، مجاہد، ضحاک وغیرہ کی تغلیط و تضحیک ہوتی ہے۔ موصوف فرماتے ہیں: واما الذین قالوا ان المراد بہ نجوم السماء فانہم لم یتتعبوا کلام العرب حق التتبع ولم یتأ ملو فیما یقتضی موقعہ ہنا، فلم یتبین لہم معناہ، فاخطا ؤا وجہ الصواب (اور جن لوگوں نے کہا کہ اس سے مراد آسمان کے ستارے ہیں تو یہ وہ لوگ ہیں جنھوں نے کلام عرب کی اچھی طرح چھان بین نہیں کی اور نہ اس پر غور کیا کہ یہاں کس بات کا موقع و محل ہے، اس لیے انھیں اس (ذات الحبک) کے معنی سمجھ میں نہیں آئے اور وہ غلطی کے مرتکب ہوئے)۔
    غامدی صاحب عربی کے چند جملے صحیح نہیں لکھ سکتے مگر امت کے اکابرین پر حملہ آور ہیں:

    معاذاللہ! آپ کو معلوم ہے کہ اس انسان نے جو عربی کے چند جملے بھی صحیح نہیں لکھ سکتا کس پر حملہ کیا ہے، امام حسن البصری و سعید بن جبیر جیسے تابعین اور طبری و زمخشری جیسے ادیب و ماہر لغت و مفسر قرآن پر (ملاحظہ ہو، اس آیتِ قرآنی کی تفسیر طبری اور زمخشری میں)، یہ وہ غرور علم ہے جو موصوف کو امین احسن اصلاحی مرحوم اور ان کو حمیدالدین فراہی صاحب سے ورثہ میں ملا تھا، اِس ’’لُغویّت‘‘ اور غرور کا اندازہ اِس بات سے ہوتا ہے کہ امین احسن اصلاحی صاحب کی وفات پر موصوف نے لکھا تھا کہ وہ بیسویں صدی کے امام تفسیر تھے، حالانکہ ان کی تفسیر ’’تدبر قرآن‘‘ میں نہ تو کوئی غیر معمولی تحقیق و استیعاب ہے اور نہ اس کو برصغیر میں وہ مقبولیت حاصل ہے جو مولانا مودودیؒ کی ’’تفہیم القرآن‘‘ کی ہے۔ اس انتہائی مبالغہ آمیز بیان سے تو جو حقیقت کے بالکل برعکس ہے مولانا فراہی کی تنقیص ہوتی ہے جن کے شعری شواہد کی وہ شرح لکھنے بیٹھے ہیں۔ مولانا فراہیؒ کے تفردات سے جتنا بھی اختلاف کیا جائے بہرحال وہ عربی داں اور مفسر قرآن تھے۔ عربی زبان میں صاحب تصانیف تھے۔ اصلاحی صاحب اس پایہ کے نہ تھے۔ السید رشید رضا المصری، مولانا مودودی، سید قطب اس صدی کے نامور ترین اور مقبول ترین مفسر تھے۔
    غامدی صاحب کا سرقہ

    جاوید غامدی صاحب نے بڑا ظلم یہ کیا ہے کہ انھوں نے آیت ’’والسماء ذات الحبک‘‘ کی شاذ تفسیر اپنے استاد کے استاد مولانا حمید الدین فراہی مرحوم کی تفسیر سورۂ ’’والذاریات‘‘ سے چرائی ہے۔ (ملاحظہ ہو مجموعۂ تفاسیر فراہی، ص۱۵۲) صرف اتنا ہے کہ انھوں نے ان جمہور مفسرین کی رائے سے اختلاف کرتے ہوئے جنھوں نے آیت بالا میں ’’السماء‘‘ کے معروف و متداول آسمان معنی لیے ہیں اور ذات الحبک کے یعنی ستاروں کی لائنیں یا المجَرَّۃ [Milky way] مراد لیے ہیں، ان کے لیے صرف اتنا کہا تھا کہ ’’ہمارے نزدیک ان کی رائے صحیح نہیں ہے‘‘۔ (حوالۂ بالا)
    غامدی صاحب نے اپنے استادالاستاد سے ایک قدم آگے بڑھاتے ہوئے ان کی تجہیل و تغلیط ان الفاظ میں کی: فانہم لم یتتبعوا کلام العرب حق التتبع، ولم یتأملوا فیما یقتضی موقعہ ھنا، فلم یتبین لہم معناہ، فاخطاؤا وجہ الصواب‘‘ (کہ ان لوگوں نے کلامِ عرب میں پوری طرح جستجو نہیں کی، اور نہ اس پر غور کیا کہ یہاں اقتضائے محل کیا ہے اس لیے وہ صحیح معنی نہ پاسکے)۔
    میں مزید عرض کروں گا کہ اس آیت قرآنی میں السماء سے بادل مراد لینا مولانا فراہیؒ کی کوئی اُپچ نہیں ہے، بلکہ قرطبی نے اپنی تفسیر میں یہ معنی صیغہ تمریض (یعنی شک) ’’قیل‘‘ کے ساتھ ذکر کیا ہے۔ مولانا فراہی نے یہاں السماء کے معنی السحاب (بادل) اس لیے اختیار کیے ہیں جیسا کہ انھوں نے خود کہا ہے (حوالۂ بالا)، کہ سورۂ والذاریات کی ابتدائی چار آیات تمام کی تمام ہواؤں اور ان کی مختلف کیفیات و احوال کے لیے ہیں، جب کہ حضرت علیؓ سے منقول کردہ روایت میں ان چاروں آیات کے معانی مختلف ہیں، الذاریات: ہوائیں، الحاملات و قراً: بادل، فالجاریات یسراً: کشتیاں فالمقسات امراً: الملائکۃ۔ اب بتایا جائے کہ حضرت علیؓ سے بڑھ کر قرآن اور عربی زبان کا سمجھنے والا کون ہوسکتا ہے جب کہ انھوں نے یہ تفسیر پوچھنے والوں کو منبر پر کھڑے ہوکر اپنے اس دعویٰ کے ساتھ بتائی تھی: لایسأ لنی احد عن آیۃ من کتاب اللہ الا اخبرتہ (جو کوئی بھی مجھ سے قرآن کی کسی آیت کے بارے میں پوچھے گا میں اس کوبتا سکتا ہوں، تو عبداللہ بن الکواء نے ان آیاتِ بالا کے معانی آپ سے پوچھے اور حضرت علیؓ نے یہ معانی بتائے (تفسیر طبری، تفسیر آیات مذکورہ) اور یہی تفسیر اِن آیات کی حضرت عمرؓ، حضرت ابن عباسؓ کے شاگرد اور مشہور تابعی و مفسر قرآن مجاہدؒ سے بھی تفسیر طبری میں اسی مقام پر منقول ہے۔ فالحاملات و قراًo فالمقسات أمراً کے مذکورہ معانی حضرت عبداللہ ابن عباس سے مروی ہیں۔
    فراہی صاحب کی تفسیر ماہرین لغت کے برعکس
    ان آیات اور خاص طور پر چوتھی آیت ’’فالمقسمات امراً پر ہم بعد میں گفتگو کریں گے۔ یہاں ’’والسماء ذات الحبک‘‘ کے ضمن میں مولانا فراہی کی تفسیر معرض گفتگو میں آگئی، انھوں نے سورۂ ’’الذاریات‘‘ کی ان چار آیات کو مختلف ہواؤں کے معنی میں لیا ہے، اپنے مخصوص نظریۂ نظر قرآن کی بنیاد پر ہواؤں کی مناسبت سے انھوں نے ’’ذات الحبک‘‘ کے معنی بادلوں والا آسمان لیا ہے، لیکن ان کی یہ تفسیر ایک طرف تو جمہور مفسرین، طبری، زمخشریؒ ، رازیؒ ابن کثیرؒ اور قرطبیؒ وغیرہ کے خلاف ہے اور دوسری طرف ماہرینِ لغت صاحبِ لسان العرب، صاحبِ قاموس اور صاحب المفردات فی غریب القرآن وغیرہم کے بھی خلاف ہے، بلکہ راغب اصفہانی نے تو المفردات میں اس کے معنی صفائی کے ساتھ ’’ذات الطرائق المحسوسۃ بالنجوم و المجرۃ‘‘ (ستاروں اور کہکشاں کے محسوس راستوں والا آسمان) دیے ہیں۔
    ماہر لُغت ابو عبیدہ صاحب مجاز القرآن کا استدلال

    مزید برآں یہ کہ دوسری صدی ہجری کے مشہور مصنف مفسر اور ماہر لغت ابو عبیدۃ بن معمر ابن المثنی نے اپنی کتاب مجاز القرآن میں اس آیت کی تفسیر کرتے ہوئے زھیر بن ابی سلمیٰ کے اس شعر کے جس سے مولانا فراہی نے ’’حُبک‘‘ کے معنی بادلوں کی تہیں مراد لیے ہیں بالکل دوسرے معنی بتائے ہیں، اس نے حبک کے معنی ’’طرائق الماء‘‘ (پانی میں ہوا کے اثر سے پڑنے والی لہریں) لکھ کر استدلال میں زھیر کا وہی شعر:
    مکلل باصول النجم تنسجہ
    ریح حریق لضاحی ماۂ حُبُک
    پیش کیا ہے۔ لہٰذا فراہی صاحب اور ان کے تتبع میں غامدی صاحب کا اس شعر سے اپنے مزعوم معنی (بادلوں کی تہوں یا گالوں) پر استدلال کرنا سراسر غلط ہے، زھیر کے شعر کے یہ معنی بہت واضح ہیں۔
    پھر یہ کہ جب جناب غامدی کے مطابق زھیر اس شعر میں پانی کا وصف بیان کر رہا ہے۔ فاخذ یصف الماء (صفحہ ۳۸) تو پھر انھوں نے اس کا اطلاق بادلوں پر کیسے کرنا شروع کر دیا؟ وہ دوسری سطر میں (اللغۃ) کے تحت لکھتے ہیں: ’’المکلل الذی احدق بہ من جوانبہ کلہا ولذا استعمل صفۃ لضمام محفوف بقطع من السحاب‘‘۔ المکلل کی یہ بڑی عجیب اور مضحکہ خیز تشریح ہے، غمام تو خود ہی سحاب (یعنی بادل) کو کہتے ہیں۔ پھر بادل کا بادل سے محفوف (گھرا ہونا) مہمل بات ہے، صحیح وہ ہے جو مصری علامہ عبدالسلام ہارون نے اپنی کتاب ’’شرح القصائد السبع الطوال‘‘ میں لکھا ہے کہ یہاں سحاب سے مراد وہ بادل ہے جس پر بجلی کا تاج ہو، اور بجلی بادل کے لیے ایسی ہے جیسے تاج۔ ابو عبیدۃ معمر بن المثنی (وفات ۲۱۰ھ) کے اس قول کے بعد جو اوپر پیش کیا گیا کہ زہیر بن ابی سلمی کا شعر:
    مکلل باصول النجم تنسج
    ریح خریق لضاحی ماۂ حبک
    پانی کے وصف میں ہے جس میں آبی پودے تاج کا منظر پیش کر رہے ہیں۔ غامدی صاحب کے ممدوح مولانا فراہی صاحب کا یہ قول نادرست ٹھہرتا ہے کہ یہ شعر بادلوں کے وصف میں ہے، اور خود غامدی صاحب کی اس شعر کی لمبی چوڑی تشریح کا رعبث ہے، ان کی داخلی نحوی اور لغوی غلطیاں تو علیحدہ بات ہے جن کی نشاندہی کر دی گئی ہے۔
    الذاریات میں ستاروں کے ذکر کی حکمت
    ایک اہم بات آیت کی تفسیر کے ضمن میں یہ ہے کہ اس آیت میں قسم کے بعد مقسم علیہ یعنی جس چیز کے لیے قسم کھائی گئی ہے اس پر غور کرنا ضروری ہے جس سے ہمیں مقسم بہ (یعنی جس کی قسم کھا گئی ہے) کا تعین کرنا آسان ہوجائے گا۔ قسم اس بات کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے کھائی گئی ہے کہ قیامت کے بارے میں تمھارے افکار پراگندہ ہیں: والسماء ذات الحبک o انکم لفی قول مختلف۔ ستاروں سے مزین آسمان اس کا گواہ ہے کہ تمہاری (قیامت کے بارے میں) باتیں بڑی مختلف ہیں۔ اس سے قبل کفار کے قیامت اور جزا و سزا کے انکار کی تردید کرتے ہوئے یہ بات کہہ دی گئی تھی کہ: وقوع حشر و نشر کا جو وعدہ تم سے کیا جا رہا ہے وہ سچ ہے، اور سزا و جزا یقیناًوقوع پذیر ہوں گی۔ ان ماتوعدون لصادق۔ وان الدین لواقع۔ (الذارایت:۵۔۶) لیکن کفار قیامت اور سزا و جزا کا صرف انکار ہی نہیں کرتے تھے، بلکہ اس بارے میں وہ بڑی مختلف اور اٹکل پچو باتیں کرتے تھے، کبھی کہتے تھے کہ قیامت ہوگی تو ہم ہی وہاں سرفراز ہوں گے کیونکہ ہم دنیا میں مال و دولت سے سرفراز ہیں، کبھی یہ کہتے تھے کہ اچھا یہ تو بتاؤ کہ یہ حشر و نشر اور جزا و سزا کب ہوگی؟ والسماء ذات الحبک کی قسم کے بعد چار چھوٹی چھوٹی آیتوں میں ان کے ان مختلف اقوال اور کیفیت کا ذکر کیا گیا ہے۔
    اب اس مناسبت سے گواہ ایسی چیز ہی کو بنانا چاہیے جس میں اختلاف اور پراگندگی پائی جاتی ہو اور وہ چیز آسمان ہے جس میں ستارے بے ترتیبی کے ساتھ بکھرے ہوئے ہیں، ایسے ہی قیامت کے بارے میں ان کی باتیں بکھری ہوئی اور پراگندہ ہیں، جب کہ ان کی پراگندہ باتوں سے بادلوں کی کوئی مناسبت نہیں۔ جب سورج روشن ہو تو بادل روئی کے گالوں کی شکل میں نظر آتے ہیں، اور جب بادل گہرا اور گھٹا ٹوپ ہو تو وہ صرف ایک بہت بڑا سیاہ پردہ ہوتا ہے۔ یہ نہیں کہا جاسکتاکہ بادل بھی علیٰحدہ علیٰحدہ ٹکڑوں میں ہوتے ہیں، لیکن بادل اس طرح بکھرے ہوئے نظر نہیں آتے ستارے نظر آتے ہیں، پھر یہ کہ ستارے کچھ چھوٹے کچھ بڑے، کچھ بہت زیادہ چمکدار اور کچھ کم، کچھ بہت دور معلوم ہوتے ہیں اور کچھ قریب ، جبکہ بادلوں کی یہ صفت نہیں، مزیدیہ کہ وہ ہر موسم میں ہر وقت نہیں ہوتے۔ اس طرح جو اختلاف ستاروں میں نظر آتا ہے وہ بادلوں میں نہیں۔ اس لیے ’’إنکم لفی قول مختلف‘‘ کی مناسبت سے ذات الحُبُک کا ترجمہ ذات النجوم ہی زیادہ صحیح ہے اور یہی وہ مفہوم ہے جو جمہور مفسّرین سے منقول ہے۔
    اس سے قبل غامدی صاحب نے جس شعر کی تشریح فرمائی ہے، وہ فراہی صاحب کی اسی سورۂ ’’الذاریات‘‘ کی آیت چار کی تفسیر کے ضمن میں وارد ہوا ہے۔افسوس کہ جاوید غامدی صاحب نے شرح شواہد الفراہی میں اس شعر کی تشریح کرتے ہوئے یہ نہیں بتایا کہ یہ شعر مولانا فراہی مرحوم نے آیت فالمقسمٰتِ أمرا کی تفسیر کے ضمن میں پیش کیا تھا، لیکن اس ساری تشریح کے آخر میں انھوں نے (الشاہدفیہ) کے تحت لکھا ہے کہ شعر زیر بحث:
    ظلّ فی اعلیٰ یفاع جاذلا
    یقسم الامر کقسم المؤتمر
    میں ’’القسم معناہ التقدیر والترویۃ۔۔۔والتقسیم منہ بالمبالغۃ والتکثیر کمافی قولہ تعالیٰ: فالمقسمٰت امرا‘‘۔
    اگر موصوف ابتداء ہی میں یہ فرمادیتے کہ یہ شعر مذکورہ آیت کے مزعوم معنی کے استدلال کے لیے فراہی صاحب نے پیش کیا ہے، تو پھر اس پر دوسرے انداز سے بحث ہوتی، اور بتایا جاتا کہ دوسرے مفسرین اور اہل لغت کے نزدیک ’’المقّسِمٰت امراً‘‘ کے کیا معنی ہیں۔ بہر حال اس بات کی وضاحت چونکہ ’’والسماء ذات الحبک‘‘ میں لفظ’’حُبک‘‘ کی تشریح کے وقت ہوئی اس لئے خود فراہی صاحب کی اس تفسیر پر بحث ضروری معلوم ہوتی ہے کہ اسی تفسیر کی صحت کے لیے یہ شعر پیش کیا گیا ہے۔
    مولانا فراہی کی زبان دانی اور شعر فہمی صحابہ کبار سے زیادہ نہیں
    حقیقت یہ ہے کہ مولانا فراہی مرحوم کی زبان دانی، شعر فہمی اور تدبر قرآن کے سلسلے میں ان کا نقطۂ انطلاق (Starting Point)جمہور مفسرین اور درایت کے خلاف ہے جمہور مفسرین کے نزدیک جس کی عقل بھی متقاضی ہے تفسیر قرآن کے لئے اس ذات گرامی کی تفسیر کی طرف رجوع ضروری ہے جس پر قرآن نازل ہو ا تھا اور اس کے بعد اُن صحابۂ کرام کی تفسیر کی طرف جو صاحب قرآن صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے تعلیم قرآن حاصل کرچکے تھے، رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی صحبت سے فیض یاب تھے اور جاہلی عربوں کے ذخیرۂ شعر سے بھی واقف تھے، کیونکہ وہ اس شعری ذخیرے سے قریب العہد تھے، اور سلیقۂ زبان ان کو ان عجمی زبان دانوں اور مفسرین سے بہت زیادہ تھا جو صدیوں بعد آئے۔ اور صحابۂ کرام کے بعد وہ تابعین ہیں جو ان فقہائے صحابہ عبداللہؓ بن مسعود، عبداللہؓ بن عباسؓ اورابیؓ بن کعب وغیرہ کے شاگرد تھے۔

  • 03-04-12, 06:39 AM #5

    شاہد نزیر
    -: رکن مکتبہ اسلامیہ :-

    تاریخ شمولیت: 2009-06-16
    قیام: کراچی
    جنس: male
    پوسٹس: 679
    پوائنٹس: 328
    قدماء کا کلام جاہلیت سے استدلال کا طریقہ

    اسی اصول پر ہمارے قدیم ترین صاحب تفسیر امام محمد بن جریر طبریؒ (م۳۱۰ھ) نے اپنی ضخیم تفسیر لکھی جسے تفسیر بالروایۃ کا نام دیا گیا، اس کو بے انتہا مقبولیت حاصل ہوئی اور ہے اور پھر تقریباً چار سو سال بعد اس ضخیم تفسیر کی تلخیص و تنقیح (تنقیح صرف احادیث پر کلام کی حیثیت سے) حافظِ حدیث ابنِ کثیرؒ نے آٹھویں صدی ہجری میں کی جو اپنے اختصار (۴ جلدیں)کی وجہ سے زیادہ مقبول و متداول ہے، یہاں یہ ملحوظ رہے کہ یہ دونوں مفسرین اور خاص طور پر امام طبری زبان دانی میں کسی ماہر لغت سے کم نہ تھے، ان کی تفسیر میں جہاں ارشادات نبوی اور اقوالِ صحابہؓ و تابعینؒ سے استناد ہے وہیں شعری استناد بھی ہے،حافظ ابن کثیرنے اختصار کی خاطر اپنی تفسیر میں بہت سے اشعار حذف کردیے، یہی ایک تیسری مشہور و متداول ضخیم تفسیر امام قرطبی اندلسی (م ۶۷۱ھ) کی تفسیر کے بارے میں کہا جاسکتا ہے کہ انھوں نے اپنی تفسیر میں احکام القرآن پر خصوصی توجہ رکھنے (اس کا نام الجامع الاحکام القرآن ہے) کے باوجود بہت سے مقامات پر شعری ذخیرے سے استناد کیا ہے لیکن اولیت ان کے یہاں بھی اقوال صحابہؓ و تابعینؒ کو حاصل ہے اس کے ساتھ ہی ان مفسرین ماہرین لغت و نحو: فرّاء ابو عبیدۃ معمر بن المثنیٰ، ابن الاعرابی اور الزجاج وغیرہ کے اقوال کو بھی پیش نظر رکھا ہے۔
    یہ ایک اصولی بات ہے جس کا فراہی صاحب مرحوم کے یہاں فقدان ہے غالباً اسی سبب سے ان کی چند سورتوں کی تفاسیر کو طبقۂ علماء میں قبولیت کی نظر سے نہیں دیکھا گیا اور نتیجۃً اس کو قبول عام حاصل نہیں ہوا۔
    فراہیؒ مکتب فکر کامسئلہ: الفاظ کے شاذ معانی اختیار کرنا

    ایک دوسری اصولی بات کافقدان ان کی ان تفاسیر میں یہ نظر آتا ہے کہ وہ الفاظ قرآن کے متداول معانی کے بجائے ان کے غیر معروف و شاذ معانی اختیار کرتے ہیں، اور اس کے لیے ان کو اشعار عرب سے استناد پیش کرنا پڑتا ہے۔ جس میں بعض اوقات بہت تکلّف نظر آتا ہے۔ سورۃ الذاریات کی مذکورۂ بالا دو آیات کے کے سلسلے میں بھی یہی دونوں باتیں نظر آتی ہیں۔آیت نمبر(۷) پر تو ہم ان کی تفسیر پر کلام کرچکے ہیں، اور اب آیت نمبر: ۴ یعنی ’’فالمقسمٰت امراً‘‘ کے بارے میں عر ض ہے کہ مرحوم نے اس آیت کا ترجمہ لکھا ہے (یا یوں کہا جائے کہ امین احسن اصلاحی مرحوم نے ان کی عربی عبارت کا اردو ترجمہ کیا ہے): ’’پھر الگ الگ کرتی ہیں معاملے کو‘‘ ۔غالباً ہر شخص اس سے اتفاق کرے گا کہ یہ جملہ خواہ عربی میں ہو یا اردو میں خود ہی محتاج تفسیر ہے۔ سب سے بہتر ترجمہ وہ ہے جو حتی الامکان خود ہی تفسیر بھی ہو۔
    تقسیم الامر اور قسم الموتمر ہم معنی نہیں ہیں
    اہلِ لغت اور قدماء مفسرین کے خلاف اس آیت کا مفہوم اختیار کرنے کے لیے فراہی مرحوم کو اموی عہد کے ایک شاعر کے ایک شعر کا سہارا لیناپڑا اور اس کے لیے انھیں دور از کار لغوی تاویلات کرنا پڑیں۔
    سب سے پہلی بات تو یہ کہ قرآن میں تقسیم الامر کا لفظ ہے جبکہ پیش کردہ شعری شاہد میں قسم الموتمر ہے، مولانا نے دونوں کو ہم معنی قرار دیا ہے حالانکہ اس کی تایئید کتب لغت سے نہیں ہوتی۔ لسان العرب میں قسم الامر قسماً کے معنی تو وہی دیے ہیں جو شعر میں ہیں، لیکن التقسیم کے معنی التفریق کے دیے ہیں اور اِس کی تایئید میں ابن منظور نے قِدر (ھانڈی) کے بارے میں یہ شعر بطور شاہد کے پیش کیا ہے۔
    تُقسِّم ما فیہا، فان ھی قسَّمت
    فذاک وان أکرت فعن اھلھا تکری
    اب اس شعر میں تقسِّیم اور قسمت کے معنی کسی معاملے میں فرق وامتیاز کرنے اور غوروفکر کے نہیں ہوسکتے بلکہ اس کے معنی تقسیم کرنا اور بانٹنا ہی ہوسکتے ہیں، جو قدیم و مستند ماہر لغت ابو عمر و بن العلاء (م ۱۵۴ھ) سے اسی جگہ لسان العرب میں منقول ہیں۔ مصنف (فراہی مرحوم) اورشارح کا یہاں یہ کہنا کہ قسم مبالغے کے لیے ہے جیسے کسر کا مبالغہ کسّر (بہت زیادہ توڑنا) درست نہیں معلوم ہوتا، کیونکہ باب تفعیل ہمیشہ مبالغہ کے لیے نہیں آتا بلغ اور بلّغ، صدَق اور صدّق وغیرہ کی مثال سب کے سامنے ہے، باب تفعیل تعدیہ کے لیے بھی آتا ہے، اب بلغ کے معنی پہنچنا ہے جبکہ بلّغ کے معنی پہنچانا ہے اسی طرح صدق سچ کہنا اور صدّق کسی کو سچ ماننا ہے۔ پھر اسی موقعہ پر لسان العرب میں فلان جیّد القسم کے معنی جیّد الرأی (اچھی رائے رکھنے والا) دیے ہیں جبکہ رجل مقسَّم کے معنی دیے ہیں: مشترک الخواطر بالھموم (پریشانیوں کے باعث پر ا گندہ فکر)۔
    المؤتمر کے معنی قرآن اور کلام جاہلیہ میں

    پھر یہ کہ ائتمر جس سے شعر کا آخری لفظ المؤتمِر (ائتمر کا اسم فاعل، میم پر زیر) مشتق ہے، اس کے صرف وہی معنی نہیں جو مصنف نے اور اُن کے تتبع میں شارح غامدی صاحب نے دیے ہیں یعنی ’’خود رائے‘‘ (غالباً فراہی مرحوم نے عربی میں المستبد بالرأی لکھا تھا، جس کا ترجمہ اپنی جگہ صحیح ہے، لیکن لغت میں ائتمار کے معنی صرف استبداد بالرأی نہیں ہے بلکہ وہ صرف ایک معنی ہیں اور غیر معروف ائتمار جس سے فعل ائتمر اور اسم فاعل مؤتمر(میم پر زیر ) ہے اس کے معروف و متداول معنی باہم مشورہ کرنے کے ہیں۔قرآن میں اسی معنی میں دو جگہ آیاہے: اِن الملأ یأ تمرون بک لیتقلوک (القصص: ۲۰) اور دوسری جگہ وائتمر وابینکم بمعروف (الطلاق: ۶) اور یہی معنی قدیم مخضرم (جاہلی اسلامی) شاعر النمر بن تولب کے شعر میں ہے:
    أری الناسَ قداحد ثواشیمۃ
    وفی کل حادثۃ یوتَمر
    اور یہی معنی امرؤالقیس کے شعر میں ہے:
    احار بن عمر و کأ نّی خمیر
    ویعدو علی المرء مایأ تمِر(۱)
    گدھا یا گورخر: مضحکہ خیز استدلال

    ایک بڑی دلچسپ بات یہا ںیہ ہے کہ کہ مرار بن منقذ کے پیش کردہ شعر میں مولانا فراہی کے مطابق ’’گدھا گھانس کے مواقع کا جائزہ لے رہاہے‘‘ اور اس شعر کا جو نثری ترجمہ انھوں دیا ہے وہ یہ ہے: ’’وہ (گدھا) ٹیلے کی بلندی پر سر اٹھائے ہوئے ایک خود رائے کی طرح معاملے میں فرق و امتیاز کرتا رہا‘‘ اور یہی بات غامدی صاحب نے لکھی ہے ’’ظل الحمار ینظر فی امرہ و یفرق وجوہہ‘‘ سوال یہ ہے کہ گدھے میں کب سے اتنی عقل آگئی کہ وہ غور و فکر کرے اور معاملے کا جائزہ لے وہ بیچارہ تو اپنی بیوقوفی کے لیے ضرب المثل ہے۔ یہ بات دلچسپ بلکہ مضحکہ خیز اس لیے ہوگئی کہ مصنف اور شارح دونوں نے حمار الواحش (گورخر) کے معنی قصباتی گدھے کے لیے ہیں، جاہلی عربی قصائد میں اکثر حمار الوحش یا صرف الحمار کے شکار کا ذکر قصیدے کی ابتدا میں ہوتا ہے، اس سے مراد گورخر [Zebra]ہی ہوتا ہے۔
    مکتب فراہی اقوال صحابہ کرام اور تابعین پر اعتماد نہیں کرتا

    تفسیر میں سند اقوال صحابہ یا کلام جاہلی
    ’’المقِّسمٰت امراً‘‘کی تفسیر میں یہ تورہی بات لغت کی جس پر مولانا فراہی اور غامدی بہت اعتبارکرتے ہیں، لیکن ان مفسّرین کے یہاں جو اقوال صحابہؓ و تابعینؒ پر اعتماد کرتے ہیں، جیسے طبریؒ ، قرطبیؒ ، ابن کثیرؒ وغیرہ ان کے یہاں اِس دو لفظی آیت کی تفسیر وہی ہے جو سیّدنا علیؓ، سیّدنا عمرؓ اور سیّدنا عبداللہؓ ابن عباسؓ اور ان شاگردوں سے روایت ہے، ان صحابۂ کرام اور تابعین نے ’’فالمقسمٰت أمراً‘‘ کے معنی فرشتے دیے ہیں، جو اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف سے مختلف امورِ دنیا پر مامور ہیں۔اور یہی معنی اس آیت کے دوسری صدی ہجری کے دو قدیم ماہرین لغت قرآن الفرّاء (م۲۰۷ھ) اور ابو عبیدہ معمر بن المثنّی (م ۲۱۰ھ) نے علی الترتیب اپنی کتابوں معانی القرآن (ج۳ ص ۸۲ طبعہ الھئیۃ العامۃ المصریۃ ۲۰۰۱ء) اور مجاز القرآن (ج ۲ ص ۲۲۳، طبقہ بیروت، ۱۹۸۱ء) میں دیے ہیں۔ فرّاء نے یہ معنی لکھتے ہوئے وضاحت کی ہے: الملائکۃ تاتی بامر مختلف: جبریل صاحب الغلظۃ ، ومیکائیل صاحب الرحمۃ، وملک الموت یاتی بالموت فتلک قسمۃ الامور (فرشتے مختلف کام کرتے ہیں، جبریل سختی کرنے والے، میکائیکل رحمۃ کرنے والے اور فرشتۂ موت (عزرائیل) روح قبض کرنے والے ہیں) یہ ملحوظ رہے کہ ان دونوں ماہرین لغت نے یہاں یہ معنی کسی صحابی یا تابعی سے نقل نہیں کیے ہیں۔ مصر کی مجمع اللغۃ العربیۃ [Arab Academy] کی طرف سے دو جلدوں میں جو ضخیم معجم الفاظ القران الکریم (قرآنی الفاظ کی لغت) شایع ہوئی (۱۹۷۰ء القاھرۃ) ہے اس میں بھی المقسِمٰت أمرا کے معنی یہی دیے ہیں: جماعۃ الملائکۃ الذین تقسِمون الاشیاء او الامور بین الناس باذن اللّہ‘‘ ساتھ ہی صیغۂ تمریض (مشکوک وضعیف) میں یہ بھی لکھ دیا ہے، ’’وقیل: ہی الریاح تقسم الامطار بتصریف السحاب‘‘۔
    اب اگر مولانا فراہی کو یہی ضعیف معنی پسند تھے اور یہی ان کے معتقد و مقلد غامدی صاحب کو پسند ہیں تو ہوا کریں، جمہور عرب ماہرین لغت مفسرین کے بر خلاف اسی کمزور تفسیر کو صحیح کہہ کر پیش نہ کریں،اور عربی الفاظ کی صرف ایک شعر کی بنیاد پر دور از کا ر تاویلات نہ کریں۔ علم ایک میراث مشترک ہے، فضلائے سابقین اور خاص طور پر تفسیر قرآن میں صحابہ کے اقوال سے مستفید ہو نا نقص علم نہیں۔ مولانا فراہی کے مکتبۂ فکر کی یہی کمزوری ہے جس میں جاوید احمد غامدی صاحب بھی گرفتار ہیں۔ یہی استبداد بالرای ہے۔
    ایک قدیم عربی شعر کی شرح کرتے ہوئے، اپنے حفظ کردہ دوسرے قدیم جاہلی وغیرجاہلی اشعار پیش کردینا علم نہیں تعالم یعنی اظہار علمیت ہے۔ مولانا عبدالعزیز میمن مرحوم اور مولانا محمد سورتی مرحوم کو مولانا فراہی مرحوم سے کہیں زیادہ جاہلی وغیر جاہلی قدیم عربی اشعار یاد تھے، لیکن انھوں نے صرف ان اشعار کی بنیادپر تفسیر قرآن نہیں کی۔ القصائد السبع المعلقات یاد کرلینے سے عربی زبان نہیں آجاتی، یہی کمزوری ہمارے عربی مدارس کی ہے کہ وہاں ان قصائد (جن کو وہ غلط نام سبعۂ معلقہ دیتے ہیں) کو حفظ کرنے والے تو کافی مل جائیں گے لیکن صحیح اور اچھی عربی نثر لکھنے والا شاذو نادر ہی ملے گا اور یہ ملکہ قرآن کو ادبی نقطۂ نظر سے پڑھنے اور کثرت سے عباسی عہد اور جدید دور کی عربی نثر کے مطالعہ سے پیدا ہوتا ہے۔
    میں لکھنے تو جاوید غامدی صاحب کی عربی کے بارے میں بیٹھا تھا، بات ان کے استاد کے استاد مولانا فراہی کی تفسیر پر پہنچ گئی اور اسی پر دو تین صفحے ہوگئے لیکن ان کے طریقۂ تفسیر اور اس کے کمزور پہلوؤں پر، ان شاء اللہ، پھر کبھی لکھوں گا جب ان کی اصلی عربی تحاریر مہیا ہو جائیں گی۔
    جاوید غامدی صاحب کی جو عربی نگار شات مجھے مہیا کی گئی ہیں، وہ ان کے مجلّہ ’’الاعلام‘‘ کے قدیم اعداد سے ہیں افسوس کہ ان کو غلط ترتیب دیا گیا ہے، اب میرے سامنے سورۃ الذاریات کی پہلی آیت پر پیش کردہ شعری شاہد کی شرح موصوف کے قلم سے ہے۔
    محتاج تشریح اشعار سے استدلال: محض اظہار تعالم

    مولانا فراہی نے لفظ قرآنی’’ ذرواً‘‘ کے معنی بیان کرنے کے لیے اعشی بکربن وائل کا شعر پیش کرکے اس پر صرف دو سطریں بطور تشریح لکھی ہیں۔ مولانا فراہی نے تو تفسیر سورۂ الذاریات عربی زبان میں اہل علم کے لیے لکھی تھی۔ معلوم تھا کہ الفاظ: شبہ، حریق، الیبس الریح کے معانی سب جانتے ہیں اور یہ کہ فاء (ف) تعقیب کے لیے اور ’’باء‘‘ تعدیۃ الفعل کے لیے اور ’’لام‘‘ عہد کے لیے ہوتاہے۔ یہ تو عربی زبان کے متوسط طلبہ بھی جانتے ہیں اس لیے انھوں نے ان عام عربی الفاظ اور حروف کی تشریح نہیں کی تھی، لیکن غامدی صاحب نے مولانا فراہی کے قاری کو بہت ضعیف العلم سمجھا اور ان عام فہم الفاظ و حروف کی شرح فرمانے لگے اور ان الفاظ و حروف کی تشریح میں جاہلی شعراء کے نو اشعار پیش کردیے جو خود محتاجِ تشریح ہیں، اب بتایا جائے اس کو ’’تعالم‘‘ (اظہار ہمہ دانی) نہ کہا جائے تو کیا کہا جائے؟
    غامدی صاحب کا کمال: آسان الفاظ کی شرح مشکل ترین الفاظ سے

    قدیم کتابوں کے عربی جملوں سے نثر نگاری کا شوق
    پھر طرفہ تماشا یہ کہ وہ ا ن عام الفاظ کی تشریح کرتے ہوئے، عربی کے وہ نامانوس اور غیر مستعمل الفاظ استعمال کرتے ہیں۔ جو تشریح کردہ الفاظ سے بہت زیادہ مشکل ہیں، مثلاً وہ ’’ریح الشمال‘‘ (شمالی ہوا) کی تشریح میں فرماتے ہیں:
    ’’قرت الایام وغامت السماء۔۔۔وألقت فی صوادھا ثلجا یبرک النیوب بالجعجاع‘‘۔ اب قرّت اور غامت کو چھوڑیے کہ شاید ذکی اور لایق طلبہ ان کے معانی جانتے ہوں، اگرچہ بہر حال یہ ’’شبہ‘‘، ’’حریق‘‘ اور ’’ریح‘‘ سے زیادہ مشکل الفاظ ہیں، لیکن خدارا یہ تو بتایا جائے کہ یہ صواد، نیوب اور جعجاع کون سے عام فہم اور مستعمل الفاظ ہیں جو جناب غامدی صاحب نے ریح الشمال کی تشریح میں استعمال کیے ہیں؟ یہ کیا؟ آسان الفاظ کی شرح مشکل الفاظ سے ایسا معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ انھوں نے کبھی جو مقامات حریری پڑھی ہوگی اس کے کچھ الفاظ ان کے ذہن میں شرح شواہد الفراہی لکھتے ہوئے چپکے ہوئے تھے، شاید اب وہ خود ہی ان الفاظ کے معانی بغیر لغت دیکھے ہوئے نہیں بتاسکیں۔ پھر یہ کہ انہوں نے ایک عام فہم لفظ ’’ریح‘‘ جملے میں یہاں استعمال کیا ہے تو اس میں ٹھوکر کھائی ہے کہ ’’وکثرت الریح‘‘ لکھا ہے، کثرت یہاں مہمل ہے اشتدت ہونا چاہیے، محل بھی اسی کا ہے کہ ذکر شمال کی شدید ہواؤں کا ہورہا ہے۔ نتیجہ اس سے یہ بر آمد ہوتا ہے کہ موصوف کو بعض قدیم کتابوں سے عربی کے جو جملے یاد ہیں وہ تو صحیح لکھ دیتے ہیں اگرچہ وہ خود محتاج تشریح ہو تے ہیں اور جہاں وہ خود خامہ فرسائی فرماتے ہیں تو وہاں ٹھوکر کھاتے ہیں۔ اس کی مثالیں گذشتہ صفحات میں گذر چکی ہیں، مزید اور سامنے آئیں گے، پہلے میں ان کے حفظ کردہ مشکل جملوں اور غیر مانوس الفاظ کی شرح کردوں۔
    ۱۔ قرّت الایام: دنوں کا ٹھنڈا ہوجانا، ’بَردَت‘‘ عام اور مستعمل لفظ ہے، اس کا مصدر قُرّوقِرّۃ ہے، لیکن قرّت کے عام مستعمل معنی ٹہرنے کے ہیں، اور یہ استقرت کا ہم معنی ہے، مگر اس صورت میں اس کا مصدر قرار ہے۔ کہا جائے گا کہ ’’قرّت المراۃ فی بینھا‘‘ یہاں بھی استقرت زیادہ فصیح اور مانوس ہے۔
    ۲۔ غامت السماء: انتشرت السحب فی السماء تشریح کے لیے زیادہ عام فہم ہے۔
    ۳۔ صواد: صادیۃ کی جمع ہے، معنی: بہت زیادہ پیاسی، پُبرک (ی پر ضمہ) اونٹ کو بٹھانا، صوادی کھجور کے درختوں کو بھی کہتے ہیں۔ اس کا واحد بھی صادیۃ ہے۔
    ۴۔ النیوب: سن رسیدہ اونٹنیاں۔
    ۵۔ الجعجاع: تنگ و دشوار جگہ یا خراب موسم
    غامدی صاحب سلیس و صحیح عربی میں ایک جملہ لکھنے پر قادر نہیں

    اس جملے میں صرف دو لفظ القت اور الثلج عام فہم اور کثیر الاستعمال ہیں، باقی چار الفاظ غیر مانوس اور خاص طور پر صواد، نیوب اور جعجاع لغت کے الفاظ ہیں یا قدیم جاہلی۔ اور زبان نہ تو لغت کانام ہے اور نہ جاہلی اشعار کا۔ عام عربی داں قاری کے لیے اس ثقیل و غیر فصیح جملے کا مطلب ہوگا کہ: ’’سخت ٹھنڈی ہوا نے بلند و بالا کھجور کے درختوں پر سے اتنی برف گرائی کہ اونٹنیاں تنگ و غیر ہموار جگہوں پر بیٹھنے پر مجبور ہوگئیں۔‘‘ معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ غامدی صاحب سلیس و صحیح عربی میں ایک جملہ لکھنے پر قادر نہیں اور ثقیل و غیر مانوس الفاظ کا سہارا لے کر وہ قاری پر اپنی عربی زبان دانی کا رعب ڈالنا چاہتے ہیں، لیکن یہ ریح الشمال کی تشریح کے سیاق میں انتہائی مضحکہ خیز اور لایق افسوس بھی ہے۔
    مہمل، غلط در غلط عربی جملے
    اسی ریح الشمال کی تشریح میں وہ آگے چل کر فرماتے ہیں، الریح العاصفۃ الشدیدۃ المرور‘‘ اس میں الشدیدۃ المردر تو قطعاً غلط ہے، اس لیے کہ ہوا کے چلنے کے لیے عربی زبان میں ھبوب کا لفظ استعمال کیاجاتا ہے، مرور نہیں،مزید یہ کہ یہ جملہ ہی مہمل ہے، جاننے والے جانتے ہیں کہ عاصفہ تو کہتے ہی ہیں الریح الشدیدۃ الھبوب (سخت تیز ہوا: آندھی) کو، پھر یہ باقی الفاظ اسی کے ساتھ کیوں پروئے گئے ہیں؟
    جو بات یہاں قاری کو بتانے کی تھی وہ یہ تھی کہ اگرچہ شاعر نے شعر میں ’’ریح الشمال‘‘ استعمال کیا ہے، لیکن صرف ’’شمال‘‘ بھی شمالی ٹھنڈی ہوا کہ کہا جاتا ہے۔
    اگلی سطر میں موصوف اپنی شرح میں ایسے الفاظ استعمال کرتے ہیں جو خود محتاج شرح ہیں، یہ دو لفظ ہیں:
    ’’سہوک الریح‘‘: اگر جاوید غامدی صاحب یا کوئی اور القاموس دیکھے گا تو اس کو معلوم ہوگا کہ اس کے بنیادی معنی پسینے کی بدبو اور سڑے ہوئے گوشت کی بدبو ہے۔ اس لفظ کے اور بھی بہت سے معانی ہیں، ان میں سے ایک سہوک کے معنی سخت آندھی کے بھی ہیں،اور ریح ساہکۃ بھی آتا ہے، لیکن عام فہم اور فصیح لفظ ہوا کہ چلنے کے لیے ’’ھبوب‘‘ ہی ہے۔
    ’’المحل‘‘ بھی مشکل الفاظ کی شرح میں کسی طرح مناسب نہیں، فصیح اور عام عربی لفظ قحط ہے۔
    غامدی صاحب کی عربی تحریروں میں ہمزہ لکھنے کی غلطیاں

    ’’از جاء ھا‘‘ یہ قرآنی لفظ ہے،خود محتاج شرح ہے، اس کی جگہ عام فہم لفظ سوق (س پر فتحہ) ہے، قرآن میں بضاعۃ مز جاۃ بھی ہے یعنی متاع قلیل۔ افسوس ناک بات یہ کہ غامدی صاحب نے اس لفظ کا املاء بھی اس جگہ غلط لکھا ہے چونکہ ا ز جاء یہاں مجرور ہے۔اس لئے ہمزہ منفصلہ لکھنا درست نہیں بلکہ ا س کو ایک شوشہ پر اس طرح (ازجاءھا) لکھنا چاہیے۔ ھمزہ لکھنے کی یہ غلطی میں نے غامدی صاحب کی تحریر میں دوسری جگہوں پر دیکھی ہے۔ تنہا ھمزہ حالت نصب (مفعولی) میں لکھا جاتا ہے۔اور حالت رفع میں (فاعلی) یہ واو پر ہوتاہے۔ غامدی صاحب کو وسط کلمہ میں ہمزہ لکھنے کا قاعدہ دیکھنا چاہیے۔
    ایک طرف تو موصوف نیوب، جعجاع ، سہوک، محل، از جاء جیسے ثقیل الفاظ استعمال کررہے اور دوسری طرف مصیبۃ جیسے عام لفظ کی شرح فرمارہے اور اس کی غیر فصیح جمع ’’مصیبات‘‘ لکھ رہے ہیں۔ فصحاء کی زبان پرمصائب کا لفظ ہے، دوسری سطر میں اذکربعضاً کے بجائے بعضھا ہونا چاہیے۔
    ’’شدۃ القر‘‘: القّر (تشدید کے ساتھ)تو خود ہی محتاج شرح ہے،شدۃ البرد ہونا چاہیے، اسی کو تعالم کہتے ہیں، غامدی صاحب حریری کی طرح کوئی مقامہ تو نہیں لکھ رہے ہیں۔
    پیش کردہ نو اشعار کاموضوع سے کوئی تعلق نہیں
    ’’تعالم‘‘ کی ایک اور واضح مثال جاہلی شعراء کے دس شعر ہیں جو موصوف نے اسی صفحہ (۴۲)پیش کیے ہیں جن میں سے ’’ریح الشمال‘‘ (شمالی سخت ٹھنڈ ہی ہوا) سے کوئی تعلق نہیں، جس کی شرح میں جناب نے ۹ سطریں تحریر کی ہیں، یہ تمام اشعار جاہلی عربوں کی جو دو سخا اور مہمانداری سے متعلق ہیں، اور سب میں اتنے مشکل الفاظ ہیں کہ ایک عام قاری جس کے لیے یہ شرح الشواہد لکھی گئی ہے، لغت کی کتابیں کھنگا لنے کا محتاج ہے۔ اور پھر یہ کہ جاہلی عربوں کی یہ مہمان داری صرف ٹھنڈی ہواؤ ں سے مصائب کے موقع پر نہیں وہ تو ہر حال میں مہمان داری اور کھانا کھلانے کے لیے مشہور تھے۔
    جاہلی اشعار و قصائد کا حفظ کرلینا زبان دانی کی علامت نہیں
    غامدی صاحب عربی کا ایک صفحہ بھی درست نہیں لکھ سکتے

    ’’کلاء‘‘: اس لفظ کا یہ املاء غلط ہے، صحیح کلأ (ھمزہ الف کے اوپر) ہے، جیسے لفظ خطأ ہے اور خطّاء (بہت زیادہ غلطیاں کرنے والا) کے آخر میں ھمزہ ہے۔آخر میں عرض ہے کہ سورۃ الذاریات کے قرآنی لفظ ’’ذرواً‘‘ کی شرح میں مفسر فراہی مرحوم نے ایک شعر لکھا تھا اور دوسطروں میں لفظ کی مناسب اور اطمینان بخش شرح کردی تھی، غامدی صاحب نے اس شعر کی شرح میں اپنی علمیت کے اظہار کے لئے ۱۳ اس سے زیادہ مشکل شعر لکھ ڈالے جن کا موضوع سے کوئی تعلق نہ تھا۔میں ان سے پھر عرض کرو ں گا کہ جاہلی اشعار وقصائد حفظ کر لینا عربی زبان دانی کی علامت نہیں ، عباسی دور میں عربی نثر کو جاہلی اشعار نے نہیں بلکہ قرآن نے اپنی معراج پر پہنچادیا تھا جو جاحظ، ابن قتیبہ، المبرد، ابوالفرج الاصفہانی (صاحب الاغانی) اور ابن عبدرّبہ اور ابو حیان توحیدی وغیرہ کے منثور ادب میں اوج کمال پر ہے۔جاہلی ادب (شعر) کے تو سینکڑوں الفاظ متروک ہوچکے ہیں، لیکن قرآن کی شگفتہ و دلآویز و اثر آفر ین زبان آج بھی زندہ ہے، سوائے معدودے چند: سیارۃ (بمعنی قافلہ) جاریہ (بمعنی کشتی، بحری جہاز) غلام (بمعنی ولد) وغیرہ الفاظ کے۔ عربی زبان کا شستہ اور شگفتہ ذوق اور سلیقہ رکھنے والا قرآن کی الہامی زبان سے متاثر ہو کر ایسی نثر لکھ سکتا ہے جسے پڑھ کر روح وجد میں آجائے عصر حاضر میں یہ سعادت ’’فی ظلال القرآن‘‘ کے مصنف سید قطب شہید کو حاصل ہوئی ہے۔ میر ا جاوید غامدی صاحب کو مخلصانہ مشورہ ہے کہ عربی زبان سے ان کو اگر اب بھی لگاؤ ہے تو یہ تفسیر پڑھیں جو داعیانہ مزاج اور ادب کے قلم سے لکھی گئی ہے، وہ دیکھیں گے کہ قرآن کی فیض رسانی سے کیسی معجزانہ نثر وجود میں آئی ہے۔ یہ بیسویں صدی کی بلا شبہ معجزاتی نثر ہے۔ سید قطب اس میں مصطفی صادق الرافعی، احمد حسن الزیات اور طہ حسین جیسے اساطینِ ادب سے آگے نکل گئے ہیں۔ یہ سب کچھ امرؤالقیس، نابغۃ ذبیانی، زھیربن ابی سلمی اور عنترہ بن شداد وغیرہ جاہلی شعرا کے اثر سے نہیں ہو۔ ان قصیدوں کو پڑھتے رہنے اور حفظ کرنے والا ان میں اسیر ہو کر رہ جاتا ہے۔ وہ شگفتہ و دلآویز عصری نثر لکھ ہی نہیں سکتا، یہی غامدی صاحب کا معاملہ ہے شگفتگی اور دلآویزی تو دوسری بات ہے، قاری پر واضح ہوگیا ہوگا کہ وہ تو ایک صفحہ بھی صحیح عربی کا نہیں لکھ سکتے۔
    غامدی صاحب کا ایک اور سرقہ:

    آخر میں (الشاہدفیہ) کے تحت غامدی صاحب لکھتے ہیں: ان الفاء الداخلۃ علی الصفات تدل علی الترتیب کما ذکرنا، وعلی انہا متعلقۃ بموصوف واحد لا بموصوفات متعددۃ یہ عربی قواعد کا ایک عام قاعدہ ہے نہ تو یہ کوئی انکشاف ہے اور نہ کسی غیر معمولی نحوی قاعدے کی نشان دہی۔ افسوس ہے کہ یہ بھی ان کا مولانا فراہی سے سرقہ ہے، بعینہ یہی الفاظ فراہی مرحوم کے ہیں۔ بس جناب غامدی نے اتنا کرم کیا ہے کہ یہاں وہ دعوی نہیں دہرایا جو مولانا فراہی نے کیا ہے، جو یہ ہے:
    ’’پس یہ خیال کسی طرح صحیح نہیں ہے کہ یہ (یعنی والذاریات۔۔۔ فالحٰملٰت۔۔۔ فالجاریات ۔۔۔ فالمقسِّمٰت)مختلف چیزوں کی صفتیں ہیں، یہ بات نظائر قرآن اور کلامِ عرب کے خلاف ہے‘‘۔
    فراہی مکتب فکر: حضرت عمرؓ و علیؓ اور ماہرین لغت کو قابل اعتنا نہیں سمجھتا
    فراہی صاحب، اصلاحی صاحب اور غامدی صاحب کا مشترکہ غرورِ علم

    مولانا فراہی نے ایک جگہ اپنے اس مجموعہ تفاسیر میں لکھا ہے کہ تفسیر طبری اور رازی ان کے سامنے رہتی ہے۔ مگر اس ناچیز کا خیال ہے کہ شاید اس موقع پر طبری ان کے سامنے نہ تھی ورنہ وہ اتنے بڑے دعوے کی جسارت نہ کرتے۔ آپ کو معلوم ہے کہ ان کے اس دعوے کی ضرب کس پر پڑتی ہے؟ سیّدنا عمرؓ، سیّدنا علیؓ اور سیّدنا عبداللہؓ ابن عباسؓ جیسے فقہاء صحابہ پر ہے جس کی تفصیل درج ذیل ہے۔
    طبری میں متعدد اسناد سے بتایا گیا ہے کہ حضرت علیؓ نے سورۃ الذاریات کی ابتدائی چار آیات والذاریت ذرواً۔ فالحٰملٰتِ وِقراً ۔فالجاریات یسرا۔ فالمقسّمٰتِ امراً۔ میں فرمایاکہ الذاریات سے ہوائیں اور الحاملات سے بادل اور الجاریات سے کشتیاں اور فالمقسّمٰت سے فرشتے مراد ہیں۔اور حضرت علی نے ان آیات کے یہ معانی یا تفسیر جیسا کہ اوپر مذکور ہوا منبر پر کھڑے ہو کر اس دعوے کے بعدبتائی تھی کہ : ’’لایسأ لنی احد عن آیۃ من کتاب اللہ الا اخبر تہ‘‘۔ (کہ جو کوئی بھی مجھ سے قرآن کی کسی آیت کے معنی پوچھے گا میں اس کو بتاسکوں گا)۔جس پر تاریخ میں مشہور ہونے والے ایک شخص عبدالدین الکواء نے ان چاروں آیات کے معانی پوچھے اور آپ نے بتائے، یہ شخص بعد میں خوارج کا ایک رہنما ہوا۔اس سے پہلے انھیں آیات کی تفسیر ایک ایسے ہی اور معترض و عنید شخص صبیغِ ابن عِسْل (ع پر زیر س پر جزم) نے حضرت عمرؓ سے پوچھی تھی،جس پر انھوں نے اس کے کوڑے مارے اور اس کو بصرہ میں جلا وطن کردیا تھا۔
    یہ واقعہ قرطبی اور ابن کثیر دونوں میں ہے، حافظ ابن کثیر نے اس کو ایک مشہور قصہ بتاتے ہوئے اس سزا کی وجہ یہ بتائی ہے کہ اس نے حضرت عمرؓ سے یہ سوال اس نے ہٹ دھرمی اور آپ کو زک پہنچانے کے لئے کیا تھا جس میں آیات قرآنی پر اعتراض کی صورت تھی۔حضرت عمرؓ نے بھی اس صبیغ التمیمی کو ان آیات کے وہی معنی بتائے تھے جو بعد میں حضرت علیؓ نے عبداللہ بن الکواء کو بتائے۔ یہی نہیں بلکہ یہ تفسیر مجاہدؒ ، سعید بن جبیرؒ ، الحسن البصریؒ ، قتادہؒ ، السدیؒ وغیرہ کتنے ہی تابعین سے مروی ہے۔
    فراہی مکتب فکر عقلیت میں ’’معتزلی‘‘ مفسر ’’زمخشری‘‘ سے بھی آگے

    قرطبی اور ابن کثیر سے قبل مشہور عقلیت پسند (معتزلی) مفسر زمخشری نے بھی ان آیات کے وہی معنی بتائے ہیں، جو اوپر منقول ہوئے، اور اس نے بھی بعد میں حضرت علیؓ کی تفسیر کو نقل کیا ہے، ساتھ ہی یہ بھی کہہ دیا ہے کہ ذاریات، حاملات، جاریات اور مقسّمات سے مختلف ہوائیں بھی مراد ہوسکتی ہیں اور یہی مسلک بعد کے مفسرین کا ہے۔ لیکن دوسری صدی ہجری کے مذکورہ بالا دواہل لغت الفراء اور ابو عبیدۃ نے تو اپنی مذکورہ بالا کتابوں میں ان چاروں آیات کے معنی: ہوائیں، بادل ، کشتیاں اور فرشتے ہی مراد لیے ہیں۔ مولانا فراہی قدیم مفسرین کو تو درخور اعتناء نہیں سمجھتے تھے لیکن یقین ہے کہ وہ ان دونوں ماہرین لغت کے مرتبے سے واقف ہوں گے۔ مرحوم کے زمانے میں ان کی دونوں کتابیں مطبوع نہ تھیں، مجھے یقین ہے کہ یہ کتابیں ان کے سامنے ہوتیں تو شایدوہ اپنی رائے بدل دیتے، لیکن جاوید غامدی صاحب کے زمانے میں تو یہ کتابیں مطبوع ہیں، ان کے پاس کوئی عذر نہیں کہ وہ مولانا فراہی کی تفسیر ہی کو صحیح سمجھیں۔ بہر حال مولانا فراہی کی یہ بات کسی طرح قابل قبول نہیں کہ:
    ’’پس یہ خیال کسی طرح صحیح نہیں ہے کہ یہ مختلف چیزوں کی صفتیں ہیں، یہ بات نظائر قرآن اور کلام عرب کے خلاف ہے‘‘۔
    جب یہ ثابت ہوگیا کہ سید نا عمرؓ اور سید نا علیؓ ، حضرت عبداللہ بن عباسؓ، اور دسیوں تابعین اور اُن کے فوراً بعد دو قدیم ترین مشہور ماہرین لغت نے ان چار آیات کے معانی چار مختلف چیزیں بتائی ہیں تو ان کی اس رائے کی کوئی وقعت نہیں رہتی کہ یہ بات نظائر قرآن اور کلام عرب کے خلاف ہے‘‘۔ کیا تیرہ سو سال بعد کا ایک عجمی مصنف ان سے زیادہ کلامِ عرب کا راز داں ہوسکتا ہے !! اسی کو میں نے سابق صفحے میں غرورِ علم کہا تھا جو غامدی صاحب کو بھی ورثہ میں ملاہے۔
    اوّلیت تفسیر ماثور کو حاصل ہے، عقلیت اور کلام جاہلیت کو نہیں

    ایک اہم بات یہ کہ مولانا فراہی نے ’’والذاریات‘‘ کے بعد کی تین آیتوں میں حرف عطف (ف) کے ورود کو اس بات کو دلیل بنایا ہے کہ ’’ان صفات میں ترتیب ہے نیز ان سے یہ بھی سمجھا جاتا ہے کہ یہ سب ایک ہی چیز کی صفتیں ہیں‘‘۔ (مجموعہ تفاسیر فراہی ص ۱۴۷) نابغۂ روز گار مفّسر اور ماہر لغت و نحو (مصنف اساس البلاغہ والمفصل فی النحو) زمخشری نے اس موقع پر حرف (ف)پر کلام کرتے ہوئے کہا ہے کہ: ’’پہلے معنی (چار مختلف چیزیں) کی صورت میں تو یہ ف ’’تعقیب‘‘ کے لیے ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ نے ہواؤں کی قسم کھائی، پھر بادلوں کی، پھر کشتیوں کی، پھر فرشتوں کی، جو اللہ کے حکم سے رزق تقسیم کرتے ہیں بارشوں اور سمندری تجارت کے ذریعہ‘‘ ساتھ ہی اس نے دوسرے معنی ترتیب کے بھی لکھ دیے ہیں کہ پہلے ہوائیں چل کر مٹی اڑاتی ہیں، بادلوں کو اٹھاتی ہیں۔ پھر فضا میں ان بادلوں کو پھیلاتی ہیں، پھر بارش تقسیم کرتی ہیں۔ یہی عملی طریقہ ہے کہ زمخشری نے دونوں نقطۂ ہائے نظر پیش کردیے ہیں اگرچہ اولیت اس کے یہاں تفسیر ماثور (صحابہؓ و تابعینؒ سے منقول) کو ہے۔
    زمخشری کے قول سے معلوم ہوا کہ (ف)صرف تعقیب (یعنی بمعنی واو) کے لیے بھی ہوتی ہے اور ترتیب کے لیے بھی۔ اِسی طرح (ثم) بھی حرف عطف ہے اور ترتیب کے لیے ہوتا ہے، لیکن یہی (ثم) قرآن میں متعدد جگہ صرف عطف کے لیے یعنی (واو) کی جگہ استعمال ہواہے۔ اس طرح (ف) کے عطف سے ہمیشہ ایک ہی موصوف مراد نہیں ہوتا۔
    قرآن نحوی قواعد کا تابع نہیں قرآن سے قواعد نحو مرتب ہوں گے
    قرآن میں سورۃ’’ المرسلات‘‘ کی ابتدائی آیات ہیں: والمرسلٰتِ عُرفا۔ فالعٰصفٰتِ عصفا۔ والناشرات نشرا۔ فالفارقات فرقا۔ فاَلملقیٰت ذکراً۔ یہاں پہلی تین آیات ہواؤں کے لیے ہیں، اور آخری دو آیات بداہۃً فرشتوں کے لیے ہیں۔ کہ حق و باطل کی تمیز ہوائیں نہیں کرتیں اور نہ ذکر، یعنی اللہ کا کلام اور وحی ہوائیں لے کر آتی ہیں بلکہ یہ فرشتے لاتے ہیں۔ اور یہی وہ معنی ہیں جو تفسیر ابن کثیر میں حضرت عبداللہؓ بن مسعودؓ اور حضرت عبدا للہؓ ابن عباسؓ اور متعدد تابعی مفسرین سے مروی ہیں۔ اور عبداللہ بن مسعودؓ وہ صحابی ہیں جنھوں نے بخاری کی روایت کے مطابق بیان کیا ہے کہ جب یہ سورت نازل ہوئی تو وہ حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے ساتھ منیٰ میں ایک غار میں تھے جہاں سورت کا نزول ہوا۔ اور فالملقیٰت ذکراً۔ کے متعلق تو قرطبی و ابن کثیر دونوں نے یہ کہا ہے کہ اس بات میں کسی کا اختلاف نہیں کہ اس سے مراد فرشتے ہیں کوئی شک نہیں کہ نحویوں نے یہ قاعدہ مقرر کیا ہے کہ (ف) ترتیب و تعقیب کے لیے ہوتی ہے اور اسی کو بنیاد بنا کر انھوں نے سورۃ الذاریات کی ابتدائی مذکورہ بالا چار آیات کی تفسیر صحابہؓ و تابعینؒ کے بر خلاف مختلف ہواؤں سے کی ہے۔ لیکن اس قاعدہ کا استثناء بھی ہے۔ قرآن نحوی قواعد کا تابع نہیں،بلکہ قرآن ہی سے نحوی قواعد مرتب کیے گئے ہیں۔
    مولانا فراہی نے سورۃ الذاریات کی زیر بحث چار آیات کی اپنی من مانی تفسیر کے لیے صرف ایک مثال سورۃ العادیات سے پیش کی ہے، ہم نے اس کے مقابل مثال سورۃ المرسلات سے پیش کردی ہے۔ اور پھر چوتھی آیت فالمقسمٰت امراً کی ان کی تفسیرتو قرآن کی ہم معنی دیگر آیات کے بالکل خلاف ہے۔ کیونکہ جو بات سورۃ الصافّات کی تیسری آیت فالتالیات ذکرا اور سورۃ المرسلات کی آیت نمبر ۵ فالملقیت ذکراً میں کہی گئی ہے وہی سورۃ الذاریات کی اس آیت میں کہی گئی ہے کہ : فرشتے اللہ کا ذکر تلاوت کرکے انبیاء کو سناتے ہیں جیسے حضرت جبریل حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم پر قرآن کی وحی لاتے اور تلاوت کرتے تھے اور اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف سے نصائح اور احکام آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو پہنچاتے تھے اس طرف یہ فرشتے مختلف امور پر مامور ہیں۔
    فراہی صاحب کا تضاد فکری

    یہاں قاری کے لیے یہ بات بھی دلچسپی سے خالی نہ ہوگی کہ مولانا فراہی ’’والسماء ذات الحبک‘‘ کے ترجمہ میں تضاد کا شکار ہیں، انھوں نے صفحہ ۱۴۳ پر اس آیت کا معنی لکھا ہے: ’’قسم ہے دھاریوں والے بادلوں کی‘‘ اور صفحہ ۱۵۹ پر اس کا ترجمہ کیا ہے: ’’دھاریوں والے آسمان کی‘‘۔ اب غامدی صاحب ہی اس تضاد کو حل کریں۔
    آخر میں عرض ہے کہ ان سب لغوی اور تفسیری بحثوں سے قطع نظر قارئین خود ہی فیصلہ کرسکتے ہیں کہ اللہ کے وعدے کی سچائی اور روز قیامت کے اثبات: انّ ما توعدون لصادق ۔ وان الدین لواقع۔ کے لیے یہ بات زیادہ وزنی اور اثر انگیز ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ چار چیزوں: ہواؤں، بادلوں، کشتیوں اور فرشتوں کو گواہ بنائے جیسا کہ صحابہؓ اور جمہور مفسرینؒ کی تفسیر ہے، یا صرف ہواؤں کو گواہ بنانا جو مولانا فراہی اور ان کے شاگرد کے شاگرد و معتقد غامدی صاحب کی تفسیر ہے۔ خود رائی اور تعصب سے بری ہر منصف مزاج انسان جمہور کی بات کو صحیح سمجھے گا۔ ارادے کے بغیر مولانا فراہی کی تفسیر پر گفتگو ہوگئی، شاید اس میں کوئی کام کی بات ہو۔

  • !!
    عام طور پر لوگ نیاز فتح پوری کو بر صغیر پاک وہند کا سب سے بڑا سرقہ باز سمجھتے ہیں ۔ لیکن ہماری اس تحریر سے جلد ہی یہ بات عیاں ہو جائے گی کہ ہمارے ممدوح سرقہ بازی میں بھی بے نظیر ہیں , نیاز فتح پوری کی کیا مجال جو ہمارے ممدوح کا مقابلہ کر سکے !
    ع……………………….. چہ نسبت خاک را با عالم پاک
    ویسے عجب سوئے اتفاق ہے کہ جتنے بھی منکرین حدیث ہیں سب ہی سرقہ بازی کی اوج ثریا پر مقیم نظر آتے ہیں ۔ علامہ نیاز فتح پوری , اسلم جیراج پوری , غلام احمد پرویز , ڈاکٹر احمد امین مصری , امین احسن اصلاحی , اور ہمارے ممدوح جناب جاوید غامدی , یہ سب ” بہترین چور” ہونے کا اعزاز رکھتے ہیں ۔
    بس آسان سا قاعدہ ہے کہ جو جتنا بڑا منکر حدیث ہے اتنا ہی ” عظیم چور” ہے ۔
    غامدی صاحب کی صرف فکر ہی نہیں بلکہ فکر غامدی میں استعمال ہونے والے الفاظ بھی مسروقہ ہیں !
    مشتے از خروارے ملاحظہ فرمائیں چند ایک اشارے
    ۱۔ زکاۃ پر ان کا موقف ادارہ تحقیقات اسلامی کے سابق صدر ڈاکٹر فضل الرحمن کا چربہ ہے
    ۲۔ قانون میراث پر انکا موقف ابوالجلال ندوی کے مضمون میراث , اور احمد دین امرتسری کی اردو کتاب الوراثت فی القرآن اور اس کتاب کے عربی سرقے الوارثت فی الاسلام از اسلم جیراج پوری کا “کامل سرقہ” ہے ۔
    ۳۔ زکاۃ اور میراث پر غامدی صاحب کے سرقوں کی حقیقت معلوم کرنے کے لیے ابو الجلال ندوی کی کتاب ربو , زکاۃ , اور ٹیکس ملاحظہ فرمائیں جو سویدا مطبوعات نے ۲۰۰۶ء میں شائع کی ہے یہ کتاب کتاب سرائے لاہور اور فضلی سنز کراچی پر دستیاب ہے اس کتاب کے مضامین زکوۃ کیا ٹیکس کیا ؟ اور آئین میراث , میراث کلالہ وغیرہ غامدی صاحب کے سرقوں کا منہ چڑاتے نظر آئیں گے ۔یادر ہے کہ ابو الجلال ندوی کے میراث پر مضامین غامدی صاحب کی پیدائیش سے صرف ایک سال پہلے ۱۹۵۰ء میں شائع ہوئے تھے ۔
    ۴۔قرآن سے مختلف فقہی مسائل کا استنباط اصلا عمر عثمانی اور طاہر مکی کی کتاب فقہ القرآن کے دلائل , آثار , اور امثال کی “حسین نقل” ہے ۔
    ۵۔ رجم پر غامدی صاحب کی تمام تحقیق اور تکبر , تملق وتفرد اور صرار درحقیقت فقہ القرآن کی ا یک جلد ” حقیقت رجم ” کا سرقہ ہے ۔

    ایک اہم وضاحت !

    غامدی صاحب کے بیشتر فقہی استنباط فقہ القرآن سے ماخوذ ہیں , اسی بناء پر آج تک غامدی صاحب کے اشراق میں کبھی فقہ القرآن پر تبصرہ شائع نہیں کیا گیا تاکہ قارئین کہیں اصل ماخذ تک رسائی حاصل کرکے کہیں قارئین انکی علمیت سے واقف نہ ہو جائیں جبکہ فقہ القرآن کے مؤلف عمر احمد عثمانی اور اسکے اصل محرک ومرتب طاہر مکی کی روایت کے مطابق فقہ القرآن کی تمام تر جلدیں تین مرتبہ اشراق کو بھیجی گئیں لیکن کبھی تبصرہ نہیں کیا گیا ۔ اور پھر آخری مرتبہ ۱۹۹۸ء میں ہفت روزہ تکبیر کے صحافی اور وجود کے مدیر محمد طاہر نے فقہ القرآن کی تمام جلدیں دانش سراء میں معز امجد کے سپرد کیں انہوں نے وعدہ کیا لیکن تاحال کوئی تبصرہ نہیں کیا گیا ۔

    مزید اشارہ جات

    ۶۔ رجم کا سورہ مائدہ سے اثبات و استدلال حمید الدین فراہی کے موقف کا اعادہ ہے ۔
    ۷۔ میزان کے کئی صفحات امین احسن اصلاحی کا لفظ بلفظ سرقہ ہیں
    ۸۔ البیان کے نام سے غامدی صاحب کا نقظہء نظر کہ یہود ونصارى جنتی ہیں , جو بھی توحید کا اقرار کرتا ہے اور نیک عمل کرتا ہے وہ جنتی ہے ۔ رسالت محمدی صلى اللہ علیہ وسلم پر ایمان لانا ضروری نہیں , وحدت ادیان قرآن سے ثابت ہے , جن یہودیوں اور نصرانیوں سے قرآن نے ترک موالات کا حکم دیا وہ خاص جزیرۃ العرب کے تھے آج کے نہیں , غامدی صاحب کا تازہ ترین نقطہء نظر وحدت ادیان کے عالمی مکتبہ فکر روایت کے بانی ” رینے گینوں” کا تتبع اور ” مارٹن لنگز” کے مضمون “wtth all thy mind”کا ہو بہو سرقہ ہے ۔
    ۹۔ سنت ابراہیمی کی روایت کا ملحدانہ استدلال ” جواد علی” کی کتاب ” المفصل فی تاریخ العرب قبل الاسلام” کی معلومات سے سرقہ کیا گیا ہے ۔ اور اس کے حوالوں کی بنیاد پر غامدی صاحب نے یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ دین تو تمام تر ماضی میں حضرت آدم کے ساتھ تواتر وتسلسل سے چلا آرہا ہے لہذا سنت تو ابتدائے آدم یعنی ابتدائے آفرینش سے موجود ہے لہذا سنت مقدم ہے قرآن مؤخر ہے ۔ لہذا سنت رسول اللہ صلى اللہ علیہ وسلم سے خاص نہیں ۔
    ۱۰۔ بنو امیہ , بنوعباس کی تاریخ , واقعہ کربلا , اور شہادت حسین کے واقعات پر مبنی تاریخ سے انکار کا غامدی نقطہ نظر ہمارے ممدوح کا ذاتی تحقیقی نقطہ نظر نہیں بلکہ حکیم محمود عباسی , حکیم علی احمد عباسی , حبیب الرحمن کاندھلوی اور مفتی طاہر مکی کی فکر کا چربہ ہے ۔
    ۱۱۔ سیدہ عائشہ رضی اللہ عنہا کی عمر کے سلسلے میں غامدی صاحب کا موقف حکیم نیاز احمد کی کتاب کا حرف بحرف چربہ ہے !!!
    ۱۲۔ غامدی صاحب کی انگریزی شاعری جو چار نظموں اور چونسٹھ مصرعوں پر مشتمل ہے ” شکسپیئر” اور “کیٹس ” کے مصرعوں کا چربہ ہے !

    آئیے پہلے انکے ترجمہ پر نظر ڈالتے ہیں کہ کیا دلائل ہیں جو غامدی صاحب کے سرقہ کا پول کھول رہے ہیں
    موصوف نے یہ ان آیات
    رفیق طاھر نے لکھا ہے ۔۔

    کا یہ ترجمہ تحریر فرمایا تھا :
    رفیق طاھر نے لکھا ہے ۔۔

    میں اس خدا کی قسم کھا کر کہتا ہوں اور جو رات کو ستارہ شرط اور سہیل کے طلوع کے بائیں ہوا چلاجاتا ہے کہ کافر بڑے عذاب میں مبتلا ہے اور کہ عمر کا دامن بندھا ہوا ہے تو سیلاب کے گزرگاہ سے بچ اور پہلے ہی سے توبہ کرلے کہ تونجات پاجائے گا مگر مجھے توقع نہیں کہ تو ایسا کرے ۔
    موصوف نے ” الریح الہابۃ بلیل” کا ترجمہ کیا ہے ” اور جو رات کو ستارہ شرط اور سہیل کے طلوع کے بائیں ہوا چلاجاتا ہے ”
    اس میں دو غلطیاں ہیں
    ۱۔ مطالع کا ترجمہ ” طلوع” کیا ہے جوکہ سراسر غلط ہے کیونکہ مطالع مطلع کی جمع ہے , یعنی معنى بنے گا سہیل کے طلوع ہونے کے مقامات
    ۲۔ الریح الہابۃ کا ترجمہ ” ہُوا چلا جاتا ہے ” کیا گیا ہے جبکہ یہ ترجمہ بھی سخت غلط ہے کیونکہ الریح الہابۃ کا معنى ہے چلنے والی ہوا
    لہذا اس جملہ ( انکی مزعومہ آیت )
    والریح الہابۃ بلیل بین شرط ومطالع سہیل
    کا درست ترجمہ یہ بنے گا :
    اور رات کو ستارہ شرط اور مطالع سہیل کے مابین چلنے والی ہوا کی قسم ۔
    اسی طرح آخری الفاظ ” وما اخالک بناج ” کا ترجمہ بھی انتہائی غلط کیا ہے
    ہمارے ممدوح سارق لکھتے ہیں ” مگر مجھے توقع نہیں کہ تو ایسا کرے ”
    درست ترجمہ اسکا یوں بنتا ہے :
    اور میں تجھے نجات پانے والا نہیں سمجھتا ۔
    یعنی ہمارے ممدوح نے ” بناج” کا تعلق توبہ سے جوڑ دیا ہے جبکہ آخری دو جملوں کا تعلق تو بڑا واضح سا ہے کہ پہلے ہی سے توبہ کرلے تاکہ تو نجات پا جائے لیکن میرا خیال نہیں کہ پھر بھی تو نجات پا سکے گا ۔

    موصوف نے ۱۹۷۵ء میں قرآن کا چیلنج قبول کرتے ہوئے قرآن کے مقابلہ میں چالیس آیات پیش فرمائیں اور پھر اسکا مسودہ ڈاکٹر مستنصر میر کے پاس بھی موجود تھا لیکن ڈاکٹر صاحب کی زجر وتوبیخ کے بعد اسے ضائع کر دیا گیا ۔
    البتہ وہ آیات جو غامدی صاحب نے قرآن کے مقابلہ میں پیش کی تھیں انکی نقل ( غامدی صاحب نے جو منڈی مرید کے کے ایک کاتب سے جن کی کتابت کروائی تھی) امید ہے کہ صبح تک میں پیش کر سکوں گا البتہ اسکی نص اور کہانی ابھی ملاحظہ فرمائیں :
    ۱۹۷۵ء میں جناب غامدی صاحب مولانا ساجد میر صاحب کے بھانجے ڈاکٹر مستنصر میر کی دعوت پر سیالکوٹ تشریف لائے , ڈاکٹر سہیل ظفر صاحب جو مستنصر میر کے خالہ زاد بھأئی اور ساجد میر صاحب کے بھانجے ہیں انکے گھر کے بالکل سامنے ایک چھوٹی سی گلی میں میر خاندان کا آبائی مکان جس کا نمبر ۳۱/۲۹۴ ہے جو آج بھی موجود ہے اور جناب عبد الوکیل میر صاحب کی وہ رہائش گاہ ہے ۔ اس وقت اس گھر کے مالک عبد الرؤف میر تھے , ہمارے ممدوح جناب غامدی صاحب کی میزبانی کی سعادت اس مکان کو حاصل ہوئی ۔ اسی مکان میں جناب غامدی صاحب نے قرآن کی وہ چالیس آیات پیش فرمائیں جس کے بارے میں انکا دعوى تھا کہ یہ قرآن کے چیلنج کا جواب ہے ۔ چالیس شیطانی آیات کی اس مجلس میں اسد صدیقی , ڈاکٹر سہیل طفیل , ڈاکٹر مستنصر میر , ڈاکٹر منصور الحمید اور دیگر رفقائے خاص شامل تھے ۔
    غامدی صاحب نے بعد ازاں یہ آیات کتابی شکل میں شائع کرنے کی غرض سے منڈی مریدکے کے ایک کاتب سے کتابت بھی کرائی تھیں لیکن کتابت بہت ناقص تھی لہذا مسودہ روک دیا گیا ۔

    قرآنی چیلنج کے جواب میں ان غامدی شیطانی آیات میں سے چند یہ ہیں :
    أقسم بخالق الخیل * والریح الہابۃ بلیل *بین الشرط ومطالع سہیل * أن الکافر لطویل الویل * وأن العمرلمکفوف الذیل * اتق مداج السیل * وطالع التوبۃ من قبیل * تنج و ما اخالک بناج *
    فی الحال یہی کافی ہے باقی باتیں بعد میں
    ان شاء اللہ

    بقیہ :
    اس مجلس میں جب غامدی صاحب نے یہ آیات قرآن کےمقابلہ میں پیش کیں تو اپنی ” عربیت دانی” کا رعب جمانے کے لیے ابو العلاء معرى کے معارضہ قرآن کا تعارف بھی کرایا اور فرمانے لگے کہ انکا معارضہ معرى کے مقابلہ میں نہایت اعلى درجہ کا ہے ۔ اور ساتھ ہی حسب عادت اپنے تفرد کو چمکانے کے لیے گویا ہوئے کہ “ابو العلاء کی کتاب مسمى الفصول والغایات فی محاذات السور والآیات کا واحد مخطوطہ دنیا میں صرف میرے ہی پاس ہے جسکے بارہ میں ناصر خسرو علوی اور باخرذی صاحب دمیۃ القصر کی شہادت تاریخ میں محفوظ ہے ” ۔ یعنی ہمارے ممدوح وہ واحد شخصیت ہیں جو اس گوہر نایاب کے مالک ہیں۔
    پھر غامدی صاحب کے مطابق ابو العلاء سے کسی نے کہا ” تم نے کتاب تو خوب لکھی ہے مگر اس پر قرآن کی سی رونق کہاں ؟” اس پر اس نے جواب دیا کہ جب اسکو بھی چار سو سال تک محرابوں میں رٹو گے تو وہ جلاء پا جائے گی ۔
    جب ان سے حوالہ پوچھا گیا تو فرمایا الصبح المبنی و ذہبی وغیرہ دیکھ لو

  • Javed Ghamidi Bhai is a revisionist. He tends to rewrite and reinterpret Islamic history, Hadith and Tafseer of Quran to suit his personal ideological pro-Salafi, pro-Hanbali, pro-Nasibi inclinations.

    On some places he treats some narrators as unreliable but then treats them reliable on certain other occasions. Imam Ibn-e-Shahab Zohri is one of such narrators whom Ghamidi treats as unreliable but then also cites his Hadith on several places to support his arguments.

    At times he blames the Katib (writer) when he can’t blame the narrators. With no evidence at all!

    He is notorious for cherry picking, forgetting that the books of Hadith and History are not a departmental store where you can choose some and ignore others. It’s an entire package, take it or leave it. 🙂

  • Ghamidi Sahib’s Teachers and Leaders:

    Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (also known as Ibn Qayyim (“The son of the principal”) or Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (“Son of the principal of the (school of) Jawziyyah”)) (1292–1350 CE / 691 AH–751 AH) was a Sunni Islamic jurist, commentator on the Qur’an, astronomer, chemist, philosopher, psychologist, scientist and theologian. Although he is sometimes referred to as “the scholar of the heart”,[2] given his extensive works pertaining to human behavior and ethics, Ibn Qayyim’s scholarship was focused on the sciences of Hadith and Fiqh.

    Ibn Qayyim’s teachers included his father, Abu Bakr, Shihaab al-‘Abir, Taqiyyud-Deen Sulaymaan, Safiyyud-Deen al-Hindee, Ismaa’eel Ibn Muhammad al-Harraanee. However, the most notable of his teachers was Ibn Taymiyyah, whom he accompanied and studied under for sixteen years.
    In eulogizing Ibn Qayyim, Al-Hafidh Ibn Kathir stated:
    He attained great proficiency in many branches of knowledge; particularly knowledge of tafsir, hadith, and usool. When Shaykh Taqiyyud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah returned from Egypt in the year 712H (c. 1312), he stayed with the Shaykh until he died; learning a great deal of knowledge from him, along with the knowledge that he had already occupied himself in attaining. So he became a single Scholar in many branches of knowledge.[4]

    Disciple of Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah

    Ibn Qayyim ultimately joined the study circle of the Muslim scholar Sheikh ul-Islam Taqiyyu-Deen Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, 661H – 728H (1263–1328), who kept him in his company as his closest student, disciple and his successor. Ibn Qayyim was fervent in his devotion to Islam, and he was a loyal student and disciple of Ibn Taymiyah. He defended his religious opinions and approaches, and he compiled and edited most of his works, and taught the same.

    Because of their views, both the teacher and the student were persecuted, tortured by tyrannic rulers, and humiliated in public by the local authorities, as they were imprisoned in a single cell in the central prison of Damascus, known today as al-Qala.

    [edit]Following the Death of Ibn Taymiyah
    When Ibn Taymiyyah died, Ibn Qayyim was freed and subsequently furthered his studies, holding study circles and classes. He taught Islamic Jurisprudence at al-Sadriyya school in Damascus, before he held the position of the Imam of the Jawziyyah school. Most of his writings were compilations, although he authored several books and manuscripts with his own handwriting which are preserved in the central Library of Damascus.

    Among the renowned Muslim scholars who studied under him, include Ibn ‘Abd al-Haadi (d. 744H), al-Fayruz Aabadi (d. 817H), Ibn Rajab (d. 795H), Ibn Kathir, and others who frequented his circles.


    Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (January 22, 1263–1328 CE), full name: Taqī ad-Dīn Abu ‘l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm ibn ʿAbd as-Salām Ibn Taymiya al-Ḥarrānī (Arabic: تقي الدين أبو العباس أحمد بن عبد السلام بن عبد الله ابن تيمية الحراني‎), was an Islamic scholar (alim), theologian and logicianborn in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. He was a member of the school founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and sought the return of Islam to what he viewed as earlier interpretations of the Qur’an and theSunnah.

    , he led the resistance of the Mongol invasion of Damascus in 1300. In the years that followed, Ibn Taymiyyah was engaged in intensive polemic activity against:
    1. the Kasrawan Shi’a in Lebanon,
    2. the Rifa’i Sufi order,
    3. the ittihadiyah school, a school that grew out of the teaching of Ibn Arabi, whose views were widely denounced as heretical[citation needed].
    In 1306 Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned in the citadel of Cairo for eighteen months on the charge of anthropomorphism. He was incarcerated again in 1308 for several months.
    In 2010 a group of Islamic Scholars in Mardin argued that Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa was misprinted into an order to “fight” the ruler who is not applying Islamic law, but rather it means to “treat”.[13]They have based their understanding on the original manuscript in the Zaheer Library, and the transmission by Ibn Taymiyya’s student Ibn Muflih.[14]

    Opponents and critics of Ibn Taymiyyah claim that he rejected intercession completely as proved in Qur’an and Sunnah. However, his proponents argue citing evidence from his writings that the type of intercession Ibn Taymiyyah rejected was the type not sanctioned by the Qur’an or Sunnah and neither by the conduct of Salaf. In fact, Ibn Taymiya upheld that anyone who rejected the Intercession of Muhammad on the Day of Judgement had indeed disbelieved.[citation needed] He also affirmed that God will allow the martyrs, scholars, memorizers of Qur’an, and angels to intercede on behalf of the believers on the Day of Judgement. However, what he condemned was asking them while they are no longer alive for their intercession since two conditions ofIntercession are that God chooses the intercessor, and chooses the people on whose behalf intercession is possible. Therefore, God should be asked when intercession is sought.

    Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah states that types of intercession that are legal are:
    1. Intercession through the Names and Attributes of God,
    2. Intercession through one’s good deed,
    3. Intercession through requesting the righteous people who are alive for dua. He further explains that on the day of Judgement, Muhammad and everyone else will be alive and therefore, their intercession can be sought just like in this world, people ask others to make a supplication for them. Ibn Taymiyyah rejected the notion that saints and prophets should be invoked for intercession while they have departed from this world.
    Ibn Taymiyyah opposed giving any undue religious honors to shrines (even that of Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa Mosque), to approach or rival in any way the Islamic sanctity of the two most holymosques within Islam, Mecca (Masjid al-Haram) and Medina (Al-Masjid al-Nabawi).[17]
    Ibn Taymiyyah duly eulogized the Ghaznavid ruler, stating that:
    He commanded that Ahlul Bidah be publicly cursed on the minbars, and as a result the Jahmiyyah, Rafida, Hulooliyah, Mu’tazilah, and Qadariyah were all publicly cursed, along with the Asharites.[18]
    Ibn Taymiyyah’s views on Ibn Arabi, who (though a controversial figure) is often cited as the greatest master of the Islamic gnostic tradition and one of the most influential Islamic thinkers ever, are well-documented. In his book Friends of God and Friends of the Devil, Ibn Taymiyyah brands Ibn Arabi an unbeliever, citing passages from Ibn Arabi’s Fusus al-Hikam (Bezels of Wisdom), claiming that they show that Ibn Arabi was a supporter of Pharaoh. In fact, the aforementioned passages are often misinterpreted or misunderstood, and Ibn Arabi makes abundantly clear in numerous works (amongst them, his Book of the Fabulous Gryphon of the West) that he considered Pharaoh a tyrant and an unbeliever. Ibn Taymiyyah’s attacks on Ibn Arabi drew the ire of many Sufis and even led the famous Sufi and Islamic scholar Ibn ‘Ata Allah al-Iskandari to devote a significant portion of the last years of his life writing refutations of Ibn Taymiyyah’s attacks on Ibn Arabi.


    Amin Ahsan Islahi (1904–1997) was a Pakistani Muslim scholar, famous for his Urdu exegeses of Qur’an, Tadabbur-i-Qur’an—an exegesis that he based on Hamiduddin Farahi’s (1863–1930) idea of thematic and structural coherence in the Qur’an. He was a ghair muqallid (Salafi).
    Some of the notable students in Pakistan are Khalid Masud, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi [4], Mahbub Subhani, Mahmud Ahmad Lodhi, Majid Khawar, Abullah Ghulam Ahmad, Saeed Ahmad and Muhammad Da’ud.
    After his death Janab Khalid Masud was made responsible for his school of thought as his successor. Being in charge of Idara Taddabur e Quran o Hadith, Janab Khalid Masud made a remarkable job in converting and presenting Islahi’s school of thought to general public.
    “Islahis” are graduates from “Madrasat ul Islaah” founded by an Aligarhi, Hameed ud Deen Farahi whose methodology was to deny anything in Islam that he found to be non-PC or strange. So he denied the punishment of Rajm for the married Zaani, the killing of the murtadd, the decent of Maseeh `alyhissalaam etcetera. Along with being “Islahi” Amin Ahsan was also a student of Abd ur Rahman Mubarakpuri {sahib Tuhfat al Ahwadhi}. Javed Ghamdi is Amin Ahsan’s student.


    Hamiduddin Farahi (1863–1930) was a celebrated Islamic scholar of Indian subcontinent known for his groundbreaking work on the concept of Nazm, or Coherence, in the Quran. He was instrumental in producing scholarly work which proved that the verses of the Quran are interconnected in such a way that each Surah, or Chapter, of the Quran forms a coherent structure, having its own central theme, which he called umood (the theme which stands out). He also started writing his own exegesis, or tafsir, of the Quran which was left incomplete due to his death in 1930. The Muqaddimah, or the Introduction, to this tafsir is an extremely important work on the theory of Nazm-ul-Quran.
    Farahi was born in Phreha (hence the name “Farahi”), a village in the district of Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. He was a maternal cousin of the famous theologian-historian Shibli Nomani (1858–1914). He studied at MAO College and Allahabad University. In his studies while completing B.A., he proved himself to be an expert in Arabic and Persian languages.

    Farahi is well known to most scholars of the sub-continent, who have acknowledged his outstanding contribution to Islamic thought and learning.
    Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi writes, “It has been generally accepted that in recent times, very few have reached the position Allama Farahi has been blessed with by the Almighty as far as deliberation on the Qur’an is concerned. He has spent the major portion of his life pondering on the meanings of this Book, and has written such a masterful commentary on the Qur’an that it is difficult to find its parallel even in the early period…” [1]
    Maulana Shibli Nomani writes, “It is generally believed that a talented person can in no way remain unknown to the world. Experience as well as history bear testimony to this. However, each rule has an exception. Maulvi Hameed Uddin … is a good example of such an exception … In this age, his treatise “Tafseer Nizaam-ul-Quran” is as essential and beneficial to Muslims as pure water is to the thirsty and exhausted.”[2]
    Maulana Syed Sulaiman Nadvi writes, ” … The Ibni Taimiyah of this age has died on 11 November 1930 — someone whose brilliance is very unlikely to be surpassed now and whose comprehensive command of oriental and occidental disciplines is a miracle of this era. A profound scholar of the Qur’an … a unique personality … an embodiment of piety … an unfathomable sea of knowledge … an institution within himself … a literary genius … a researcher of prodigious intellect … It is a matter of great sorrow that such a brilliant personality graced the world and then perished, but the world could not recognize its grandeur … “[3]
    Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani writes, “… the revivalist movement launched by Shah Wali Ullah [in the eighteenth century], in recent years has drawn inspiration from “Tafseer Nizaam-ul-Qur’an” the work of a distinguished scholar, Maulana Hameed Uddin Farahi. Among other features of this commentary (i.e. relationship between the Qur’an and the Bible, and various literary discussions), its salient feature is the unprecedented attempt in it to bring out the coherence between the verses. It is this coherence which sometimes provides enough evidence that the Qur’an is a Divine Book.” [4]

  • I thouht this site was created for building a better Liberal Pakistan. But Looks like it is now a Let US Build a SHIA Pakistan may be.
    If Salfi and Takferi and deobandi are spreading hate what this forum is doing now spreading hate against others too.
    If you are liberals. Let others live with their view points too and don’nt start putting people in different brackets.
    Who carees about the events of a thousand year ago. Path to build a better Pakistan is not in what people have said or done in Past its in What your idea’s and suggestions are for future.

  • @A

    Please refer to this section of the post:

    “He blames Ibn Ziyad for Hussain’s murder and terms the entire incident as an ‘afsosnak hadsa’ “a regrettable accident”. This apolitical, acontextual assessment of Karbala is in stark contrast with analyses of Karbala by other Sunni and Shia scholars who support Imam Hussain’s just opposition (Qayam) to Yazid’s illegitimate rule. It is the same approach to the Ulil-Amr which has resulted in Darbari Mullahs and historians who are present in today’s Pakistan in the shape of Haroon-ur-Rasheed, Dr. Safdar Mehmood, Mujib-ur-Rehman Shami etc – who were official historians of General Zia-ul-Haq.

    We are not bothered about legitimate historical and interpretational difference in Islam. However, we are concerned that in a society where radical Salafist-Deobandi violence against Shias, Sunni Barelvis, Ahmadis, Christians etc is commonplace, Javed Ghamidi’s unfair Orthering of Sufis and Shias and frequent insults of Shia and Sufi practices may be contributing to their current persecution and genocide.

    Why can’t Shia, Sunni, Salafi etc scholars treat all sects and schools of thought as equally respectable and legitimate interpretation of Islam instead of directly or implicitly declaring each other deviant, polytheist, lesser Muslim or non-Muslim?

    In our view, it is legitimate if a person considers Imam Hussain as an illegitimate rebel (Baghi) and Yazid as a legitimate ruler. Also it is legitimate if someone does not believe in Ya Rasullualh, Ya Ali or thinks that Imamat has no basis in Islam. The aim is to discourage a puritanical approach to Islam in which one sect is shown better or inferior than others. The problem with calling each other deviant, particularly by a person of Ghamidi’s stature, is that this leads to further intolerance and othering, which in turn feeds into the current atmosphere of sectarian violence against Shias and Barelvis.

    In this post, we provide a collection of video clips and articles by Ghamidi and his team (Al Mawrid) to illustrate our assertion that Ghamidi and his followers are a refined, sugar-coated version of Nasibis, and are a part of a concerted campaign against Pakistan’s most target killed and persecuted communities, i.e., Shias and Sufi Sunnis.”

  • It is not just Ghamidi. Many of so-called modernists and reformists have Salafist tendencies because they too have superficial and simplistic interpretations like the latter.

    One of the problems with Salafists is taking religion too seriously, but at the same time, simplifying it. Ghamidi follows the same principle. For example, on the concept of tawassul/intercession, they’d say that how can a dead person intercede, or why should we bring in another person between man and God. Let’s keep it simple. Man should address Allah directly. This applies to their views on everything.

  • Why everytime an alternate point of view is presented, the pseudo-secularists jump to the “lets forget what happened 1400 years ago” arguement. They are pseudo-secularists because beneath their carefully crafted secular-progressive-liberal veneer, they still mantain sectarian and intolerant views. So as long as one agrees with them, it is fine. The minute someone disagrees, they start bashing that point of view. For them, what happened 1400 years is not Important IF it disagrees with their interpretation!


  • I did not know that Ghamdi sahib held such intolerant views for Tassawuf. He pretends to be very moderate on TV. What is the difference between Ghamdi sahib and those who bombed Data Darbar and Jhal Magsi? LUBP, thanks for exposing Ghamdi sahib’s extremist views.

  • Received the following comment from a moderate Deobandi friend:

    Please do not associate Ghamdi with Deobandis . He is not a Deobandi. He’s follower of Ibn e Taymiyah that makes him a Wahaabi.

    You have shared in your article that he believes that prophet pbuh is dead in his grave. That’s against the Aqeeda of Deobandis.

    We believe in Aqeeda Hayat un nabi. Those who do not & call themselves Deobandis are mamastis belongin to the Panjpiri Madrassa in Swabi

    Majority of the commanders of TTP belong to that’s hold or thought including M Fazlullah from Swat

  • What an insightful post. I’d long suspected this pseudo-moderate preacher of being a subtle hate-monger with deep sectarian views. There you go, standing stripped for all to see.

    Those criticizing the post like their brethren must logically confront it or stay shut. In the name of creating unity, Pakistan has already made 30% of its population untouchables. Unless the forces that legitimize the state’s Otherization of non-Salafi communities, things cannot be put in order. So the writer of this post deserves kudos for proving with evidence how the pseudo-moderate Salafi is trying to trick everyone.

  • This post is more like a thesis on Javed Ghamidi!!!!…I am amazed to see how blood of son of Prophet Mohammad PBUH is considered a waste by mr Ghamdi because it was just a ‘Hadsa’!!!! Why scholars become dishonest when it comes to the love of Ahle Bayt (AS)?? ….because they are nasibi and cannot hide it…thanks LUBP for highlighting nasbiyat of Javd Ghamdi.

  • Thanks a lot for this insightful post!

    I am Sunni Muslim but above all Human and I thoroughly reject the tunes of hatred,bias and bigotry no matter whereever they come from as I am all for unity and peacefull coexistance of all ideologies.

    This post has really changed my views for Ghamidi and other Neo Salafist who are covert descipels of Ibne Taymiya and proudly take the side of Yazid, Marwan and Muawiya.

    No wonder why Ghamidi has to defend his life and take a refuge outside Pakistan from exactly those kind of fanatics who are inspired by very ideology the scholars like Ghamidi preach in the name of ‘peaceful’ Islam manufactured by Liver eater Hinda and her descendents of Umayyad and likes of Ibne Taymiya, Ghazali, Maududi, Al banna, Syed Qutub, and bin laden.

  • haha! what is the difference between Ghamidi and this writer…? both want to dictate each other, one way or an other.

    everybody should have the right to hold views and opinions about history, religion, sects, philosophies, historic personalities, historic events, public figures or anything else, no matter how ridiculous others think of those opinions and views,, as long as he/she expresses it peacefully and doesn’t incite violence.

    otherwise everybody’s gonna find many errors, wrongs or malevolence in other people’s views and opinions or even thoughts and ideas…no end to FASAAD e FISABIALLAH!

  • @Faraz

    The writer of this article is not declearing any sect of Muslims as less pure than Sufi, Shia or Salafist.

    Also the writer of this article has little circle of influence compared to extraordinarily large circle and generous media coverage available to Javed Ghamidi.

  • Ghamidi says Karbala was a mere Hadsa. How apolitical and how dishonest!

    Here’s an apt answer by probably less educated but politically and historically much more aware people. Listen to this response Ghamidi sahib.

    Koi hadsa na tha, dereena intaqam tha ye jang-e-karbala


  • I have no doubt that Ghamidi Sahib in non-violent and non-Takfeeri.

    Similarly after reviewing this post and video clips, I have no doubt that he is a Nasibi.

  • Prophet Muhammad’s ancestors were amongst the Sajideen (those who prostrate to one God).

    Parents of the Prophet (s) by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf


    Those who say or believe that Propeht’s parents will got to hell are cursed in this world and the next.

    Ghamidi’s parents will go to heaven and Prophet’s parents will go to hell?

  • Javed Ghamidi and other Nasibis (enemies of the family and progeny of the Prophet) consider all those traditions (Hadith) valid (Sahih) which denigrate the respect of the Ahl-e-Bait and Aal of Muhammad.

    They consider all those Ahadith invalid or Zaeef which is in praise of the Ahl-e-Bait and Aal of Muhammad.

    Verily, Ghamidi, Israr Ahmed, Zakir Naik, Farhat Hashmi, Taqi Umsani, Ibn Taymiyya etc are Nasibis.


    Dr. Israr Ahmad ( اسرار احمد ) (April 26, 1932 – April 14, 2010) was a Pakistani national, who considered himself a product of the teachings of Abul Ala Maududi, Founder of Jama’at-e-Islami, Pakistan. (Refer FAQ Tanzeem-e-Islami). However, he left Jama’at-e-Islami in 1957 and founded an offshoot Organization named as ‘Tanzeem-e-Islami.

    He was born in Hissar (currently Haryana, India). His followers consider him as a scholar who worked towards revival of Quran centered philosophy of Islam. However, real Ahle Sunnah wal Jama’a condemn him for his outrageous beliefs based on the teachings of Abul Ala Moududi.

    His biography on Tanzeem-e-Islami’s official website does not mention the name of his father or any detail about his family, his childhood or his early Islamic Education or his teachers / Scholars under whom he studied Islam. The only thing mentioned is that he was born to a Government servant.

    He graduated from King Edward Medical College, Lahore in 1954. In 1965, he received masters degree in Islamic studies from Karachi University. He became influenced by the teachings of Abul Ala Maududi during his students years and worked as Activist for “Jamiat-e-Talaba” and then for Jama’a’t-e-Islami. In 1957 he left Jama’at-e-Islami. In 1971, he stopped his medical practice and started dedicating full time towards his religious activities. In 1972 he established ‘Markazi Anjuman Khuddam-ul-Quran, Lahore. In 1975, he established ‘Tanzeem-e-Islami. In 1991 he established “Tahreek-e-Khilafat”, Pakistan. In 2002, he left Tanzeem-e-Islami on health grounds and since then Hafiz Aakif Saeed is the Ameer of the Tanzeem. It is reported on their Website that he has written many books in Urdu, some of which have been translated into English.

    Dr. Ahmad remained a highly controversial figure throughout his life. He was banned from appearing on QTV – Pakistan, and Vision TV – Canada for his controversial statements. Click Here to see video clip. However, he continued to appear on Peace TV – India which propagates Salafi, Deobandi and Jama’at-e-Islami beliefs. Dr. Ahmad is famous for disrespect of Sahaba and Ahle Bait. Click Here to see video clip. He also supported Yazid’s actions against Imam Hussain (RU) and used to say Raziallahu ta’ala unhu with Yazid’s name. Click Here to see video clip.

    Dr. Israr Ahmad seemed to be a militant by nature. Watch the following disturbing video in which he is inciting his followers to do Jihad with Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama’a to eliminate them.

    Watch this Disturbing Video – 1

    Watch this interesting Video – 2

    Dr. Israr had a high regard for Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Abd al-Wahhab and other Salafi scholars and openly supported their ill conceived Islamic ideology. He also spearheaded the thinking of Hamiduddin Farahi (1863-1930), Amin Ahsan Islahi (1904-1997), Abul Aala Maududi (1903-1979), etc., who are well known for their hardcore Salafi / Deobandi beliefs.

    Click here to read Maududi’s beliefs.

    The ideology of Tanzeem-e-Islami founded by Dr. Israr Ahmad is similar to Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamist Organization which was founded in East Jerusalem in 1953, by Taqi al-din al-Nabhani (1909-1977), an Islamist Activist who had split from Muslim Brotherhood (a radical Salafi outfit) of Egypt. After the death of an-Nabhani, in 1977, a Palestinian resident of Hebron named Abd al-Qadim Zalum became Head of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and continued till his death in 2003. Since 2003, Hizb-ut-Tahrir is headed by Ata Abu al-Rishta, a Jordanian national of Palestinian origin.




    Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik is famous for his lectures on comparative religion and Islam. We have provided below some exclusive details about him which have been collected from his Websites, Internet, Youtube and other published information.

    (1) As per IRF Website Dr. Zakir Naik was born on 18th October, 1965. His website does not give information where he was born and brought up. His Website also does not give any information about his father, his occupation, qualifications, etc. It is mentioned that he studied medicine and passed Bachelors Degree in Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) from Topiwala National Medical College, Nair Hospital, Mumbai, India. But his website does not give details about the academic year in which he actually passed MBBS Exam.

    (2) His Website does not mention names of schools or colleges where he studied Islamic subjects. It is also not known who taught him reading of Quran because his Arabic accent and Quran reading is completely out of gear, unprofessional and against tajweed rules. His website is also silent as to where he studied Tafseer al-Quran, Usool-e-Hadith, rules of Fiqh, Sharia, Arabic language, and other essential Islamic subjects required of a true Islamic scholar who is allowed to give opinions on issues of Islamic fiqh.

    It seems Dr. Naik is a mysterious home grown, home fed, self read and self trained scholar of Islam.

    In his speeches he says he is a student of comparative religion, but he gives his rulings / opinions literally on all Islamic subjects. He even criticizes Imams of Fiqh and Ahadith. He claims that they (Imams of Fiqh and Ahadith) did not have full information with them when they gave their Islamic rulings. He claims he judges the Imams rulings and acts as per his better understanding of Quran, Ahadith, Sharia and Fiqh. He claims that acceptance and following of Imams as truthful teachers of Islam has damaged Islam. Watch this dangerous video clip.

    (3) As per the information on his Website, Dr. Naik was influenced by the comparative religion lectures of Shaikh Ahmed Deedat (r) (1918-2005) of South Africa when he was studying medicine. This means that Dr. Naik’s self-home-reading of Islamic subjects started when he was around 22 years old (around 1987). Amazingly, within 3 years’ of self-reading of Islamic subjects (1987-1990), in addition to his extensive medical full-time on-campus study, semester exams, medical internship, etc., he read everything about Islam and established Islamic Research Foundation in February 1991 and started full time Da’wa.

    In his lectures, Dr. Naik says that he started Da’wa even before the establishment of IRF in 1991. This shows Dr. Naik has exceptional ability of memorization. He did not read Islamic subjects with the intention to understand them, he simply by-hearted every book that came his way.

    Those whose memory is sharp, are generally intelligent, but they often become dictionaries. They never try to understand the subject; they memorize it with the intention to repeat it either in an exam or in front of people to get applause. They heavily depend upon their word-by-word photo finish memory and develop their skills in debates. They mesmerize their audience by skillful display of their memory and often turn the tables on their opponents in debates. They can convert logic into illogic and wisdom into stupidity and vice versa by their arguments and oratory. They use their vast memory to confuse their opponents and followers both. Over a period of time when they become famous and develop considerable following among masses, they start large scale misinterpretation of facts by their skillful arguments and become leaders of a new group in the world. That is how Ibn Khuzaimah (933-846), Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (1703–1792), etc., became prominent scholars of Salafism by the power of their super memory and oratory. Now Zakir Naik is a living example of this phenomenon.

    (4) Shaikh Ahmed Deedat (r)

    Shaikh Ahmed Husain Deedat (r) was born on July 1, 1918 in Surat, Gujarat State of India. His family migrated to South Africa in 1927. He established the first Islamic religious Institution in South Africa to train preachers at the Assalaam Institute in Braemar.

    He was the president of the Islamic Propagation Center International (IPCI), until he suffered from a stroke, which left him paralyzed for over 9 years until he passed away on 8th August 2005.

    Shaikh Deedat’s House and Grave in Durban, SA

    It is a well known fact that Shaikh Ahmad Deedat (r) was an Ahle Sunnah (Hanafi) Scholar.

    (a) It is important to mention here that Shaikh Ahmed Deedat (r) was an Ahle Sunnah Scholar who used to give a lot of respect to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri. Shaikh Deedat (r) wrote many letters to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri from his Islamic Propagation Center International appreciating the work of Shaikh Quadri. He used to send his books and booklets to the Shaikh from South Africa. Both these Shaikhs never met, but had great respect for each other and were in contact via letters and exchange of their books. We will briefly mention here about some of the last letters of Shaikh Ahmad Deedat (r) to Shaikh Asedullah Quadri.

    On March 8, 1996, Shaikh Deedat (r) wrote to Shaikh Asedullah Quadri [Click Here p.1 Click Here p.2] requesting English translation of his book ‘Islamic Wisdom’ to be sent to him, as (in the words of Shaikh Deedat – r) it will be a great assistance to him as he was writing a book with a similar title. In May 1996, Shaikh Asedullah Quadri sent him the Urdu book (Hikmat-e-Islamia authored by Shaikh Mohammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqui – r) with the promise to send the English translation done by him which was under print at that time. Shaikh Asedullah Quadri’s letter and the book reached Shaikh Deedat (r) on June 4, 1996, but by then Shaikh Deedat (r) had a severe paralytic stroke on May 3, 1996. The information about the stroke was sent to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri by Qassim Deedat, Treasurer, IPCI in his letter dated 17th September 1996. Click Here to see scan copy of this letter. Thus, Shaikh Deedat (r) could not complete his proposed book titled “Wisdom”.

    Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri sent most of his books to IPCI, South Africa. Many of the books sent to Ahmad Deedat (r) were related to Tasawwuf and he was very happy to read them. Click Here to read Shaikh Deedat’s (r) letter thanking Shaikh Asedullah Quadri after receiving the books.

    Shaikh Ahmad Deedat (r) was a rare gem and a Sufi at heart though his area of specialization was comparative religion. He also had exceptional memory, but he never misused it.

    (b) Shaikh Ahmad Deedat (r) belonged to Ahle Sunnah wal Jama’a, is also established from the fact that he used to take advise from Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri in matters of Islamic Fiqh. Evidence in this context is available on Internet and Youtube.

    Watch this interesting Video Clip – 1

    Watch this interesting Video Clip – 2

    Watch this interesting Video Clip – 3

    (c) Shaikh Ahmad Deedat (r) being an honest Sunni (Hanafi) Shaikh is also established from the fact that he openly supported and participated in Milad-un-Nabi (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) Celebrations.

    Watch this interesting Video

    (d) Shaikh Ahmad Deedat’s (r) credentials as a Sunni Shaikh are also established from the fact that he praised Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui (r) who was a student of Aala Hazrat Ahmed Radha Khan (r).

    (e) Shaikh Ahmad Deedat was a Ahle Sunnah scholar is also proved from his grave whose name plate is highly elevated from the ground and his son Yousuf Deedat, who was taught by his father, recites Fateha on his grave by raising his hands towards the grave. Watch this important Video.

    (f) Shaikh Ahmad Deedat (r) was a Sunni Scholar is also proved from the fact that Salafi Scholars declared him Mushrik and Bidati for his clear cut Ahle Sunnah beliefs. Watch this important Video.

    (5) Dr. Zakir Naik claims he was influenced by Shaikh Deedat (r) but we fail to understand how come he turned into a hard core Salafi because Shaikh Deedat (r) was a humble Sufi at heart. May be Saudi Arabian shining Petro-Dollars played a big role in his conversion into Salafism. Read more about Saudi support to Dr. Naik.

    Dr. Naik calls his own teachers Kafirs – Watch this video in which he literally calls Shaikh Deedat and Dr. Israr Ahmad (his teachers) as Kafirs. Watch this Video Clip

    Wikipedia, the most trusted and visited encyclopedic website shows Dr. Naik to be Salafi (not Sunni). See rounded information in this Screen Shot.

    However, currently on Dr. Naik’s Wikipedia page they have removed ‘Salafi’ and now it shows only ‘Islam’.

    To enlarge the above Screen Shot, (1) keep the mouse on the image, (2) right click and go to ‘save as’, (3) give a file name and save image to your computer. You can then see the enlarged image in your browser by double clicking the saved image file.

    Dr. Naik propagates theories of Salafism in the name of Islam. The meanings and interpretations of Quran, Ahadith presented by Zakir Naik, all are as per Wahhabi / Salafi beliefs.

    Dr. Naik says his Sky God has two hands, two eyes, face, legs, shins and has large body and sits above the skies on a big chair facing towards Arsh. Someone asked Dr. Naik, how are God’s hands and body; he said, ‘we do not know, it is known to God only’.

    The description of Salafi Sky God is similar in nature with Hindu God Vishnu. The only difference between Hindu God Vishnu and Salafi Sky Idol God is, Vishnu is married, while Salafi Sky God is single. Also Hindus draw and make models of their God Vishnu, while Salafis don’t, but their faith in a huge human like Idol as their God is same, identical.

    In view of their misunderstanding about Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) Salafis prostrate to their Sky Idol God 5 times a day during Salah. They claim this huge Sky Idol has created this Universe.

    Read more…..(1) Read more …..(2)

    Dr. Naik propagates above beliefs as Islam and feels pride that he is converting so many people into Islam. The example of people who are converting after listening to Zakir Naik’s lectures is that of the person who falls from the sky and gets stuck in a coconut tree.

    (6) Dr. Naik’s interpretations of other religious scriptures are also controversial as their scholars have time and again proved that what he interprets is wrong. Watch related information on Internet and You tube.


    In his speeches and writings Dr. Naik claims that advent of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) has been mentioned in Hindu scriptures. He has made this claim thousands of time in his lectures.

    People will be surprised to know that Dr. Naik’s rhetoric on this subject is a direct copy of the work titled “Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) in world scriptures” written by Abdul Haq Vidyarthi Qadiyani (1888 – 1977) a missionary of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

    Abdul Haq Vidyarthi Qadiyani’s book can be read/downloaded on the following 6 locations.

    (1) Download Pakistani First Edition – 1940. (2) Download 2nd Pakistani Edition Volume I – 1975. (3) Download 2nd Pakistani Edition Volume III – 1975. (4) Download 2nd Enlarge Edition – 1976. (5) Download Indian Edition Volume II – 1997. (6) Download US Edition Volume I – 1999.

    Read Dr. Naik’s Article Introduction to Hinduism on his IRF Website. Also view this Video Clip.

    To facilitate our readers we have provided a summary of comparison between Dr. Naik’s works and that of the writing in Vidyarthi Qadiyani’s book; which look mostly identical. Read the gist of Dr. Naik’s Qadiyani beliefs.

    We are not trying to emphasize here that Dr. Naik has not mentioned the sources of his Hinduism studies because we are not discussing academic ethics. Our focus is on a much bigger and very serious issue. Read on…..

    Answering a question in one of his lecturers, whether Muslims can consider the Vedas and the other Hindu Scriptures to be the revelations of God? Dr. Naik replied:

    Quote – There is no text in the Quran or Sahih Hadith mentioning the name of the revelation that was sent to India. Since the names of the Vedas or other Hindu scriptures are nowhere to be found in Quran and Sahih Hadith, one cannot say for sure that they were the revelations of God. They may be the revelation of God or may not be the revelation of God – Unquote.

    However in all his speeches, he mentions the Vedic and other Hindu scriptures that were originally invented and documented by Abdul Haq Vidyarthi Qadiyani, word-by-word; and reiterates that advent of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) has been mentioned in Hindu scriptures.

    The above practice on the part of Dr. Naik establishes the fact that he believes in Hindu scriptures as the word of God (in an altered format as that of Bible) though he does not want to declare it openly.

    His profound belief in Hindu scriptures as the word of God is also established from the following facts.

    Dr. Zakir Naik mentions the following Quranic verse hundreds of times in his speeches and invites Hindus to come to common terms with Muslims.

    It is in Quran – قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ [Meaning – Say: ( O’ Prophet – صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) “O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), that we associate no partners with him; that we associate not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی).” If then they turn back, you say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims]. (Aal-e-Imran – 64).

    The above verse is addressed to the people of the book ( revealed to Prophets). This verse does not address Idol worshipers.

    It is a well known fact that Hindu Idol worship is similar to Makkan Pagan tradition and we are positive that no Muslim in the world will ever dispute this fact.

    We have not come across a Hadith in which Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) called upon Idol worshipers to come to common terms with Islam.

    Why then Dr. Naik reads the above verse and invites Hindus to come to common terms?

    This practice of Dr. Naik confirms the fact that he believes in all Hindu scriptures as the word of God.

    As a matter of fact he has never denied that these scriptures are not the word of God as he says these may be or may not be the word of God.

    This is hypocrisy (Munafiqat)

    Dr. Naik calls Zoroastrianism a prophetic religion and calls its founder Zoroaster as ‘Prophet’. In one of his lectures he said: “Zoroastrianism is a Non Semitic, Aryan, Non Vedic religion, which is not associated with Hinduism and it is a Prophetic religion. Zoroastrianism is also called as Parsism and it was founded by Prophet Zoroaster. Reference – (Concept of God in Major Religions – from the CD – ‘Presenting Islam and Clarifying Misconceptions’ – Lecture series by Dr. Naik, Developed by AHYA Multi Media – 12 Enlightening Sessions).

    Quran testifies that all Prophets gave the same message about Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی). But Zoroaster preached worship of fire. We do not understand how Dr. Naik testifies Zoroaster as prophet?

    Why Dr. Naik is afraid to declare his Qadiyani beliefs in public?

    Read the following to know the answer.

    (a) If he accepts openly Hindu scriptures, as word of God, then he will have to accept (like Qadiyanis do) that Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Ashoka and Guru Nanak were all Prophets and that Kalki Avatar (the 10th incarnation of Hindu God Vishnu to appear before dooms day) is the (final) Prophet.

    (b) Qadiyanis are treated as out of Islam in the Muslim world and it is difficult for Dr. Naik to openly disclose his Qadiyani beliefs because it will create a lot of problems for him in Muslim community. Dr. Naik knows pretty well, what will happen to him if he discloses his above hidden beliefs in public.


    The most serious and alarming concern is, Dr. Naik is making millions of Muslims believe in Hindu scriptures as the word of God from his misleading D’awa.

    On Face book alone he has around 220,000 fans. His organization is running several hundred centers in India and other countries. They are also running schools and training Centers where students are taught his D’awa techniques. He also runs Peace TV’s 3 channels in English, Urdu and Bangla and his website claims that Peace TV is the largest viewed religious channel in the world. He has converted all his followers into a sub-Sect of Salafism. His followers are popularly known as “Zakiri Salafis” who believe that Hindu Scriptures are word of God and Hindu Gods and Avatars are Prophets. Thus Dr. Naik, is indeed the founder of a new Salafi sub-Sect known as “Zakiri Salafis”.

    Prominent Salafi Groups in the World

    Alarming Facts

    Dr. Naik is part of a huge conspiracy to spread Salafism into the whole world at the instance of Saudi Arabian Royal Family, to help them expand their rule beyond the shores of Arabian Peninsula, into the whole world. This issue has been discussed at length in an Article titled Peace TV. Read this Article, you will be appalled and shocked while reading the undeniable published facts available in public domain. We pray Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) to save Islam and Muslims from this massive Fitnah.


    (a) In August 2008, Darul Uloom Deoband, India issued a fatwa stating: “The statements made by Dr Zakir Naik indicate that he is a preacher of Ghair Muqallideen (People who reject Imams of Fiqh., like Salafis, Ahle Hadith, etc.). One should not rely upon his speeches.”

    (b) Similar Fatwas are issued by many other scholars including Deobandi Mufti Zar Wali Khan, founder of Jamia Arabia Ahsan-ul-uloom, Karachi, Pakistan

    More Deobandi Fatawas on Dr. Zakir Naik.

    Click here (1) Click Here (2) Click Here (3)

    (c) Yaha Al-Hajoori, the famous Ahl-e-Hadith scholar condemned Dr. Naik in many of his writings and declared him Kafir.

    More Salafi and Ahle Hadith Fatawas on Dr. Naik.

    Click Here (1) Click Here (2) Click Here (3) Click Here (4) .

    (d) More than 20 Fatawas of Kufr were issued by the Shariah Board of America against Naik. They say Naik has gone astray as he is not a scholar but is involved in Islamic teachings without authority or any knowledge to do so, which is dangerous to Islam. “Naik is known for discussions on comparative religions. He is not a qualified Aalim-e-Deen, therefore his comments on fiqh have no merit. If it is true that he condemned the fiqh of the Imams, then that in itself is a clear indication of his lack of understanding of Shariah.”

    (e) A Fatwa was issued by Darul Ifta Jamia Binnoria, Pakistan, regarding Zakir Naik not being a certified Aalim of Deen.

    (f) In November 2008, Lucknow, India based Government appointed Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa-e-Kufr against Naik, describing Naik as a “Kafir” (non-believer) and stating in the fatwa, that Naik should be ex-communicated from Islam. He argued that “Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against Quran. In his speeches, he insults Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his family members and glorifies Yazeed, the assasin of Imam Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ). View this important video clip.

    (g) Correct Islamic Faith International Association (CIFIA) and its 330 Associate Islamic Institutions, and millions of followers throughout the world consider Dr. Zakir Naik as a self declared scholar who lies about Quran and Ahadith; who is not an Aalim-e-Deen and who consistently disrespects Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), Sahabah, Imams of Fiqh and Awliya Allah. Thus he has gone astray.

    More Ahle Sunnah Fatawas on Dr. Naik.

    Click Here (1) Click Here (2) Click Here (3)

    (h) Apparently, hundreds of Institutions and thousands of Ulema associated with these Institutions cannot be wrong about Dr. Naik.

    (i) Dr. Zakir Naik did ‘Tauba’ in writing in front of Ahle Sunnah Scholars and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, India on November 12, 2008 for his Kufriya statement about Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم). Click Here for details. However, he did not change after his written Taubah and still continues with his lies and misrepresentation of Islam. View Video clip.


    Dr. Zakir Naik takes Quran in his hands, raises his hands and lies about its verses. Similarly, he takes Ahadith books in his hands and lies about them.

    He was criticized for his lies by many scholars but he continues this practice without any regard to Quran and Ahadith. He should know that taking Quran in hand and lying about its contents is a serious crime in Islam. Denial and misrepresentation of Quranic verses and Ahadith takes a person out of Islam. There are hundreds of occasions when Dr. Naik lied about Quran and Ahadith in front of huge crowds. We have given below some of these references.

    (a) He misguides innocent Muslims about Quranic verses. Like the Arabic words ‘Shifa’ and Shafa’a are two different words. He tricks innocent Muslims to believe that both these words are same. In one of his speeches he claimed that – “there are 25 verses in Quran which say that Shifa – meaning waseelah, shifaarish – is Haraam”.

    It is a glaring lie and deliberate attempt to fool innocent Muslims. As a matter of fact it is a slander on Quran. The actual meaning of ‘Shifa’ is ‘cure or healing’. And the word ‘Shafa’a’ means – ‘Mediation (Waseelah)’ or ‘Recommendation (Sifaarish).

    View this dangerous and misleading Video (I)

    View Dr. Naik’s lies in this Video at 1:41 ( II )

    View Dr. Naik’s lies in this Video at 0.34 (III)

    We have provided below the six verses in Quran which contain the word ‘Shifa’. And we have provided their English meanings (Yousuf Ali) as well.

    (i) It is in Quran – يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَاءَتْكُم مَّوْعِظَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَشِفَاءٌ لِّمَا فِي الصُّدُورِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةٌ لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ [Meaning -O’ mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts, and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy] (Younus – 57).

    (ii) It is in Quran – وَنُنَزِّلُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ مَا هُوَ شِفَاءٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۙ وَلَا يَزِيدُ الظَّالِمِينَ إِلَّا خَسَارًا [ Meaning – We send down (stage by stage) in the Qur’an that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss]. (Asra – 82).

    (iii) It is in Quran – وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا لَّقَالُوا لَوْلَا فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ ۖ أَأَعْجَمِيٌّ وَعَرَبِيٌّ ۗ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هُدًى وَشِفَاءٌ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى ۚ أُولَـٰئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِن مَّكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ [Meaning Had We sent this as a Qur’an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: “Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger an Arab?” Say: “It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): They are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!”] (Fussilat – 44).

    (iv) It is in Quran – وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِينَ [ Meaning – And (Allah- swt) shall heal the chest of the believers. (At-Tawba – 14).

    (v) It is in Quran – يخْرُجُ مِن بُطُونِهَا شَرَابٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ فِيهِ شِفَاء لِلنَّاسِ [Meaning – There issues from within the bodies of the bee a drink of varying colors wherein is healing for mankind.] (An-Nahl – 69).

    (vi) It is in Quran – وَإِذَا مَرِضْتُ فَهُوَ يَشْفِينِ [And when I am ill, it is (Allah-swt) who cures me.] (Ash-Shu’ara – 80).

    We fail to understand how can some one talk like this in front of thousands of people?

    A person who daringly lies about Quran and Ahadith (i) must be thinking that all Muslims of the world are fools, (ii) or is not afraid of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), (iii) or must have gone mad.

    (b) Dr.Zakir Naik claims that there is no Hadith in the entire Ahadith literature which says that Wajib al-Vitre Salah can be performed with one “Salam” (like Maghrib prayer).

    This is a blatant lie. There are more than 75 Ahadith in authentic books of Ahadith which certify that Vitr is performed with one ‘Salam’. View this Video Clip……

    (c) Zakir Naik says that there are many Ahadith in Bukhari where Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said that we should say “Ameen” with a loud voice during Salah after Sura Fatiha.

    This is a blatant lie. There is only one Hadith in Bukhari in this context, which does not say that we should say ‘Ameen’ loudly. Therefore, the ruling of Imam Abu Hanifa that we should say Ameen slowly after Sura Fatiha cannot be viewed as wrong.

    Zakir Naik also claims that Imams of Fiqh did not have enough knowledge and were not aware of all Ahadith during their life times.

    This is a serious allegation on the most acclaimed Imams of fiqh by a person like Zakir Naik who has not studied Islamic subjects in any Islamic school in the world. View this Video Clip…..

    (d) Dr. Naik lies about Quranic verses and declares in front of thousands of people that he does not know any verse in Quran which says Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) is everywhere (Omnipresent). This is one of the thousands of lies of Dr. Naik about Quran.

    Watch this misleading Video at 4.40 Minutes (middle of Video).

    He sites a Hadith in which Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) asked a Slave girl – Where is Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)? In reply she said ‘in the Sky’. He interprets the meanings of this Hadith to fool innocent people. We are providing below this Hadith and many Quranic verses to nail Dr. Naik’s lies.

    It is in Hadith – Muawiya Ibn al-Hakam came to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and told him ” I am very newly from the Jahiliyya and now Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) has brought Islam” and he proceeded to ask about various Jahiliyya practices, until at last he said that he had slapped his slave girl, and asked if he should free her, as was obligatory if she was a believer. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) asked that she be brought and then asked her, “Where is Allah( سبحانہ و تعا لی )? and she said, “In the sky (fi al-sama)”; whereupon he asked her, “Who am I”? and she said, “You are the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم)”; at which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said ‘Free her, for she is a believer (Sahih Muslim).

    Salafis try to interpret the above Hadith to prove a physical body for Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) and his sitting on the skies? (Astaghfiruallah).

    When someone says that Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) is in Skies, does it mean that He is only in Sky and nowhere else. Read the following Quranic verse?

    It is in Quran – وَهُوَ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاءِ إِلَـٰهٌ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ إِلَـٰهٌ ۚ وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْعَلِيمُ- (Meaning – It is He, Who is Allah-سبحانہ و تعا لی in skies and Allah – سبحانہ و تعا لی on Earth; and He is full of Wisdom and Knowledge). (Az-Zukhruf – 84).

    Read following important Articles for correct understanding in this context.

    Planetary human-like-Idol( المعبود الكواكب مثل الإنسان) worshiped by Salafis is not Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)

    The Origin and History of Salafi Sky God

    Salafis misinterpret following Quranic verses and try to convince innocent Muslims that their Sky Idol God is the real God of all and they call their God as Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) (La haula wal quwwata illa billah). To create confusion in Muslims’ minds, they claim that Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی ) has limitations, as He cannot move out of Sky; therefore his nearness to creatures is only by his knowledge. (Astaghfirullah). This belief is Shirk-e-Akbar.

    It is in Quran – اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ (Meaning – Allah( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) is the light (existence) of the Heavens and Earth’. (An-Noor -35).

    It is in Quran – وَلِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ ۚ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّوا فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ [ Meaning – Whichever side you turn, you will find Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) ; Verily ( in truth ) Allah – ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) is Omnipresent (existing everywhere every moment) and Omniscient ( infinitely wise )]. ( Al-Baqra – 115 ).

    It is in Quran – وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ (Meaning – Wherever you are, He is with you). (Al-Hadid – 4).

    It is in Quran – وَفِي أَنفُسِكُمْ ۚ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُونَ ( Meaning – He is in your own self, will you not then see). (Adh-Dhariyat – 21).

    It is in Quran – هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ [Meaning – He is the First, and the Last, He is the Manifest (apparent) and the Immanent (actually present through out the material world) and is knower of all things]. (Al-Hadeed – 3).

    It is in Quran – وَنَحْنُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ حَبْلِ الْوَرِيدِ [We (Allah سبحانہ و تعا لی ) are closer to you than your jugular vein]. (Qaf – 16).

    It is in Quran – وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ ۖ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ ۖ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لِي [ Meaning – When My servants ask you ( O’ Prophet – صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) concerning Me, ( tell them ) I am ever present ( with them ) and I listen to the call of him that calls Me].(Al-Baqara – 186).

    It is in Quran – سُبْحَانَ رَبِّكَ رَبِّ الْعِزَّةِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ (Meaning – Transcendent (magnificent) is your Lord, the Lord of All-Greatness, far above what they ascribe to Him). (As-Saafaat – 180).

    It is in Hadith – Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said “There was Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) and nothing existed but Him”. He existed from eternity and there was nothing else.” (Bukhari, Baihaqi).

    Consider the above Hadith. It is very very clear. It is important for a physical body to have a place to exist. When Allah ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) existed when there was nothing, no sky, no universe then where was He sitting. There has to be place for a body to exist. The Hadith also clarifies that Allah’s ( سبحانہ و تعا لی ) existence is pure from the requirement and consideration of a body, form and shape.

    Further Reading

    Can We see Allah
    Understanding Tawheed

    (e) Dr. Zakir Naik claims that commemoration (a ceremony or celebration in which a person or event is remembered) of the Date of birth of Prophets is their reverence (show of respect), therefore it is Shirk. This is a crazy argument, only expected of Dr. Naik. Prophets are teachers of humanity, they have to be shown reverence. Reverence is different from worship. How can you equate these two things. He also claims that there is no mention about it in Quran and Ahadith. Watch his Disturbing Video.

    Read the following Quranic verses and Ahadith which clearly establish the fact that Celebrations of birth days of prophets and their remembrance is mandatory in Islam.

    It is in Quran – اذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَعَلَ فِيكُمْ أَنبِيَاءَ (Meaning – Remember and express with gratitude the gracefulness of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) that He sent Prophets among you (Al-Maa’ida – 20).

    In the above Quranic verse Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has commanded people to celebrate the births of Prophets who were sent for the guidance of their nations. Therefore, the celebration of the birth of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), as a show of gratitude and happiness towards Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) is mandatory by the whole world as he was sent as mercy for all the worlds in this Cosmos.

    It is in Quran – وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ [ Meaning – We have not sent you (O’Prophet – صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) except for the mercy on all the worlds] (Al-Anbiya-107).

    It is in Quran – قُلْ بِفَضْلِ اللَّهِ وَبِرَحْمَتِهِ فَبِذَ‌ٰلِكَ فَلْيَفْرَحُوا [Meaning – Say O’Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) for Allah’s (سبحانہ و تعا لی) mercy and beneficence (O’believers) you celebrate the happiness. (Younus -58)

    It is in Quran – وَسَلَامٌ عَلَيْهِ يَوْمَ وُلِدَ وَيَوْمَ يَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ يُبْعَثُ حَيًّا ( Meaning – And Salaam is on Him the day when he was born and the day when he will die and the day when he will be raised alive.” (Al-Maryam – 15).

    In the above verse, Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has mentioned the complete Milad of Prophet Yahya ( علیھ السلا م ).

    Showing happiness on the birth day of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) who has literally taken us out of Hell by leading us the right path of Islam is a must. How can it be wrong?

    It is very rare that a leader will ask his followers to celebrate his birth day? Did our grand father or father ever asked to celebrate his birth day? It is the children or the grand children who show a lot of enthusiasm and make arrangements for the birth days of their father/mother or Grand parents. However, the parents or grand parents feel happy when their children or grand children show love and care for them. This is just a show of care, love. Where is Shirk in it?

    In the following we have provided Ahadith when Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) happened to visit the places where people were celebrating his birth day (on his Milad day) and showed a lot of happiness on that gathering and also told them that they will get salvation in Hereafter for their act.

    The kind of Milad-un-Nabi (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) celebrations we see now-a-days have developed over a period of time. In the times of Sahabah, we find very sketchy record that this kind of big celebrations were organized. However, we do find individual, small gatherings about Miladun Nabi (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), as we have quoted in the following Ahadith in which Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) himself attended such gathering.

    With time, our style of living changes. Today we have big buildings, which were not there in the times of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم). We are traveling by Air planes, we have TV, Internet and many other things which were not there earlier. Similarly, celebration of Milad as you see today on mass scales was done differently earlier. But, everyone, including Sahabah, Imams and all Muslims did show happiness on the day of birth of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم). If some one does not want to show happiness on this important occasion, giving excuses, this shows that his claim of love of Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) is only on his lips; meaning he is a Munafiq. It is as simple as that.
    It is in Hadith – Abul Khattab Umro Bin Wahia Kalbi (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) has narrated this Hadith in his book ‘At tanweer fi Mauludil basheer an-nazeer’. Also, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti has narrated this Hadith in his book “Siblul Huda fi Mauludil Mustafa (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) : Hazrat Abu Darda (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) narrates that “I went to the house of Aamer Ansari (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) along with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم). Hazrat Abu Aamer (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) was narrating the events of the birth of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) to a gathering of his relatives and children and was repeating; “this was the day and this was the day”. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said, O’Aba Amer(رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ), Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has opened the doors of His mercy (Rahmah) for you and the angels are praying for your absolution (Maghfirah). Whoever does this act of yours, he would also get the Salvation like yours”.

    The above Hadith confirms the following.

    (1) Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) has declared that whoever celebrates his (Prophet’s – صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) birth day will get salvation on the Day of Judgment.

    (2) Whoever celebrates the birthday of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), the doors of Allah’s (سبحانہ و تعا لی) mercy are opened for him.

    (3) Whoever celebrates the birthday of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), the angels pray for his absolution (Maghfirah).

    It is in Hadith – Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Abbas (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) said that “one day at my home I had gathered people and was describing about the birth of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and the people were feeling over joyous and were invoking the praise of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) (meaning – reading Durood-e-Sharif) and Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) himself came to our gathering and said “My intercession (hallat lakum Shafa’a) for you has become legitimized.

    The above Hadith is narrated by (i) Imam Suyuti in his book “Siblul Huda”, (ii) Ahmad Bin Hujr Al-Makki (the famous Jurist of Shafi’i school of thought) in his book “Maulud al-Kabeer”, and (iii) Abul Qasim Mohammad Ibn Osman in his book “Addurul Munazzam”.

    Ibn Taymiyyah in his book “Majma’ Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya”, Vol. 23, p. 163 and his book “Iqtida’ al-sirat al-mustaqim”, p. 294-295 wrote as follows.

    QUOTE “To celebrate and to honor the birth of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and to take it as an honored season is good and in it there is a great reward, because of their good intentions in honoring the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).”UNQUOTE

    Ibn Taymiyyah in his book “Necessity of the Right Path”, p. 266, 5th line from the bottom of that page, published by Dar Al-Hadith, has written the following :

    QUOTE – “As far as what people do during the Milad, either as a rival celebration to that which the Christian do during the time of Christ’s birthday or as an expression of their love and admiration and a sign of praise for the Noble Nabi (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), the angels pray for their absolution (Allah Almighty will surely reward them for such Ij’tiha)” UNQUOTE. Read more ……

    (f) Zakir Naik says that there is no verse in Quran, or any Hadith in the entire Hadith literature which says that it is allowed to visit Graves of Awliya Allah and request them to pray for our well being. View this misleading Video Clip.

    This is another blatant lie. We have listed more than 150 Ahadith and Quranic verses which say it is important to visit Mazaarat and ask for mediation. Even Imam Shafi’i used to go to the grave of Imam Abu Hanifa daily and ask for his mediation. Read following Articles for details.

    The Life after Death

    Visiting the Graves of Awliya Allah

    Misquoted Quranic verses and Ahadith

    View this important Video Clip

    View this important video clip

    (g) Zakir Naik says that making of graves and tombs over graves is Haraam in Islam. This shows his lack of Islamic knowledge and deliberate misrepresentation of Islam to innocent Muslims. He should know that even Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) ordered his pious mazaar to be within a secured room with roofing. After making the mazaar of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) Sahabah did not destroy the room. As a matter of fact it was reinforced and ultimately a large tomb was built on Raudhatun Nabi (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم). Read facts about building tombs over the Graves ….

    (h) Zakir Naik does not differentiate between a dead non-believer and a dead Muslim. He treats even Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) on par with a dead non-believer and claims that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) is dead like any other human being (Muslim or non-Muslim) and he cannot hear or see anything (Nauzubillah – Astaghrifullah). This is the height of illiteracy of a so called scholar. Read the following and many more Articles on our website to know the facts on this subject in the light of Quran and Ahadith.

    Haqeeqat-e-Mohammadi (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم)

    View this important Video clip

    View this video clip

    (i) Zakir Naik claims that it is haraam to say Fateha on Food and he quotes out of the context Quranic verses to fool innocent Muslims. We have quoted 15 Quranic verses and Ahadith to nail down his lies. Click the following links to read details.

    Fateha and Eisaal-e-Thawaab

    View this important Video Clip

    (j) Dr. Zakir Naik praises Yazid and claims that Karbala was a political episode (Astaghfirullah – We pray Allah – سبحانہ و تعا لی to save Islam from hypocrites).
    He says رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ with Yazid’s name and mentions a Hadith in Bukhari in which Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said the first Muslim Army who will invade the city of Constantinople (presently Istanbul) will be rewarded with Jannah. He claims Yazid was part of that army.

    Zakir Naik’s claim is false, a blatant lie and slander on Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).

    Not even a single Hadith mentioned in this context in the entire Hadith literature has the word “Constantinople” in its text. However, some Hadith scholars have mentioned the name “Constantinople” in their Hadith guides.

    Read the following facts and you will know the height of Dr. Zakir Naik lies.

    The wording of the Hadith are “awwalu jaishin min ummati yaghzoona madinata Qaisara maghfurullahum”. [Meaning – “The first Muslim army who will invade the city of Qaiser-e-Room (Byzantine empire) will be Jannati.”] Thus, it could be any city of Byzantine empire.

    Read any Islamic History book written by any well known Islamic historian (including Salafi scholar Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer etc.) it is mentioned that the first Muslim invasion of Constantinople, Byzantine empire took place in 42 H in which Yazid was not there.

    The second invasion of Muslims on Byzantine empire was in 43 H under the command of Bu’sr bin Abi Arta, and the Army reached the city of Constantinople. Yazid was not part of this Army.

    The third invasion of Muslims took place in 44 H under the command of Abd ar-Rahman bin Khaled bin Walid. In this invasion, Busr bin Abi Arta also participated and attacked Constantinople from Sea. Yazid was not part of this Army.

    The fifth invasion of Constantinople was in 46 H under the command of Malik bin Abdullah. Yazid was not part of this Muslim Army.

    The sixth invasion of Byzantine empire was undertaken in 47 H under the command of Malik bin Hubaira. Yazid was not part of this Army.

    Three invasions took place on Byzantine empire in 49 H under the commands of (i) Malik bin Hubaira and (ii) Fazala bin Ubair. Fazala bin Ubair captured many cities of Byzantine empire. (iii) The third invasion of Byzantine empire took place in the same year under the command of Yazid bin Shajara Ar-Rahawi, who hailed from Syria. It is wrongly, may be deliberately, claimed by Wahhabis and their like minded Groups that the commander of this Army was Yazid bin Mu’awia, which is not true. Thus Yazid was not part of the three separate armies that invaded Byzantine empire, three times in 49 H.

    The 8th invasion of Byzantine empire took place in 50 H and in this invasion, some people claim that Yazid bin Mua’wia was part of this Army. Thus Yazid was part of the Army of 8th invasion of Byzantine Empire.

    But the Hadith says that the first Muslim Army who will invade Byzantine empire is Jannati. Then how come Yazid is claimed to be Jannati?

    The Salafis mention Hadith Guide book Fatahul Bari written by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in which it is mentioned that ‘the invasion of Constantinople took place in 52 H and the commander of this Army was Yazid. Even if we take this date as authentic, then this will be the ninth invasion of that city, and not the first one. Because, as we have mentioned earlier with authentic sources that 8 invasions had already taken place before this date. Therefore, Yazid cannot be part of the people who are declared Jannati by Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).

    It is also mentioned in many Islamic History books that at the time of 8th invasion of Byzantine empire, Janab Muawiah wanted Yazid to participate, but he refused. We cannot go into these details here because our Article is becoming too long.

    We do not understand why Zakir Naik wants to favor Yazid against Imam Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ).
    Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked by his son that a group of people (qawm) attribute us to [be with] Yazid , he replied, O son! Whoever believes in Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), how can they have any association with Yazid? And why should he not be cursed (laanat) when Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) sends laanat on him in his Book. The son asked where did Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) send laanat on him in His Book? The Imam replied “in this saying of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)”:

    It is in Quran – ‘Do you then have the sign that if you get the authority, spread disorder in the land and sever your ties of Kinship? These are they whom Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has cursed and made them deaf from the truth and made their eyes blind’. (Sura Mohammad – صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), Verses 22-23), and then said, is there any greater fasaad than the assasination of Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ)?

    (Reference – The above is mentioned in multiple sources such as Ibn Hajar Makki in al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa page 333, Tafsir Mazhari v. 8. p. 434 Imam Barzanji in al-Isha’at, Qadi Abu Ya’la in Mu’tamad al-Usool, ibn al-Jawzi and so on).

    Ad-Dhahabi, a Salafi scholar wrote about Yazid as follows:

    وكان ناصبيا فظا غليظا جلفا يتناول المسكر ويفعل المنكر افتتح دولته بمقتل الشهيد الحسين واختتمها بواقعة الحرة فمقته الناس ولم يبارك في عمره وخرج عليه غير واحد بعد الحسين كأهل المدينة قاموا لله

    [Meaning – He (Yazid) was a disgusting Nasibi (those who hate Ahle bait-e-Rasulullah – صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم ). He drank and did evil. He started his kingdom with the killing of the Shahid al-Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) and ended it with the incident of al-Harra (siege of Madina which also makes him directly liable for Lanah as Sahih Ahadith prove). Hence the people hated him, he was not blessed in his life and many took up arms against him after Imam Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) such as the people of Madina – they rose for the sake of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) ] ( Siyar al Alam an Nabula, Volume No. 4, Page No. 37-38 )

    Ad-Dahabi also wrote – I say: ‘When Yazid did to the people of Madina, what he did, and killed Imam Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) and his brothers and progeny, and Yazid drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, then the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) did not bless his life and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Adya al-Hanzali rose against him.’ (Taarikh al-Islam: wa-tabaqat al-mashahir wa-al-a`lam, Volume 005, Page No. 30)

    Ad-Dhahabi further wrote: Ziyad Haarthi narrated: ‘Yazid gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired where he had obtained its ingredients from’. Yazid replied: ‘it is made of sweet pomegranate, Isfahan’s honey, Hawaz’s sugar, Taif’s grapes and Burdah’s water’. Ahmed bin Masama’ narrated: ‘Once Yazid drank alcohol and started to dance, suddenly he fell down and his nostril began to bleed’. (Siyar al A’lam wa al Nubalah, Volume 004, Page No. 037).
    Jalaluddin Suyuti mentions in his book ‘The History of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’ (Taarekh ul Khulufaa al-Raashideen); “Nawfal bin Abi al-Faraat said ‘Once I was with Umar bin Abdul Aziz when a man said in his presence ‘Yazid, the leader of the believers’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz said [in shock] ‘Did you call Yazid the Leader of the Believers’? Umar then ordered for the man to be lashed 20 times”.

    Suyuti further writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madina in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. Suyuti continues that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his children are pious and virtuous souls.

    After creating carnage in Madina in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Zubair (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ), [ whose father Hadhrat Zubair (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) was the cousin of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his mother Asma (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہا) was the daughter of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) ] who had revolted against Yazid after Karbala carnage). In Makka Yazid’s army overpowered Hadhrat Zubair’s (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) army and he was martyred and his body was hung at the city’s gate to terrorize Makkans. In Makka, the Army of Yazid committed unthinkable war crimes. Even Ka’abatullah was heavily damaged in Yazid’s military operation. Read Islamic History for details.

    It is in Hadith – Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), that of His angels and that of all the people of the world. (Sahih Muslim).

    There are innumerable Quranic verses and Ahadith which clearly state that Ahle Bait-e-Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) are pious and virtuous souls.

    It is in Hadith – Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) looked at Hazrat Ali (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) Hazrata Fatima (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہا) and Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہم) and said ” “I am in war with those who will fight with you, and in peace with those who are peaceful to you.” (Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, Tabarani, Mishkat, etc.).

    Accusing Imam Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) is indeed character assassination of the distinguished grandson of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم). Many Ulema will agree that character assassination of the deceased Imam (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) by Salafis / Deobandis and their like minded groups is a bigger crime than his physical assassination by Yazid and his cursed supporters.
    All Salafi groups should know that when they declare Yazid was on the right path and say رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ with his name, then they will sure be standing along with Yazid in front of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) on the Day of Judgment and their judgment will be done along with him. They should also know who stands a good chance to enter heaven – Imam Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) or Yazid.

    It is in Hadith, Imam Hussain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) is the leader of youth in Jannah and his pious mother Fatima al-Zahra (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہا) is the leader of women in Jannah.

    To know more, you can watch the following Urdu Video Clips.

    (i) Watch Video Clip – I (ii) Watch Video clip – II (iii) Watch Video Clip – III (iv) Watch Video Clip – IV (v) Watch video Clip – V


    Dr. Naik has been banned from entering UK and Canada since June 2010 for his controversial speeches. Earlier, on October 30, 2009 the Uttar Pradesh Government banned his entry and lectures in Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow and other cities in UP State, India, for the same reason.

    A website has been launched by Dr. Naik http://www.zakirnaikban.com where he is trying to influence public opinion in his favor and to create pressure on the three Governments who banned his entry. We do not want to go into details here as this is not the focus area of our Article.


    Lately, Dr. Naik is playing the role of a political activist and a fighter in world politics. He says –

    Quote – “If Osmana Bin Laden is fighting with the enemies of Islam, I am for him. If he is terrorizing the terrorist; if he is terrorizing the biggest terrorist – America, I am with him. Every Muslim should be terrorist. If a Muslim is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam.” – Unquote. View this disturbing video clip.

    This kind of political activism is not good even for Muslims. How can you excite masses to fight with other countries even if it is established that injustices are done by them? This kind of incitements may create great disorder in the world and may lead to bloodshed on streets.

    More than 90% of the countries are run by democratic Governments. There are set of democratic standards to change the people in power.

    We strongly believe that we can change the course of events in the world by explaining to the people the virtues of tolerance, peace and love among human beings.

    It is important that Dr. Naik changes his disturbing rhetoric in public and stop inciting young men and women to fight with people in power in other countries. He can always express his opinion against injustice done to Muslims in the name of terrorism by certain countries in the world. But he should concentrate to change this trend by changing the public opinion in those countries so that they elect honest peace loving Governments. This process may be tiresome and long, but this is the permanent solution to injustice in the world.


    Sahafat.in and DNA News, New Delhi, India reported on May 15, 2011 as follows:

    Jhansi Court, Uttar Pradesh, India issued Non Bailable arrest warrants against Dr. Zakir Naik. A complaint was filed against him by an Indian national Mudassarullah Khan, resident of Chhatapur, Jhansi in 2008 who alleged that apart from the speech, pamphlets were also distributged in Jhansi condemning those who follow the Hadith or the book on the sayings and doings of Prophet Mohammad (saws).

    In April, the Additional District Sessions Judge at Jhansi issued summons asking Dr. Naik to appear before the Court on May 12, 2011. Dr. Naik approached the Allahabad High Court for a stay on the summons. Advocate Shahid Ali Siddiqui, who represents the complainant, said, “Dr. Naik did not appear before the Court on May 12, 2011 and the Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against him”.

    Advocate Nazrul Islam Zafri who is representing Naik in the High Court said, “The complaints made against Dr. Naik are frivolous and malicious. It has been filed just to defame him”. The case will be heard by Justice RD Khare of Allahabad High Court.

    The Allahabad High Court will be hearing a petition filed by a Mumbai based Television Evangelist Dr. Naik on May 16 in a three year old case where the Preacher is alleged to have given speeches on television, exhorting Muslims to take up Terrorism.

    Dr. Naik, who heads a Group called the Islamic Research Foundation, Mumbai is alleged to have given the speech in Bangalore. The talk was relayed on his Peace TV Channel on January 21, 2006. Read more …..

    Dr. Naik is a raw gemstone which remained uncut and unpolished. Dr. Naik should have sat in the company of a true Shaikh of Islam for a few years and studied Islam under his guidance.

    If he had studied Islam under a true Shaikh, the Shaikh would have removed the impurities, shapelessness and carved him into a beautiful polished gem which is useful to the People, Governments and Kings alike.

    Alas, Dr. Naik could not use properly the important gifts of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) – exceptional memory, intelligence and debating skills. He thought he can understand Islam by memorizing books on his own.

    Our intention behind writing this Article is not to hurt the feelings of Dr. Zakir Naik, his associates or anyone else. If someone feels that the information in the Article hurts his feelings, we regret it profoundly because this is not our intention. We strongly believe that the information will definitely provide an opportunity to all concerned to correct, for their own good and for the good of Muslim community in the world.


    Shocking Facts about Peace TV

    Dr. Naik’s Islamic Mask and his deceptive Arguments


  • Sir, I ask u a question about keeping fast in moharram is right. because kuch logon se suna hai k jab Hazrat Imam Hussain(rta) aur unki family ne 3 din tak kuch khaya na piya bhooke rahe tab yazeed ki biwi ne roza rakha tha. is that true. Sir plz tell me.

  • The article shows name of Author is Abdullah Rahim.
    I would like to know the details of his profile. (His profession, academic and published work details)

  • جاوید احمد غامدی صاحب کے رویہ پر یہی کہا جاسکتا ہے کہ اس آدمی کو سچ بولنے کی ایسی عادت ہے کہ
    اپنے بھی خفا مجھ سے ہیں بیگانے بھی ناخوش
    مـیـں زہــرِ ہـلاہـل کـو کـبـھی کـہہ نـہ سـکا قـنـد

  • i like the memory, Hilm given to Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik the most!

    May ALLAH give them more respect and honour in this world and Jannat hereafter!

    and give me the right path to follow last Prophet SAW ways …. to reach u!


  • from facebook

    Abdul Nishapuri said

    نازی جرمنی کے دور میں جب یہودیوں کو ہولوکاسٹ کا نشانہ بنایا جا رہا تھا اس وقت یہودیوں کے عقائد اور رسوم پر تنقید کا براہ راست فائدہ ہٹلر اور دیگر مجرموں کو پہنچ رہا تھا اور ہولوکاسٹ میں امداد ہو رہی تھی – پاکستان میں جبکہ شیعہ مسلمان تکفیری دیوبندیوں کے ہاتھوں کافر کافر شیعہ کافر کے نعروں کی گونج میں قتل ہو رہے ہیں، اس وقت شیعہ یا سنی بریلوی عقائد پر تکفیری فتوے سپاہ صحابہ کی امداد اور نسل کشی میں شمولیت کے مترادف ہیں