Thowheed Jamaath affirms that Zakaah is not due on goods (or wealth) for which Zakaah has previously been paid. But, due to lack of presenting written evidence in front of people, it paved way for some to preach (?) this in wrong sense.

Some criticize that we totally neglect paying Zakaah. And some others preach that we insist people to pay Zakaah only once during their lifetime.

Hence, what is the stand on paying Zakaah for goods for which Zakaah has previously been paid? And what is the stand of Thowheed Jamaath?

Since a long time, people requested us to present in written form, our stand on the evidences and arguments of people who insist in paying Zakaah for goods (or wealth) for which Zakaah has previously been paid.

We publish this book as a means of satisfying their request.

This book is not intended to explain the obligation - Zakaah entirely. Rather, it only focuses in detail, a single issue: “Should Zakaah be paid for goods (or wealth) for which Zakaah has previously been paid?”

We request the readers not to be biased and be impartial to understand the truth.

We also extend our sincere thanks to P. Zainul Abidheen (a. PJ), S.S.U. Saifullah Haja, M.S. Sulaiman, S. Kaleel Rasool, P. Anwer Basha, P.M. Muhammad Ali Rahmani, S.A. Basheer Ahamed Umari, Yousuf Faizi, S. Rahmathullah, Fakir Muhammad Althafi, A. Syed Ibrahim, M.M. Saifullah and S.M. Abbas.

Nabeela Publication

Preface of English Translator

Since English is a universal language, understood by majority of the population, I decided to translate Thowheed articles (originally published by Thowheed Jamaath in Tamil), Alhamdhulillah! Insha Allah, this would also serve as a shield against the fake criticism of people in contrary belief.

The main intention behind such effort is to spread the message of Islam in its purest form, Insha Allah.

Most importantly the concept of following only Quran and Hadhees itself is corrupted by people insisting to follow Salafs (Predecessors). And such corruption is extremely dangerous.

As per strong Islamic belief, Wahi or the Divine Guidance from Allah Subahana thala itself is self sufficient and complete. Hence, selecting such third way is clear Bid’ah and would mean as if Allah’s divine guidance has flaws. This is as a result of comparing Word of Allah to Human words. As a Muslim, we are bound not to compare Allah’s word with that of Human words. Of course, only Allah knows the best!

(A. Mohammed Ghani)

Index

1.0 Introduction

Should Zakaah be paid for Wealth on which Zakaah has previously been paid?....................06

1.1 Zakaah is only intended for purifying Wealth………………………………………………………… 11

1.1.1 What is the Apprehension involved?.............................................................................. 13

1.1.2 Impurity of People or Wealth?..................................................................................... 14

1.1.3 Will it purify People?................................................................................................... 14

1.1.4 Why is Zakaah Obligatory for Inherited Assert?...................................................... 15

2.0 Unacceptable Evidences……………………………………………………………………… 16

2.1 Orphans’ Wealth……………………………………………………………………… 17

2.1.1 Misconception……………………………………………………………………… 17

2.1.2 Grade of the Narrations…………………………………………………………….. 17

2.1.2.1 Narration-1……………………………………………………………………….. 17

2.1.2.1.1 Scandals pertaining to Al-Muthannaa Ibn as-Sabaah………………………….. 18

2.1.2.2 Narration-2……………………………………………………………………….. 19

2.1.2.2.1 Scandals pertaining to Mindhal……………………………………………….... 19

2.1.2.2.2 Scandals pertaining to ‘Ubayd Ibn Is’haaq…………………………………….. 19

2.1.2.3 Narration-3……………………………………………………………………….. 20

2.1.2.4 Narration-4……………………………………………………………………….. 21

2.1.3 Hadhees doesn’t imply “Yearly” ………………………………………………….. 22

2.1.4 Injustice to Orphan………………………………………………………………… 22

2.2 Narration citing Zakaah paid in advance…………………………………………….. 23

2.2.1 Grade of the Narrations…………………………………………………………….. 24

2.2.1.1 Narration-1……………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.2.1.2 Narration-2……………………………………………………………………….. 25

2.2.1.3 Narration-3………………………………………………………………………... 25

2.2.1.4 Narration-4………………………………………………………………………... 25

2.2.1.5 Narration-5………………………………………………………………………... 26

2.2.1.6 Narration-6………………………………………………………………………... 26

2.2.1.7 Narration-7………………………………………………………………………... 27

2.2.2 Contrary to the Authentic Narration………………………………………………... 28

2.2.3 Can Zakaah be collected in advance? ……………………………………………... 29

2.3 Zakaah not obliged until a year passes on it………………………………………….. 30

2.3.1 Every Year……………………………………………………………………………... 32

2.3.1.1 Narration of Al-Bayhaqee…………………………………………………………… 32

2.3.1.2 Narration of Thabarani………………………………………………………………. 33

2.3.1.3 Narration of Abu Dawud…………………………………………………………….. 34

2.3.1.4 Narration of Abu Dawud also has two deficiencies………………………………. 34

2.4 Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with Him)’s Rule…………………………………... 35

2.5 Zakaah for Cattle……………………………………………………………………… 37

3.0 COMPANIONS- Should one follow their Guidance? ………………………………………… 38

3.1 Hajj-at-Tamattu'………………………………………………………………………… 41

3.2 Bathing (Ghusl)………………………………………………………………………… 42

3.3 Rubbing hands and feet with dust (Tayammum) …………………………………….. 43

3.4 Plague…………………………………………………………………………………... 43

3.5 Asking Permission………………………………………………………………………… 44

3.6 Death of Apostle of Allah…………………………………………………………………. 44

3.7 Three Divorces - Muttalaq………………………………………………………………… 45

1.0 Introduction

Should Zakaah be paid for Wealth on which Zakaah has previously been paid?

Majority of the Islamic Scholars proclaim that Zakaah is required annually on all accumulated wealth above the nisaab on which a year has passed.

For instance, if a Muslim has a wealth of about Rs. 100,000, he is obliged to pay 2.5% of it as Zakaah. In the Consecutive year, 2.5% of the remaining 97500 is directed. This is the practice of Majority of the Scholars.

In this affair, we differ.

If one owns Rs. 100, 000; Rs.25, 00 of this should be paid as Zakaah. After this, Zakaah is not obligatory on this wealth (for which Zakaah is previously paid). Zakaah should be paid only for the excess amount obtained apart from this sum of money.

For example, if one acquires another sum of Rs. 100,000 (apart wealth on which Zakaah has previously been paid), it is sufficient if Zakaah is paid on the additional sum acquired, for which it is obligatory. Our decision is that Zakaah is not required for wealth on which Zakaah has previously been paid.

Similarly only 2.5 Souverign (2.5%) of the Zakaah is obligatory for 100 Souverign of Gold. An additional acquirement of 50 Souverign would mandate Zakaah of 1.25 Souverign (2.5% of 50 Souverign and not of 147.5 Souverign). Zakaah is not applicable for 97.5 Souverign for which Zakaah is already been paid.

Awaiting the completion of one year to mandate Zakaah is not required. 2.5% Zakaah is obligatory on the leftover wealth (excluding monthly expenses), if one obtains Rs. 100,000 every month.

Zakaah becomes obligatory on possession of minimum 11 Souverigns of Gold or its equivalent; the threshold for Zakaah becoming mandatory.

(Few Scholars emphasize that 624 Grams of Silver or its equivalent is the threshold for Zakaah becoming obligatory. We are in the process of analyzing this.)

Similarly, if one earns daily, he should give Zakaah on the leftovers of the day. If one’s income is monthly, it should be done at the end of the month and similarly for yearly income.

What is the motive of this Decision?

There are few Hadhees stating Zakaah be paid for wealth on which Zakaah has previously been paid. There are also few Hadhees indicating Zakaah every year for which Zakaah has previously been paid.

It would be a fair decision, if these Narrations are Authentic. But, all these Narrations are Un-Authenticated. They are either fabricated or are Da’eef.

The detail discussion includes these Narrations and defines the aspect in which they are Da’eef. There are evidences for:

Ø The state in which Zakaah is Obligatory.

Ø How much to be given out.

Ø Whom all it should be given.

But, there are no acceptable proofs for paying Zakaah for goods for which Zakaah is previously paid. When there is no acceptable Evidence, how do we interpret the Obligation of Zakaah?

In General, if some Duties are ordained without time-bound, it refers to do once.

Everything from Spiritual Worship to Worldly Trade is interpreted in similar manner, which is the right way of interpreting too. In case of Salah, there is direct command to pray 5 times daily. Hence we understand that performing Salah, 5 times a day, day after day is obligatory.

If in Quran or Sunnah, it is only commanded “to perform Salah” and when there are no indications on the frequency, it would not be interpreted as 5 times a day; neither would it be interpreted as once in month nor year. At the same time if this kind of interpretation is made, would give rise to questions something like “based on which proof was this inferred?”

In case of Fasting (Sawm), there are obvious commands to fast throughout the month of Ramadhan. Ramadhan being the name of a specific month and which iterates again and again year after year; simplifies our decision making that fasting is to be performed every year, year after year.

But in case if in Quran and Sunnah it is commanded only “to fast” without specifying day or month, how will this be inferred?

It will be inferred as only “Once in lifetime”. There would be no contrary questions for this inference.

Unlike this, if it is concluded to fast Weekly or Monthly or one month in a year, or one week in a year, obvious questions on the “time limit” set would arise; which would leave us unvoiced.

Hajj can be considered as a relevant example:

The Book of Pilgrimage (Kitab Al-Hajj)

Muslim:: Book 7 : Hadith 3095

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) addressed us and said: O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory for you; so perform Hajj. Thereupon a person said: Messenger of Allah, (is it to be performed) every year? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet, and he repeated (these words) thrice, whereupon Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) said: If I were to say" Yes," it would become obligatory (for you to perform it every year) and you would not be able to do it. Then he said: Leave me with what I have left to you, for those who were before you were destroyed because of excessive questioning, and their opposition to their apostles. So when I command you to do anything, do it as much as it lies in your power and when I forbid you to do anything, then abandon it.

When, Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) specified the obligation of Hajj, a Companion questioned him “is it every year?” thereupon Allah’s Apostle, expressed Anger: explained that once in lifetime.

The Companion questioned this because Hajj month iterates year after year, and people gather every year. Even then, Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) clarified that it should not be inferred like that.

We understand that if something is commanded without setting Time Limit, it should be performed only once.

Suppose A is commanded to “give Rs. 1000 to B”. Both of them, A and B would understand “to give it only once”

With respect to the command cited above, if B asks A for Rs.1000 every year, will A give? Definitely he won’t.

Command on Zakaah is also on the same ground.

People in contrary principle frequently questions us to show “Proof for giving Zakaah only once”.

If the meaning of a word is evident, is it intellectual to ask for evidence? They hesitate to understand this.

Assume that A tells B that I will give you Rs. 1000 and as per that A gives Rs 1000 as well. B comes back again next year and asks A Rs 1000, thereupon A say that I have given. What would A consider B if he questions something like “you never refuted giving every year and what is the evidence?”

A would question back “Didn’t you understand the Generic statement and not specifying ‘every year’ is the proof?”

Commanding Zakaah on Wealth is a Generic Statement: should it be given:

Ø Every second?

Ø Every minute?

Ø Every hour?

Ø Every day?

Ø Every week?

Ø Every month?

Ø Once in two months?

Ø Once in three months?

Ø Once in six months?

Ø Every year?

Ø Once in 5 years?

This gives rise to Thousands of meanings/interpretations. Whoever concludes it as “Every year” from these Thousands of interpretations should present proofs in support of this claim.

Quoting without setting any Time limit itself is sufficient evidence for us.

Another illustration can be cited to prove that when time limit is not set, it refers to “only once”.

Distribution of Water

Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 40 :: Hadith 545

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) said, "No bloodmoney will be charged if somebody dies in a mine or in a well or is killed by an animal; and if somebody finds a treasure in his land he has to give one-fifth of it to the Government."

Will it be interpreted as Person, hunted treasure should pay 20% year after year? or once?

Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 713

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The delegates of 'Abd-ul-Qais came to Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We are from the tribe of Rabi'a and the infidels of Mudar tribe stand between us and you, so that we cannot come to you except in the Sacred Months. Therefore we would like you to give us some instructions which we may follow and convey to our people staying behind us." The Prophet said, "I order you to observe four things and forbid you (to do) four things: (I order you) to believe in Allah testifying that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah; to offer the prayer perfectly; to pay the Zakaah; and to give one-fifth of the war booty to Allah. And I forbid you to use Ad-Dubba, Al-Hantam, An-Naqir and Al-Muzaffat." (These are names of utensils in which alcoholic drinks were served.)

Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab)

Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 195

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When the delegation of 'Abdul Qais came to the Prophet, he said, "Welcome, O the delegation who have come! Neither will you have disgrace, nor will you regret." They said, "O Allah's Apostle! We are a group from the tribe of Ar-Rabi'a, and between you and us there is the tribe of Mudar and we cannot come to you except in the sacred months. So please order us to do something good (religious deeds) so that we may enter Paradise by doing that, and also that we may order our people who are behind us (whom we have left behind at home) to follow it." He said, "Four and four:" offer prayers perfectly, pay the Zakaah, (obligatory charity), fast the month of Ramadan, and give one-fifth of the war booty (in Allah's cause), and do not drink in (containers called) Ad-Duba,' Al-Hantam, An-Naqir and Al-Muzaffat."

Accepting Information Given by a Truthful Person

Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 91 :: Hadith 371

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

When the delegate of 'Abd Al-Qais came to Allah's Apostle, he said, "Who are the delegate?" They said, "The delegate are from the tribe of Rabi'a." The Prophet said, "Welcome, O the delegate, and welcome! O people! Neither you will have any disgrace nor will you regret." They said, "O Allah's Apostle! Between you and us there are the infidels of the tribe of Mudar, so please order us to do something good (religious deeds) that by acting on them we may enter Paradise, and that we may inform (our people) whom we have left behind, about it." They also asked (the Prophet) about drinks. He forbade them from four things and ordered them to do four things. He ordered them to believe in Allah, and asked them, "Do you know what is meant by belief in Allah?" They said, "Allah and His Apostle know best." He said, ''To testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, the One, Who has no partners with Him, and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle; and to offer prayers perfectly and to pay Zakaah." (the narrator thinks that fasting in Ramadan is included), "and to give one-fifth of the war booty (to the state)." Then he forbade four (drinking utensils): Ad-Duba', Al-Hantam, Al-Mazaffat and An-Naqir, or probably, Al-Muqaiyar. And then the Prophet said, "Remember all these things by heart and preach it to those whom you have left behind."

Oneness, Uniqueness of Allah (Tawheed)

Bukhari:: Book 9:: Volume 93 :: Hadith 645

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The delegates of 'Abdul Qais came to Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) and said, "The pagans of the tribe of Mudar intervene between you and us therefore we cannot come to you except in the Holy months. So please order us to do something good (Religious deeds) by which we may enter Paradise (by acting on them) and we may inform our people whom we have left behind to observe it." The Prophet said, "I order you to do four things and forbid you from four things: I order you to believe in Allah. Do you know what is meant by belief in Allah? It is to testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, to offer prayers perfectly, to give Zakaah, and to give Al-Khumus (one-fifth of the war booty) (in Allah's Cause). And I forbid you four things, (i.e., Do not drink alcoholic drinks) Ad-Dubba, An-Naqir, (pitched water skins), Az-Zuruf, Al-Muzaffat and Al--Hantam (names of utensils used for the preparation of alcoholic drinks)." (See Hadith No. 50, Vol. 1)

Does this imply to give 20% of war booty year after year? Or 20% of booty acquired while facing another war?

Hence, if one fails to prove that Paying Zakaah is obligatory year after year, it would by default be proved that Zakaah is obligatory only once on a Wealth.

This is the important proof we place front.

To strengthen this claim, we also provide some supporting information.

People in contrary belief; deviate from the topic by not answering our fundamental claims and by answering (?)Few questions raised in our supporting information.

Even for an instance, if it is assumed (?) that they prove our supporting information wrong, they still cannot establish their decision unless they answer our primary claims.

Hence, they should answer the supporting evidences, and most importantly, should undoubtedly prove Zakaah is obligatory on Goods for which Zakaah has previously been paid.

1.1 Zakaah is only intended for purifying Wealth

In Islam, the intention of Paying Zakaah is clearly specified. This intention further strengthens our claim.

حدثنا عثمان بن أبي شيبة حدثنا يحيى بن يعلى المحاربي حدثنا أبي حدثنا غيلان عن جعفر بن إياس أبو وحشية عن مجاهد عن ابن عباس قال لما نزلت هذه الآية والذين يكنزون الذهب والفضة قال كبر ذلك على المسلمين فقال عمر رضي الله عنه أنا أفرج عنكم فانطلق فقال يا نبي الله إنه كبر على أصحابك هذه الآية فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله لم يفرض الزكاة إلا ليطيب ما بقي من أموالكم وإنما فرض المواريث لتكون لمن بعدكم فكبر عمر ثم قال له ألا أخبرك بخير ما يكنز المرء المرأة الصالحة إذا نظر إليها سرته وإذا أمرها أطاعته وإذا غاب عنها حفظته

Zakaah (Kitab Al-Zakaah)

Dawud:: Book 9: Hadith 1660

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

When this verse was revealed: "And those who hoard gold and silver," the Muslims were grieved about it. Umar said: I shall dispel your care. He, therefore, went and said: Prophet of Allah, your Companions were grieved by this verse. The Apostle of Allah (Peace Be Upon Him) said: Allah has made Zakaah obligatory simply to purify your remaining property, and He made inheritances obligatory that they might come to those who survive you. Umar then said: Allah is most great. He then said to him: Let me inform you about the best a man hoards; it is a virtuous woman who pleases him when he looks at her, obeys him when he gives her a command, and guards his interests when he is away from her.

This observation of Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) that Zakaah is not obligatory but for purifying the excess wealth therefore remain; as a strong proof in support of our decision.

People in contrary principle published a book that none of the Authentic Narrations remain in support of “Zakaah intended only for Purifying wealth”

But, the above cited Narration falsifies their claim.

If the intention of Zakaah is only to purify wealth, it becomes obvious that there is no need to pay Zakaah for the wealth for which Zakaah has been previously paid.

After finding this Hadhees in support of our decision, people in contrary principle tries to reject this by claiming that the narrator chain of this Hadhees is broken.

The Narrator chain is as follows:

1. Author Abu Dawud.

2. Utman bin Abeeshiba.

3. Yahya.

4. Yaqla.

5. Kylon.

6. Jaffer bin Iyas.

7. Mujahid.

8. Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them).

9. Umar (May Allah be pleased with them).

10. Allah’s Apostle.

In this row, the Narrators report from the predecessors.

It is said in this list that Kylon (5) reports from Jaffer bin Iyas (6). They claim that since both of them have never met, this is “Munkadhi” and should be rejected.

For such claim, they should point out the reason. Instead, they show Imam Albani’s claim as evidence.

When denial with no reason of Great Scholars, well versed in Science of Hadhees like Ibnu Hajar, Thahabi, Ibnu Mayeen, Yahya bin Syed are not accepted, they claim this Narration as Broken with the misconception that research work of Nasirudheen Albani, who belongs to our Era, is free from error.

It is been observed that people follow blindly when Nasirudheen Albani’s say is positive on a particular matter. But, there are proofs that Albani have told an Authentic Narration Da’eef, Da’eef Narration Authentic, and which is not present in Narration as being present. Though Albani is an Excellent Scholar, being a Human, he is also prone to errors. It is to be noted that there is no Scholar of Hadhees Science exclusive of these deficiencies.

The claim of Albani that this Hadhees is broken is based on this:

Ø Jaffer Bin Iyas.

Ø Utman bin Kathan.

Ø Kylon.

This Hadhees is documented in Hakim with this Narrator chain.

In this Narration, Uthman exists between Jaffer and Kylon. Since he is missing in the narration documented in Abu Dawud, Albani says that this Hadhees is Broken.

But, since Uthman bin Katthan existing in Narration of Hakim is Feeble, this Hadhees cannot be accepted.

It is meaningless research to decide upon the existence of a person in a Da’eef narration would falsify an Authentic Narration if he is left out in the narrator’s chain of an authentic narration.

Actually, when asked if Kylon could have met Jaffer, the answer would be “possible” because Kylon’s demise took place in Hijri 132 and that of Jaffer bin Iyas is Hijri 126.

غيلان بن جامع بن أشعث المحاربي أبو عبد الله الكوفي قاضيها ثقة من السادسة مات سنة اثنتين وثلاثين م د س ق (تقريب التهذيب ج: 1 ص: 443)

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 1/443

جعفر بن إياس أبو بشر بن أبي وحشية بفتح الواو وسكون المهملة وكسر المعجمة وتثقيل التحتانية ... مات سنة خمس وقيل ست وعشرين ع تقريب التهذيب ج: 1 ص: 139

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 1/139

There is only 6 year gap between their demise. This is relatively much more sufficient period for them to have met each other.

Moreover, Jaffer bin Iyas belongs to Basra and Kylon to Kufa. There is no surprise in people from adjacent cities to have met.

We all agree that the Narrations documented in Saheeh Muslim is Authenticated. Imam Muslim, in his preface quotes that when both the narrators are Reliable, and when both have existed in same Era, and when conditions prevailed for both of them to have met; it is sufficient for us to assume that one of them have perceived from the other. Imam Muslim have documented the Narrations in Saheeh Muslim based on this criterion. Scholars of Hadhees Science have also accepted this. Hence, Kylon hearing from Jaffer cannot be rejected.

Neither there is a basis nor Proof for both of them not having met. This is a wrong decision of Albani which is not accepted by anyone. They justify this stand of falsifying an Authentic Narration with a Da’eef Narration.

Some more Narrations strengthens that Zakaah is for purifying Wealth.

1.1.1 What is the Apprehension involved?

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ شَبِيبِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي عَنْ يُونُسَ عَنْ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ قَالَ خَرَجْنَا مَعَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا فَقَالَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ أَخْبِرْنِي عَنْ قَوْلِ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ قَالَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا مَنْ كَنَزَهَا فَلَمْ يُؤَدِّ زَكَاتَهَا فَوَيْلٌ لَهُ إِنَّمَا كَانَ هَذَا قَبْلَ أَنْ تُنْزَلَ الزَّكَاةُ فَلَمَّا أُنْزِلَتْ جَعَلَهَا اللَّهُ طُهْرًا لِلْأَمْوَالِ رواه البخاري

Bukhari Chapter: 4

Narrated Khalid Bin Aslam

We went outside with Abdullah Bin Umar (May Allah be pleased with them), then a Villager asked to clarify the verse “whoever hoards gold and silver from spending in Allah’s Cause…” Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) replied “whoever hoards them from paying Zakaah will be losers”. And that "this warning was applicable before legislation of Zakaah. When Zakaah was made a duty, Allah made it serve as purification of money." The proof that even Companions believed that the Narration of Abu Dawud where-in it states that Zakaah is to purify Wealth further strengthens the above cited Hadhees.

When we say this, some pretend not to have understood and raise a concern as to how the statements of Companions be taken as Islamic Evidence. They deviate by not understanding the difference between showing something as evidence and showing something to strengthen a claim.

We didn’t show Companions’ statements as Evidence. We quote the Allah’s Apostle’s observation Narrated in Abu Dawud as Evidence and highlight Ibn Umar’s statement as additional-supportive evidence. But, we are ignorant over the apprehension involved in People considering Companion’s guidance as third Evidence neglecting this third evidence.

1.1.2 Impurity of People or Wealth?

We are aware that Zakaah is forbidden for the Family member’s of Allah’s Apostle.

While Forbidding Zakaah for himself and his family members, Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) explained the reason behind, documented in Saheeh Muslim:

He mentioned it as “Impurities”. Some use this Hadhees to claim that Zakaah will purify only People and not Wealth. But, a deep insight would turn this against their claim.

People’s impurity doesn’t mean the residue from their body. Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) cited the phrase “People’s Impurities” because when Wealth (for which Zakaah has previously been paid) is Pure, then the expelled wealth (as Zakaah) becomes impure and hence is referring to Impurities of Human race. This further strengthens that intention of Zakaah is to purify goods.

The Book of Zakaah (Kitab Al-Zakaah)

Muslim :: Book 5 : Hadith 2348

Rabi'a b. Harith b. 'Abd al-Muttalib and Abbas b. 'Abd al-Muttalib said to Abd al-Muttalib b. Rabi'a and Fadl b. Ibn Abbas: Go to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and the rest of the Hadith is the same (but with this addition):" 'Ali spread his cloak and then lay down on it and said: I am the father of Hasan, and I am the chief. By Allah, I would not move from my place till your sons come back to you with the reply to that for which you sent them to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). And he then also said: Verily these sadaqat are the impurities of people, and they are not permissible for Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), and for the family of Muhammad. And he also said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) also said to me: Call Mahmiya b. Jaz', and he was person from Banu Asad. and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had appointed him as a collector of khums.

1.1.3 Will it purify People?

Others try to conceal the view that Zakaah purifies goods by quoting the Narrations conveying the view that Zakaah purifies people.

خُذۡ مِنۡ أَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ صَدَقَةً۬ تُطَهِّرُهُمۡ وَتُزَكِّيہِم بِہَا وَصَلِّ عَلَيۡهِمۡ‌ۖ إِنَّ صَلَوٰتَكَ سَكَنٌ۬ لَّهُمۡ‌ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

Surah: 9.At-Taubah Verse: 103

Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke [Allah's blessings] upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

When Zakaah purifies People, does it deduce not to purify wealth?

When you say Needle is used to Stitch new clothes, does it mean that it cannot be used to stitch torn clothes?

We say that Zakaah purifies People, and also purifies Goods.

1.1.4 Why is Zakaah Obligatory for Inherited Assert?

People raise a marvelous (?) question that when Zakaah is for purifying Goods, why does it become obligatory for the inherited property also?

We all are aware that Zakaah is forbidden, impure for Allah’s Apostle.

One of the Companions got a thing, an impurity as Zakaah and gifted it to Allah’s Apostle. Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) referred it as “this is Charity for you, a gift for me”

Obligatory Charity Tax (Zakaah)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 24 :: Hadith 570

Narrated Al-Aswad:

'Aisha intended to buy Barira (a slave-girl) in order to manumit her and her masters intended to put the condition that her Al-wala would be for them. 'Aisha mentioned that to the Prophet who said to her, "Buy her, as the "Wala" is for the manumitted." Once some meat was presented to the Prophet and 'Aisha said to him, "This (meat) was given in charity to Barira." He said, "It is an object of charity for Barira but a gift for us."

Obligatory Charity Tax (Zakaah)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 24 :: Hadith 572

Narrated Anas:

Some meat was presented to the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and it had been given to Barira (the freed slave-girl of Aisha) in charity. He said, "This meat is a thing of charity for Barira but it is a gift for us."

Obligatory Charity Tax (Zakaah)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 24 :: Hadith 571

Narrated Um 'Atiyya Al-Ansariya :

The Prophet went to 'Aisha and asked her whether she had something (to eat). She replied that she had nothing except the mutton (piece) which Nusaiba (Um 'Atiyya) had sent to us (Buraira) in charity." The Prophet said, "It has reached its place and now it is not a thing of charity but a gift for us."

Gifts

Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 47 :: Hadith 752

Narrated 'Aisha:

I intended to buy Buraira but her masters stipulated that her Wala should be for them. When the Prophet was told about it, he said to me, "Buy and manumit her, as the Wala' is for the liberator." Once Buraira was given some meat, and the Prophet asked, "What is this?" I said, "It has been given to Buraira in charity." He said, "It is sadaqa for her but a gift for us." Buraira was given the option (to stay with her husband or to part with him). AbdurRahman (a sub-narrator) wondered, "Was her husband a slave or a free man?" Shu'ba (another sub-narrator) said, "I asked 'Abdur-Rahman whether her husband was a slave or a free man. He replied that he did not know whether he was a slave or a free man."

Gifts

Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 47 :: Hadith 751

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Some meat was brought to the Prophet and it was said that the meat had been given in charity to Buraira. He said, "It was Sadaqa for Buraira but a gift for us."

Laws of Inheritance (Al-Faraa'id)

Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 80 :: Hadith 743

Narrated 'Aisha:

I bought Barira (a female slave). The Prophet said (to me), "Buy her as the Wala' is for the manumitted." Once she was given a sheep (in charity). The Prophet said, "It (the sheep) is a charitable gift for her (Barira) and a gift for us." Al-Hakam said, "Barira's husband was a free man." Ibn 'Abbas said, 'When I saw him, he was a slave."

The impurity from one Person changed from the impure state when moved to the other; similarly when one gets a Good from another, He should purify it for his account.

They might even ask Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) “How impure good is purified?”

Another thing is to be clarified here. We present this only as supporting information. Even if Zakaah doesn’t intend to purify goods, there will be no consequence to our fundamental argument.

Few others question whether Jisya is mentioned as yearly (iteratively year after year)? And why do we take it as yearly.

This question is a result of ignorance over our Stance. If Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) never mentioned yearly (iteratively year after year) for Jisya, we would have taken the similar stance (as that of Zakaah).

We wouldn’t take up a decision based on the formerly determined fact.

2.0 Unacceptable Evidences

People in contrary principle lay forward few Evidences in support of their claim. These evidences are Da’eef in nature.

Of those, few instances, apart from being Da’eef , do not serve the purpose of supporting their claim.

Few other narrations, apart from being Da’eef , devastate other fundamentals of Islam.

Let’s browse through all those Evidences one by one.

2.1 Orphans’ Wealth

عَنْ عَمْرو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ سَعِيدٍ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: اِبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوالِ الْيَتَامَى لاَ تَأْكُلُهَا الصَّدَقَةُ

Sunan at-Tirmithhee 581

‘Amr Ibn Shu‘ayb reported from Sa‘eed Ibn al-Musayyab that [the second Righteous Caliph,] ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattaab, said: “Trade with the orphans’ wealth so that Zakaah will not consume it.”

2.1.1 Misconception

They quote this Narration as their evidence. Let us focus on the Authenticity of this Narration and state of their claim after understanding their view from this Narration.

Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) wouldn’t have told that “Zakaah would consume the wealth for which Zakaah has been previously been paid” if Zakaah is not obligatory on Goods (for which Zakaah has previously been paid) yearly. If 2.5% Zakaah is paid once, balance 97.5% would be leftover. But, if Zakaah is paid every year, Wealth would gradually degrade and hence Trade Orphans’ wealth to prevent it from getting corrupted. Hence, they claim that Zakaah is to be repeatedly taken from the same wealth as long as it is above the nisab.

2.1.2 Grade of the Narration

2.1.2.1 Narration-1

Their claim becomes deficient in the very sight since the above cited Narration not Authentic.

Imam Sunan at-Tirmithhee, who documented this Hadhees, mentions in the foot of the Narration that “There is gossip in the Narrators’ chain because Al-Muthannaa Ibn as-Sabaah is Feeble”

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَعِيلَ حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُوسَى حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ الْمُثَنَّى بْنِ الصَّبَّاحِ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَطَبَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ أَلَا مَنْ وَلِيَ يَتِيمًا لَهُ مَالٌ فَلْيَتَّجِرْ فِيهِ وَلَا يَتْرُكْهُ حَتَّى تَأْكُلَهُ الصَّدَقَةُ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَإِنَّمَا رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ وَفِي إِسْنَادِهِ مَقَالٌ لِأَنَّ الْمُثَنَّى بْنَ الصَّبَّاحِ يُضَعَّفُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَرَوَى بَعْضُهُمْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ فَذَكَرَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ وَقَدْ اخْتَلَفَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ فَرَأَى غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي مَالِ الْيَتِيمِ زَكَاةً مِنْهُمْ عُمَرُ وَعَلِيٌّ وَعَائِشَةُ وَابْنُ عُمَرَ وَبِهِ يَقُولُ مَالِكٌ وَالشَّافِعِيُّ وَأَحْمَدُ وَإِسْحَقُ وَقَالَتْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ لَيْسَ فِي مَالِ الْيَتِيمِ زَكَاةٌ وَبِهِ يَقُولُ سُفْيَانُ الثَّوْرِيُّ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ شُعَيْبٍ هُوَ ابْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ وَشُعَيْبٌ قَدْ سَمِعَ مِنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو وَقَدْ تَكَلَّمَ يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ فِي حَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ وَقَالَ هُوَ عِنْدَنَا وَاهٍ وَمَنْ ضَعَّفَهُ فَإِنَّمَا ضَعَّفَهُ مِنْ قِبَلِ أَنَّهُ يُحَدِّثُ مِنْ صَحِيفَةِ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو وَأَمَّا أَكْثَرُ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ فَيَحْتَجُّونَ بِحَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ فَيُثْبِتُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ أَحْمَدُ وَإِسْحَقُ وَغَيْرُهُمَا رواه الترمذي

The same Narration is documented in Sunan ad-Daarqutnee also.

حدثنا علي بن محمد المصري ثنا الحسن بن غليب الهذلي الأزدي ثنا سعيد بن عفير ثنا يحيى بن أيوب عن المثنى بن الصباح عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قام فخطب الناس فقال من ولي يتيما له مال فليتجر له ولا يتركه حتى تأكله الصدقة سنن الدارقطني ج: 2 ص: 109

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/109 No 1

In the above cited Hadhees, note the transmission via Musanna bin Sabbah.

2.1.2.1.1 Scandals pertaining to Al-Muthannaa Ibn as-Sabaah

Scholars of Hadhees science have gossiped about him.

المثنى بن الصباح عن عطاء وعمرو بن شعيب حدثنا محمد بن عيسى قال حدثنا عمرو بن علي قال كان يحيى وعبد الرحمن لا يحدثان عن المثنى بن الصباح حدثنا محمد بن زكريا قال حدثنا محمد بن المثنى قال ما سمعت يحيى بن أبي عبد الرحمن حدث عن سفيان عن المثنى بن الصباح شيئا قط حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال سمعت أبي يقول مثنى بن الصباح لا يسوى حديثه شيئا مضطرب الحديث حدثنا محمد بن زكريا قال حدثنا الحسن بن شجاع قال حدثنا علي قال سمعت يحيى وذكر عنده المثنى بن الصباح فقال لم أتركه من أجل حديث عمرو بن شعيب ولكن كان اختلاطا منه أو قال فيه حدثنا محمد بن عيسى قال حدثنا إبراهيم بن سعيد الجوهري قال سمعت يحيى بن معين قال كان المثنى بن الصباح رجلا صالحا في نفسه وفي الحديث ليس بذاك وكان من أبناء فارس مات سنة تسع وأربعين ومائة حدثنا محمد بن أحمد قال حدثنا معاوية بن صالح قال سمعت يحيى قال المثنى بن الصباح ضعيف يكتب حديثه لا يترك الضعفاء الكبير ج 4 /ص 249

Ad-Du‘afaa al-Kabeer 4/249

Amr Bin Ali reported that Scholars of Hadhees science Yahya and Abdur Rahman never narrated via Musanna bin Sabbah.

Imam Ahmed bin Hambal told that his Narrations are not right and that he modifies the narration.

Yahya reports that he doesn’t narrate anything via him because he is mentally disturbed.

Yahya bin Maiyeen reported that though as a human he is good; in the field of Hadhees he is not precise. He also added that his Hadhees can be documented, and that he is Feeble.

د ت ق أبي داود والترمذي وابن ماجة المثنى بن الصباح اليماني الأبناوي أبو عبد الله ويقال أبو يحيى المكي أصله من أبناء فارس ... قال إسحاق بن منصور عن بن معين ضعيف ... وقال بن أبي حاتم سألت أبي أبا زرعة عنه فقالا لين الحديث قال أبي يروي عن عطاء ما لم يرو عنه أحد وهو ضعيف الحديث وقال الجوزجاني لا يقنع بحديثه وقال الترمذي يضعف في الحديث وقال النسائي ليس بثقة وقال في موضع آخر متروك الحديث ... قال بن سعد وله أحاديث وهو ضعيف وقال علي بن الجنيد متروك الحديث وقال الدارقطني ضعيف ...وقال بن حبان في الضعفاء ... وقال بن عمار ضعيف وقال الساجي ضعيف الحديث جدا حدث بمناكير ويطول ذكرها وكان عابدا يهم وقال أبو أحمد الحاكم ليس بالقوي عندهم وضعفه أيضا سحنون الفقيه وغيره وذكره العقيلي في الضعفاء وأورد عن علي بن المديني سمعت يحيى القطان وذكر عنده المثنى فقال لم تتركه من أجل حديث عمرو بن شعيب ولكن كان اختلاط منه تهذيب التهذيب ج 10 /ص 32

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 10/32

Imam Hafiz Ibn Hajar quotes that Imams Nasayee, Abu Soorah, Ali bin Al-Junaidh, Sunan ad-Daarqutnee, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Ammar, Haji, Abu Ahmed, Abu Hathim, Jawsajani, Sunan at-Tirmithhee, Ibn Sa’adh, Ibn Ammar, Hakim, Ukaili, Yahya Al Katthan, Yahya bin Syed and Yahya bin Mayeen have referred him as Feeble in Sunan ad-Daarqutnee (10/32).

Since the Narrator Al-Muthannaa Ibn as-Sabaah is feeble, policies cannot be enforced with reference to this narration.

2.1.2.2 Narration-2

The same Hadhees is documented via a Narrator other than Al-Muthannaa Ibn as-Sabaah.

حدثنا أبو محمد بن صاعد ثنا أحمد بن عبيد بن إسحاق العطار بالكوفة ثنا أبي (عبيد بن إسحاق العطار ) ثنا مندل عن أبي إسحاق الشيباني عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم احفظوا اليتامى في أموالهم لا تأكلها الزكاة سنن الدارقطني ج: 2 ص: 110

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/110-2

This is narrated via ‘Ubayd Ibn Is’haaq and Mindhal, both of them are Feeble/Da’eef.

د ق أبي داود وابن ماجة مندل بن علي العنزي أبو عبد الله الكوفي يقال اسمه عمرو ومندل ... وقال عبد الله بن أحمد عن أبيه ضعيف الحديث ... قال بن أبي خيثمة عن بن معين ليس بشيء ...وقال العجلي جائز الحديث وكان البخاري ادخل مندلا فبالضعفاء فقال أبي يحول وسئل أبو زرعة عن مندل فقال لين الحديث وسئل أبي عن مندل فقال شيخ وقال علي بن الحسين بن الجنيد عن محمد بن عبد الله بن نمير في أحاديثهما بعض الغلط وقال النسائي ضعيف وقال بن عدي له غرائب وأفراد وهو ممكن يكتب حديثه ...وقال الجوزجاني واهي الحديث وقال الحاكم أبو أحمد ليس بالقوي عندهم وقال الساجي ليس بثقة روى مناكير وقال لي بن مثنى كان عبد الرحمن بن مهدي لا يحدث عنه وقال بن قانع والدار قطني ضعيف وقال بن مثنى كان عبد الرحمن بن مهدي لا يحدث عنه وقال بن قانع والدار قطني ضعيف وقال بن حبان كان ممن يرفع المراسيل ويسند الموقوفات من سوء حفظه فاستحق الترك وقال الطحاوي ليس من أهل التثبت في الرواية بشيء ولا يحتج به تهذيب التهذيب ج 10 /ص 264

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 10/264

2.1.2.2.1 Scandals pertaining to Mindhal

Many Scholars including Ahmad Ibn Hambal, Yahya bin Mayeen, Ali bin Mathyani, Bukhari, Abu Sur’ah, Nasayee, Ibn Adhi, Abu Hassan, Jawsajani, AbuAhmed, Hakim, Haji, Abdur Rahman bin Mahdhee, Ibn Kaanih, Sunan ad-Daarqutnee, Dhahavi cites him as Da’eef . There are two contrary views of Ibn Mayeen that he is Da’eef and that he is reliable. Though Muadh bin Muadh and Ajali have only recommended to accept his Narration, people opposing this view have blamed him of “Poor Memory” with respect to various valid references. Hence, only this view should be accepted.

Hence the above Hadhees connecting Mindhal cannot be used to regulate any policy.

2.1.2.2.2 Scandals pertaining to ‘Ubayd Ibn Is’haaq

Another Narrator of the above cited Hadhees; ‘Ubayd Ibn Is’haaq is also Da’eef ,

عبيد بن إسحاق العطار كوفي يقال له عطار المطلقات حدثنا بن حماد ثنا العباس عن يحيى قال عبيد عطار المطلقات قلت له هذه الأحاديث التي يحدث بها باطل قال اتق الله ويحك قلت وهو باطل فسكت وسمعت بن حماد يقول قال البخاري عبيد العطار هو منكر الحديث ... الكامل في الضعفاء ج 5 /ص 347

Al Kaamil 5/347

Imams like Bukhari and Yahya have told that his Hadhees are in the state of Munkar (to be rejected). His False Narrations have been explained in detail in the above cited Book.

Since the above cited Hadhees involves two Da’eef Narrators, this cannot also be taken as Evidence.

حدثنا أحمد قال حدثنا عبد العزيز قال حدثنا مندل بن علي عن سليمان عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده عن النبي قال ابتغوا اليتامى في أموالهم لا تأكلها الزكاة المعجم الأوسط ج: 1 ص: 298

Tabaraanee’s Al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat 1/298 -998

2.1.2.3 Narration-3

The Same Hadhees is documented by a different chain of narrators. Though Ubayd bin Is’haq is omitted, Mindhal bin Ali’s (whose reliability is already cited) is found in the Narrators chain.

حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن علي البزاز ثنا الحسين بن عبد الله بن يزيد القطان ثنا أيوب بن محمد الوزان ثنا رواد بن الجراح ثنا محمد بن عبيد الله عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في مال اليتيم زكاة سنن الدارقطني ج: 2 ص: 110

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/110-3

The above cited Hadhees is documented via Narrators other than these three.

محمد بن عبيد الله العرزمي كنيته أبو عبد الرحمن ...وكان صدوقا إلا أن كتبه ذهبت وكان رديء الحفظ فجعل يحدث من حفظه ويهم فكثر المناكير في روايته تركه بن المبارك ويحيى القطان وابن مهدي ويحيى بن معين المجروحين ج 2 /ص 246

Majrooheen 2/246

Though these three Narrators are absent in this Hadhees, the chain includes Muhammadh Bin Ubaidhullah (Al Asrami) who is also unreliable.

Though he is Truthful, his books are destroyed, had poor Memory. While narrating the Hadhees in his Memory, He would narrate it incorrect. He has narrated many reject-able Hadhees. Ibn Mubarak, Yahya bin Al Katthan, Ibn Mahdhi, Yahya bin Mayeen have discarded him.

Hence this cannot be benchmarked to devise any stringent policy.

حدثنا علي قال نا الفرات بن محمد القيرواني قال نا شجرة بن عيسى المعافري عن عبد الملك بن ابي كريمة عن عمارة بن غزية عن يحيى بن سعيد عن انس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله ص اتجروا في اموال اليتامى لا تأكلها الزكاة المعجم الأوسط ج: 4 ص: 264

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 4/264 – 4152

2.1.2.4 Narration-4

This is also documented via some other narrators other than the four quoted above.

These narrations are also not Authentic. This chain includes Furradh bin Muhammadh and Umara bin Kasiyya. Both of whom are Da’eef.

فرات بن محمد بن فرات العبدي القيرواني ...وقال بن حارث كان يغلب عليه الرواية والجمع ومعرفة الاخبار وكان ضعيفا متهما بالكذب أو معروفا به مات سنة اثنتين وتسعين ومائتين لسان الميزان ج 4 /ص 432

Lisaan al-Meezaan 4/432

عمارة بن غزية حدثنا محمد بن عيسى قال حدثنا صالح قال حدثنا علي قال قلت لسفيان كنت جالست عمارة بن غزية قال نعم جالسته كم من مرة فلم أحفظ عنه شيئا ثم قال لي سفيان إيش روى قلت بن أبي سعيد الخدري عن أبيه قال من سأل وله أوقية قال سفيان هذا وحدثناه عن زيد بن أسلم عن عطاء بن يسار ضعفاء العقيلي ج: 3 ص: 315

Ad-Du‘afaa Ukaili 3/315

In Lisanul Missan, it is pointed out that apart from being Feeble, he is also suspected to be Liar.

Umara Bin Kassiya

Another Narrator Umara bin Kassiya is also Da’eef.

Sufayan have quoted that though he used to sit with him several times, I havent memorized any Hadhees from him. He also added that he hasn’t seen any Appreciative comment about him.

Hence the Hadhees pertaining to Orphans’ wealth is Da’eef with respect to various reasons and hence this cannot be taken as a reference to devise any policy.

Apart from this, explanation of Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) is documented in various books such as Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/110, Al-Bayhaqee 4/107 and 6/2, Musannad Shafi 1/204, Muwatha 1/251, Musannab Abdur Razzak 4/69.

Since Muslims are bound to follow only Quran and Sunnah (Words, Deeds and Recommendations of Allah’s Apostle). As others dint receive any divine Guidance (Wahi), those cannot be used to devise Islamic Policies.

In another narration of Al-Bayhaqee 4/107, though documented as Allah’s
Apostle’s explanation and reported via precise Narrator, Imam Al-Bayhaqee himself stated that its narrator chain is broken.

أخبرنا أبو زكريا بن أبي إسحاق المزكي في آخرين قالوا ثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب أنبأ الربيع بن سليمان أنبأ الشافعي أنبأ عبد المجيد عن بن جريج عن يوسف بن ماهك أن رسول الله عليه وسلم قال ابتغوا في مال اليتيم أو في أموال اليتامى لا تذهبها أو لا تستهلكها الصدقة وهذا مرسل إلا أن الشافعي رحمه الله أكده بالاستدلال بالخبر الأول وبما روي عن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم في ذلك وقد روي عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده مرفوعا سنن البيهقي الكبرى ج 4 ص 107

Al-Bayhaqee 4/107

Hence, their first Evidence becomes void.

2.1.3 Hadhees doesn’t imply “Yearly”

Apart from this, if the Hadhees is assumed (?) to be Authentic, Their claim cannot be established with reference to this Hadhees.

This Da’eef Hadhees only states that “Zakaah will consume Orphans’ wealth”. But the word “yearly” is actually not present. This is their self inclusion.

If Zakaah will consume Wealth, monthly Zakaah (?) will consume sooner than annual. Hence, if we argue that Zakaah is monthly, they would remain unspoken.

Another could argue that it is weekly (?) as weekly Zakaah would consume it sooner. Yet another could argue that it could be daily (?).

It can also be inferred as 5 times a day (?) just like Salah. The claim that Zakaah is “Yearly” is also included in the Hadhees just like all these claims.

This is presented only as an argument and as additional information. The fundamental is that the Hadhees is Unauthentic.

This is reiterated several times in this article because people in contrary principle discard the fundamental and give lengthy denial (?) for those arguments which are used as examples and supportive information.

They are obliged to prove that the above Cited Hadhees is not Unauthentic.

2.1.4 Injustice to Orphan

We explored the Un-Authenticity of the Hadhees and the absence of the phrase “Yearly”. Apart from this it’s Guidance is also not in harmony with the Islam.

A person is referred to as Orphan only until his youth. As per their agreed Islamic Consent, none of the agreement would be valid until the person attains his youth.

Orphans’ consent is required if his/her wealth (assert) is to be used in trade.

وَلَا تَقۡرَبُواْ مَالَ ٱلۡيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِٱلَّتِى هِىَ أَحۡسَنُ حَتَّىٰ يَبۡلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ ۥ‌ۚ وَأَوۡفُواْ بِٱلۡعَهۡدِ‌ۖ إِنَّ ٱلۡعَهۡدَ كَانَ مَسۡـُٔولاً۬

And do not approach the property of an orphan, except in the way that is best, until he reaches maturity. And fulfill [every] commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned.

Surah: 17.Al-Isra'. Verse: 34

Since the Orphan is not in the state of decision making, the Guardian has no rights in using his Assert in trade.

Due to this reason the Hadhees further Weakens. Again, this is supportive information. We also remind that people in contrary principle need not deviate by addressing (?) only this supportive claim and discard the fundamental.

Trade comprise of profit as well as Loss.

As per their argument, Orphans’ wealth would be consumed by Zakaah after several years. But, it would be consumed in a month or even in a day. Moreover, as per their argument, if wealth shrinks until nisab, at least this wealth would be left for the Orphan. But, if trade is bankrupt, nothing might stay behind.

This Unauthentic Hadhees claims that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) meant that Zakaah would consume the Wealth.

But, as per their argument, there is no chance for the wealth to be totally consumed if Zakaah is paid once in a year. For instance, assume that a Guardian has to take care of a one year old Orphan. The guardian should maintain only until he attains youth which could be approximately 15 years. Assuming 2.5% of the Wealth for calculation:

If Zakaah is paid on Rs. 100,000, Rs.2500 would be paid in the first year, Rs. 2437.80 in the second year and so on. At the end of 15 years, the maximum Zakaah paid would be Rs. 31,598. Rs. 68,402 would still stay behind. As per this, wealth would not disintegrate or be consumed by Zakaah as stated in the Unauthentic Hadhees.

Since Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) wouldn’t have given such meaningless statement, hence further weakens the Hadhees.

This is again supportive information. The fundamental is that the Hadhees is Unauthentic. Answer is obliged only for the Authenticity of the Hadhees.

Moreover this would pave way for doing injustice to Orphans’ wealth.

Affirming that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) wouldn’t have left room for Guardians to fabricate that Wealth of the Orphan is lost in Trade, further weakens the Hadhees.

2.2 Narration citing Zakaah paid in advance

People iterating that Zakaah is obligatory on Wealth for which Zakaah has been previously paid, point to yet another narration to support their claim.

Ibn ‘Abbaas said: Allaah’s Messenger (r) sent ‘Umar to collect Zakaah. When he came to al-‘Abbaas requesting the Zakaah of his wealth, al-‘Abbaas spoke to him in a rough manner. He left and returned to the Prophet (r) and informed him. Allaah’s Messenger (r) said, “Indeed al-‘Abbaas has paid the Zakaah of his wealth for this year and the year to come.”²⁸

Similar Narrations are documented in some Hadhees books.

Based on this, people insist to pay Zakaah for Wealth for which Zakaah has been previously paid. Their claim is that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) collected Zakaah in advance because it is obligatory every year on same wealth.

Let’s explore the Authenticity of this Narration and even if assumed to be Authentic, let’s analyze if there is room for their claim.

This Narration also cannot be considered as Evidence.

2.2.1 Grade of Narrations

2.2.1.1 Narration-1

حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد ثنا محمد بن عبيد بن عتبة ثنا وليد بن حماد ثنا الحسن بن زياد عن الحسن بن عمارة عن الحكم عن موسى بن طلحة عن طلحة أن النبي قال يا عمر أما علمت أن عم الرجل صنو أبيه إنا كنا احتجنا إلى مال فتعجلنا من العباس صدقة ماله لسنتين اختلفوا عن الحكم في إسناده والصحيح عن الحسن بن مسلم مرسل سنن الدارقطني ج 2 ص 124

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/124 - 6

The narrators’ chain includes Hasan Bin Umaar who is Da’eef .

خت ت ق البخاري في التعاليق والترمذي وابن ماجة الحسن بن عمارة بن المضرب البجلي مولاهم الكوفي أبو محمد كان على قضاء بغداد في خلافة المنصور ... قال النضر بن شميل عن شعبة أفادني الحسن بن عمارة سبعين حديثا عن الحكم فلم يكن لها أصل ... وقال الطيالسي قال شعبة ائت جرير بن حازم فقل له لا يحل لك أن تروي عن الحسن بن عمارة فإنه يكذب قال أبو داود فقلت لشعبة ما علامة ذلك قال روى عن الحكم أشياء فلم نجد لها أصلا ... عن أحمد متروك الحديث وكذا قال أبو طالب عنه وزاد قلت له كان له هوى قال ولكن كان منكر الحديث وأحاديثه موضوعة لا يكتب حديثه وقال مرة ليس بشيء وقال بن معين لا يكتب حديثه وقال مرة ضعيف وقال مرة ليس حديثه بشيء وقال عبد الله بن المديني عن أبيه ما أحتاج إلى شعبة فيه أمره أبين من ذلك قيل له كان يغلط فقال أي شيء كان يغلط كان يضع وقال أبو حاتم ومسلم والنسائي والدارقطني متروك الحديث تهذيب التهذيب ج 2 /ص 263

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 2/263

Hasan Bin Umaar narrated 70 narrations using Hakam’s name.

Shufa reports that of those narrations, none are baseless. (This narration is also reported via Hakam). Shufa further told Jareer Bin Haasim not to report narrations via Hasan Bin Umaar who is a Liar. Ahmad Ibn Hambal suggested to discard his narrations and added that his Narrations are fabricated and hence should not be documented. Ibn Mayeem also quoted the same view. Scholars including Abdullah Bin AlMathyani, AbuHaatham, Muslim, Nasayee and Sunan ad-Daarqutnee recommended discarding his Narrations.

Hence this Narration, reported via a Narrator; who is doubted a Liar cannot be referred to decide upon paying Zakaah every year.

2.2.1.2 Narration-2

...ورواه محمد بن عبيد الله هو العرزمي عن الحكم عن مقسم عن بن عباس في قصة عمر والعباس رضي الله عنهما ورواه الحسن بن عمارة عن الحكم عن موسى بن طلحة عن طلحة ورواه هشيم عن منصور بن زاذان عن الحكم عن الحسن بن مسلم عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرسلا أنه قال لعمر رضي الله عنه في هذه القصة إنا كنا قد تعجلنا صدقة مال العباس لعامنا هذا عام أول وهذا هو الأصح من هذه الروايات وروي عن علي رضي الله عنه من وجه آخر سنن البيهقي الكبرى ج: 4 ص: 111

Al-Bayhaqee 4/111

Hassan Bin Umaar and Muhammad Bin Ubaidhullah AlAsrami are connected to this similar narration. The facts for his Weakness are already provided.

Hence, this is Weaker than the previous narration.

2.2.1.3 Narration-3

Apart from these, there is yet another Narration.

حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن عمرو بن عبد الخالق ثنا إبراهيم بن محمد بن نائلة الأصبهاني ثنا محمد بن المغيرة ثنا النعمان بن عبد السلام عن محمد بن عبيد الله عن الحكم عن مقسم عن بن عباس قال بعث رسول الله عمر ساعيا قال فأتى العباس يطلب صدقة ماله قال فأغلظ له العباس فخرج إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبره قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن العباس قد أسلفنا زكاة ماله العام والعام المقبل سنن الدارقطني ج 2 ص 124

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/124

2.2.1.4 Narration-4

حدثنا محمد بن مخلد ومحمد بن جعفر المطيري قالا نا أبو خراسان محمد بن أحمد بن السكن ثنا موسى بن داود ثنا مندل بن علي عن عبيد الله عن الحكم وقال المطيري عن عبيد الله عن الحكم عن مقسم عن بن عباس أن رسول الله بعث عمر على الصدقة فرجع وهو يشكو العباس فقال إنه منعني صدقته فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يا عمر أما علمت أن عم الرجل صنو أبيه إن العباس أسلفنا صدقة عامين في عام كذا قال عن عبيد الله بن عمر وإنما أراد محمد بن عبيد الله وهو العزرمي) والله أعلم سنن الدارقطني ج 2 ص 124

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/124-8

Note the presence of Muhammadh Bin Ubaidhullah AlAsrami in the sequence.

Facts for his Weakness are already provided. Hence no policy could be devised with reference to this narration.

2.2.1.5 Narration-5

The same narration is also documented via a different chain also.

حدثنا أحمد قال حدثنا محرز بن عوف قال حدثنا محمد بن ذكوان عن منصور عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن عبد الله قال قال رسول الله إن عم الرجل صنو أبيه وإن النبي تعجل من العباس صدقة عامين في عام المعجم الأوسط ج 1 ص 299

At-Tabaraanee’s al-Awsat, 1/299

حدثنا أحمد بن داود المكي ثنا أبو عون الزيادي ثنا محمد بن ذكوان عن منصور عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن عبد الله قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن عم الرجل صنو أبيه وإن النبي تعجل من العباس صدقة عامين في عام المعجم الكبير ج 10 ص 72

At-Tabaraanee’s Kabeer 10/72

Muhammad bin Dhakwan is connected to both these narrations.

محمد بن ذكوان مولى الجهاضم بصري حدثني آدم قال سمعت البخاري قال محمد بن ذكوان مولى الجهاضم منكر الحديث الضعفاء الكبير ج 4 /ص 65

Ad-Du‘afaa al-Kabeer 4/65

Imam Bukhari told that his Narrations are to be rejected.

Hence this also cannot be taken as Evidence.

2.2.1.6 Narration-6

أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة أنبأ أبو علي الرفاء ثنا محمد بن يونس الكديمي ثنا وهب بن جرير ح وأخبرناه محمد بن الحسين بن الفضل القطان أنبأ عبد الله بن جعفر ثنا يعقوب بن سفيان ثنا عيسى بن محمد ثنا وهب بن جرير ثنا أبي قال سمعت الأعمش يحدث عن عمرو بن مرة عن أبي البختري عن علي رضي الله عنه فذكر قصة في بعث رسول الله عمر رضي الله عنه ساعيا ومنع العباس صدقته وأنه ذكر للنبي ما صنع العباس فقال أما علمت يا عمر أن عم الرجل صنو أبيه إنا كنا احتجنا فاستسلفنا العباس صدقة عامين لفظ حديث القطان وفي رواية بن قتادة أن النبي تعجل من العباس صدقة عام أو صدقة عامين وفي هذا إرسال بين أبي البختري وعلي رضي الله عنه وقد ورد هذا المعنى في حديث أبي هريرة من وجه ثابت عنه سنن البيهقي الكبرى ج 4 ص 111

Al-Bayhaqee 4/111

The narration is also reported via yet another path. It is said that Abul Bukthari reports via Ali (May Allah be pleased with them). Though the narrators are reliable, Abul Bukthari have not met Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) and reported. Imam Al-Bayhaqee himself specifies this in the end. Since there is no link between Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) and Abul Bukthari, this is also Unauthentic.

Imam Al-Bayhaqee adds that there is an Authentic Narration implying analogous message. This Authentic Narration is documented in Bukhari and Muslim but it has been previously explained that it doesn’t imply the similar message.

2.2.1.7 Narration-7

There is yet another narration documented in Sunan ad-Daarqutnee.

حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن عبد العزيز ثنا عبد الله بن عمر بن أبان ثنا أبو داود عن شريك عن إسماعيل عن سليمان الأحول عن أبي رافع أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث عمر ساعيا فكان بينه وبين العباس شيء فقال النبي أما علمت أن الرجل صنو أبيه إن العباس أسلفنا صدقة العام عام الأول سنن الدارقطني ج 2 ص 125

Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/125-9

The narrator Chain is linked to Ismael Makki who is Da’eef.

Apart from this, is also documented in Bassar and Abuya’la where in Hassan Bin Umaar; is linked to the narrators’ chain which makes the narration Da’eef.

وحدثنا الحسن بن يحيى قال نا محمد بن عون أبو عون قال نا محمد بن ذكوان عن منصور عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن عبد الله أن النبي تعجل من العباس صدقة سنتين وهذا الحديث إنما يرويه الحفاظ عن منصور عن الحكم بن عتيبة مرسلا ومحمد بن ذكوان هذا لين الحديث قد حدث بأحاديث كثيرة لم يتابع عليها مسند البزار 4-9 ج: 4 ص: 303

Bassar 4/303

Muhammad Bin Thakwan is linked to another narration in Bassara; who is again a Da’eef.

حدثنا حميد بن مسعدة حدثنا يوسف بن خالد حدثنا الحسن بن عمارة عن الحكم بن عتيبة وحبيب بن أبي ثابت عن موسى بن طلحة عن أبيه ثم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان تعجل صدقة العباس بن عبد المطلب سنتين مسند أبي يعلى ج: 2 ص: 12

AbuYa’la 2/12

Hassan Bin Umaar is linked to another narration of Bassar. Hassan Bin Umaar is undoubtedly proved Da’eef.

Some more narrations are documented in books like Ahmed, Hakim, Ibn Maaja and Abu Dawud. In these Narrations Suhail contrasts himself because he quotes this Narration as told by Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) sometimes and a Non-Companion Hassan Bin Muslim sometimes. Scholars Sunan ad-Daarqutnee and Ahmed researched this and stated that the actual narration is via Non-Companion. That is, they reject his claim of being narrated by Companion. This detail is documented in the book At-Talkees.

Narration of Allah’s Apostle apart from Companions is to be rejected.

Since these Narrations are not Authentic, policies cannot be formulated with reference to this.

2.2.2 Contrary to the Authentic Narration

These Narrations apart from either being broken or Da’eef with respect to Narrator’s chain are in the state of Fabricated Narrations since it is in contrary to this Authentic Narration.

The Book of Zakaah (Kitab Al-Zakaah)

Muslim :: Book 5 : Hadith 2148

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) sent Umar for (collecting) Sadaqa (Zakaah), and it was said that Ibn Jamil, Khalid b. Walid and 'Abbas the uncle of the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), refused (to pay it). Upon this the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) said: Ibn Jamil is taking revenge but for this that he was destitute and Allah made him rich. As regards Khalid, you are unjust to Khalid, for be reserved his armours and weapons for the sake of Allah, and as for 'Abbas, I shall be responsible for it and an equal amount along with it. And he again said: 'Umar, bear this in mind, the uncle of a person is like his father.

In the narration of Bukhari it is reported that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) told: “Zakaah is compulsory on him and he should pay it double”

Obligatory Charity Tax (Zakaah)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 24 :: Hadith 547

Narrated Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) ordered (a person) to collect Zakaah, and that person returned and told him that Ibn Jamil, Khalid bin Al-Walid, and Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib had refused to give Zakaah." The Prophet said, "What made Ibn Jamil refuse to give Zakaah though he was a poor man, and was made wealthy by Allah and His Apostle? But you are unfair in asking Zakaah from Khalid as he is keeping his armor for Allah's Cause (for Jihad). As for Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib, he is the uncle of Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) and Zakaah is compulsory on him and he should pay it double."

There are no deficiencies in these Narrations. If the cruxes of these narrations are noted significantly, we would infer that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)did not collect two years Zakaah instead, he collected it along with an equal amount with it.

On observing this Narration casually, even a Lehman would infer that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) collected twice the sum of Zakaah from those who refused to pay Zakaah. For instance, if one refuses to pay Rs. 10, a collection of Rs. 20 refers to be a punishment for not paying. This is simply comprehensible.

It would be relevant to remind the remarks made in this regard in Father Ul Bari: The elucidation of Bukhari.

قوله فهي عليه صدقة ومثلها معها كذا في رواية شعيب ولم يقل ورقاء ولا موسى بن عقبة صدقة فعلى الروايةالأولى يكون صلى الله عليه وسلم ألزمه بتضعيف صدقته ليكون أرفع لقدره وأنبه لذكره وأنفى للذم عنه فالمعنى فهي صدقة ثابتة عليه سيصدق بها ويضيف إليها مثلها كرما ودلت رواية مسلم على أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم إلتزم بإخراج ذلك عنه لقوله فهي على وفيه تنبيه على سبب ذلك وهو قوله إن العم صنو الأب تفضيلا له وتشريفا ويحتمل أن يكون تحمل عنه بها فيستفاد منه أن الزكاة تتعلق بالذمة كما هو أحد قولي الشافعي وجمع بعضهم بين رواية علي ورواية عليه بأن الأصل رواية علي ورواية عليه مثلها إلا أن فيها زيادة هاه السكت حكاه بن الجوزي عن بن ناصر وقيل معنى قوله علي أي هي عندي قرض لأنني استسلفت منه صدقة عامين فتح الباري ج: 3 ص: 333

The reason for Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) collecting double the Zakaah from him is to equate it with his Status and that there should be no blame on him. This refers to the collection of Zakaah and a part equal to it as supplementary. (Fathe ul Bari 3/333).

Ibn Hajar have enlightened that Zakaah collected equal to twice the actual is not for two years but in supplementary.

Abbas’ (May Allah be pleased with them) refusal is similar in narrations of Bukhari and Muslim. And this is Authentic.

It is contrary in other Books and which is Unauthentic. Moreover, since it contradicts these Authentic Narrations, the narration is degraded into the fabricated state.

2.2.3 Can Zakaah be collected in advance?

Since the Narration wherein Zakaah was collected in advance from Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) is Unauthentic, the claim based on this becomes invalid.

Moreover this Narration is further weakened with various reasons.

If for an instance, we assume that Zakaah is obligatory on the Wealth for which Zakaah has previously been paid, collecting Zakaah in advance is not practical.

Zakaah is not counted with respect to head counts. Instead, it is counted across the value of ones’ Assert.

As per their claim, the current years Zakaah can be collected because it is feasible to calculate his current years Asserts.

But, will it be possible to calculate the next year’s Assert?

As per their claim, Zakaah is obligatory only on completion of one year. Won’t it be unfair if Zakaah is collected before the completion of the next year?

If one owns Rs. 500,000 this year, will it be possible to collect the same amount as Zakaah for Rs. 500,000 in the next year? If this amount drains before next year, won’t the Zakaah collected for Rs.500, 000 be unfair?

Or if he departs before the year end, as per their claim, Zakaah is not obligatory for that year. If this is the case, how could Zakaah collected in advance is justified?

Will these people; (who argue based on this Da’eef Narration) agree if someone is willing to pay Zakaah for the next 10 years? If in these 10 years, the Wealth multiplies, or disintegrates or even if the person departs, how will they pay for the injustice?

This thought further emphasizes that Zakaah collected for 2 years in advance is a fabricated narration

They are bound to prove these narrations as Authentic and rather not try to shred axioms over the supporting information. They are also bound to explain the state of the narrations in Bukhari and Muslim.

2.3 Zakaah not obliged until a year passes on it

People insisting to pay Zakaah for the goods for which Zakaah has been previously been paid, quote the following narration to support their claim.

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مُوسَى حَدَّثَنَا هَارُونُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ الطَّلْحِيُّ الْمَدَنِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَنْ اسْتَفَادَ مَالًا فَلَا زَكَاةَ عَلَيْهِ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِ وَفِي الْبَاب عَنْ سَرَّاءَ بِنْتِ نَبْهَانَ الْغَنَوِيَّةِ رواه الترمذي

“Whoever acquires wealth has no Zakaah to pay on it until a year passes on it”. This narration is documented in at-Tirmithee as reported by Allah’s Apostle; which is claimed as their supporting evidence.

This is narrated via Abdur Rahman Bin Syed Bin Assam who is classified as unreliable by Imam Tirmithee. He further adds that many Scholars including Hambal and Ali Bin Mathyani have classified him as unreliable.

أخبرنا علي بن محمد بن بشران ومحمد بن الحسين بن الفضل القطان ببغداد قالا أنبأ أبو عمرو عثمان بن أحمد بن السماك ثنا محمد بن عبيد الله بن أبي داود ثنا أبو بدر شجاع بن الوليد ثنا حارثة بن محمد عن عمرة عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لا زكاة في مال حتى يحول عليه الحول وكذلك رواه أبو معاوية وهريم بن سفيان وأبو كدينة عن حارثة مرفوعا ورواه الثوري عن حارثة موقوفا على عائشة وحارثة لا يحتج بخبره والاعتماد في ذلك على الآثار الصحيحة فيه عن أبي بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه وعثمان بن عفان وعبد الله بن عمر وغيرهم رضي الله عنهم سنن البيهقي الكبرى ج4/ص95

حدثنا أبو طلحة أحمد بن محمد بن عبد الكريم ثنا نصر بن علي ثنا شجاع بن الوليد عن حارثة بن محمد ح وحدثنا إبراهيم بن دبيس بن أحمد الحداد ثنا محمد بن عبيد الله بن المنادي ثنا أبو بدر ثنا حارثة ح وحدثنا أحمد بن كامل ثنا محمد بن سعد العوفي ثنا أبو بدر نا حارثة ح وحدثنا علي بن عبد الله بن مبشر ثنا علي بن أحمد الجواربي ثنا إسحاق بن منصور حدثنا هريم عن حارثة عن عمرة عن عائشة قالت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس في المال زكاة حتى يحول عليه الحول قال نصر لا زكاة في مال وقال الباقون ليس في المال زكاة سنن الدارقطني ج2/ص90

Further, similar narrations are documented in Ibn Maaja, Al-Bayhaqee 4/95 and Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/90.

Harisa Bin Muhammad is linked in the narrators’ chain. Imam Al-Bayhaqee remarks that his narrations are unreliable.

Since this Narration is also inauthentic, the claim based on this is no more valid.

حدثنا الحسن بن الخضر المعدل بمكة حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن يونس ثنا محمد بن سليمان الأسدي ثنا حسان بن سياه عن ثابت عن أنس أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ليس في مال زكاة حتى يحول عليه الحول سنن الدارقطني ج2/ص91

Further, similar narration is documented in Sunan ad-Daarqutnee 2/91. Hassan Bin Siyah is linked to the narrators’ chain. He is also unreliable.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ النُّفَيْلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرٌ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو إِسْحَقَ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ ضَمْرَةَ وَعَنْ الْحَارِثِ الْأَعْوَرِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ زُهَيْرٌ أَحْسَبُهُ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّه قَالَ هَاتُوا رُبْعَ الْعُشُورِ مِنْ كُلِّ أَرْبَعِينَ دِرْهَمًا دِرْهَمٌ وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ شَيْءٌ حَتَّى تَتِمَّ مِائَتَيْ دِرْهَمٍ فَإِذَا كَانَتْ مِائَتَيْ دِرْهَمٍ فَفِيهَا خَمْسَةُ دَرَاهِمَ فَمَا زَادَ فَعَلَى حِسَابِ ذَلِكَ وَفِي الْغَنَمِ فِي أَرْبَعِينَ شَاةً شَاةٌ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ إِلَّا تِسْعٌ وَثَلَاثُونَ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ فِيهَا شَيْءٌ وَسَاقَ صَدَقَةَ الْغَنَمِ مِثْلَ الزُّهْرِيِّ قَالَ وَفِي الْبَقَرِ فِي كُلِّ ثَلَاثِينَ تَبِيعٌ وَفِي الْأَرْبَعِينَ مُسِنَّةٌ وَلَيْسَ عَلَى الْعَوَامِلِ شَيْءٌ وَفِي الْإِبِلِ فَذَكَرَ صَدَقَتَهَا كَمَا ذَكَرَ الزُّهْرِيُّ قَالَ وَفِي خَمْسٍ وَعِشْرِينَ خَمْسَةٌ مِنْ الْغَنَمِ فَإِذَا زَادَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَفِيهَا ابْنَةُ مَخَاضٍ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ بِنْتُ مَخَاضٍ فَابْنُ لَبُونٍ ذَكَرٌ إِلَى خَمْسٍ وَثَلَاثِينَ فَإِذَا زَادَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَفِيهَا بِنْتُ لَبُونٍ إِلَى خَمْسٍ وَأَرْبَعِينَ فَإِذَا زَادَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَفِيهَا حِقَّةٌ طَرُوقَةُ الْجَمَلِ إِلَى سِتِّينَ ثُمَّ سَاقَ مِثْلَ حَدِيثِ الزُّهْرِيِّ قَالَ فَإِذَا زَادَتْ وَاحِدَةً يَعْنِي وَاحِدَةً وَتِسْعِينَ فَفِيهَا حِقَّتَانِ طَرُوقَتَا الْجَمَلِ إِلَى عِشْرِينَ وَمِائَةٍ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ الْإِبِلُ أَكْثَرُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَفِي كُلِّ خَمْسِينَ حِقَّةٌ وَلَا يُفَرَّقُ بَيْنَ مُجْتَمِعٍ وَلَا يُجْمَعُ بَيْنَ مُفْتَرِقٍ خَشْيَةَ الصَّدَقَةِ وَلَا تُؤْخَذُ فِي الصَّدَقَةِ هَرِمَةٌ وَلَا ذَاتُ عَوَارٍ وَلَا تَيْسٌ إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ الْمُصَدِّقُ وَفِي النَّبَاتِ مَا سَقَتْهُ الْأَنْهَارُ أَوْ سَقَتْ السَّمَاءُ الْعُشْرُ وَمَا سَقَى الْغَرْبُ فَفِيهِ نِصْفُ الْعُشْرِ وَفِي حَدِيثِ عَاصِمٍ وَالْحَارِثِ الصَّدَقَةُ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ قَالَ زُهَيْرٌ أَحْسَبُهُ قَالَ مَرَّةً وَفِي حَدِيثِ عَاصِمٍ إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي الْإِبِلِ ابْنَةُ مَخَاضٍ وَلَا ابْنُ لَبُونٍ فَعَشَرَةُ دَرَاهِمَ أَوْ شَاتَانِ حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ الْمَهْرِيُّ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ أَخْبَرَنِي جَرِيرُ بْنُ حَازِمٍ وَسَمَّى آخَرَ عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَقَ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ ضَمْرَةَ وَالْحَارِثِ الْأَعْوَرِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِبَعْضِ أَوَّلِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ قَالَ فَإِذَا كَانَتْ لَكَ مِائَتَا دِرْهَمٍ وَحَالَ عَلَيْهَا الْحَوْلُ فَفِيهَا خَمْسَةُ دَرَاهِمَ وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ شَيْءٌ يَعْنِي فِي الذَّهَبِ حَتَّى يَكُونَ لَكَ عِشْرُونَ دِينَارًا فَإِذَا كَانَ لَكَ عِشْرُونَ دِينَارًا وَحَالَ عَلَيْهَا الْحَوْلُ فَفِيهَا نِصْفُ دِينَارٍ فَمَا زَادَ فَبِحِسَابِ ذَلِكَ قَالَ فَلَا أَدْرِي أَعَلِيٌّ يَقُولُ فَبِحِسَابِ ذَلِكَ أَوْ رَفَعَهُ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَيْسَ فِي مَالٍ زَكَاةٌ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ إِلَّا أَنَّ جَرِيرًا قَالَ ابْنُ وَهْبٍ يَزِيدُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيْسَ فِي مَالٍ زَكَاةٌ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ رواه ابوداود

Apart from this, it is also documented in Abu Dawud 4/95 and Al-Bayhaqee 4/137. Naseerudheen Albani certifies this as authentic based on the reliability of its narrators. Shaykh al-Albaanee failed to note another deficiency in this.

Hence, we are bound to explain this in detail. The narrators’ chain is as follows.

1. Ali (May Allah be pleased with them).

2. Haris Al A’war – Aasim Bin Lamura.

3. Abu Is'haq.

4. Suhair.

5. Abdullah Bin Muhammad.

That is, Abdullah Bin Muhammad quotes that he hears from Suhair.

Suhair quotes that Abu Is'haq narrated him.

Abu Is’haq reports that Aasim and Haris narrated him.

Both, Aasim and Haris quotes that Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) narrated them.

Though Haris is a great liar, another narrator Aasim Bin Lamura is reliable. Thus, the chain of narrators is perfect with reference to this and hence Shaykh al-Albaanee remarks it as Authentic.

But, It is not mentioned in this narration if Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) told himself or was it quoted by Allah’s Apostle?

Suhair quotes that he assumed that Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) would have reported from Allah’s Apostle. This phrase is in the beginning of this narration.

Suhair; who has not met Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) quotes that Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) would have reported Allah’s Apostle’s message based on his hypothesis.

It should not be assumed based on hypothesis that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)quoted this. Had this been told by Allah’s Apostle, Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) should have mentioned this clearly.

But, since Suhair hypothetically quotes, it cannot be considered as Allah’s’ Apostles’ Narration.

Hence, though the narrators are reliable, this is the self view of Ali (May Allah be pleased with them). Hence none of the decisions can be made with reference to this.

2.3.1 Every Year

People insisting Zakaah on wealth even if Zakaah has been previously paid indicate one more narration in support.

‘Abdullaah Ibn Mu‘aawiyah al-Ghaadiree quoted Allaah’s Messenger (r) as saying, “He who performs three things will have the taste of faith: One who worships Allah alone; one believes that there is no god but Allah; and one who pays Zakaah every year on his property…”

Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, p. 413, no. 1577

Similar narration is quoted in Al-Bayhaqee 4/95, At-Tabaraanee and Sakeer.

They refer them as most-authentic. But all the three narrations are in authentic.

2.3.1.1 Narration of Al-Bayhaqee

وأخبرنا أبو الحسين بن الفضل القطان ببغداد (حمزة بن احمد بن مخلد) أنبأ عبد الله بن جعفر بن درستويه ثنا يعقوب بن سفيان ثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم (بن العلاء بن الضحاك الزبيدي المعروف بزبريق) حدثني عمرو بن الحارث (الزبيدي الحمصي) حدثني عبد الله بن سالم عن الزبيدي قال حدثني يحيى بن جابر أن عبد الرحمن بن جبير حدثه أن أباه حدثه أن عبد الله بن معاوية الغاضري حدثهم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ثلاث من فعلهن فقد طعم طعم الإيمان من عبد الله وحده فإنه لا إله إلا الله وأعطى زكاة ماله طيبة بها نفسه رافدة عليه في كل عام ولم يعط الهرمة ولا الدرنة ولا الشرط اللائمة ولا المريضة ولكن من أوسط أموالكم فإن الله عز وجل لم يسألكم خيره ولم يأمركم بشره وزكى عبد نفسه فقال رجل ما تزكية المرء نفسه يا رسول الله قال يعلم أن الله معه حيث ما كان وقال غيره ولا الشرط اللئيمة سنن البيهقي الكبرى ج: 4 ص: 95

Al-Bayhaqee 4/95

Is’haq Bin Ibrahim is linked to the narrators’ chain.

بخ البخاري في الأدب المفرد إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن العلاء بن الضحاك بن المهاجر أبو يعقوب الحمصي الزبيدي المعروف بابن زبريق روى عن عمرو بن الحارث الحمصي وبقية بن الوليد وأبي مسهر وغيرهم روى عنه البخاري في الأدب ونسبه إلى جده وأبو حاتم والذهلي ويعقوب الفسوي وعثمان بن سعيد الدارمي وأبو إسماعيل الترمذي ويحيى بن عمرو بن المصري وجماعة قال أبو حاتم شيخ لا بأس به ولكنهم يحسدونه سمعت يحيى بن معين أثنى عليه خيرا وقال النسائي ليس بثقة وقال بن يونس عن بن رازح عن عمارة بن وثيمة توفي بمصر لثمان بقين من رمضان سنة 238 قلت وعلق البخاري في قيام الليل حديثا للزبيدي هو من رواية إسحاق هذا عن عمرو بن الحارث الحمصي وصله الطبراني وغيره وروى الآجري عن أبي داود أن محمد بن عون قال ما أشك أن إسحاق بن زبريق يكذب وذكره بن حبان في الثقات - تهذيب التهذيب ج 1 /ص 189

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 1/189

Though Ibn Mayeen appreciates him, Imam Nasayee remarks him as unreliable narrator. Muhammad Bin Awan quotes undoubtedly that he is a Liar.

Though some certify Ishac bin Ibrahim as Reliable, since there are clear indications that he is a Liar, based on actual criteria specified in Science of Hadhees (in which it is axiomed that criticism would overwhelm appreciation), he is to be assumed as unreliable.

Amr Bin Haris is also linked to this narration

بخ د البخاري في الأدب المفرد وأبي داود عمرو بن الحارث بن الضحاك الزبيدي الحمصي عداده في الكلاعيين روى عن عبد الله بن سالم الأشعري وعنه إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن العلاء بن زبريق ومولاته علوة ذكره بن حبان في الثقات قلت تقدم في ترجمة إسحاق بن إبراهيم الراوي عنه شيء يتعلق بتعاليق البخاري وقال الذهبي لا تعرف عدالته - تهذيب التهذيب ج 8 /ص 13

Thahdheebuth Thahdheeb 8/13

Facts about him are unknown. Imam Thabahi quotes that his honesty is not justified.

Anonymity over his Honesty further weakens the authenticity of this narration.

2.3.1.2 Narration of Thabarani

حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن معروف الحمصي حدثنا أبو تقي عبد الحميد بن إبراهيم حدثنا عبد الله بن سالم بن محمد بن الوليد الزبيدي حدثنا يحيى بن جابر الطائي أن عبد الرحمن بن جبير بن نفير حدثه أن أباه حدثه أن عبد الله بن معاوية الغاضري رضي الله عنه حدثهم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ثلاث من فعلهن فقد ذاق طعم الإيمان من عبد الله عز وجل وحده بأنه لا إله ألا هو وأعطى زكاة ماله طيبة بها نفسه في كل عام ولم يعط الهرمة ولا الدرنة ولا المريضة ولكن من أوسط أموالكم فإن الله عز وجل لم يسألكم خيرها ولم يأمركم بشرها وزكى نفسه فقال رجل وما تزكية النفس فقال أن يعلم أن الله عز وجل معه حيث كان لا يروى هذا الحديث عن بن معاوية إلا بهذا الإسناد ولا نعرف لعبد الله بن معاوية الغاضري حديثا مسندا غير هذا المعجم الصغير ج: 1 ص: 334

The narration documented by At-Tabaraanee in his book Sakeer is also in authentic.

Abudhaki Abdul Hameed Bin Ibrahim is linked to this narrators’ chain.

عبد الحميد بن إبراهيم الحضرمي الحمصي أبو تقى ... قال سألت محمد بن عوف الحمصي عنه فقال كان شيخا ضريرا لا يحفظ وكنا نكتب من نسخه لذى كان عند إسحاق بن زبريق لابن سالم فنحمله اليه ونلقنه فكان لا يحفظ الإسناد ويحفظ بعض المتن فيحدثنا وانما حملنا الكتاب عنه شهوة الحديث الجرح والتعديل ج 6 /ص 8

Abu Haatham remarked him as blind and aged. And that he was with poor memory and added that he is not reliable and cannot be taken into account. (Refer Al-Jarah Waddhathil Part 6, Page no: 8)

Some scholars quote that this is the most authentic of the three narrations. But Scholars of Hadhees Science have remarked Abudhaki Abdul Hameed as unreliable.

Hence, people quoting this Narration to justify their stand, should answer the criticism on the narrators and establish their facts.

We have clarified with appropriate reason that these narrations are inauthentic. There is no change in our decision until this is unauthentic.

2.3.1.3 Narration of Abu Dawud

قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد وَقَرَأْتُ فِي كِتَابِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ بِحِمْصَ عِنْدَ آلِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْحَارِثِ الْحِمْصِيِّ عَنْ الزُّبَيْدِيِّ قَالَ وَأَخْبَرَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ جَابِرٍ عَنْ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ نُفَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ الْغَاضِرِيِّ مِنْ غَاضِرَةِ قَيْسٍ قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَلَاثٌ مَنْ فَعَلَهُنَّ فَقَدْ طَعِمَ طَعْمَ الْإِيمَانِ مَنْ عَبَدَ اللَّهَ وَحْدَهُ وَأَنَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَعْطَى زَكَاةَ مَالِهِ طَيِّبَةً بِهَا نَفْسُهُ رَافِدَةً عَلَيْهِ كُلَّ عَامٍ وَلَا يُعْطِي الْهَرِمَةَ وَلَا الدَّرِنَةَ وَلَا الْمَرِيضَةَ وَلَا الشَّرَطَ اللَّئِيمَةَ وَلَكِنْ مِنْ وَسَطِ أَمْوَالِكُمْ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمْ يَسْأَلْكُمْ خَيْرَهُ وَلَمْ يَأْمُرْكُمْ بِشَرِّهِ رواه ابوداود

2.3.1.4 Narration of Abu Dawud also has two deficiencies

Imam Munthiri has cited it as Broken with respect to narrators’ chain. Abu Dawud did not reveal the person from whom he heard. He further says that he comprehended from Abdullah Bin Salami’s book from Amr Bin Harris’s family.

Abu Dawud quotes that he did not read the book from Abdullah Bin Saalim but comprehended from Amr Bin Harris’s family.

Whom does family refers to? And, what about their reliability? There is no indication if they would show some ones’ book as Abdullah Bin Salami’s.

Family would refer to Mother, Father, Brothers, Wife or Children. Since the reliability and identity (of who the family member was) is unrevealed, this is inauthentic.

Further, in order to refer Amr Bin Haris’ family, it is already discussed that even Amr bin Harris’s reliability remains unjustified.

Abu Dawud’s statement that reading from the book -which the family members of an unreliable person possessed itself is clear enough for its in authenticity.

Apart from this, ‘Abdullaah Ibn Mu‘aawiyah al-Ghaadiree is reported as narrating from Allah’s Apostle.

Though he is remarked as Companion in some books, his criterion is not matching the one benchmarked for Companions’ of Prophet.

If he is to be assumed as Companion of Allah’s Apostle, it should be commonly known. But, there are no details about him apart from his name appearing in this Narration.

He should have used reported stating “I heard from Allah’s Apostle” but in this narration he stated “Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)told”. He is not proven to be a Companion even based on this benchmark.

Otherwise, at least one Companion or Tabiyee should have certified him as Companion. No one certified him as well

This acid test of determining one as Companion is mentioned in Thatreeb 2/672.

It is still a mystery why he is referred to as Companion in some books though he did not pass this acid test.

They establish their claim with these inauthentic narrations.

People insisting Zakaah for the wealth for which Zakaah has been previously paid failed to present any evidence.

When everything is void, they try to quote irrelevant narrations and justify their stand with their hypothesis.

2.4 Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with them)’s Rule

During the rule of Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with them), when some refused to pay Zakaah, he stated “I would fight with them even if they with-hold a she kid”

Obligatory Charity Tax (Zakaah)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 24 :: Hadith 536

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! If they (pay me the Zakaah and) with-hold even a she-kid which they used to pay during the life-time of Allah's Apostle, I will fight with them for it."

Dealing with Apostates

Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 84 :: Hadith 59

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakaah as Zakaah is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right.

Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah

Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 92 :: Hadith 388

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)died and Abu Bakr was elected as a Caliph after him, some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said to Abu Bakr, "How dare you fight the people while Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)said, I have been ordered to fight the people till they say 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' waves his wealth and his life from me unless he deserves a legal punishment lusty, and his account will be with Allah! Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, I will fight him who discriminates between Zakaah and prayers, for Zakaah is the Compulsory right to be taken from the wealth By Allah, if they refuse to give me even a tying rope which they use to give to Allah's Apostle, I would fight them for withholding it." 'Umar said, 'By Allah, It was nothing, except I saw that Allah had opened the chest of Abu Bakr to the fight, and I came to know for certain that was the truth."

Funerals (Al-Janaa'iz)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 23 :: Hadith 483

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakaah as Zakaah is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him). I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right."

This narration is also quoted to justify their stand. Though this is an authentic narration, this does not serve the purpose.

The phrase “they used to pay during the life-time of Allah's Apostle” implies continuous payment. They argue that “If it was given only once, would Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with them) have mentioned used to pay”.

This indicates the peak of their ignorance.

It is true that people used to pay continuously. Only if Zakaah is insisted as once for a Person, it would not be continuous.

As per our claim, if Zakaah is decided as once for a thing, it could also be paid continuously.

If Zakaah is paid for a goat today, it could multiply and Zakaah could be paid for multiplied goats could further multiply. This would necessitate payment of Zakaah again. Even if Zakaah is paid once, when wealth multiplies, it would lead to the payment of Zakaah continuously.

Further, if their argument is viewed, they deny only our view and do not establish their stand because continuous could not only refer to yearly, it could be monthly as well or even as weekly or daily.

Hence, they are bound to clarify how they themselves inserted “yearly” into the explanation of this Narration.

2.5 Zakaah for Cattle

After deciding upon an issue without proper grounds, they present Narrations irrelevant to the context to justify their stand.

In the similar category, they curve another narration pertaining to Cattles as per their wish.

If one owns 40 to 120 Goats, its Zakaah is 1 Goat. And if he has 121 to 200 Goats, then 2 is obligatory. And similarly 3 for the range 201 to 300 and likewise for every 100 goats more than 300, 1 becomes obligatory.

They use the narrations with this context as their evidence.

Let’s first see how they use this to establish their claim.

They impose couple of questions with reference to the narration.

Q1: If one owns 40 Goats and for which one Goat is paid as Zakaah. After some days if he acquires another 40 Goats, then as per our claim, are we supposed to give 1 more goat as Zakaah for this 40. And won’t it be in contrary to the axiom of 1 goat per 120?

Q2: If we say that it is not required for the next 40, then as per our claim only the first 40 is purified and how could the second slot be purified?

This is as a result of ignorance over our statement.

If one gives Zakaah when holding 40 goats, Zakaah is not just for 40 goats it is for 120 goats and hence he is not obliged to pay Zakaah for 120 goats.

When only 1 Goat is paid as Zakaah, it doesn’t cross the limit of 1 for 120. Similarly if Zakaah is paid upto 120 goats, the additional 40 goats also become pure. This is our answer.

Moreover, it is also quoted in the Narration as one per every 100. They also curve this and fit their justification.

They also ask if one has 300 goats and 3 goats are paid for that and that if he acquires 100 more, what should he do? The Narration is made realistic if 1 goat is given for the additional 100 goats.

There is no room of evidence for their claim. Our prime question is “How do they establish their claim of paying yearly, year after year from this Narration?”

We quoted the intention of “Zakaah to purify wealth” as only supportive information. But the people bound to justify their stand forget that there is no room of evidence in this narration for their claim.

It is to be noted that instead of People justifying their stand (of paying Zakaah on the same wealth yearly for which Zakaah has been previously paid) only try to deny to our supporting information.

We discussed with relevant evidences that there are no authentic narrations insisting the obligation of Zakaah on the same wealth yearly for which Zakaah has previously been paid.

Unable to deny this, people in contrary principle argue that though there are no evidences in Narrations of Allah’s Apostles, point to some statements and practice of Companions (or of Leading Scholars of the Salaf) for paying Zakaah on the Wealth yearly for which Zakaah is previously been paid.

3.0 COMPANIONS- Should one follow their Guidance?

The elementary belief of a Muslim is to follow only Wahi. Even the self analysis of Rasool SAW need not be considered as Dheen. People change this fundamental testimony of Islam by insisting to follow Companions’ views.

Affirming Honey as Haram and refuting Crossbreed-Date cultivation without Wahi are few examples.

When Prophet SAW himself clearly disengaged his words and deeds between Wahi and non-Wahi, it surprises when few people dispute that it is obligatory in Islam to follow Companions’ views.

ٱتَّبِعُواْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيۡكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمۡ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ مِن دُونِهِۦۤ أَوۡلِيَآءَ‌ۗ قَلِيلاً۬ مَّا تَذَكَّرُونَ

Follow, [O mankind], what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow other than Him any allies. Little do you remember!

Surah: 7.Al-A'raf: Verse: 3

قُلۡنَا ٱهۡبِطُواْ مِنۡہَا جَمِيعً۬ا‌ۖ فَإِمَّا يَأۡتِيَنَّكُم مِّنِّى هُدً۬ى فَمَن تَبِعَ هُدَاىَ فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَيۡہِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ يَحۡزَنُونَ

We said, "Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.

Surah: 2.Al-Baqarah: Verse: 38

ٱتَّبِعۡ مَآ أُوحِىَ إِلَيۡكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ‌ۖ لَآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ‌ۖ وَأَعۡرِضۡ عَنِ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ

Follow, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you from your Lord - there is no deity except Him - and turn away from those who associate others with Allah.

Surah: 6.Al-An'am: Verse: 106

إِنَّمَا كَانَ قَوۡلَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ إِذَا دُعُوٓاْ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ لِيَحۡكُمَ بَيۡنَهُمۡ أَن يَقُولُواْ سَمِعۡنَا وَأَطَعۡنَا‌ۚ وَأُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ هُمُ ٱلۡمُفۡلِحُونَ

The only statement of the [true] believers when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them is that they say, "We hear and we obey." And those are the successful.

Surah: 24.An-Nur: Verse: 51.

قُلۡ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ ٱلرَّسُولَ‌ۖ فَإِن تَوَلَّوۡاْ فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيۡهِ مَا حُمِّلَ وَعَلَيۡڪُم مَّا حُمِّلۡتُمۡ‌ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوهُ تَهۡتَدُواْ‌ۚ وَمَا عَلَى ٱلرَّسُولِ إِلَّا ٱلۡبَلَـٰغُ ٱلۡمُبِينُ

Say, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that [duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged. And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except the [responsibility for] clear notification."

Surah: 24.An-Nur: Verse: 54

قُلۡ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُحِبُّونَ ٱللَّهَ فَٱتَّبِعُونِى يُحۡبِبۡكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَغۡفِرۡ لَكُمۡ ذُنُوبَكُمۡ‌ۗ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٌ۬ رَّحِيمٌ۬

Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Surah: 3.Al-’Imran: Verse: 31

وَأَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۥ وَلَا تَنَـٰزَعُواْ فَتَفۡشَلُواْ وَتَذۡهَبَ رِيحُكُمۡ‌ۖ وَٱصۡبِرُوٓاْ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلصَّـٰبِرِينَ

And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute and [thus] lose courage and [then] your strength would depart; and be patient. Indeed, Allah is with the patient.

Surah:8.Al-Anfal : Verse : 46

وَأَنَّ هَـٰذَا صِرَٲطِى مُسۡتَقِيمً۬ا فَٱتَّبِعُوهُ‌ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ ٱلسُّبُلَ فَتَفَرَّقَ بِكُمۡ عَن سَبِيلِهِۦ‌ۚ ذَٲلِكُمۡ وَصَّٮٰكُم بِهِۦ لَعَلَّڪُمۡ تَتَّقُونَ

And, [moreover], this is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow [other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous.

Surah: 6.Al-An’am: Verse: 153

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِى ٱلۡأَمۡرِ مِنكُمۡ‌ۖ فَإِن تَنَـٰزَعۡتُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍ۬ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ خَيۡرٌ۬ وَأَحۡسَنُ تَأۡوِيلاً

O you, who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Surah: 4.An-Nisa’: Verse: 59

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤۡمِنٍ۬ وَلَا مُؤۡمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ۥۤ أَمۡرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ ٱلۡخِيَرَةُ مِنۡ أَمۡرِهِمۡۗ وَمَن يَعۡصِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۥ فَقَدۡ ضَلَّ ضَلَـٰلاً۬ مُّبِينً۬ا

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

Surah: 33.Al-Ahzab: Verse: 36

وَٱخۡشَوۡنِ‌ۚ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ أَكۡمَلۡتُ لَكُمۡ دِينَكُمۡ وَأَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلۡإِسۡلَـٰمَ دِينً۬ا‌ۚ فَمَنِ ٱضۡطُرَّ فِى مَخۡمَصَةٍ غَيۡرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ۬ لِّإٍِ۬ثۡمٍ۬‌ۙ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ۬ رَّحِيمٌ۬

Fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Surah: 5.Al-Maeda: Verse: 3

All these verses evidently claim to Follow Only Wahi: Quran and Sunnah of Prophet SAW.

When we clarify this, People think that we do not respect Companions of Prophet and yell them.

There is no second thought on the Companions’ Excellence, being superior to us in belief which is iterated in lot of Quran verses and Hadhees.

Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 57 :: Hadith 22

Narrated Abu Said:

The Prophet said, "Do not abuse my companions for if any one of you spent gold equal to Uhud (in Allah's Cause) it would not be equal to a Mud or even a half Mud spent by one of them."

Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 57 :: Hadith 2

Narrated Imran bin Husain:

"Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) said, 'The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries). and then those who will follow the latter"

Allah has also praised Companions of Prophet in His Holy Quran:

وَٱلسَّـٰبِقُونَ ٱلۡأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُهَـٰجِرِينَ وَٱلۡأَنصَارِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحۡسَـٰنٍ۬ رَّضِىَ ٱللَّهُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَرَضُواْ عَنۡهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمۡ جَنَّـٰتٍ۬ تَجۡرِى تَحۡتَهَا ٱلۡأَنۡهَـٰرُ خَـٰلِدِينَ فِيہَآ أَبَدً۬ا‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ ٱلۡفَوۡزُ ٱلۡعَظِيمُ

And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.

Surah: 9.At-Taubah: Verse: 100

لَّقَد تَّابَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَى ٱلنَّبِىِّ وَٱلۡمُهَـٰجِرِينَ وَٱلۡأَنصَارِ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُ فِى سَاعَةِ ٱلۡعُسۡرَةِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ مَا ڪَادَ يَزِيغُ قُلُوبُ فَرِيقٍ۬ مِّنۡهُمۡ ثُمَّ تَابَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ‌ۚ إِنَّهُ ۥ بِهِمۡ رَءُوفٌ۬ رَّحِيمٌ۬

Allah has already forgiven the Prophet and the Muhajireen and the Ansar who followed him in the hour of difficulty after the hearts of a party of them had almost inclined [to doubt], and then He forgave them. Indeed, He was to them Kind and Merciful.

Surah: 9.At-Taubah: Verse: 117

وَمَا لَكُمۡ أَلَّا تُنفِقُواْ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلِلَّهِ مِيرَٲثُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ‌ۚ لَا يَسۡتَوِى مِنكُم مَّنۡ أَنفَقَ مِن قَبۡلِ ٱلۡفَتۡحِ وَقَـٰتَلَ‌ۚ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ أَعۡظَمُ دَرَجَةً۬ مِّنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنفَقُواْ مِنۢ بَعۡدُ وَقَـٰتَلُواْ‌ۚ وَكُلاًّ۬ وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡحُسۡنَىٰ‌ۚ وَٱللَّهُ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ۬

And why do you not spend in the cause of Allah while to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth? Not equal among you are those who spent before the conquest [of Makah] and fought [and those who did so after it]. Those are greater in degree than they who spent afterwards and fought. But to all Allah has promised the best [reward]. And Allah, with what you do, is Acquainted.

Surah: 57.Al-Hadid: Verse: 10

We never refuted these Excellencies of Companions of Prophet. Also, we never stopped from identifying the Shias and its supporters, who try to testify the Excellencies of Companions of Prophet.

But at the same time, Inspite of possessing such Excellencies, it is not acceptable to make the opinion of Companions’ as Dheen. Only Quran and Hadhees are the attestation of Dheen. Though Companions are Excellent, they are not an exception to human nature. They would also have liability.

We do not say this out of Imagination:

Ø Few of their views and conduct were contrary to Quran and Hadhees.

Ø They were ignorant of few Authentic Hadhees.

Ø Have shaped few things which were not in Quran and Hadhees.

There are lots of instances in support of this. Hence, we insist not to attest anything else apart from Quran and Hadhees.

The fact is that Companions of Prophet have enlightened not one or two but many decisions against Quran and Hadhees.

3.1 Hajj-at-Tamattu'

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 26 :: Hadith 634

Narrated Marwan bin Al-Hakam:

I saw 'Uthman and 'Ali. 'Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu' and Hajj-al-Qiran (Hajj and 'Umra together), and when 'Ali saw (this act of 'Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and 'Umra together saying, "Lubbaik for 'Umra and Hajj," and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet on the saying of somebody."

A person from Syria asked Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) about completing Umrah during Hajj month and tying ihram separately, for that he said “That’s permitted”. Syrian told “your father has banned this”. Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) replied “If my Father banned which was practiced by Apostle of Allah, should my Father’s order be executed? (Or) Apostle of Allah’s? The Syrian replied “Apostle of Allah’s order should only be executed. Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) answered Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) has done it that way.

(Refer: Sunan at-Tirmithhee 753, Narrated by Salim)

Even today everyone accepts Hajj-at-Tamattu’ including those who insist to follow Companions of Prophet. But Great Companions like Umar(May Allah be pleased with them) and ‘Utman(May Allah be pleased with them) were unaware of this. Why?

3.2 Bathing (Ghusl)

Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 292

Narrated Ubai bin Ka'b:

I asked Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)about a man who engages in sexual intercourse with his wife but does not discharge. He replied, "He should wash the parts which comes in contact with the private parts of the woman, perform ablution and then pray." (Abu 'Abdullah said, "Taking a bath is safer and is the last order.")

If the Sperm doesn’t discharge after Intercourse, Bathing is not necessary: this was Allah’s Apostle’s initial ruling but later he changed this verdict.

Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) said “If Man’s private part enter Women’s, Ghusl (Bathing) is obligatory.

Narrated by: Aisha (May Allah be pleased with them) Books: Muslim 526, Sunan at-Tirmithhee

Such modified rulings are well known to everyone including those who insist to follow Companions. But, ‘Utman (May Allah be pleased with them) has told that Ghusl is not obligatory if Sperm doesn’t discharge.

Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 291

Narrated Zaid bin Khalid AjJuhani:

I asked 'Uthman bin 'Affan about a man who engaged in the sexual intercourse with his wife but did not discharge. 'Uthman replied, "He should perform ablution like that for the prayer after washing his private parts."

Why was ‘Utman (May Allah be pleased with them) unaware of this modified ruling?

3.3 Rubbing hands and feet with dust (Tayammum)

Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 7 :: Hadith 342

Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:

I was with 'Abdullah and Abu Musa; the latter asked the former, "O Abu AbdurRahman! What is your opinion if somebody becomes Junub and no water is available?" 'Abdullah replied, "Do not pray till water is found." Abu Musa said, "What do you say about the statement of 'Ammar (who was ordered by the Prophet to perform Tayammum). The Prophet said to him: "Perform Tayammum and that would be sufficient." 'Abdullah replied, "Don't you see that 'Umar was not satisfied by 'Ammar's statement?" Abu- Musa said, "All right, leave 'Ammar's statement, but what will you say about this verse (of Tayammum)?" 'Abqiullah kept quiet and then said, "If we allowed it, then they would probably perform Tayammum even if water was available, if one of them found it (water) cold."

'Abdullah told not to pray with Tayammum though he was aware that when Ghusl is obligatory, due to lack of water, prayer can be performed with Tayammum,

Even when there is obvious consent in Quran to perform Tayammum incase of unavailability of water and irrespective of this verse of Tayammum from Quran being reminded to Abdullah, he rejected based on Personal analysis. What does this illustrate?

3.4 Plague

Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71 :: Hadith 625

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab departed for Sham and when he reached Sargh, the commanders of the (Muslim) army, Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah and his companions met him and told him that an epidemic had broken out in Sham. 'Umar said, "Call for me the early emigrants." So 'Umar called them, consulted them and informed them that an epidemic had broken out in Sham. Those people differed in their opinions. Some of them said, "We have come out for a purpose and we do not think that it is proper to give it up," while others said (to 'Umar), "You have along with you. other people and the companions of Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) so do not advise that we take them to this epidemic." 'Umar said to them, "Leave me now." Then he said, "Call the Ansar for me." I called them and he consulted them and they followed the way of the emigrants and differed as they did. He then said to them, Leave me now," and added, "Call for me the old people of Quraish who emigrated in the year of the Conquest of Mecca." I called them and they gave a unanimous opinion saying, "We advise that you should return with the people and do not take them to that (place) of epidemic." So 'Umar made an announcement, "I will ride back to Medina in the morning, so you should do the same." Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah said (to 'Umar), "Are you running away from what Allah had ordained?" 'Umar said, "Would that someone else had said such a thing, O Abu 'Ubaida! Yes, we are running from what Allah had ordained to what Allah has ordained. Don't you agree that if you had camels that went down a valley having two places, one green and the other dry, you would graze them on the green one only if Allah had ordained that, and you would graze them on the dry one only if Allah had ordained that?" At that time 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf, who had been absent because of some job, came and said, "I have some knowledge about this. I have heard Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) saying, 'If you hear about it (an outbreak of plague) in a land, do not go to it; but if plague breaks out in a country where you are staying, do not run away from it.' " 'Umar thanked Allah and returned to Medina.

Though it is evident about the Apostle’s message on Plague to everyone including those who insist to follow Companions, This Hadhees illustrates that Umar (May Allah be pleased with them), Majority of Muhajirs and Ansaris were ignorant in this subject.

3.5 Asking Permission

Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 34:: Hadith 277

Narrated 'Ubai bin 'Umar:

Abu Musa asked Umar to admit him but he was not admitted as 'Umar was busy, so Abu Musa went back. When 'Umar finished his job he said, "Didn't I hear the voice of 'Abdullah bin Qais? Let him come in." 'Umar was told that he had left. So, he sent for him and on his arrival, he (Abu Musa) said, "We were ordered to do so (i.e. to leave if not admitted after asking permission thrice).’Umar told him, "Bring witness in proof of your statement." Abu Musa went to the Ansar's meeting places and asked them. They said, "None amongst us will give this witness except the youngest of us, Abu Said Al-Khudri. Abu Musa then took Abu Said Al-Khudri (to 'Umar) and 'Umar said, surprisingly, "Has this order of Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)been hidden from me?" (Then he added), "I used to be busy trading in markets."

Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) notified that being busy in Trading; he was unaware of the message of Allah’s Apostle. This illustrates the even Significant Companions were ignorant of the instructions of Apostle of Allah and the reason behind.

3.6 Death of Apostle of Allah

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 23 :: Hadith 333

Narrated ‘Aisha:

Abu Bakr came riding his horse from his dwelling place in As-Sunnah. He got down from it, entered the Mosque and did not speak with anybody till he came to me and went direct to the Prophet, who was covered with a marked blanket. Abu Bakr uncovered his face. He knelt down and kissed him and then started weeping and said, "My father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Prophet! Allah will not combine two deaths on you. You have died the death which was written for you."

Narrated Abu Salama from Ibn Abbas:

Abu Bakr came out and ‘Umar, was addressing the people, and Abu Bakr told him to sit down but 'Umar refused. Abu Bakr again told him to sit down but 'Umar again refused. Then Abu Bakr recited the Tashah-hud (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle) and the people attended to Abu Bakr and left 'Umar. Abu Bakr said, "Amma ba'du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die. Allah said: 'Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him.(up to the) grateful.' " (3.144) (The narrator added, "By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it ")

Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) and many of the Companions even refused to accept death of Allah’s Apostle. This illustrates that Companions were ignorant of one matter in Quran. Companions understood the truth after Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with them) rectified. Several instances have occurred without rectification.

3.7 Three Divorces - Muttalaq

Muslim :: Book 9 : Hadith 3491

Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) reported that the (pronouncement) of three divorces during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and that of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of Umar (Allah be pleased with him) (was treated) as one. But Umar b. Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) said: Verily the people have begun to hasten in the matter in which they are required to observe respite. So, if we had imposed this upon them, and he imposed it upon them.

Though Apostle of Allah clearly stated that pronouncement of three divorces was treated as one, knowingly Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) imposed it incorrectly.

More:

Ø Earlier rule of prostrating in Ruku while in Prayer was to keep both the hands between the thighs. Later was changed to hold the knees. Ibn Masud (May Allah be pleased with them) was ignorant in this rule which was known to all Companions as well as one of the routine duties. He himself prostrated this way and also encouraged others to do the same. (Refer Muslim 831)

Muslim :: Book 4 : Hadith 1086

Al-Aswad and 'Alqama reported: We came to the house of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud. He said: Have these people said prayer behind you? We said: No. He said: Then stand up and say prayer. He neither ordered us to say Adhan nor Iqama. We went to stand behind him. He caught hold of our hands and mode one of us stand on his right hand and the other on his left side. When we bowed, we placed our hands on our knees. He struck our hands and put his hands together, palm to palm, then put them between his thighs. When he completed the prayer he said. There would soon come your Amirs, who would defer prayers from their appointed time and would make such delay that a little time is left before sunset. So when you see them doing so, say prayer at its appointed time and then say prayer along with them as (Nafl), and when you are three, pray together (standing in one row), and when you are more than three, appoint one amongst you as your Imam. And when any one of you bows he must place his hands upon his thighs and kneel down. and putting his palms together place (them within his thighs). I perceive as if I am seeing the gap between the fingers of the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him).

Ø Though Maimoona (May Allah be pleased with them) refuted that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) married her in the state of Ihram, Maimoona (May Allah be pleased with them)’s nephew (Sister’s Son) Ibn ‘Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) cited that they were married in the state of Ihram.

Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 49

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet got married while he was in the state of Ihram

Ø Though there are lot of Authentic Hadhees indicating that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) prayed Luha (Late Morning) prayers, Aisha (May Allah be pleased with them) refuted Luha prayer.

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 21 :: Hadith 228

Narrated 'Aisha:

Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him)used to give up a good deed, although he loved to do it, for fear that people might act on it and it might be made compulsory for them. The Prophet never prayed the Duha prayer, but I offer it.

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 21 :: Hadith 273

Narrated 'Aisha:

I never saw the Prophet offering the Duha prayer but I always offer it. (Refer Bukhari 1128,1177 )

Ø Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) also refuted this.(Refer Bukhari 1175)

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 21 :: Hadith 271

Narrated Muwarriq:

I asked Ibn 'Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative. I further asked, "Did 'Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn 'Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did the Prophet use to pray it?" Ibn 'Umar replied, "I don't think he did."

Ø There is no second thought for any Muslim on the fact that there are 114 Chapters in Quran, But Ibn Masood (May Allah be pleased with them) refuted that 113th and 114^th chapters are not there in Quran.(Refer Ahmed 20244, 20246).

Ø Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) warned us severely not to become reverts by cutting the necks of each other.

Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 88 :: Hadith 198

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another."

But Companions of Prophet have taken up arms against one another in ‘Utman (May Allah be pleased with them)’s murder, Camel War, Shiffeen War

Likewise there are abundant proofs in Hadhees books. What do these facts depict?

Companions are also Human Beings. There will be possibilities of inaccuracy in them as well. Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) also have said that some of his Companions will alter the Dheen.

Bukhari :: Book 4:: Volume 55 :: Hadith 568

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Prophet said, "You will be gathered (on the Day of Judgment), bare-footed, naked and not circumcised." He then recited:--'As We began the first creation, We, shall repeat it: A Promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it.' (21.104) He added, "The first to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be Abraham, and some of my companions will be taken towards the left side (i.e. to the (Hell) Fire), and I will say: 'My companions! My companions!' It will be said: 'They renegade from Islam after you left them.' Then I will say as the Pious slave of Allah (i.e. Jesus) said. 'And I was a witness Over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up You were the Watcher over them, And You are a witness to all things. If You punish them. They are Your slaves And if You forgive them, Verily you, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (5.120-121)

Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 76 :: Hadith 584

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."

These are sufficient proofs to Follow only Quran and Hadhees and not Companions.

Finally, would like to conclude with only one caution of Allah’s Apostle:

In Hajjathul–vida (Departing Hajj), Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) said “People! I leave behind two things. You will not go astray until you hold them firmly.

1. Qitabullah – Book of Allah.

2. Wa Sunnah- Sunnah of His Apostle” Narrated by: Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) Book: Hakim 318.

Download this Book in PDF

19.05.2010. 10:16

அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) வரலாறு

நூலின் பெயர் : அபூபக்ர் (ரலி)
ஆசிரியர் : அப்பாஸ் அலி
பக்கங்கள் : 112
விலை ரூபாய் : 22.00

தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 22.04.2010. 18:34

தப்லீக் த்ஃலீம் தொகுப்பு ஓர் ஆய்வு

நூலின் பெயர் : தப்லீக் த்ஃலீம் தொகுப்பு ஓர் ஆய்வு
ஆசிரியர் : பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்
பக்கங்கள் : 56
விலை ரூபாய் : 12.00

தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 02.06.2010. 16:17

கப்ஸா நிலைக்குமா

கப்ஸா நிலைக்குமா

(ஜெபமணி என்பவர் கஃபா நிலைக்குமா என்ற தலைப்பில் எழுதிய நூலுக்கு மறுப்பாக கப்ஸா நிலைக்குமா என்ற நூலை நாம் இலவசமாக வெளியிட்டோம். அந்த பிரதி எதுவும் என்னிடம் கைவசம் இல்லை. ஆனாலும் பழைய அல்ஜன்னத் இதழில் தொடராக வெளியிடப்பட்டதைத் தேடிப்பிடித்து கடையநல்லூர் அல் அக்ஸா இணைய தளம் வெளியிட்டு வருவது என் கவனத்துக்கு வந்தது, இது வரை அவர்கள் எட்டு தொடர்களை வெளியிட்டுள்ளனர். அவற்றை நமது இணைய தள நேயர்களும் படித்து பயன் பெறுவதற்காக இங்கே வெளியிடுகிறோம்.

தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 05.01.2011. 12:50

ஜகாத் ஓர் ஆய்வு - உருது

ஜகாத் ஓர் ஆய்வு - உருது

Download in PDF

15.03.2011. 11:13

அர்த்தமுள்ள இஸ்லாம்

நூலின் பெயர்: அர்த்தமுள்ள இஸ்லாம்

ஆசிரியர் P.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

பக்கங்கள் : 48

விலை ரூ. 10.00
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 06.07.2009. 14:09
அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு
அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு
ஆக்கம் பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

பக்கங்கள் 88
விலை ரூபாய் 20.00

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவத்ன் அவசியம்

அமீர் என்றால் யார்

ஒரு நாட்டில் பல அமீர்கள் இருக்க முடியுமா

அதிகாரமில்லாதவர் அமீர் என்று அழைக்கப்படலாமா

இந்திய முஸ்லிம்களுக்கு அல்லது தமிழக மூஸ்லிம்களுக்கு அமீர் யார்

தலமைப் பதவியின் வகைகள்

இயக்கங்களின் தலைவர்கள் அமீர்கள் அல்லர்

இந்தியாவில் யாரும் அமீர்கள் அல்லர்

என்பன போன்ற விஷயங்கள் தக்க ஆதாரங்களுடன் விளக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன

அறிமுகம்

இஸ்லாத்தின் பெயரால் உலகில் ஏராளமான இயக்கங்கள் உள்ளன. இந்த இயக்கங்களில் பெரும்பாலானவை இஸ்லாமிய நெறிமுறைகளுக்கு எதிரானவையாக இருந்த போதும் அந்த இயக்கங்களில் தம்மை இணைத்துக் கொண்டவர்கள் அந்த இயக்கங்களில் இருந்து விடுபடுவதற்கும், விலகுவதற்கும் தயங்குகின்றனர்.break]

காரணம் இயக்கத்தின் தலைவர் அமீர் என்ற பெயரில் அடையாளப்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளார். இஸ்லாத்தில் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டு நடக்குமாறு கடுமையாக வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளதால் தான் சார்ந்துள்ள இயக்கம் தவறான இயக்கம் என்பது தெரிந்த பின்னும், தன் தலைவர் தவறான தலைவர் என்பது தெளிவாகத் தெரிந்த பின்னும் அதில் இருந்து விலக ஒருவர் தயங்குகிறார். இது அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்ற மார்க்கக் கடமையை மீறியதாக ஆகி அல்லாஹ்விடம் நாம் குற்றவாளியாக நேருமோ என்று அவர் அஞ்சுகிறார்.

மக்களிடம் காணப்படும் அமீர் பற்றிய இந்த அறியாமை தான் இஸ்லாத்தின் பெயரில் இயக்கம் நடத்துவோரின் ஒரே மூலதனமாக உள்ளது. தங்களின் தவறான கொள்கை குறித்து தங்களின் தொண்டர்களிடம் விழிப்புணர்வு ஏற்பட்டு கேள்வி கேட்கும் நிலையோ எதிர் விமர்சனம் செய்யும் நிலையோ ஏற்படும் போதெல்லாம் அவர்களை வாயடைக்கச் செய்ய இவர்களுக்கு உள்ள ஒரே ஆயுதம் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பது தான். நான் அமீர் ஆக இருக்கிறேன். அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது மார்க்கக் கடமை. எனவே என்னை எதிர்ப்பதோ, கேள்வி கேட்பதோ என்னை விட்டு விலகுவதோ மாபெரும் பாவம் என்று தொண்டன் மிரட்டப்படுகிறான்.

அமீரிடம் எத்தகைய தவறுகளைக் கண்டாலும் அமீரிடம் இருந்து ஒருவன் விலகுவதற்கு அனுமதி இல்லை என்று மூளைச் சலவை செய்யப்படுகிறான். இதனால் தான் தவறான பல இயக்கங்கள் உயிர் பிழைத்துள்ளன.

தப்லீக் ஜமாஅத், ஜமாஅத்தே இஸ்லாமி, அஹ்லே ஹதீஸ், ஜிஹாத் என்ற பெயரில் ரகசிய இயக்கம் நடத்தும் விடியல் கும்பல், கிலாஃபத் என்ற பெயரில் கள்ள இயக்கம் நடத்துவோர் ஆகிய அனைவரும் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பதைத் தான் கவசமாகப் பயன்படுத்திக் கொள்கின்றனர்.

நாங்கள் உருவாக்கிய ஜாக் என்ற அமைப்பிலும் அமீர் என்ற சித்தாந்தம் உள்ளது. அதை நாமும் ஏற்றிருந்தோம். அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட வேண்டும் எனக் கூறி தலைமைக்கு எதிராக நடப்பவர்களை நாமும் எச்சரித்தது உண்டு. காரணம் நாமும் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதைப் பற்றி இவர்கள் விளங்கியது போல் தான் விளங்கி இருந்தோம்.

இந்த நிலையில் ஜாக் இயக்கம் குர்ஆன் ஹதீஸுக்கு முரணாக பல நிலைபாட்டை எடுத்த போது தான் எங்களுக்குக் குழப்பம் ஏற்பட்டது. குர்ஆன் ஹதீஸுக்கு எதிரான கருத்தைச் சொல்லும் போது கூட எதிர்க்கக் கூடாது என்று மார்க்கம் சொல்லுமா? அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் எனக் கூறி தீமையையும் அநியாயத்தையும் தட்டிக் கேட்பதை இஸ்லாம் தடுக்காது என்று எங்கள் மனசாட்சிக்கு தெரிந்தாலும் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது குறித்த ஆதாரங்கள் அனைத்தும் உண்மையானவையாகவும் இருந்தன.

எனவே நாம் புரிந்து கொண்டதில் எங்கோ தவறு நேர்ந்திருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது மட்டும் எங்களுக்குத் தெரிந்தது.

எனவே அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் குறித்து இன்றைக்கு தவ்ஹீத் ஜமாஅத்தில் உள்ள மூத்த அறிஞர்கள் பத்து ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன் கூடி அமீர் குறித்து பல ஆய்வுக் கூட்டங்கள் நடத்தினோம்.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட வேண்டும் என்பது எந்த அளவுக்கு உண்மையோ அது போல் இந்த நாட்டில் உள்ள எந்தத் தலைவரும் அமீர் கிடையாது என்பதும் உண்மையை என்பதை அப்போது தான் நாங்கள் அறிந்து கொண்டோம்.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதற்கு மட்டும் அமீர் குறித்த ஆதாரங்களைத் தேடும் நாம் அமீர் என்றால் யார் என்பதற்கும் குர்ஆன் ஹதீஸில் இருந்து ஆதாரத்தைத் தேடி இருந்தால் இது போன்ற மோசடி அமீர்களின் பிடியில் இருந்து விடுபட்டிருக்கலாமே என்றும் மக்களையும் விடுவிக்கலாமே என்றும் அப்போது தான் எங்களுக்குப் புரிந்தது.

எனவே இது குறித்து விரிவாக அய்வு நூல் எழுத வேண்டும் என்று அந்த அறிஞர்கள் கேட்டுக் கொண்டதன் அடிப்படையில் அமீர் ஓர் ஆய்வு என்ற நூலை எழுதி வெளியிட்டோம்.

அந்த நூல் வெளியான பின்னர் தான் ஜாக் இயக்கத்தின் தீய கொள்கைகளால் மனம் வெறுத்து அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்ற காரணத்தால் அமைதி காத்தவர்களும் சகித்துக் கொண்டு மன வெறுப்புடன் அந்த இயக்கத்தில் ஒட்டிக் கொண்டிருந்தவர்களும் அதில் இருந்து பெருமளவில் விடுபட்டனர்.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்ற போர்வையில் தலைவர்களின் அநியாயங்களைத் தட்டிக் கேட்கத் தயங்கிய பல சகோதரர்கள் அநியாயத்துக்கு எதிராகக் களம் இறங்கினார்கள். ஜாக் போதையில் இருந்து விடுபடலானார்கள்.

ஆனாலும் மற்ற இயக்கங்களில் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பது, தலைவர்களின் தவறுகளுக்கு எதிராகப் போர்க்கொடி தூக்க நினைப்பவர்களுக்கு இன்றும் தடையாக இருக்கத் தான் செய்கிறது.

எனவே ஏற்கனவே வெளியிட்ட அமீர் ஓர் ஆய்வு எனும் நூலை அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு என்று பெயர் மாற்றம் செய்து தேவையான பல விஷயங்களைச் சேர்த்தும் தேவையில்லாதவற்றை நீக்கியும் இந்த நூலை மீண்டும் வெளியிடுகிறோம்.

அன்புடன்

பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு

இன்று இஸ்லாமிய சமுதாயத்தில் ஏராளமான கட்சிகள், இயக்கங்கள், அமைப்புக்கள், கழகங்கள், மற்றும் சங்கங்கள் எனப் பல்வேறு பெயர்களில் செயல்பட்டுக் கொண்டு இருக்கின்றன. இவற்றில் இன்றைய ஜனநாயக மரபுப்படி தலைவர், செயலாளர், பொருளாளர் என்ற அடிப்படையில் செயல் படக்கூடிய அமைப்புக்களும் உள்ளன. வெறும் தலைவரை மட்டும் வைத்துச் செயல்படும் அமைப்புக்களும் உள்ளன.

இந்த அமைப்புக்களில் ஒரு உறுப்பினர் தங்கள் தலைவருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட மறுத்து விட்டால் அவர் மீது ஒழுங்கு நடவடிக்கை எடுப்பார்கள். அதைச் சகித்துக் கொண்டு அந்த உறுப்பினர் அந்த அமைப்பில் நீடிப்பார், அல்லது விலகி விடுவார். ஒழுங்கு நடவடிக்கை எடுத்தும் ஒருவர் திருந்தவில்லை என்றால் அவர் அந்த அமைப்பில் இருந்து நீக்கப்படுவார். இவையெல்லாம் அந்தந்த அமைப்புக்கள் கொண்டிருக்கும் நிர்வாக சுதந்திரம். இத்தகைய இயக்கங்கள் தங்களுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது மார்க்கக் கடமை எனக் கூறுவதில்லை. இதன் தலைவர்கள் அமீர் என்று அழைக்கப்படுவதும் இல்லை. ஆகவே இந்த அமைப்புகள் இந்த ஆய்வுக்குள் அடங்காது.

வேறு சில அமைப்புக்கள் உள்ளன. இந்த அமைப்புக்கள் தம்மை இஸ்லாமிய அமைப்புக்கள் என வாதிடுகின்றன. இவ்வமைப்புக்களின் தலைவருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதலை மார்க்கத்தின் கடமைகளில் ஒன்று எனவும், அவ்வாறு கட்டுப்படாதவர் மார்க்கத்தை விட்டே வெளியேறி விடுவார் எனவும் கூறுகின்றன.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதலை வலியுறுத்துகின்ற குர்ஆன் வசனங்களையும், நபி மொழிகளையும் இவ்வமைப்புக்கள் தங்களின் வாதத்திற்குச் சான்றாக எடுத்து வைக்கின்றன. எனவே திருக்குர்ஆன், ஹதீஸ் ஒளியில் அமீர் மற்றும் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் தொடர்பான அனைத்து அம்சங்களையும் முழுமையாக நாம் ஆய்வு செய்யக் கடமைப்பட்டுள்ளோம். எனவே அமீர் பற்றிய எல்லா விஷயங்களையும் ஒவ்வொன்றாகப் பார்ப்போம்.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதலின் அவசியம்.

நம்பிக்கை கொண்டோரே! நீங்கள் அல்லாஹ்வையும், இறுதி நாளையும் நம்பி இருந்தால் அல்லாஹ்வுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுங்கள்! இத்தூதருக்கும், (முஹம்மதுக்கும்) உங்களில் அதிகாரம் உடையோருக்கும் கட்டுப்படுங்கள்! ஏதேனும் ஒரு விஷயத்தில் நீங்கள் முரண்பட்டால் அதை அல்லாஹ்விடமும், இத்தூதரிடமும் கொண்டு செல்லுங்கள்! இதுவே சிறந்ததும், மிக அழகிய விளக்கமுமாகும்.

திருக்குர்ஆன் 4:59

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو التَّيَّاحِ عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ اسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا وَإِنْ اسْتُعْمِلَ حَبَشِيٌّ كَأَنَّ رَأْسَهُ زَبِيبَةٌ

காய்ந்த திராட்சை போன்ற தலையைக் கொண்ட அபீசினிய நாட்டுக்காரர் உங்களுக்கு அமீராக நியமிக்கப்பட்டாலும் நீங்கள் அவருக்குச் செவிசாயுங்கள், கட்டுப்படுங்கள் என்று நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அனஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 693 மற்றும் 696, 7142

و حدثني سلمة بن شبيب حدثنا الحسن بن أعين حدثنا معقل عن زيد بن أبي أنيسة عن يحيى بن حصين عن جدته أم الحصين قال سمعتها تقول حججت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حجة الوداع قالت فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قولا كثيرا ثم سمعته يقول إن أمر عليكم عبد مجدع حسبتها قالت أسود يقودكم بكتاب الله فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا

உயர்வான அல்லாஹ்வின் வேதத்தின் படி உங்களை வழி நடத்திச் செல்லும் கருத்த, உடல் ஊனமுற்ற ஓர் அடிமை உங்களுக்கு அமீராக நியமிக்கப்பட்டாலும் அவருக்கு நீங்கள் செவிசாயுங்கள்! கட்டுப்படுங்கள் என்று அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : உம்முல் ஹூஸைன் (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்.

و حدثني محمد بن سهل بن عسكر التميمي حدثنا يحيى بن حسان ح و حدثنا عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الدارمي أخبرنا يحيى وهو ابن حسان حدثنا معاوية يعني ابن سلام حدثنا زيد بن سلام عن أبي سلام قال قال حذيفة بن اليمان قلت يا رسول الله إنا كنا بشر فجاء الله بخير فنحن فيه فهل من وراء هذا الخير شر قال نعم قلت هل وراء ذلك الشر خير قال نعم قلت فهل وراء ذلك الخير شر قال نعم قلت كيف قال يكون بعدي أئمة لا يهتدون بهداي ولا يستنون بسنتي وسيقوم فيهم رجال قلوبهم قلوب الشياطين في جثمان إنس قال قلت كيف أصنع يا رسول الله إن أدركت ذلك قال تسمع وتطيع للأمير وإن ضرب ظهرك وأخذ مالك فاسمع وأطع

அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரே! நாங்கள் தீமையில் இருந்தோம். இந்த நிலையில் அல்லாஹ் நன்மையைக் கொண்டு வந்தான். அந்த நன்மையில் நாம் இருக்கிறோம். இந்த நன்மைக்குப் பிறகு தீமை உண்டா? என்று நான் நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களிடம் கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் ஆம் என்றார்கள். அந்த நன்மைக்குப் பிறகு தீமை உண்டா? எனக் கேட்டேன். அதற்கும் அவர்கள் ஆம் என்றார்கள். அது எப்படி இருக்கும்? என்று நான் வினவினேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் எனது நேர் வழியைக் கொண்டு திருந்தாத எனது நடைமுறையைப் பின்பற்றாத தலைவர்கள் தோன்றுவார்கள். அவர்களில் மனித உடல்களையும், ஷைத்தானின் உள்ளங்களையும் கொண்ட மனிதர்கள் ஆட்சி செலுத்துவார்கள் என்று பதிலளித்தார்கள். அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரே! அந்த நிலையை அடைந்து விட்டால் நான் என்ன செய்ய வேண்டும்? என்று கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் அந்த அமீர் உன்னுடைய முதுகில் அடித்துத் தாக்கி, உன் பொருளைப் பறித்துக் கொண்டாலும் நீ அவருக்குச் செவிசாய்த்துக் கட்டுப்படு என்று கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஹூதைபா (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்.

حدثنا مسدد حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن عبيد الله حدثني نافع عن عبد الله رضي الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال السمع والطاعة على المرء المسلم فيما أحب وكره ما لم يؤمر بمعصية فإذا أمر بمعصية فلا سمع ولا طاعة

பாவமான காரியத்தை ஏவாத வரை தான் விரும்பியவற்றிலும், விரும்பாதவற்றிலும் அமீருக்குச் செவி சாய்த்துக் கட்டுப்படுவது முஸ்லிமான ஒருவர் மீது கடமையாகும். அவர் பாவத்தை ஏவினால் செவிசாய்ப்பதோ, கட்டுப்படுவதோ கூடாது.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் அம்ர் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 7144, மற்றும் 2955

حدثنا إسماعيل حدثني ابن وهب عن عمرو عن بكير عن بسر بن سعيد عن جنادة بن أبي أمية قال دخلنا على عبادة بن الصامت وهو مريض قلنا أصلحك الله حدث بحديث ينفعك الله به سمعته من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال دعانا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فبايعناه فقال فيما أخذ علينا أن بايعنا على السمع والطاعة في منشطنا ومكرهنا وعسرنا ويسرنا وأثرة علينا وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله إلا أن تروا كفرا بواحا عندكم من الله فيه برهان

எங்களது விருப்பிலும், வெறுப்பிலும் எங்களது கஷ்டமான சூழ்நிலையிலும், இலகுவான சூழ்நிலையிலும் எங்கள் மீது பாரபட்சம் காட்டும் நிலையிலும் நாங்கள் (அமீருக்கு) செவிசாய்ப்போம், கட்டுப்படுவோம் என்றும் அல்லாஹ்விடமிருந்து அமைந்திருக்கும் ஆதாரத்தின் அடிப்படையில் தெளிவாகத் தெரியும் இறை நிராகரிப்பைக் காணாத வரை அதிகாரம் உடையவர்களிடம் போட்டி போட மாட்டோம் எனவும் நாங்கள் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்களிடம் உடன்படிக்கை செய்தோம்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : உப்பாதா பின் ஸாமித் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 7056,

அமீராக இருப்பவர், பாவமான காரியங்களைச் செய்யுமாறு கூறினால் அதில் தவிர மற்ற அனைத்திலும் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட வேண்டும் என்று மேற்கண்ட குர்ஆன் வசனமும், ஹதீஸ்களும் கூறுகின்றன. அமீர் என்பவர் எந்தக் குலமாக இருந்தாலும், உடல் ஊனமுற்ற அடிமையாக இருந்தாலும், அவர் நம்மை அடித்து நமது பொருளைப் பறித்தாலும் அவருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டே ஆக வேண்டும் என்பதையும் வலியுறுத்துகின்றன.

மேலும் அவரிடம் இறை நிராகரிப்பைக் காணாத வரை அவருக்குப் போட்டியாக இன்னொருவர் கிளம்பி விடக் கூடாது எனவும் கூறுகின்றன. பாவமான காரியங்களைச் செய்யுமாறு அமீர் நம்மை ஏவினால் அதைச் செய்யக் கூடாது எனவும் பாவமான காரியங்களை அமீர் செய்தால் அதற்காக அவர் ஏவக்கூடிய நல்ல காரியங்களில் அவருக்குக் கட்டுப்படாமல் இருக்கக் கூடாது எனவும் மேற்கண்ட ஹதீஸ்கள் குறிப்பிடுகின்றன. அமீரின் கட்டளைக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதை வலியுறுத்திக் கூறுவதுடன் அமீரின் கட்டளையை மீறினால் கடுமையான விளைவுகள் ஏற்படும் எனவும் நபிமொழிகளில் கடுமையான எச்சரிக்கையும் காணப்படுகிறது.

حدثنا مسدد حدثنا عبد الوارث عن الجعد عن أبي رجاء عن ابن عباس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال من كره من أميره شيئا فليصبر فإنه من خرج من السلطان شبرا مات ميتة جاهلية

ஒருவர் தனது அமீரிடம் எதையேனும் கண்டு வெறுப்படைவாரானால் அவர் சகித்துக் கொள்வாராக! ஏனெனில் ஒருவர் அமீரை விட்டு ஒரு ஜான் அளவு வெளியேறி விட்டாலும் அவர் அறியாமைக் கால மரணத்தைத் தழுவுவார் என அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்

அறிவிப்பவர் : இப்னு அப்பாஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 7053

அமீரை விட்டு ஓர் இஸ்லாமியக் குடிமகன் விலகி அவருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட மறுத்தால் அவன் மறுமையில் நரகம் புகுவான் என்பதை இந்த ஹதீஸ் அறிவிக்கின்றது. எனவே அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டே ஆக வேண்டும் என்பதில் யாருக்கும் மாற்றுக் கருத்து இருக்க முடியாது.

மேலும் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது வணக்க வழிபாடுகள் போல் வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளதை மேற்கண்ட சான்றுகள் சந்தேகத்திற்கிடமின்றி தெளிவுபடுத்துகின்றன.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பது தலைவன், தொண்டனிடையே ஏற்படும் சதாரண உறவு முறையல்ல. விரும்பினால் கட்டுப்பட்டு விட்டு விரும்பாத போது வெளியேறி விடும் கட்சித் தலைமை போன்றதும் அல்ல. மாறாக அமீரிடம் எத்தகைய குறைபாடுகளைக் கண்டாலும் அவரை விட்டு விலகக் கூடாது, விலகுவது பாவம் என்ற அளவுக்கு வலியுறுத்தப்பட்ட மார்க்கக் கடமையாகும்.

எனவே இது விஷயத்தில் கூடுதலான ஆய்வையும் கவனத்தையும் நாம் செலுத்த வேண்டும்.

அமீர் என்பவர் யார்

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதலின் அவசியத்தை அறிந்து கொண்ட நாம் நமது அமீர் யார் என்பதை முதலில் அறிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும்.

உலக முஸ்லிம்கள் அனைவருக்கும் ஒரேயொரு அமீரா? அல்லது நாடுகள் தோறும், ஊர்கள் தோறும் பல அமீர்கள் இருக்க முடியுமா? நாடுகள் தோறும் அமீர்கள் இருக்கலாம் என்றால் நாம் வாழும் இந்திய நாட்டில் முஸ்லிம்களின் அமீர் யார்?

அல்லது ஒவ்வொரு இயக்கத்துக்கும் ஒரு அமீர் இருக்கலாமா? அப்படியானால் அவர்களில் யாருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது? அல்லது அகில உலகுக்கும் ஒரே ஒரு அமீர் தான் இருக்க முடியுமா? அப்படியானால் அந்த ஒருவர் யார்? அதை எப்படித் தீர்மானிப்பது?

ஒரு மாநிலத்தில் நூற்றுக் கணக்கான இயக்கங்கள் இஸ்லாமிய அடிப்படையில் அமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாகக் கூறிக் கொண்டு அமீர்களையும் ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளன. ஒவ்வொரு இயக்கமும் தத்தமது அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது தான் மார்க்கக் கடமை எனக் கருதுகின்றன, பிரச்சாரமும் செய்கின்றன.

இன்னும் சொல்வதென்றால் ஒரே கொள்கை கோட்பாடுடையவர்கள் பல பிரிவுகளாகி ஒவ்வொரு பிரிவுக்கும் தனித்தனி அமீர்கள் உள்ளனர். இவர்களில் யாருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது?

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டு நடக்க ஆசைப்படுபவன் இந்தக் கேள்விகளால் குழம்பிப் போகின்றான்?

முஸ்லிம்களை ஓர் அணியில் ஒன்று திரட்டிக் கட்டுக் கோப்பைக் காப்பதற்காகத் தான் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுமாறு இஸ்லாம் கூறுகிறது. இதை ஒவ்வொரு முஸ்லிமுடைய மனசாட்சியும் ஒப்புக் கொள்கிறது. ஆனால் அமீர்கள் என்ற பெயரில் மக்கள் பிரிக்கப்பட்டு ஒற்றுமை குலைக்கப்படுவதைக் கண்டு அவன் தடுமாறுகிறான்.

ஏராளமான அமீர்கள் உருவாகும் போது சமுதாயம் பல பிரிவுகளாகச் சிதறுகிறது. அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்ற சித்தாந்தம் தவறாகப் புரிந்து கொள்ளப்பட்டதால் ஒற்றுமைக்குப் பதிலாக வேற்றுமை ஏற்படுவதைக் காணும் ஒரு உண்மை முஸ்லிம் மேலும் குழம்பிப் போகிறான்.

ஒற்றுமை ஏற்படுத்துவதற்காக இஸ்லாம் ஏற்படுத்திய ஒரு சித்தாந்தம் ஒரு போதும் வேற்றுமை ஏற்படுத்தாது என்ற உணர்வோடு அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதலை நாம் ஆய்வு செய்தால் குழப்பங்கள் விலகும். தெளிவும் பிறக்கும். இன்ஷா அல்லாஹ்.

தலைமைப் பதவியும் அதன் வகைகளும்.

அமீர் என்றால் தலைவர் என்பதை நாம் அனைவரும் அறிவோம். தலைவரைக் குறிப்பதற்கு அமீரைப் போலவே வேறு சொற்களும் அரபி மொழியில் காணப்படுகின்றன. அவை கலீஃபா, இமாம், அமீருல் முஃமினீன், அமீருல் ஆம்மா, மலிக், சுல்த்தான், ஆமில் ஆகியவையாகும்.

எனவே இந்தச் சொற்கள் அனைத்தையும் முழுமையாக நாம் ஆய்வு செய்வதின் மூலம் அமீர் என்பதற்கான சரியான இலக்கணத்தை நாம் அறிய முடியும்.

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் தான் இந்தச் சமுதாயத்தின் முதல் தலைவராக இருந்தார்கள். அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதை வலியுறுத்திய அவர்கள் தம்மை அமீர் என்று சொல்லிக் கொள்ளவில்லை. நபித்தோழர்களாலும் அவர்கள் அமீர் என அழைக்கப்படவோ குறிப்பிடப்படவோ இல்லை.

அவர்களின் தலைமைத்துவம் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் என்ற பெயராலேயே குறிப்பிடப்பட்டது.

ரிஸாலத் - இறைத்தூதர் எனும் தகுதி

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருந்த போது அந்தச் சமுதாயத்தின் தலைவராக அவர்களே இருந்தார்கள் என்பதை நாம் அனைவரும் அறிவோம். அவர்களின் தலைமை ஓர் வித்தியாசமான தலைமை எனலாம்.

அவர்கள் மக்காவில் இருந்த காலம் வரை ஒடுக்கப்பட்டு தனிமைப்படுத்தப்பட்டிருந்தாலும் மதீனா சென்று நல்லாட்சியை நிறுவிய பின் அந்தச் சமுதாயத்தின் ஆட்சித் தலைவராகவும் அவர்களே இருந்தார்கள். அதே சமயம் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் என்ற முறையில் ஆன்மிகத் தலைவராகவும் அவர்கள் திகழ்ந்தார்கள்.

அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் என்ற ஆன்மிகத் தலைமை, ஆட்சித் தலைமை என இரண்டு தலைமைகள் அவர்களிடம் இருந்தாலும் அவர்கள் ஆட்சித் தலைவர் என்ற கருத்தைத் தரும் மேலே நாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய எந்த வார்த்தையையும் தமக்காகப் பயன்படுத்தியதில்லை. அவர்களிடம் பாடமும், பயிற்சியும் பெற்ற தோழர்களும் அவர்களை மன்னா! ஆட்சித் தலைவா! என்றெல்லாம் ஒரு போதும் கூறியதில்லை. மாறாக ஆன்மிகத் தலைமையைக் குறிக்கும் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் என்பதைத் தான் நபித்தோழர்கள் பயன்படுத்தினார்கள்.

ஆட்சித் தலைவர் என்ற பொறுப்பைக் குறிக்கும் எந்த வார்த்தையும் நபியவர்களுக்குப் பயன்படுத்தப்படாமல் இருந்ததற்குக் காரணங்களும் இருந்தன.

முக்கியமான காரணம் என்னவெனில் நபியவர்கள் நடத்திய ஆட்சி தமது சுயவிருப்பத்தின் படி நடத்திய ஆட்சி அல்ல. மாறாக தொழுகை, நோன்பு போன்ற வணக்க, வழிபாடுகளை இறைவனிடமிருந்து அவர்கள் பெற்றது போல அரசு நடத்துவதற்கான சட்டங்களையும் அந்த இறைவனிடமிருந்தே பெற்றார்கள்.

அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் என்ற வார்த்தைக்கு அல்லாஹ்வின் ஆணைப்படி வணக்க வழிபாடுகளைக் கற்றுத் தந்து நடைமுறைப்படுத்துபவர் என்பது மட்டும் பொருளன்று. அல்லாஹ்வின் கட்டளைப்படி ஆட்சி நடத்துபவர் என்ற பொருளும் அதனுள் அடங்கி இருந்தது.

எனவே தான் அமீர், கலீஃபா, சுல்த்தான், அமீருல் முஃமினீன் என்பன போன்ற வார்த்தைகளால் நபியவர்கள் குறிப்பிடப்படவில்லை. அதை விட விரிந்த, அதே சமயம் ஆட்சித் தலைமையையும் உள்ளடக்கிய ரஸூலுல்லாஹ் - அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் - என்ற வார்த்தையால் அவர்கள் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டனர்.

ரிஸாலத் - நுபுவ்வத் என்பதில் ஆட்சியும் அடக்கம் என்பதைப் பின்வரும் ஹதீஸ்களில் இருந்தும் நாம் அறியலாம்.

حدثنا سليمان بن داود الطيالسي حدثني داود بن إبراهيم الواسطي حدثني حبيب بن سالم عن النعمان بن بشير قال كنا قعودا في المسجد مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكان بشير رجلا يكف حديثه فجاء أبو ثعلبة الخشني فقال يا بشير بن سعد أتحفظ حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في الأمراء فقال حذيفة أنا أحفظ خطبته فجلس أبو ثعلبة فقال حذيفة قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء الله أن يرفعها ثم تكون ملكا عاضا فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون ملكا جبرية فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ثم سكت قال حبيب فلما قام عمر بن عبد العزيز وكان يزيد بن النعمان بن بشير في صحابته فكتبت إليه بهذا الحديث أذكره إياه فقلت له إني أرجو أن يكون أمير المؤمنين يعني عمر بعد الملك العاض والجبرية فأدخل كتابي على عمر بن عبد العزيز فسر به وأعجبه

அமீர்கள் தொடர்பாக நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களின் ஹதீஸை மனனம் செய்திருக்கின்றீரா? என்று அபூ ஸஃலபா கேட்டார். நான் நபியவர்களின் சொற்பொழிவை மனனம் செய்துள்ளேன் என்று கூறி ஹூதைபா (ரலி) அவர்கள் பின் வருமாறு கூறினார்கள்.

நபித்துவம் எவ்வளவு காலம் இருக்க வேண்டும் என அல்லாஹ் நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவு நபித்துவம் இருக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பிறகு நபித்துவத்தின் வழியில் கிலாஃபத் ஆட்சி அமையும். அல்லாஹ் எந்த அளவுக்கு நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவு அது நீடிக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பிறகு கடினமான மன்னராட்சி அமையும். அல்லாஹ் எந்த அளவுக்கு நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவுக்கு நீடிக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பின்னர் அடக்கு முறையைக் கொண்ட மன்னராட்சி அமையும். அல்லாஹ் எந்தளவுக்கு நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவுக்கு அது நீடிக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பிறகு நபித்துவ வழியில் கிலாஃபத் ஆட்சி அமையும் என்று நபியவர்கள் கூறி முடித்து அமைதியாகி விட்டார்கள்.

நூல் : அஹ்மத் 17680.

இந்த ஹதீஸில் ஆட்சி முறையைப் பற்றி நபியவர்கள் அடுக்கடுக்காகச் சொல்கிறார்கள் எனினும் தன்னுடைய ஆட்சி முறையைப் பற்றிக் குறிப்பிடும் போது, நபித்துவம் இருக்கும் என்றே குறிப்பிடுகின்றார்கள். எனவே அல்லாஹ்வின் திருத்தூதர் என்ற பெயரைத் தவிர வேறு ஆட்சி முறைகளைக் குறிப்பிடும் எந்த அடை மொழியிலும் நபியவர்களை அழைப்பது சரியல்ல என்பதை இதில் இருந்து உணரலாம்.

இவ்வாறு ரிஸாலத்தை (அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் எனும் தகுதியை) அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டு நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் மாத்திரம் ஆட்சி செலுத்தவில்லை. இஸ்ரவேல் மக்களையும் நபிமார்கள் இப்படித் தான் ஆட்சி செலுத்தியுள்ளனர்.

حدثني محمد بن بشار حدثنا محمد بن جعفر حدثنا شعبة عن فرات القزاز قال سمعت أبا حازم قال قاعدت أبا هريرة خمس سنين فسمعته يحدث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال كانت بنو إسرائيل تسوسهم الأنبياء كلما هلك نبي خلفه نبي وإنه لا نبي بعدي وسيكون خلفاء فيكثرون قالوا فما تأمرنا قال فوا ببيعة الأول فالأول أعطوهم حقهم فإن الله سائلهم عما استرعاهم

இஸ்ரவேலர்களை நபிமார்களே ஆட்சி செலுத்திக் கொண்டிருந்தனர். ஒரு நபி மறைந்ததும் இன்னொரு நபி அவருக்குப் பதிலாக பொறுப்பு வகிப்பார். எனக்குப் பிறகு எந்த நபியும் கிடையாது. கலீஃபாக்கள் உருவாவார்கள். ஆனால் அவர்களின் எண்ணிக்கை அதிகமாக இருக்கும் என்று நபியவர்கள் கூறியதும், அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரே! (அது தொடர்பாக) எங்களுக்கு என்ன கட்டளையிடப் போகிறீர்கள் எனக் கேட்டனர். அதற்கு நபியவர்கள், அவர்களில் முதலில் யாரிடத்தில் உடன்படிக்கை செய்தீர்களோ அவரிடத்திலேயே அதை நிறைவேற்றுங்கள். அவர்களுடைய கடமையை அவர்களுக்குச் செலுத்தி விடுங்கள். நிச்சயமாக அல்லாஹ் அவர்கள் நிர்வகித்தவை பற்றி அவர்களிடம் விசாரனை செய்வான் என்று பதில் சொன்னார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 3455

இவ்விரு ஹதீஸ்களும் ரிஸாலத் (அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் எனும் தகுதி) என்பதில் ஸியாஸத் (அரசியல் தலைமை)யும் அடங்கும் என்பதற்குத் தெளிவான சான்றுகளாக உள்ளன.

கிலாஃபத்

அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருக்குப் பிறகு அபூ பக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்கள் ஆட்சிக்கு வந்தார்கள். ஆட்சித் தலைவரைக் குறிக்க பல்வேறு வார்த்தைகள் உள்ளன என்பதை முன்னர் நாம் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளோம். அவற்றுள் எந்த ஒன்றையும் அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்கள் தமக்காகப் பயன்படுத்திக் கொள்ளவில்லை. கலீஃபத்து ரஸூலில்லாஹ் - அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருடைய பிரதிநிதி என்பதைத் தான் அவர்கள் பயன்படுத்தினார்கள். நபித்தோழர்களும் அவர்களை கலீஃபத்து ரஸூலில்லாஹ் என்று தான் அழைத்தனர்.

கலீஃபா என்ற சொல்லுக்கு அதிபர் என்ற பொருள் கிடையாது. பிரதிநிதி என்பதே அதன் நேரடிப் பொருளாகும். கலீஃபத்து ரஸூலில்லாஹ் என்றால் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருடைய பிரதிநிதி என்ற பொருள் வரும். பின்னர் கலீஃபத்து ரஸூலில்லாஹ் என்பது கலீஃபா என்று சுருங்கியது.

மன்னர், அதிபதி என்று பொருள் படும் மலிக், சுல்த்தான் போன்ற வார்த்தைகளைத் தவிர்த்து விட்டு நபியவர்களின் பிரதிநிதி எனப் பொருள்படும் கலீஃபா என்ற வார்த்தையையே அவர்கள் விரும்பினார்கள். அல்லாஹ்வின் திருத்தூதர் அவர்களும் தன்னுடைய வழியில் நடக்கும் ஆட்சியை கிலாஃபத் எனவும், அத்தகைய ஆட்சியாளர்களைக் கலீஃபாக்கள் என்றும் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளனர்.

முன்னர் நாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய ஹதீஸில் நபியவர்கள் பயன்படுத்திய நபித்துவத்தின் வழியில் கிலாஃபத் ஆட்சி அமையும் என்ற வாசகத்தில் இருந்து இதை நாம் அறியலாம்.

பின்வரும் ஹதீஸிலும் நபிவழியில் நடத்தப்படும் நல்லாட்சி கிலாஃபத் என்று குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளது.

حدثنا علي بن حجر حدثنا بقية بن الوليد عن بحير بن سعد عن خالد بن معدان عن عبد الرحمن بن عمرو السلمي عن العرباض بن سارية قال وعظنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوما بعد صلاة الغداة موعظة بليغة ذرفت منها العيون ووجلت منها القلوب فقال رجل إن هذه موعظة مودع فماذا تعهد إلينا يا رسول الله قال أوصيكم بتقوى الله والسمع والطاعة وإن عبد حبشي فإنه من يعش منكم يرى اختلافا كثيرا وإياكم ومحدثات الأمور فإنها ضلالة فمن أدرك ذلك منكم فعليه بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين عضوا عليها بالنواجذ قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن صحيح وقد روى ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن عبد الرحمن بن عمرو السلمي عن العرباض بن سارية عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحو هذا حدثنا بذلك الحسن بن علي الخلال وغير واحد قالوا حدثنا أبو عاصم عن ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن عبد الرحمن بن عمرو السلمي عن العرباض بن سارية عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحوه والعرباض بن سارية يكنى أبا نجيح وقد روي هذا الحديث عن حجر بن حجر عن عرباض بن سارية عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحوه

அல்லாஹ்வுக்கு அஞ்சும்படியும், அமீர் கருத்த அடிமையாக இருந்தாலும் சரி அவருக்குச் செவிசாய்த்துக் கட்டுப்பட்டு நடக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் நான் உங்களுக்கு அறிவுரை சொல்கிறேன். ஏனெனில் எனக்குப் பின் உங்களில் வாழ்பவர்கள் அதிகம் கருத்து வேறுபாடுகளைக் காண்பார்கள். அப்போது நீங்கள் என்னுடையை வழிமுறையையும், நேர்வழி பெற்ற நேர்மையான கலீஃபாக்களின் வழிமுறைகளையும் பின்பற்றுங்கள். அதைப் பற்றிப் பிடித்து கடைவாய்ப் பற்களால் கடித்துக் கொள்ளுங்கள் என்று அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : இர்ஃபாள் பின் ஸாரியா (ரலி)

நூல் : திர்மிதி 3600

தனக்குப் பின் வரக்கூடிய, தன்னுடைய வழியில் நடக்கக் கூடிய ஆட்சியாளர்களை அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கலீஃபாக்கள் என்று இந்த ஹதீஸிலும் குறிப்பிடுகிறார்கள்.

حدثنا موسى بن داود حدثنا نافع يعني ابن عمر عن ابن أبي مليكة قال قيل لأبي بكر رضي الله عنه يا خليفة الله فقال أنا خليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنا راض به وأنا راض به وأنا راض

அல்லாஹ்வுடைய கலீஃபாவே என்று அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்களை நோக்கிக் கூறப்பட்டது. அப்போது அவர்கள் நான் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருடைய கலீஃபா ஆவேன். (அல்லாஹ்வின் கலீஃபா அல்ல) இவ்வாறு அழைப்பதையே நான் விரும்புகிறேன், இவ்வாறு அழைப்பதையே நான் விரும்புகிறேன், இவ்வாறு அழைப்பதையே நான் விரும்புகிறேன் என்று கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ முலைக்கா

நூல் : அஹ்மத் 56

மேற்கண்ட ஹதீஸ்களில் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்களுக்குப் பிறகு நபித்துவத்தின் அடிப்படையில் நடக்கும் ஆட்சிக்கு கிலாஃபத் என்றும், அந்த அடிப்படையில் ஆட்சி நடத்துபவர்கள் கலீஃபா என்றும் கூறப்பட்டிருப்பதைக் கானலாம்.

இமாம் - இமாமத்

நல்ல முறையில் ஆட்சி நடத்தினாலும் அது அல்லாத முறையில் ஆட்சி நடத்தினாலும் அவர்களைக் குறிப்பிட இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தையும் பயன்படுத்தப்படுவதுண்டு.

இமாம் என்பது தொழுகை நடத்தக் கூடியவரைக் குறிக்கும் என்பதை நாம் அறிவோம். முழுமையான அதிகாரம் பெற்ற மன்னரையும் இவ்வார்த்தை குறிக்கும்.

நபியவர்கள் இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தையை இவ்விரு அர்த்தங்களிலும் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளனர். உதாரணத்துக்கு புகாரியில் இடம் பெற்ற கீழ்க்காணும் ஹதீஸ்களைக் குறிப்பிடலாம்.

378, 651, 691, 688, 689, 691, 722, 732, 733, 734, 780, 782, 796, 805, 881, 883, 910, 912, 915, 929, 934, 1113, 1114, 1170, 1236, 3211, 3228, 4475, 5658, ஆகிய ஹதீஸ்களில் நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் இமாம் என்ற சொல்லை தொழுகை நடத்துபவர் என்ற பொருளில் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளனர்.

இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தையை அதிபர் என்ற பொருள் தரும் வகையில் பின்வரும் ஹதீஸ்களில் நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளனர்.

وبهذا الإسناد من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله ومن عصاني فقد عصى الله ومن يطع الأمير فقد أطاعني ومن يعص الأمير فقد عصاني وإنما الإمام جنة يقاتل من ورائه ويتقى به فإن أمر بتقوى الله وعدل فإن له بذلك أجرا وإن قال بغيره فإن عليه منه

இமாம் என்பவர் ஒரு கேடயமாவார்! அவருக்குப் பின்னால் நின்று மக்கள் போராடுவார்கள். அவரையே மக்கள் அரணாக ஆக்கிக் கொள்வார்கள். அவர் அல்லாஹ்வின் அச்சத்தை ஏவி, நீதமாக நடந்தால் அதற்குரிய கூலி அவருக்குக் கிடைத்து விடும். அதற்கு மாறானதை அவர் சொன்னால் அந்தப் பாவத்தில் அவருக்குப் பங்கு கிடைக்கும் என நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 2957

இமாம் என்பவர் கேடயமாக இருப்பார்; அவருக்குப் பின்னால் நின்று போர் புரிய வேண்டும் என்ற சொற்கள் ஆட்சியும் அதிகாரமும் உள்ளவர் தான் இமாம் என்பதைச் சந்தேகத்துக்கு இடமில்லாத வகையில் கூறுகிறது.

حدثنا محمد بن بشار بندار قال حدثنا يحيى عن عبيد الله قال حدثني خبيب بن عبد الرحمن عن حفص بن عاصم عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال سبعة يظلهم الله في ظله يوم لا ظل إلا ظله الإمام العادل وشاب نشأ في عبادة ربه ورجل قلبه معلق في المساجد ورجلان تحابا في الله اجتمعا عليه وتفرقا عليه ورجل طلبته امرأة ذات منصب وجمال فقال إني أخاف الله ورجل تصدق أخفى حتى لا تعلم شماله ما تنفق يمينه ورجل ذكر الله خاليا ففاضت عيناه

அல்லாஹ்வின் திருத்தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்: தனது நிழலைத் தவிர வேறு நிழலே இல்லாத (நியாயத் தீர்ப்பு) நாளில் அல்லாஹ் தனது நிழலில் ஏழு பேருக்கு மட்டும் நிழல் கொடுப்பான். அவர்கள் நீதி மிக்க அரசன், அல்லாஹ்வின் வணக்கத்தில் திளைத்திருக்கும் இளைஞன், பள்ளிவாசல்களுடன் பினைக்கப்பட்ட இதயத்தை உடையவன், அல்லாஹ்வுக்காகவே நேசித்து அவனுக்காகவே பிரிந்த இருவர், அழகும் அந்தஸ்தும் உள்ள ஒரு பெண் அழைத்த போது நான் அல்லாஹ்வுக்குப் பயப்படுகிறேன் எனக் கூறியவன், தனது இடது கரத்துக்குத் தெரியாமல் வலது கரத்தால் தர்மம் செய்தவன், தனித்திருந்து அல்லாஹ்வை நினைவு கூர்ந்து (அவனது அச்சத்தால்) கண்ணீர் வடித்தவன் ஆகியோர் ஆவர்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி   660, 1423, 6806

இந்த ஹதீஸில் நீதி மிக்க அரசன் என்பதற்கு இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தை பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

893, 2358, 2409, 2558, 2751, 3449, 3606, 5188, 7084, 7138, 7212, ஆகிய ஹதீஸ்களிலும் இமாம் என்ற சொல்லை ஆட்சி செலுத்தும் தலைவர் என்ற பொருளில் நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளனர்.

திருக்குர்ஆனை ஆய்வு செய்கையில் இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தை வழிகாட்டி, பிரமுகர் என்ற அர்த்தத்திலும் இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது.

நிராகரிப்பவர்களின் இமாம்களுடன் போர் செய்யுங்கள்.

திருக்குர்ஆன் 9:12

(இப்ராஹீமே!) நான் உம்மை மக்களுக்கு இமாமாக ஆக்குகின்றேன் என்று கூறினான்.

திருக்குர்ஆன் 2:124

இன்னும் நம் கட்டளைகளைக் கொண்டு (மக்களுக்கு) நேர்வழி காட்டும் இமாம்களாக நாம் அவர்களை ஆக்கினோம்

திருக்குர்ஆன் 21:73

மேலும் அவர்கள் எங்கள் இறைவா! எங்கள் மனைவியரிடமும், எங்கள் சந்ததியினரிடமுமிருந்து எங்களுக்கு கண்குளிர்ச்சியை அளிப்பாயாக! இன்னும் பயபக்தியுடையவர்களுக்கு எங்களை இமாமாக ஆக்கியருள்வாயாக! என்று பிரார்த்தனை செய்வார்கள்.

திருக்குர்ஆன் 26:74

மேற்கண்ட வசனங்களிலும், இன்னும் இது போன்ற வசனங்களிலும் இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தை வழிகாட்டி, பிரமுகர் என்ற பொருளில் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளதைக் காணலாம்.

சுல்த்தான்

மன்னருக்கு இமாம் என்ற வார்த்தை பயன்படுத்தப்படுவது போல் சுல்த்தான் என்ற வார்த்தையும் மன்னரைக் குறிக்க பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

حدثنا مسدد حدثنا عبد الوارث عن الجعد عن أبي رجاء عن ابن عباس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال من كره من أميره شيئا فليصبر فإنه من خرج من السلطان شبرا مات ميتة جاهلية

ஒருவர் தனது ஆட்சியாளரிடம் எதையேனும் கண்டு வெறுப்படைவாரானால் அவர் சகித்துக் கொள்வாராக! ஏனெனில் ஒருவர் சுல்த்தானை ஆட்சியாளரை விட்டு ஒரு ஜான் அளவு வெளியேறினால் அவர் அறியாமைக் கால மரணத்தைத் தழுவுவார் என அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : இப்னு அப்பாஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : புஹாரி 7053

இந்த ஹதீஸில் ஆட்சியாளர் என்பதற்கு சுல்த்தான் என்ற வாசகம் இடம் பெறுகின்றது.

மலிக்

மன்னரைக் குறிக்க நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் மலிக் என்ற சொல்லையும் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளனர்.

حدثنا سليمان بن داود الطيالسي حدثني داود بن إبراهيم الواسطي حدثني حبيب بن سالم عن النعمان بن بشير قال كنا قعودا في المسجد مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكان بشير رجلا يكف حديثه فجاء أبو ثعلبة الخشني فقال يا بشير بن سعد أتحفظ حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في الأمراء فقال حذيفة أنا أحفظ خطبته فجلس أبو ثعلبة فقال حذيفة قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء الله أن يرفعها ثم تكون ملكا عاضا فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون ملكا جبرية فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ثم سكت قال حبيب فلما قام عمر بن عبد العزيز وكان يزيد بن النعمان بن بشير في صحابته فكتبت إليه بهذا الحديث أذكره إياه فقلت له إني أرجو أن يكون أمير المؤمنين يعني عمر بعد الملك العاض والجبرية فأدخل كتابي على عمر بن عبد العزيز فسر به وأعجبه

அமீர்கள் தொடர்பாக நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களின் ஹதீஸை மனனம் செய்திருக்கின்றீரா? என்று அபூ ஸஃலபா கேட்டார். நான் நபியவர்களின் சொற்பொழிவை மனனம் செய்துள்ளேன் என்று கூறி ஹூதைபா (ரலி) அவர்கள் பின் வருமாறு கூறினார்கள்.

நபித்துவம் எவ்வளவு காலம் இருக்க வேண்டும் என அல்லாஹ் நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவு நபித்துவம் இருக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பிறகு நபித்துவத்தின் வழியில் கிலாஃபத் ஆட்சி அமையும். அல்லாஹ் எந்த அளவுக்கு நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவு அது நீடிக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பிறகு கடினமான மன்னராட்சி அமையும். அல்லாஹ் எந்த அளவுக்கு நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவுக்கு நீடிக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பின்னர் அடக்கு முறையைக் கொண்ட மன்னராட்சி அமையும். அல்லாஹ் எந்தளவுக்கு நாடியுள்ளானோ அந்த அளவுக்கு அது நீடிக்கும். பிறகு அல்லாஹ் நாடும் போது உயர்த்த வேண்டிய தருனத்தில் அதை உயர்த்தி விடுவான். பிறகு நபித்துவ வழியில் கிலாஃபத் ஆட்சி அமையும் என்று நபியவர்கள் கூறி முடித்து அமைதியாகி விட்டார்கள்.

நூல் : அஹ்மத் 17680.

இந்த ஹதீஸில் மன்னராட்சி என்பதை மலிக் என்று நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் குறிப்பிடுகிறார்கள்.

அமீருல் ஆம்மா - பொது அமீர்

மன்னரைக் குறிப்பிட அமீர் என்ற வார்த்தையுடன் ஆம்மா என்பதைச் சேர்த்து அமீர் ஆம்மா (பொது அமீர்) எனவும் நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளனர்.

حدثنا زهير بن حرب حدثنا عبد الصمد بن عبد الوارث حدثنا المستمر بن الريان حدثنا أبو نضرة عن أبي سعيد قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لكل غادر لواء يوم القيامة يرفع له بقدر غدره ألا ولا غادر أعظم غدرا من أمير عامة

மறுமை நாளில் ஒவ்வொரு ஏமாற்றுக்காரனுக்கும் ஒரு கொடி உண்டு. அவன் ஏமாற்றிய அளவுக்கு அது அவனுக்கு உயர்த்திக் காட்டப்படும். அறிந்து கொள்ளுங்கள். (மோசடி செய்யும்) அமீருல் ஆம்மாவை (அரசனை) விட மிகப் பெரிய ஏமாற்றுக்காரன் வேறு யாரும் இருக்க முடியாது என அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஸயீதுல் குத்ரி (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

இந்த ஹதீஸில் ஆட்சியாளருக்கு அமீருல் ஆம்மா எனக் கூறப்படுகிறது. அமீருல் ஆம்மா என்ற சொல்லுக்கு பொது அமீர் என்பது பொருள்.

சின்ன சின்ன அதிகாரம் படைத்தவர்கள் அமீர் என்றும் அனைத்து அமீர்களுக்கும் மேலே உள்ள அதிபர் - முழு அதிகாரம் படைத்தவர், அமீருல் ஆம்மா - பொது அமீர் என்றும் குறிப்பிடப்படுவர். இவருக்குக் கீழ் பல அமீர்கள் இருப்பார்கள்; ஆனால் இவருக்கு மேல் எந்த அமீரும் இருக்க மாட்டார் என்பதால் பொது அமீர் என்ற சொல்லால் இவர் குறிப்பிடப்படுகிறார்.

எனினும் இமாம், சுல்த்தான், அமீருல் ஆம்மா ஆகியவர்களுக்கும், கலீஃபாக்களுக்கும் இடையில் ஒரு முக்கியமான வித்தியாசம் உள்ளது.

அதாவது கலீஃபாக்கள் நபித்துவ வழியில் ஆட்சி நடத்தக் கூடியவர்கள் என்பதாகும். இமாம், சுல்த்தான், மலிக், அமீருல் ஆம்மா ஆகிய சொற்களின் பொருள் பொதுவாக ஆட்சி செலுத்துபவர்கள் - அரசர்கள் என்பதாகும். நபிவழியில் ஆட்சி செய்யாவிட்டாலும் இந்தச் சொற்களைப் பயன்படுத்தலாம். ஆனால் கலீஃபா என்ற சொல்லை நபிவழியில் ஆட்சி செலுத்துபவர்களுக்கு மட்டும் தான் பயன்படுத்த வேண்டும்.

அமீருல் முஃமினீன்

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களும், அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்களும் அமீர் என்று அழைக்கப்படவில்லை என்பதை முன்னர் பார்த்தோம். அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்களுக்குப் பின்னால் வந்த ஆட்சியாளர்களான உமர் (ரலி), உஸ்மான் (ரலி), அலி (ரலி) ஆகியோரும் தம்மை அமீர் என்று கூறிக் கொள்ளவில்லை. மக்களும் அவர்களை அமீர் என்று அழைக்கவில்லை.

அவர்கள் அனைவரும் நபித்துவத்தின் அடிப்படையில் ஆட்சி நடத்தியதால் கலீஃபாக்கள் என்றே அழைக்கப்பட்டனர். உமர் (ரலி) அவர்களின் கால கட்டத்தில் தான் அமீருல் மூமினீன் (இறை நம்பிக்கையாளர்களின் தலைவர்) என்று அழைக்கும் மரபு ஆரம்பமாகியது.

உமர் (ரலி) அவர்கள் கலீஃபாவாக இருந்த போதும் அமீருல் மூமினீன் எனவும் அழைக்கப்பட்டனர். அவர்களைத் தொடர்ந்து ஆட்சி நடத்திய ஏனைய கலீஃபாக்களும் சில நேரங்களில் அமீருல் மூமினீன் என்று குறிப்பிடப்பட்டனர்.

அமீருல் மூமினீன் என்பதில் அமீர் என்ற ஒரு சொல்லும் மூமினீன் என்ற ஒரு சொல்லும் உள்ளன. எந்தக் கலீஃபாவும் அமீர் என்று மட்டும் குறிப்பிடப்படவில்லை. அனைத்து மூமின்களின் தலைவர் என்ற விரிந்த பொருளுடைய அமீருல் மூமினீன் என்ற சொற்றொடரால் தான் அவர்கள் அழைக்கப்பட்டனர் என்பது கவனிக்கத் தக்கது.

அனைத்து மூமின்களுக்குமான ஒரே தலைவர் என்ற கருத்துப்பட அமீருல் மூமினீன் என்ற சொற்றொடர் அமைந்துள்ளது. இதில் இருந்து இவருக்குக் கீழ் சிறு அதிகாரம் வழங்கப்பட்ட அமீர்கள் பலர் இருப்பார்கள் என்ற கருத்து அடங்கியுள்ளது. அதனால் தான் அமீர் என்று மட்டும் சொல்லப்படாமல் மூமின்கள் அனைவருக்குமான அதிபர் என்று அவர்கள் அழைக்கப்பட்டனர்.

அமீர்

தலைமைப் பதவி வகிப்பவர்களுக்குப் பயன்படுத்தப்படும் சொற்கள் குறித்து நாம் இது வரை அறிந்தோம். இனி அமீர் என்ற சொல் யாரைக் குறிக்கும் என்பதைப் பார்ப்போம்.

முதலில் இந்தச் சொல்லின் நேரடிப் பொருள் என்ன என்று பார்ப்போம். அம்ரு என்ற வேர்ச்சொல்லில் இருந்து பிறந்ததே அமீர் எனும் சொல். அம்ர் என்றால் உத்தரவு போடுதல், கட்டளையிடுதல் என்பது பொருளாகும். அமீர் என்றால் கட்டளையிடுபவர், உத்தரவு இடுபவர் என்பது இதன் நேரடிப் பொருளாகும்.

ஒருவரிடம் ஒன்றைச் செய்யுமாறு சாதாரணமாகந் கூறுவதற்கும், கட்டளையிடுவதற்கும் உள்ள வித்தியாசம் நாம் அறிந்தது தான்.

ஒன்றைச் செய்யுமாறு நாம் ஒருவரிடம் கூறினால் அவர் விரும்பினால் அதைச் செய்வார். விரும்பாவிட்டால் செய்ய மறுப்பார். அவரை நம்மால் ஒன்றும் செய்ய முடியாது.

ஒருவர் கட்டளை இடுகிறார் என்றால் அதை நாம் செய்தே ஆக வேண்டும். செய்யத் தவறினால் அவர் நம்மைத் தண்டிப்பார். அதற்கான அதிகாரம் அவரிடம் இருக்கும். வேறு வார்த்தையில் இதைச் சொல்வதாக இருந்தால் யாரிடம் தண்டிக்கும் அதிகாரமும் கட்டாயப்படுத்தும் அதிகாரமும் உள்ளதோ அவர் தான் கட்டளை இட முடியும். எவ்வித அதிகாரமும் இல்லாதவர் கட்டளை பிறப்பிக்க முடியாது.

அமீர் என்று ஒருவரைப் பற்றி கூற வேண்டுமானால் அவர் அதிகாரம் உடையவராக இருக்க வேண்டும். தனது கட்டளையை மீறக் கூடியவரை அவர் தண்டிக்க நினைத்தால் தண்டிக்க சக்தி இருக்க வேண்டும்.

அரபு மொழியில் எத்தனையோ சொற்களின் பொருள் நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களின் காலத்தில் இருந்த பொருளில் இருந்து மாறிவிட்டன. ஆனால் அமீர் என்ற சொல் அன்று முதல் இன்று வரை அதிகாரம் உடையவர் என்ற பொருளில் தான் அரபு நாடுகளில் பயன்படுத்தப்படுகின்றன.

அமைச்சர்கள், ஆளுனர்கள் போன்றவர்களே அங்கே அமீர் என்ற சொல்லால் குறிப்பிடப்படுகிறார்கள்.

அமீர் என்ற சொல்லே நமக்குத் தேவையான விளக்கத்தை அளித்து விடுகிறது.

ஆனால் இன்று ஜமாஅத்தே இஸ்லாமி அமீர், ஜாக் அமீர், அஹ்லே ஹதீஸ் அமீர், இரகசிய இயக்க அமீர் ஆகியோருக்கு துரும்பு அளவுக்குக் கூட அதிகாரம் இல்லை. அவர்களுக்குக் கட்டுப்பட மறுத்தால் அவர்கள் நம்மைச் சிறையில் தள்ள முடியாது. இன்னும் சொல்லப் போனால் இவர்களே மற்றவர்களுக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டு நடக்கும் நிலையில் இருக்கிறார்கள். இதில் இருந்து அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பதை வைத்து இவர்கள் மோசடி செய்கிறார்கள் என்பது உறுதியாகிறது.

அரபு மொழியைத் தாய் மொழியாகக் கொண்டவர்களிடம் இவர்களை அமீர் என்று அறிமுகப்படுத்தினால் கலெக்டர் என்று தான் புரிந்து கொள்வார்கள். மடாதிபதிகளைப் போன்ற தலைவர் என்று புரிந்து கொள்ள மாட்டார்கள்.

இவர்களில் பலர் அரபு நாடுகளிடம் நிதி உதவி கேட்டு கடிதம் எழுதுகிறார்கள். அந்தக் கடிதங்களைப் பார்த்தால் இவர்களின் சாயம் வெளுத்து விடும்.

உதாரணமாக அந்தக் கடிதங்களில் ஜாக் அமீர் என்று தங்களைக் குறிப்பிட மாட்டார்கள். ஜாக் ரயீஸ் என்றே குறிப்பிட்டிருப்பார்கள். அமீர் என்று கூறினால் அரபுகள் கைகொட்டி சிரிப்பார்கள் என்பதால் இப்படி இரட்டை வேடம் போடுகிறார்கள். அரபு அல்லாதவர்கள் மத்தியில் அமீர் என்று கூறிக் கொள்ளும் இவர்கள் அரபு மக்களிடம் அமீர் என்று தங்களைக் கூறிக் கொள்ள மாட்டார்கள்.

அகராதி அடிப்படையில் மட்டும் இன்றி இஸ்லாத்தின் அடிப்படையிலும் அமீர் என்றால் அதிகாரம் உள்ளவர் தான்.

ஒரு நாட்டில் பல பகுதிகள் இருக்கும். அனைத்துப் பகுதியையும் ஒரே ஒருவர் நேரடியாக நிர்வாகம் செய்ய முடியாது. எனவே அதிபராக இருப்பவர் ஒவ்வொரு பகுதிக்கும் ஒருவரை அதிகாரியாக நியமித்து அவர் மூலம் தான் நிர்வாகம் செய்ய முடியும். இப்படி அதிபரால் சில பகுதிகளை நிர்வாகம் செய்ய நியமிக்கப்பட்டவர்கள் தான் இஸ்லாத்தில் அமீர்கள் எனப்படுவார்கள்.

அது போல் ஒரு நாட்டில் ஏராளமான துறைகளை அதிபர் நிர்வாகம் செய்ய வேண்டும். அனைத்தையும் ஒரு அதிபரே செய்ய முடியாது. எனவே குறிப்பிட்ட பணியை அதிபரின் கட்டளைப்படி செய்து முடிக்கும் அதிகாரம் பெற்றவரும் அமீர் எனப்படுவார்.

எவ்வித அதிகாரமும் இல்லாமல் அதிபரால் நியமிக்கப்படாமல் பத்துப் பேர் கூடி ஒருவரை அமீர் என்று கூறிக் கொண்டால் அவர் இஸ்லாத்தில் அமீர் எனக் கூறப்பட மாட்டார்.

அதிபராக இருப்பவர் குறிப்பிட்ட பணிகளுக்காக அமீர் நியமித்தல்

حدثنا عبيد الله بن موسى عن إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن البراء رضي الله عنه قال لقينا المشركين يومئذ وأجلس النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم جيشا من الرماة وأمر عليهم عبد الله وقال لا تبرحوا إن رأيتمونا ظهرنا عليهم فلا تبرحوا وإن رأيتموهم ظهروا علينا فلا تعينونا فلما لقينا هربوا حتى رأيت النساء يشتددن في الجبل رفعن عن سوقهن قد بدت خلاخلهن فأخذوا يقولون الغنيمة الغنيمة فقال عبد الله عهد إلي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن لا تبرحوا فأبوا فلما أبوا صرف وجوههم فأصيب سبعون قتيلا وأشرف أبو سفيان فقال أفي القوم محمد فقال لا تجيبوه فقال أفي القوم ابن أبي قحافة قال لا تجيبوه فقال أفي القوم ابن الخطاب فقال إن هؤلاء قتلوا فلو كانوا أحياء لأجابوا فلم يملك عمر نفسه فقال كذبت يا عدو الله أبقى الله عليك ما يخزيك قال أبو سفيان اعل هبل فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أجيبوه قالوا ما نقول قال قولوا الله أعلى وأجل قال أبو سفيان لنا العزى ولا عزى لكم فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أجيبوه قالوا ما نقول قال قولوا الله مولانا ولا مولى لكم قال أبو سفيان يوم بيوم بدر والحرب سجال وتجدون مثلة لم آمر بها ولم تسؤني

அல்லாஹ்வின் திருத்தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் உஹதுப் போர் நாளன்று அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் ஜூபைரை அம்பெய்யும் வீரர்களுக்கு அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : பராஃ (ரலி)

நூல் : புஹாரி 4044

الله عنهما قال أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في غزوة مؤتة زيد بن حارثة فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن قتل زيد فجعفر وإن قتل جعفر فعبد الله بن رواحة قال عبد الله كنت فيهم في تلك الغزوة فالتمسنا جعفر بن أبي طالب فوجدناه في القتلى ووجدنا ما في جسده بضعا وتسعين من طعنة ورمية

முஅத்தா போரின் போது ஸைத் பின் ஹாரிஸாவை அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் அவர்கள் அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் உமர் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 4261

حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن مهدي حدثنا الأسود بن شيبان عن خالد بن سمير قال قدم علينا عبد الله بن رباح الأنصاري وكانت الأنصار تفقهه فأتيته وهو في حواء شريك بن الأعور الشارع على المربد وقد اجتمع عليه ناس من الناس فقال حدثنا أبو قتادة الأنصاري فارس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جيش الأمراء فقال عليكم زيد بن حارثة فإن أصيب زيد فجعفر بن أبي طالب فإن أصيب جعفر فعبد الله بن رواحة الأنصاري فوثب جعفر فقال بأبي أنت وأمي يا رسول الله ما كنت أرهب أن تستعمل علي زيدا قال امضه فإنك لا تدري أي ذلك خير فانطلقوا فلبثوا ما شاء الله ثم إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صعد المنبر وأمر أن ينادى الصلاة جامعة فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ناب خير أو بات خير أو ثاب خير شك عبد الرحمن ألا أخبركم عن جيشكم هذا الغازي إنهم انطلقوا فلقوا العدو فأصيب زيد شهيدا فاستغفروا له فاستغفر له الناس ثم أخذ اللواء جعفر بن أبي طالب فشد على القوم حتى قتل شهيدا أشهد له بالشهادة فاستغفروا له ثم أخذ اللواء عبد الله بن رواحة فأثبت قدميه حتى قتل شهيدا فاستغفروا له ثم أخذ اللواء خالد بن الوليد ولم يكن من الأمراء هو أمر نفسه ثم رفع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إصبعيه فقال اللهم هو سيف من سيوفك فانصره فمن يومئذ سمي خالد سيف الله ثم قال انفروا فأمدوا إخوانكم ولا يتخلفن أحد قال فنفر الناس في حر شديد مشاة وركبانا

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் (போருக்காக) ஒரு படையை அனுப்பினார்கள். அவர்களுக்கு ஸைத் பின் ஹாரிஸாவை அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள். ஸைத் கொல்லப்பட்டு விட்டால் உங்கள் அமீர் ஜஃபர் ஆவார். அவர் கொல்லப்பட்டுவிட்டால் உங்களுடைய அமீர் அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் ரவாஹா ஆவார் என்று கூறி ஸைத் பின் ஹாரிஸாவை நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் ஜஃபர் (ரலி)

நூல் : அஹ்மத் 21523

حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا وكيع بن الجراح عن سفيان ح و حدثنا إسحق بن إبراهيم أخبرنا يحيى بن آدم حدثنا سفيان قال أملاه علينا إملاء ح و حدثني عبد الله بن هاشم واللفظ له حدثني عبد الرحمن يعني ابن مهدي حدثنا سفيان عن علقمة بن مرثد عن سليمان بن بريدة عن أبيه قال كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أمر أميرا على جيش أو سرية أوصاه في خاصته بتقوى الله ومن معه من المسلمين خيرا

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் இராணுவத்திற்கு, அல்லது ஒரு சிறு படைக்கு அமீரை நியமித்தால் தனிமையில் இருக்கும் போது அல்லாஹ்வை அஞ்சிக் கொள் என்று அறிவுரை வழங்குவார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : சுலைமான் பின் புரைதா (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம் 3261

حدثنا علي بن عبد الله حدثنا سفيان قال الذي حفظناه من عمرو بن دينار قال سمعت جابر بن عبد الله يقول بعثنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلاث مائة راكب أميرنا أبو عبيدة بن الجراح نرصد عير قريش فأقمنا بالساحل نصف شهر فأصابنا جوع شديد حتى أكلنا الخبط فسمي ذلك الجيش جيش الخبط فألقى لنا البحر دابة يقال لها العنبر فأكلنا منه نصف شهر وادهنا من ودكه حتى ثابت إلينا أجسامنا فأخذ أبو عبيدة ضلعا من أضلاعه فنصبه فعمد إلى أطول رجل معه قال سفيان مرة ضلعا من أضلاعه فنصبه وأخذ رجلا وبعيرا فمر تحته قال جابر وكان رجل من القوم نحر ثلاث جزائر ثم نحر ثلاث جزائر ثم نحر ثلاث جزائر ثم إن أبا عبيدة نهاه وكان عمرو يقول أخبرنا أبو صالح أن قيس بن سعد قال لأبيه كنت في الجيش فجاعوا قال انحر قال نحرت قال ثم جاعوا قال انحر قال نحرت قال ثم جاعوا قال انحر قال نحرت ثم جاعوا قال انحر قال نهيت

குறைஷிகளின் ஒட்டகக் கூட்டத்தை எதிர்பார்த்துத் தாக்குவதற்காக எங்களை நபியவர்கள் அனுப்பினார்கள். எங்கள் படையில் முன்னூறு குதிரை வீரர்கள் இருந்தார்கள். எங்களுடைய அமீராக அபூ உபைதா பின் அல் ஜர்ராஹ் இருந்தார்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஜாபிர் பின் அப்துல்லாஹ் (ரலி)

நூல் : புஹாரி 4361

حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى قال قرأت على مالك عن نافع عن نبيه بن وهب أن عمر بن عبيد الله أراد أن يزوج طلحة بن عمر بنت شيبة بن جبير فأرسل إلى أبان بن عثمان يحضر ذلك وهو أمير الحج فقال أبان سمعت عثمان بن عفان يقول قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا ينكح المحرم ولا ينكح ولا يخطب

உமர் பின் உபைதுல்லாஹ், ஷைபாவின் மகளை தல்ஹாவுக்கு நிக்காஹ் முடித்து வைக்க விரும்பினார். இதில் கலந்து கொள்வதற்காக அபான் பின் உஸ்மானுக்கு அழைப்பு அனுப்பியிருந்தார். அப்போது அவர் ஹஜ் விவகாரத் துறைக்கு அமீராக இருந்தார்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : நபீஹ் பின் வஹப்

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களும் நல்லாட்சி நடத்திய கலீஃபாக்களும் குறிப்பிட்ட பணிகளைச் செய்து முடிக்க அதிகாரம் கொடுத்து அமீர்களை நியமித்துள்ளார்கள் என்பதை மேற்கண்ட ஹதீஸ்களில் இருந்து அறியலாம்.

குறிப்பிட்ட பகுதிகளுக்கு அமீர்களை நியமித்தல்

حدثنا إسماعيل بن عبد الله قال حدثني إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن عقبة عن موسى بن عقبة قال ابن شهاب حدثني عروة بن الزبير أن المسور بن مخرمة أخبره أن عمرو بن عوف وهو حليف لبني عامر بن لؤي كان شهد بدرا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخبره أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث أبا عبيدة بن الجراح إلى البحرين يأتي بجزيتها وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هو صالح أهل البحرين وأمر عليهم العلاء بن الحضرمي فقدم أبو عبيدة بمال من البحرين فسمعت الأنصار بقدومه فوافته صلاة الصبح مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلما انصرف تعرضوا له فتبسم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين رآهم وقال أظنكم سمعتم بقدوم أبي عبيدة وأنه جاء بشيء قالوا أجل يا رسول الله قال فأبشروا وأملوا ما يسركم فوالله ما الفقر أخشى عليكم ولكن أخشى عليكم أن تبسط عليكم الدنيا كما بسطت على من كان قبلكم فتنافسوها كما تنافسوها وتلهيكم كما ألهتهم

நபியவர்கள் பஹ்ரைன் நாட்டு மக்களிடம் உடன்படிக்கை செய்து அந்நாட்டு மக்களுக்கு அலா பின் அல் ஹழ்ரமியை அமீராக நியமனம் செய்தார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அம்ரு பின் அல் அவ்ஃப் அல் அன்சாரி (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி     6425

حدثنا يحيى حدثنا وكيع عن شعبة عن سعيد بن أبي بردة عن أبيه عن جده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث معاذا وأبا موسى إلى اليمن قال يسرا ولا تعسرا وبشرا ولا تنفرا وتطاوعا ولا تختلفا

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் முஆதையும், அபூ மூஸாவையும் யமனுக்கு (அமீர்களாக) அனுப்பிய போது நீங்கள் இருவரும் நளினமாக நடங்கள்! கடுமையாக நடக்காதீர்கள். மக்களிடம் மகிழ்ச்சியை உருவாக்குங்கள். வெறுப்பை உருவாக்கி விடாதீர்கள். ஒருவர் இன்னொருவருக்கு இணங்கி நடங்கள்! கருத்து வேறுபாடு கொள்ளாதீர்கள் என்று அறிவுறுத்தினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ புர்தா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 3038

و حدثني سلمة بن شبيب حدثنا الحسن بن أعين حدثنا معقل عن زيد بن أبي أنيسة عن يحيى بن حصين عن جدته أم الحصين قال سمعتها تقول حججت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حجة الوداع فرأيته حين رمى جمرة العقبة وانصرف وهو على راحلته ومعه بلال وأسامة أحدهما يقود به راحلته والآخر رافع ثوبه على رأس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من الشمس قالت فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قولا كثيرا ثم سمعته يقول إن أمر عليكم عبد مجدع حسبتها قالت أسود يقودكم بكتاب الله تعالى فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا

காய்ந்த திராட்சையைப் போன்ற தலையைக் கொண்ட அபீஸீனியர் உங்களுக்கு அமீராக நியமிக்கப்பட்டாலும் நீங்கள் செவிசாயுங்கள், கட்டுப்படுங்கள் என்று அல்லாஹ்வின் திருத்தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அனஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

حدثنا أبو اليمان أخبرنا شعيب عن الزهري سمعت عروة بن الزبير يحدث عمر بن عبد العزيز في إمارته أخر المغيرة بن شعبة العصر وهو أمير الكوفة فدخل عليه أبو مسعود عقبة بن عمرو الأنصاري جد زيد بن حسن شهد بدرا فقال لقد علمت نزل جبريل فصلى فصلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خمس صلوات ثم قال هكذا أمرت كذلك كان بشير بن أبي مسعود يحدث عن أبيه

கூஃபாவின் அமீராக முகீரா இருக்கும் போது நான் பள்ளிக்கு வந்தேன்......என அலீ பின் ரபீஆ அறிவிக்கின்றார்.

நூல் : புகாரி 4007

أخبرنا محمد بن المثنى قال حدثنا خالد وهو ابن الحارث قال حدثنا حميد عن الحسن قال قال ابن عباس وهو أمير البصرة في آخر الشهر أخرجوا زكاة صومكم فنظر الناس بعضهم إلى بعض فقال من هاهنا من أهل المدينة قوموا فعلموا إخوانكم فإنهم لا يعلمون أن هذه الزكاة فرضها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على كل ذكر وأنثى حر ومملوك صاعا من شعير أو تمر أو نصف صاع من قمح فقاموا خالفه هشام فقال عن محمد بن سيرين

பஸராவுடைய அமீராக இருக்கும் போது இப்னு அப்பாஸ் அவர்கள் அறிவித்தார்கள்......

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஹஸன்

நூல் : நஸயீ 2461

قال حدثنا عبد الرازق أخبرنا داود بن قيس الصنعاني قال حدثني عبد الله بن وهب عن أبيه قال حدثني فنج قال كنت أعمل في الدينباذ وأعالج فيه فقدم يعلي بن أمية أميرا على اليمن وجاء معه رجال من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فجاءني رجل ممن قدم معه وأنا في الزرع أصرف الماء في الزرع ومعه في كمه جوز فجلس على ساقية من الماء وهو يكسر من ذلك الجوز ويأكل ثم أشار إلى فنج فقال يا فارسي هلم قال فدنوت منه فقال الرجل لفنج أتضمن لي غرس هذا الجوز على الماء فقال له فنج ما ينفعني ذلك فقال الرجل سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول بأذني هاتين من نصب شجرة فصبر على حفظها والقيام عليها حتى تثمر كان له في كل شيء يصاب من ثمرتها صدقة عند الله عز وجل فقال فنج أنت سمعت هذا من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم قال فنج فأنا أضمنها قال فمنها جوز الدينباذ

ஏமனுக்கு அமீராக யஃலா பின் உமையா அவர்கள் வருகை தந்தார்கள். அவருடன் நபித் தோழர்களில் முக்கியமானவர்களும் வந்தார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் வஹப்

நூல் : அஹ்மத் 15991

حدثنا شيبان بن فروخ حدثنا سليمان بن المغيرة حدثنا حميد بن هلال عن خالد بن عمير العدوي قال خطبنا عتبة بن غزوان فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ثم قال أما بعد فإن الدنيا قد آذنت بصرم وولت حذاء ولم يبق منها إلا صبابة كصبابة الإناء يتصابها صاحبها وإنكم منتقلون منها إلى دار لا زوال لها فانتقلوا بخير ما بحضرتكم فإنه قد ذكر لنا أن الحجر يلقى من شفة جهنم فيهوي فيها سبعين عاما لا يدرك لها قعرا و والله لتملأن أفعجبتم ولقد ذكر لنا أن ما بين مصراعين من مصاريع الجنة مسيرة أربعين سنة وليأتين عليها يوم وهو كظيظ من الزحام ولقد رأيتني سابع سبعة مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما لنا طعام إلا ورق الشجر حتى قرحت أشداقنا فالتقطت بردة فشققتها بيني وبين سعد بن مالك فاتزرت بنصفها واتزر سعد بنصفها فما أصبح اليوم منا أحد إلا أصبح أميرا على مصر من الأمصار وإني أعوذ بالله أن أكون في نفسي عظيما وعند الله صغيرا وإنها لم تكن نبوة قط إلا تناسخت حتى يكون آخر عاقبتها ملكا فستخبرون وتجربون الأمراء بعدنا و حدثني إسحق بن عمر بن سليط حدثنا سليمان بن المغيرة حدثنا حميد بن هلال عن خالد بن عمير وقد أدرك الجاهلية قال خطب عتبة بن غزوان وكان أميرا على البصرة فذكر نحو حديث شيبان

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களுடன் (இஸ்லாத்தின் துவக்க காலத்தில்) இருந்த ஏழு பேரில் நானும் ஒருவன். எங்களுக்கு இலை, தழைகளைத் தவிர வேறு உணவு கிடையாது. இதனால் எங்கள் வாய்கள் புண்ணாகி விட்டன. நான் ஒரு போர்வையை எடுத்து எனக்கு ஒரு துண்டு, ஸஅதுக்கு ஒரு துண்டு என இரண்டாகக் கிழித்தேன். பாதியை அவர் அணிந்தார். மீதிப் பாதியை நான் அணிந்தேன். ஆனால் இன்று எங்களில் யாரும் நகரங்களில் ஏதாவது ஒரு நகரத்தில் அமீர் பொறுப்பை வகிக்காமல் இல்லை.

அறிவிப்பவர் : உத்பா பின் கஸ்வான் (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

حدثنا شيبان بن فروخ حدثنا سليمان بن المغيرة حدثنا حميد بن هلال عن خالد بن عمير العدوي قال خطبنا عتبة بن غزوان فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ثم قال أما بعد فإن الدنيا قد آذنت بصرم وولت حذاء ولم يبق منها إلا صبابة كصبابة الإناء يتصابها صاحبها وإنكم منتقلون منها إلى دار لا زوال لها فانتقلوا بخير ما بحضرتكم فإنه قد ذكر لنا أن الحجر يلقى من شفة جهنم فيهوي فيها سبعين عاما لا يدرك لها قعرا و والله لتملأن أفعجبتم ولقد ذكر لنا أن ما بين مصراعين من مصاريع الجنة مسيرة أربعين سنة وليأتين عليها يوم وهو كظيظ من الزحام ولقد رأيتني سابع سبعة مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما لنا طعام إلا ورق الشجر حتى قرحت أشداقنا فالتقطت بردة فشققتها بيني وبين سعد بن مالك فاتزرت بنصفها واتزر سعد بنصفها فما أصبح اليوم منا أحد إلا أصبح أميرا على مصر من الأمصار وإني أعوذ بالله أن أكون في نفسي عظيما وعند الله صغيرا وإنها لم تكن نبوة قط إلا تناسخت حتى يكون آخر عاقبتها ملكا فستخبرون وتجربون الأمراء بعدنا و حدثني إسحق بن عمر بن سليط حدثنا سليمان بن المغيرة حدثنا حميد بن هلال عن خالد بن عمير وقد أدرك الجاهلية قال خطب عتبة بن غزوان وكان أميرا على البصرة فذكر نحو حديث شيبان

முஆவியா (ரலி) ஸஅத் அவர்களை அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஸஅத் பின் அபீ வக்காஸ்

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

இந்த ஹதீஸ்கள் அனைத்தும் ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட பகுதிக்கு அமீர்கள் நியமிக்கப்பட்டதைத் தெரிவிக்கின்றன.

இதிலிருந்து தெரிவதென்ன?

இஸ்லாமிய ஆட்சி முறையில் ஒரே ஒரு தலைவர் இருப்பார். அவர் கலீஃபா அல்லது அமீருல் மூமினீன் என்று கூறப்படுவார். அவர் பல பணிகளுக்கும், பகுதிகளுக்கும் அதிகாரிகளை நியமிப்பார். அவர்களே அமீர்கள் எனப்பட்டனர் என்பதை மேலே நாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய சான்றுகளிலிருந்து அறியலாம்.

ஒருவர் அமீராக இருக்க வேண்டுமானால் அவருக்கு மேலே ஒரு இமாம், கலீஃபா, சுல்த்தான், அமீருல் மூமினீன் இருந்தாக வேண்டும். அவர்களால் அவர் நியமிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கவும் வேண்டும்.

மேலே நாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய சான்றுகளில் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ள வாசகமும் கூட இதை விளக்குகின்றது. அமீராக ஆக்கினார்கள், அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள் போன்ற வார்த்தைகள் தான் இங்கே பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளனவே தவிர அவர்களாக அமீராக ஆனார்கள் என்று கூறப்படவில்லை. அல்லது மக்களால் அமீராக ஆக்கப்பட்டார்கள் என்றும் கூறப்படவில்லை.

மக்கள் ஒரேயொரு தலைவரை, கலீஃபாவை மட்டும் தான் தேர்வு செய்வார்கள். அவர் தான் எல்லாப் பகுதிகளுக்கும் அமீரை நியமிப்பார்.

எனவே நாம் ஒருவரை அமீர் என்று கூறுவதானால் அவரை அமீராக நியமித்த இமாம் ஒருவர் இருந்தாக வேண்டும். எவ்வித அதிகாரமும் இல்லாமல் தானாக ஒருவர் அமீராகலாம், அல்லது மக்களில் சிலர் ஒருவரை அமீராக்கலாம் என்று கூறுவோர் அதற்கான ஒரே ஒரு ஆதாரத்தைக் கூட காட்ட முடியாது. நாம் தேடிய வரை அப்படி ஒரு ஆதாரத்தைக் காண முடியவில்லை.

- சேர்க்கை - சிவப்பு வண்ணத்தில் உள்ளவை சிலரது விமர்சனத்துக்கு விளக்கம் தரும் வகையில் தர்போது சேர்க்கப்பட்டதாகும் . அடுத்த பதிப்பில் எவ்வித அதிகாரமும் இல்லாமல் என்ற வாசகம் இன்ஷா அல்லாஹ் சேர்க்கப்படும்

இந்த இடத்தில் சிலர் ஒரு மறுப்பை வெளியிட்டுள்ளனர். அதாவது அமீர் என்ற வார்த்தை கலீபாவுக்கும் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது என்பது தான் அந்த மறுப்பு. புஹாரி 4642, 3670 ஆகிய ஹதீஸ்களில் ஒட்டு மொத்த ஜனாதிபதியைக் குறிக்க அமீர் என்ற வார்த்தை பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது என்பது அவர்களின் மறுப்பு. நாம் எழுதியதன் கருத்தைப் புரிந்து கொள்ளாமல் இவ்வாறு மறுப்பு வெளியிட்டுள்ளனர். ஒரு குழுவுக்கு எந்த அதிகாரமும் இல்லாமல் ஒருவரை அமீர் என்று நியமித்துக் கொள்கின்றனர். அப்வரிடம் அதிகாரமும் இருக்காது. அவர் ஜனாதிபதியால் நியமிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கவும் மாட்டார். அமீர் செய்யும் எந்தப் பணியும் அவரால் செய்ய இயலாது. இத்தகையவர் தன்னை அமீர் என்று கூறிக் கொள்வதற்கு ஆதாரம் இல்லை என்பதைத் தான் இவ்வாறு குறிப்பிட்டூளோம். ஒட்டு மொத்த நூலும் இந்தக் கருத்தைச் சொல்வதற்குத் தான் எழுதப்பட்டது. ஜனாதிபதியையே அமீர் என்று குறிப்பிட்ட ஆதாரத்தைக் காட்டி நமது வாதத்தை மறுக்க முடியாது. மேற்கண்ட பாராவில் எவ்வித அதிகாரமும் இல்லாமல் என்ற வார்த்தையை நாம் சேர்த்திருக்க வேண்டும். அவ்வாறு சேர்க்காததால் இந்த சந்தேகம் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த விளக்கத்தை நாம் புதிதாகக் கண்டுபிடித்து விடவில்லை.

புகாரி இமாம் அவர்கள் இமாமுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்ற தலைப்பில் ஒரு பாடத்தை புகாரியில் இடம் பெறச் செய்துள்ளார். ஆனால் அப்பாடத்தில் அவர் எடுத்துக் காட்டும் ஹதீஸ்கள் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதைத் தான் கூறுகின்றன. இமாமுக்கு கட்டுப்படுவதைப் பற்றி எந்த ஹதீஸையும் அப்பாடத்தில் அவர் கூறவில்லை.

இதற்கு விளக்கம் கூறும் போது ஹாபிழ் இப்னு ஹஜர் அவர்கள் இப்படிக் கூறுகிறார்கள்: "இப்பாடத்தில் இமாமுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் பற்றி ஒரு ஹதீஸையும் கூறாமல் இமாமுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்று தலைப்பிட்டுள்ளார். இதற்குக் காரணம் அமீர் என்பவர் இமாமால் நியமிக்கப்பட்டவர் தான். எனவே அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது உண்மையில் இமாமுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது தான்'' இவ்வாறு இப்னு ஹஜர் அவர்கள் விளக்கம் சொல்கிறார்கள்.

அமீர் என்பவர் இமாமால் நியமிக்கப்பட்டவராக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதை இவ்விளக்கம் உறுதி செய்கிறது. இது வரை நாம் பார்த்த செய்திகளிலிருந்து எல்லா அதிகாரங்களும் படைத்த ஒரு ஆட்சியாளரால் ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட பகுதியை நிர்வகிக்க அல்லது ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட பணியைப் பூர்த்தி செய்ய நியமிக்கப்பட்டவர்கள் தான் அமீர்கள். எனவே அமீர் என்பவர் குறுகிய அதிகாரம் படைத்த அதிகாரி என்பது தெளிவாகின்றது.

அதிகாரம் இல்லாமல் இமாமோ, அமீரோ இருக்க முடியாது.

ஒட்டு மொத்த சமுதாயத்திற்கும் இமாமாக இருந்தாலும் சரி, அல்லது ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட பகுதிக்கோ, பணிக்கோ நியமிக்கப்பட்ட அமீராக இருந்தாலும் சரி தம்முடைய தலைமையின் கீழ் உள்ளவர்கள் மீது அதிகாரம் செலுத்துபவராக அவர்கள் இருக்க வேண்டும். தனது உத்தரவுக்குக் கட்டுப்பட மறுப்பவர்களைத் தண்டிக்கும் அதிகாரம் உட்பட எல்லா அதிகாரங்களையும் உடையவராக இருக்க வேண்டும்.

இதற்கான ஆதாரங்கள் இன்னும் உள்ளன. அவற்றை ஒன்றன் பின் ஒன்றாகப் பார்ப்போம்.

حدثنا عبدان أخبرنا عبد الله عن يونس عن الزهري أخبرني أبو سلمة بن عبد الرحمن أنه سمع أبا هريرة رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله ومن عصاني فقد عصى الله ومن أطاع أميري فقد أطاعني ومن عصى أميري فقد عصاني

யார் எனக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டாரோ அவர் அல்லாஹ்வுக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டார். யார் எனக்கு மாறு செய்வாரோ அவர் அல்லாஹ்வுக்கு மாறு செய்து விட்டார். யார் எனது அமீருக்கு கட்டுப்பட்டாரோ அவர் எனக்குக் கட்டுப்பட்டார். யார் என்னுடைய அமீருக்கு மாறு செய்கிறாரோ அவர் எனக்கு மாறு செய்து விட்டார் என்று நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் அபூ ஹுரைரா ரலி

நூல் புகாரி 7147

ஒருவர் அமீருக்கு மாறு செய்தால் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருக்கு மாறு செய்தார் என்று மக்கள் பரவலாகக் கூறி வருகின்றனர். ஆனால் இந்த ஹதீஸில் என்னுடைய அமீருக்கு யார் கட்டுப்பட்டாரோ என்ற வாசகத்தை நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளார்கள்.

என்னுடைய அமீர் என்றால் என்னால் நியமிக்கப்பட்ட அமீர் என்பது கருத்தாகும். நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் ஒருவரை அமீராக நியமித்தால் அவரை எதிர்ப்பது நியமித்தவரையே எதிர்ப்பதாகும் என்ற கருத்து தான் இதில் அடங்கியுள்ளது. அது அறிவுக்கும் பொருத்தமாக உள்ளது.

நாலு பேர் கூடிக் கொண்டு ஒருவரை அமீர் என்று இவர்களாக நியமித்துக் கொண்டு அவருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதற்குச் சமம் என்று கூறினால் அது மாபெரும் மோசடியாகும்.

எவனோ ஒருவனுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது ஒரு காலத்திலும் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதாக ஆகவே ஆகாது.

இன்றைக்குக் கூட ஒரு அதிபர் சில பகுதிகளை நிர்வாகம் செய்ய ஒரு அமீரை நியமித்தால் அவருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதாக ஆகாது. மாறாக எந்த அரசாங்கம் அவரை நியமித்ததோ அந்த அரசாங்கத்துக்கும் அதன் அதிபருக்கும் கட்டுப்படுவதாகத் தான் அது அமையும்.

என்னுடைய அமீருக்கு என்ற வாசகத்தில் இருந்து இதை நாம் சிந்தித்து விளங்கலாம்.

நம்பிக்கை கொண்டவர்களே! நீங்கள் அல்லாஹ்விற்குக் கட்டுப்படுங்கள். (அல்லாஹ்வின்) தூதருக்கும், உங்களில் (நேர்மையாக) அதிகாரம் வகிப்பவர்களுக்கும் கட்டுப்படுங்கள். உங்களில் ஏதாவது ஒரு விஷயத்தில் பிணக்கு ஏற்படுமானால் மெய்யாகவே நீங்கள் அல்லாஹ்வையும் இறுதி நாளையும் நம்புபவர்களாக இருந்தால் அதை அல்லாஹ்விடமும் அவன் தூதரிடமும் ஒப்படைத்து விடுங்கள். இது தான் (உங்களுக்கு) மிகவும் சிறப்பான அழகான முடிவாக இருக்கும்.

திருக்குர்ஆன் (4:59)

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதை வலியுறுத்தும் அல்லாஹ்வின் கட்டளை இது. அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுங்கள் என்று இறைவன் கூறாமல் உலில் அம்ரி என்று கூறுகிறான்.

உலு என்றால் உடையவர்கள் என்று பொருள்.

அம்ர் என்றால் அதிகாரம் என்று பொருள்.

இரண்டையும் சேர்த்து உலுல் அம்ர் எனக் கூறினால் அதிகாரம் உடையவர் என்பது பொருளாகும்.

ஆட்சி, அதிகாரம் உள்ளவர்களுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதைத் தான் இவ்வசனம் கூறுகின்றது என்பதில் இரண்டாம் கருத்துக்கு இடமில்லை.

அதிகாரம் உடையவர்கள் என்று அல்லாஹ் கூறியிருக்கும் போது அதிகாரம் இல்லாதவர்கள் தங்களுக்கு மக்களைக் கட்டுப்பட வைக்க இவ்வசனத்தைப் பயன்படுத்துவது மார்க்கத்தில் செய்யப்படும் மிகப் பெரும் மோசடியாகும்.

அகராதியின் பொருளின் படியும், அல்லாஹ் பயன்படுத்திய வாசக அமைப்பின் படியும் அமீர் என்பவர் ஆட்சி அதிகாரம் உடையவரே! அவ்வாறில்லாதவர் ஒரு போதும் அமீராக மாட்டார்.

அமீரின் அதிகாரங்கள்

ஸகாத்தை எடுத்துக் கொள்ளும் அதிகாரம்.

حدثنا أبو عاصم الضحاك بن مخلد عن زكرياء بن إسحاق عن يحيى بن عبد الله بن صيفي عن أبي معبد عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث معاذا رضي الله عنه إلى اليمن فقال ادعهم إلى شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وأني رسول الله فإن هم أطاعوا لذلك فأعلمهم أن الله قد افترض عليهم خمس صلوات في كل يوم وليلة فإن هم أطاعوا لذلك فأعلمهم أن الله افترض عليهم صدقة في أموالهم تؤخذ من أغنيائهم وترد على فقرائهم

நபியவர்கள் ஏமனுக்கு (ஆளுனராக) முஆதை அனுப்பி வைக்கும் போது வணக்கத்துக்குரியவன் அல்லாஹ்வைத் தவிர வேறு யாரும் இல்லை. நிச்சயமாக நான் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதராவேன் என்று ஒப்புக் கொள்வதற்கு அம்மக்களை அழையுங்கள். அதற்கு அவர்கள் கட்டுப்பட்டு விட்டால், அல்லாஹ் ஒவ்வொரு இரவு, பகலிலும் ஐந்து நேரத் தொழுகையை அவர்கள் மீது கடமையாக்கியுள்ளான் என்று அவர்களிடம் அறிவித்து விடுங்கள். இதற்கு அவர்கள் கட்டுப்பட்டு விட்டால், அவர்களுடைய பொருளில் அல்லாஹ் ஸகாத்தைக் கடமையாக்கியுள்ளான்; அந்த ஸக்காத்தை அவர்களிடம் உள்ள செல்வந்தர்களிடமிருந்து எடுத்து அவர்களிலுள்ள ஏழைகளுக்கு வழங்குங்கள் என்று அவர்களிடம் தெரிவித்து விடுங்கள் என்று கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : இப்னு அப்பாஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 1395

இந்த ஹதீஸில் ஸகாத்தை எடுத்து என்ற வாசகம் இடம் பெறுகின்றது. ஸக்காத்தை எடுப்பதை அதிகாரம் இல்லாமல் செய்ய முடியாது. எனவே அமீராக இருப்பவர் ஒரு பகுதிக்காக நியமிக்கப்பட்டிருந்தாலும் அவர் ஸக்காத்தை வசூலிக்கும் அதிகாரத்தை உடையவராக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது தெளிவாகின்றது.

ஸக்காத் தர மறுத்தவர்களிடம் போர் செய்யும் அதிகாரம்

حدثنا أبو اليمان الحكم بن نافع أخبرنا شعيب بن أبي حمزة عن الزهري حدثنا عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة بن مسعود أن أبا هريرة رضي الله عنه قال لما توفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكان أبو بكر رضي الله عنه وكفر من كفر من العرب فقال عمر رضي الله عنه كيف تقاتل الناس وقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يقولوا لا إله إلا الله فمن قالها فقد عصم مني ماله ونفسه إلا بحقه وحسابه على الله فقال والله لأقاتلن من فرق بين الصلاة والزكاة فإن الزكاة حق المال والله لو منعوني عناقا كانوا يؤدونها إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لقاتلتهم على منعها قال عمر رضي الله عنه فوالله ما هو إلا أن قد شرح الله صدر أبي بكر رضي الله عنه فعرفت أنه الحق

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் மரனித்து அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்களின் ஆட்சி வந்ததும் அரபிகளில் சிலர் (ஸக்காத்தை மறுத்ததின் மூலம்) காஃபிர்களாகி விட்டனர். (அவர்களுடன் போர் செய்ய அபூ பக்ர் தயாரானார்கள்.) உமர் (ரலி) அவர்கள் "லாஇலாஹ இல்லல்லாஹ் என்று கூறியவர் தனது உயிரையும், உடைமையையும் என்னிடம் இருந்து காத்துக் கொண்டார். தண்டனைக்குரிய குற்றங்களைப் புரிந்தவரைத் தவிர! அவரது விசாரனை அல்லாஹ்விடமே உள்ளது'' என நபியவர்கள் கூறியிருக்கும் போது நீங்கள் இந்த மக்கள் மீது எப்படிப் போர் தொடுக்க முடியும்? என்று கேட்டார்கள். அதற்கு அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்கள் உமரை நோக்கி "அல்லாஹ்வின் மீது ஆணையாக தொழுகையையும், ஸக்காத்தையும் பிரித்துப் பார்ப்பவர்களுடன் நிச்சயமாக நான் போர் செய்வேன். ஸக்காத் செல்வந்தர்களுக்குரிய கடமையாகும். அல்லாஹ் மீது ஆணையாக நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களிடம் வழங்கி வந்த ஒரு ஒட்டகக் குட்டியை இவர்கள் வழங்க மறுத்தால் கூட அதைத் தர மறுத்ததற்காக நான் அவர்களுடன் போர் தொடுப்பேன்'' என்று கூறினார்கள். இது பற்றி உமர் அவர்கள் கூறும் போது "அல்லாஹ் மீது ஆணையாக அபூபக்ரின் இதயத்தை (தீர்க்கமான தெளிவைப் பெறும் விதத்தில்) அல்லாஹ் விசாலமானதாக ஆக்கி இருப்பதால் தான் அவர் இவ்வாறு கூறினார். அவர் கூறியதே சரி என்பதை நான் விளங்கிக் கொண்டேன்'' என்று கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி)

ஆதாரம் : புஹாரி 1400

ஸக்காத்தை எடுக்க வேண்டும் என்ற முந்தைய ஹதீஸூக்கு இந்த ஹதீஸ் விளக்கமாக அமைந்துள்ளது. மேலும் ஸக்காத்தைத் தர மறுப்பவர்களிடம் போர் செய்து, ஸக்காத்தை வசூலிக்கும் அதிகாரம் ஆட்சியாளருக்கு இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதை இந்த ஹதீஸ் உணர்த்துகின்றது. இந்த அதிகாரம் இமாமுக்கும் இமாமால் நியமிக்கப்படும் அமீருக்கும் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதையும் இந்த ஹதீஸ் உணர்த்துகின்றது..

வரி வசூல் செய்யும் அதிகாரம்.

حدثنا أبو اليمان أخبرنا شعيب عن الزهري قال حدثني عروة بن الزبير عن المسور بن مخرمة أنه أخبره أن عمرو بن عوف الأنصاري وهو حليف لبني عامر بن لؤي وكان شهد بدرا أخبره أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث أبا عبيدة بن الجراح إلى البحرين يأتي بجزيتها وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هو صالح أهل البحرين وأمر عليهم العلاء بن الحضرمي فقدم أبو عبيدة بمال من البحرين فسمعت الأنصار بقدوم أبي عبيدة فوافت صلاة الصبح مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فلما صلى بهم الفجر انصرف فتعرضوا له فتبسم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين رآهم وقال أظنكم قد سمعتم أن أبا عبيدة قد جاء بشيء قالوا أجل يا رسول الله قال فأبشروا وأملوا ما يسركم فوالله لا الفقر أخشى عليكم ولكن أخشى عليكم أن تبسط عليكم الدنيا كما بسطت على من كان قبلكم فتنافسوها كما تنافسوها وتهلككم كما أهلكتهم

அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் அபூ உபைதா பின் அல் ஜாராஹை பஹ்ரைனில் ஜிஸ்யா (வரி) வசூலித்து வர அனுப்பினார்கள். நபியவர்கள் பஹ்ரைன் நாட்டவரிடம் உடன்படிக்கை செய்து அவர்களுக்கு அலா பின் அல்ஹழ்ரமியை அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள். அபூ உபைதா பஹ்ரைனிலிருந்து அந்தப் பொருளுடன் வந்தார். அபூ உபைதா பொருளுடன் வந்திருக்கிறார் என அன்ஸாரிகள் கேள்விப்பட்டனர்.....

அறிவிப்பவர் : அம்ர் பின் அவ்ஃப் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 3158

கைது செய்யும் அதிகாரம்.

حدثنا عبد الله بن يوسف قال حدثنا الليث قال حدثنا سعيد بن أبي سعيد سمع أبا هريرة قال بعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خيلا قبل نجد فجاءت برجل من بني حنيفة يقال له ثمامة بن أثال فربطوه بسارية من سواري المسجد فخرج إليه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أطلقوا ثمامة فانطلق إلى نخل قريب من المسجد فاغتسل ثم دخل المسجد فقال أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله

நஜ்தை நோக்கி நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் ஒரு குதிரைப் படையை அனுப்பினார்கள். அந்தப் படையினர், பனூ ஹனீப் கூட்டத்தைச் சேர்ந்த சுமாமா பின் அஸால் என்பவரைக் கைது செய்து அழைத்து வந்தனர். பள்ளியின் தூண்களில் ஒன்றில் அவரைக் கட்டிப் போட்டிருந்தனர். அவரை நோக்கி நபியவர்கள் வந்து சுமாமாவை அவிழ்த்து விடுங்கள் என்றார்கள். பள்ளிக்குப் பக்கத்திலுள்ள பேரீச்சைத் தோப்பை நோக்கிப் போய் அவர் குளித்து விட்டு பள்ளிக்கு வந்தார். "அல்லாஹ்வைத் தவிர வணக்கத்திற்கு உரியவன் யாருமில்லை. நிச்சயமாக முஹம்மதவர்கள் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் ஆவார்கள்' என்று சான்று கூறினார்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 462

அதிகார துஷ்பிரயோகம்.

و حدثني محمد بن سهل بن عسكر التميمي حدثنا يحيى بن حسان ح و حدثنا عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الدارمي أخبرنا يحيى وهو ابن حسان حدثنا معاوية يعني ابن سلام حدثنا زيد بن سلام عن أبي سلام قال قال حذيفة بن اليمان قلت يا رسول الله إنا كنا بشر فجاء الله بخير فنحن فيه فهل من وراء هذا الخير شر قال نعم قلت هل وراء ذلك الشر خير قال نعم قلت فهل وراء ذلك الخير شر قال نعم قلت كيف قال يكون بعدي أئمة لا يهتدون بهداي ولا يستنون بسنتي وسيقوم فيهم رجال قلوبهم قلوب الشياطين في جثمان إنس قال قلت كيف أصنع يا رسول الله إن أدركت ذلك قال تسمع وتطيع للأمير وإن ضرب ظهرك وأخذ مالك فاسمع وأطع

அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரே! நாங்கள் தீமையில் இருந்தோம். நாங்கள் எந்த நன்மையில் இருக்கிறோமோ (இஸ்லாம்) அந்த நன்மையில் அல்லாஹ் எங்களைக் கொண்டு வந்தான். இந்த நன்மைக்குப் பிறகு தீமை உண்டா எனக் கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் ஆம் என்றார்கள். அந்தத் தீமைக்குப் பிறகு நன்மை உண்டா எனக் கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் ஆம் என்றார்கள். அந்த நன்மைக்குப் பிறகு தீமை உண்டா எனக் கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் ஆம் என்றார்கள். அது எப்படி இருக்கும் என்று வினவினேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் எனது நேர்வழியைக் கொண்டு திருந்தாத, எனது நடைமுறையைப் பின்பற்றாத தலைவர்கள் தோன்றுவார்கள். அவர்களில் மனித உடல்களையும், ஷைத்தானின் உள்ளங்களையும் கொண்ட மனிதர்கள் ஆட்சி செலுத்துவார்கள் எனப் பதிலளித்தார்கள். அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரே அந்த நிலையை நான் அடைந்து விட்டால் என்ன செய்ய வேண்டும் எனக் கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவர்கள் அந்த அமீர் உன்னுடைய முதுகில் அடித்துத் தாக்கி உன் பொருளைப் பறித்துக் கொண்டாலும் நீ அவருக்குச் செவி சாய்த்துக் கட்டுப்படு என்று கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஹூதைஃபா (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

இந்த ஹதீஸ் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதைச் சொன்னாலும் அந்த அமீரின் தன்மைகளைப் பற்றி நபியவர்கள் கூறும் செய்தி குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. உன்னுடைய முதுகில் அடித்துத் தாக்கி உன் பொருளைப் பறித்துக் கொண்டாலும் சரியே என்ற வாசகத்தில் இருந்து அமீர் என்றால் எந்தளவுக்கு அதிகாரம் படைத்தவர் என்பது தெளிவாகின்றது.

حدثنا محمد بن المثنى ومحمد بن بشار قالا حدثنا محمد بن جعفر حدثنا شعبة عن سماك بن حرب عن علقمة بن وائل الحضرمي عن أبيه قال سأل سلمة بن يزيد الجعفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا نبي الله أرأيت إن قامت علينا أمراء يسألونا حقهم ويمنعونا حقنا فما تأمرنا فأعرض عنه ثم سأله فأعرض عنه ثم سأله في الثانية أو في الثالثة فجذبه الأشعث بن قيس وقال اسمعوا وأطيعوا فإنما عليهم ما حملوا وعليكم ما حملتم و حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا شبابة حدثنا شعبة عن سماك بهذا الإسناد مثله وقال فجذبه الأشعث بن قيس فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اسمعوا وأطيعوا فإنما عليهم ما حملوا وعليكم ما حملتم

ஸலமா பின் யஸீத் அல் ஜஃபி என்பவர் நபியவர்களிடம் கேள்வி கேட்க ஆரம்பித்தார். அப்போது அவர் தங்கள் உரிமைகளை (வரிகளை) பெற்று விட்டு எங்களுக்குரிய உரிமைகளை (குடிமக்களுக்குச் செய்ய வேண்டிய வசதிகளை) மறுக்கின்ற அமீர்கள் எங்களை ஆளுகின்ற நிலை வரும் போது நீங்கள் எங்களுக்கு என்ன உத்தரவிட நினைக்கிறீர்கள்? எனக் கேட்டார். நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் அவரது கேள்வியை அலட்சியம் செய்தார்கள். மீண்டும் அவர் கேட்கவே நபியவர்கள் அவரை அலட்சியம் செய்தார்கள். இரண்டாவதோ, அல்லது மூன்றாவதோ அவர் கேட்டதும் அவரை அஷ்அஸ் பின் கைஸ் அவர்கள் இழுத்துச் சென்று செவிசாயுங்கள், கட்டுப்படுங்கள் அவர்கள் மீது சுமத்தப்பட்டது அவர்களுக்கு. உங்கள் மீது சுமத்தப்பட்டது உங்களுக்கு என்று அவரிடம் கூறினார்கள். இவ்வார்த்தையை நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களே அந்த மனிதரிடம் கூறியதாக மற்றொரு அறிவிப்பில் உள்ளது

அறிவிப்பவர் : வாயில் பின் ஹுஜ்ர் அல்ஹழ்ரமி (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

இந்த ஹதீஸ் வரி விதித்துவிட்டு வசதிகள் செய்யாத அமீரைப் பற்றியதாகும். வரிகள் விதிப்பதும், வசதிகள் செய்து கொடுப்பதும் அமீரின் அதிகாரங்களில் உள்ளதாகும். அதே நேரம் வரியை மட்டும் வாங்கி விட்டு வசதிகளை மறுப்பதும் குற்றம் என்றாலும் அதைச் செய்யும் அதிகாரம் அமீரிடம் இருக்கும் என்பதை மறுக்க முடியாது.

அமைச்சர்களை நியமிக்கும் அதிகாரம்.

حدثنا محمد بن خالد الذهلي حدثنا الأنصاري محمد بن عبد الله قال حدثني أبي عن ثمامة عن أنس بن مالك قال إن قيس بن سعد كان يكون بين يدي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بمنزلة صاحب الشرط من الأمير

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களிடம் கைஸ் பின் ஸஅத் (ரலி) அவர்கள் ஓர் அமீரிடம் பணியாற்றும் இரானுவ அமைச்சரின் பதவியை வகித்தார்கள். அதாவது நபியவர்களின் கட்டளைகளில் கவனம் மேற்கொண்டார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அனஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 7155

மேற்கண்ட ஹதீஸ் ஒரு இமாமோ அல்லது அமீரோ தேவையான பதவிகளை உருவாக்கி அதற்கென அமைச்சர்களை நியமிக்கும் அதிகாரம் உடையவர்களாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதைக் காட்டுகின்றது.

போர்ப் படையை அனுப்பும் அதிகாரம்.

حدثنا خالد بن مخلد حدثنا سليمان قال حدثني عبد الله بن دينار عن عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما قال بعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعثا وأمر عليهم أسامة بن زيد فطعن بعض الناس في إمارته فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تطعنوا في إمارته فقد كنتم تطعنون في إمارة أبيه من قبل وايم الله إن كان لخليقا للإمارة وإن كان لمن أحب الناس إلي وإن هذا لمن أحب الناس إلي بعده

நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் ஒரு படையை அனுப்பினார்கள். அந்தப் படைக்கு உஸாமா பின் ஸைதை அமீராக நியமித்தார்கள். உஸாமாவை அமீராக ஆக்கியதை சிலர் குறை கண்டனர். (இதைக் கேள்விப்பட்ட) நபியவர்கள் இவருடைய தலைமைப் பதவியில் நீங்கள் குறை கண்டீர்கள் என்றால், இதற்கு முன் இவருடைய தந்தையுடைய தலைமையிலும் நீங்கள் குறை கண்டிருக்கிறீர்கள். அல்லாஹ்வின் மீது சத்தியமாக! அவர் தலைமைப் பொறுப்புக்குத் தகுதியானவராக இருந்தார். மக்களிலேயே எனக்கு மிக விருப்பமானவராக இருந்தார். அவருக்குப் பின் இவர் (உஸாமா) எனக்கு மிக நேசத்திற்குரியவராக இருக்கிறார் என்றார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் உமர் (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 3730

وبهذا الإسناد من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله ومن عصاني فقد عصى الله ومن يطع الأمير فقد أطاعني ومن يعص الأمير فقد عصاني وإنما الإمام جنة يقاتل من ورائه ويتقى به فإن أمر بتقوى الله وعدل فإن له بذلك أجرا وإن قال بغيره فإن عليه منه

இமாம் என்பவர் ஒரு கேடயமாவார்! அவருக்குப் பின் நின்று மக்கள் போராடுவார்கள். அவரையே மக்கள் அரணாக ஆக்கிக் கொள்வார்கள். அவர் அல்லாஹ்வின் அச்சத்தை ஏவி நீதமாக நடந்தால் அதற்குரிய கூலி அவருக்குக் கிடைத்து விடும். அதற்கு மாறானதை அவர் சொன்னால் அந்தப் பாவத்திலிருந்து அவருக்குப் பங்கு கிடைக்கும் என நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி2957

حدثنا علي بن عبد الله حدثنا سفيان قال الذي حفظناه من عمرو بن دينار قال سمعت جابر بن عبد الله يقول بعثنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلاث مائة راكب أميرنا أبو عبيدة بن الجراح نرصد عير قريش فأقمنا بالساحل نصف شهر فأصابنا جوع شديد حتى أكلنا الخبط فسمي ذلك الجيش جيش الخبط فألقى لنا البحر دابة يقال لها العنبر فأكلنا منه نصف شهر وادهنا من ودكه حتى ثابت إلينا أجسامنا فأخذ أبو عبيدة ضلعا من أضلاعه فنصبه فعمد إلى أطول رجل معه قال سفيان مرة ضلعا من أضلاعه فنصبه وأخذ رجلا وبعيرا فمر تحته قال جابر وكان رجل من القوم نحر ثلاث جزائر ثم نحر ثلاث جزائر ثم نحر ثلاث جزائر ثم إن أبا عبيدة نهاه وكان عمرو يقول أخبرنا أبو صالح أن قيس بن سعد قال لأبيه كنت في الجيش فجاعوا قال انحر قال نحرت قال ثم جاعوا قال انحر قال نحرت قال ثم جاعوا قال انحر قال نحرت ثم جاعوا قال انحر قال نهيت

குரைஷிகளுக்குரிய ஒட்டகக் கூட்டத்தை எதிர்பார்த்துத் தாக்குவதற்கு எங்களை நபியவர்கள் அனுப்பினார்கள். எங்களின் படையில் 300 குதிரை வீரர்கள் இருந்தார்கள். எங்களுடைய அமீராக அபூ உபைதா பின் ஜர்ராஹ் இருந்தார்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஜாபிர் (ரலி)

நூல் : புஹாரி 4361

மேற்கண்ட ஹதீஸ்களின் படி ஒரு இமாம் அல்லது அமீர் என்பவர் போர்ப் பிரகடனம் செய்யும் அதிகாரத்தையும், போருக்குப் படையை அனுப்பும் அதிகாரத்தையும் பெற்றவராக இருக்க வேண்டும். இன்னும் படையை நடத்திச் சென்று போரிடும் அதிகாரத்தையும், சக்தியையும் பெற்றிருக்க வேண்டும். அது மட்டுமன்றி களத்தில் இறங்கி முன்னின்று போரிட்டு மக்களைக் காக்கக் கூடியவராகவும் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதை இந்த ஹதீஸ்கள் நமக்கு உணர்த்துகின்றன.

தீர்ப்பு வழங்கும் அதிகாரம்.

حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد حدثنا ليث عن ابن شهاب عن عروة عن عائشة رضي الله عنها أن قريشا أهمهم شأن المرأة المخزومية التي سرقت فقالوا ومن يكلم فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا ومن يجترئ عليه إلا أسامة بن زيد حب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكلمه أسامة فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أتشفع في حد من حدود الله ثم قام فاختطب ثم قال إنما أهلك الذين قبلكم أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد وايم الله لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطعت يدها

மக்ஸூமி குலத்துப் பெண்னொருத்தி (பாத்திமா பின்த் அல் அஸ்வத்) திருட்டுக் குற்றம் செய்திருந்தாள். அவள் விஷயமாக குறைஷிகள் மிகவும் கவலைக்குள்ளாகினர். அவள் விஷயமாக அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரிடம் பேசுவது யார்? என்று தமக்குள் பேசிக் கொண்டார்கள். அவர்களில் சிலர் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதருடைய செல்லப் பிள்ளையான உஸாமா பின் ஸைத் அவர்களைத் தவிர இதற்கு வேறு யாருக்குத் துணிவு வரும் என்று கூறினார்கள். உஸாமா அவர்கள் அவள் விஷயமாக நபியிடம் பேசினார்கள். அதற்கு நபியவர்கள் அல்லாஹ்வின் தண்டனைகளில் ஒரு தண்டனை விஷயத்திலா நீ பரிந்துரை செய்கிறாய் என்று (கோபத்துடன்) கேட்டு விட்டு பிறகு எழுந்து உரை நிகழ்த்தினார்கள். பிறகு உங்களுக்கு முன் சென்றவர்கள் அழிக்கப்பட்டதெல்லாம் அவர்களில் உயர் குலத்தவன் திருடி விட்டால் அவனை (தண்டிக்காமல்) விட்டு விடுவார்கள். அவர்களில் பலவீனமான(பிரிவைச் சேர்ந்த)வன் திருடினால் அவனுக்குத் தண்டனை அளித்து வந்தார்கள் என்பதால் தான். அல்லாஹ்வின் மீது சத்தியமாக முஹம்மதின் மகள் பாத்திமா திருடியிருந்தாலும் அவரது கையையும் நான் துண்டித்திருப்பேன் என்று கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : ஆயிஷா (ரலி)

நூல் : புகாரி 3475

இந்த ஹதீஸில் ஆட்சியாளர் என்பவர் எந்த அளவுக்கு நேர்மையாளராக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று உணர்த்துகின்ற அதே வேளையில் தீர்ப்பு சொல்லக் கூடிய அதிகாரமும் அவருக்கு இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது தெளிவாகின்றது.

தண்டனை வழங்கும் அதிகாரம்.

و حدثني محمد بن العلاء الهمداني حدثنا يحيى بن يعلى وهو ابن الحارث المحاربي عن غيلان وهو ابن جامع المحاربي عن علقمة بن مرثد عن سليمان بن بريدة عن أبيه قال جاء ماعز بن مالك إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله طهرني فقال ويحك ارجع فاستغفر الله وتب إليه قال فرجع غير بعيد ثم جاء فقال يا رسول الله طهرني فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ويحك ارجع فاستغفر الله وتب إليه قال فرجع غير بعيد ثم جاء فقال يا رسول الله طهرني فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مثل ذلك حتى إذا كانت الرابعة قال له رسول الله فيم أطهرك فقال من الزنى فسأل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبه جنون فأخبر أنه ليس بمجنون فقال أشرب خمرا فقام رجل فاستنكهه فلم يجد منه ريح خمر قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أزنيت فقال نعم فأمر به فرجم فكان الناس فيه فرقتين قائل يقول لقد هلك لقد أحاطت به خطيئته وقائل يقول ما توبة أفضل من توبة ماعز أنه جاء إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فوضع يده في يده ثم قال اقتلني بالحجارة قال فلبثوا بذلك يومين أو ثلاثة ثم جاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهم جلوس فسلم ثم جلس فقال استغفروا لماعز بن مالك قال فقالوا غفر الله لماعز بن مالك قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لقد تاب توبة لو قسمت بين أمة لوسعتهم قال ثم جاءته امرأة من غامد من الأزد فقالت يا رسول الله طهرني فقال ويحك ارجعي فاستغفري الله وتوبي إليه فقالت أراك تريد أن ترددني كما رددت ماعز بن مالك قال وما ذاك قالت إنها حبلى من الزنى فقال آنت قالت نعم فقال لها حتى تضعي ما في بطنك قال فكفلها رجل من الأنصار حتى وضعت قال فأتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال قد وضعت الغامدية فقال إذا لا نرجمها وندع ولدها صغيرا ليس له من يرضعه فقام رجل من الأنصار فقال إلي رضاعه يا نبي الله قال فرجمها

மாயிஸ் பின் மாலிக் என்ற அஸ்லம் கிளையைச் சார்ந்த ஒருவர் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதரிடம் வந்து நான் விபச்சாரம் செய்து விட்டேன்; எனக்குத் தண்டனை வழங்குங்கள் என்று கூறினார். நபியவர்கள் அவரைப் பல தடவை திருப்பி அனுப்பினார்கள். பிறகு மக்களிடத்தில் அவர்கள் விசாரித்தார்கள். அவர் மீது நாங்கள் எந்தத் தவறையும் காணவில்லை; எனினும் தன் மீது தண்டனை நிறைவேற்றப்படுவதைத் தவிர வேறு எதுவும் ஈடாகாது என்று கருதும் அளவுக்கு அவர் தப்பைச் செய்திருக்கிறார் என்று நபித் தோழர்கள் பதிலளித்தார்கள். மீண்டும் அவர் நபியவர்களிடம் வந்தார். அவரைக் கல்லால் எறிந்து கொல்லுமாறு நபியவர்கள் எங்களுக்குக் கட்டளையிட்டார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஸயீத் அல்குத்ரி (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்.

இது வரை அமீர் என்றால் யார்? அவருக்குரிய அதிகாரங்கள் என்ன? என்பதைப் பார்த்தோம்.

அடுத்து இன்றைக்கு தமக்குத் தாமே அமீர் பட்டம் சூட்டி மக்களை ஏமாற்றி வருவோர் அமீர்கள் என்ற பட்டத்துக்கு உரியவர்களா என்பதைப் பார்ப்போம்.

அமீர் வாதமும் அயோக்கியத்தனமும்

இன்று இஸ்லாத்தை விட்டு விட்டு இன்னொரு மார்க்கம் கண்ட காதியானிகள் முதல் தூய இஸ்லாத்தை அனைத்து துறைகளிலும் கடைப்பிடிப்போம் என்று சொல்லக்கூடிய அமைப்புக்களும் சிறு தலைவர்களைக் கொண்ட சின்னஞ் சிறு கூட்டங்களும், குர்ஆன் கூறும் ஜிஹாதை குறுகிய அளவில் விளங்கிக் கொண்டு செயற்படும் குழுக்களும் தத்தமது அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட வேண்டும் என்ற வாதத்தையே எடுத்து வைக்கின்றன.

உண்ணும் போது உன்னை அமீர் கூப்பிட்டாலும் ஓடி வர வேண்டும்

உறங்கும் போது உன்னை அமீர் கூப்பிட்டாலும் ஓடி வர வேண்டும்

என்று மூளைச் சலவை செய்கின்றன.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட வேண்டும்; இல்லையேல் காஃபிராக ஆகி விடுவாய் என்று ஒவ்வொரு அமைப்புமே தத்தமது உறுப்பினர்களை அச்சுறுத்தி வைத்துள்ளன.

எனவே நாம் மேலே எடுத்து வைத்த ஆதாரங்களின் அடிப்படையில் தற்போது அமீர் என்று சொல்லப்படக் கூடியவர்களிடம் கீழ்க்கண்ட கேள்விகளைக் கேட்கக் கடமைப்பட்டுள்ளோம்.

தங்களை அமீர் என்று சொல்லக் கூடியவர்கள் முழுமையான ஆட்சி அதிகாரம் படைத்த மன்னர் என்ற கருத்தில் அமைந்த கலீஃபா, இமாம், சுல்த்தான், மலிக், அமீருல் முஃமினீன், அமீருல் ஆம்மா என்ற பொருளில் தங்களை அமீர் என்று சொல்லிக் கொள்கிறார்களா?

அல்லது மன்னர்களால் பல பகுதிகளுக்கு, பல பணிகளுக்காக நியமிக்கப்பட்ட அமீர் என்று தங்களை சொல்லிக் கொள்ளப் போகிறார்களா?

அமீருல் முஃமீனீன் என்ற பொருளில் தங்களை இவர்கள் அமீர் என்று கூறுவார்களேயானால் அது நகைப்புக்குரியது என்பதில் எந்தச் சந்தேகமும் இல்லை. ஏனெனில் அகில உலகையும் அடக்கியாளும் எந்த அதிகாரமும் இவர்களிடம் இல்லை.

ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட பகுதிக்கு அல்லது பணிக்காக நியமிக்கப்பட்ட அமீர் என்று பதில் சொல்வார்களானால் எந்தப் பகுதிக்கு நியமிக்கப்பட்டார்கள்? எந்தப் பணிக்காக நியமிக்கப்பட்டார்கள்? இவர்களை நியமித்த இமாம் யார்? என்ற கேள்விகளுக்கு இவர்கள் பதில் சொல்லியாக வேண்டும்.

இமாமாகவோ, அமீராகவோ இருப்பவர்களின் அதிகாரங்களைப் பற்றி ஆதாரப்பூர்வமான ஹதீஸ்களில் இருந்து நாம் கண்டோம். இந்த அதிகார வரம்புகளை இப்போது அமீர் என்று சொல்லிக் கொள்ளும் ஒவ்வொருவருக்கும் பொருத்திப் பார்த்து முடிவு செய்வது அவசியமாகும்.

அமீர் என்பவர் ஜக்காத்தை வசூலித்து அதை ஏழைகளுக்குப் பங்கிடும் அதிகாரம் பெற்றிருக்க வேண்டும். ஜக்காத்தைத் தர மறுப்பவர்களிடம் போர் செய்யும் அதிகாரமும் இருக்க வேண்டும். இன்று எத்தனையோ பணக்காரர்கள் ஜக்காத்தை வழங்காமல் வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள். அவர்களிடம் எந்த அமீராவது போர் தொடுத்தார்களா?

தமிழகத்தை மட்டும் எடுத்துக் கொண்டு பேசுவோம். தமிழகத்தில் உள்ள முஸ்லிம்கள் அனைவரிடமும் ஜக்காத்தை வசூலிக்கும் அதிகாரம் தமிழ் மாநில அமீருக்கு உள்ளதா? எல்லா முஸ்லிம்களிடமும் வேண்டாம், தன்னுடைய அமைப்பின் கீழ் உள்ள உறுப்பினர்களிடத்திலாவது முறைப்படி ஜக்காத்தை எடுத்து ஏழைகளுக்கு வழங்குகிறார்களா? தர மறுப்பவர்களுடன் போர் செய்ய இவர்களால் முடியுமா? நிச்சயமாக முடியாது. எனவே ஹதீஸ்களில் வரும் அமீருக்கும் இவர்கள் கூறும் அமீருக்கும் எந்தச் சம்பந்தமும் இல்லை என்பதை உணரலாம்.

வரி வசூல் செய்யும் அதிகாரமும் அமீருக்கு உண்டு என்று கண்டோம். தமிழ்நாட்டில் உள்ள முஸ்லிம் அல்லாத மக்களிடம் போய் வரி வசூல் செய்யக் கூடிய அமீர்கள் யாராவது இருக்கிறார்களா? ஜக்காத்தையே வாங்க முடியாதவர்களிடம் ஜிஸ்யாவைப் பற்றி பேச முடியுமா? அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் காட்டிய அமீருக்கும் இவர்கள் சொல்கின்ற அமீருக்கும் உள்ள வித்தியாசத்தை இதில் இருந்து தெரிந்து கொள்ளலாம்.

கைது செய்யும் அதிகாரமும் அமீருக்கு உண்டு என்று ஹதீஸ்களிலிருந்து அறிந்தோம். நமது அமீர்களிடத்தில் போய் இஸ்லாத்திற்கு மாற்றமாக நடப்பவர்களைக் கைது செய்ய உத்தரவு பிறப்பிக்க சொல்வோம். அவ்வாறு அவர் செய்து விட்டால் அமீர் என்று அவரை மனப்பூர்வமாக ஒத்துக் கொள்வோம். (அப்போதும் அவரை நியமித்த இமாம் இருக்க வேண்டும்) ஆனால் இங்குள்ள நிலைமை என்ன? தாங்கள் கைதாகி விடக்கூடாது என அஞ்சி ஓடி ஒளிந்து கொள்ளும் நிலையில் தான் அமீர்கள் என்று கூறிக் கொள்வோர் இருக்கின்றார்கள்.

அமீர்கள் என்பவர்கள் அதிகாரத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தி நம்மைத் தாக்கி நம்மிடம் உள்ள பொருட்களைப் பறித்துக் கொள்ளும் வலிமை படைத்தவர் என்பதை நாம் அறிவோம். அப்படிச் செய்தால் மறுமையில் அதற்குரிய தண்டனை இருக்கிறது என்பது ஒரு புறமிருக்க இந்த அளவுக்கு அதிகாரத்தை இந்த அமைப்புக்களின் அமீர்கள் பெற்றிருக்கிறார்களா? என்பதே நமது கேள்வி.

யாரேனும் ஒரு அமீர் அப்படிச் செய்தால் அவரின் நிலை என்னவாகும்? என்பதைச் சிந்தித்தால் போதும்.

இஸ்லாம் கூறும் அமீருக்கும் இவர்கள் கூறும் அமீருக்கும் எள்ளளவும் சம்பந்தமில்லை என்பதை இதில் இருந்தும் அறியலாம்.

இவ்வாறு நாம் கூறும் போது அடுத்தவரின் பொருளை அபகரிப்பது அமீரின் தகுதி என்று கூறுவதாக விளங்கக் கூடாது. அமீர் என்பவருக்கு அதற்குரிய சக்தி இருக்க வேண்டும் என்றே கூறுகிறோம். அதுவும் நமது இஷ்டத்திற்குக் கூறவில்லை. ஹதீஸ்களில் வருவதைத் தான் கூறுகின்றோம்.

அமீருக்கு அமைச்சர்கள் உண்டு என்பதைப் பார்த்தோம். இந்த இயக்கங்களின் அமீர்களுக்கு ரானுவ அமைச்சர் யார்? உள்துறை அமைச்சர் யார்? என்று கேட்க வேண்டும். அதெல்லாம் இல்லை என்றால் நீங்கள் அமீரும் இல்லை என்று நாம் அவர்களை நோக்கிக் கூற வேண்டும்.

அடுத்து இஸ்லாத்தைப் பாதுகாக்க போர்ப் படையைத் தயார் செய்து அனுப்பவும், தானே முன்னின்று போரிடவும் அதிகாரம் உடையவர் தான் அமீர் என்று ஹதீஸ்களில் பார்த்தோம்.

இன்று இஸ்லாத்திற்கு எதிராக எத்தனையோ விஷயங்கள் அரங்கேறிக் கொண்டிருக்கின்றன. அல்லாஹ்வின் ஆலயமாம் பாபர் மசூதி அயோக்கியர்களால் இடித்துத் தரை மட்டமாக்கப்பட்ட போது அதுவும் இந்தத் தேதியில் செய்வோம் எனக் கயவர்கள் அறிவித்து விட்டுச் செய்த போது தூய்மையான இஸ்லாத்தின் தனிப்பெரும் அமீர் நான் தான் என தன்னைச் சொல்லிக் கொள்பவர்கள் ஒரு படையைத் தயார் செய்து அதற்குத் தானே தலைமையேற்றுச் சென்றிருக்க வேண்டுமல்லவா? இல்லையே.

கள்ள பைஅத் வாங்கி ஜிஹாத் என்று மூளைச் சலவை செய்த கூட்டத்தின் அமீராவது அதைச் செய்ததுண்டா? வசூல் வேட்டைக்கும் மட்டும் தான் ஜிஹாத் வேடமா?

பாபர் பள்ளியை இடித்துவிட்டு அதிலும் திருப்தியடையாத ஓநாய்கள் மும்பையில் முஸ்லிம்களைக் கருவறுத்தார்களே! கத்னா செய்திருக்கிறானா என்று ஆடைகள் விலக்கிப் பார்க்கப்பட்டு முஸ்லிம்கள் கொல்லப்பட்டார்களே? அதற்காவது எந்த அமீராவது ஒரு படையைத் தயாரித்து அனுப்பினார்களா? இல்லையே?

கோவையில் கயவர்கள் சிலர் காவலர் ஒருவரைக் கொன்றதால் ஒட்டு மொத்த முஸ்லிம்கள் மீதும் பழியைப் போட்டு அங்கு முஸ்லிம்கள் துப்பாக்கி குண்டுக்குப் பலியானார்கள்! அப்போதாவது இந்த இயக்கத் தலைவர்கள் படையை அனுப்பினார்களா? இல்லவே இல்லை.

கோவையில் அநியாயமாக முஸ்லிம்கள் கொல்லப்பட்ட போதும், அதைத் தொடர்ந்து முஸ்லிம்களின் சொத்துக்கள் சூறையாடப்பட்ட போதும் தட்டிக் கேட்க தனது படையை அனுப்பினார்களா? இல்லையே! அவ்வாறு படையை அனுப்புவதற்கு இவர்கள் சக்தியாவது பெற்றிருக்கிறார்களா? இல்லை. அப்படியானால் இவர்கள் யாருக்கு அமீர்?

அல்குர்ஆன் வசனத்தையும், ஹதீஸ்களையும் தங்கள் அமீர் பதவிக்கு ஆதாரமாகக் காட்ட இவர்களுக்கு என்ன தகுதியிருக்கிறது என்பதைச் சிந்தித்துப் பார்க்க வேண்டும்.

அடுத்ததாக குர்ஆன் ஹதீஸ் அடிப்படையில் சிவில் மற்றும் கிரிமினல் வழக்குகளில் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கும் அதிகாரம் அமீரிடம் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதைப் பார்த்தோம். இன்றைய அமீர்களிடத்தில் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கும் அதிகாரம் சிறிதேனும் கொடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதா என்று சிந்தித்துப் பார்க்க வேண்டும்.

அவ்வாறு இவர்கள் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கினால் அதற்குக் கட்டுப்பட யாராவது இருக்கிறார்களா? என்றால் இல்லை என்றே கூற வேண்டியுள்ளது. அப்படியென்றால் இஸ்லாம் கூறிய அமீருக்கும் இந்த அமீருக்கும் சம்பந்தமில்லை என்பது தெளிவாகவில்லையா?

தீர்ப்பு வழங்கும் அதிகாரம் மட்டுமல்ல. அதைச் செயல்படுத்தி தண்டனை வழங்கும் அதிகாரமும் அமீருக்கு இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதை ஹதீஸ்கள் மூலம் அறிந்தோம்.

இன்று யாராவது விபச்சாரம் செய்து விட்டால் அதை இங்கிருக்கும் அமைப்புக்களின் அமீரிடத்தில் தெரிவித்தால் அந்த அமீர் விபச்சாரம் செய்தவனைக் கல்லெறிந்து கொல்ல உத்தரவிட வேண்டும். அதுமட்டுமல்ல யாராவது திருடிவிட்டால் அவனை விசாரித்து அவன் கையை வெட்ட வேண்டும். இப்படியே எண்ணற்ற குற்றவியல் சட்டங்களை அமீராக இருப்பவர் நிறைவேற்ற வேண்டும்.

அவ்வாறு குற்றவியல் சட்டங்களை நிறைவேற்ற முடியுமா? அப்படியே நிறைவேற்றினாலும் அடுத்து இந்த அமீர் எங்கு இருப்பார்? அவரே தண்டனைக்குள்ளாகி இருக்க மாட்டாரா?

குர்ஆனும், ஹதீஸூம் கூறிய அமீர்கள் இவர்களில்லை என்பது இதிலிருந்து விளங்கவில்லையா? இஸ்லாம் கூறக் கூடிய சட்டங்களைச் செயல்படுத்த முடியாதவர் எப்படி இஸ்லாம் கூறக்கூடிய அமீராக இருக்க முடியும் என்பதைச் சிந்திக்க வேண்டாமா?.

இது வரை நாம் கூறிய விஷயங்களை நன்றாகச் சிந்தித்தால் அமீர் என்பதற்கு இஸ்லாம் கூறும் இலக்கணம் விளங்கும்.

அதாவது அதிகாரம் இருப்பவர் தான் இஸ்லாத்தில் அமீராகக் குறிப்பிடப்படுகின்றார். அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதை வலியுறுத்தும் ஹதீஸ்களும் அத்தகைய அதிகாரமுடைய அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதையே வலியுறுத்துகின்றன என்பதை விளங்கலாம்.

மேலும் இந்த அதிகாரங்களில் எதுவுமே இல்லாத இயக்கங்களின் தலைவர்களை அமீர் என்று கூறுவதையோ அவருக்குக் கட்டுப்படாதவர் காஃபிராகி விடுவார் என்று கூறுவதையோ ஏற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியாது.

போட்டி அமீருக்கு வழங்கப்படும் தண்டனை.

حدثنا زهير بن حرب وإسحق بن إبراهيم قال إسحق أخبرنا و قال زهير حدثنا جرير عن الأعمش عن زيد بن وهب عن عبد الرحمن بن عبد رب الكعبة قال دخلت المسجد فإذا عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص جالس في ظل الكعبة والناس مجتمعون عليه فأتيتهم فجلست إليه فقال كنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في سفر فنزلنا منزلا فمنا من يصلح خباءه ومنا من ينتضل ومنا من هو في جشره إذ نادى منادي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الصلاة جامعة فاجتمعنا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إنه لم يكن نبي قبلي إلا كان حقا عليه أن يدل أمته على خير ما يعلمه لهم وينذرهم شر ما يعلمه لهم وإن أمتكم هذه جعل عافيتها في أولها وسيصيب آخرها بلاء وأمور تنكرونها وتجيء فتنة فيرقق بعضها بعضا وتجيء الفتنة فيقول المؤمن هذه مهلكتي ثم تنكشف وتجيء الفتنة فيقول المؤمن هذه هذه فمن أحب أن يزحزح عن النار ويدخل الجنة فلتأته منيته وهو يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر وليأت إلى الناس الذي يحب أن يؤتى إليه ومن بايع إماما فأعطاه صفقة يده وثمرة قلبه فليطعه إن استطاع فإن جاء آخر ينازعه فاضربوا عنق الآخر فدنوت منه فقلت له أنشدك الله آنت سمعت هذا من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأهوى إلى أذنيه وقلبه بيديه وقال سمعته أذناي ووعاه قلبي فقلت له هذا ابن عمك معاوية يأمرنا أن نأكل أموالنا بيننا بالباطل ونقتل أنفسنا والله يقول يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تأكلوا أموالكم بينكم بالباطل إلا أن تكون تجارة عن تراض منكم ولا تقتلوا أنفسكم إن الله كان بكم رحيما قال فسكت ساعة ثم قال أطعه في طاعة الله واعصه في معصية الله و حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة وابن نمير وأبو سعيد الأشج قالوا حدثنا وكيع ح و حدثنا أبو كريب حدثنا أبو معاوية كلاهما عن الأعمش بهذا الإسناد نحوه و حدثني محمد بن رافع حدثنا أبو المنذر إسمعيل بن عمر حدثنا يونس بن أبي إسحق الهمداني حدثنا عبد الله بن أبي السفر عن عامر عن عبد الرحمن بن عبد رب الكعبة الصائدي قال رأيت جماعة عند الكعبة فذكر نحو حديث الأعمش

யார் ஓர் இமாமிடத்தில் பைஅத் செய்து அவரிடத்தில் கைப்பிடித்து உளமாற உறுதி வழங்குகின்றாரோ அவர் இயன்ற வரை அந்த இமாமுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவாராக! அவருக்குப் போட்டியாக இன்னோருவர் கிளம்பி விட்டால் அந்த போட்டியாளரின் கழுத்தைத் துண்டித்து விடுங்கள் என்று அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அப்துல்லாஹ் பின் அம்ர் பின் அல்ஆஸ் (ரலி)

நூல் : முஸ்லிம்

ஒரு அமீர் இருக்கும் போது அவருக்குப் போட்டியாக இன்னொருவர் கிளம்பினால் அவரைக் கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று இந்த ஹதீஸ் கூறுகின்றது. நபியவர்களின் இந்தக் கட்டளை தான் அமீர்களைக் கண்டு பிடிக்க சரியான உரை கல்லாகும்.

இன்று தமிழத்தில் மட்டுமே நூற்றுக்கணக்கான சங்கங்கள், அமைப்புகள், ஜம்மிய்யாக்கள் உள்ளன என்பதை முன்பே குறிப்பிட்டோம். இவற்றில் ஒவ்வொன்றுக்கும் தனித்தனி அமீர்கள் உள்ளனர். மேற்கண்ட ஹதீஸின்படி ஒருவர் இருக்கும் போது இன்னொருவர் அமீர் என்றால் அவரைக் கொல்ல வேண்டும்.

அப்படியானால் யார், யாரைக் கொல்வது?

அடுத்த இயக்கத்தில் உள்ள அமீரைப் பற்றிக் கூட கூற வேண்டியதில்லை. தங்கள் அமைப்பிலேயே போட்டி அமீர் வந்தால் என்ன செய்வார்கள்? அவரைக் கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று இவர்கள் கொள்கை அளவில் கூட ஒத்துக் கொள்வதில்லை.

ஒரு இயக்கத்தின் கொள்கை சரியில்லை என்றால் சர்வ சாதாரனமாக அந்த இயக்கத்திலிருந்து பிரிந்து இன்னொரு இயக்கத்தைத் துவங்குகிறார்கள். இப்போது முதல் இயக்கத்தின் அமீர் என்பவர் இந்த ஹதீஸைச் செயல்படுத்துவாரா? நிச்சயமாகச் செய்ய மாட்டார். அப்படியானால் இவர்களின் மனசாட்சிக்கு தாங்கள் கூறுவது தவறு என்பது தெரிந்திருந்தும் அமீர் என்ற வார்த்தையை வைத்துக் கொண்டு விளையாடிக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதில் என்ன சந்தேகம்?

பயணத்தில் அமீர்.

ஆட்சியும், அதிகாரமும் பெற்றவர் தான் அமீர் என்று குறிப்பிடப்படுகின்றார். அத்தகையவருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவதைத் தான் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது குறித்த ஹதீஸ்கள் கூறுகின்றன என்பதை இது வரை கண்டோம்.

ஆட்சி, அதிகாரம் வழங்கப்படாதவர் அமீர் எனக் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டதற்கு எந்த ஒரு ஆதாரத்தையும் காண முடியவில்லை.

நாம் தேடிப்பார்த்த வகையில் பயணத்தில் மூவர் சென்றால் அதில் ஒருவர் அமீராக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று வலியுறுத்தும் ஹதீஸ் தான் இவர்களின் ஒரே ஆதாரமாக உள்ளது.

மூன்று பேர் பயணம் புறப்பட்டால் ஒருவரை அமீராக்கிக் கொள்ள வேண்டும் எனக் கூறப்படுகின்றதே! இந்த அமீரிடம் ஆட்சியும் அதிகாரமும் கிடையாதே என்று வாதிட முடியும்.

எனவே இது குறித்து விரிவாக நாம் அறிந்து கொள்வோம்.

حدثنا علي بن بحر بن بري حدثنا حاتم بن إسمعيل حدثنا محمد بن عجلان عن نافع عن أبي سلمة عن أبي سعيد الخدري أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إذا خرج ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمروا أحدهم

மூவர் பயணத்தில் புறப்பட்டால் அவர்கள் தம்மில் ஒருவரை அமீராக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்று நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

அறிவிப்பவர் : அபூ ஸயீத் அல்குத்ரி

நூல் : அபூதாவூத் 2241

حدثنا علي بن بحر حدثنا حاتم بن إسمعيل حدثنا محمد بن عجلان عن نافع عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إذا كان ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمروا أحدهم قال نافع فقلنا لأبي سلمة فأنت أميرنا

ஒரு பயணத்தில் மூவர் இருந்தால் அவர்களில் ஒருவரை அமீராக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்று நபியவர்கள் கூறியதாக அபூ ஹூரைரா (ரலி) அவர்கள் கூறினார்கள்.

இதை அபூ ஸலமா நாஃபிவு இடம் கூறிய போது நீங்கள் எங்கள் அமீராக இருங்கள் என்று நாஃபிவு கூறினார்.

நூல் : அபூதாவூத் 2242

இவ்விரு ஹதீஸ்களிலும் ஃபல் யுஅம்மிரூ (அமீராக்கிக் கொள்க) என்ற வார்த்தை பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது. மூவர் பயணம் சென்றால் அதில் ஒருவர் அமீராக இருக்கட்டும் என்ற வாசகம் அதிகாரம் இல்லாதவர்களுக்கும் அமீர்கள் எனக் கூறலாம் என்பதற்கு ஆதாரமாக உள்ளது என்று வாதிடுகின்றனர்.

பிரயாணத்தில் அமீராகத் தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டவர் இஸ்லாமியக் குற்றவியல் சட்டங்களை நிலை நாட்ட முடியாது. கட்டாயப்படுத்தி ஸக்காத்தை வசூலிக்க முடியாது. இன்ன பிற அமீரின் கடமைகளை அவரால் செய்ய இயலாது. அவ்வாறு இருந்தும் அவர் அமீர் எனக் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. இது முன்னர் நாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய அனைத்து ஆதாரங்களுக்கும் எதிராக இருப்பது போல் தோன்றுகிறது.

ஆனால் இந்த ஹதீஸின் அறிவிப்பாளர் அமீராக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்ற வார்த்தையைப் பயன்படுத்தினாலும் இவரை விட பலமான அறிவிப்பாளர்கள் அமீராக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்பதற்கு பதிலாக இமாமாக ஆக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்ற வார்த்தையைப் பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளதால் அதுவே சரியான அறிவிப்பாகும். எனவே இந்த ஹதீஸ் இது வரை நாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய ஆதாரங்களுடன் முரண்படுகிறது என்ற வாதம் அடிபட்டு விடுகிறது. இது குறித்த விபரங்களை விரிவாக நாம் காண்போம்

அபூ தாவூதில் இடம் பெற்ற முதல் ஹதீஸின் அறிவிப்பாளர்கள் வருமாறு :

1-            நபிகள் நாயகம் கூறியதாக அபூ சயீதுல் குத்ரி

2-            அபூசயீதுல் குத்ரீ கூறியதாக அபூஸலமா

3-            அபூஸலமா கூறியதாக நாஃபிவு

4-            நாஃபிவு கூறியதாக முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான்

5-            முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான் கூறியதாக ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயீல்

6-            ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயீல் கூறியதாக அலி பின் பஹ்ர்

7-            அலீ பின் பஹ்ர் கூறியதாக அபூ தாவூத்

அபூ தாவூதில் இடம் பெற்ற இரண்டாவது ஹதீஸின் அறிவிப்பாளர்கள்.

1-            நபிகள் நாயகம் கூறியதாக அபூஹுரைரா

2-            அபூஹுரைரா கூறியதாக அபூஸலமா

3-            அபூஸலமா கூறியதாக நாஃபிவு

4-            நாஃபிவு கூறியதாக முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான்

5-            முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான் கூறியதாக ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயீல்

6-            ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயீல் கூறியதாக அலி பின் பஹ்ர்

7-            அலீ பின் பஹ்ர் கூறியதாக அபூ தாவூத்

ஆய்வுக்குள் நுழையும் முன் இந்த அறிவிப்பாளர்களின் பெயர்ப் பட்டியலை நினைவில் வைத்துக் கொள்ளுங்கள். ஏனெனில் இந்த ஆய்வுக்கு இந்தத் தகவலை நினைவுபடுத்திக் கொள்வது அவசியமாகும்.

இவ்விரு ஹதீஸ்களும் அலீ பின் பஹ்ர் என்பவர் வழியாக இமாம் அபூ தாவூதுக்குக் கிடைத்துள்ளது.

அபூ தாவூதை விட வயதில் மூத்தவர்களான ஹதீஸ்கலை அறிஞர்கள் இமாம் அபூ சுர்ஆ, இமாம் அபூ ஹாதம் ஆகியோருக்கும் இந்த ஹதீஸ்கள் கிடைத்தன. இவ்விருவருக்கும் அலீ பின் பஹ்ர் வழியாக அந்த ஹதீஸ் கிடைக்கவில்லை. மாறாக அவருக்கு முந்தைய அறிவிப்பாளரான ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயில் வழியாக இந்த ஹதீஸ்கள் இவ்விருவருக்கும் கிடைத்துள்ளன.

அதாவது இமாம் அபூ தாவூத் எவரிடம் இதைக் கேட்டாரோ அந்த அலீ பின் பஹ்ர் என்பவரும் இந்த இரு இமாம்களும் சம காலத்தவர்கள். இந்த ஹதீஸை அலீ பின் பஹ்ர் யாரிடம் கேட்டாரோ (ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயீல்) அவரிடம் இவ்விருவரும் கேட்டுள்ளனர். இந்த விபரத்தையும் கவனத்தில் வைத்துக் கொண்டு பின்வரும் தகவல்களைப் பாருங்கள்.

علل الحديث لابن أبي حاتم (ص: 228):

225- وسألت أبي وأبا زرعة عن حديث رواه حاتم بن إسماعيل ، عن محمد بن عجلان ، عن نافع ، عن أبي سلمة ، عن أبي هريرة ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، قال إذا كان ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمهم أحدهم فقالا روي عن حاتم هذا الحديث بإسنادين فقال بعضهم عن حاتم ، عن ابن عجلان ، عن نافع ، عن أبي سلمة ، عن أبي سعيد وقال بعضهم عن أبي هريرة والصحيح عندنا ، والله أعلم عن أبي سلمة ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرسل قال أبي ورواه يحيى بن أيوب ، عن ابن عجلان ، عن نافع ، عن أبي سلمة ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وهذا الصحيح ومما يقوي قولنا أن معاوية بن صالح ، وثور بن يزيد ، وفرج بن فضالة ، حدثوا عن المهاصر بن حبيب ، عن أبي سلمة ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم هذا الكلام قال أبو زرعة وروى أصحاب ابن عجلان ، هذا الحديث عن أبي سلمة مرسلا قلت من ؟ قال الليث أو غيره

ஹாதிம் பின் இஸ்மாயீல் - முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான் - நாபிவு - அபூ ஸலமா - அபூ ஹூரைரா என்ற அறிவிப்பாளர்கள் வழியாக ஒரு பயணத்தில் மூவர் இருந்தால் அவர்களில் ஒருவர் இமாமத் செய்யட்டும் என்று நபியவர்கள் கூறியதாக அறிவிக்கப்படும் ஹதீஸ் பற்றி அபூ ஸூர்ஆவிடமும் என் தந்தையிடமும் (அபூ ஹாதம்) கேட்டேன். அதற்கு அவ்விருவரும் இந்த ஹதீஸ் இரு அறிவிப்பாளர்கள் தொடரில் இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது. ஒன்று அபூ ஹூரைரா மற்றொன்று அபூ ஸயீத் என்று விடையளித்தார்கள்.

நூல் : இப்னு அபீ ஹாத்தம்

அபூ தாவூத் எந்த அறிவிப்பாளர் வழியாக இந்த ஹதீஸை அறிவித்துள்ளாரோ அதே ஹதீஸ் பற்றித் தான் இவ்விரு இமாம்களிடமும் கேட்கப்படுகிறது. அமீராக ஆக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் (ஃபல் யுஅம்மிரூ) என்ற இடத்தில் (ஃபல் யவும்முஹூம்) இமாமத் செய்யட்டும் என்று இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது.

அதாவது இமாம் அபூ தாவூதை விட மூத்தவர்களான ஹதீஸ்களை ஆய்வு செய்வதில் மேதைகளாகத் திகழ்ந்த இவ்விரு இமாம்களும் மூவர் பயணம் மேற்கொண்டால் அவர்கள் ஜமாத்தாகத் தொழ வேண்டும், ஒருவர் இமாமத் செய்ய வேண்டும் என்று நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறியதாகக் குறிப்பிடுகின்றனர். இமாமத் செய்யட்டும் என்று நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் கூறியது தான் அமீராக்கட்டும் என்று அபூ தாவூதில் தவறுதலாக இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது என்பதை இத்தகவலில் இருந்து அறியலாம்.

மேலும் பயணத்தில் செல்லும் குழுவுக்கு அமீர் என்பவர் அவசியம் இல்லை. அவர் அதிகாரம் படைத்தவராக இருக்க முடியாது என்பதால் அபூதாவூதை விட மூத்தவர்கள் அபூதாவூதின் ஆசிரியரின் ஆசிரியரிடம் கேட்டுப் பதிவு செய்தது தான் அபூதாவூதின் அறிவிப்பை விட சரியான அறிவிப்பாக இருக்க முடியும்.

இன்னும் பல நூல்களிலும் அமீராக்கிக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்பதற்கு பதிலாக இமாமாக ஏற்படுத்திக் கொள்ளட்டும் என்று இந்த ஹதீஸ் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அந்த விபரம் வருமாறு:

1-பைஹகீ

سنن البيهقي الكبرى (3/ 89):

4905 - أخبرنا أبو بكر محمد بن الحسن بن فورك أنبأ عبد الله بن جعفر ثنا يونس بن حبيب ثنا أبو داود ثنا هشام عن قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : إذا كانوا ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم أخرجه مسلم من حديث هشام الدستوائي وغيره عن قتادة

முஸ்னத் அபீ யஃலா

مسند أبي يعلى (2/ 319):

1054 - حدثنا محمد بن عباد حدثنا حاتم عن ابن عجلان عن نافع عن أبي سلمة : عن أبي سعيد أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : إذا خرج ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمهم أحدهم

قال حسين سليم أسد : إسناده حسن

முஸ்னத் தயாலிஸீ

مسند الطيالسي (ص: 286):

2152 - حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا هشام عن قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد ان النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : إذا كانوا ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمهم أحدهم واحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم

நஸயீ குப்ரா

السنن الكبرى للنسائي (1/ 280):

(857) أنبأ عبيد الله بن سعيد عن يحيى عن هشام قال حدثنا قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إذا كانوا ثلاثة فليؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالامامة أقرؤهم اجتماع القوم وفيهم الوالي

தப்ரானி அவ்சத்

المعجم الأوسط (4/ 230):

عن بن عمر عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال اذا كان ثلاثة في سفر فليؤمهم احدهم لم يرو هذا الحديث عن نافع بن أبي نعيم إلا زياد بن يونس

நஸயீ

سنن النسائي (2/ 77):

782 - أخبرنا عبيد الله بن سعيد عن يحيى عن هشام قال حدثنا قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : إذا كانوا ثلاثة فليؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم

قال الشيخ الألباني : صحيح

முஸ்னத் அஹ்மத்

مسند أحمد بن حنبل (3/ 24):

11206 - حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا يحيى ثنا هشام وشعبة قالا ثنا قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : إذا كانوا ثلاثة فليؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

தாரிமி

سنن الدارمى (4/ 22، بترقيم الشاملة آليا) :

1301- أَخْبَرَنَا عَفَّانُ حَدَّثَنَا هَمَّامٌ حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ عَنْ أَبِى نَضْرَةَ عَنْ أَبِى سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِىِّ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- :« إِذَا اجْتَمَعَ ثَلاَثَةٌ فَلْيَؤُمَّهُمْ أَحَدُهُمْ ، وَأَحَقُّهُمْ بِالإِمَامَةِ أَقْرَؤُهُمْ ». تحفة 4372 إتحاف5674

இப்னு குஸைமா

صحيح ابن خزيمة (3/ 4):

1508 - أخبرنا أبو طاهر نا أبو بكر نا بندار نا يحيى بن سعيد ثنا شعبة حدثني قتادة و ثنا بندار ثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن سعيد بن أبي عروبة و هشام و ثنا بندار ثنا ابن أبي عدي عن سعيد و هشام عن قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد الخدري : عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : إذا كانوا ثلاثة فليؤمهم أحدهم و أحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم

மேற்கண்ட அனைத்து அறிவிப்புக்களிலும் பிரயாணத்தில் அமீரை ஏற்படுத்துங்கள் என்பதற்கு பதிலாக இமாமை ஏற்படுத்திக் கொள்ளுங்கள் என்ற வாசகம் தான் இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது.

மேலும் முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான் என்ற அறிவிப்பாளர் நாபிவு என்பார் வழியாக அறிவிக்கும் ஹதீஸ்களில் வார்த்தைக் குழப்பம் உள்ளது என்று உகைலி என்ற ஹதீஸ் கலை அறிஞர் கூறுகின்றார். அபூ தாவூதில் இடம் பெரும் ஹதீஸை நாபிவு வழியாகவே முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான் அறிவிக்கிறார் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

முஹம்மத் பின் அஜ்லான் வழியாக மற்றவர்கள் அறிவிக்கும் ஹதீஸ்களில் மூவர் பயணம் சென்றால் ஒருவர் இமாமத் செய்யட்டும் என்று குறிப்பிடப்படுவதே சரியான அறிவிப்பாக இருக்க முடியும் என்பது உறுதியாகிறது.

மேலும் அபூ ஸயீத் (ரலி) அவர்கள் அறிவிக்கும் மற்றொரு ஹதீஸ் முஸ்லிமில் இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது. மூவர் இருந்தால் ஒருவர் இமாமத் செய்யட்டும் என்று தான் அந்த ஹதீஸிலும் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

முஸ்லிம்

முஸ்லிம்

صحيح مسلم (2/ 133):

1561 - حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ عَنْ قَتَادَةَ عَنْ أَبِى نَضْرَةَ عَنْ أَبِى سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِىِّ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- « إِذَا كَانُوا ثَلاَثَةً فَلْيَؤُمَّهُمْ أَحَدُهُمْ وَأَحَقُّهُمْ بِالإِمَامَةِ أَقْرَؤُهُمْ ».

ஆகவே பிரயாணத்தில் செல்பவர்கள் தனித்துத் தொழுது விடாமல் மூவரில் ஒருவரை இமாமாக ஏற்படுத்தித் தொழ வேண்டும் என்பது தான் சரியான அறிவிப்பாகும். பயணத்தில் அமீர் ஏற்படுத்துங்கள் என்பது சரியான அறிவிப்பாகாது.

இப்னு அஜ்லான்

நாபிவு

என்ற வழியாக அமைந்திருப்பதே இவ்வாறு முடிவு செய்யப் போதுமான காரணமாகும்.

இஸ்லாத்தில் அமீர் என்ற வார்த்தை ஆட்சி அதிகாரம் இல்லாத எவருக்கும் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டதில்லை. எனவே அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுங்கள் என்பது ஆட்சி, அதிகாரமில்லாதவர்களுக்குப் பொருந்தாது என்பது சந்தேகமற நிரூபணமாகின்றது.

ஆட்சி, அதிகாரமின்றி, இஸ்லாமிய அரசியல் சட்டங்களை அமுல்படுத்த முடியாத பகுதியில் ஒரு குழுவினர் தமக்கென ஒருவரைத் தலைவராக ஆக்கிக் கொள்வதும், ஆக்கிக் கொள்ளாமலிருப்பதும் அவர்களின் சொந்த அபிப்பிராயத்தில் செய்யப்படும் செயலாகவே எடுத்துக் கொள்ளப்படும்.

அவ்வாறு தலைவராக ஆக்கப்பட்டவர் தன்னை அமீர் என கூறிக் கொள்வதும், தனக்கென மற்றவர்கள் கட்டுப்படுவது மார்க்கத்தின் கடமை எனக் கூறுவதும் கட்டுப்படத் தவறினால் மார்க்கத்தில் குற்றமென வாதிடுவதும் மோசடியாகும்.

இன்றைய சங்கங்கள், ஜம்மியாக்கள், இயக்கங்களில் உள்ள தலைவர்களை அமீர் என்று அழைக்காமல் தலைவர் செயலாளர் போன்ற சொற்களால் அல்லது இவர்கள் தேர்ந்தெடுத்துக் கொண்ட சொற்களால் அழைத்துக் கொள்ளலாம். மார்க்கத்துடன் முரண்படாத வகையில் அந்த இயக்கத்திற்காக விதிகளை ஏற்படுத்திக் கொள்ளலாம். அந்த விதிகளை மீறுவோர் மீது இயக்க ரீதியாக நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கலாம்.

ஆனால் நான் தான் அமீர். அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது மார்க்கக் கடமை; எனக்குக் கட்டுப்பட மறுத்தால் அல்லாஹ்விடம் தண்டணைக்கு உள்ளாவீர்கள் என்று வாதிடுவது அப்பட்டமான மோசடியாகும்.

முடிவுரை

இஸ்லாமிய சமூக அமைப்பில் உலகம் முழுவதும் ஒரே ஆட்சி தான் நடக்க வேண்டும். அந்த ஒரே ஆட்சித் தலைவரின் பிரதிநிதிகளாக பல பகுதிகளுக்கும் அமீர்கள் (ஆளுனர்கள்) நியமிக்கப்படுவார்கள்.

இந்தக் கட்டுக்கோப்பு குலைந்து விடக் கூடாது என்பதற்காகத் தான் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.. அமீர்களும் மனிதர்கள் என்பதால் அவர்கள் தமது பணியில் தவறுகள் செய்யலாம். அதற்காக அவர்களுக்கு எதிராகப் புரட்சியிலும் கிளர்ச்சியிலும் மக்கள் இறங்கினால் இஸ்லாமிய அரசு பலவீனமடையும். முஸ்லிம்கள் சிதறி சின்னாபின்னமாகி விடுவார்கள். இதைத் தடுக்கவே அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் மார்க்கக் கடமையாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

ஆனால் இன்று ஆளாளுக்கு அமீர் பட்டம் சூட்டிக் கொண்டு முஸ்லிம்களைச் சிதறடிப்பதற்கு அமீர் என்பதைப் பயன்படுத்துவது கொடுமையிலும் கொடுமையாகும்.

தனக்குக் கீழே உள்ள மக்களின் வறுமையைப் போக்குதல், அவர்களுக்கு ஆபத்து நேரும் போது களமிறங்கி போர் செய்தல் போன்ற உயரிய நோக்கத்திற்காக உருவாக்கப்பட்ட இஸ்லாமியத் தலைமையாக இங்கே உள்ள எந்தத் தலைமையும் ஆக முடியாது.

தப்லீக், ஜமாத்தே இஸ்லாமி, ஜாக், ஜமாஅத்துல் முஸ்லிமீன், சிம், அஹ்லே ஹதிஸ், ஸலப், பைஅத் கூட்டம் போன்ற ஏராளமான அமைப்புக்கள் தங்கள் தலைமை இஸ்லாமியத் தலைமை எனக் கூறிக் கொள்கின்றன.

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் பற்றிய ஆதாரங்களையெல்லாம் எடுத்துக் காட்டி தங்களுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது மார்க்கக் கடமை என்கின்றனர்..

இது முற்றிலும் தவறாகும். உன்மையான இஸ்லாமிய அமைப்பில் இத்தனை இயக்கங்களும், இத்தனை அமீர்களும் இருக்க முடியாது.

மக்களை ஒன்றுபடுத்துவதற்காகக் கூறப்பட்ட அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பது மக்களைப் பிரிப்பதற்கும் தங்களுக்கெனத் தனிக் கூட்டத்தை உருவாக்குவதற்கும் இவர்களால் பயன்படுத்தப்படுவது விசித்திரமாக உள்ளது.

அமீருக்குரிய கடமைகள் பலவற்றில் ஒரு கடமையைக் கூட தங்களால் செய்ய முடியாது என்பதை நன்றாகத் தெரிந்து கொண்டே இவர்கள் இவ்வாறு வாதிட்டு வருகின்றனர்.

இவர்கள் இயக்கம் நடத்துவதே தவறு என நாம் கூறவில்லை இஸ்லாமிய ஆட்சி முறை இல்லாத நிலையில் நம்மால் இயன்ற அளவுக்குச் செயல்படுவதில் தவறு இல்லை.

எந்த ஆத்மாவையும் அதன் சக்திக்கு மீறி அல்லாஹ் சிரமப் படுத்தமாட்டான். இதைக் கவனத்தில் கொண்டு தனித்துச் செயல் படுவதை விட கூட்டாகச் செயல்படுவதால் பயன் அதிகமாகலாம் என்ற நோக்கத்தில் இத்தகைய இயக்கங்கள் செயல்படுவதை நாம் குறை கூறவில்லை.

நாம் கூறுவது என்னெவெனில் தங்களால் இயன்ற அளவுக்கு அவர்கள் செயல்படட்டும். ஆனால் இது தான் இஸ்லாமியத் தலைமை, இவர் தான் அமீர் எனக் கூறி மக்களை ஏமாற்ற வேண்டாம். அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் என்பது தம்மைப் போன்றவர்களுக்குக் கட்டுப்படுவது தான் என்றும் வாதிட வேண்டாம்.

இத்தகையோருக்கு கட்டளையிடும் அதிகாரம் ஏதும் கிடையாது. அவ்வாறு கட்டளையிடுவார்களானால் அதற்குக் கட்டுப்பட வேண்டிய அவசியம் யாருக்கும் கிடையாது. அதை மீறுவோர் அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்பட மறுத்த குற்றத்தைச் செய்தவராக மாட்டார். ஏனெனில் இவர்களில் யாரும் அமீர் அல்ல.
17.06.2011. 01:32
தொப்பி ஓர் ஆய்வு
தொப்பி ஓர் ஆய்வு

அறிமுகம்

தொப்பி அணிவது இஸ்லாத்தின் மிக முக்கியமான அடையாளம் என இந்திய முஸ்லிம்களில் பெரும்பாலானவர்கள் கருதுகின்றனர்.
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 03.07.2011. 23:51
முஹ்யித்தீன் மவ்லித் ஓர் ஆய்வு

நூலின் பெயர் : முஹ்யித்தீன் மவ்லித் ஓர் ஆய்வு

ஆசிரியர் :பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

பக்கங்கள் : 104

விலை ரூபாய் : 18.00
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 14.09.2011. 09:32
Dreams in the light of Islam
Dreams in the light of Islam:

Preface:

Dream plays an important role in man’s life. When a man expects something which cannot be achived, it will be said ‘Don’t dream day dreams’. When we discuss matters for which there is no evidence regarding its occurance, it is just said, ‘A dumb’s dream.’ These examples are sufficient to show the defects of dreams.

Download this Book in PDF

Dreams has become such an important phenomena in everybody.s life to such an extent, that it is behind ‘everyone who doesn’t dream cannot be a human being at all. It is just for this purpose, that we desire to explain what Islam says about dream.

Since modifications are taking place in one’s life based on the sort of belief he has about his dream, we feel its necessary for us to explain about it.

For instance………..

-         Those, after seeing a dream, doubt their wives and even divorce them.

-         Those who sacrificed the children.

-         Those who spared their belongings as they saw in dream.

-         Those having dreamt of becoming wealthy man and earning for that moment.

So will plolong the list…….

   Imaan, which is more important than one’s life is being abandoned by many who show ‘dream’ the reason.

   Since Muslims must learn about ‘dream’ thoroughly. We have published this book ‘Dreams – In the light of Islam’. This book was fist published in Tamil. As there was good response from the people, it was published under seven editions. And it is for the same reason, that we decided to publish it in English too.(There are extra informations and evidence in addition to the previous editions)

Those who read this book can get rid of the confussions caused by dreams. This book will remain to you a sheild, protecting you from being misguided by your dreams. With this hope, we are publishing this book. We pray the Almighty Allah to fulfil our intentions.

                                                                   Your’s truly,

                                                            Nabila Publications

Dreams In the light of Islam:

Muslims of Tamil Nadu belive in many things, thinking it is Islam, when it is not Islam. The main reason for this is their ignorance regarding dreams. The same ignorance is the reason for many being deceived.

   Dream is the main reason for their going to dargah for worshipping and making offerings. They show their dreams, the main proof when they say, “Such and such Saint appeared in my dream and ordured me to go to such and such dargah.

   Once again dreams become the main reason for the sudden evolutions of dargahs, with any historical proof.

    Forgers in the disguise of scholars, after some nonsence to deceive people and call that nonsense ‘ Interpretation of Dreams’. We see people, who belive this nonsense true, lose their peace and suffer a lot unnecessrity.

Since there is no proper knowledge about dream and its elucidation, even more worse things like this do occur.

   # Are all that we see in dream is true?

   # Is it necessary to implement what we see in dream?

   # What must we do if our dreams are in the form of

      giving as hapines? What must we do if our dreams

      in the form of giving us sorrow?

   # How should we distinguish good dreams and bad

      dreams?

    # How should we assure the results of dreams?

If we understand the true explanations of these questions in the shade of the Quran and the Hadith, we can get rid of the confussions caused to us by dreams.

Dreams are of different types:

A few say, we need not take it account any dream. We need not give it any importance. This opinion is not accepted by Islam.

All the dreams that we see are meaningful. All that we see in dreams will come true. A few others say, we must implement if any thing is ordered to us in dream. Islam doesn’t agree to this opinion too.

Some dreams are said to be meaningful and some are not. This is the true state of Islam.

Three types of Dream:

“There are three types of dreams. The reflection of one,s thought and experiences one has during wakefutress, what is suggested by Satan to frighten the dreamer, or gladings from Allah.

                                       Narrator: Abu Huraira(Rali)

                                                                   Muslim

In advance , Allah informs us through dreams the wealth, children, degree, positions etc that we are going to attain in future. This is the first type of dreams. Good dreams mean, we are going to get glad tidings from Allah.

With the help of dreams ,Satan plays a drama to create worries in us, obstructs our worship and beliefs by making us go to the forgers seeking interpreations to dreams. This is another type.

The reflections fo one’s thought and experiences that is deep in heart some times results in dreams. There is no need to feel happy or sad about it. There is no meaning in this. This is the third type.

Lets study about that the good dreams, the first type, in the shade of the Quran and the Hadith.

Good Dreams:

“The Prophet said. “The (good) dreams of a faithful believes is a part of the forty six pasts of population”

                                        Narator: Ubada Bin As Samit

                                                         (Buhari)

In a fea reports, It is a part of 45 parts. (Muslim)

In a fea reports , it is said, ‘ One of the Seventy Parts’ (Muslim)

We must rightly understand, what the prophet (Sal) means by saying good dreams as one of the 45 parts or one of the 46 parts or one of the 70 parts of population.

      The Prophet being Messengers of Allah, received messages from Allah through four ways…..

1.     Allah speaking to His Messengers directly…..

2.     Allah conveying His messages by sending angels to the Prophets.

3.     The messages that He desires to convey, He inspires it is the mind of the Prophets.

4.     The messages that He desires to convey, He shows them through dreams.

The first three ways, by which the message comes is stated clearly in the Quran in the verse 42:51

    “ It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him by inspiration or from behind a veil or by the sending of a Messages to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills for He is the most High, the most Wise”

(Al Quran – 42: 51)

         Of the four ways, the first two ways are, for the prophet alone. Since the Prophet Mohammed (Sal) was the last Prophet, nobody after him would get messages through the first two ways.

      The verses 4:79, 4:170, 7: 158, 9:33, 10:57, 10:108, 14: 52, 21:107, 22:49, 25:1, 23:40, 34:28, and 62:3 prove that Prophet Mohammed (Sal) is the last Prophet.

      There are also evidence in Hadith that no Prophet or Messenger is to come after Prophet Mohammed (Sal).

     “The Israelits were guided by their Prophet when one Prophet dies another will replace him.Surely there is no Prophet after me. Only the caliphs will evolve. They will be more in numbering” Said the Prphet.

                                          Narrator : Abu Huraira(Ral)

                                                   Buhari:

The Prophet said, “ Messengers and Prophet has got completed. Therefore there will be no Prophet after me. There will be no Apostle too.” This message worried people. Thereupon the Prophet (Sal) said, “Yet, conveying of glad tidings is there.”When his disciples asked him, “What is meant by conveying of glad tidings he replaced. “The (good) dreams of a faithful belives”

                                                         Narrator: Ahmed bin     Malik(Ral) ,
Ahmed:

     The third type, that is , the inspiration may occur even to the people of that contemporary period, other than Prophets.

     The vesrse 5:111 says that such type of inspiration (When) came to Prophet Isa (alais)’s diciples.

       “ And beheld! I inspired the diciple to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger, they said, “W have faith and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslmis”

(Al Quran 5:111)

   Allah says is the verses 16: 68-69 that He sent such inspiration (when) to bees.

    “ And thy Lord taught the Bee to behind its cells in hills, on trees and in (men’s) habitations; Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth) and follow the ways of thy Lord made smooth: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varging colours, where in is healing for men; Verity is this is a Sigu for those who give thought “

(Al Quran 16: 68-69)

      In the verse 20:30, Allah says that He sent such inspiration to Prophet Musa’s (alai) mother.

    “Behold! We sent to thy mother, by inspiration the message”

(Al Quran 20: 38)

   In these verses when Allah mentions about the message He conveyed, He uses the word ‘Wahi’ meaning Inspiration.

       We understand from these verses, that Allah inspires a few people sometimes, with messages unrelated to Islam. At the same time the conveying of messages through dreams has not ended up completely.

The above cited hadith is a proof to it.

   Even if there is a way for man to receive messages from Allah either through inspiration or through dreams we should not think that it is the same that came to the Prophets.

    It is because Prophet could receive through dreams messages in regard to beliefs and their concepts;

Islamic laws and so on. Even through inspiration Prophet would receive messages in regard to Islamic principles and their explanations. Messengers have come to them in such way.

   This type of messengers from Allah will never reach anybody by any means. They were only for the Prophets. It is because, the divine laws, beliefs, concepts, every thing got completed during the life time of Prophet Mohammed (Sal) itself.

    “ This day I perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for your Islam as your religion.

(Al Quran: 5:3)

     When it is mentioned that the religion of Islam has got completed, it means that no extra belif or concept or divine law or any form of worship will evolve after that.

   So no messages like, “ Pray these many Rakats, Fast this day! Fill in this box something as offering! “ Will come from Allah either through dreams or through inspiration. Allah has already conveyed all this through inspiration.Allah has already conveyed all this through our Prophet (Sal). The Prophet (Sal) has also finished explaining all this to us, in the way it should be explained. It has been preserved by Allah and has reached us too.

     When anybody belives that, “I have got a message in my dream, asking to do such and such thing it means he considers that Islam has not been completed by the Prophet (Sal).

    Even of one dreams such a thing, he must only think that it is a mischief played by the Satan and he must not belive that Allah has ordered him through dream.

    If through dreams no belif or Islamic Principles be conveyed, then what does it mean by “Good dreams are one of the 46 pasts of the prophetess.

   We must learn this also, in detail.

   The messages that came from Allah to the Prophets consited of two factors.

      # Islamic beliefs and concepts, forms of worships and divine laws – This is the first type.

     # Predicting in advance the things, that are going to accur in future – This is the secod type.

      Since the religion got completed during the Prophet’s (Sal) life time itself, the coming of messages through the first type is stopped.The message in regard to the divine laws will never come to anybody, till the existence of this world.

     But in regard to the second type there are two types of predictions. At one hand, Allah predicts through this

Message,that what will happen to an individual. But this has no connection with the religion.

       Of these two types of predictions, the prediction related to the religion is stopped. The verse which says that the religion has been completed is sufficient for its proof.

       The changes that are going to occur, before the end of this world and the signs of the dooms day have been predicted to Prophet (Sal) during his life time itself. It has reached as too.

      One who is poor today, can become wealthy the next day. One who has no child since years can have a child soon. These messges have no connection with the religion. It is only related to an individual. Allah conveys through dream some of these messages to whom He wills this source is not ended up completetly. There upon the concept “ Good dreams are one of the 46 parts of the Prophet “ means only this.

   We don’t say this out of our own imagination. The Prophet(Sal) has himself explain this to us clearly.

     “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘ Nothing is left of the Prophetism except Al- Muhashirat. They asked, What are Al Mubashirat? He replied, The true good dreams(that convey glad tidings)”

                              Narrator: Abu Hurairah (Ral)

                                  Buhari:

The Prophet said, “ Messengership and Prophet has got completed. There fore there will be no Prophet after me. There will be no Apostle too. This message worried people. Thereupon the Prophet(Sal) said, “Yet, conveying of glad tidings is there “ When his disciples asked him, “What is meant by conveying of glad tidings ? He replied ‘ The (good) dreams of a faithfull belives”

                               Narrator: Anas bin Malik (Ral)

                                     Ahmed:

      We understand that the above cited hadith consists of the concept that the messages that come from Allah are of two types of them except for conveying the good news, the other one is stopped; and that good news will reach   man through dreams.

   If we understand this even more clearly, we may save ourselves from being misguided by our dreams.

    For instance if one says that in his dream someone asked him to pray these many Rakats on this night, then surely this dream is not from Allah’s side. It is because, Allah has already shown us through the Prophet (Sal) that we must pray this much on this night. The Prophet (Sal) has not missed anything that Allah has to now show us through dream.

      More ever, if it is from Allah’s side, it must have been told in every muslim’s dream. Everyone is equal in regard to worship. If Allah shows in dream a good deed regarding Islam, to only one person leaving the others, then it is contray to His Justice.

    If anyone is instructed in his dream, “ In that place such and such saint is burried and so build a tomb (dargah) for him, “ then that dream has also come from Satan.

     It is because the Prophet (Sal) has prevented us from constructing tombs on the graves of the dead, making the graves places of worship by erecting buildings over it and from polishing the tombs Allah had already inspired the Prophet (Sal) to demolish those constructions of tombs.

       Since Allah will not convey anything contrary to that message we can very well make out that it is only the work of Satan.

# as if permitting what Allah and His Prophet (Sal) has prohibited.

# or as if preventing what has been permitted.

# as if teaching us the forms of worship.

Anyone who dreams such dreams must understand that it is surely the work of Satan.

  If through dream no divine law would evolve then you may doubt how could have Prophet Ibrahim (alai) received the order of sacrificing his Son through dream.

The doubt is useless. It is because; only the prophet of Allah could receive the divine laws from Allah’s side. These types of messages could reach them through dreams or even through the other three ways.

Satan will never intervene in the dreams of the prophet of Allah. Therefore order that they received would only be the orders of Allah. Ibrahim(alai) also understood it only in that way.

“Then when (the son) reached (the age of serious) work with him, he said, “O my son! I have seen in a dream, that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what in they view?” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one o the steadfast. So when they had both submitted (to Allah) and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice). We called out to him, “O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the dream!” –thus indeed do we reward those who do right.”

(Al Quran 37:102,103,104,105 )

Allah assures that the dream was him own message by saying. “O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the dream! Thus indeed d we reward those who do right”

  If we suppose that the prophet too could get dreams form Satan, then they had an opportunity of getting messages form Allah by three means. Therefore, they could understand the status of their drams by those three ways. But others don’t have this opportunity.

If Good Dream Is Dreamt...

If our dream is in the form of conveying glad tidings, we should understand that Allah is predicting in advance, the good deed that is going to occur.

(We have explained to you in the chapter ‘The Results of Dreams’ how to elucidate dreams)

Islam has taught us how to react to wards good dreams that we see.

Prophet Yusuf (alai) said to his father that he dreamt the sun and mean prostrating him Then his father prophet yaqub (alai) advised him as follows,

  “Said ( the father), “ My (dear) little son! Relate not they to brothers, lest they concoct a plot against thee for Satan is t man an avowed enemy!”

It is stated clearly in many places in the chapter of ‘Yusuf’ that the brothers of prophet yusuf (alai) themselves were his enemies.

It is understood from the above verse, if we dream something good happening to us or we dream we are being rescued from evil, we must not reveal it to anybody except those who are intimate to us.

  The prophet (sal) too, has explained this to us clearly.

The prophet said, “If anyone of you sees a dream that he likes, then it is from Allah, and he should thank Allah for it and narrate it to others

                                                                      narrator: abu sa-eed Al Qudri(ral)

                                                                      buhari:

The prophet said, “A good dream is form Allah, so if anyone of you saw a dream which he liked, he should not tell it anybody except to the one whom he likes.

Narrator: Abu katada(ral)

buhari:

  The prophet said, “If anyone sees a dream that he likes, let hem narrate it to others is he likes.”

narrator: Abu Huraira(ral)

Ahmed:

It is understood from these hadith, if anyone sees a good dream, he must praise Allah for that. And if he likes he can but reveal it only to those dearer to him.

If we see bad drams...

There are a few who worry after seeing a bad dream. They will lose their peace in search of some atonement to it to get rid of the evils of that bad dream.

The prophet (sal) has also thought us how to react towards the bad dreams that we see..

“I heard the prophet saying,” A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan.

so if anyone of you sees (in a dream) some thing he dislikes, when he gets up he should blow thrice ( on his left side) and seek refuge with Allah from it evil for then it will not harm him.”

narrator: Abu kadada(ral)

Buhari:

“The prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad or evil dream is

From Satan, so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side and should seek refuge with Allah from its evil, for then it will not harm him.”

Narrator:Abu kadada(ral)

Buhari:

If one sees a bad dream, let him wake up and pray. let him not narrate if to people,” said the prophet

narrator: Abu Huraira

Muslim:

  Those who see bad dream must pray Allah saying, “O Allah! Protect me from this evil and also from the evils caused by the Satan.”

  Must spit thrice on the left side.

  If you wake up suddenly from a bad dream, you must pray as much as you can.

You must not reveal bad dreams either to your friend or to your foes.

We can learn about these matters from the above mentioned hadith.

The dreams which cause a kind of terror or worries in us, by seeing it, are said to be bad dreams.

Provided, we see some meaningless dreams. They are also bad dreams. The prophet (sal) has explained to us even about those dreams

“A person came to Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s messenger, I have seen in the state of sleep as if my head had been cut off. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) laughed and said: when the Satan plays with anyone of you in the state of sleep, do not mention it to the people.”

Narrator: Jabir Ibn Abdullah (ral)

The prophet (sal) has said in his speech, “If the Satan plays in anybody’s dream, don’t narrate it anybody.”

Narrator: Jabir (ral)
Muslim:

Claiming to have Seen an Undreamt Dream

If anyone claims to have dreamt something its knowledge is only with Allah. Other will not know about his dream unless reveals it to them.

There is no evidence by which we can prove that truly such and such person has had a dream. Believing first, the statement of one who has dreamt, do then we believe in his dream.

In case we speak about, people may ask us evidence. But when one says that he has dreamt something, nobody shall ask him for evidence.

Taking advantage of this situation, people may claim to have seen what they did not see at all. To avoid people lying without hesitation, the prophet (sal) has declared this lie, a great crime.

  Allah’s Apostle said, “Varity, one of the worst lies is to claim falsely to be the son of someone, other than one’s real father, or to claim to have had a dream one has not had, or to attribute to me what I have not said.”

                                                       Narrator: Wathula bin Al Aqsa(ral)
Buhari:

The prophet said, “ whoever claims to have seen a dream which he did not see, will be ordered to make a knot between two barley grains which he will not be able to do.”

Narrator: Ibn Abbas(ral)

Buhari:

   Since the barley grains are slippery, no body can fasten two grains together. If anyone lies in the matter of dream, Allah will force him to do this action. This warning is suffice to those who lie in the matter of dream.

   Seeing Proghet (sal) in Dream

The muslims who have not seen the prophet (sal) show curiosity in knowing, how will his appearance be. This is quite natural.

Those with less knowledge of Islam think that the sign of one becoming a saint is to see the prophet (sal) in dream.

Taking this an advantage a few forgers deceive people saying that they have seen the prophet (sal) in dream. This they do to obtain from the people, the degree of a saint.

Pusire wrote ‘Burdah’, the theme of which is contrary to that of the Quran and the Hadith. In his poem, he has stated that the prophet (sal) appeared in his dream and inspired him the next lines of the verse when he got sturck while writing. we see that this fabricated poem ‘Burdah’ has been made sacred. They have made us believe that the recitation of this poem will help us in getting rid of the diseases and in fulfilling our desires. The false statement that the prophet (sal) himself has inspired a few lines of the verse is the only reason for this we also see, how admired the poet pusiri is while he has no knowledge of Islam.

    ‘The seerapuranam’ is nothing but the result of the exaggerated and the invented stories of Burdah exploiting the name of the prophet(sal) those having even a little knowledge of the quran and the hadith will make out that the seerapuranam is nothing but a woven story.

   Those with less knowledge of Islam exaggerate that the prophet (sal) appeared in the dream of Omar poet. They have even accepted this legend as the prophet’s inspiration.

There are a few forgers who mislead people in the name of ‘mureed’. Even these forgers trap people only by saying that they have seen the prophet (sal) in their dream.

Therefore, it is essential for us to know whether we can see the prophet (sal) in dream.

  “whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Stan can not impersonate me.”

Narrator:abu Huraira

Buhari:

It is only based on this hadith that a few argue that they can see the prophet (sal) in dream.

They heard the prophet saying, “Whoever sees me in a dream will see me in his wakefulness.”

This hadith says if anyone during the life-time of the prophet (sal) sees him in his dream, then surely he will get an opportunity to see him directly.

   Today if anyone says that he has seen the prophet (sal) in his dream, then surely he must see him directly in his wakefulness. If he has not seen him face to face, it is certain then he has not seen him in his dream too.

Therefore after the life time of the prophet (sal) no person or saint can see him in his dream.

The second cited hadith does not give room to their lie.

A few may have a doubt at this juncture. It’s our duty to elucidate it.

Lets take for instance, one appears in one’s dream and says, “I am the prophet Mohammed” here we may doubt, ‘why can not the people consider him as prophet (sal) himself, when the Hadith assures that the Sata will not impersonate the prophet (sal).

Even if a person sees someone in his dream saying’ I am the prophet (sal)’, he is not actually the prophet (sal). It should be understood that the Satan has used his name. That hadith only assures that the Saten will not impersonate the prophet (sal). But it does not say that the satan will not take his own form and say that he is only the prophet (sal).

The prophet (sal) has said that the Satan will not impersonate him. If one wants to decide whether the person who appeared in his dream was the prophet (sal) or not, he must have seen the prophet (sal) face to face in reality.

   In what form he saw face to face, the same form just have appeared in his dream, only then he could recognize him as the prophet (sal) or not.

  One who has not seen the appearance of the prophet (sal) can not recognize it at all. The Satan is only prevented from impersonating the prophet (sal) but in no hadith it is said, that he will not appear in any other form and say he is the prophet.

  After the life time of the prophet (sal) if it is said, ‘such and such pious man or such and saint has seen the prophet (sal) in his dream then we should understand that it is a purely fabricated story or in other words, the Satan has deceived him using the name of the prophet(sal).

Nobody has rights to appear in dream

If anyone appears in our dream, we must not consider that he has truly come in our dream. If he speaks anything, we must not consider that he has truly spoken to us. We only understand that Allah is showing us such scenes.

When we see the dead in our dreams, many think that they themselves have come. This believe is continued because, they can not enquire and know from the dead. By seeing the alive people in our dream, we can understand that, that believe is wrong.

  Let’s take for instance; we have seen a person who is alive in this world. Let it be that, after seeing him in our dream, we meet him in the morning. Then does that person ask, “Didn’t I come in your dream last night?” nay, he never asks like that.

  That he appeared in our dream is known only to us. He too will never know it.

He will know it only when we say, “I saw you in dream.”

We would have dreamt him speaking about many matters. In case we ask him, “repeat the same advice that you gave us yesterday in our dream,” he can not repeat it. Instead his reply will be, “how will I know what advice I gave you in dream?”

Therefore, when we see a person in dream, we must not consider that he has truly come. What all he spoke to us must not be considered as his words. There is no relation between him and our dreams.

Allah might have conveyed us some message by showing him to us. Otherwise it must be understood that the satan might have taken his form and created bad dreams.

Moreover, thousands of people can see at the same time, the same person who is alive. It must not be understood that he had gone to thousand places and appeared to them.

We cover a person’s picture in a video tape and show it to others. Same is the case with what we see in our dream.

When we watch one’s video, we shall never consider that the person appearing on the TV is also watching us. Even the person on the will not know who all are watching him. The dream scene is also invariably the same.

No one can ask anyone “shall I come in your dream tomorrow?” from this we come to know that one who appears in our dream doesn’t decide himself to appear in our dream.

  Dreams-Their Result

If Good dreams mean good message, then how should we understand them? How should we understand the elucidation of our dreams? Many have doubt regarding this.

    Many have written books the topic ‘Dreams and their Result’ they are all based on the believe that ipnu seerin had full knowledge about the elucidation of dreams. But all these are invented stories.

There is no evidence either in the quran or the hadith which says, “such and such dream will result in such thing.”

We need not lose our peace believing the false utterances of some forgerers who say, ‘such thing will occur if one sees an elephant and such and such thing will occur if one sees a cat and so on..”

If Allah is to convey us a good message through good dreams, He will convey it in such a way that, we ourselves shall understand its elucidation.

“…. And none (O man!) can inform you like him who All-Aware is.”

(alquran:35-14)

Therefore, Allah who desires to convey a good message t us will not leave us in the lurch, by conveying it abruptly. He will not even leave us in the dark to hear the false utterances of the forgerers.

Hence, we need not ask anyone the explanation of the dreams, that we see when it is felt by us that it wants to convey us such and such message, then it must be decided that, that only is its elucidation.

In the Quran and Hadith, many dreams and their explanation are cited. Its keen observation will help us decide what will be the result of our dream.

Generally those who elucidate the results of the dream give a topsy-turvy explanation, so as to say,” If marriage is seen, funereal will occur and if funeral is seen marriage will occur.” But what we saw would only be its elucidation or sometimes something closer to it. It will never be contrary to it.

   We can understand this fact through the dreams cited in the Quran and Hadith.

  Some Dreams Cited in the Quran and Hadith

The prophet Ysuf’s (alai) dream

  In the 4^th verse of the 12^thchapter, Allah states the dream dreamt by the prophet Yusuf(alai)

“Behold, Joseph said to him:”O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon I saw them prostrate themselves to me!”

(All Quran:12-4)

Allah has elucidated the result of this dream in the 100^th verse of the same chapter. “And he raised his parent high on the throne and they fell down isn prostration,(All) before him. He said: “O my father! this is the fulfillment of my vision of old! Allah hath made it come true! He was indeed good to me when he took me out of prison and brought you (all here) out of the desert,(even) after satan had sown enmity between me and my brothers. Verily my lord is Gracious to whom he wills for verily he is full of knowledge and wisdom.”

(Al quran:12-100)

By showing that the sun, the moon and the eleven stars prostrating the prophet Yusuf (alai) Allah clearly stated that the prophet yusuf(alai) will become a ruler in future and that the position will be such that his parents will have to live under his rule, and that his brothers will have to obey him.

That is to say, as was the dream, so was the result.

  The Dream Of Two prisoners

Two other prisoners were also imprisoned along with the prophet Ysuf(alai). The two prisoners dreamt two different dreams and asked the prophet its elucidation.

“Now with him there came into the prison two young men said one of them: “ I see myself (in a dream) pressing wine.” Said the other: “I see myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head, and bird are eating there of .” tell us (they said) “ the truth and meaning there of: for we see thou art one that doth . Good (to all)” (Al Quran:12-36)

The Quran also cites the elucidation given by the prophet yusuf(alai)

  “O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink: as for the others, he will hang from the cross, and the birds will eat from off his head. (so) hath been decreed that matter where of ye twain do enquire…”

(Al Quran: 12-41)

   The prophet Yusuf (alai) explained that the one who dreamt the birds eating away the bread while carrying on his head. Will attain the death sentence. That his daily bread has come to an end was shown by Allah through the bird eating there of. The result of it was also the same.

    He also said, let him who dreamt as pressing wine. Wine press wine and praise his master as he dreamt.

   The result was the same as what these both saw in the dream. It is not that we too can go and ask others, the elucidation of dreams as the two prisoners asked the prophet yusuf (alai) its elucidation. Since the prophet’s was receiving message from Allah they could clearly explain its results.

    There is no evidence to prove that you can ask one who is not a prophet, the result of a dream.

  The King’s Dream

The dream that was seen by the king who live in Egypt during the prophet yusuf(alai) period and its elucidation given by the prophet yusuf(alai) is illustrated in the Quran in the verses 43 to 49 the 12^thchapter.

  “The king (of

Egypt) said: “ I do see (in vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour and seven green ears of corn and seven ( others) withered.

O ye chiefs! Expound to me my vision if it be that ye can interpret visions.”

   They said: “A confused medley of dreams and we are not skilled in the interpretation of dreams.

  But the man who had been released, one of the two (who had been in prison)

And who now remembered him after (so long) a space of time said: “I will tell you the truth of its interpretation: send ye me (therefore).”

“O Joseph!” he said “O man of truth expound to us (the dream) of seven fat kine whom seven lean ones devour, and of seven green ears of corn and (seven) others withered: that I may return to the people, and that they may know.”

  (joseph) said: “ for seven shall ye diligently sow as is your wont: and the harvests that ye reap, ye shall leave them in the ear, except a little of which ye shall eat.”

  “Then will come after that (period) seven dreadful (years) which devour what ye shall have laid by in advance for them-(all) except a little which ye shall have (specially) guarded.

   “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water, and in which they press(wine and oil).”

All Quran”12: 43-49)

Seven lean cows = seven dreadful years

  Seven fat cows = seven prosperous years

Seven lean cows devouring seven fat cows = seven dreadful years devouring what Is laid by in advance for them, except a little that was specially guarded.

Thus the result was suitable to the dream.

  The prophet(sal) dreaming as performing Haj

The prophet (sal) was expatriated from his nature place. Yet in his dream Allah showed him as if he had entered Mecca and fulfilled the Haj that is obligatory. If was fulfilled as it was shown.

   “Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for his massager? Ya shall enter the sacred mosque, if Allah wills, with minds secure, heads slaved, hair cut short and without fear. For he knew what ye knew not, and he guarded besides this a speedy victory.”

(Al Qurab: 48:27)

   Seeing in dream the defeat of the Enemies

In the battle of Badr, the no:of the Muslims ware lesser then the no: of enemies. But in the prophet’s (sal) dream, the no: of enemies was shown lesser than the no: of the Muslims. Through this Allah had predicted that the victory was only to Muslim.

“Remember in they dream Allah showed them to thee as few: if he had shown them to thee as many, ye would surely have disputed in (your) decision: but Allah saved (you): for he knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts.

The Dream about Lailathul Qadr

The prophet (sal) dreamt as if it was raining on the night of the lailathul khadr and as its result, he was prostrating on the damp and muddy floor. Similarly, the following day, it rained as he dreamt and he prostrated on the damp clay. The result was the same as he dreamt.

We can see this in the Buhari hadith 813,2016,2018,2027, and 2040.

Seeing Isa(alai) in Dream

In his dream the prophet (sal) dreamt as if he was doing tawaf to the kabah.

In the same dream he saw the prophet Isa(alai) and Dajjal. He has clearly described us their appearances.

This is recorded in the Buhari hadith3441, 3440,5902,6999,7026 and 7128.

The appearance of the prophet Isa (alai) and Dajjal was as same as how the prophet had seen them in his dream.

  Seeing Shirt Of Different Sizes

Allah’s Apostle said, “while I was sleeping, some people were displayed before me (in dream) they were wearing shirts, some of which were merely covering their breasts, and some a bit longer. Then there passed before me Umar bin al-khattab wearing a shirt. He was dragging it (on the ground behind him)” they (the people) asked, “what have you interpreted (about the dream), O Allah’s Apostle?” he said, “The Religion.”

Buhari:

   The elucidation given by the prophet (sal) about the dream was that, those with longer shirt had more spitit of Islam and that those with lesser spirit of Isalm wore shirts accordingly.

  Dreaming As If Drinking Milk

  “ I heard Allah’s apostle saying, “ while I was sleeping, I saw that a cup full of milk was brought to me and I drank of it and gave the remaining of it to “ Umar bin al-khattab” They asked, what have you interpreted ( about the dream), O Allah’s Apostle?” The prophet said, “(It is religious) knowledge”

  Narratot: Abdullah bin Umar

Buhari:

   Seeing false prophets in the Dream

The prophet (sal), in his dream, saw two gold bangles on his hands. He felt it a burden to him and it worried him and then he was inspired divinely in the dream that he should blow on them. So he blew on them and both the bangles flew away. He interpreted it that two liars, who would claim to be prophet would appear after him in two parts called san’ aa and yemen.

The two bangles flying away symbolize their defeat.

                                                                        (Buhar: 3621, 4375, 7034, 7037)

   Seeing Umar’s (ral) Place

In his dream, the prophet (sal)saw In the paradise the palace built for Unar(ral). He then revealed this dream to Umar (ral)

                                                                (Buhari: 3243,3680,5227,7023,7025.)

He also saw in his dream, the

palace of Umar, bilal and Ar rumaisa

                                                                                  (Buhar: 3679.)

  Dream About Hijrath

The prophet (sal) dreamt that he was migrating from Mecca to a land where there were date palm trees. He thought that it might be the land of

Al-yamana or Hajer, but it turned out to be yathrib (i.e )Madina.

(Buhari:3622,7035)

  Seeing the Broken Sword

The prophet (sal) said that he saw in his dream that he moved a sword and its blade got broken, and that symbolized the causalities which the believers suffered on the day of Uhud. Then he moved it again, and it became as perfect as it had been, and that symbolized the conquest (of Mecca) which Allah helped them ht achieve, and the union of all the believers.

                                                                                    (Buhari:3622,4081,7041)

Navy

The prophet (sal) dreamt some of his followers being presented before him as fighters in Allah’s cause (on board a ship) amidst the sea. He said that Umm-Haram was also among them.

                                                (Buahri:2789,2800,2878,2895,2924,6282,7002)

  Seeing his wife before the marriage



The prophet (sal) was shown Ayesha (ral) in dream, before the marriage itself. When he was shown this dream, he said that that would be done if that was from Alllah.

Buhari:

  Seeing a women with unkempt hair

   When a dreadful disease broke out in medium the prophet (sal) dreamt, a black women with unkempt hair going out of medium and setting in mahai’a .

He interpreted that it was a symbol of the epidemic of Medina being transferred to Mahai’a namely Al Juhfa. Buhar:

There are several other hadith like this.

  Some more dreams

Dream as if drawing buckets of water (form a well)
                                                (Buhari:3664,7021,7022,7475)

Hadiths stating about the dream of honey and ghee are recorded in Buhari 7044.

Dream about fresh dates can be seen in muslim hadith 4215.

On observing keenly we understand that certain dreams fulfilled as it was shown and certain resulted in something closer to it in meaning.

  Moreover if we dream the same dream of the prophet (sal) we can not decide that the same result will occur to us.

  The result will be according to the period and the problems that are faced by the one who dreams.

   Seeing a woman with unkempt hair, the prophet (sal) understood it as the dreadful disease when there is no dreadful disease.

When one who dreams contemplates well he will get the meaning of his dream.

   If we are able to elucidate it we should just ignore it. If there is some message in it for us Allah will surely show it through another dream.

  Will line by line come true?

Even if we have understood the elucidation o four dreams we an not expect it to occur step by step. Something closer to it can occur, instead of what we have understood.

The prophet yusuf (alai) dreamt as eleven stars prostrating him. His eleven brothers obeyed him accordingly. In his dream, he also saw the sun and moon prostrating him. If this had to be fulfilled, then the prophet yusuf’s(alai) mother and father should have to prostrate him. But the verse 12:100 says that prophet yusuf enthroned his parents and prostrated them. only a part of his dream occurred true.

    The prophet(sal) dreamt as emigrating to place. The prophet (sal) assumed it to be “Yamama” but in fact he emigrated to “medina”. Thereupon it is understood the dreams need not necessarily come true wholly.

  Of the several dreams we see, the dreams which we could elucidate may occur as it is.

Sometimes only a part of a certain dreams may come true.

To understand about “dream” properly and gain the merits of this world and the eternal world (Akirah) let’s pray the Almighty Allah for his grace..Ameen!

Download this Book in PDF
19.05.2010. 10:37
Was Allah's Apostle Affected by Black Magic ?
நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்களுக்கு சூனியம் வைக்கப்பட்டதா ? (பதிலின் ஆங்கிலம் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு)

Was Allah's Apostle Affected by Black Magic ?

Download in PDF

Majority of the Muslims believe that a Jew performed black magic against Apostle of Allah and that the Quranic Verses 113 and 114 was revealed by which he was healed. Hence it is essential to understand this in depth.

Black Magic affected Apostle of Allah so much that he used to think that he had done something which in fact, he did not do, and he invoked his Lord (for a remedy). Then

(one day) he said, "O 'Aisha!) Do you know that Allah has advised me as to the problem I consulted Him about?" 'Aisha said, "O Allah's Apostle! What's that?" He said, "Two men came to me and one of them sat at my head and the other at my feet, and one of them asked his companion, 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic.' The former asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The latter replied,

'Labid bin Al-A'sam.' The former asked, 'With what did he work the magic?' The latter replied, 'With a comb and the hair,
which are stuck to the comb, and the skin of pollen of a date-palm tree.' The former asked, 'Where is that?' The latter replied, 'It is in Dharwan.' Dharwan was a well in the dwelling place of the (tribe of) Bani Zuraiq. Allah's Apostle went to that well and returned to 'Aisha, saying, 'By Allah, the water (of the well) was as red as the infusion of Hinna, (1) and the date-palm trees look like the heads of devils.'

'Aisha added, Allah's Apostle came to me and informed me about the well. I asked the Prophet, 'O Allah's Apostle, why didn't you take out the skin of pollen?' He said, 'As for me, Allah has cured me and I hated to draw the attention of the people to such evil (which they might learn and harm others with).' "

The same message is recorded with minor modifications in these Hadhees: Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71 :: Hadith 660
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71 :: Hadith 658
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71 :: Hadith 661
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 490

This continued for such and such period imagining that he has slept (had sexual relations)
with his wives, and in fact he did not Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 89. It is mentioned that this stage continued for about 6 months (Refer Ahmed 23211).

Though all these Hadhees stating Black Magic was done against Allah’s Apostle are reported via acceptable chain of narrators, there are some other facts which affirms that such things could not have happened.

When Prophet SAW declared himself as Allah’s Apostle, disbelievers refused to believe this quoting that Prophet SAW is affected with Black Magic. Quran refutes this offense.

Surah:17.Al-Isra' Verse:47.

We are most knowing of how they listen to it when they listen to you and [of] when they are in private conversation, when the wrongdoers say, "You follow not but a man affected by magic."

Surah: 25.Al-Furqan Verse 8.

Or [why is not] a treasure presented to him [from heaven], or does he [not] have a garden from which he eats?" And the wrongdoers say, "You follow not but a man affected by magic."

The above Quranic Verses states that only wrongdoers’ state that Allah’s Apostle is affected by Black Magic.

These Verses affirm that greater part of Prophets have been criticized in the same manner:

Surah: 26.Ash-Shu'ara'.Verse 153.

They said, "You are only of those affected by magic. Surah: 26.Ash-Shu'ara'.Verse 185.
They said, "You are only of those affected by magic. Surah: 17.Al-Isra' Verse 101.

And We had certainly given Moses nine evident signs, so ask the Children of Israel [about] when he came to them and Pharaoh said to him, "Indeed I think, O Moses, that you are affected by magic."

These verses address that Black magic cannot affect Prophets especially Prophet
Muhammad SAW and also state that those claiming so are wrongdoers/disbelievers.

Moreover, Hadhees stating that Allah’s Apostle was affected with black magic claims that he was affected mentally. Physical damage can be discarded but mental damage cannot be treated as simple.

Thinking that he had done something which in fact, he did not do and imagining that he has slept (had sexual relations) with his wives, and in fact he did not shows severe damage to mental health. Had Allah’s apostle being pushed to an extent where he is unaware of what he does is true, Wahi : Quranic revelation and his speech during these 6 months will become uncertain. This will lead to doubt each and every Quranic Verse. Questions will arise “Why can’t this be revealed during those 6 months?”. Similar questions will arise for every Hadhees.

But Allah assures that He Himself will protect this Religion, this Quran.

Surah: 15.Al-Hijr Verse 9.

Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. Guarding Quran refers to initially guard the Mental health of One who brought it.

Had Allah’s Apostle’s mental health not protected, it would lead to a state where Quran is not protected. Due to this also, it can be inferred that Allah’s Apostle cannot have been affected with Black Magic.

Allah nominates his Messengers from Human. The reason behind the offenders for not accepting them as Apostles of Allah was that all the prophets were sent with Human nature, were human beings like them, and eats like them and leads a family life.

It is quite natural not to accept a Human, who is like them, as a Prophet of Allah. Hence all Prophets were sent with Miracles to prove themselves. None of the Prophets were sent without Miracles.

Surah: 3.Al-'ImranVerse: 184. Then if they deny you, [O Muhammad] - so were messengers denied before you, who brought clear proofs and written ordinances and the enlightening Scripture.

Surah:7.Al-A'raf. Verse: 101.

Those cities - We relate to you, [O Muhammad], some of their news. And certainly did their messengers come to them with clear proofs, but they were not to believe in that which they had denied before. Thus does Allah seal over the hearts of the disbelievers.

Surah: 9.At-Taubah. Verse : 70.

Has there not reached them the news of those before them - the people of Noah and [the tribes of] ‘Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.

Surah: 10.Yunus. Verse: 13.

And We had already destroyed generations before you when they wronged, and their messengers had come to them with clear proofs, but they were not to believe. Thus do We recompense the criminal people.

Surah: 10.Yunus. Verse: 74.

Then We sent after him messengers to their peoples, and they came to them with clear proofs. But they were not to believe in that which they had denied before. Thus We seal over the hearts of the transgressors.

Surah: 35.Fatir. Verse: 25.

And if they deny you - then already have those before them denied. Their messengers came to them with clear proofs and written ordinances and with the enlightening Scripture.

Surah:40.Ghafir. Verse : 22.

That was because their messengers were coming to them with clear proofs, but they disbelieved, so Allah seized them. Indeed, He is Powerful and severe in punishment.

Surah: 40.Ghafir. Verse: 50.

They will say, "Did there not come to you your messengers with clear proofs?" They will say, "Yes." They will reply, "Then supplicate [yourselves], but the supplication of the disbelievers is not except in error."

Surah: 57.Al-Hadid. Verse: 25.

We have already sent Our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain [their affairs] in justice. And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might and benefits for the people, and so that Allah may make evident those who support Him and His messengers unseen. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.

Surah: 64.At-Taghabun. Verse: 6.

That is because their messengers used to come to them with clear evidences, but they said, "Shall human beings guide us?" and disbelieved and turned away. And Allah dispensed [with them]; and Allah is Free of need and Praiseworthy.

When Prophets could prove their Prophet-hood only by miracles, people won’t believe in the miracles of Prophets if non-Prophets and enemies of Allah perform miracles like the Prophets. They would ask: your enemy also does like you. On thinking based on this fundamental, we may infer that Allah’s Apostle being affected with Black magic wouldn’t be possible.

It would have been a miracle if hiding some things in some well could change the Mindset of Allah’s Apostle. Had this been true, people would have rejected Prophet Muhammad SAW citing this.

They would have even questioned “We haven’t seen Allah nominating you as Prophet. We believed your prophet-hood only because of few miracles you performed. Now that your enemies have toppled you with their miracles, how do we accept you as Prophet?”

But nothing has happened like that. Since, Allah would not leave people astray by executing such event, it is understood that Prophet SAW was not affected by Black Magic.

Moreover when Prophet Moses (PBUH), declared himself as Allah’s Apostle, enemies told that as Magic, made him contest against Magicians.

While describing the Magicians who competed against Moses (PBUH), Allah says
“ They presented a Great (feat of ) Magic.
Surah:7.Al-A'raf. Verse: 116.

He said, "Throw," and when they threw, they bewitched the eyes of the people and struck terror into them, and they presented a great [feat of] magic.

Quran also says what their Great Magic could do:

Surah: 20.Ta-Ha. Verse: 66.

He said, "Rather, you throw." And suddenly their ropes and staffs seemed to him from their magic that they were moving [like snakes].

20:69 says that it is their trick:

Surah: 20.Ta-Ha.Verse:69.

And throw what is in your right hand; it will swallow up what they have crafted. What they have crafted is but the trick of a magician, and the magician will not succeed wherever he is."

Magic could only deceive eyes, in reality, it cannot change anything. But, Hadhees stating that Allah’s Apostle’s Mindset got affected with Black Magic is against this.

Moreover when Prophets performed miracles, Enemies pointed it as Black Magic.

Surah: 5.Al-Ma'idah. Verse: 110.

[The Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, "This is not but obvious magic."

Surah: 6.Al-An'am. Verse: 7.

And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, "This is not but obvious magic."

Surah: 10.Yunus. Verse: 2.

Have the people been amazed that We revealed [revelation] to a man from among them, [saying], "Warn mankind and give good tidings to those who believe that they will have a [firm] precedence of honor with their Lord"? [But] the disbelievers say, "Indeed, this is
an obvious magician."

Surah: 10.Yunus. Verse: 76.

So when there came to them the truth from Us, they said, "Indeed, this is obvious magic."

Surah: 15.Al-Hijr. Verse: 15.

They would say, "Our eyes have only been dazzled. Rather, we are a people affected by magic."

Surah: 21.Al-Anbiya'. Verse: 3.

With their hearts distracted. And those who do wrong conceal their private conversation, [saying], "Is this [Prophet] except a human being like you? So would you approach magic while you are aware [of it]?"

Surah: 10.Yunus. Verse: 77.

Moses said, "Do you say [thus] about the truth when it has come to you? Is this magic? But magicians will not succeed."

Surah:27.An-Naml. Verse: 13.

But when there came to them Our visible signs, they said, "This is obvious magic."

Surah: 28.Al-Qasas. Verse: 36.

But when Moses came to them with Our signs as clear evidences, they said, "This is not except invented magic, and we have not heard of this [religion] among our forefathers."

Surah: 34.Saba’. Verse: 43.

And when our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, they say, "This is not but a man who wishes to avert you from that which your fathers were worshipping." And they say, "This is not except a lie invented." And those who disbelieve say of the truth when it has come to them, "This is not but obvious magic."

Surah: 37.As-Saffat. Verse: 15.

And say, "This is not but obvious magic.

Surah: 40.Ghafir. Verse: 30.

And he who believed said, "O my people, indeed I fear for you [a fate] like the day of the companies

Surah: 46.Al-Ahqaf.Verse: 7.

And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who disbelieve say of the truth when it has come to them, "This is obvious magic."

Surah: 54.Al-Qamar. Verse: 2.

And if they see a miracle, they turn away and say, "Passing magic."

Surah: 74.Al-Muddaththir. Verse: 24.

And said, "This is not but magic imitated [from others].

Surah: 61.As-Saff. Verse: 6.

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."

The above cited Hadhees states that people refused the Miracles by blaming it as Magic. Since they themselves believed that Magic is a trick of showing something which is not there. They believed that Real Miracle is different and Fake Magic is different.

From this, it is obvious that Magic will have no effect physically and mentally. The
Hadhees is in opposition to this as well. What do we do in this stage?

There is no doubt that Hadhees are also sole attestation of Dheen just like Quran. However, very few Hadhees are not linkable in anyway with Quran.
Less than 50 Acceptable Hadhees fall into this category.

Accepting them as such would lead to deny many Quranic Verses. To avoid this, such Hadhees are held. It cannot be stated that we would accept these Hadhees even if Quran is denied.

For instance we may indicate one such Hadhees: Aisha Narrated that It is revealed in Holy Quran that fosterage is applicable only if a baby had ten clear sucklings and then changed to five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle died while reciting.

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3422

'Amra reported that she beard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3421

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

Had these cited Verses been truly present in Quran until Death of Apostle, this should have been there until today. But this Verse stated by Aisha(Rali) is not there in Quran.

If this Hadhees is accepted, it would force the thought that few Verses in Quran was removed after Allah’s Apostle’s death. Allah says that he will guard the Quran. Being Contrast to this, this Hadhees should not be accepted. We shouldn’t come to a state to accept this and thereby deny Quran.

The wife of Abu Hudhaifa said: Messenger of Allah, Salim comes to me and now he is a (grown-up) person, and there is something that (rankles) in the mind of Abu Hudhaifa about him, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him (so that he may become your foster-child).

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3427

Umm Salama said to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her): A young boy who is at the threshold of puberty comes to you. I, however, do not like that he should come to me, whereupon 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) said: Don't you see in Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) a model for you? She also said: The wife of Abu Hudhaifa said: Messenger of Allah, Salim comes to me and now he is a (grown-up) person, and there is something that (rankles) in the mind of Abu Hudhaifa about him, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him (so that he may become your
foster-child), and thus he may be able to come to you (freely).

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3426

Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to

Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him,
whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3425

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (purbety) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3428

Zainab daughter of Abu Salama reported: I heard Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon himy, saying to 'A'isha: By Allah, I do not like to be seen by a young boy who has passed the period of fosterage, whereupon she ('A'isha) said: Why
is it so? Sahla daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, I swear by Allah that I see in the face of Abu Hudhaifa (the signs of disgust) on account of entering of Salim (in the house), whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She (Sahla bint Suhail) said: He has a heard. But he (again) said: Suckle him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hadhaifa.

Allah’s Apostle at no cause would have told to feed a Grown up stranger. Suckling is applicable only babies’ upto 2 years. Hence we leave this Hadhees unaccepted. There could be some anonymous flaw in this Narration. We decide that Allah’s Apostle wouldn’t have told like this.

On similar grounds, the Hadhees stating that Allah’s Apostle was affected by Black
Magic should be held unaccepted.

Moreover, there are lot of discrepancies in the event narrated by Aisha(Rali). That strengthens this opinion.

These Hadhees says that things by which Magic was performed are not removed and well
Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 75 :: Hadith 400, Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71 :: Hadith
661 but this narration claims that the things are removed Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 71
:: Hadith 660.

The narration from Nasayee 4012 states that the things were removed by sending some people.

The narrations in Bukhari states that two Angels were talking between them, but narrations in Nasayee 4012 and Ahmed 4701 states that Gabriel (Alai) narrated to Allah’s Apostle about black magic.

Due to this, the unreliability of this narration increases.

It is written in many elaborated books ( on Quran) that chapters 113 and 114 were revealed to cure the Black Magic on Allah’s Apostle. They haven’t shown any Hadhees in support of this claim. The fact is that place of revealation of these two Chapters is uncertain (ie) whether in Mekkah or Madina.

Hence there is no correlation between these two chapters and black magic. Few of them quote “ Seeking protection from Women blowing knots” as the evidence. They say that this refers to Women performing Black Magic.

As per their argument, a Man named 'Labid had only performed Black Magic. Hence there is no room for Women performing Black Magic here.

As per their argument, we seek protection against Women performing Black Magic in this Chapter. This will lead to the opinion that there is no protection against Men performing Black Magic.

Allah’s Apostle didn’t elaborate “Women blowing knot” as Magicians.

Understanding this with reference to Hadhees, it may be inferred that here Allah refers to
Shaithan.

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 491

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "During your sleep, Satan knots three knots at the back of the head of each of you, and he breathes the following words at each knot, 'The night is, long, so keep on sleeping,' If that person wakes up and celebrates the praises of Allah, then one knot is undone, and when he performs ablution the second knot is undone, and when he prays, all the knots are undone, and he gets up in the morning lively and gay, otherwise he gets up dull and gloomy. "

Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 21 :: Hadith 243

Narrated Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep. On every knot he reads and exhales the following words, 'The night is long, so stay asleep.' When one wakes up and remembers Allah, one knot is undone; and when one performs ablution, the second knot is undone, and when one prays the third knot is
undone and one gets up energetic with a good heart in the morning; otherwise one gets up lazy and with a mischievous heart."

Few think that it refers to knot made of thread when quoting “knot”. When Moses(PBUH) prayed to unfasten his tongue, he said “untie knot from my tongue”. It shouldn’t be interpreted that a knot is made in tongue.

Surah: 20.Ta-Ha. Verse: 27.

And untie the knot from my tongue

Moreover the word “ blow” is related to Satan

It is a habit of Arabs to refer in feminine gender when specifying Evil deeds. Hence it is referred in feminine gender here. Thus there is no correlation between these chapters and Black Magic.

Moreover Allah assures to Guard Apostle from the people.

Surah: 5.Al-Ma'idah. Verse: 67.

O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

Had Allah’s Apostle affected with Black Magic been true, the opinion that would prevail is that the spiritual strength of enemies’ is more than Allah’s Apostles’when Enemies

could affect him to such an extent that he lost his self conscious. This would have hindered growth of Islam. But, there was no backlash on the growth of Islam during Allah’s Apostles’ period.
Though the Hadhees pertaining to “Black Magic’s effect on Allah’s Apostle” is authenticated with respect to Narrators, since it is against the teachings of Quran which is even more authenticated, the actual fact is that no one paralyzed Allah’s Apostle.

Download in PDF
28.04.2011. 04:17
is jesus the Son of God?
PREFACE
In the name of the Lord, The most Merciful and Beneficent.

Download this Book in PDF

Jesus was a Prophet and one of those reformists who propagated that Allah is the one and only God whom alone men should worship. So do the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) describe Jesus. Therefore it is obligatory on the Muslims to believe it.

Christians, who have faith in Jesus and believe him as the God and ‘the son of God’ as well, worship him as much. What exactly is the inference regarding the status of Jesus whom the two great religions of the world believe in? It is indeed our right and duty too, to analyse and discern the truth. It is especially so at such a juncture of the century when Christians are earnestly endeavouring to goad the Muslims to believe that Jesus is undoubtedly the ‘son of God’ by interpreting to their own end the various Quranic verses where Jesus is being eulogized by God.

A scrutiny of the Bible and the Quran without prejudice will convince even those with inadequate knowledge of the two great scriptures, that there cannot be a son of God.

While there are ample evidences leading to such a decisive conclusion, the Christian brethren who are misled by the clergy, believe in the theory of ‘Son of God’ thereby forgoing the chance to attain salvation in the hereafter.

By quoting freely from the Bible itself, I have brought to light the fact that Jesus is not the ‘Son of God’ but on the other hand he was one of the great Prophets of god.

The Christian brethren who peruse this book unbiasedly without any like or dislike whatsoever, will certainly discern the truth that Jesus was a saintly Prophet of God. I do therefore hope and pray that they will no more consider him as God or ‘Son of God’ Amen!

P. Zainul Abideen.

  INTRODUCTION

God is unique; He is eternally besought of all; He begets not nor is begotten; And there is none comparable unto Him. He is the creator of the entire universe; He who governs it. He is capable of creating and destroying as well. He is eternal; these are truths about God which are amenable to reason.

Contrary to this truth there are people who demean the attributes of God by ascribing to him wife, children, brothers and sisters, father in law, brother in law and all such relatives. Christians who claim to possess a gospel and believe that it contains eternal evidences have also succumbed to such an imagery or myth. And they believe in the theory of ‘Son of God’ which contradicts the very teachings of the Bible.

Before actually analysing their faith in Jesus being the ‘Son of God’ let us probe whether God is in need of a son or progeny.

GOD IS NOT IN NEED OF A SON

Progeny is indispensable only, to those who are destined to attain old age and infirmity. Those who cannot exist without food, clothes and shelter should beget progeny, so that they are provided with such essentialities in their old age.

Man wants progeny because of his inherent weaknesses and necessities. If only he had been created with a guarantee that he would neither die nor attain old age he would not want progeny at all. He would not thrust any burden upon himself without benefit.

Even while being fully convinced of the inevitability of death and old age, man does adopt birth control to restrict procreation to two children, even if entails abortion. His progeny is definitely of beneficence to man. Even when placed so advantageously, man does not want to have children more than a limited number. Will he then aspire to have children if he knows for certain that they will be of no benefit to him.

Those who believe in God, do also believe that God is not susceptible to death. Nor do they believe that He will ever be fatigued. Yet they ascribe progeny to God!

Anyone with a proper knowledge of God cannot refute the fact that God is in no need of a son. A community which has been for ages nourishing a conviction that Jesus is the son of God, will not abandon their belief just because of these arguments. Therefore it is incumbent on me to analyse the reasons which form the basis for their belief and elucidate in order to bring them into the proper path. Evidences are to be brought forth from the same book which they believe to be the Gospel. This alone will enlighten them.

FOUR PARTS

I have divided this book into four parts in order to analyse whether or not Jesus is the son of God.

a) The Lord himself has proclaimed Jesus as His son.

b) ‘Jesus and the Lord are one’ declares the Bible.

c) The Bible says that Jesus is God.

d) Jesus is born fatherless.

e) Jesus performed many miracles.

f) Jesus was filled with Holy Spirit.

The above are some of the reasons based on which Christians believe Jesus to be God or the ‘Son of God’.

In the first section, based on the same reasons, I have explained as to why one can not be said to be the ‘Son of God’. I have cited references from the Bible, tainted it is by men though, to support my arguments.

In the Bible, certain attributes of God have been mentioned as also those of men. Some attributes of God do not befit Jesus whereas all those attributes without exception pertaining to man befit Jesus very well. In the second section, I shall ascertain this, of course with the aid of the Bible itself.

Bible affirms in certain instances that Jesus is not the ‘Son of God’ Jesus himself has asserted that he is not the ‘Son of God’, in several places. Based on such evidences I shall prove in the third section that Jesus is not the ‘Son of God’.

In the fourth and final section I shall falsify the propaganda by the Christians that the Quran too affirms that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ I shall also demolish their arguments forthrightly and shall establish the true status of Jesus on purely Islamic basis.

PART ONE

1.WHY GOD SAYS JESUS IS MY SON?

The Lord says ‘Jesus is my son’

Christians who believe and propagate that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ cite the Biblical verse “Jesus is the Son of God” as the foremost authenticity for their belief.

“And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying,

This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”

(Matthew 3:17)

Christians cite this verse as the basis for their belief that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’. But then they fail to consider several other verses which refer to so many others too as the sons of God.

“Israel is my son, My first born” (Exodus 4:22)

This verse is more specific than the previous one. In the verse Matthew 3:17 the saying is reported to have come from heaven and not from the Lord. It could very well be the prank of the devil because in verses 4:8,9,10 of Matthew given below there is specific reference to the devil.

Again the devil took him upon an exceedingly high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and glory.

And he said to Him “All these things I will give you if you will fall down and worship me”.

Then Jesus said to him “Away with you, satan”.

(Matthew 4:8,9,10)

In the verse, regarding Israel, it is very specifically stated that it was the Lord who said it. Therefore logically it is Israel who deserves more consideration than Jesus to be claimed as the ‘Son of God’.

             The list of ‘Son of God (?)’prolongs.

“You are My Son

Today I have begotten you”

(Psalm 2:7)

This was addressed to David.

“He (Solomon) shall be my Son and I will be his father” so said the Lord.

(I Chronicles 22:10)

“I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is My first born”

(Jeremiah 31:9)

“I will be his (Samuel’s) Father and he shall be my Son”

(II Samuel 7:14)

“I will be his (David’s) Father and he shall be My Son”

(I Chronicle 17:13)

Thus, some particular persons have been described as ‘Sons of God’ in the Bible. When there are so many ‘Sons of God’, to say that Jesus alone is the ‘Son of God’ is to contradict the teachings of the Bible. Actually it is not that some particular persons alone are said to be the ‘Sons of God’ but all men have been said to be the ‘Sons of God’ in the Bible.

        “You are the Children of the LORD your God”

(Deuteronomy 14:1)

        In all the above mentioned verses the phrase ‘Son of God’ has been used to denote not only Jesus but also some elites. Again it is not confined to elites alone but has been to denote even the common people. It is to be noted that the phrase ‘Son of God’ has not been used in the common convention sense of the word ‘Son’ but has been used to mean ‘slave of God’.

        The fact that the true concept of ‘Son of God’ in the Bible differs form what the Christians have taken it to mean is clear from the following verses of the Bible.

            “A father of the fatherless, a defender of widows.

            Is God in his holy habitation”

(Psalm 68:5)

             Christians who address and beseech Jesus by virtue of his being referred to as ‘Son of God’ in the Bible, do not address and beseech others who have also been referred to as ‘Son of God’ in the Book. Why is it so? This question fails to elicit a response from the Christian world.

   Since the Lord is the father of the fatherless children, why don’t the Christians beseech the Sons of God who are in the refugee camp and those in the orphanages to help them.

            Further, Jesus himself whom the Christians believe to be the ‘Son of God’ has in many instances referred to the people-good people-as ‘Sons of God’.

            “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly farther will also forgive you”

(Matthew 6:14,5.)

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called ‘Sons of God’

(Matthew 5:9)

“That you may be Sons of your Farther in heaven”

(Matthew 5:45)

“-……. How much more will your father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him”

(Matthew7:11)

“Do not call any one on earth your father, for one is your father. He who is in heaven.”

(Matthew 23:9)

“But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become children of God”

(John 1:12)

“-…… and your reward will be great and you will be Sons of the highest”

(Luke 6:35)

“There since we are the offspring of God we ought not to think that Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone something shaped by art and man’s devising”

(Acts 17:29)

“The spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God”

(Romans 8:16)

“I will be a father to you and you shall be My Sins and daughters says the Lord Almighty”

(II Corinthians 6:18)

The Lord says that all the people are his children. Jesus too says so. The architect of the present day Bible Paul also says so. From these it should be inferred that the word ‘Sons’ has been used to denote righteous people. If the Christians are adamant in establishing that the word has been used in the conventional sense, then they should accept that all people are offspring of God.

Jesus has been referred to, in the Bible as ‘Son of God’. There are others too who have been similarly referred to as ‘Son of God’. How are we to discern this? There is no room for human wits. Discerning in the light of the Bible will alone amount to real reverence to the Bible. And the Christians will be truthful to the Bible only if they resort to this.

Are we to presume that the phrase, ‘Son of God’ means or refers to one who is begotten by God and to believe that such a person by virtue of being the Son of God has been elevated to Divinity. Does the phrase ‘Son of God’ means one begotten by God and hence God? Or does it denote one who submits to the will of God? This is exactly what the Christians are duty bound to probe. The phrase “Son of God” cannot be taken to mean the first sense, namely, offspring. Even the Christians themselves do not mean it where the phrase is used with regard to those other than Jesus in the Bible. It is therefore logical that the phrase be taken to convey the second sense. The Bible itself confirms it.

            “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for one is your father; He who is in heaven”

          (Matthew 23:9)

Anybody who ponders over this, cannot assert that the word “father” has been used in the conventional sense of the word. If it does convey the conventional sense, nobody under the sun can call his own father who begot him as father as per this verse of the Bible. Hereby it is confirmed that the word ‘father’ has been used to mean God. Now replace the word ‘father’ by ‘God’ in the above mentioned verse and read it again. ‘Do not call anyone on earth your God. For one is your God. He who is in heaven; you will grasp the true sense fully.

            If, on the other hand the word father is taken to mean the conventional sense, the verse as a whole convey no sense at all. In schools, government offices, voters list, ration cards, passports and wedding registers and in so many other records you are required to mention the name of your father. What would be the state of affairs if in such records the father’s name is mentioned as the one who is in heaven? Will the Christians who are ordained in the Bible “not to call any one on earth as father”, refrain from mentioning in such records the names of their fathers who begot them and mention the one who is in heaven? No doubt the Christians have to mention the name of their fathers who begot them. Do they then transgress the commandment of the Bible? Will the Christians dare say that it is not possible to live on the earth without transgressing the commandment of the Bible? No. They will definitely conclude that the word father has been used to mean ‘God’.

            If the word father means creator then correspondingly the word ‘Son’ cannot but mean ‘the created’. So also when father means ‘God’; ‘Son’ could mean only ‘slave’.

            If this simple fact the Christians could discern, they will not utter that Jesus is begotten by God and hence he is God. In support of this argument other evidences could very well be cited from the Bible itself.

            The belief of the Christians that Jesus is God since he has been referred to as “Son of God” in the Bible, is a great absurdity. So says the Bible, the Christians so reverently hold and read.

            “I am the Lord your God………….

            You shall have no other gods before Me”

(Exodus 20:2,3)

“…..... the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him”

(Deuteronomy 4:35)

“Hear O Israel! The Lord our God; the Lord is the one”

(Deuteronomy 6:4)

These are some of the verses conveying the same sense.

            What exactly does the saying of God “You shall have no other gods before Me” convey? There is no god whosoever other than Him. It is simple and clear. How do the Christians dare say contradicting this that Jesus is God?...

            “And this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

            I have glorified you on earth. I have finished the work you have given me to do”

(John 17:3,4)

            The very same Jesus Christ whom Christians believe and worship as God has said, “I am not God”. This is an unambiguous statement by Jesus himself.

            By the words “the only true God” he asserts that he is not God. “Jesus Christ whom you have sent” , so saying he affirms that he was only a prophet. The utterance “I have finished the work you have given me to do” goes to mean that he is duty bound to obey the ordainments of God. And by the words “I have finished” he ascertains that the task entrusted with him has been carried out accordingly. As such there is no need or use of people beseeching him.

            To connote any meaning to ‘Son of God’ contrary to the proclamation of Jesus in the Bible “I am neither begotten by God nor God myself”, is to despise Jesus. Why do the Christians fail to realise this?

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him ‘You shall love the Lord, your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment”.

(Matthew 22:36-38)

Do the Christians who have offered Jesus half of their heart, half of their soul and half of their mind, not feel that they have trespassed the first and great commandment? If their connotation of ‘Son of God’ is correct would Jesus have said this? (Ref. Matthews 22:36-38)

“I am God and there is no other, I am God and there is none like me”.

(Isaiah 46:9)

If the Lord has said “I am also God,” the Christians are of course justified in believing Jesus to be God. But what do the words in the verse Isaiah 46:9 above, appearing in the Bible which they read and chant, indicate? Don’t they emphatically assert that no one including Jesus other than the Lord is God? Does it not contradict the Bible itself, if the phrase ‘Son of God’ is connoted against the spirit of the Bible? Won’t the Christians realise this?

“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the father” (Mark 13:32) so said Jesus.

Won’t the Christians ponder over this teaching of Jesus? The above mentioned verse refutes the connotation of ‘Son of God’ as God by the Christians. Won’t they then discern the truth?

If Jesus is God, could he ever proclaim that day and hour is not known to him and that it is known only to the Father? Is there anything not known to God? Let the Christians think over.

And he said to her “what do you wish?” She said to him “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on your right and the other on the left in your kingdom”

       (Matthew 20:21)

What was the answer of Jesus? He did not say that he would grant it. But Jesus answered and said”…. But to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father?

      (Matthews 20:23)

On the day when all would be summoned before God it is the special and unique privilege of the Lord to assign paradise or Hell. Jesus is not entitled to do it. This is what Jesus himself makes known for the Christians to discern the truth.

Even after Jesus proclaiming “I have no authority in the kingdom of God”, is it righteous on the part of the Christians to adhere to the wrong connotation of the phrase ‘Son of God’ and continue to worship and beseech Jesus?

            “Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise be honour and glory for ever, Amen”.

                 (1 Thimothy 1:17)

Eternity, immortality and invisibility are distinctive attributes of God says the New testament. How could then, Jesus who according to the Bible met with death and was physically visible while alive, be God? Will the Christians contemplate? “But go to my brethren and say to them “I am ascending to My father and your Father and to my God and your God”

(John 20:17)

Does this oration of Jesus not clearly indicate that clinging to Jesus is not the means to approach the Eternal Being and also what the real meaning of Father is?

What would be the reaction of Christians who have erroneously connoted ‘Son of God’ as God, to the Bible’s references to Jesus in several instances as ‘Man’ and ‘Son of a Man’?

“And Jesus said to him ‘Foxes have holes and birds of air have nests but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head”

        (Matthews 8:20)

“But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins then He said to paralytic, “Arise take up your bed and go to your house”

          (Matthews 9:6)

“Now when the multitudes saw if they marvelled and glorified God who had given such power to men”

          (Matthews 9:8)

“When Jesus came into the region of Caesania Phillipi, he asked his disciples saying “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

      (Matthews 16:13)

“For the ‘Son of Man’ will come in the glory of his father with his angles and he will reward each according hid works”

      (Matthews 16:27)

“Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them “the Son of Man” is about to be betrayed into the hand of men.

But I say to you that Elijah has come already and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Like wise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands”

      (Matthews 17:22)

“Now as they came down from the mountain Jesus commanded them saying “Tell the vision to no one until the son of Man is risen from the dead”

        (Matthews 17:9)

“So Jesus said to them ‘Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”.

      (Matthews 19:28)

“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the Chief priests and to the Scribes and they will condemn him to death”

      (Matthews 20:18)

“Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many”

      (Matthews 20:28)

“For as the lightening comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man be”

      (Matthews 26:24)

Jesus said to him “It is as you said. Nevertheless I say to you hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming on the clouds of heaven”

      (Matthews 26:64)

“Then he came to his disciples and said to them “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of the sinners”

      (Matthews 26:45)

In all the above verses Jesus has referred to his own self as ‘Son of Man’. In other gospels too he has been referred to as such in many instances. There actually far in excess of these verses which denote Jesus as ‘Son of God’. If Jesus is actually the Son of God with Godhead why does he refer to his own self as ‘Son of Man’?

All these verses quoted above without exception indicate unambiguously that Jesus is neither God nor ‘Son of God’. They also go to prove that he did not possess Godhead. There are ever so many similar verses. They will of course be quoted at appropriate contexts. Therefore the phrase ‘Son of God’ wherever it appears should necessarily be connoted without contradicting these verses. If not it will naturally amount to gross transgression of the doctrine of the Bible.

If ‘Son of God’ is elucidated to mean one who is in total obedience to God, a righteous man surrendering himself to the will of God, it will definitely be in accordance with the verses of the Bible.

Which of these two, the Christians want to go for? Even after such elucidating evidences, if the Christians are adamant in taking ‘Son of God’ as ‘God’ they should eventually accept as such all those who have been referred to in the Bible as Sons of God. Factually the Christians who worship Jesus are also Sons of God, according to the Bible. Thus while they themselves are sons of God will they worship another Son of God? Whether they prefer the one or the other of the two connotations to “Son of God” with regard to Jesus, it is amply proved that they should neither worship nor beseech Jesus.

2. ONE WITHIN THE OTHER

Let us analyse the other evidence Christians rely on to believe and worship Jesus as the only son of God.

“I and My father are one”

(John 10:30)

The father and I am not different. I am the father; the father is me; Both have merged, one within the other, is the meaning of this. There fore Jesus is also God; this is the proof the Christians give. The verse ‘Do you not believe that I am in the father and the father in me’ 14:10 of John which gives the same meaning is also taken as an evidence.

Christians have misunderstood the phrase “I and the father are one’ as they have misunderstood the phrase ”Son of God”. The fact that the meaning they have adopted is wrong could be proved in the light of the Bible itself.

“At that you will know that I am in my father and you in me and I in you.”

(John 14:20)

Why do the Christians who have misunderstood the saying of Jesus “I am in my father” to mean “Jesus and the father are one and the same”, fail to understand the saying of Jesus “you are in me and I am in you” in the same vein.

As Jesus has said “you are in me and I am in you”, mankind is not different from Jesus; so also Jesus is not different from mankind.

Mankind is Jesus; Jesus is Mankind. If Jesus is mankind; then it means that mankind is the father-God. Thus we wrong notions of the Christians not only makes Jesus God, but also makes the mankind God. Why is this blunder not realised by the Christians?

Listen to Jesus saying which is more clear, “that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in Me and I am in you; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that you sent Me.

(John 17:21)

Just as Jesus is within the God and God is within Jesus, Jesus also says that the whole of mankind is within these two. If so the entire mankind itself is also God. Why do the Christians then fail to understand this? Do they not believe in their own religion?

If the entire mankind is God what is the speciality in Jesus? When mankind itself is God how can their worship of any one other than their ownselves, could be justified? If this is pondered over, the real meaning of Jesus saying “I and the father are one” could easily be discerned.

It is universally common to say about two closely intimate friends to have become one. Nobody would take this to mean that they have become one person and one has merged into the other. On the other hand they will take it to mean only that the two are so intimately close.

The Bible itself gives room to understand it in this way.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”.

           (Genesis 2:24)

Just by saying that the husband and wife shall become one flesh, will they be considered to be one and the same person? Will the husband’s stomach be filled if the wife eats and will he thereby not require any food? Will the husband be able to answer the call of nature by deputing his wife to do it on his behalf? If the wife dies will the husband also be considered dead and buried? Never. So what does “become one flesh” mean? It only means that husband and wife are close and intimate. The closeness of the husband to his wife denotes a totally different meaning. Therefore to show their closeness, the husband and the wife are said to have become one flesh.

            “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.

            ‘And the two shall become one flesh’, so then they are no longer two, but one flesh”

(Mark 10:7, 8)

In this verse from the new testament the phrase “no longer two” is given emphasis. In the case of Jesus such a phrase is not used. Naturally therefore the Christian world should understand the statements of Jesus as it understands this verse.

                                                 _______________________

3. THE ‘GOD JESUS’

The Christians who assume Godhead to Jesus and believe him as the son of God, cites from the Bible verses wherein Jesus has been referred to as ‘God’ as the basis for their belief. This also cannot be accepted as the Bible itself contradicts this somewhere else.

            “Jesus answered them “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?

            The Jews answered him saying, “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy and because you, being a Man make Yourself God”

            Jesus answered them “Is it not written in your law ‘ I said “you are gods”?

            “If He called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken)”

(John 10:32-35)

Since Jesus, being a man called himself a god, the Jews planned to stone him. When Jesus answered the Jews, he said, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came’. Here Jesus clarified that the word ‘god’ (With not a capital ‘G’) is used not to denote the God, but to show that they are the people who received the word of God.

    ______________________

4. DOES ONE BECOME GOD BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN WITHOUT A FATHER

Jesus, unlike other men, was born without father; therefore he was born to God; hence he is also God. This is the argument of the Christians.

This argument cannot be accepted by intellectuals. We also do agree that Jesus was born fatherless. The Christians by giving emphasis to the word ‘fatherless’ are elevating Jesus to the status of God. But why didn’t they give importance to the word ‘born’ at all?

What does the word ‘born’ exactly denote? I denotes that a man who was not existing till then has come into existence. Is it appropriate to say that God was not existing till then? Can one who was not existing for a period become ‘God’? If God was not in existence even for a short period what would have happened to this world?

The phrase “born fatherless” itself denote that Jesus was not a God but a man. This is quite clear. In this phrase if the word ‘fatherless’ is given due emphasis, the fact Jesus was not a God could easily be inferred by the Christians themselves. The word ‘fatherless’ indicates that he was not born ‘motherless’. Further the Bible clearly states that he was born to a mother.

What are actually the attributes of God?

Can He have a mother and only not a father?

Are the Christians ready to proclaim that the Lord, the only God has a mother?

One cannot become a God just because he is fatherless.

The Bible itself agrees with this fact.

“The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam the son of God”

(Luke 3:38)

If Jesus is God by virtue of having been born fatherless what about Adam who was born not only without a father and a mother but also without ever having been in the womb? Does he not fit to be a God? Why don’t the Christians believe Adam to be a God or ‘son of the God?’

Logically, Adam has every right to become a God, rather a better one than Jesus. Even then Christians have not taken him as a God. Does this not appear to be a very conspicuous contradiction?

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the place.

            Then the rib while the Lord God had taken from man he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man”

(Genesis 2:21,22)

“Or how can one be pure who is born of a woman?”

(Job 25:4)

This verse says that Jesus who is born of a woman is not pure. But Adam and Eve are not having such a defect or disqualification. Adam and Eve are the only ones who are free from this impurity which is common to all other human beings. Therefore they are the ones who deserve more to be Gods than Jesus.

Do the Christian conscience not bothered? Are the Christians not behaving against the teachings of the Bible?

From what the Bible says about Melchizedek it is quite evident that he is more deserving to become a God. “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God who met Abraham returning from the Slaughter of the kings and blessed him”

(Hebrews 7:1)

Who is this Melchizedek who is so exalted as to bless Abraham? What is his genealogy? The Bible says:

“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but made like the son of God remains a priest continually.

Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils”

(Hebrews 7:3,4)

This Melchizedek was fatherless, motherless, and without a genealogy, and he had neither a beginning nor an end. And he was great, the Bible proclaims. He is not believed as a God by the Christians who have taken Jesus as God just because he was fatherless. Why is it so?

If anybody who is referred to in the Bible is to be believed as God-if it is allowed by the God- Melchizedek, has got all the qualities. When compared to him Jesus actually seems not to have so much of merits. Inspite of this the Christians do not take him as the son of God even. Why is it so? Most of the Christians do not know his name even.

God cannot have a son; nobody can possess the unique qualities of God. God is God and man is man. So concludes the conscience. This is exactly the reason why the Christians refuse to believe Adam, Eva and also Melchizedek as Gods.

But in the case of Jesus, a blind reverence has been imbibed in them by the misleading teachings of the priests and therefore they do not want or rather refuse to think over the matter.

If at all the Christians have implicit faith in the Bible, they should in accordance with its teachings believe these three persons as Gods greater in status than Jesus or alternately they should believe that there cannot be any God other than the Lord, the God. Instead if the Christians discriminate between these three, then we have to necessarily conclude that they have no faith in the Bible.

`

5. IS IT POSSIBLE TO BECOME A GOD BY PERFORMING WONDERS.

Jesus had performed innumerous wonders which no man but God alone can perform. Because of this reason Christians take this an evidence to believe Jesus as the, son of God, incarnation of God, one who is divine and God. For various reasons this also cannot be accepted. This can be proved with evidence from the Bible itself.

Let us take for example the great miracle of resurrecting the dead by Jesus. If by virtue of having resurrected the dead, one can become God, there are several others according to the Bible who had , performed such miracles. By probing into the Bible thoroughly one can find Jesus to have performed only three miracles. But it can be found that three were others who had performed much more miracles than Jesus.

“Then the Lord heard the voice of Elijah: and the soul of the child came back to him and he revived.”

(1 Kings 17:22)

“And he went up and lay on the child and put his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes and his hands on his hands he stretched himself out on the child and the flesh of the child became warm, he returned and walked back and forth in the house and again went up and stretched himself and the child opened his eyes.”

(2 Kings 4:34,35)

Like Jesus, Elijah and Elisha have both performed miracles, the Bible says. Why do the Christians then refuse to believe them also as gods?

            In Ezekiel’s 37^th chapter it is stated that the prophet Ezekiel had resurrected many thousands of bones. If Jesus who resurrected only 3 persons-whose bodies were intact-could become a god, Ezekiel who gave life to mere bones which were not in the shape of a body with flesh and that too in thousands should logically be a greater god. Why do the Christians then not accept him as a god? This is to be pondered over.

            “So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood on his feet”

(2 Kings 13:21)

Does this not look a grater miracle than that of Jesus to the Christians? If the bones of Elisha could resurrect the bones of others, Elisha should logically be a grater god than Jesus. So it is not rational to believe Jesus as God just because he resurrected the dead.

            These apart, there are others who have performed miracles grater than the other miracles of Jesus. The Bible reports that Jesus distributed five pieces of bread and two fishes to ever so many people. Let us look at the miracles of others.

            “Then a man came from Boal Shalisha and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loves of barley bread, and newly ripened grain in knapsack, And he said “Give it to the people, that they may eat”

            And his servant said “what? Shall I set this before one hundred men?” He said again, “Give it to the people that they may eat and have some leftover.

            So he set it before them and they ate and had some leftover, according to the word of the LORD”

(2 Kings 4:42-44)

Then she said “As the Lord your God lives I don’t have bread, only a handful of flour in a bin and a little of oil in a jar and see I am gathering a couple of sticks that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son that we may eat it and die.”

“And Elisha said to her “Do not fear, go and do as you have said, but make me a small cake from it and bring it to me; and afterward make same for yourself and your son.

“For thus says the Lord God of Israel. The bin of flour shall not be used up, not shall the jar of oil run dry, until the day the Lord sends rain on the earth. So he went away and did according to the word of Elisha and she and he and her household ate for many days.

The bin of flour was not used up, nor did the jar of oil run dry, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke by Elisha.”

(2 Kings 17:13 to 16)

“So Elisha said to her What shall I do for you? Tell me what do you have in the house? And she said your maidservant has nothing in the house but a jar of oil”.

Then he said “Go, borrow vessels from everywhere, from all your neighbours – empty vessels, do not gather just a few”.

And when you have come in, you shall shut door behind you and your sons, then pour it into all those vessels and set aside the full ones.

So she went from him and shut the door behind her and her sons, who brought the vessels to her, and she poured it out.

Now it came to pass, when the vessels were full that she said to her son, “Bring me another vessel.” And he said to her, “There is not another vessel. “So the oil ceased.

(2 Kings 4:2-6)

The miracle of Jesus ended in one day. But the miracles of Elisha and Elijah lasted for many days. Actually the Christians should have worshipped Elisha and Elijah if miracles are the criterion to be God. What is the justification the Christians bring forward to worship Jesus alone leaving these two?

If Jesus is not God how was he able to work miracle? The answer for this question can be found within the Bible.

Jesus came as a prophet to convey the commandments of God to the people. Since he was a man, people refused to believe him as the prophet. To prove that he was the prophet, God had to sometimes work miracle through Jesus. Without the miracle it would not have been possible to prove him as the prophet. It is mainly for this reason Jesus worked some miracles. Nevertheless he could not work miracles at his will. Just like Jesus, other prophets too had to work miracles because of the same reason. We can find proof for this in the Bible.

“Now in the morning as He returned to the city, He was hungry.

And seeing a fig tree by the road He came to it and found nothing on it but leave and said to it “Let no fruit grow on you ever again and immediately the fig tree withered away.”

(Matthew 21:18,19)

What more proof is required than this to show that Jesus cannot be a God just because he worked a miracle and that he did not work a miracle of his own?

If Jesus is God because of the miracle he worked, how is that he was hungry? Can God be ever hungry? Will not the God know before hand whether or not there is fruit in the tree? Ignorance and disappointment are not the qualities of the God.

Fruit bearing or weathering of the fig tree is not the will of the tree itself. It is God who command it. If Jesus is a God it is he who should have made the tree fruitless. Why should he then curse the tree? Such an action amounts to cursing one’s own self.

Jesus did work miracles at times, but with the permission of God. The fact is that he was a man in all aspects. He was not free from the weaknesses of man namely hunger, ignorance, disappointment, irascibility. This is quite evident from the above incident narrated in the Bible.

Even if these are not taken seriously there is another aspect. If he is really a God, the tree should have become fruit bearing as soon as he approached it. But this did not happen. Jesus who provided food for the hungry villagers could not work a miracle to get food when he himself was hungry. Why is it so? Let he Christians think over.

“The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening and he drank from the brook”.

(1 King 17:6)

It is natural that the fig tree bears fruit. But in the case of Jesus it has disappointed him and put him into trouble. It is the natural order that crow steels away food from others. Such crows contrary to their nature have brought food to Elijah. Which of the two phenomena, the Christians consider as a miracle? Who, among the two is more deserving to be God! This is a matter to be contemplated.

If Jesus had miraculously cured the lepers, there are others too who have done the same thing.

“And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying ‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times and your flesh shall be restored to you and you shall be clean”.

(2 King 5:10)

So he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean.

(2 King 5:14)

Jesus of course restored sight to the blind. But then there are others too who have worked exactly the same.

“And Elisha prayed, and said, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see. Then the lord opened the eyes of the young man “and he saw”

(2 King 6:17)

“So it was when they had come to Samaria, that Elisha said ‘Lord open the eyes of these man, that they may see’. And the lord opened their eyes and they saw, and they were, inside Samaria”

(2 King 6:20)

Jesus walked on the water and crossed the river. Moses made the sea to make way for the Israelites to cross the sea.

            ‘So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

(Exodus 14:22)

            “…. And he (Elisha) made the iron float”

(2 King 6:6)

There is not a single on among the various miracles of Jesus which are cited to argue that he is a god, which was not brought by others before him. They have brought them more effectively too. If the Christians take all of them as gods, there could be justification for their belief in Jesus as a god.

            “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear I judge; and my judgement is righteous because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me”.

(John 5:30)

            “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God. Surely the kingdom of God has came upon you”

(Luke 11:20)

            ‘Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.

            Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your names cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name.

            And then I will declare to them ‘I never saw you: depart from me. You who practice lawlessness”

(Matthew 7:21,22,23)

All these are warnings from Jesus. Jesus says that he could not be a god just because he had worked miracles or because of other reasons. Those who call him a god, would be renounced by him. Jesus very clearly declared that there is no place for such people in paradise.

Further Jesus explained that all the miracles done by him were not out of his own will but were of God’s will. What more explanation and from whom do the Christians look for? Could they not discern the truth from this?

            “Now he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

            And he marvelled because of their unbelief then he went about the villages in a circuit teaching”

(Mark 6:5,6)

What exactly is the inference from these verses? People had expected more miracles from Jesus. But he could not do anything other than curing some of the sick. It is because of this they disbelieved. If they had been satisfied with this miracle alone they would not have disbelieved. Their belief would have been strengthened. Since Jesus had done only one miracle out of the many they expected of him, it is clear that doing miracle is not in his power.

            “Then some of the scribes and pharisees answered saying “Teacher we want to see a sign from you. But he answered and said to them “an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the Prophet Jonah”

(Matthew 12:38,39)

Even when he was addressed with all reverence and requested to do a miracle he denies quite angrily. This does clearly indicate that doing miracle is not in his power.

Moreover when Jesus performed some miracles the contemporary people did not believe him as a god at all.

“Now when the multitude saw it, they marvelled and glorified God who had given such power to men”

(Matthew 9:8)

If Just who worked miracles had argued by virtue of his miracles that he was a god, people would have believed as such. Since he never argued so, they take him to be a man only. Therefore they marvelled and glorified that Lord God who gave power to such a man.

Just because a man works miracle he cannot be a god. Why? Those who work miracle need to necessarily be righteous ones.

This too has been said in the Bible very clearly.

“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams and he gives you a sign or wonder of dreams and he gives you a sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you saying “Let us go after other gods which you have not known and let us serve them you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey this voice and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him”

(Deuteronomy 13:1-4)

These verses which state that even those who are not prophets could work miracles and that we should serve the God alone with all our heart and soul, should actually be an eye opener to Christians. If they, fully aware of such commandments, strive to make Jesus a god, it tantamount to their disbelieving these verses.

“For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible even the elect”

(Matthew 24:24)

The Bible says that wonder could be wrought by not only righteous people but also by the evil ones. Therefore the fact that Jesus by virtue of working wonder alone cannot be a god, is established, beyond doubt. Even after this if anybody believes Jesus as a god, it is clear that he does not believe in the Bible and that he does not heed the teachings of Jesus.

6. IS RESURRECTION AFTER DAETH, A CRITERION TO BECOME A GOD?

Jesus was resurrected three days after crucifixion. This is one of the reasons for Christians to argue that Jesus is a god.

Though I don’t believe in this incident, I deal with it here on the basis of the Christian’s belief. There are two phenomena involved in the resurrection. One is death and the other is coming back to life. Should not the Christians who believe first in his death, probe into the Bible to know what it says about death?

The Bible affirms beyond doubt that one who is mortal cannot be a god.

“The soul who sins shall die”

(Ezekeil 18:20)

Whoever is born on the earth ultimately dies. Therefore all the men and women are sinners. God alone is immortal. Jesus died; therefore he had sinned. Hence he is not a god. Is this not made clear in the above verse. “But the Lord is the true God; he is living God and the everlasting king”

(Jeremiah 10:10)

God must live for ever perpetually. This is what this verse establishes. According to this statement of the Bible, Jesus who died is not everlasting. Therefore to believe that Jesus is god even after knowing this verse, is outright transgression of the Bible.

“Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither fails nor is weary.

God should neither be tired nor weary. How can then Jesus who met with death the extreme form of tiredness be a god?

“Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible to God alone is wise, be honour and glory forever and ever Amen”

(1 Timothy 1:17)

When the Bible thus so clearly states the qualities of God how do the Christians dare to proclaim Jesus who met with death as god?

‘Though Jesus died, he came back to life. Therefore he is god. When he lived on earth only he was a man. He became a god after resurrection’ I know that some of the Christians priests argue like this.

To believe that Jesus came to life after death and that he became a god after the resurrection is definitely wrong according to the Bible. Because after resurrection he did speak and he had very emphatically told that he was only a man. Let us read what he said.

“Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to my father, but go to my brethren and say to them ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God”.

(John 20:17)

Even after resurrection Jesus did not permit people to cling to him and he professed that there is only one God, whom he and they should serve. This is a very clear statement of Jesus to indicate that he did not become a god after resurrection as he was not even before.

“Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them and said to them ‘Peace to you’.

But they were terrified and frightened and supposed they had seen a spirit.

And he said to them ‘why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hands and My feet. That is I have flesh and bones as you see I have.

When he had said this he showed them his hands and feet.

But while they still did not believe for joy and marvel he said to them ‘have you any food here?’

So they gave Him a piece of boiled fish and some honeycomb.

And he took it and ate in their presence”.

(Luke 24:36-43)

The Bible states clearly what Jesus said after resurrection Jesus had flesh and bones after resurrection. God does not have them. Jesus had asked for food from others. This again is the quality of man. Even after resurrection he was hungry. He ate boiled fish and honeycomb. These are qualities which God should not and does not possess. Jesus was as much a man, without any traits of God what so ever, after resurrection as he was before it. This is what the above verse proves beyond doubt. Therefore the argument that Jesus became a god all of a sudden after resurrection does not hold water.

The Christians are obliged to think over this in another angle too. Jesus came to life after death and continued as such. Therefore he became a god. They argue. Is so, what about many others who according to the Bible, came to life after death? The Christians don’t believe them to be gods or sons of gods. Why? The Bible says:

“After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years and begot sons and daughters. So all the days Enoch were three hundred and sixty five years.

And Enoch walked with God and he was not for God took him:”

(Genesis 5:22 to 24)

“By faith Enoch was translated so that he did not see death, and was not found because God had translated him, for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God”

(Hebrews 11:5)

Jesus was raised after death by God only. Death cannot befall God. But Enoch was raised by God before death. Why don’t the Christians then believe Enoch to be a greater god than Jesus? Will they please explain?

“Then it happened as they continued on and talked that suddenly a chariot of the fire appeared with horses of fire and separated the two of them and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven”

(2 Kings 2:11)

Nobody was an eyewitness to Jesus being raised to heaven. But another prophet of God Elisha had been an eye witness when Elijah was taken alive by God. This is a very strong evidence. Therefore it is only fair that the Christians take Elijah to be a greater god than Jesus.

The Bible reports that Elijah, Elisha and several others had been raised to heaven by God while they were alive. There were others who were resurrected after death. These details in the Bible go only to prove beyond doubt that Jesus was neither a god, nor son of God and that he was only a man.

If the Christians do believe the Bible honestly and sincerely they should abandon their belief that Jesus is God and he is the son of God. They should turn towards the one and only God.

_________________________

7. IF FILLED WITH HOLY SPIRIT CAN MAN BECOME GOD?

‘Since Jesus was filled with Holy spirit, He is god-son of God-and possesses Godhead,’ argue the Christians.

Why don’t the Christians who elevate Jesus to the status of God because he was full of holy spirit, consider the case of ever so many persons who are said to have possessed Holy spirit in the Bible?

Listen to what the Bible says:

John baptised Jesus and was his guide. Regarding John the Bible says:

“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the holy spirit even from his mother’s womb”

(Luke 1:15)

“Now his father Zakharias was filled with the holy spirit and prophesied…..”

(Luke 1:67)

These two verses state that Zakharias and his son John were filled with holy spirit. The Christians don’t believe them to be gods or god’s sons. Why is it so?

‘And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greetings of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the holy spirit.

(Luke 1:41)

John was filled with holy spirit; so also his father Zakharias and his mother Elizabeth. Is it fair and justifiable to forget and discriminate those who had been thus hereditarily filled with holy spirits?

John who was older than Jesus by six months and was his teacher too was never said to be their god by the Christians. Why?

“Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into wilderness to be tempted by the devil”

(Matthew 4:1)

Starting from this verse there are others too to say that the holy spirit had deserted Jesus and he was tempted by the devil.

“Then Jesus when he had been baptized, came up immediately from the water, and behold the heavens were opened to him and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him”

(Matthew 3:16)

According to this verse, Jesus was not filled with the holy spirit before he was baptized. But in the case of John, there was no such separation between him and the holy spirit.

Now who deserves to be the son of God?

Just see who are all the others filled with the holy spirit.

“For it is not you who speak, but the spirit of your Father who speaks in you”

(Matthew 10:20)

Are the disciples of Jesus who speak through the holy spirit in them, Gods?

Were Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus, and Peter who disbelieved Jesus, filled with holy spirit?

“And behold there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Suireou, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel and the holy spirit was upon him”

(Luke 2:25)

“And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the holy spirit who God has given to those who obey him”

(Acts 5:32)

“For he (Barnabas) was a good man full of the holy spirit and of faith”

(Acts 11:24)

“….. And they choose Stephan a man full of faith and the holy spirit and Philip, Prochorus, Nicavor, Tuinon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Artioch”

(Acts 6:5)

“That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the holy spirit who dwell in us”

(2 Timothy 1:14)

For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit”

(2 Peter 1:21)

The Bible refers to countless persons thus filled with holy spirit. What is then the Justification to consider Jesus alone among those filled with holy spirit, as a god?

What exactly is the meaning of “Being filled with holy spirit?” Does it denote Godhead? Never of course. Those who surrender themselves to God and consider them as his true slaves are the ones said to be filled with the holy spirit. This can be discerned form the verse Acts 5:32 referred to above.

When those other than Jesus filled with holy spirit are considered to be righteous people, how do the Christians believe Jesus alone as god? What exactly is the basis for such a belief? Will the Christian brethren please clarify?

Actually to be frank, even if others filled with the holy spirit were said to be gods, Jesus cannot be considered so. There is evidence to this effect in the Bible.

“God cannot be tempted by evil”

(James 1:13)

This verse emphatically asserts that God can not be tempted by evil. But the Bible says that Jesus had been tempted by the devil several times. (Refer Matthew 4:1-10)

Though Jesus was filled with holy spirit he had been tempted by the devil. Actually God cannot be tempted by devil. Therefore is there any justification, even a mere trace of it, in believing Jesus as God? Please do think over.

Keeping aside a while the reverence and regard that have been imbibed from childhood, if the Bible believed to be gospel, is delved into unbiasedly, the conclusion could not be but that Jesus is neither god nor the son of God and the Fact that he was a righteous man would decisively be established.

PART TWO

The Bible does specify separate distinctive qualities for God and man. Any one of the qualities attributed to God does not befit Jesus. On the other hand all those qualities attributed to man do most suitably befit Jesus. This will be established through the Bible in this part of the book,

1. To Be Seen Is Not An Attribute Of God:

‘No one has seen God at any time’

            (John 1:18)

God can never be seen by any body at any time, says the Bible.

Jesus had been seen by thousands of people.

Even after resurrection he had been seen by the same people. Since many people had seen Jesus before death and after resurrection, it is established beyond doubt that Jesus cannot be a god or the son of God.

2. No Blood Or Flesh For God:

God should not have blood, Flesh or bone and he should only be in the form of spirit. So says the Bible while describing the qualities of God.

“God is spirit”

(John 4:24)

Does Jesus fulfil this quality? ‘No’ says the Bible emphatically. Through out his life Jesus was not a spirit but existed with flesh, skin, and bone. Even when he was crucified he was in that form. A spirit cannot be crucified. Wherever Jesus was referred to, he was described to have been crucified shedding blood. Even after resurrection he continued to be in this form and shape.

And he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.

When he had said this he showed them his hands and his feet”

(Luke 24:38-40)

Even after resurrection Jesus had said that he was not a spirit but had flesh and bones. How can he then be believed to be a god?

3. Not Being Able To Assess A Man, Does Not Speak Of God:

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord”

(Proverbs 17:15)

It does not speak of God to justify the wicked and condemn the just. Such an act is not liked by God. The Bible says Jesus was not free from such a trait.

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, satan! You are an offence to me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men”.

(Matthew 16:23)

Peter was a disciple of Jesus. Jesus had judged him to be a satan, and one who is not mindful of the things of God but things of men. Jesus also declared that Peter would refute him three times. So say all the four gospels.

Just see the status of such a man described by Jesus himself as wicked is elevated by the very same Jesus.

“And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you lose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

(Matthew 16:19)

When there were nine other disciples who were certainly better than Peter, is it worthy of a god to give the keys of kingdom of heaven to Peter without properly adjudging him. From this also it could be inferred beyond doubt that Jesus was not a god.

4. Not To Be Perpetual Is Not A Trait Of God:

God is perpetual without a beginning and an end.

“But the Lord shall endure forever”

(Psalm 9:7)

It is true that Jesus was not existing before his birth even if his resurrection was believed to be true. Three days between his death and resurrection he was non existent. Therefore the perpetuity is broken and hence the inference that Jesus was not a god.

5. To Be Slain Is Not Possible In The Case Of God:

God can never be killed by anybody. The Bible says that any one who is killed cannot be a god.

“Will you still say before him who slays you, ‘I am a god?’ But you shall be a man and not a god, with the hand of him who slays you”

(Ezekiel 28:9)

  One who is slain cannot but be a man. He can never be a god. Jesus had been slain. So he is not but a man.

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree”.

(Acts 5:30)

When Jesus himself has very clearly shown that he is not a god as he was murdered, how can we say that he is a god.

6. No Affliction For God

No affliction can befall God. The Bible attributes to God the trait of delivering the human kind out of afflictions befalling them.

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the Lord delivers them out of them all”

(Psalm 34:19)

Contrary to this trait of God, Jesus had been afflicted many a times, and he had beseeched God to guard him against such afflictions.

“Now my soul is troubled and what shall I say? “Father, save me from this hour.”

(John 12:27)

“He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

(Matthew 26:39)

“Then they spat on in His face and beat Him and others struck Him with the palms of their hands.

(Matthew 26:67)

“And when they had bound Him they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor”.

(Matthew 27:2)

“Then he released Barabbas to them, and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus in to the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him.”

(Matthew 27:26-27)

“When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him saying “Hail king of the Jews!” Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him of the head.

(Matthew 27:29-30)

Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.”

(Matthew 27:35)

“And about ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice saying “Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani? That is My God My God, why have you forsaken Me?”

(Matthew 27:46)

From all these, is it not made clear that Jesus was not a god? Should the Christians not believe what the Bible prescribes as the attributes of God?

7. God Will Not Err:

The Bible attributes to God the quality of doing always good and never err in anything.

“Oh give thanks to the lord, for his good.”

(1 Chronicles 16:34)

Jesus himself has disowned such a quality in him.

“So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is God”.

(Mark 10:18)

8. God Is Beyond Ignorance:

God should not be ignorant of anything. He should be in the know of everything. Even what is hidden in the mind of mankind, He should know. So says the Bible.

“For You, only You know the hearts of all the sons of men.”

(1 Kings 8:39)

Leave alone knowing the hearts of human kind. Jesus was not knowing even what was very apparent.

And Jesus said, “who touched Me?”

(Luke 8:45)

“Now in the morning as he returned to the city, He was hungry.

And seeing a fig tree by the road, he came to it and found nothing on it but leaves”

(Matthew 21:18-19)

Jesus was not able to know this before reaching the tree.

“So Jesus said to them “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the son of man sits on the throne of his glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

(Matthew 19:28)

At the time of saying this Jesus was not knowing that one among these twelve disciples of his will betray him.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father”.

(Mark 13:32)

Thus Jesus was not knowing many a things. If God is to save his devotees, it is essential that he should know everything. Is it logical to believe Jesus as God when he was not knowing who touched him? This is a food for thought.

9. God Never Sleeps:

“Behold, he who keeps Israel

Shall neither slumber nor sleep”:

(Psalm 121:4)

But Matthew says Jesus has slept.

“And suddenly a great tempest arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But he was asleep”.

(Matthew 8:24)

10. Can God Be A Sinner?

Jesus had prayed to God to save him from crucifixion,

(Please refer to Matthew 26:38-45, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:44)

Yet he was crucified.

“Now we know that God does not hear the sinners; But if anyone is a worshipper of God and does His will, he hears him”.

(John 9:31)

If the prayers of Jesus was not accepted by God what does it mean? Jesus had sinned; and he had not been good. This is what the above verse indicate.

11. Is God Addicted To Alcohol?

Drinking alcohol is vehemently condemned in the Bible. All the sins follow drinking liquor, says the Bible.

(Refer to Proverbs 23:29-35)

“The son of man came eating and drinking and they say “Look, a gluttonous man and a wine bibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.

(Matthew 11:19)

The Bible thus introduces Jesus as an addict to drinking. Leave alone believing Jesus as a God. As he was addicted to drinking which the, Bible condemns, can he be taken to be a righteous man as per the Bible teachings?

12. God Is Beyond Sins:

“So is he who goes in to his neighbour’s wife; whoever touches her shall not be innocent”

(Proverbs 6:29)

The Bible says that when a woman committed adultery, Jesus said “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first”.

(John 8:3-11)

No body in that community was free from adultery. Even the disciples of Jesus were no exemption. This verse though indirectly does point a finger at Jesus even. (Of course the author does not believe this)

Is this the criterion to be the son of God? If Jesus had not committed adultery he could atleast have inflicted the punishment as per the ordainment.

13. Can God Be Short-Tempered?

The Bible says “He who is slow to wrath has got great understanding, but he who is impulsive exalts folly”.

(Proverbs 14:29)

Jesus has violated this teaching of Bible on several occasions.

“Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things”.

                                                                                                                        (Matthews 12:34)

“Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come”.

(Luke 3:7)

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign”.

(Matthew 12:39)

Same words appear in Matthew 16:4 too.

But He answered and said “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs”.

(Matthew 15:26)

“Serpents! Brood of vipers, How can you escape the condemnation of the hell?”

(Fether 24:33)

Jesus had uttered such unfair words and had obviously been impulsive. How can he be then spoken of as a God.

14. Can God Have A Bad Pedigree?

“One of the illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord”

(Deuteronomy 23:2)

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord”

                                                                                    (Deuteronomy 23:3)

The Bible which very emphatically states that illegitimate child shall not be close to God, describes Jesus as a descendent of an adulteress.

“Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar”.

(Matthew 1:3)

Thus Tamar finds a place in the ancestor’s list of Jesus. She born a child to her father-in-law by illegitimate union, the Bible says. Her son Perez who was the illegitimate child finds a place in this list. The verses Genesis 38:13 to 29, describe the conduct of this family.

Further the same list says “David the King begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah”

(Matthew 1:6)

The list of heredity of Jesus continues from Solomon who was begotten by king David through his union with the wife of another man, as per the Bible,

‘Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab’

(Matthew 1:5)

Who is this Rahab found in the list of Jesus’s heredity?

‘So they went and came to the house of a harlot named Rahab and lodged there”.

(Joshua 2:1)

Jesus was a descendent of this harlot Rahab.

Boaz begot Obed by Ruth”

(Matthew 1:5)

Who is this Ruth, appearing in the same list.

The verses Ruth 1:4 and 4:10 describe Ruth as a harlot. Will God select his son from a family possessed of a quality which according to him should not enter his congregation. Considering the pedigree, the conduct and other weaknesses of Jesus, we cannot but come to a conclusion that he can not be a god. Even after such clarification if the Christians persist that Jesus is a God, then it tantamount to say that they disbelieve in all the verses of the Bible we cited above.

15. Thirst And Hunger Of God!

Jesus had approached people for food saying that he was hungry.

He said to them “have you any food here?”

So they gave him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate it in their presence”.

(Luke 24:41,42,43)

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished that the scripture might be fulfilled, said,

“I thirst”

(John 19:28)

16. God Fear Not!

God is beyond fear, he need not fear any body. But Jesus had fear. He asked peter to pay the tax for him.

“And when they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

He said “Yes”. And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him saying “What do you think, simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their own sons or from strangers?”

Peter said to him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free”.

“Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth you will find a piece of money, take that and give it to them for Me and you”.

(Matthew 17:24 to 27)

When Jesus came to know that he would be caught up by the Jews, Jesus was afraid and sad.

“And he said to His disciples, “Sit here while I pray” And he took Peter, James and John with him and he began to be troubled and deeply distressed. Then he said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful even to death. Stay here and watch”

(Mark 14:32 to 34)

“Then they took up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid himself”.

(John 8:59)

“Therefore they sought again to seize him but he escaped out of their hand”

(John 10:39)

From the above verses it could easily be discerned that Jesus was a man and not a god.

17. God Never Becomes Weary:

Jesus had become weary and complained of restlessness.

And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the son of Man has nowhere to lay his head”

(Matthew 8:20)

18. Does God Have Gradual Growth?

“And she brought forth her first born son”

(Luke 2:7)

“And when eight days were completed for the circumcision”

(Luke 2:21)

“And the child grew”

(Luke 2:40)

“And when he was twelve years old”.

(Luke 2:42)

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men”

(Luke 2:52)

All the qualities and weaknesses a common man normally possesses had been possessed by Jesus. Do these verses of the Bible not point out that Jesus had been given to weakness as an ordinary common man.

The weaknesses that should not be found in God, but found in Jesus, are:

19. Jesus Had Been Sorrowful And Distressed.

(John 13:33 to 35, Matthew 26:38)

20. Jesus Was Thirsty.

(19:28)

21. Jesus Ate Food

(Luke 24:42)

            22. Jesus Was Afraid Of Mark.

(Mark 14:33)

            23. Jesus Was Sorrowful

(Mark 14:34)

            24. Jesus Was Tempted By Devil

(Matthew 4:1)

25. Jesus had deserted his teacher. When he came to know that his teacher John   who baptised had been kept under custody, Jesus did not take any effort to release him.

(Matthew 4:12)

26. Jesus Became Weary.

(Matthew 8:20)

27. Jesus Had Drunk Liquor.

(Matthew 11:19)

28. He was defecating.

(Matthew 15:17)

29. Jesus had fear, Fearing the wicked king he had paid the taxes.

(Matthew 17:27)

30. Jesus had scolded badly many a people.

(Matthew 23:33)

31. He had been circumcised.

(Luke 2:21)

32. He had been nursed with his mother’s breast.

(Luke 11:27)

33. He had laboured.

(Mark 6:3)

34. He grew as a man.

(Luke 2:40,42,52)

35. He had reported to have sinned.

(Matthew 3:13)

36. He had washed the feet of others.

(John 13:5)

            37. He had hid himself.

(John 8:59,10:39,11:54)

            38. He had liked fragrant oil.

(Matthew 26:10,11,12)

            39. He had been tortured; he was spat on the face, and he was knocked on the head.

(Matthew 26:67)

            40. He was scourged.

(Matthew 27:26)

            41. He was worn a crown of thorns on his head.

(Matthew 27:29)

            42. He was stripped naked.

(Matthew 27:35)

            43. He had cried out of pain.

(Matthew 27:46)

So, it is clear from these that Jesus did possess weaknesses commonly possessed by ordinary men.

Christians should actually not believe such a man with several weaknesses as a God. Is it wise to beseech for salvation of a man who could not save himself? Will God select such a weak man, as his son? If Jesus had really been the son of God would have he had such weaknesses?

The whole mankind will have to return to the God who created humans and Jesus, and to whom Jesus prayed and beseeched. For God alone is free or such weakness.

_________________________

PART THREE

Whether it is belief and trust in Jesus or the religious laws of Christianity they are all to be derived from the teachings of the Bible. Which the Christians believe to be the Gospel. All other beliefs and practices contrary to the teachings of the Bible are naturally to be summarily rejected.

Finally certain teachings which emphasise the truth of God being one and only one are brought forth. They are of course from the Bible.

All the evidences Christians rely on to establish that Jesus is god or son of God have been shown to be incorrect through the Bible itself.

Who is God? Has God bequeathed his sovereignty or authority to anybody? These questions are being answered in this part of the book. If it is carefully studied, it could be discerned beyond doubt that Jesus or anybody for that matter could neither be God nor son of God.

“Therefore know this day and consider it in your heart that the Lord himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other”

(Deuteronomy 4:39)

“Hear, o Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might and these words which I command today shall be in your heart;

You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up”.

(Deuteronomy 6:4 to 7)

If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them.

You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

You shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him”.

(Deuteronomy 13:1-4)

“And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.

But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul”.

(Deuteronomy 4:28,29)

These are the teachings about the unity of God found in Deuteronomy, the Christians believe to have been revealed to prophet Moses. If all these are rejected by the Christians what else are we to infer than to conclude that they don’t believe in the Bible? What is the answer they have if they are questioned in the Hereafter as to why they rejected these teachings? It is better be thought over.

“Thus says the Lord, the king of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of the hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God”

(Isaiah 44:6)

“Before Me there was no God formed, shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is no Saviour. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed and there was no foreign God among you”.

(Isaiah 43:10-12)

“For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord and there is no other”.

(Isaiah 45:18)

“They have no knowledge, who carry the wood of their carved image, and pray to a god that cannot save.

“Tell and bring forth your case; yes let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord. And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a saviour, there is none besides Me.

Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath”.

(Isaiah 45:20-23)

“Those who make a graven image, all of them are useless, and their precious things shall not profit; they are their own witnesses; they neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed.

Who would form a God or cast a graven image that profits him nothing?

Surely all his companions would be ashamed; and the workmen, they are mere men”.

(Isaiah 44:9-11)

“I am the Lord, and there is no other, there is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me.

That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other”.

(Isaiah 45:5,6)

“Remember the former things of old for I am God and there is no other, I am God and there is none like Me.

Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things that are not yet done”.

(Isaiah 46:9,10)

All the above are what God said to the Prophet Isaiah.

Those who have carved images of the Cross Jesus and his mother and worship them all as gods, do reject these teaching of the Bible. How do they deserve to be called Christians? They have brushed aside the Bible and have accepted Trinity taught by their priests. Should they not be ashamed?

If the Christians do believe in the Bible there is no other way out for them than to turn towards monotheism which the Bible insists upon and embrace Islam which very emphatically preach it.

Let this doctrine professed in Deuteronomy and Isaiah be pondered over again and again.

There is only one God in the Heaven and the Earth. There is none like Him. This is to be remembered always at all stages and situations. Don’t be carried away by wonders and don’t take anybody as God. The statue of Jesus and the cross that the Christians worship are incapable of seeing or eating and smelling. There is no God before or after Him. He is the Saviour of all. You should kneel before Him only and none else. All these statements are very clear injunctions. Do they not shatter the Trinity which states about God, ‘son and Holy spirit’?

Should the Christians not ponder over all these and turn to the true path?

The Trinity invented by the Christian clergy is wholly wrong. Let me quote some of the verses from the Bible to show that there is absolutely no connection between Trinity and the Bible.

“Do not turn to idols, nor make for yourself moulded gods: I am the Lord your God”.

(Leviticus 19:4)

“You shall not make idol for yourselves neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for yourselves; nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God:”

(Leviticus 26:1)

These are the verses in Leviticus, the Christians believe to have been revealed to prophet Moses. These show unambiguously that the notion of the Christians about God is wrong.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself any carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God”.

(Exodus 20:2,5)

“You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works: But you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.

So you shall serve the Lord your God”

(Exodus 23:24,25)

The Christians who worship the statues should realise that their actions are against the God who ordains them to break down the images. It is high time that they ponder over.

There are more evidences in the various versions emphasising monotheism.

“For the customs of the people are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammer so that it will not topple.

They are upright like a palm tree and they cannot speak; they must be carried; because they cannot go by themselves.

Don’t be afraid of them for they cannot do evil nor can they do any good.

Inasmuch as there is none like You O Lord”.

(Jeremiah 10:3 to 6)

“Among the gods there is none like you, O Lord, nor are there any works like your works”

(Psalm 86:8)

“You alone are God”

(Psalm 86:10)

“For who in the heavens can be compared to the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened to the Lord?”

(Psalm 89:6,7)

“Who is like the Lord our God

Who dwells on high”.

(Psalm 113:5)

“Lord God of Israel, there is no God in heaven above or on earth below like you”

(1 Kings 8:23)

These are some of the verses in the old testament. In the beginning the practice was to worship the Lord, the only God. The fact that the Cross, Jesus and Mary are all deities innovated by men, can be discerned from these verses.

Any Christian who firmly believe in the day of judgement with the Lord as the Supreme will never fall a prey to the doctrine of Trinity.

Let us see now the monotheistic professions in the new testament.

“Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, satan! For it is written “you shall worship the lord your God and him only you shall serve”.

(Matthew 4:10)

It is inferred from these words of Jesus that those who worship those other than the God are all satans.

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”.

(Matthew 6:24)

While Jesus himself has said that no one can serve two masters, how do the Christians dare to serve two or three gods?

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day ‘Lord, Lord’, have you not prophesied in your name, cast down demons in your name and done many wonders in your name?

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.

Therefore whoever hear these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and did it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Now everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:

and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it fell. And great was its fall”.

(Matthew 7:21 to 27)

The Christians are to look into these teachings of Jesus which could be easily understood even by a stupid man. Do they not realize that they will not to be able to enter into the heaven by worshiping Jesus. Those who elevate Jesus to the position of God by claiming that he has made the blind to see, and the deaf to hear, have been warned by Jesus himself in advance that they are monsters and deceivers.

Worship the Lord, your God the only God and be secure as one who built the house on a rock. Don’t be stupid to worship Jesus and he insecure and fall into the abyss like the one who built his house on the sand.

The Christians should now realize that it was their parents and the priests who have led them into the wrong path by fallacious preaching about Jesus. Let them comprehend.

Jesus had admonished them about the priests. If the Christians understand this admonition they will keep away from such blind worshipping.

There are some other verses in the new testament which state that these priests are undoubtedly not trustworthy.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves”.

(Matthew 23:15)

Does this verse not appear to the Christians as a warning about those who conduct meetings of good tidings?

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; For you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in”.

(Matthew 23:13)

Even after Jesus had told that there is no place in heaven for those who call him the Lord, these priests consider Jesus as god. Just reflect whether or not they are closing the doors of heaven.

“But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.

They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues.

Greetings in the market places and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’.

But you don’t be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, the Christ and you are all brethren.

Don’t call any one on earth your Father; for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

And don’t be called teachers; for one is your teacher the Christ”.

(Matthew 23:5 to 10)

Though Jesus has prohibited anybody being called father, the priests have created a situation wherein they are addressed as fathers. Are the Christians trusting such people?

Jesus has ordained no to wear long cassocks and aspire for special reverence, but the priests have blatantly violated this, and the Christians are trusting such priests. What proof other than this do they require to know that the priests have shown them a path opposed to the very teachings of Jesus?

Let the Christians brush aside the guidance of these priests and turn towards the teachings of Jesus. Let us see what more Jesus has said.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

(Matthew 24:36)

Does this saying of Jesus not induce you to worship the Lord, the only God?

“Then are of them, a lawyer asked him a question, testing him, saying ‘Teacher which is the great commandment in the law?’

Jesus said to him, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.

This is the first and great commandment”.

(Matthew 22:35 to 37)

Does this great commandment, have any effect on the Christians today? Having abandoned this first and great commandment, what is the basis on which they call themselves Christians?

“Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to him with her sons, Kneeling down asking something from him. And He said to her, “what do you wish?” She said to him, ‘grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on your right hand and the other on the left, in your kingdom.

But Jesus said, ‘you don’t know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They said to him ‘we are able’.

So He said to them ‘you will indeed drink my cup and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with but to sit on My right hand and on My left hand is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father”.

(Matthew 20:20 to 23)

Jesus came to teach his people to worship the only God. He did not come to argue that he was a god. That it was Jesus’s aim to teach that all sovereignty rests with the Lord, the only God, is amply revealed from this verse.

Where do the Christians stand even with such clear indications?

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice saying “Eli, Eli lama sabachthani?, that is ‘My god, My god why have you forsaken me?

(Matthew 27:46)

Even at the time of death (?) if Jesus has called on God, what does it mean? Jesus cannot save his own self by himself and to save is God’s unique potency. This is clearly shown.

So far we have been analysing the teachings of Jesus as found in the gospel of Matthew. In the other gospels too Jesus is said to have preached such doctrines only. Let us see them also.

When Jesus was asked which was the first of all commandments, he answered that the Lord should be loved with all our heart, soul and mind. This was stated in the verses (Mark 12:29,30)

The verse Mark 15:34 gives the words uttered by Jesus at the time of death. They were ‘O My god, why have you forsaken me?’

The fact that the day and the hour could not be known by anybody other than the God is mentioned in the verse (Mark 13:32)

“He who sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him”.

(John 8:26)

“..... that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things”.

(John 8:28)

“And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I don’t judge him”

(John 12:47)

These are all facts mentioned in the four gospels of the new testament. It is well known that it was Paul who invented the doctrine of Trinity which is totally alien to these fats. He himself unknowingly accepted this truth.

He who is blessed and only potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords.

“Who alone has immortality dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see to whom be honour and everlasting power, Amen”.

(1 Timothy 6:15,16)

No proof other than this is required to establish that Jesus is neither god nor son of God. Those who have real faith in the Bible can never believe the doctrine of ‘son of God’. It is possible only when the Bible is discarded.

Let me ask the Christians whether they are prepared, to brush aside the Bible, the commandments of the Lord and the teachings of Jesus to believe in the doctrine of Trinity, or to abandon the latter, to abide by the words of God and sayings of Jesus.

Jesus never said that he possesses Godhead nor claimed to be the son of God. On the other hand, he was a very righteous man fearing God and was a prophet of God preaching to the people the message of God. These were amply proved above by citing examples from the Bible itself.

_____________________________

PART FOUR

Dear Christians brethren! Monotheism preached by Jesus has been totally abandoned because of the misleading preachings of your religious priests. And Jesus also has been so neglected as to make it appear that there is absolutely no relationship between Christianity and the Christ. You could have come to know this fact from what has been said so far in this book.

If so, where are we to look for the teachings of Jesus and how are we to follow them?

It is absolutely impossible to find in any of the various denominations in Christianity, to find monotheism preached and taught by Jesus.

“Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani, Oh My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me”, These are words uttered by Jesus, the Bible says. This is very firmly believed and accepted. Jesus has, through these words, very clearly indicated that he was not God, and that he could not save him by himself and that everything would take place as per the will of the Creator.

This doctrine so emphatically revealed by Jesus even as he was breathing his last, has been totally abandoned by you. If you really and honestly wish to follow the monotheism Jesus held so devotedly, sincerely and firmly, the only possible way for you, is to embrace Islam.

It is true that the scripture of Islam, the noble Qur’an teaches the doctrine of Jesus very clearly. The Qur’an wipes out the blasphemy the Jews perpetrated on Jesus and his mother Mary.

The Qur’an while denying unequivocally the Godhead for Jesus, does speak out authentically his merits.

Just like Prophet Mohammed who was sent to convey the message of God to the people, Jesus also was a prophet, the Qur’an explains. Christian brethren! Some of the Qur’anic verses are presented here to induce you to think over.

“(They have incurred divine Displeasure) in that they broke their covenant; That they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messenger in defiance of right; that they said “our hearts are the wrappings;” Nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy and little is it they believe:

That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast) “we killed Christ Jesus, The son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”. But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that was shown to them.

(Al Qur’an 4:155-157)

The Qur’an by declaring the charges Jews made against Mary, the mother of Jesus, as false and asserting that Jesus was not crucified but was raised by Allah, has rightly exalted both of them very deservedly.

“Behold! The angels said: O Mary! Allah giveth the Glad tidings of a word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.

She said ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me? He said: “Even so; Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed A matter, He but saith to it ‘Be’ and it is!

(Al Qur’an 3:45-47)

Islam agrees with the Bible’s statement that Jesus was born of God’s words. But at the same time it also very emphatically declares that Jesus is neither a God nor the son of God by sheer virtue of his birth.

“O people of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His word which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messenger’s Say not “Three”: desist : It will be better for you: For Allah is one God: Glory be to Him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah; nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah), Those who disdain His worship and are arrogant, He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).

But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, he will give their (due) rewards and more out of His bounty; but those who are disdainful and arrogant he will punish with a grievous chastisement: Nor will they find Besides Allah, any to protect or help them.

(Al Qur’an 4:171-173)

These words exalts Jesus as a very righteous man and at the same time spell out that he had no Godhead.

“At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said “O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought!

“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste! But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle, He said, “I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet.

And He hath made me blessed where so ever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Zakat as long as I live.

(He hath made me) kind to my mother and not overbearing or unblest.

So peace is on me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again).

Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary. (It is) a statement of truth about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that he should beget a son. Glory be to him when he determines a matter He only says to it ‘Be’ and it is.

(Al Qur’an 19:27 to 35)

‘They disbelieve who say: Allah is one of three (In a Trinity:) for there is no god except one God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy) verily a grievous chastisement will befall the disbelievers among them.

Why turn they not to Allah and seek his forgiveness?

For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; Many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.

See how Allah doth make his signs clear to them. Yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth.

(Al Qur’an 5:73-75)

The Qur’an states the various merits graciously granted by Allah to Jesus, and also very categorically denies Godhead for Jesus though blessed he was. These few verses from the Qur’an are evidences to show that it is the Qur’an which affirms the truth which Jesus had been reported by the Bible to have propagated and which the Christian world has washed its hands off.

Though exalted were Jesus and various other prophets before him they cannot be elevated from manhood to Godhead, the Qur’an maintains till today. This is the doctrine Jesus was preaching.

They disbelieved indeed those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary says “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, his mother and all-everyone that is on the earth?

(Al Qur’an 5:17)

This does not mean that God will destroy Jesus and his mother. On the other hand what it denotes is that whether it is Jesus, or the prophets who came before him or Prophet Mohammed who came after him, they were all slaves of God and that they could not by themselves carry out any of God’s affairs. If God wills to destroy all of them together, nobody has the authority to prevent or question it; they have no power too.

The doctrine of Jesus and his propagation are fully, without any addition, deletion or multiplication described here in the Qur’an.

Dear Christian brethren! You are having implicit faith in Jesus being the savior in the world hereafter when you are to face the Creator. The Bible says ‘Not everyone who says to Me “Lord, Lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven. But he who does the will of my Father in heaven’. This was cited in this book earlier. The very same truth is stated very clearly in the Qur’an.

And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah’? he will say Glory to thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Never said I to them aught except what thou didst command me to say, to wit, ‘Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord’: and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them. When Thou didst take me up Thou wast the watcher over them and Thou art a witness to all things”.

(Al Qur’an 5:114,117)

Dear Christian brethren! If you wish to enter into paradise…..

Accept Jesus as a righteous man and a prophet of God and nothing more or less. Don’t say that he is a God or the son of God.

Embrace the pure Islam which had for the past fourteen centuries upheld the teachings of Jesus and be successful in this world and in the hereafter.

By embracing Islam you will not be forgetting or disdaining Jesus. On the other hand you would be duly vpracticing his teachings in its pristine state. Let the Lord bless you with success in the Hereafter!

Aameen.

Download this Book in PDF

05.09.2010. 02:31
PROPHET MUHAMMAD THE MAN SUPREME
நூலின் பெயர் : PROPHET MUHAMMAD THE MAN SUPREME

ஆசிரியர் : பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

பக்கங்கள் : 168

விலை : 45.00
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 16.07.2009. 21:13
Does Islam snatch the Rights of Women?
Does Islam snatch the Rights of Women?

Moulavi P.Zainul Abideen Ulavi

English Translator : A.Raja Mohamed

Download as PDF

Introduction

Does Islam snatch the Rights of Women?
“இஸ்லாம் பெணகளின் உரமையைப் பறிக்கிறதா?”
In this book, all the accusations concerning the woman are answered in detail.
Moreover, a question is put forth “why did Prophet Mohamed alone marry more woman than other men?” To answer this, a separate book is published. It was
titled “நபிகளார பலபெணகளைத் திருமணம் செய்ததேன்?”(why did Prophet Mohamed marry more woman?) Accusations such as Jizyah, war against non-Muslims, worshipping Kaaba, worshipping direction, and Muslims are intolerant are answered in the book titled “குற்றச்சாடடுகளும் பதில்களும்”(Accusations and Answers).
The book “அரத்தமுள்ள கேள்விகளும் அறிவுப்பூரவமான பதில்களும்”(Meaningful Questions and wise Answers) answers the logical questions raised by Non-Muslims. Those, who read all these 4 books will get answers concerning all accusations alleged against Islam.
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 14.09.2011. 00:14
Accusations and Answers
இந்த ஆங்கில மொழிபெயர்ப்பில் ஏதேனும் திருத்தங்கள் இருப்பின் பின் வரும் மின்னஞ்சலில் தெரியப்படுத்துங்கள்: correction@onlinepj.com

Download as PDF

Publisher’s Note
We have published 3 books to answer the accusation against Islam.

The first book “Does Islam snatch away the Rights of Women?” has explained the answers of accusations against woman in Islam. In this book Talak (divorce), Hijab ( Burqa, covering the body of the lady in decent way) a dress to protect the woman’s body and dignity, Multi marriages (Polygamy)and the Law of Inheritance (share of wealth in partition) are all discussed. Jizyah is the tax levied on Non-Muslims in a Muslim Kingdom, the Muslims paid Zakat, as tax to the government. This book has been delivered in many publications, which shows that it has impact on the society.

To fight with the Kafirs, worshiping Kaaba Mosque and worshiping directions are the other accusations answered in the book “Accusations and Answers”.

The Prophet married eleven times and it is accused by others. In the book “Why did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) marry many women?” it is explained elaborately.

In the book “Intelligent questions and wise answers” elucidate the answers logically for Non-Muslims. If anyone read all the four books get relevant answers for all accusations. In this seventh edition of the “Accusations and Answers” we have rearranged and added many explanations to answer all possible accusations on Islam.

I believe this book will be clear all the doubts arising out of these accusations. I pray Allah to strength our explanations and our belief not to be shattered.                                                          -Nabila Publications

Contents

1.    Islam is against permanent Birth Control.

2.    Islam does not disgrace other’s Mother Tongue.

3.    Islam does not torture animals and birds.

4.    Islamic Punishments are severe to control Crimes.

5.    Islam is pure from Caste Divisions.

6.    No religions are equal to each other.

7.    The virtues of Islamic Wars.

8.    Islam never orders to kill as they are Non-Muslims.

9.    Islam doesn’t blame but identify Non-Muslims as Kafirs.

10.          Jizyah, the tax on Non-Muslims is impartial.

11.          Muslims never worship any Direction.

12.          Holy Pilgrimage Hajj confirms Human Brotherhood.

13.          Muslims never worship Black stone (Hajarul Aswad).

14.          Prophet Mohamed never led his life through his

     Priesthood.

1. Islam is against permanent Birth Control.

Due to excessive population India suffers from poverty. In this situation Islam opposes family planning. While the other religious people follow family planning, Muslim only opposes family planning and increases their population. It is an obstacle for the economic growth of India. This is one of the accusations charged by Non-Muslims on Muslims.

We have to analyze this accusation in many ways.

Scarcity not due to Population Growth

Let us scrutinize the accusation that “Is the population growth a cause for food scarcity, dwelling, and poverty”. Poverty and scarcity was prevalent in the past even when there was less population. If we reduce the population of world, from 50 Billion to 50 Million then also there will be people starving for food.

Scarcity due to wrong distribution

Food production was made in excess while there was less population and also when the population growth raises excessively. Now there are 50 billion people are in the world, but we produce food items for 100 billion people. Some do not get now also. It is because food stuff is stagnant in some place only. Moreover, proper method to distribute it is not maintained, due to wrong distribution system. When poor countries are struggling to get food, rich countries throw the food stuff in the sea.

In the down trodden countries, while the poor is suffering to get a day’s meal, arrogant affluent countries waste the food stuff and their economy extravagantly. This is the real reason for the scarcity of food for the poor.

In India there are 1 Billion live. 50 Million have the wealth of 2 Billion people. If 1 Billion people were decreased to be 100 Million people, the poverty and scarcity will not be eradicated. Even then 10 Million people will be starving. .5 Million will have the food stuff of 200 Million people and then also there will be poverty and scarcity. Even if, the world population was 100 only, then also 10 persons will be starving.   Therefore, we cannot justify family planning is the solution to avoid scarcity and poverty.

Unused abundant Resources

In the world, not even 5% of the land is utilized for inhabitants by human race. We have 95% of land excess for our living. The other scarcities of things are also lie in the same ratio. So, the population reduction will eradicate poverty and hunger, is a false argument.

If the population increased, the world will gain more benefits. It happened in the past. It will happen in the future also.

Benefits of Population Growth

If the man faces problems and gets pressure, he uses his brain to solve it. Man is created to manage any kind of problem by his knowledge. When the population is less, he took six months for harvest. Now he has the crop for harvesting in three months.

The Growth of Science on par with Population increase

If the population increases steeply, he will find the crop to sow in the morning and reap it in the evening. Then the food stuff will heap in excess also. When the population was less he used rain water, well water and river water to drink. Now he drinks bore water and convert sea water into drinking water. These are all the benefits of man attained out population increase.

In the past, we waited 20 days to get a chicken from an egg and six month to get a chicken. Now if we have an egg, we can get a chicken in the evening. We have chicken to lay egg daily. In the past, the cow milked one liter. Now we have the cow for milking 100 liters. Thus we have giant production of cow, goat, fish, poultry and plants. The size of the genre also increases enormously.

The change of hut as a stair houses, mini lamp as electric tubes, carts as bus and plane. More the population from hand made to machine made is all the benefits of population growth.

The research of planets and travel to them are all due to population growth.

In our day to day example, we can say, two generation before we cannot buy a large quantity of food at a time in the market. But now we can buy any quantity if we have the fund. From this, we can understand the population growth does not create the scarcity. Some cannot get food due to the wrong distribution.

We have to think this problem in another angle also.

Man is created to find solutions

When the God create man he does not give him a mere stomach only but with solution providing brain also. If we dissuade 1000 children from birth, one among those may be a scientist capable of eradicating 50 thousand people’s poverty. Curtailing such a people from his birth will be the loss to mankind.

The Government is for the people

If somebody wants to plan the family with minimum members, Islam allows them with certain conditions. The Government does not have any right to force the people to get family planning. Family Planning is a euphemism for birth control. The stand of Islam is that the Government is for the people and not the contrary.

Permanent Birth control is a sin in Islam

Men can use condom to avoid conception. Using contraceptive bills that bring side effects, placing T-shaped plastic device that is wrapped in copper in the vagina and getting vasectomy operation to prevent flow of the sperm in the semen and other permanently removing the possibility of conception will be opposed vehemently by Islam. Removing permanently the God given boon is destroying the futurity. Islam considers it as a sin.

The danger of Permanent Birth control

For example when a couple has two children, permanently remove their boon of delivering the child and if the children died by accept how can they generate another child again. Thus Islam orders to approach each and every problem wisely.

Due the ill health of the mother and inability, if the couple planned to be few members, Islam will not find fault with them. But if it is a beneficial planning as it is propagated then Islam will not oppose it. At the same time, Muslims, ignoring Family Planning, are increasing their population is an illogical argument.

Family Planning is useless

Islam does not preach that the Family Planning is useless to Muslims only but to the entire mankind. Even Non-Muslims accept the stand of Islam and increase their population; Islam will not lay any barrier on it. As Non-Muslims become the victims on believing this wrong propaganda, Muslims also should be the prey for it, will not be a justifiable argument. On the contrary, as Muslims do not be the victims on believing this wrong propaganda, Non-Muslims also should not be the prey for it, is the wise action.

The neutral stand of Islam

It is not the plan of Muslims to become the majority in India. None can accuse it if they understand that even in the countries where Muslims only living, it is the stand of Islam.

2. Islam does not disgrace other’s Mother Tongue.

Muslims’ preference for Arabic

Muslims are naming them in Arabic. They worship in Arabic language only. Their call of prayer is in Arabic only. It will be justifiable, if it is inside Arabian countries. Using Arabic only, in all other countries of the world including Tamil Nadu, seems that Muslims degrade other languages. It is most important accusation alleged by Non-Muslims against Islam.

Before we know why all these activities are in Arabic, it is very important to understand what the weightage of language in Islam is?

People of each and every language believe that their language is the best language in the world. As they speak a certain language they believe that they are the best society. Do the illiterates only believe so? Even the elites and the reformists believe so. Islam is against this belief.

No sentimental value to language in Islam

Islam has no sentimental value to the language. A language is medium of communication only. Except this, no sentimental value should be attached to it is the stand of Islam. All the languages are equally valuable. Any language is neither superior nor inferior to another language. Islam declares that the people who speak any language is neither superior nor inferior to another language speaking people.

Human relation to language is accidental

Nobody is born in Tamil Nadu with a plan to be born in Tamil Nadu and intended to speak Tamil. As our parents and the society imposed Tamil on us we speak Tamil. If we were born in other place we would have conveyed our thoughts in that language. Islam declares indubitably that there is nothing to be proud or to be shamed.

No supremacy for Arabic Language

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was born in Saudi Arabia. Those Arabians were worst fanatics about their language. They will call other speaker as azamies (dumb mouthed animals which make sound but do not speak any intelligible language.) But, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), who was born in that society, declared definitely in his Last oration, that native Arabians has no credit over any other language speakers. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is the only leader who declared that Arabic has no supremacy over any other languages though his mother tongue is Arabic.

God treats languages equally

Islam declares authentically that in the presence of God, no language has supremacy over the other. Muslims should believe that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is the messenger of God. But they should not believe that he is only messenger of God. They should believe that there have come so many messengers before him. As Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was in Arabian land, all the messengers were born in Arabian land only. No. It is not so. Innumerable messengers who came before Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) were declared the Message from God in their language only and the religious Message is also bestowed on them in their own language only.

“Allah sends a messenger with the same language of his folk, that he might make the message clear for them. Allah sends whom He will astray, and guides whom He will. He is the Mighty, and the Wise.” (Al Quran 14:4)

Before Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), Allah has sent us Tamil speaking messenger to Tamil society. Al Quran says to believe us that the messenger preached us in Tamil. But we do not know who was he? From this we can infer that there is no importance to a Language in the view of God.

Individual can demand requirements in Mother Tongue

A Muslim can demand his requirements in the language he has known. Islam allows that he can conduct his marriage rituals in his mother tongue.

Prayer call in Arabic is for uniformity

If no language is superior to another language, then why Adhan, the Islamic 5 times daily call of prayer is always in Arabic language? To call Tamil people for prayer in Tamil Nadu, why the call is not in Tamil? Let us see the answer for it.

Definitely, it is not that Arabic only is the divine language. Islam is the religion of the whole world. So the call should not be regional wise. It should be uniform everywhere. To maintain universal integrity it should be in one language only. As a universal order of preference, it goes to Arabic from where it is originated. That is the reason for Adhan to be in Arabic everywhere. Accusing it, as it is due to the supremacy of language, is not only illogical but also a sophistry of hatred.

The order of Islam is that no one use the words of Arabic giving the meaning for Allahu Akbar (the god is great). How Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) taught only should be uttered and to change words even as we like. From this it will clear that it is not arranged as Arabic is superior to other languages. If it is allowed to make a prayer call as they wish, then there will chaos only. The universal integrity will be shattered.

For example if an American Muslim is visiting Tamil Nadu, the Adhan is announced in Tamil. He hears such a sound for the first time in his life; he will not understand it as a prayer call. He can’t even understand that there is a mosque in that area.If the prayer call was uniform all over the world, different language people will clearly understand this. They will identify the mosque and execute the duty of prayer also.

Our National Anthem

Indian National song is in Bengal. It is not because that Bengal is the best language among the Indian languages. On the contrary, it is because the author of the song is the veteran poet. As his mother tongue was Bengali, he composed it in Bengali. The subject content of the song is excellent. So, it was accepted as the National Song.

We can also write better than this song. Yet we do change the National Song. We can accept one song only as National Song. If it is in any language, all other languages will be pushed back. Considering the national Integrity, we have all accepted the National Song in Bengali Language. All people of Tamil Nadu will not understand the meaning of this song. But when it was recited all will understand that our national song is sung.

Likewise, considering the universal integrity, the Islamic Adhan beginning with Allahu Akbar is pronounced as prayer call to all.

Surely, it is not because Arabic is the best language of the world. If the language of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was Tamil, it will be announce in Tamil.

Sacrifice for National Integrity

For the National Integrity, we have accepted to push back so many things. During the training in Police and military, the trainees say “Left, Right” and march fast. They do not say “valathu(tyJ), Idathu(nlJ) “ in Tamil. Nobody compel to say so also. In our nation where multi-lingual people living, all should understand the orders as it is we agree this. This does not mean English the better language than Tamil.

In the same announcing Adhan in Arabic also should be considered. Islam   denies indubitably the discriminations in the name of nation, language, race, caste and color. It also should be noted that Islam never say Arabic is superior to other languages.

No order in Islam to give name in Arabic

If Muslims do not give undue importance to Arabic and not degrade other languages, why the Muslims are naming them in Arabic and not in their mother tongue, is the other question raised by the Non-Muslims.

First of all, we have to understand what Islam says about it. Either in Al Quran or in the Hadees, the guidance of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) no order is stipulated that the Muslims should keep their names in Arabic only.

Names of Messengers that are not in Arabic

Al Quran has informed that before Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) God has sent so many messengers to the mankind. Ebrahim, Ismael, Moosa, Eisa, Ayyub, Zackiriya, Yahya, Yusuf, Yunus, Dawood, and Sulaiman are some of the messengers. Nothing of these names is Arabic. These names of the foreign languages were the names of the contemporaries of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) also named his son as Ebrahim, which is not an Arabic Name. Till today most of the Muslims are naming them after these messengers.

Muslims name in Mother Tongue all over the world.

Moreover, in many countries Muslims naming them in their mother tongue only. In Pakistan more than half of the Muslims name themselves in their mother tongue Urdu. Nawas and Benazir are some of the examples. Indonesian Muslims naming them in their mother tongue as Suharno, and Suharto. Iran Muslims name themselves in Persian Language. It is listed to prove that there is no prohibition in Islam to name them in their mother tongue.

Why Tamil Muslims name in Arabic?

If so, why nobody is naming in Tamil? Though there is no prohibition in the religion, the current situation in Tamil Nadu forces the Muslims to avoid Tamil names. For evading there are justifiable reasons also. The law of Islam is based on eradicating totally the caste discrimination. Indian Muslims all came from many castes and after two generations they forget all from where they came from.

Tamil names indicates caste

But in our country, the prevailing situation is that the people and their names are identified by their caste only. If any one after converting him as a Muslim keeps the same old name the people will recognize him as a Non-Muslim only. If anyone is informed his name, people are eager to know his caste. This is the danger of keeping accustomed Tamil Names. But on the other if a Muslim keeps an unaccustomed name nobody try to enquire for his caste.

For example if a man says his name is Ramasamy, the people will enquire about his caste. if a man says his name is Abdulla, the people will not enquire about his caste. That is why Muslims in Tamil Nadu avoid Tamil Nadu. This is neither to   impose supremacy to Arabic Language nor to degrade Tamil Language.

In Indonesia and Iran there are no caste organizations. So, they name them in their mother tongue. When the same situation prevails in Tamil Nadu, then Muslims in Tamil Nadu will name them in our mother tongue Tamil.

3. Islam does not torture animals and birds.

Islam allows killing animals for food. So, the activities of Islam are merciless on animals. This is also one of the important accusations alleged against Islam.

Killing animal for food is inevitable.

It is true that Islam allows killing animals for food. There is justifiable reason for it also. If it is understood none can blame Islam for it. Men should not kill animal for their food is a hypocritical argument. The men can’t live without killing the animals. Those, who preach to show mercy on animals, do not practice as the say. Water is an essential for mankind to live in the world. Without drinking water none can live. When we drink water, we drink with the millions of bacteria, the minute living beings that contained in that water. If we drink hot water that means, we drink the soup of the bacteria.

These bacteria also have life, movement, growth and generating like any other living being. Though we can’t see it with our bare eyes, we can see them through microscope. Those, who have staunch faith in not torturing the living being, if they are true to their belief, should evade even drinking water. Certainly they can’t. For, they can’t live without it. It is the ocular proof that mankind can’t be alive without killing any living being.

Living Beings are many kinds.

In the world there are so many kinds of living beings. Mankind is rational and moving living beings. Animals, Birds, creepers, insects, and sea animals are moving living beings without rationality. Trees, plants, bushes, sea plants are immovable living beings. We consider moving living beings only as living beings. The immovable living beings are also living beings. For, they also get many stages of growth and generate. There are male and female in it. Those, who have faith in not killing the living beings, they should not eat fruits, vegetable and leaves also. If they eat, then they are also killing living beings, as they are also the parts of the living beings.

Though men and animals are living beings, there is a lot of difference between them. In the same are difference between animals and vegetables. As there are differences between their lives, we can’t say that they have no life.

Killing animals for welfare of Mankind

Mosquitoes, cockroaches, lizards and Rats are killed using poisonous medicines as they are harmful to mankind. Those, who agree killing the above mentioned mischievous animals for the welfare of the mankind, when cow coat and bull are killed for food; they condemn it saying these animals tortured.

Benefits of Non-Vegetarian Food

Some essential proteins are available in the flesh of the animals. Scientists have proved this. Many times the doctors recommend Non-Vegetarian food. Those, who prohibit non-vegetarian food in guise of not torturing the animals, lose the essential proteins. Milking the animals and drinking it is accepted by those who is against torturing animals. If the flesh of the cow, bones, intestines and blood are non-vegetarian, the milk of the cow is also non-vegetarian only.

Animals are for the welfare of Mankind.

No food equal to mother’s milk, is the fact not only to the mankind, it is true to all mammals also. The cow secretes milk to its calf only. But the men are cheating the calf and drink it. Though it is an apparent torture to the calf, considering the benefit of the mankind it is accepted. Bullocks fastened to the plough and to the carts. Severe woks are extracted from those animals. Torturing the animals gradually is worse than killing it at a time. Yet we agree the torturing of those animals as it is for the benefit of the mankind. When it is allowed, why then killing of the animals for food should be denied?

Is their argument against torturing the animal or killing it? If it is merely against torturing, it means milking the cow and extracting hard works from the bullocks should be avoided. For welfare of the mankind, killing the mischievous animals such as snake, scorpion, rat, lizard, Mosquito and cockroach is accepted, it means that we approve positively that we can kill cow, coat and bullocks for food.

Non-Vegetarian Food controls price hike.

While the price hike of vegetables is inevitable on daily basis and all ignored non-vegetarian food, poor people can’t buy vegetables. It should be understood that as many people eat non-vegetarian food the vegetables are available in the market at affordable price.

Non-Vegetarian Food is inevitable in Polar Regions.

For the people, who live in Arctic and Antarctic poles, can’t get any food except fish. If it is preached to them not to eat non-vegetarian food they will die. For those who live on those severe cold regions non-vegetarian food alone can give required stamina to resist the chillness.

Mankind is created to accept all kinds of food.

Among the animals there are two kinds. One kind of animal lives on vegetation. Another kind of animal lives on eating the meat of other. Their teeth and intestine determine their food habit. To those animals which eat vegetables God has bestowed their teeth suitable to cut and grind to digest in its intestine. For the animals which eat meat God has created their teeth suitable to cut and grind the meat to digest in its intestine. But the man has created by God with the teeth and intestine to eat both vegetables and meat of the animals and digest them simultaneously.

A few Hindus only are Vegetarian.

Among the Hindus only a minority group speaks against eating meat. For their stand they can’t cite any proof from their religious books. Most of the Hindus eat meat without any hesitation.

Hindu Gods are Non-Vegetarian.

In the pages of Hindu Epics and legends depict incarnation of their God and Hindu Kings have hunted animals and ate them. In their ablations sacrificed bulls and horses.

Only vegetarian food is impracticable.

Even today more than Muslims, Hindus eat non-vegetarian Food. Among 5 billion Indians less than 30 million Hindus only avoid non-vegetarian food. From this it is clear that complete vegetarian is impracticable.

No compulsion for Non-Vegetarian Food in Islam

If anyone does not like non-vegetarian he can avoid it and Islam will not be a barrier to him. Non-vegetarian food is allowed in Islam it does not mean all Muslims should eat Non-vegetarian food compulsorily. So, Islam is a merciless religion is totally a wrong accusation.

4. Islamic Punishments are severe to control Crimes.

Often Islamic Criminal Laws are criticized by Non-Muslims. If a man is killed the murderer should be killed in the same way. If any one injured a part of a body, the same part of the culprit also should be injured in the same way. If anyone steal the culprit’s right hand wrist should be removed. If a married people engage in prostitution they should be murdered. These are the severe punishments prescribed in Islamic Criminal Law.

Non-Muslims, who do not like Islam, finds fault with Islamic Criminal Laws. They raise their objections against Islam as follows:

Alas! What a cruelty is it, to cut the forehand of a human for stealing, is highly barbaric? Is it not inhuman sentencing murder for prostitution? Are the cruel and inhuman criminal Laws appropriate when the mankind has risen to acme of civilization?

What is the purpose of the punishment?

They agree that the culprits should be punished as Islam says. But they differ in whether to bestow a severe punishment or a light punishment. Of the two kinds of punishments which is wise? Let us analyze.

If we understand the aim of the law that the culprit should be punished properly, we can come to a correct conclusion. By giving death sentence to murderers, we can’t bring back the life of the one who already killed. The death sentence bestowed on the rapist can’t retrieve the outraged modesty of the woman. In financial matters, the stolen materials sometimes may be recovered. In most of the crimes, when the criminals are punished, there won’t be any benefit to the victim. From this we can infer that the aim of punishment is not the recovery of the lost.

If so, why do we punish the culprit?

1. The punishment given to the culprit should prevent him to commit such crimes again and again.

2. On seeing the punishment given to the culprit, others should be terrified to commit such crimes.

3. The victim who was affected by the culprit should get contentment and feel that he is justified.

Other than these three reasons, the culprit is punished for no reason. None can deny this fact.

Criminals are given Nominal Justice.

The police stations, the courts and the prisons are established to threaten the people not to commit crimes, to punish the culprits, to provide justice to the affected. No government in the world has declared the culprits should not be punished.

Punishments lose its purpose

The governments which are giving so many punishments against the crimes, did they succeed in their aims of Punishment? Certainly, they are not. The criminal law of the nation around the world is similar. The punishment for a crime is not severe enough to punish one who is committing a crime and to dissuade one wish to commit a crime. Moreover, the facilities provided to the culprits persuade to commit crime and go to jail for enjoying such facilities freely. The elites should think about it.

Weak Laws of Punishment.

If an anti-social animal steal, or rape, or murder, or rob, or outrage the modesty of innocent women and undertake other crimes he will be arrested and put in prison and fed in our expense for some years. In most of the countries including India the punishment is this much only.

Government is more merciful to criminals than the poor.

In our country, the punishment of prison is better than our poor people’s living. The only difference is the prisoner can’t move outside freely. The people, who are honest and just have to suffer and struggle for their daily food, while the culprits are guaranteed for three times meals in our prison. High class medical care is provided. To pass their time happily, entertaining cinema shows are displayed inside jail. Moreover, Ismail commission is established to find out what are   facilities can be provided to have a contended life for the prisoners. Safety measures are undertaken to protect these culprits from the revenge of the victims who are affected by these criminals. The most indigestible fact is that these culprits are getting all these facilities from their victim’s tax payment.

Nominal punishments encourages Criminals

Through this kind of nominal punishment, culprits will not be corrected. The criminal, who is released, commit another crime and enter proudly to the jail as he goes to his father-in-law’s house. The criminal, who was arrested 53 times, is arrested for another crime again. This means that the jail life does not terrify him. He did not feel it as a punishment at all.

At the ring of the bell they get their food. Those, who are honest and just, have to struggle to get their daily food, when they know the facilities of the jail, are attracted towards jail committing crimes.

Every year crimes and culprits are increasing simultaneously. To provide them, public money is wasted. This is the consequences of the advocacy of elites for humanitarian laws. We have to take into consideration whether the victim, who is affected by atrocities of the criminal, will be contended of these punishments.

The Expectations of the Victims

If you enquired the man, who has lost his money by a thief, how do you want to punish the thief? He will never say to feed him for six month with the public money. If you enquired a son of the victim, who has lost his father by a murderer, how does he wish to punish the murderer? He will never say that the Government should feed him for 14 years with the public money. On the contrary, he will say take the murderer’s head off. The raped woman, when she is in her darkened future, what kind of punishment is given to the rapist will she be contented? Before giving any punishment to the culprit, evaluating the feelings of the victim, punishment should be prescribed.

Not standing on the position of the victim, laws are passed from unaffected place. So, the feelings of the affected are not taken into consideration. But, Islam considers the feelings of the affected also.

Misplaced authority emit undeserved mercy

The president of our nation is given authority to forgive the culprit on request. This provision itself shows that our law has no consideration for the victim. As the president has no blood relation to the victim, he can show undeserved mercy to culprit and will murder justice.

Islamic criminal law is impartial. If anyone is blinded the other, the culprit should be blinded by law. But at the same time, the victim forgive the culprit or getting compensation and forgive the culprit, the criminal can escape from punishment.

The Justice of Islamic Law

Likewise, when a man is murdered his close blood relations forgive the culprit and the culprit can escape from punishment. This is Islamic Law. What the world nations has bestowed authority to the president, Islam has vested the authority with victim’s blood relations. Those who honor justice will agree that Laws should be like this only.

If the justice did not satisfy the affected, the victim himself tries to revenge and become the culprit.

The outcome of denied Justice

When the murderer goes on bail, or when he goes to court from the jail the victims’ relatives kill the murderer is one of the happenings of daily news. What is reason for this happening? The law does not punish the culprit. Even it is punished, it will not be appropriate for the crime. So, the victims’ relatives kill the murderer to clear their account with him. It is the way of the world.

Denied justice is the main reason for the increasing of the crimes.

Criminal Law of Islam is just, wise and impartial

Now let us analyze how far the Criminal Law of Islam is meaningful, just and wise. The thieves either male or female should be removed their right forehand up to wrist. If such punishments are executed theft will be reduced. For, they will not steal again. Even if they try it, they can’t. They will not think of theft also. It is the benefit of the punishment. Those who think of stealing for the first time will be afraid of executing it when he knows the punishment of it. It is another benefit of the punishment.

Those who see the handless man, people can get alert to protect their belongings. “Are these people here?” the advertising posters of thieves are not so much useful as the people don’t remember their faces. But the hand cut is itself is the self-explanatory symbol that he is the thief. It is third benefit of the punishment. Now the purpose of giving punishment is fulfilled entirely. There won’t be any expenses for providing the culprit as in the nominal punishment for some years. No prison required, If Islamic Criminal Law is executed with the spirit. No scarcity provision allotment is required in our Budget.

Be merciful to the deserved

The elites cry “Alas! It is pitiable to cut a human hand” and declare that mercy is humanism. There is no objection that man should be merciful with his fellow beings. But, it is injustice that the so called elites misplace their mercy with the culprits. A thief pick pocket from a man who goes to buy medicine for his wife, who is in her death bed. By this mishap, the man not only loses his money but also the precious life of his wife. Who will provide justice to the victim? Islam provides.

The man who honors justice and honesty is affected and distressed. For him the so called elites will not pity. On the contrary they will pity for the culprit who affected the victim. What kind of humanism is it? What kind of mercy is it? Pawning their intellect and advocating the culprits are they elites? Shame! Shame!!The elites are merciful! Let them be fully merciful!! Let them declare no more punishment for any crime. Then the Government needs not to spend for police, court and prison. But they won’t say so.

Mercy to Criminal to safeguard themselves.

For, most of them are connected with scam and bribery. With the pre-planning, if they are caught in future they should also have nominal punishments only. With that intention they advocate for criminals and not to establish justice. They raise their objection wisely (?), if we cutting on hands for theft, so many people will remain handless. It is a foolish and illogical argument. If a thief is cutoff hand and it is displayed in TV and published in newspaper. Nobody will dare to steal. It will reduce crime instead of increasing it.

Islam is against Criminals

In Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia these kinds of crimes are less, as Islamic laws are enacted. All the criminal laws of Islam are impartial, Just and severe.

Pitiable plight of the people

All over the world so many governments had come and gone. There is no safety for the people’s life, asset, and chastity of women. The people have to pull on their days with fear.

Islamic Criminal Law alone can change the situation

To change this situation, no mercy should be shown to the culprit. The punishments should be severe and strict. As it is preached by Islam, with narrow mind, it should not be prohibited. It should be executed considering the better consequences of it. Even after the long elapse of time, some people have understood the benefit of Islamic Criminal Law. As raping is increasing, to control it, they recommend the punishments for the rapists should be as severe as Arabian countries. In so many women’s conferences also this concept is recommended.

To deny Islam don’t deny Justice

Each one of the government have understood that they have failed to control crimes. The nominal punishments bestowed on the criminals have no effect to correct them. Changing the nominal punishments and executing Islamic punishments, the elites can understand the benefits of it practically. Then they will not criticize Islamic Criminal Law.

Islamic judgments are not hasty-witted

Some people argue, if anyone’s hand is cutoff on suspicion that he may be a thief and later it was known that he was not the culprit, who can attach his hand again?

Islam does not order to execute punishments hastily. After the crime is proved indubitably Islam allows executing punishment.

Prostitution is considered as a prime crime in Islam. The death sentence is the punishment for prostitution. This crime should be proved by four direct eye witnesses. If less than four witnesses alleged this crime, plaintiffs should be whipped 80 stripes.

In Islamic regime, the culprits may escape unpunished due to the lack of proper witnesses. But the guiltless will never be punished.

5.Islam is pure from Caste Divisions.

It is propagated that Islam has eradicated caste. The caste, in which a man was before accepting Islam, will not follow him after he is converted to be Muslim. But the Non-Muslims find some other factions in Islam which they deem Caste Divisions as they see in other religions. For accusing like this they provide some proof as follows:

Shia, Sunni, Thakni, Lebbai, Rawuthar, Markkayar, Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali, Malikki and Ahl al-Hadith.

Urdu speaking Muslims do not have marital relationships with Tamil speaking Muslims.

No division in Islam is Caste Division

We don’t deny or can’t deny that in Islamic society these kinds of divisions are there. But we deny, keeping this as the proof, to accuse Islam has also caste Divisions. There are justifiable reasons for denying so.

The First Reason

In Islamic society such Divisions are there due to the Muslims’ ignorance and misunderstanding.

Islam is based on Al Quran, the Revelation of God and Hadees, the guidance of His messenger Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). In both of them we can’t find any such divisions.

“You are all belonging to a single society” (Al Quran 21:92)

O mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. The most honored of you in the sight of Allah is one who is the most righteous of you. Allah has full knowledge and he is well aware of all things. (Al Quran 49:13)

As for those who divided their religion and broke up into many sects,    (O Mohammed!) you don’t have least part in it. (Al Quran 6:159)

The above verses remind mankind that you were all born from same father and mother. So, Islam advices, you should not divide yourself. As Muslims do not remember the preaching, they are divided. But Islam does not allow them to be divided.

The Second Reason

The caste is the status comes by birth. A man belongs to a caste can never change into another caste. That is the grammar of the caste.

But, what are the divisions seems to be in Islam did not come by birth. Shia, Sunni, Shafi’i, Hanafi, Hanbali, Malikki and Ahl al-Hadith came into existence due to the difference of understanding Islam. For example any one born in Shia can change into any other above mentioned divisions of Islam without any objection of the religion. It is a matter of choice of an individual. Considering it on par with the caste is not applicable.

Some Muslim was in business in adjacent countries through boats. The boats are called ‘Marakkalm’ in Tamil. Those who used boats for their business were called ‘Marakkalayar’ and it transformed in the colloquial language as ‘Marakkayar’.

Some Muslims imported horses from Arab countries and trained them. Those horse trainers were called ‘Rawuthar’

Thus, Marakkayar and Rawuthar are the names of their professions.

Some Arabians immigrated to India and they are called Lebbai. If anybody calls us, we will reply ‘O’. But those Arabians will reply ‘Lebbaik’. So, they are called ‘Lebbai’.

Imams deny Madh’hab

Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Mālik ibn Anas are the 4 Imams (preachers) of Islam. They have written or on their name books are available. Those books depict Islamic Jurisprudence (Fikhs) as they understood from the preaching of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Our ignorant forefathers, who followed the individual preacher’s books, divided themselves as belong to a certain madh’hab (madh’hab=way) named after those Imam. Unlike our time, the friends of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), do not have live broadcasting. Those, who were around Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) only heard his preaching. They passed it to next generation. All the 4 Imams belong to later generations. So, they can’t get all the preaching of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) directly. But they know well that the holy book Al Quran and the preaching of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) alone should be followed. So they have declared in advance in their books, if you find any difference of opinion between Al Quran and their books, ignore their books and follow the guidance of Al Quran. So, it is clear that dividing Islam in their names is shear ignorance.

The base of Islam

The base of Islam is Al Quran and authenticated Hadees, which do not vary Al Quran and its sanctity. Allah has ordered if anyone wish to love Him, love Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and execute his preaching and he will be in the right path and he will be rewarded by Him. Later only Hadees recorded and verified and authenticated. So, now instead of following Imams and their Fikhs we directly follow the Islamic Jurisprudence from Al Quran and authenticated Hadees. So, in Islam there are no divisions as Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali. Though some ignorant Muslims, following their ancestors maintains such division, will come out of it soon.

Shia and Sunni divisions are there. ‘Shia’ mean the followers Ali. Shia people ignoring Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) give undue importance to Ali (RL) as their prophet. When the God has appointed a messenger they choose one as they wish against the will of God. Shia building is built in wrong foundation. Among the inhabitants, those who have self-thinking alone can vacate that building and come to true Islam.

Sunni Muslims follow the true Islam. It means that as far as religion is concerned they believe in Allah, the creator and his messenger Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

Divisions are not Caste Divisions

What seem to be divisions in Islam is not the caste division which divides people in superior and inferior groups. Thus it is clear that there are no caste divisions in Islam. All the seeming divisions are due to the ignorance, misunderstanding and faith of ancestors, but not based on superiority and inferiority inherent by birth.

The Third Reason

Though Muslims are divided in their dogma and profession there is no untouchability. They maintain unity in diversity by marital relations with the so called other divisions.

If these divisions were considered as caste, they will not keep marital relations. So, we can understand there are no caste divisions.

It is true that normally, there are no marriages between Urdu and Tamil Speaking Muslims. To have an amicable pleasant relationship, the couples should have known each other’s language. So, marital relationship is avoided between them but not prevented. If the marriage is avoided due to superiority and inferiority complex, then only anyone can blame it is considered as caste division.

We advise to evade even such division to avoid this kind of accusation. Though this is not given up alleging this division as caste is totally a wrong accusation.

6. No religions are equal to each other.

Non-Muslims honor all religions are equal. Other religious people are to follow the worshipping methods of Islam. But, Muslims refuses to follow the worshipping method of other religion. This is the accusation alleged against Islam.

They put forth some proofs to support their accusation:

·       Whatever food items Muslims give to Non-Muslims during their festivals, they accept it with gratification. But when the Non-Muslims provide the food of their festival Muslims do not eat.

·       Muslims eat the meat of the animals which they kill only. They do not eat the meat which the Non-Muslims killed.

·       Non-Muslims worship in Muslims’ worshipping places. But Muslims do not worship in Non-Muslims’ worshipping places.

·       Muslims do not allow marital relations with non-Muslims. They impose the condition that they will give in marriage only converted into Muslim.

They accuse Muslims that they are against the belief that all religions are equal. Is this belief “all religions are equal” right? Let us analyze it first.

Islam is against illogical belief

In the world there are so many religions. Each one has its own laws and tenets. If all are same without any contradiction, there need not be so many religions. Only one religion will be in the world. The existence of many religions itself is the proof that they are different. When we can’t deny the contradiction, affirming contrary things are equal is meaningless.

Variations among Religions

A religion affirms that there is only one God. Another religion affirms to do various work different Gods are required. Of these two different dogmas, one can believe one only at a time. None can believe both the dogmas simultaneously.

God has wives, and children. God sleeps and he is ignorant sometime. This is the dogma of a religion. Another religion says that God is free from all needs and weaknesses. Of these two different dogmas, one can believe one only at a time.

Be truthful in Belief

If a Hindu truly believes his religion, it means that he does not believe and can’t believe the other religion. If a Muslim truly believes his religion, it means that he does not believe and can’t believe the other religion.

Religions are deep rooted and it can’t be separated from human life. Parties, Associations and Establishments are not so deep rooted with men.

A communist member can’t be a member of Congress and Dravidian parties simultaneously. He can’t declare all the principles of those parties are equal to him. If he says so, he will be blamed as an opportunist.

Even the faith of political parties which are considered once in a five year is so strict; the religions which are mingled in the daily life of the people should more staunch in faith.

As “All religions are equal” is the lip deep doctrine, it can’t make religious compromise with the concerned people.

Islamic way to impartial religious compromise

Islam declares an honest way to maintain impartial religious compromise.

“I honor my religion. I will not intervene if you honored your religion”

“Your religion is to you and my religion is for me” (Al Quran109:6)

Let every religious people be faithful to their religion. At the same time, let them not prohibit or intervene the freedom of other religious people. There is neither contradiction nor hypocrisy in this doctrine. It is fully practicable also. When all religious people accept this impartially, there will be real amicable compromise.

Islam orders to eat Halal meat only

Islam orders to eat Halal meat, the meat of the animal which is killed in the name of Allah only. To honor this order Muslims refuse to eat the meat of the animal which was killed by others. It is not due to any hatred.

No presentation to God in Islam

God is needless is the basic principle of Islam. We should not present Him anything is the strict order of Islam. To be steadfast in this principle, Islam orders Muslims not to eat the food presented in front God. It is not due to any hatred.

Mutual compromise lies in honoring each other’s belief

How the Muslims honor the religious faith of Non-Muslims, if they also honor the religious faith of Muslims then there won’t any problem.If a Muslim has a Hindu friend who eats vegetarian food only, when he calls the Hindu friend as a guest on his festival day, the Muslim friend should not provide the Hindu friend non-vegetarian food. For, he can’t eat that food. If the Muslim friend provides the Hindu friend vegetarian food that means he honors the friend and his religion also. If the Hindu friend refuses the non-vegetarian food, it does not mean that he has ashamed the Muslim friend and his religion. Likewise, Non-Muslims should not provide Muslims what is prohibited to them. Because, it is the clue that they honor their friends along with the religion they belong to. Islam suggests this guidance for peace and happiness in the life of mankind.

In worshipping also each religion differ from another. So, each one should have the generosity to allow the other to worship in their method. None should impose their method on the other. If any one behaves on the contrary it will create diversity instead of unity.

The basic principle of Islam is not to worship anyone or anything except God. If a Muslim is steadfast in Islamic principle, blaming him is not just.

If an ADMK member compels a DMK member who keeps a photo of Karunanithy in his house, he should have a photo of Jaya Lalitha also along with it, the later will refuse it. Nobody will support the former’s request as a genuine one.

The belief in God more staunch and deep rooted. To force one to accept another’s God is not acceptable. Both the Muslims and Hindus do not intervene each other’s worshipping method and do not impose one’s religious faith on the others then only they can establish religious amicability among themselves.

Muslim should marry a Muslim only

It is true that Islam orders Muslims to have marital relationship among Muslims only. It will not affect religious amicability in any way.

The cause of Religious Riots

The root cause for many caste and religious riots is the inter-caste marriages and interfaith marriages. Because of this so many lives are lost. None can deny that female matter is root cause for caste and religious riots. If it is prohibited, mankind will be benefitted a lot. Due to infatuation, both the sexes, ignores the blemishes of other for some time. Then they come back to accustomed world and see the reality.

Islamic solution for peaceful Happy Life

The struggle between the couples will start in keeping the picture of the God, naming child, bring up the child, and in the law of inheritance. Any one of the couples has either to give up the religion or separate from each other at the end. Islam tells beforehand what will happen in the end. Those who like to marry a Muslim boy or girl should convert into Islam first. Then they won’t face such problems. If the Muslim boy or girl ignore their religion and have marital relationship with other religious people nobody will prohibit it. To decide firmly at the outset, Islam orders so with foresight, to avoid the future cleft and quarrel.

When an atheist has marital relationship with another atheist family, it is considered as the staunch faith of his doctrine. There is nothing wrong in the order of Islam to marry among Muslims, as it is far more rational and true religion. The behavior of Muslims affirms their staunch faith.

A man who belongs to a caste can’t change caste. But, if anyone accepts the principles of Islam, he can be a Muslim.

If anyone understand this properly, it will be clear that Islam without harming anybody provide equality in the human society.

7. The virtues of Islamic Wars.

Islamic invasions and wars are based on converting Non-Muslims as Muslims, to kill those who opposes them, to enslave the beautiful ladies of the captured nations, to rob the wealth of those nations, Muslims can’t tolerate others and their religion spread at the point of sword are the accusations alleged by Non-Muslims against Islam.

Moghul Kings and other Muslims invaded India and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) has participated in many wars are cited as proofs for their accusations.

Muslim kings’ invasion and the participation Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in wars are true, but the reasons coined for those wars are not true. Both of them are different and for various reasons.

If Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) participated in war for the above mentioned reasons it can be criticized. But, for the invasion of other Muslim kings, criticizing Islam is not wise.

Our responsibility is to explain the wars of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) only. But in our country, as Muslim Kings invasions are highlighted though there is no connection between their invasion and Islam, let us explain it in brief. Then we will explain the wars Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had participated.

In those days wars were common. Most of them held to feed the selfishness of the kings.

We have the history of Chera, chola, pandiya kings who fought with each other. Pandiya king has won the Northern King. Ariyas has come to swindle India. They have imposed religious faith on atheistic Dravidians. Alexander has invaded and won. The British people have ruled our nation.

All over the world, Kings invaded to teach lesson to the adjacent nation, to broaden their regime, to encroach the assets of another nation. The Moghul Kings’ invasion is also one of such kind.

Muslim Invasions

Hindu Kings met in war many places in Tamil Nadu Venni, Vahai, Pullalur, Pariyavam, Manimangalam, Naively, Penndaham, Viligam, Thellaru, Thiruppurambiyam, Vellur, Thakkolam, Noppam, Kuudal, Kalingam, Eelam, Sumanthiram, Mahendramangalam and Kannanur. There are some more wars in Tamil Nadu and in India. What were the reasons for all these wars, the same reasons were for the wars of Moghul kings wars also. It is not for spreading Islam or converting people into Islam. Moghul Kings ruled this country for 800 years.

Muslim Kings are nominal Muslims only

They did not demolish Hindu Temples. The temples more than 1000 years old are still there as witness to prove this. There were kings who built Hindu Temples and paid huge grant also. They did not prohibit dance and music, which Islam had prohibited. They did not eradicate interest which Islam has eradicated. They did not enact Islamic Criminal Laws. They had appointed more Non-Muslims. They married Non-Muslim women. They prohibited so many Islamic orders. How can they be stamped that they spread Islam in their country? Those who are just will not dare to accuse that those kings who were very far from Islam, at the point of sword threatened the people and converted them into Muslim.

The British People who enslaved this country with modern weapons were driven out by our people in 200 years. Even before that, there were so many agitations to exit them.

The aim of Moghul kings was not Religious Conversion

But, Moghul kings have ruled 800 years. In those days, when sword, spear, arrow and shield like weapons were used and the number of soldiers in the army can decide the victory of the war, if Muslim Kings tried to convert people into Muslims or if they threatened people at the point of sword, when the Muslims were less than a percent in population the native Hindus might have driven them out even with their bare hands. Moghul Kings have ruled India more than 800 years is itself a self-explanatory proof that they did not compel people to convert into Islam.

But one thing we can affirm that the worst Muslims’ worst regime should have been better than the previously ruled worst Hindu ruler. Or else, the native Hindus will not have tolerated the Muslims, for many centuries, who invaded India with a little army. The people who were ruled by the worst kings might have preferred Moghul kings in their place as they are better than their native kings. As it can’t be said that the wars of Hindu Kings were induced by Hinduism, in the same way the wars of Muslims Kings also can’t be stamped as they were instigated by Islam.

No compulsion in Islam

In short, no religion can be spread at the point of sword. It can be done by force. The Muslims rulers did not do this, as they themselves do not follow Islam. Even if it is accepted, as it is believed that those kings spread Islam, Islam did not order them to do so. Because, ‘there is no compulsion in Islam’ is the creed of Islam. The preaching of Al Quran and the guidance of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is only Islam. Islam won’t be responsible for the wrong actions of Muslims which are against the guidance of Islam.

Now let us come to the basic accusation in detail about Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who has participated in many wars and captured many countries.

Are the wars of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) for capturing other nations?

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends about 300 people met in Battle of Badr against 1000 enemies. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) won in the war and his enemies most of them were killed and others ran away. It is a historical fact. If the aim of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was to capture the nation, he would have gone behind them and capture their capital Mecca. He had the better chance for it. It would the practice of any leader who was victorious.

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not cross the border of Badr. It is an authentic proof that his aim was not to capture the nation.

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) came to Mecca with more than 1000 friends to perform ‘Umrah’ worship. He had arrived at Hudaybiyyah. His opponents refused to allow him in Mecca. They were obstinate in it to instigate the anger of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). If capturing the nation was his aim, he could have executed it. But Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) with at most patience and tolerance avoided it. He made an amicable agreement of peace with them. It is the famous Treaty of Hudaybiyyah giving up so many options in favor of enemies and returned back to Medina without performing ‘Umrah’. This is also a famous historical event. It is another authentic proof that his aim was not to capture the nation.

Are the wars of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) for plundering other nations?

Did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) invade war to rob the resources of the enemies? No. In those days, no place except Tayif was more affluent than Medina. Al Quran had ordered clearly that the aim of war should not be amassing wealth.

O believers! When you go on Jihad, carefully discriminate and do not say anyone who offers you a salutation: "You are not a believer!" in the greed of perishable goods of this life. Allah has excessive profits and spoils with Him (for you). (Al Quran 4:94)

When the promise of Al Quran is very clear the aim of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in war will not be robbing the country of the enemy.

Are the wars of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) for revenging enemies?

Did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) invade war to revenge the enemies who were atrocious against him? Certainly it is also not the reason.

When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) entered into Mecca as a victorious ruler, he had all the reasons to revenge his enemies. He has the power also to do so. There stood who stoned Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). There were enemies who planned to kill him. There were enemies who were responsible for his (Hijrath) exile. There were the culprits who killed his friends. There were the atrocious people who tortured his friends in the hot sand. Even after the exile of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to Medina, there were people who came to Medina and fought with him. But they were all terrified of their fate in that situation. Amnesty for all was the punishment of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to them. When he had all the reasons and the excessive power to revenge his enemies, instead of revenging, he bestowed amnesty on them. This single incident is enough to prove his majestic humanity.

O believers! Be in staunch faith with Allah and witnesses for fair dealing. Let your hatred on others do not induce you to do wrong and deviate you from justice. Be just. That is next to piety and fear Allah. For Allah is well aware of all that you do. (Al Quran 5:8)

When Allah has ordered as above, can he disobey it?

In a battle field on seeing a woman’s corpse, objecting this, he prohibited killing women and children in the battle field. –Ibn Omar (RL) Buhari, Muslim

“In the battle field, fight but do not transgress. Do not kill priests and children”    _Buraitha (RL)   Muslim.

In the battle field there won’t be any justice was an accepted custom of the world. There also Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had the broad mind to introduce a new custom of justice and discipline. Therefore, revenging from Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was an unimaginable aspect.

Are the wars of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) for converting into Islam?

Did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) invade to convert others into Islam? Certainly it was not the aim.

“There is no compulsion in Islam. The right direction is distinct from wrong. Those, who rejects false deities and believe in Allah has grasped a firm unbreakable handhold.” (Al Quran 2:256)

The Revelation, Al Quran has clearly prohibits compulsory religious conversion. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) will preach Islam to the people. Those who accept it will become Muslim. Others, who can’t accept it, will remain in their religion. The Islamic government will collect Zakat as tax from Muslims and Jizyah as tax from Non-Muslims.

“If anyone of the Pagans demands asylum from you, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. Then escort him to where he can be safe. For, he is ignorant.” (Al Quran 9:6)

The above verse cites the proof, how did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) behave with Non-Muslims.

Why did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) wage war?

If Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not wage war like others, does it mean is it a lie that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) participated in war? Or is there any other reason for him to participate in war?

We neither say that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not participate in war. Nor we say he was always inside mosque as a monk with his beads. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) himself has participated in war. He has leaded so many wars as a commander-in-chief. He was so calculative and skillful to measure the strength of army of the enemy by counting how many camels have been cut by the opponent. We don’t deny all these. But there were justifiable reasons for these participations.

The First Reason

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends were exiled from Mecca. So they sheltered in Medina. But his enemies who exiled to destroy them totally waged war against them. In this situation, if prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not resist them, they would have killed them totally. To safeguard himself and his friends, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) has participated in war. Though for all his wars are not of this kind, some wars he faced for this reason only. Those who honor Justice will not find fault with this. Let us explain the 2 famous wars of this kind.

The Battle of Badr

The first war held at Badr which is 80 miles away from Medina and more than 200 miles away from Mecca. That means the enemies from Mecca had crossed 200 miles to attack prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) resisted them outside his capital. Even after this, an administrator who is responsible to safeguard his citizen can’t ignore the enemies. It is the bounden duty for him to resist and fight against them.

The Battle of Uhud

What is mentioned prestigiously “Battle of Uhud” in Islamic History, is the second war held in the valley in front of Uhud. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was the commander-in-chief of this war. This is 5 miles away from Medina. But it is 300 miles away from Mecca. That means the enemies from Mecca had crossed 300 miles to attack prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) resisted them outside his capital. Who came to fight either who crossed 300 miles from their place or who met the enemies at 5 miles distance from their place? Crossing 300 miles on those days with a big army means they should have started so many days before. They might have planned so many days earlier and arranged so many things. In this situation Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had to conduct a safeguarding war against the enemies.

“If you are the believers, Don’t you fight with the enemies who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and aggressively assaulted you at first? Do you fear them? You need not fear. It is Allah to whom you should fear more justly.” (Al Quran 9:13)

Al Quran witnesses that the enemies started the fight. Some wars conducted by Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) belong to this kind. None can blame this also.

The Second Reason

When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) arrived at Medina, he established a kingdom with the massive support of Medina people. Medina and the surrounding places became the frontier of the kingdom. If there is a country, whether it is small or big, it has its own law and order. Other countries should honor it. If any foreigner wanted to visit the country, he should get permission in advance. This is the custom even before the days of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

That is why Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) returned back without performing Umrah, when he was objected to enter into Mecca. But the people of Mecca did not honor the authority of Medina. When the business crew of return back from their business to Mecca they entered via Medina or the frontier of Medina without permission. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had ordered to prohibit those trespassers and confiscate their possessions. Therefore, there were small quarrels now and then. Before the battle of Badr, the business crew of Abu Sufyan was surrounded is an example. This is the duty of the administrator. The opponents should think that can any nation allow such trespassing?

The Third Reason

Mecca is the native place of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends. They were driven away from Mecca. What kind of right was to those who drove away Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends, the same right the victims also had? After Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had left, Mecca people understood his goodness and his preaching of Islam as a true religion. Those who adopted Islam, fearing the cruelty of the leaders of Mecca ran to Medina. Most of the people left Mecca. To recover back the lost Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) came to Mecca. Not even shedding a drop of blood he won Mecca without any single objection. Islam approves the war to recover back the lost.

“Against whom war is made, to them permission is given to fight. For, they are wronged. Moreover, Allah is most powerful to help them also.” (Al Quran 22: 39)

This verse orders those victims to fight against the transgressors to recover the lost, instead of obeying them. None could deny the fighting for recovering the lost.

What is the justice has the world nations including India to support the Palestinians, who struggle to redeem their native to day and to fight against Israel that much justice was with Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to fight against Mecca people. Those who honor justice can’t blame this.

The Fourth Reason

The good regime established by Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in Medina was intolerable not only to the leader of Mecca but also to Jews around Medina.

Before the arrival of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) the Jews had kept Medina under their control. After the arrival of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) the citizens of Medina, including Jews accepted his supremacy.

So, the Jews around Medina plotted against Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). They indulged in small mischiefs. They became the agents to send messages to Mecca against Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). They demanded Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to send them some people who had memorized Al Quran to teach Islam. When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) sent them, the Jews treacherously killed them. Many times the Jews made covenant with Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). But every time the Jews transgressed the contract. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) waged war against these traitors. Among the wars waged against Jews, most of them were against their treason. So mentioned these four kinds of wars were not evaded, even by those who are honored by opponents as honest rulers. If it happened in our country, we will also welcome to wage a war against those traitors. Other than these, there is another reason also for waging war.

The Fifth Reason

In the internal affairs of a nation, another nation should not poke its nose into it. This is the loyal policy accepted by all around the world. This is important to maintain world-wide peace.

But, for this also is a limit. If the atrocities of the rulers exceed human rights impartially against some people only, it is not wrong to intervene in the internal matters also.

If a man scolds his wife, we can ignore it as problem of another house. If he keeps her starving then also, we can ignore it as problem of another house. If he goes to kill her with a sharp knife then we should not ignore it as problem of another house. If so, we can’t be man. The limit which we keep for another house is applicable to the limit of another nation also.

A tyrant tortures his citizens. His atrocities exceed. The citizens do not have any power and courage to resist him. The people wish to get rid of the torture and ready to run away from there. In that juncture, Islam approves a ruler to a wage a war against the tyrant and save the people.

“Why should you not fight in the cause of Allah for those who are weak and oppressed? Men, women, and children, cry "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors. Rise for us from you one who will protect and help us" (AL Quran 4:75)

This verse orders to fight for those who expect to relieve them from the tyrant.

Those tyrants who tortured people by tax such as   to stand, to walk, to talk, to write, wedding, death, business, farming, vehicle, and child birth. On the collected tax they did not spend for people. They spend it on their golden slippers to golden throne and enjoying in their harem. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his four succeeding rulers invaded on those countries and relieved the people. The people also supported this. Those who honor justice will not find fault with this.

What is called Bangladesh now was previously called East Pakistan. These people were ignored by Pakistan. The tax which was collected from East Pakistan was spending for the West Pakistan. Against this injustice under the leadership of Mujibur Rahman people agitated. He demanded the support of India. India did not prohibit it as another country problem. India sent their army and supported to fight against Pakistan. East Pakistan freed from Pakistan and named as Bangladesh a separate free country.

Though LTTE is an unwanted organization to Indian Government today, it was in friendship with India in the past. Then all sorts of help were provided to them. When the Sri Lankan Government leave them starving, Indian Government sent flights to distribute food packages to them.

When Mal Dives was aggressed by a foreign force, Indian Special Task Force relieved it.

The worst terrorist country of the world America is attacking Iraq atrociously. Israel, the illegal child of America is attacking awfully on Palestine. For all these, there is no justice. World nations, to beg from America and to get interest, approve these atrocities silently. Those who approve all these cruelties, criticizes Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), who invaded other countries only on acceptable justifiable reasons, is extremely strange.

Even after the victory on those wars, if they analyzed how Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) behaved, they will understand the truth.

As Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is the messenger of God, he is the religious head of Islam. Being a religious head how can he be the commander-in-chief in the battle field? Some hesitate to accept this.

First of all we have to understand that the general charity and the charity of war are different to each other.Murdering in general is a cruel sin condemned by all. Confiscating others property is also a cruel activity. Though these activities are prohibited generally, when there is war, it is the duty to perform. This is the law of war.

The charity of war is different from normal charity.

Raman, Kannan, Arjuna, Karna, Pancha Padavas and Kauravas are the legendary figures who killed many in the battle field. They are honored as heroes. But if they killed them in day to day life they would have been blamed as culprits. Our Tamil Chera, Chola and Pandiyan are also belonging to the same category. Vanchinathan, who shot Lord Ashe and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who found INA are, honored as great heroes as they did it for our nation. These are the examples to clarify that the charity of war is different from normal charity.

All over the world, those who are honored as victorious heroes did whatever they like. But Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in war also introduced a new and just discipline.

When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) started his preaching he was tortured and exiled from the native. He sheltered in Medina and established Islamic Kingdom. He met so many wars as induced by the Mecca leaders. When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) entered in Mecca as a victorious ruler, with his friends who were waiting for his orders, he had all the reasons to revenge his enemies. Then his enemies were all terrified of their fate in that situation. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not take revenge on them. There was not even an objection. The total Mecca came under his control. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) bestowed amnesty for all of them.

In the history of the world, it alone will be a single incident that a powerful leader won his enemies shedding not even a drop of blood.

The historians applaud those kings who dissolved the water of the tanks by elephants crew, fired the fertile lands, pulling out the teeth of the defeated king and studded them in the door of the fort, injuring the defeated king by cutting his nose to humiliate him, cutting the locks of hair of the wife of the defeated king to disgrace him and killed all people without any discrimination of those who participated and also who did not participate in the war and executed some other atrocities are honored as great heroes having divinity. The same historians criticize the virtues war of Islam also. It is partial and highly ridiculous.

8. Islam never orders to kill as they are Non-Muslims.

Islam orders to kill Non-Muslims. It is said in Al Quran to kill Kafir wherever you find. This is one of accusation alleged against Islam. They cite the verse (Al Quran 2: 191) and also the orders of Jihad (holy war) for criticizing Islam.

We have to explain it in detail. Let us analyze the Al Quran verse “to kill Kafir wherever you find”.

“Kill them wherever you catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out. For, commotion and oppression are worse than murder. But fight them not at the Sacred Mosque unless they first started fight with you there. If they fight with you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who destroy faith.” (Al Quran 2: 191)

In this verse, at the outset it is denoted “they”. In any language the pronoun ‘they’ refers to somebody, who is mentioned earlier. Let us see first what is said in the previous verse.

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight with you, but do not exceed limits. For Allah will not love transgressors.” (Al Quran 2: 190)

Slanderous accusation on Islam

Now it is clear that ‘they’ refers to those who invaded on you. ‘They’ do not refer generally the Non-Muslims. In wars all kind of justice is thrown out. But Al Quran advices not to cross the limit and warns that Allah will not love those who exceed the limit. Even in battle field Islam guides to maintain justice. Hiding the previous verse and deliberately assuming wrong meaning for the next verse and blaming Islam is not justice. The critics if they wish to honor justice they should have praised the verses of Al Quran instead of blaming it.

Likewise the verses of Al Quran 4:89, 90 are also misinterpreted.

“They wish that you should reject Faith, as they do. They wish you to be on the same footing as they are. But do not take friends from them until they go in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. Do not take any friends or helpers from them.”(Al Quran 4:89)

“Those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty of peace or those who approach you restraining from fighting. If they withdraw from you and send you signs of peace, then Allah Has opened no way for you to war against them.” (Al Quran 4:90)

From this we understand that “kill them” is the policy for battlefield only.

When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) established a kingdom then anybody came to destroy it, as a leader, it is his duty to resist it. None can find fault with it.

Accusation of Hatred

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) waged war for 5 reasons of Jihad after he established a kingdom. We have explained those reasons already. Killing Non-Muslims is not Jihad. So this criticism is misplaced due to ignorance and hatred of Islam.

Outside battle field, what was the behavior of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and what was the order of Islam to Muslims, if we understood this, it will be clear.

In the battle field do not surrender as cowards, resist and fight to kill those enemies is the order. Is there anything wrong in it? Islam preaches to be polite and gentle with those who are polite and gentle with you.

Islam never ordered to kill any as they are Non-Muslims

Islam never ordered bluntly to kill Non-Muslims. In the regime of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) there were so many divisions of Non-Muslims. They were not killed. So, this accusation is contradictory to the truth and meaningless.

To prove, how far Islam is tolerant let us put forth some lively incidents of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to the reference of the slanderers of Islam.

The Polite, Tolerant Leader Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), on his arrival arranged a place as mosque to worship Allah. When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his friends were inside the mosque, there came a villager started urinating in a corner of the mosque. The friends of prophet got angry and were ready to attack him. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) advised his friends to leave him till he finishes urinating and then he called that man politely and informed him that the place was for worshipping Allah and so it should not be desecrated. Some may think that leaving the man unpunished for urinating in the mosque as an ordinary matter. But, allowing and waiting for the man until he urinates completely. Then advising him politely is not an ordinary thing. Such kind of politeness can’t be found in any religious leader.

Don’t chide Statue worshippers.

Islamic Faith is not to worship anyone or anything except Allah, the only God. The stone statues worshipped by men have no power is the indubitable belief of Islam. At the same time, Islam orders firmly a Muslim not to blame those statues that are worshipped by others.

“Don’t chide those who worship other than Allah. If you do so, they will also chide on Allah, due to their ignorance. We have made alluring to each people his own doings. In the end they will return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.” (AL Quran 6:108)

“If Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is celebrated in ample measure.” (AL Quran ~~24:~~22:40)

Islam orders clearly that on bestowing alms, helping and in establishing justice Muslim should be impartial.

“Allah did not dissuade you, to do well to those who neither oppose your Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. “(AL Quran 60:8)

“O believers! Be firm for Allah, establish justice, and be witness for justice. Let not the hatred of others to you make you turn sharply to do wrong and depart from justice. Be just to all. That is next to piety. Fear Allah. For Allah knows well what all you do.” (AL Quran 5:8)

As Al Quran ordered to behave with Non-Muslims, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) practiced so.

Let us see another incident how Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) behaved with Non-Muslims.

The Magnanimous, Forgiving Leader Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

A Jewish woman served Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) the poisoned meat of a goat. The prophet ate a little and the mischief of the woman was known. She agreed that she served the poisoned food with the intention to kill him. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) informed that Allah did not appoint her for it. The friends of the prophet demanded the order of him to kill her. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) denied the permission and let her leave safely. This incident is recorded authentically in Ahmed and Muslim.

As per Islamic Law, though she is deserved to be killed, as a victim Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) used his right to forgive her only. The Non-Muslims should think well how magnanimously and kindly he has behaved with others.

9. Islam doesn’t blame but identify Non-Muslims as Kafirs.

Al Quran refers Non-Muslims as Kafirs or Mushriks. Those who criticize Islam, misconstrue it also. They feel that Islam rebukes them as Kafirs.

The direct dictionary meaning of the Arabic word ‘Kafir’ is ‘One who denies’ or ‘One who does not accept’. It is exactly opposite to the Arabic word ‘Muslim’, ‘One who accepts’. Is there any rebuke for the ‘Kafir’? The word ‘Kafir’ contains the self-explanatory meaning ‘One who denies’ only.

When we address a meeting to Hindus or Christians or Jews, we call them as Non-Muslims. Nobody finds fault with it or condemn it as a rebuke. ‘Kafir’ means ‘Non-Muslim’ only.

Sometimes Al Quran refers a group of Non-Muslims as ‘Mushriks’. ‘Mushriks’ means those who have the belief of many Gods. Contrary to Muslim who has a belief on One God, they have Faith on many Gods. To discriminate their faith from Muslims, the word ‘Mushriks’ is utilized. It is true that Islam will never to degrade or blame anybody. It is against its dignity.

10. Jizyah, the tax on Non-Muslims is impartial.

Most of Muslims and Non-Muslims misunderstood Jizyah, the tax levied on Hindus in a Muslim Kingdom as an atrocious act against them.

In the Muslim monarchy the tax levied on Hindus is true. Islam orders so is also true. The Moghul emperor Aurangazeb and others levied such taxes is criticized as an impartial action against Non-Muslims. In the history books published by the Government is also criticized in the same way for our children to read.

If anyone understand the justice behind it and how far Non-Muslims benefitted by it, nobody will find fault with it.

Jizyah Tax is impartial

When it is looked superficially, it may seem to be partial and a cruelty on Non-Muslims. For, it was levied only for Non-Muslims and Muslims are exempted from it. In reality there was no impartiality on levying tax. It is the duty of the Government to protect the welfare of the citizens. To help the poor citizens is the primary duty of the government. To safeguard their rights by Law and order internally should be maintained with police force. The foreign invasion should be resisted with the help of army. Without finance, the Government can’t do this expense. For these expenses amount should be collected in the form of taxes by the Government.

Zakat Tax on Muslims

In an Islamic country taxes are levied for Muslims as Zakat and Non-Muslims as Jizyah. Zakat for Muslim is a religious duty also. Muslims should pay Zakat for all their assets movable and immovable and their income also separately. For example they have to pay for gold, silver, money animals 2.5% for the bore well water yield 5% for other kind of rain-water yield 10%. If we calculate each and everything Muslims have to pay as Zakat a large sum. But Non-Muslims have to pay a nominal amount as Jizyah tax. This tax amount will be spent on welfare activities to uplift poor, very poor, indebted, slaves, those who have no other go and for military.

If the Muslim Government spent only from Zakat money and leaves the Non-Muslims without any tax, it is not just.

3 ways for Taxing Non-Muslims

In this situation we have to choose any one 3 options given below:

1.    Non-Muslims should not be levied tax

2.    Both Muslims and Non-Muslims should be levied Zakat Tax.

3.    Non-Muslims should be taxed another way.

If the first option was executed the consequence will be as follows:

If Non-Muslims are exempted from tax paying, naturally Muslims will expect more facilities from the Government and they will insist non-tax payer should not utilize Government facilities. Moreover, as Non-Muslims do not pay tax, they will hesitate to demand facility. Psychologically they will feel that they are the second cadre citizens. The people who were not taxed feel that they are degraded. They may take it that it is the sign that they do not have any right. When it is executed the objections will arise from both the sides.

If the second option was executed the consequence will be as follows:

Though Zakat is a tax, it is also form of worship for Muslims. When it is imposed to all, Non-Muslims will feel other religious duty is imposed on them also. They may fear all the religious activities may be imposed on them. They can’t digest it. There will be an accusation that Islam is imposing their religious activities on Non-Muslims. As it is intervening in personal rights of Non-Muslims Zakat can’t be levied on them. Even if it is levied it can’t be collected properly.

Zakat tax is to be collected on the basis of individual asset valuation. If the concerned showed his account correctly and cooperated only, it can be collected fully. As far as Muslim it is not only a tax but also worship. So they may be in fear of Allah show the correct account. But Non-Muslims will consider it a mere tax only. As it is another religious duty, they will not cooperate fully. As far as possible they will show reduced account to save their tax paying money. For this reason also Zakat Tax can’t be levied on Non-Muslims.

When Non-Muslim can neither be freed from Tax nor be levied Zakat Tax, the third option of taxing another way is only suitable for them and that is Jizyah Tax.

Muslims paid more Tax amount

Muslims were taxed many more times in Zakat than Non-Muslims who has to pay a nominal Jizyah tax. In reality Muslims paid high Tax in an Islamic Regime than the Non-Muslims. Without understanding it, some people wrongly criticize Islam levied Jizyah tax on Non-Muslims.

Emperors collected tributes from Kings and they in return collected high tax from the citizens was the way of the world in the past. Those, who had digested even these atrocities, criticize the evenhanded Jizyah tax. To find fault in levying Jizyah tax on Non-Muslims, there is no other reason except their hatred towards Islam.

Concessions in Jizyah tax

On levying Jizyah tax on Non-Muslims, Islamic Government has been very leniently. Old people, women, children and lunatics were exempted from Jizyah tax. Though such concessions were unwarranted Islamic Government considered them as weak and levied Jizyah tax on healthy Non-Muslim youths only. Moreover all are not levied tax equally also. The tax was applicable as per the individual income. The Syrians who had more individual income were levied 4 Dinars while the people of Yemen who had less individual income were levied 1 Dinar by Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

Jizyah Tax is far less than the tax of democratic Indian Government

The wage of a man who feed a goat for 10 Days was paid 1 Dinar. From this we can understand the value of a Dinar. This value is far less than a poor pays tax to our democratic Indian Government. Property Tax, Sales Tax, Income Tax, Road Tax, Water Tax, Entrance Tax, and House Tax like many Taxes, Indians pay directly and indirectly to the Government. From 10 Paisa match box to 10,000 Rupees TV whatever we buy we have to pay tax to Government. What Islam levied as Jizyah Tax is far less than this tax.

This Jizyah Tax was levied on Non-Muslims as easy to pay, exempted for the weak, far less than Zakat Tax paid by Muslims.

Paying the very meager amount Non-Muslims enjoyed the same facilities of the high Tax paying Muslims derived. Their worshipping rights and places, and their properties was safeguarded. Even after this accusing Jizyah Tax, which paved the way for their Rights and safety, is not at all just.

Here we have to clear another fair accusation also.

Some may raise doubt that Zakat Tax was levied on affluent Muslims only. The poor Muslims are all exempted as they can’t and Islam has also exempted them. So, more Muslims did not pay any Tax.

For two reasons this accusation is wrong.

1.    Assume that there are 100 Muslims. Among them 10 Muslims only pay Zakat Tax. What the 10 Muslims pay as Zakat Tax can be accounted on behalf of 100 Muslims. If we compared the amount of Zakat paid by 10 Muslims with the Jizyah Tax paid by 100 Non-Muslims, definitely the Zakat amount will be more than the Jizyah Tax amount.

2.    Though Tax exemptions are allowed for both Muslims and Non-Muslims, the Non-Muslims were exempted from Jizyah tax for more categories such as Old people, women, children and lunatics. Among Muslims the exemption is for the poor only.

“No one will be troubled more than their resisting power” is the promise of Allah in Al Quran.

Those Non-Muslims who honor justice will not blame Jizyah. By levying

Jizyah Tax, Islam tried to convert Non-Muslims into Muslims is the accusation contrary to truth.

No wise people will accept that to escape from this nominal Jizyah Tax Non-Muslims sacrificed the exemption given to very poor, women, children, the aged and the lunatics among them and came forward to convert themselves into Muslims.

Changing Religion to avoid Jizyah Tax is an insult.

None can say the religious belief, however weak, will be shattered to escape from a nominal tax levied on them. If anybody says   so, they insult not only the religion but also total society which belongs to that religion.

Jizyah Taxing is for converting into Muslim is illogical

While Muslims have to pay more amounts for tax, Non-Muslims in converting themselves as Muslims will lose their money instead of gaining anything. In this situation, who will be so foolish to escape from nominal Jizyah Tax, convert themselves into Muslims to pay high Zakat Tax? Those who have logical reasoning can’t blabber foolishly like this.

11. Muslims never worship any Direction.

“Muslims who say that they worship only one God, like other religious people worship many Gods” is another important accusation alleged against Islam by Non-Muslims.

For saying so, they put forth some proofs. Though Muslims say that they worship only one God, in reality they worship west direction only. All Mosques are built forwarding West Direction.

Not only ordinary people, but also the famous Tamil National Poet Subramanya Bharathiar refers Muslims as “Direction worshipping Thurukkar”. To refer Muslims as “the worshipper of Direction” is basically illogical argument.

Forwarding doesn’t mean worshipping

Islam orders to worship forwarding “Kaaba Mosque” which is in Mecca. As Mecca is in west of India, Indian Muslims has to worship forwarding Kaaba Mosque in west direction. All over the world Muslims will not worship forwarding Kaaba Mosque in the west direction. They will worship forwarding Kaaba Mosque in the direction in which direction it is situated to them. If all over the world Muslims worship forwarding a single direction “Direction worshipping Thurukkar” will be correct. Some may argue if worshipping is wrong, why should we not say worshipping the direction of Kaaba Mosque? It is also wrong. Forwarding a direction does mean worshipping a direction. It is illogical.

A man can’t avoid forwarding a direction. If he worship or sit idle, he should forward a direction. Nobody can say what he forwards, he worships. It will be clearer if we understand the difference between forwarding and worshipping.

The Grammar of worshipping

If we worship a thing means we believe that it has the power to fulfill our needs and if we commit any mistake it can punish. Then only it deserves to be worshipped by us. Does Muslims believe that Kaaba Mosque has such power? Never have they believed so.

“Kaaba Mosque can’t see us. It has no power to help us. It can’t punish when we commit any mistake. When all the things are perished it also will be perished”. It is the belief of a Muslim. A true Muslim should believe so.

“O Kaaba Mosque! You have to relieve us from our sufferings. You have to flourish our life”. Not even an ignorant Muslim will expect so. He should not expect also.

When Al Quran orders Muslim while worshipping forward Kaaba Mosque, it adds an advice also along with it as follows:

“Wherever you turn your face there is the (venerable) face of Allah” (AL Quran 2:15 115)

When forwarding Kaaba Mosque, a Muslim should not believe that Kaaba Mosque is God or God is inside Kaaba Mosque. After advising it clearly Islam orders to forward Kaaba Mosque.

Therefore Muslims did neither worship Kaaba Mosque nor the direction of Kaaba Mosque. They did not worship the west Direction also. On the contrary, accepting the order of the God, they worship the only God forwarding Kaaba Mosque can be confirmed from their recitations of their verses of Al Quran.

Muslims don’t worship Kaaba Mosque Proof 1.

In the beginning of a Prayer, Muslims will say “Allahu Akbar”, the God is great. Inside the prayer, when they change from one position to another position they will repeat “Allahu Akbar”. In the prayer they will praise Allah only.

Some may doubt why Muslims should select specifically Kaaba Mosque for praying God? Al Quran has a clear cut answer for it.

In the beginning God created a single pair only. Through that pair only now the mankind has expanded with population of 6 Billion people.

The First man Adam created by God for the first time built a worshipping place for God in Mecca and it is called Kaaba Mosque. As it is a first a mosque, Islam orders to pray God forwarding Kaaba Mosque.

The first sanctuary established for mankind was that at Bakka (the old name of Mecca). It is full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings. (AL Quran 3:96)

Muslims don’t worship Kaaba Mosque Proof 2.

If anyone does not know the direction of Kaaba Mosque, he can pray forwarding a direction assuming Kaaba Mosque is there. Afterwards he knows the right direction, he need not pray again is the stand of Islam. If Kaaba Mosque is to be worshipped, a Muslim can’t pray until he confirms the direction of Kaaba Mosque. After a prayer, if it is known that the prayer is not performed forwarding Kaaba Mosque Islam should have ordered to pray again. As Islam did not order so, it is clear that Muslims do not consider Kaaba Mosque as God and they did not worship Kaaba Mosque.

Some people may think why we should not allow forwarding any direction as they like instead of forwarding Kaaba Mosque.

To maintain discipline Islam didn’t order to forward any direction

Islam orders Muslims to gather together in a place and perform prayer collectively. When many people gather together and pray collectively, each one forwarding a direction as he likes and started praying there won’t be any discipline there.

Those who understand this won’t blame that Islam orders to worship a direction or Kaaba Mosque.

12. Holy Pilgrimage Hajj confirms Human Brotherhood.

Islam orders for the affluent and healthy Muslim to perform Hajj Pilgrimage once in his life time. Like any other religion has pilgrimage, Islam also has this holy pilgrimage to Mecca.

There is a meaning while other religious people go on pilgrimage to a particular place, as they believe that there is God. But Islam has the belief that a Muslim can worship his god where he is. “If they are true to their belief, why then they spent thousands of rupees for a pilgrimage?” is the objection of Non-Muslims against Islam. They suggest that this money can be spent for so many welfare plans of the mankind.

If we understand, what is the Islamic worship procedure? Then, we can get the appropriate answer for it.

The main aim of Islam is to pray the only God. But within the prayer Islam wish that it should contain benefits to mankind.

Prayer maintains equality among mankind.

Let us analyze prayer first. Anybody can worship individually from his home. But Islam orders to come to a mosque gather together and pray in its time collectively. By this, along with the worship of God, there are so many benefits to the mankind. The worshipper should stand in a line adjacent to each other in the row starting from the center behind the leader. While standing in the row the one who comes first will occupy the place in serial order irrespective of his wealth, position, seniority, knowledge and other socio-economic status. Even if he is the president of the nation, no priority will be given. He has to take his position in turn only. This procedure will be followed daily in 5 times.

A man who considered him belongs to a high society by birth, before joining Islam, comes late he should stand behind a man who is considered that he belongs to a low society by birth, before joining Islam. For the first time the former will feel irksome. If he understands Islam, psychologically the feeling will vanish soon and he will relieve from superiority complex. In the same way the man who is considered that he belongs to a low society by birth will get rid of inferiority complex gradually.

Prayer eradicates untouchability among mankind.

The prayer is not just standing alone in rows. In each prayer the participant should bow and keep his forehead on the ground and worship God. If the man who is considered that he belongs to a low society stands in the first row and if the man who considered him belongs to a high society by birth in the second row, while both are keeping their forehead on the ground the feet of the previous man will slightly touch the head of the next row man and it will happen many times a day. Then, they are trained to tolerate each other. Thus, Islam has eradicated the untouchability in the society. Islam has the merit that it has eradicated untouchability 14 centuries ago. Till today this Social Evil can’t be eradicated totally in other societies. In India, all the Muslims had adopted Islam from other religions only. But they can’t remember from which religion they came. To such an extent Islam has shattered the caste differences into nothing.

Hajj preserves common brotherhood world-wide

What it had achieved in nationwide had extended it to worldwide by Hajj. The poor will be ready to accept and mingle with people. But the wealthy will not be ready to mingle with people. By nature, he will be haughty due to his affluence and he will maintain his superiority. Islam teaches him none is rich except Allah. So Islam prescribed Hajj is the duty of wealthy only to train him practically, wearing him 2 unstitched pieces of clothes and beg for his needs to Allah. Hajj maintains common brotherhood, equality among mankind and wipes away all differences. There only you can see the miracle that the foot of a Negro touching the head of a European who consider him as superior due to his white tint. Mecca, during Hajj is the only place in the world that covers up the nation, language, color, race, power and position differences among mankind. Male should wear 2 pieces unstitched white dress and the women in their normal Hijab to maintain common brotherhood. Hajj is the place of world conference for common brotherhood in worshipping the only God. Hajj imposes equality of mankind and to forget all kinds of unwanted differences among themselves. During Hajj all should gather together in the Plain of Arafat. Hajj participants should be present there to hear special oration on (Tawhid=oneness of God) Monotheism, and equality of mankind.

Hajj equilibrates color and language variations world-wide

Prophet Mohammed (PUBH), in his Last Oration declared “O Mankind! You all belong to the same father. There is no specialty for Arabic language over other languages. The whites have no supremacy over the blacks”.

The expenses are of two kinds. The one is profitable expense and the other is unprofitable expense. We have to estimate the value of an expense on the outcome of it. After enacting thousands of laws against untouchability and color fanaticism other societies can’t eradicate them. Islam has eradicated it. When we compared this benefit, with the expenses incurred for it, it is not much. Even spending more than this, we can’t eradicate untouchability in our nation. But spending less than this, when world brotherhood is achieved, criticizing the expense is not just. Expense is not a matter, when it brings unity among mankind, eradicating all kinds of   differences. Thus Hajj pilgrimage is a panacea.

Those who go for Hajj do not believe God is in Mecca. They do not worship any building or anything as their Deity. If it is understood properly, nobody can raise any blame on Hajj Pilgrimage.

13. Muslims never worship Black stone(Hajarul Aswad).

Slanderous misconception of Non-Muslims

While Muslims are telling that they are worshipping the only God and simultaneously worshipping the Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad) studded in the right corner the grand holy Kaaba Mosque is contradictory to their belief. It shows the unclear religious dogma of God of Islam, is also one of the criticisms of Non-Muslims on Islam. They say “we worship stone and you also worship Black Stone”. They retort Islamic Principle of God is neither special nor the best. This criticism lifted up due to misconstruing Muslims’ action.

The stand of Islam on Black Stone

No Muslim worship Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad) and Islam also didn’t order them to do so. Among those who go to Mecca for Umrah or Hajj gets the opportunity to touch and kiss do so, as Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did it. The second Khalifa Omar (RL) affirms the stand of Islam of this action. After kissing the Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad) he declared that he knows that it is merely a stone. It can’t do anything good or bad. If he did not see Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) kissing it, he will not have kissed.

This message is recorded authentically in Islamic history.

If Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) has attached any sanctity to the Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad), Khalifa Omar (RL) won’t have told so.

Brief explanation of Worship

We can say that anyone worships a stone, he who stands before the stone should feel to honor it with the fear of God. He should believe that it has the power to reduce his sufferings and increase his happiness. He should fear that if it is not honored properly, it will punish him. He should believe that it will hear him and understand his prayers and demands and in response to it, it should fulfill his requirements. With this kind of belief and reverence if it is honored then it is called worship.

The reason for Kissing Blackstone (Hajarul Aswad)

Except God, nothing should be prayed or worshipped is the clear cut order of Al Quran and the preaching of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). He who demolished the statues of his preceding prophets including Ibrahim, and Ismael how can he attach sanctity to the Black Stone? If the stone had no divinity, why should it be kissed? As per Islamic principle, one day the whole world will be destroyed totally. God will resurrect all again and make judgment for all. Those are righteous will be rewarded Heaven as their abode and the culprits will be to send to hell for punishment. The aim of Islamic life is to attain Heaven. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said that the Black stone (Hajarul Aswad) is the only sample object of heaven available in this world. Naturally people will be eager to see and touch the heavenly object. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) also has kissed it. Following his action people kiss it as Omar (RL) did.

Respecting rarity is the Human Nature

We can cite an example to understand it properly with the incident we met few years back. An astronaut crew under the leadership of Neil Alden Armstrong landed on Moon for the first time. They brought some soil sample. It was distributed to all over the world. When the soil arrived at Madras, the people gathered together to see the rare soil of the Moon. Some touched it and smell it also. It does not mean that they worshipped it.

In the same way those Muslims who get the opportunity honor their belief in touching and kissing it. Moreover, it is not a must that those who for go for Hajj or Umrah has to touch it. Even without touching Hajj can be performed. If it is to be worshipped, touching the Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad) will be included as one of the rites of Hajj. It is a slander and utter ignorance that Islam orders to Worship Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad).

If any Muslim prayed Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad) or if he believed that it has the power to do good or bad, or if he believed that it will hear his request and understand his visit he will exit from Islam.

As it is indubitably clear and Islam has explicitly elucidated its stand, it is wrong to say that Muslims worship the Black Stone (Hajarul Aswad).

14.Prophet Mohamed never led his life through his priesthood.

Westerners’ Objection

Islam is supposed to be against priesthood. But it is not true. Because, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) from the day of his preaching till his death did not undertake any profession. So, he might have pulled on his life by priesthood only. How did the other priests who collected dedication from the devotee pulled on their life, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) also should have led his life. If not, how could he manage his life when he lived with many wives? This is one of the criticisms against Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Though this is not raised in India, westerners raise this objection.

Livelihood by priesthood is an assumption but not true.

After he was driven out of Mecca, he went to Medina, where he established a kingdom. Utilizing the position, he might have managed his livelihood is the criticism. Because, when he became the administrative head he did not undertake profession for his livelihood. As long as he was in Mecca he managed his livelihood by priesthood. When he arrive Medina he became the religious head and administrative head simultaneously. Through these powers he might have managed his livelihood is their assumption.

This is also a baseless accusation. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) never utilized his positions as religious head and administrative head for his livelihood. Let us analyze it in detail.

Early Life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) lost his parents in his young age. From his early years he began to work. He worked till his death. Even while he was a boy, he was not a burden to Abu Thalib, his uncle or to Abdul Muthalib, his grandfather. The great man himself worked for his livelihood.

In those days, he was the supremo among the world leaders. He has the supreme authority and self-controlled friends. Valiant world leaders revered him with fear. When he talks about his early days to his friends he informed that there was no prophet without shepherding. His friends enquired him “Are you too?” The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) replied them affirmatively. He informed that he had been the shepherd in Mecca for the wages some “Keerath” –Abu Hurairah Buhari.

In those days Dinar was the coin of the Arabs. The value of a Keerath=1/12 of a Dinar.

Objection overruled

From his childhood, to work for the livelihood, was his life spirit. It was like the blood ran through his veins. Even in his young age, he engaged in business along with his uncle Abu Thalib. He went on business to adjacent countries on camel. The financial position of Abu Thalib risen up. He became one of the significant businessmen of Mecca. Even from early years, the boy who worked and risen up a status and in 25 years ne became a big businessman. Will he found a religion to run his livelihood idly on priesthood?

Slanderous accusation.

On his 25^th years he married mother Hatheeja the richest business women of Mecca. Mother Hatheeja handed over all her assets to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). So, his financial status still more heightened. His affluence was enough to feed for many generations of his family. Is it believable that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) found religion to fill his belly? Before preaching Islam he had abundant wealth. For the welfare activities of the poor, he bestowed a lot. Criticizing him as one who found religion to run his livelihood is a slanderous accusation. In reality he was affluent before he was declared as a Messenger of Allah. After he was declared as the Messenger of Allah he lost his wealth gradually. He provided what he had to those who believed him suffered.

Preached for the Hereafter.

When Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was secluded in Khyber Pass, he can’t get food. He had to eat dried leaves and burnt hides. After he became prophet, he lost a lot. He had staunch faith in Islam he felt that hereafter is true and permanent. He preached for the Hereafter and not to get any position in this world.

To be firm in his principles he was ready renounce everything. Till today nowhere such a Man of Principles can be found in the History of the world.

When the time he entered in Medina as a fugitive and when he became the unrivalled ruler of Medina he neither touched a penny of the public money nor accepted the offerings from the people to lead his livelihood.

“None can fill his belly with the better food than by earning it by his work” _ Buhari

“It is better to lead a life of a woodcutter in the forest than begging” _ Buhari

“Had I Gold as much as of Uhud Mountain, I won’t wish them to keep with me more than what is required for 3 days to my religion “_ Buhari, Muslim

A man enquired Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) “O Messenger of Allah! Tell me to do a thing which Allah and the people will love me”.

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) replied him “Don’t love this world and Allah will love you. Don’t be greedy to get what the people possess, and they will love you.” _ Ibnumaja, Thabrani, Hakkim)

What all Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) preached to people practiced in his life. That is why he stands aloof as an unrivalled man of principles till today.

Income for the livelihood of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

How Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) led his livelihood being a dual head of the state and preaching people 24/7?

The status of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was not to beg, not to wait for presentations, have to earn by his own work, but it should not block his religious and administrative works. Considering all he selected a way to manage his families, religion and administration simultaneously.

On arriving at Medina he arranged a farm of 100 goats. He appointed a shepherd to look after it. From the income he got, he used it for his livelihood.

“I went to meet Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Then his shepherd brought a new born goatling there and informed that his goat calved. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) enquired “Is it a male or female goat?” The shepherd replied that it is a male goat. Then Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) ordered to cut a goat and prepare food. Then he told me, it is not a special incident for you alone. It is our procedure that as soon as a goat is calved we will cut a big goat eat.”

_ Laheed Ibn Sabura(RL) Abu Dawood

We can understand from this incident that how Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) planned and spend his livelihood.

In the farm of 100 goats, the goats are calving 8 goatling in average. Unlike our goats, the Arabian goat will draw more milk. The excessive milk will cover the daily expenses. When the goat calved mostly they will cut a big goat for food and sometimes sell it also. This money also will used for expenses. Any how he managed to keep the number of the herd will remain 100 at any time.

Is it enough for the expenses of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who had many wives? As we see just like our daily life we see the life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) also, this kind of doubt arises. The life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was so simple and economical. To maintain his life, he has reduced to requirements according to his income. If we led a life as he lived, we can also manage a family of more than 10 members.

Inexpensive Simple life.

Even after the people had attained affluence, I have seen Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) has lied shrinking as he did not get even cheap category date fruits to fill his stomach. _Nuhman bin Basheer(RL) Muslim

The family members of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) have never eaten wheat bread as full meal continuously for 2 Days. The same situation continued till his death. _ Ayesha (RL) Buhari, Muslim

Sahl (RL) said “Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) has never seen sieve from the time he was appointed as Messenger of God till his death. That means he did not remove the husks and big pieces of not grinded wheat from the wheat flour.” When it was enquired how did you eat the wheat which is not sieved? “ Sahl replied “We will grind the wheat in hand grinder and blow the flour surface by our mouth. Some husks will fly away. On the remaining flour we will mix it with water and ate as it is.”

“In the houses of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), one or two months will pass away without igniting fire in their kitchen.” _ Ayesha (RL) Buhari, Muslim

“O my little mother, how will you eat then?” I enquired.

She replied “Drinking water and Dates only” _ Ayesha (RL) Buhari, Muslim

Assets left by Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not leave any Gold coin, or Silver coin or slaves. He had left the mule he rode, the weapons he used, and the land which he bestowed as gift for wayfarers. _ Buhari

Pointing out a hard Lower Apron and hard upper outer garment, _ Ayesha (RL) informed “Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was wearing those dress while he deceased. _Buhari, Muslim

To live such a simple life, is not enough his little farm? Even for this simple he required something more. Then also he did not expect anything from others.

The shield dress of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was pawned with a Jew for 30 measure of wheat, he died without retrieving it. _Buhari, Muslim

When his friends were ready to dedicate even their life for him, if it is pawned with them, fearing that they may give it as gift to him, he has pawned it with a Jew.

Through religion he earned nothing, but lost a lot and suffered much.

He earned nothing utilizing his regime. He self-imposed so many conditions to him and his family.

In those days the main source of income to the government was the fund collected through Zakat Tax. He declared publicly that the fund collected through Zakat is prohibited to him and his family. It may even be a pre-planned safety measure to avoid his family members not to ask any help from this fund.

“The grandson of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), Hussain(RL) put into his mouth a dates from Zakat Fund, on seeing it Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) ordered him to spit it out and advised him that it is prohibited for them.”   _Buhari, Muslim

To criticize the life of this holy man no one is qualified. He declared till the last day of the world whoever comes in his genealogy is strictly prohibited to get anything from Zakat fund.

He has not only prohibited government property to him and his successors but also what he has earned by his own work, including Goat farm left it as a gift to the common.

“No one can become the heir for the property of the Messengers of the God”. _ Ahmad, Thirmidhi.

After his death, his family members suffered a lot.

The dearest daughter of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) Mother Fathima (RL) demanded the farm of her father from Abu Backer (RL). As none become the heir for the property of the messengers of God, Abu Backer (RL) prohibited her request and socialized to the common.

The holy man belongs to the life, which draw tears from the hearer. He lived a simple life which none can live. He was the only supremo to whom none can raise the voice even if he had taken the whole government asset. But he was the only one in the history of the world, who prohibited all to him and his successors till the last day of the world.

Other Incomes of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

Sometimes the friends of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) will present him voluntarily. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) will not refuse it. He will also bestow presentations on them.

These kinds of presentations, the share he received for participating in the war and the income he received from Goat Farm Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) spent for his livelihood.

It is true that being the administrative head, he did not utilize government fund, or materials or other facilities.

Conclusion

We have published another book on “Does Islam snatch away the Rights of women?”

We have published a separate book explaining “Why did Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) marry many women?”

These are the rest of the accusations we have come across so far alleged against Islam. We have explained it all with required elucidations in this book “Accusations and Answers”.

Other than this, if you know any accusation and bring it to our attention, we will be thankful to you. We will inform explanations in the light of Al Quran and from the traditions of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as usual.

Let Allah bestow His grace on all of us to understand the truth exactly as it is and act accordingly.

Glossary

Family Planning    - Euphemism for Birth Control

Kafirs     - who rejects Islamic faith, or Hidesor covers [viz., the truth]

Mushriks -   those who commit shirk, which is the sin of idolatry or polytheism

Jizyah - is a per capita tax on non-Muslim In the place of Zakat Tax on Muslims

Black stone (Hajarul Aswad)- the only material of Heaven on Earth It is studded in grand Mosque Kaaba.

17.09.2011. 11:49
இஸ்லாத்தில் குழந்தை வளர்ப்பு
இஸ்லாத்தில் குழந்தை வளர்ப்பு

பொருளடக்கம்
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 15.10.2011. 15:09
இது தான் பைபிள் ஆங்கிலம்

இது தான் பைபிள் ஆங்கிலம்

சில நாட்களுக்கு முன்னர் கிறித்தவ மதத்தில் இருந்து விலகி இஸ்லாத்தை தழுவிய ஒரு சகோதரர் தன்னார்வத்துடன் இது தான் பைபிள் என்ற நூலை ஆங்கிலத்தில் மொழி பெயர்த்து தந்துள்ளார். நன்றியுடன் இதை வெளியிடுகிறோம்.

PREFACE

In the name of Allah most gracious and most merciful.
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 20.12.2011. 11:46
CRUCIFICTION OF JESUS
இயேசு சிலுவையில் அறையப்படவில்லை என்ற நூலை கிறித்தவ மார்க்கத்தில் இருந்து விலகி இஸ்லாத்தை ஏற்றுக் கொண்ட சகோதரர் ஆங்கிலத்தில் மொழிபெயர்த்து தந்துள்ளார். அதை நண்றியுடன் வெளியிடுகிறோம்.

CRUCIFICTION OF JESUS

PREFACE
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 31.12.2011. 14:05

<< First < Previous [4 / 5] Next > Last >>

செய்திகளை உடனுக்குடன் அறிய
நமது இணையதளத்தின்RSS Feed கிடைக்க பின் வரும் இணைப்பை பயன்படுத்தவும்!
எவ்வாறு பயன்படுத்தவது ?
கேள்வி? பதில்!

Search..

பார்வையாளர்
பார்வையாளர் எண்ணிக்கை

தற்போது ஆன்லைனில் பார்த்துக் கொண்டிருப்பவர்கள்
71 நபர்கள்
புது வரவுகள்

ராசியில்லாத வீடுகள் உண்டா? (நம்பிக்கை தொடர்புடையவை)
உயிரினத்தை அறுக்கும் போது பிஸ்மில்ல� (நவீன பிரச்சனைகள்)
கணவனின் சொத்தில் மனைவிக்கு எவ்வளவு (இதர சட்டங்கள்)
தொழுகையில் அமரும் சரியான முறை எது (தொழுகை)
நாளிதழ் திட்டம் எந்த நிலையில் உள்ளது (உணர்வு)
ஹஜ் மானியத்தை நிறுத்துவது சரியா (உணர்வு)
நடுநிலைவாதிகள் பற்றி (உணர்வு)
ஹஜ் கமிட்டி மூலம் ஹஜ் செய்ய என்ன செலவ� (உணர்வு)
மதுரை இளைய ஆதீனம் நித்யானந்தா பற்றி (உணர்வு)
இஸ்லாத்தின் மூல ஆதாரங்கள் இரண்டா? நா� (விவாதங்கள்)
பெண்கள் பாங்கு சொல்லலாமா? (தொழுகை)
பாங்கை பதிவு செய்து பாங்காகப் பயன்பட (தொழுகை)
ஏகத்துவம் மே 2012 (2012 ஏகத்துவம்)
குர்ஆன் இறைவேதமே வீடியோ (விவாதங்கள்)
தீன்குலப் பெண்மணி மே 2012 (2012 தீன்குலப் பெண்மணி)
“திருக்குர்-ஆன் இறைவேதமே!” நிரூபித்த (தமிழக தவ்ஹீத் வரலாறு)
சிம்மாசனத்தில் போட்ட முண்டம் (குர்ஆன் விரிவுரை)
இறைவனைக் காண முடியுமா? (நூல்கள்)
உணர்வு பதில்கள் தொகுப்பு (உணர்வு)
கண்கெட்ட பின்பு (குர்ஆன் விரிவுரை)

மேலும் புதியவைகள் ..

PJ Books & Quran Tharjuma
பி.ஜே அவர்களின் புத்தகங்கள் மற்றும் திருக்குர்ஆன் தமிழாக்கம் வாங்க பின் வரும் முகவரியில் உள்ள மூன் பப்ளிகேஷனைத் தொடர்பு கொள்ளவும்.

Moon Publication

83, மூர் தெரு, மண்ணடி, சென்னை-1

போன்-044 65690810 , செல்-9444276341,9976223885

நூல்கள் மற்றும் DVDகளின் முழுமையான பட்டியலைக் காண Click Here
Tamil Type
இணைதளத்தில் கேள்வி மற்றும் கருத்துக்கள் அனுப்புபவர்கள் தமிழில் அனுப்புவதற்கு இந்த தங்லீஷ் டைப் ஐ பயன்படுத்திக் கொள்ளவும் (amma என டைப் செய்தால் அம்மா என இடம் பெறும்):

நேயர்களின் கருத்து மற்றும் கேள்வி

Mohamed Ihsas ( அஸ்...)
Hussain ali ( அஸ்�...)
அதிரை ஃபா�...
riyaz ahmed ( அல்�...)
syedsirajudeen jegathai ( ...)

1.0 Introduction

The Book of Pilgrimage (Kitab Al-Hajj)

1.1.1 What is the Apprehension involved?

1.1.2 Impurity of People or Wealth?

1.1.3 Will it purify People?

1.1.4 Why is Zakaah Obligatory for Inherited Assert?

2.0 Unacceptable Evidences

2.1 Orphans’ Wealth

2.1.1 Misconception

2.1.2 Grade of the Narration

2.1.2.1 Narration-1

2.1.2.1.1 Scandals pertaining to Al-Muthannaa Ibn as-Sabaah

2.1.2.2 Narration-2

2.1.2.2.1 Scandals pertaining to Mindhal

2.1.2.2.2 Scandals pertaining to ‘Ubayd Ibn Is’haaq

2.1.2.3 Narration-3

2.1.3 Hadhees doesn’t imply “Yearly”

2.2 Narration citing Zakaah paid in advance

2.2.1 Grade of Narrations

2.2.1.1 Narration-1

2.2.1.2 Narration-2

2.2.1.3 Narration-3

2.2.1.4 Narration-4

2.2.1.5 Narration-5

2.2.1.6 Narration-6

2.2.1.7 Narration-7

2.2.2 Contrary to the Authentic Narration

In the narration of Bukhari it is reported that Allah’s Apostle (Peace Be Upon Him) told: “Zakaah is compulsory on him and he should pay it double”

2.2.3 Can Zakaah be collected in advance?

2.3 Zakaah not obliged until a year passes on it

2.3.1 Every Year

2.3.1.1 Narration of Al-Bayhaqee

2.3.1.2 Narration of Thabarani

2.3.1.3 Narration of Abu Dawud

2.3.1.4 Narration of Abu Dawud also has two deficiencies

2.4 Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with them)’s Rule

2.5 Zakaah for Cattle

3.0 COMPANIONS- Should one follow their Guidance?

3.1 Hajj-at-Tamattu'

3.2 Bathing (Ghusl)

3.3 Rubbing hands and feet with dust (Tayammum)

3.4 Plague

3.5 Asking Permission

Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 34:: Hadith 277

3.6 Death of Apostle of Allah

3.7 Three Divorces - Muttalaq

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு ஆக்கம் பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

அறிமுகம்

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதலின் அவசியம்.

அமீர் என்பவர் யார்

தலைமைப் பதவியும் அதன் வகைகளும்.

ரிஸாலத் - இறைத்தூதர் எனும் தகுதி

கிலாஃபத்

இமாம் - இமாமத்

சுல்த்தான்

மலிக்

அமீருல் ஆம்மா - பொது அமீர்

அமீருல் முஃமினீன்

அமீர்

குறிப்பிட்ட பகுதிகளுக்கு அமீர்களை நியமித்தல்

அமீரின் அதிகாரங்கள்

ஸகாத்தை எடுத்துக் கொள்ளும் அதிகாரம்.

ஸக்காத் தர மறுத்தவர்களிடம் போர் செய்யும் அதிகாரம்

வரி வசூல் செய்யும் அதிகாரம்.

கைது செய்யும் அதிகாரம்.

அதிகார துஷ்பிரயோகம்.

அமைச்சர்களை நியமிக்கும் அதிகாரம்.

தீர்ப்பு வழங்கும் அதிகாரம்.

தண்டனை வழங்கும் அதிகாரம்.

அமீர் வாதமும் அயோக்கியத்தனமும்

போட்டி அமீருக்கு வழங்கப்படும் தண்டனை.

பயணத்தில் அமீர்.

முடிவுரை

தொப்பி ஓர் ஆய்வு

அறிமுகம்

Dreams in the light of Islam:

Preface:

Dreams In the light of Islam:

Dreams are of different types:

அமீருக்குக் கட்டுப்படுதல் ஓர் ஆய்வு
ஆக்கம் பீ.ஜைனுல் ஆபிதீன்

PREFACE
தொடர்ந்து படிக்க 31.12.2011. 14:05

<< First < Previous [4 / 5] Next > Last >>