How did it all happen?
The Quranic verses presented so far in
this book should establish, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that:
i) the Universe operates under laws
set by Allah, and
ii) Man is a responsible being who
enjoys freedom of choice of right and wrong. He can choose an action but has
to bear its consequence (pre-ordained by Allah). This is the Law of
Results of Action, which is constant and firm.
‘Ye shall reap what ye shall sow’
is the fundamental basis of life.
Our Current (Muslim) Beliefs
|
Contrary to this, we have been repeatedly
|
told by parents, friends, teachers, religious
scholars, mystics etc., and read in the various interpretations of the
Quran, compilations of Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed), early
Islamic literature etc., that:
Not a leaf stirs or Man moves
without God’s consent. Every event in the Universe occurs only when God
allows. Man cannot interfere in the function of the Universe. Not only that,
Man has absolutely no control over his own affairs. Each and every event in
one’s life is pre-destined even before one’s birth. Destiny is unchangeable.
God is omnipotent and owns absolute power and will. At his own sweet will,
He bestows poverty or affluence, honor or disgrace, health or sickness,
life or death, and change of fortune etc. No human effort can affect a
change in fate. Therefore, men should unflinchingly accept their destiny
pre-ordained by God. The more docile and accepting a man, the closer to God
he is!
The question, then, is how did such
contradictory beliefs came to stay as ‘Islamic ideology’ despite the
Quran being there in its original form all along? How did such a
fundamental change occur?
The importance and the magnitude of
the problem necessitates a thorough and deep examination of it.
The question of Destiny has been
treated in Islamic literature much more than any other. Almost every
religious work on Islam deals with it because taqdeer has been
made one of the requisites of one’s ‘iman’ (conviction) -- I shall
deal with it later in this book. All the writings on the question (treating
it partly or wholly) have only complicated the already confusing situation.
The reason for this aggravation was that those treatises were based not on
the Quran but on philosophy and logic not remotely connected with the
Holy Book. I do not propose to dwell on such writings not only because of
their immense volume but also because of their being largely
incomprehensible to the
The Old Scholastic Philosophy is Futile Today
|
average man.
The archaic
|
style of writing and the approach to issues
through scholastic philosophy is useless in the modern age and the changed
attitude of men to life. Fore example, Imam Ibn Hazam Andalusi, one
of the most prominent early Muslim authors, has treated the question of fate
and destiny in his famous ‘alMilal waalNahal’. He opens the
discussion thus:
Those who believe that action
comes with ability have said that the question is: Does a ‘kaafir’
(dissenter) possess the ability of ‘imaan’ (conviction) which he has
been ordered, or does he not? They have replied that: A kaafir has
the ability of imaan as a replacement, i. e., he will not have
dissent for ever but will replace it with imaan.
The desirable answer
is: He, with his good limbs and high obstacles, is apparently able to
simultaneously have dissent and imaan along as he stays a kaafir.
He will remain unable unless God helps him. He can act when he is helped and
thus becomes able. Now it can be said that has been made to do what he did.
I am sure one cannot gain anything
from this discussion which takes up hundreds of pages! Sadly, this is the
style and mode of most of the Islamic literature which is even till today
taught to students of religion.
History is undependable
|
Who introduced anti Quranic views and how
|
did they come to be the very basis of Islamic
ideology? Naturally, it is a question for History to answer. It is bound to
come as a shocking surprise to many of my readers that, sadly, the early
Islamic history is utterly unreliable from the academic and technical point
of view. Since it is outside the scope of this book, I shall very briefly
present the reasons for the situation:
i) The very first documented history,
considered by Muslims as authentic as well as the source of all history, is
the one authored by Imam Tabri. It consists of thirteen volumes. This
work was compiled nearly 300 years after Mohammed. It was based not on any
documented record but, by Tabri’s own testimony, on oral tradition.
Such a work is obviously not very reliable. Later, all historical account
were based on Tabri’s work. That is why it is know as ‘the mother of
histories’.
ii) Only a neutral and objective account
of events can be a true reflection of an era. Muslim history was compiled at
a time when the Muslim community had already split into several sects.
Therefore, all literature produced during that period could not be entirely
free of sectarian philosophy and influences. The question of taqdeer,
among others, has become one of the basis for sectarianism. That is why
Abu Zahra Masri (Egyptian) thinks that today it is difficult even to
establish the founder of the ‘fate doctrine’.
In ‘al-Mazaheb allslamia’ (the Muslim
Sects), he writes:
“(when) A sect becomes an established
group it is very difficult to
ascertain its original founder.
Hence, it is not easy to establish the
birth of that sect.”
iii) We (Muslims) have since long adopted
as firm belief the idea that all ancestral personalities, and literature
attributed to them, is beyond and above criticism – it tantamounts to
disrespect. Our children are taught the maxim: …………………
(It is a mistake to point out a
mistake of ancestors).
Under the circumstances, not many dare cast a
critical look at early Muslim literature.
The Correct Attitude to History
|
Having thus established the unreliability of
|
early Muslim history, I must point out that the
events and accounts pertaining to Mohammed and his companions referred to in
the Quran must be considered as authentic and true. This logically
follows the authenticity of the Quran. The correct approach to really
Muslim history, therefore, should be that: accounts of history in
contravention of the Quranic evidence must be rejected as factually
wrong; events supported by the Quran must be accepted as fact. Events
and accounts not mentioned in the Quran cannot be thus tested. Since
the question of taqdeer has been dealt with by the Quran,
we can test the later-day beliefs and ideas against the Quran for
their validity.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The Quranic stand on taqdeer
has already been presented. One can find
The Idea of Compulsion at the Dawn of Islam
|
reference in the Quran to
|
the people of the time who believed in the idea
of compulsion. Sura Anaam says:
‘The polytheists will say that if Allah
so willed, we wouldn’t
have been polytheists nor our ancestors nor we would have adopted certain
prohibitions....’
(6/149). The Quran pronounces them as rejecters of truth. (16/35,
43/20).
Sura Yaseen says:
‘And when they are asked to use their
wealth to feed the hungry, the dissenters (Kaafirs) say to the
Convinced (momeneen) that Allah would have provided food to the
hungry if He so willed. Their hunger is Allah’s
will. How can we go against His will and provide food to them?’
(36/47).
The Quran says that they are clearly misled.
This shows that, even in Mohammed’s
time, there were people who believed in the concept of compulsion. The
Quran rejected this view and replaced it with its positive stand. The
problem of fate and pre-destiny was solved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
It has been reported that Omar asked a thief why he had
Punishment for the Compulsion concept
|
committed thievery. He replied.
|
‘It was God’s
will.’
Omar sentenced him to the legal punishment for stealing and
extra lashes on top of it. He explained,
‘The standard sentence is for stealing.
The lashes are for attributing something false to
Allah’
--
(Al-Mazaaheb Al-Islamia by AbuZahra Masry. P-139 - Urdu
Translation).
The concept of Compulsion could not gain a
foothold in the Muslim world as long as the Quran remained the basis
of their ideology. It could not have because the Quran so clearly and
categorically declared it polytheistic and dissenting (kufr). But
when the Quran was pushed into the background and the watchful eye
of the central authority of the Caliphate (the righteous successors of
Mohammed) was no more, the Muslim mind was infiltrated and polluted by
various anti-Quranic concepts. The question of taqdeer
was but one of them. One report says that the very first sect of Islam,
formed on the basis of ideology, was the Jabariya (the Compulsionists)!
Before the advent of Islam, the people of
Arabia consisted mainly of nomadic desert tribes living on dates as
shepherds. They were sandwiched by the age-old glorious kingdoms of Iran and
Byzantiam. Firdausi’s
‘Shahnama’
is a testimony to the Iranian’s
degrading attitude towards the Arabs. These very
‘lowly’
Arabs, after having adopted Islam, ran over and captured the vast Iranian
empire. The defeated and overpowered Iranians could not accept the
humiliation and kept the fires of revenge raging in their hearts. They knew
that the reason for the Arabs’ newly-found might was their newly-adopted
philosophy of life (Islam). Hormazan, a captive governor from Iran,
was brought
Harmazan’s
testimony
|
to Median. Omar asked him for his thoughts over the
|
incredible defeat of Iran by a handful of Arabs
who were considered too low in the Iranian eye even to enter a battle with.
Hormazan’s
response was very significant. He
said,
“Previously it was Iran against the
Arabs, Now, it is Iran against the Arabs and their Allah!”
Truly,
‘the Arabs’ Allah’
was the secret of their success. It had meant a revolutionary change in
their minds and hearts which gave them the will and enthusiasm to work to
establish, and even die for, a higher purpose of life. Such sentiments make
a people invincible. The Persians and Byzantians both know this well.
Therefore, they began working towards distancing the Arabs from this
philosophy.
- - - x - x - x - x - x - x - - -
The dawn of Islam was also a severe blow to
the obliterated religions of
A Conspiracy by Christians & Jews
|
Christianity and Judaism. Furthermore,
|
the growing might of the Arabs not only shook
the very foundations of the Byzantian Empire, it also caused the Jews
to be driven out of the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, the Christians and the
Jews, as well as the Persians, had reasons to be revengeful against the
Arabs. They, too, had the same purpose and adopted the same scheme of
operations, to alleviate the Arabs from their revolutionary philosophy of
the Quran. The way to achieve it was simply to infiltrate and pollute
this philosophy much in the way their own systems (Christianity & Judaism)
had already been before. Thus, Iqbal uses the term
Arab & Ajam
|
'ajam’
not only for the Persians. It includes all non Arab groups.
|
His term
‘Arab Islam’
refers to the system of the Quran and
‘ajami Islam’
refers to all the anti-Quranic ideas and concepts from
Zoarastrianism (the Magus), Christianity and Judaism etc. which found
their way into the Islamic philosophy. That is how this divine system of
Allah was transformed into the man-made religion which has been with us till
today.
The distortion of Islam started with the
Persians tampering with and obliterating the question of taqdeer.
Zoarastriansim was based upon the problem of Good and Evil. The
Persians were well aware of the impact of this concept. They knew that a
group which believes in Man’s
free will and his ability to shape his destiny attains great powers. The
obvious way to render a group powerless is to make them reject Man’s
free will, and believe in pre-destiny. Hence the distortion of Islamic
ideology was begun with this particular question of taqdeer.
It is a woeful tale, the death knell of the true (Quranic) Muslim
Philosophy.
Asaawra was a group of
Persian nobility and politicians who served as
The Asaawra of Islam
|
advisors to the emperors much in the way of the
|
‘nauratan’
of the famous Mughal emperor Akbar the Great of India. These
imperial aides wore a gold bangle (السوار)
as a symbol of distinction. Hence the term
‘asaawra’ for the group. (Incidentally,
the Quran has used this simile of ‘gold bangles’ for the inhabitants
of Paradise to symbolize their high and prestigious status).
After their defeat, the Persian army in
general, and the asaawara in particular, offered Saad bin Waqqas,
the Arab conqueror of Persia their conversion to Islam if accorded full
Muslim rights including the right of abode in the Muslim settlements. Their
wish was granted and the Persians immigrated to cities like Kufa and
Basra. Today it is difficult to ascertain the reasons and motives behind
this permit but, in hindsight, one tends to see it as unwise. The reason is
simple. Persia, being the cradle of an ancient civilization, had several
characteristics of an obliterated way of life and an ideology gone astray.
Institutions like imperialism, capitalism and priesthood were their firm
beliefs. Their religion was based upon the concepts of the Magus. Their
intellectuals, particularly the asaawara, were masters of discussion
on topics like philosophy of logic, theology and metaphysics, etc.
Arabs, on the other hand, had a life and mind
as simple and unpolluted as the desert they inhabited. They had not been
exposed to political maneuvering, theoretical discussion, or the intricacies
of philosophy and logic. The ‘din’ (system of the Quran),
which had elevated them to a position of distinction in the world, was a
clear and simple one. It had a few clearly laid out concepts, The Arabs had
drawn their power from that simple, pure and clear system.
It is easy to see, then, the
consequences of such a clear-headed and simple group intermingling
with the Persians who came with a deliberate plan
(1). The
simple-minded Muslims were no match to the seasoned craft of the Persians.
(1)
A few years earlier,
this intermingling had had a catastrophic result. Hormazan, a
Persian governor, along with his companions, was permitted to settle
down in Medina. They conspired and assassinated Omar, a blow from
which Islam has never recovered.
Settling down among the Muslims, the Persians
began to propagate their own ideas very subtly. The very first Muslim
to raise the question of destiny was
Ma’abad bin Khalid Jahanni, who had
adopted it from Abu Younis – one of the Asaawra. From
Ma’abad the idea passed on to Gheelan Damashqi who propagated it
further. According to the concept, Man is completely devoid of
Influence of Christianity
|
free will with his fate pre-determined. The
|
exponents of this concept are referred to as
the Jabariya (the compulsionists).
The belief of Compulsion was also the
foundation of Christian philosophy. The most bright illustration is the
Christian belief of the original sin. (that Man is sinful by nature and
nothing can absolve Man of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve).
Also, according to the Bible, Christ’s last wish was: ‘God! Let thine be
done not mine’. That was the foundation of the resigned-to-fate attitude. It
has been reported that Gheelan Damashqi, an original Copt
(Christian), adopted this view from a Christian who had converted to Islam
before reverting to his original faith. The concept of dualism of Good and
Evil was there in Judaism, too. During the period of bondage under Babylon,
the Israelites came into contact with the Persians near the
Iranian-controlled areas. Later, their liberation and subsequent return to
their homeland happened largely due to the help of the Persians. Naturally,
they were impressed by the Zoroastrians from who they adopted the concept of
Good & Evil dualism. The fact that the Jews were already interested in
metaphysical philosophy only served to hasten the process of Jews being
influenced by the Persian thought. (The famous Jewish seat of learning at
Alexandria was a center for philosophical studies).
Another historical account cites, as the
founder of the concept of Compulsion, Ja’ad bin Dasham, a Muslim who
had adopted the idea from a Syrian Jew. From Dasham, the idea passed
on to Jaham bin Safwan, a native of Khorasan (in
Persia), who propagated it so vigorously that the Jabariya came to be
known as the Jahmiya. The Muslim history is likewise unclear about
the name of the group. They are referred to as Jabariya (they
believed in the absolute authority and control of God) as well as
Qadariya (they denied Man’s power to decide). I shall discuss this in
detail later in the book.
The question of the originator (Ma’abad
or Jahm) and the source (Zoarastrianism, Judaism or
Christianity) aside, there is no doubting the fact that this anti-Quranic
concept came into Islam from non-Islamic sources. It occurred in the early
days of the (Abbasid) period.
The intriguing question is how such an
anti-Quranic concept was accepted by Muslims? Despite the philosophical
arguments presented in its support, the Muslims could not, in all
probability, have accepted it without an Islamic evidence. Lo and behold!
They were presented with such an evidence! How did it all happen? It
is another sorry tale. The evidence presented
The ‘Din’ Evidence for an Anti-Quranic Idea
|
formed the basis not only of
|
the question of taqdeer but also
of all the anti-Quranic concepts injected into Islam.
Allah had declared the Quran
as the original source of the ‘Din’. The
The Tradition
|
Messenger taught and followed the Quran.
As long as it
|
remained so, no anti-Islamic concept could be
introduced. The Conspirators attacked this foundation and propagated the
notion that the ultimate authority in ‘Din’ is not the Quran alone.
It is accompanied by a likeness of it – the tradition (Hadith) of the
Messenger. Initially the tradition was presented as an instrument to
interpret and explain the Quran. Later, it was elevated to the
position of the hidden (unwritten) revelation. This notion was almost
identical to the Jewish concept of two kinds of divine revelation. One is
Tora shabktals (the visible, written revelation) of the Book of Moses,
the other Tora Shabalfa (the hidden, unwritten revelation),
consisting of the tradition of Moses, given through Aaron. The whole system
of Jewish jurisprudence is based upon Mosaic Tradition. The Quran mentions
only one kind of revelation – the one preserved in its entirety in the
Quran. But now, the same notion of two kinds of revelation (the Quran and
Mohammed’s tradition) was floated and propagated among Muslims. The Quran is
called ‘the recited revelation’ while the Tradition is termed as ‘the
un-recited revelation’.
Subsequently, the idea was propagated that if
two pieces of revelation are found to be contradictory to each other, one of
them must cancel the other. It followed logically that in case of a clash in
the above mentioned two kinds of revelation, the tradition shall supersede
the Quran. This notion established the tradition as the ultimate
source of authority in religious matters reducing the Quran to a book
to be recited as a virtue!
The Messenger did not give the Muslims any
collection of his tradition. He only gave the Quran (complete and
duly arranged) which we have today exactly as he did. Neither his righteous
successors (the first four caliphs) nor any of the other companions compiled
his tradition. Abu-Bakr & Omar (the first and the second caliph,
respectively) even forbade the writing or citing of the tradition for fear
of polluting the ‘Din’ (as presented by the Quran)! But, once the
above mentioned concept of Hadith had been introduced, a need arose
for compiling the tradition. The compilation accepted as the most authentic
(that of Imam Bokhari), appeared in the third century (Hijra).
Imam Bokhari died in 256 H. All the other collections (with the
exception of Imam Malik’s Muatta’ which contained very few
traditions) were complied after that. All these books were compiled not from
any documented record but from oral tradition of the people. It is not
difficult to make an academic & historical – let alone religious –
assessment of tradition compiled on oral evidence about 250 year after the
death of Mohammed. Nonetheless, these traditions, since most of them were
attributed to Mohammed, were accepted as authentic. Rejection of any one of
them meant denouncing one’s (Muslim) faith. Apart from the possibility of
human error, on the part of the tradition tellers, the opportunity it gave
to fabricators of Hadith is staggering. For example, Imam Bokhari
(according to his own statement) collected 600,000 pieces of tradition.
Sifting through this mass – on the basis of his own judgment (he had no
authority or approval from Mohammed) – he selected only about 7000,
rejecting about 593,000!
You may wonder why the Muslims accepted
something with such a shaky base. The reasons are sentimental. Muslims have
tremendous love, affection and respect for Mohammed. Every thing and
anything connected to him is highly revered. The tradition (which are his
actions and pronouncements) apart, people are known to kiss & prostate in
front of certain impressions in stone said to be Mohammed’s footprints! Such
sentiments were exploited by the fabricators of Hadith, and were they
successful!
This is how anti-Islamic concepts became
part of the Muslim ideology.
Tradition to support Compulsion
|
Here are a few examples of the
|
tradition about the question of taqdeer
(from a very authentic collection Mishkat - chapter on taqdeer):
i) Report from Abdullah bin Omar:
‘Said the Messenger that God Almighty, 50,000 years before creating the
Universe, while His throne was on water, wrote the destinies of all
creatures.
(from ‘Muslim’)
ii) The son of Omar reports:
‘The Messenger said that all things
are subject to Destiny, even wisdom and stupidity.’
(from ‘Muslim’)
iii) Reported from Ali:
‘The Messenger said, ‘Each one of
you has his fate pre-decided, i. e., paradise or hell.’
(from ‘Muslim & Bukhari’)
This is elaborated upon thus:
Abdu Hraira reports: ‘The
Messenger said, “One will certainly fornicate as much as has been written by
Allah. (‘Bokhari’ & ‘Muslim’)
Further: ‘The Messenger said,
“Allah created Adam, caressed his back with His right hand and created his
progeny from his back, and said, ‘I have created them for Paradise, so they
will behave accordingly.’ Once again He caressed Adam’s back and created his
progeny and said, ‘I have created them for Hell, so they will act
accordingly.’
Hearing this, a man queried, “O
Messenger of Allah! What is the use of doing deeds then? The Messenger
replied, ‘When God creates someone for Paradise, he is made to behave
accordingly. Similarly, when He creates someone for Hell, he is made to act
accordingly. Then He sends them to Paradise or Hell accordingly.
(Maalik, Tirmizi, Abu Dawood)
iv) Abdullah bin Omer reports:
‘Once the Messenger emerged (from
his house, probably) carrying two books. He addressed us, ‘Do you know about
these books?’ We said, ‘We know not, O Messenger of Allah!’ He pointed to
the book in his right hand and said, ‘This book is from Allah. It contains
the names of those destined for Paradise. Nothing can be added to, or
deleted from, it.’ Then he pointed to the book in his left hand and said,
‘This book is also from Allah, It contains the names of those destined for
Hell. Nothing can be added to, or deleted from, it.’
v) Abu Darda reports:
‘The Messenger of Allah said,
‘Allah has done and already finished His work about each single one of His
subjects in FIVE areas, i.e., they have been written as his destiny: his
time (age), his good or bad deeds, his place of abode, his return and his
sustenance. ‘ (Ahmed)
The collections of Hadith are full of
reports such as these. Any one looking at them in the light of the Quran,
and of knowledge and wisdom, is bound to have a variety of objections and
questions. The fabricators of such reports had foreseen this situation and
fabricated suitable reports accordingly. For example, Abu Huraira
reports: ‘We were discussing the question of taqdeer when the
Messenger came by. Hearing our discussion, he became red in the face – as if
it was full of pomegranate juice – and said, “it this what you have been
instructed to do? Is this my mission? Peoples in the past were destroyed
when they discussed this problem. I put you under oath, and I do it again,
never to discuss, argue or talk about the question.” (from ‘Tirmizi’)
Thus the anti-Quranic tradition about
taqdeer was assured immunity from criticism. Next was another very
significant step regarding the figurative language (similes, etc.) of the
Quran – a well-know style. For instance, the
The Figurative and the Literal
|
word (عرش)
in (ثم
استوى على العرش ) – and
|
then He settled on the throne – has been taken
to mean a real seat in the literal sense as well as, figuratively, the
center of power and control over the universe. One can take either of the
positions without jeopardizing one’s Conviction (ايمان).
Other instances, however, have to be taken literally and only in one way.
For example, the verse (قل
هو الله احد ) – Say that Allah is One -
does not allow one to accept any other position than to accept and declare
that there is only one God. The Quran has laid down,
categorically, the things essential for
Constituents of Conviction
|
one’s Conviction (popularly know as Articles of
|
Faith). The FIVE constituents of Conviction are
Allah, Angels, Messenger, (Divine) Books, and the Judgment Day (2/177).
Denying or rejecting any of these makes one a Dissenter (Kaafir) -(4/136).
The Quran mentions the FIVE constituents only. But then a SIXTH article was
introduced – and it has stayed – i. e., taqdeer (pre-destiny).
Once again, this addition was made through tradition.
The SIXTH Constituent
|
For example: i) Ali reports: ‘Said’ the
Messenger
|
that no one can be a momin (convinced
Muslim) until one accepts the following: 1. Testify that God alone is worthy
of worship and I (Mohammed) am His Messenger sent with the Truth; 2. Accept
death as fact; 3. Accept resurrection; 4. Accept taqdeer.’
(Tirmizi; Ibn Maja)
ii) Ibn Wailmy reports: ‘Ibn Abi Kaab
visited me and I told him of some misgivings I had had about taqdeer,
and asked him to narrate tradition in the hope of alleviating my doubt. He
said, ‘If Allah were to send calamities to people, He wouldn’t be an
oppressor. If He were merciful, His benevolence would doubtlessly exceed
peoples’ deeds. If you were to spend in charity gold equivalent of the
Uhad (mountain), your deed will not be acceptable until you wholly
accept taqdeer. You must understand that whatever reached you,
had to be so; and whatever you did not get, had to be so. If you believe
anything contravening this concept of taqdeer, you will burn
in hellfire! Ibn Wailym further reports: ‘After hearing out Ibn
Abi Ka’ab, I went to Abdullah Ibn Masud who said the same. Then I
went to Huzaifa bin AlYaman who said the same. Then I went to Zaid
Ibn Thaabit and he quoted the Messenger’s tradition to the same effect.
(Ahmed, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maaja). That is how this concept of
taqdeer, taken from Zoarastians, Christians and Jews became a
part of Muslim philosophy. How important it has become to the
religious minded among the
Elaboration by the late Syed Sulaiman Nadwi
|
Muslims can been from
|
Syed Sulaiman Nadwi’s serial work on the
life of Mohammed. In the fourth volume, treating concepts, he talks about
Allah, Angels, Books, Messengers and Dooms Day. Then he denotes an entire
chapter to taqdeer with the title ‘Qaza-o-Qadr’. It
opens thus:
‘Though the Quran has not
listed it (taqdeer) in reference to Imaan (Articles of
Faith), its frequent repetition in the Quran makes it important
enough to be made another article of Faith. Therefore, some traditions have
shown it to be the last constituent of Imaan’. (Seeratun
Nabi, P860)
The practical implications of a
particular concept becoming an ‘article of faith’ can be assessed only when
the clergy wields political power. It has been decreed (by the clergy) that
a Muslim rejecting any of these articles of faith becomes a ‘Murtad’
(denouncer of religion) and a murtad is punishable by death. The
Muslim historical accounts testify to the bloodshed of Muslims committed by
the clergy in the name of safeguarding the sixth article of faith.
--- x - x - x - x - x - x - x ---
The question must arise here
that when this anti-Quranic concept was
Protest against all this
|
being propagated was there no protesting voice
|
against it at all? Had the Islamic nation run
out of members who would negate this alien idea by presenting the Quranic
view? The fact is that such people did exist and strong protest were made.
Their arguments were:
i) The ultimate authority of ‘Din’ is
Allah’s Book (the Quran) which can be understood if knowledge and
reason are employed.
ii) The Law of Returns is a fundamental
principle of the Quranic philosophy according to which Man is
responsible for his actions. The institution of divine guidance through
Allah’s book and messengers and the principle of reward and punishment (both
here and in the hereafter), all support the view of Man’s free will.
Rejection of this view (by the idea
of Compulsion) reduces Man to the level of the inanimate (elements,
minerals, etc.) and the animate (plants, animals) who have no will, and
therefore, no responsibility. That is why no messenger has ever been sent to
them!
These weighty arguments were rebutted by
the compulsionists in a uniquely
Countering by calling names
|
effective way. Apart from the Hadith
|
(mentioned earlier), they developed a technique
of labeling their opponents with derogatory names. This continues to this
day. For example, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan proposed certain ideas
which were strongly opposed by the conservatively religious. He had said
that the secret of West’s progress lies in studying and harnessing nature,
so we (the Muslims of British India) must study natural sciences. The clergy
picked on the word ‘nature’ and began referring to Sir Syed as
‘Natury’ (a naturalist). Their propaganda made the word synonymous with
atheism, paganism, anti-religion, etc. They advised people not to pay any
attention to ‘this naturalist’. Sadly, no one ever bothered to stop and ask
what the term really meant. This technique of labeling an opponent out is
justly illustrated by a (perhaps fictional) story in which a Hindu trader in
a village was labeled as a Wahabi (a Muslim sect detested by the
majority sect of Sunnis) by the village moulvi (Muslim
priest)!
The compulsionists had invented
names like Mutazila and Qadariya for their opposers.
Fabricated tradition also appeared claiming that the Messenger had said, :
‘The Qadariya are the Magus of this (Islamic) nation’. This made them
rejecters of faith (murtad), and therefore, punishable by death!
Their writings were burned, losing valuable intellectual work for ever! That
was the end of Mutazila (Qadariya). Since then, the clergy has
routinely used the label of Mutazila to quieten voices of reason.
Consequently, the Muslim world has long forgotten the use of reason and
intellect. Sir Syed was labeled as Mutazila as well as I (the
author of this book)! I have been declared a kaafir by a collective
decree of 1000 religious leaders!
The Compulsionists also present
certain Quranic verses in support of
The Quranic Support for Compulsion
|
Their view. For instance
|
“يضل
من يشاء ويهدي من يشاء “ (He misleads
whom He wished and guides whom He wishes) and “يغفر
لمن يشاء ويعذب من يشاء “ (He spares whom
He wishes and punishes whom He wishes) etc. Let me examine in detail some of
such verses which are essential to a correct understanding of the question
of taqdeer.
*********************
Before I embark upon the task of
explaining such Quranic verses as mentioned above, it is essential
to deliberate on the fundamentals of
Fundamentals of Comprehension of the Quran
|
comprehension of the
|
Quran. First of all, please note that
one of the evidences presented by the Quran in support of its claim
of being divine is its consistency and absolute lack of internal
contradiction (4/82). Therefore, it is not possible for the Quran to
support as well as reject free will of Man.
Secondly, if one comes across
apparent contradiction in the Quran, it must neither be considered
superficially nor ignored. In such situations, the Quran has
suggested deliberation with reason.
As far as deliberation in the
Quran is concerned, there are two points of absolute importance. One is
to consider all the Quranic verses about a particular
topic to get the true picture. This is called “تصريف
الآيات “ - repetition of verses - by the
Quran. Secondly, no verse can be interpreted in a way contrary to the
central themes of the Quran. For instance, one of the central themes
of the book is that Allah is unique. Now, Allah has been called
al-Khaaliq (the creator). Elsewhere, He is referred to as
"احسن
الخالقين" (the best of creators).
Apparently, there is a contradiction here – if the Quran recognizes
creators other than Allah, He cannot be unique. This confusion is cleared
when one deliberates in the manner suggested in earlier. The Quran
calls Allah “فاطر
السموات والأرض “ or “بديع
السموات والأرض“ (the One who has brought
the Universe into existence from nothing). Only He can do it. Therefore,
Allah and Man differ in their creative powers as Man can create
only from matter already existing.
I propose to employ this approach
later in this book to interpret ‘ verses of intention’ – “ما
يشاء “, “من
يشاء “, “لو
شاء “, etc.
I must ask the reader to bear in
mind one very important point in this regard. In the following chapters,
when I use the expressions like ‘the commonly accepted translation’ or ‘the
current interpretation’ etc., I don’t mean what the masses believe in. Those
translations and interpretations of the Quran have been authored by
learned scholars. My reader may ask here, once again bewilderingly: ‘How did
learned scholars wrote what they did?
Let us ponder for a while on this.
We have seen that the very first Muslim
history was complied by Imam Tabri in
Interpretations of the Quran
|
the fourth century (hijra). The very same
Tabri
|
is also the first ever interpreter of the
Quran. He quotes traditions of the Messenger in support of his
interpretation. This made it appear to be an interpretation by Mohammed
himself. Under the circumstances, no Muslim dares differ with it! Therefore,
the subsequent interpretations were based upon Tabri’s book The
differences, if any, were minor and even then on the basis of tradition. The
translations of the Quran were bound to be influenced by these
preceding interpretations.
Another Muslim attitude, handed
down since generations, regarding their ancestors is that even a little bit
of dissent is sinful. If the attitude towards tradition was that it has been
simply attributed (subject to confirmation) to Mohammed, an interpretation
other than the tradition would have been possible. This was not to be.
Consequently, deliberation in the Quran has been static for
centuries. The Quran should be interpreted in its own light. That is
precisely what I have tried to do. As to translation, as I have said in the
foreword of this book, the Quran just cannot be translated into
another language. Words exactly synonymous with the Quranic lexicon
simply do not exist elsewhere. Therefore, I maintain that the Quran
can be interpreted but NOT translated. A verbatim translation just does not
explain the meanings of the Quran. In the chapters to follow, I have
interpreted the Quran in the same way – an interpretation of the
Quran supported by the Quran.
No comments:
Post a Comment