Transcending Belief

By Hamza Tzortzis


In philosophy a belief is something we regard as true or likely to be true. It is something that we consider to be a representation of an actual state of affairs. Beliefs do not necessarily require justification or evidence. Beliefs can be about meaningless things, like the fact that you’re wearing shoes or that your plate is in the kitchen. Some philosophers regard beliefs as having propositional attitudes. Which can be as mundane as “I have 3 pens in my pocket”.

Islam is a form of knowing that transforms one’s state of being; it effect what’s in their heart, what they say and how the act in the world—how they relate with themselves and others.

To be is to be related

Islam affects our relations to other beings and things. A belief doesn’t necessarily change your state of being. For example, you may believe that good foods include: grains, vegetables and fruit. However what you ate last week will probably not be related to your belief about good foods (because you ate fried chicken, chocolate, sweets etc). We can conclude that your beliefs do not necessarily effect your state of being (how you relate to the world).

You may argue that adherents of Islam do not necessarily relate to the world as people who submit to God. Many Muslims err, sin and make mistakes. This is true. However a Muslim will have a state of being that can be described as a necessary level of humility before God with an intention to worship Him. If one is arrogant (to an excessive level) and never intends to worship God, then it will be very difficult to describe that person as a Muslim.

Islam necessarily transforms your state of being to the level of humility before God and with the heartfelt intention to worship Him (the degree of which can change). However beliefs do not necessarily transform your state of being. They may do nothing to your heart, what you say and how you relate to the world.

Saying that there’s no deity worthy of worship except God (Allah) and the Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him) is His final Messenger is a form of knowing that transforms one’s state of being: what they feel in their heart, what they say with their tongue and how the act and relate to themselves and the world.

To conclude, God and His messenger know best.



Hadhrat Junaid Baghdaadi (Rahmatullah alayh) was asked about the difference between the Blood of Hadhrat Husain (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Mansoor Hallaaj (Rahmatullah alayh).

Background information: Hadhrat Mansoor Hallaaj Rahmatullah alayh – was among the great Auliya. In an extremely lofty spiritual state of ecstasy, he repeatedly uttered: ‘Anal Haq!’ (I am Allah!’) which of course was blasphemy (kufr) in terms of the Shariah. The punishment for such blasphemy is execution if the blasphemer refuses to repent. Hadhrat Mansoor Rahmatullah alayh – refused to retract and repent. On the contrary, he persisted with his proclamation of ‘Anal Haq’. 

He was sentenced to death. On the occasion of his execution, he continued with his utterance. His hands and feet were first cut off, and finally he was killed. Every drop of his Blood which fell to the ground exclaimed loudly: ‘Anal Haq!’and on the ground the Blood wrote: ‘Allaahu Allaahu’. His body was incinerated, and from the ashes the sound of ‘Anal Haq’ continued vociferously and vehemently……….. This is a brief introduction to the question posed to Hadhrat Junaid Bagdhaadi –Rahmatullah alayhi – who had signed the death warrant for Hadhrat Mansoor’s execution.)

The Question:

“The Blood of Al-Hallaaj, as it fell to the ground inscribed on the ground: ‘Allaahu Allaahu’. But this was not the case with the Blood of Hadhrat Husain (Radhiyallahu anhu). What was the Hikmat (wisdom) underlying the mystery?

The Answer:

Hadhrat Junaid (Rahmatullah alayh) responded:

“The accused (Al-Hallaaj in this case) required exculpation (i.e. his innocence had to be proved). He was accused of zandaqah (blasphemy/kufr) in a matter of the Deen. Thus the inscription by his Blood exculpated him from the charge of zandaqah. On the contrary, Husain Bin Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) was not in need to be exculpated from any charge of blasphemy. Know and understand this (difference).”


By Mujlisul Ulama

The Ahmadi kuffaar who are the followers of the false prophet, Mirza Gulam Ahmad, are not Muslims. This kuffaar sect masquerades as Muslims. They have their centre in Cape Town in Manly Road, Athlone.

Many Muslims are deceived into believing that the Ahmadis are Muslims. The deception is based on their claim of believing in the Kalimah Laa ilaha il lallaah Muhammadur Rasulullah. Mere recitation of the Kalimah of Islam without 100% belief in all the Aqaaid (Beliefs) of Islam does not render the reciter a Muslim.

He remains a kaafir if he rejects even one belief of Islam or interpolates one extra belief into Islam, or if he changes the meaning of any belief or tenet of Islam from the meaning which has reached us from the Sahaabah. There are many kufr aberrations in the Qaadiani religion of which the Ahmadiyyah is a sect.

The Finality of Nubuwwat, viz., there is no Nabi after Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), is the fundamental basis for the kufr of all Qaadianis. Qaadianis are the followers of Gulam Mirza Ahamd of Qadian which is now in Pakistan. The Ahmadiyyah group is a sect of Qaadianism. Whilst they claim to accept Mirza Gulam as a ‘reformer’, not as a prophet, their claim is satanically deceptive. Gullible and ignorant Muslims are sometimes entangled in this deception. Even if they believe that Mirza Gulam was a reformer, it is kufr to believe that a man who claimed to be a Nabi is a reformer. So, beware of the deception of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jamaat which operates from Cape Town.


[Al-Haqq bulletien]

Modernists, Mudhilleen ulama-e-soo’ and other types of antiSunnah deviates such as the inter-faithers, monotonously proffer the story of the Christian delegation from Najraan which had met Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in Madinah. They stupidly argue their baatil opinions on the basis of the Najraani episode to justify kufr inter-faith dialogue and for permissibility for kuffaar wallowing in spiritual and physical janaabat to make merry in the Musaajid.

The following brief account of the episode of the delegation from Najraan will dispel the stupidities of the deviant entities who are all bootlickers of the West – of the Yahood and Nasaaraa.

When the delegation reached Madinah Munawwarah, its members removed their dustridden travel dress and donned their gaudily adorned garments and golden rings. According to their proudful style, their long cloaks dragged on the ground as they walked. Exhibiting some pomp and show they came to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and greeted him. Our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not respond to their greeting. He did not exchange niceties nor display any vestige of bootlicking.

They endeavoured the whole day to engage Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in conversation, but he rebuffed them. He did not speak with them. Distraught and perplexed, they set out in search of Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (Radhiyallahu anhu). They were acquainted with these two senior Sahaabah. After they located the two, the Christians said:

“O Uthmaan! O Abdur Rahmaan! Your Nabi had written a letter to us. We have come to respond to his letter. We came and greeted, but he refused to respond to our greeting. We endeavoured the entire day to speak to him, but he avoided us. What is your advice? Do you advise that we should return?”

Both these Sahaabah sought the advice of Hadhrat Ali(Radhiyallahu anhu) who said: “They should remove their gaudy garments and their golden rings, and don their travel dress, then go to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).”

This advice was heeded. The delegation acted accordingly. When they came into the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and greeted, he returned their greeting. Then Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“I take an oath by That Being Who has sent me with the Truth! They (i.e. the delegation) had come to me the first time with the adornment of Iblees….”

This was forthright Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy anil Munkar to even the kuffaar. Dress of the type which even Muslims today wear in emulation of kuffaar fashions are ‘adornments of Iblees’. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not resort to the type of nafsaani ‘hikmat’ which the ‘dumb shaitaan’ molvis of today advocate.

Then Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) engaged them in discussion. Before the delegation had arrived, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had issued the following ultimatum to them:

“Accept Islam, and you will be granted safety…….I am calling you away from the worship of slaves to the worship of Allah Ta’ala. I call you away from the friendship of slaves to the Friendship of Allah. If you refuse (to accept this demand), then payment of Jizyah will be incumbent on you. If you refuse (even payment of Jizyah), thentake notice of war. Was-salaam”

This was the Tableegh and Da’wat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. It was this type of Tableegh which had smashed the Roman and Persian empires, and which saw their lands being annexed to the Islamic Empire. But only those who are imbued with high degrees of Taqwa are able to act in accordance with this Sunnah method of Tabligh.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had also informed them:

“Three things impede you from accepting Islam: Worshipping the cross; devouring the flesh of swines, and believing that Isaa (Alayhis salaam) is the son of Allah.”

There is not the slightest semblance of inter-faith dialogue in Rasulullah’s engagement with the Najraani Christians. The Message of Islam was put forth without the slightest ambiguity and it was said with clarity that their religion of kufr was false, and that there is only one Deen of Truth, namely, Islam.

Regarding the delegation of Najraan, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“The Truth is from your Rabb (O Muhammad!). Therefore, do not be among those who doubt. Whoever disputes with you in this matter (of the Haqq) after Knowledge (by Wahi) has come to you, then say: ‘Come! Let us call our sons and your sons, our wives and your wives, ourselves and yourselves, then we shall supplicate sincerely (and earnestly) invoking the La’nat (Curse) of Allah on the liars.” (Aal-e-Imraan, 59 and 60)

This was the challenge which Allah Ta’ala commanded Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to issue to the Najraani Christians. The delegation had asked Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) why he was speaking ill of ‘their person’………………. Upon this Allah Ta’ala revealed the aforementioned Aayat of Mubaahalah. However, the Christians were scared, hence refused to take up the challenge. There was no inter-faith dialogue. They had to take up the challenge or admit defeat and the falsehood of their religion.

Far, very far from any bootlicking and listening to any sermon of kufr from the Najraani delegation, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) imposed on them an annual Jizyah tax of 2,000 suits of garments to be handed over each year in the month of Rajab.

Thereafter, Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) told them that if they had engaged him in the Mubaahalah to in voke the La’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal, the entire Christian population of Najraan would have been destroyed. All of them would have been transformed into apes and swines, and the entire region would have been consumed by a raging fire, and even birds would not perch on the trees of Najraan.

This then is the story of the Najraani delegation which the followers of Iblees and all other munaafiq bootlickers and modernists cite to justify kuffaar presence in the Musaajid and their kufr inter-faith dialogue. Is there any semblance of bootlicking by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in this episode? Did Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) obfuscate the Haqq and allow the Christians to insult the Qur’aan and Islam, and to din the ears of Muslims with such kufr and blasphemy which insult the Deen, the Qur’aan and the Nabi? Did Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) invite the Najraanis to propagate their kufr and shirk in the Musjid? But all of this evil kufr is accepted by bootlicking, munaafiq sheikhs and molvis.

By putridly and stupidly mentioning the Najraani delegation, the mudhilleen molvis and modernists hoodwink the ignorant masses into the satanic understanding that the Najraani delegation was in a dominant position and had dictated to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Muslimeen. In addition to there being not the slightest vestige of bootlicking, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) acquitted himself with belligerency. He refused to greet them. He refused to speak to them the entire day when they arrived. They were constrained to disrobe and don their old, dirty travel garments. They were issued the Mubaahalah challenge with the consequences of being transformed into apes and pigs, and finally an annual tax was imposed on them under threat of War.

ﻓﺘﻨﮧ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ

ﻓﺘﻨﮧ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺑﻐﯿﺮ ﮨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮯ ﮐﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿں

ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺁﺝ ﺗﮏ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺠﯿﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻣﺆﻗﻒ ﮐﮯ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮨﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﻏﻠﻂ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ

ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﮨﺮ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺣﻖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺠﯿﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮨﻤﯿﺖ ﮐﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺤﮑﻢ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﮐﺮﮮ

ﺍﺱ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺁﯾﺘﯿﮟ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﮨﯿﮟ،ﺍﻥ ﺳﺐ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺣﺎﻃﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﮧ ﺫﯾﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﮐﯽ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﯾٰۤﺎَﯾُّﮩَﺎ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾۡﻦَ ﺍٰﻣَﻨُﻮۡۤﺍ ﺍَﻃِﯿۡﻌُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻭَ ﺍَﻃِﯿۡﻌُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮۡﻝَ ﻭَ ﺍُﻭﻟِ. ﺍﻟۡﺎَﻣۡﺮِ ﻣِﻨۡﮑُﻢۡ ۚ ………
ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 56

 ﺍﮮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺟﻮ ﺗﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ‏)ہیں

 ﻣَﻦۡ ﯾُّﻄِﻊِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮۡﻝَ ﻓَﻘَﺪۡ ﺍَﻃَﺎﻉَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ۚ ﻭَ ﻣَﻦۡ ﺗَﻮَﻟّٰﯽ ﻓَﻤَﺎۤ ﺍَﺭۡﺳَﻠۡﻨٰﮏَ ﻋَﻠَﯿۡﮩِﻢۡ ﺣَﻔِﯿۡﻈًﺎ
‏ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 8
ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺭﻭ ﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻮ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺁﭖ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﻧﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻨﺎ ﮐﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ

 ﻗُﻞۡ ﺍِﻥۡ ﮐُﻨۡﺘُﻢۡ ﺗُﺤِﺒُّﻮۡﻥَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻓَﺎﺗَّﺒِﻌُﻮۡﻧِﯽۡ ﯾُﺤۡﺒِﺒۡﮑُﻢُ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻭَ ﯾَﻐۡﻔِﺮۡ ﻟَﮑُﻢۡ ﺫُﻧُﻮۡﺑَﮑُﻢۡ ؕ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻏَﻔُﻮۡﺭٌ ﺭَّﺣِﯿۡﻢٌ
‏ ﺁﻝ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ 31

 ﮐﮩﻮ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮ ﺗﻮ ﻣﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﺮﮮ ﮔﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﮮ ﮔﻨﺎﮦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﮮ ﮔﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺑﺨﺸﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺭﺣﻢ ﻭﺍﻻ ﮨﮯ

 ﻗُﻞۡ ﺍَﻃِﯿۡﻌُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮۡﻝَ ۚ ﻓَﺎِﻥۡ ﺗَﻮَﻟَّﻮۡﺍ ﻓَﺎِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻟَﺎ ﯾُﺤِﺐُّ ﺍﻟۡﮑٰﻔِﺮِﯾۡﻦَ
‏ ﺁﻝ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ 32

 ﮐﮩﻮ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺲ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻭﮦ ﺭﻭﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﻮ ﭘﺴﻨﺪ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ

 ﻗُﻞۡ ﯾٰۤﺎَﯾُّﮩَﺎ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺎﺱُ ﺍِﻧِّﯽۡ ﺭَﺳُﻮۡﻝُ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮑُﻢۡ ﺟَﻤِﯿۡﻌَۨﺎ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯼۡ ﻟَﮧٗ ﻣُﻠۡﮏُ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻤٰﻮٰﺕِ ﻭَ ﺍﻟۡﺎَﺭۡﺽِ ۚ ﻟَﺎۤ ﺍِﻟٰﮧَ ﺍِﻟَّﺎ ﮨُﻮَ ﯾُﺤۡﯽٖ ﻭَ ﯾُﻤِﯿۡﺖُ ۪ ﻓَﺎٰﻣِﻨُﻮۡﺍ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﻭَ ﺭَﺳُﻮۡﻟِﮧِ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﯽِّ ﺍﻟۡﺎُﻣِّﯽِّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯼۡ ﯾُﻮٔۡﻣِﻦُ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﻭَ ﮐَﻠِﻤٰﺘِﮧٖ ﻭَ ﺍﺗَّﺒِﻌُﻮۡﮦُ ﻟَﻌَﻠَّﮑُﻢۡ ﺗَﮩۡﺘَﺪُﻭۡﻥَ
‏ ﺍﻻﻋﺮﺍﻑ 158 ‏

 ﮐﮩﻮ ﺍﮮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮ ! ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻢ ﺳﺐ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﻮﮞ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﮦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺁﺳﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺩﺷﺎﮨﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺳﻮﺍ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﻟﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﭘﺲ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻻﺅ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺍﻣﯽ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﮐﮭﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺮﻭﯼ ﮐﺮﻭ ﻋﺠﺐ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻢ ﮐﺎﻣﯿﺎﺏ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺅ

ﻟﻔﻆ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺤﺚ

ﺍﻭﭘﺮ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺐ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺠﯿﺖ ﮐﻮ ﺩﻭ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﺭ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ . ﺗﻮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭﯼ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﮨﮯ،
” ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮨﮯ ”
ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺩﻝ ﮐﺎ ﭨﯿﮍﮪ ﭘﻦ

ﺟﺐ ﺩﻝ ﮨﯽ ﭨﯿﮍﮬﺎ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﭘﮭﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﮐﺴﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﭘﺮ ﮐﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﮬﺮﺗﺎ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺎﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻝ ﭨﯿﮍﮬﺎ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺳﻨﺖ ﮨﮯ
ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ہے

ﻭَ ﺍِﺫۡ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﻣُﻮۡﺳٰﯽ ﻟِﻘَﻮۡﻣِﮧٖ ﯾٰﻘَﻮۡﻡِ ﻟِﻢَ ﺗُﻮٔۡﺫُﻭۡﻧَﻨِﯽۡ ﻭَ ﻗَﺪۡ ﺗَّﻌۡﻠَﻤُﻮۡﻥَ ﺍَﻧِّﯽۡ ﺭَﺳُﻮۡﻝُ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮑُﻢۡ ؕ ﻓَﻠَﻤَّﺎ ﺯَﺍﻏُﻮۡۤﺍ ﺍَﺯَﺍﻍَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻗُﻠُﻮۡﺑَﮩُﻢۡ ؕ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻟَﺎ ﯾَﮩۡﺪِﯼ ﺍﻟۡﻘَﻮۡﻡَ ﺍﻟۡﻔٰﺴِﻘِﯿۡﻦَ
‏ ﺍﻟﺼﻒ 5 ‏

 ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺐ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﻗﻮﻡ ﺳﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺍﮮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮ ! ﺗﻢ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻣﺠﮭﮯ ﺳﺘﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﻮ، ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺧﻮﺏ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﮨﻮ ﮐﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﯼ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﻮﮞ،
ﭘﺲ ﺟﺐ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻧﺎﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﭨﯿﮍﮬﺎ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻓﺎﺳﻘﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮨﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ

ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﻮ ﺷﺮﮎ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻌﺒﯿﺮ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺩﻝ ﮐﮯ ﭨﯿﮍﮪ ﭘﻦ ﮐﺎ ﺑﮩﺖ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻗﻤﺎﺵ ﮐﮯ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﮓ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﺎﻝ ﮨﮯ

ﺑﮩﺖ ﺳﺎﺩﮦ ﺳﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻞ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺁﭖ ﮐﮯ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻡ ﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﭖ ﮐﯽ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﮩﺮﮦ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺮﻭﯼ ﮨﮯ

ﺭﻭﺯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺳﮯ ﺁﺝ ﺗﮏ ﺍﻣﺖ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮩﯽ ﻣﻔﮩﻮﻡ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻣﺎﺳﻮﺍﺋﮯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮩﺎﺩ ﻣﻔﺴﺮﯾﻦ ﮐﮯ

ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﮑﻞ ﺻﺎﻑ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺷﺮﮎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﻋﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮨﮯ . ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻭﭘﺮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺎﻧﭻ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﮯ

ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ، ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ؟

ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﯾﮧ ﺷﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺑﺮﺍﮦ ﺭﺍﺳﺖ ﮨﺮ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﮐﮯ ﭘﺎﺱ ﻟﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺁ ﮐﺮ ﺑﺘﺎﺋﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﺮﺍ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺮﯾﮏ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮯ ﺗﻢ ﮐﻮ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﮮ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺁﺳﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﻮ ﭼﮭﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﻮ ﻓﺮﺵ ﺑﻨﺎﯾﺎ، ﺳﻮﺭﺝ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭼﺎﻧﺪ ﮐﻮ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﯼ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﮕﺎ ﺩﯾﺎ
ﻟﺤﺎﻇﮧ ﻣﺠﮫ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻻﺅ،

ﺍﮔﺮﭼﮧ ﮨﺮ ﻧﺎﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺳﺮﮐﺶ ﻗﻮﻡ ﻧﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﮐﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺳﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﮨﺶ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻇﮩﺎﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﺳﺎﻣﻨﮯ ﺁﺋﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﮐﺒﮭﯽ ﮨﻮﺍ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ
ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﻻﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﺍﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺑﺎﺕ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ

ﻭَ ﺍِﺫۡ ﻗُﻠۡﺘُﻢۡ ﯾٰﻤُﻮۡﺳٰﯽ ﻟَﻦۡ ﻧُّﻮٔۡﻣِﻦَ ﻟَﮏَ ﺣَﺘّٰﯽ ﻧَﺮَﯼ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﺟَﮩۡﺮَۃً ﻓَﺎَﺧَﺬَﺗۡﮑُﻢُ ﺍﻟﺼّٰﻌِﻘَۃُ ﻭَ ﺍَﻧۡﺘُﻢۡ ﺗَﻨۡﻈُﺮُﻭۡﻥَ
‏ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺮۃ 55 ‏

 ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺐ ﺗﻢ ﻧﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺍﮮ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ! ﮨﻢ ﮨﺮﮔﺰ ﺁﭖ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻻﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ ﺟﺐ ﺗﮏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﻇﺎﮨﺮﯼ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﻧﮧ ﻟﯿﮟ ﭘﺲ ‏( ﺍﺱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﮯ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺎﺩﺍﺵ ﻣﯿﮟ ‏) ﺗﻢ ﮐﻮ ﺑﺠﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮐﮍﮎ ﻧﮯ ﺁ ﻟﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻢ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﮨﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ

ﯾَﺴۡﺌَﻠُﮏَ ﺍَﮨۡﻞُ ﺍﻟۡﮑِﺘٰﺐِ ﺍَﻥۡ ﺗُﻨَﺰِّﻝَ ﻋَﻠَﯿۡﮩِﻢۡ ﮐِﺘٰﺒًﺎ ﻣِّﻦَ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻤَﺎٓﺀِ ﻓَﻘَﺪۡ ﺳَﺎَﻟُﻮۡﺍ ﻣُﻮۡﺳٰۤﯽ ﺍَﮐۡﺒَﺮَ ﻣِﻦۡ ﺫٰﻟِﮏَ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻟُﻮۡۤﺍ ﺍَﺭِﻧَﺎ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﺟَﮩۡﺮَۃً ﻓَﺎَﺧَﺬَﺗۡﮩُﻢُ ﺍﻟﺼّٰﻌِﻘَۃُ ﺑِﻈُﻠۡﻤِﮩِﻢۡ ۚ ……….
‏ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 153 ‏

 ﺍﮮ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﮨﻞ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺁﭖ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﮧ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﺭﻭ ﺑﺮﻭ ﺁﺳﻤﺎﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ ﺁﺅ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﮍﺍ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﮧ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ، ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﻇﺎﮨﺮﯼ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺩﮐﮭﺎ ﺩﻭ، ﭘﺲ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻇﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺎﺩﺍﺵ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﺠﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮐﮍﮎ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺁ ﻟﯿﺎ

ﻭَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾۡﻦَ ﻟَﺎ ﯾَﻌۡﻠَﻤُﻮۡﻥَ ﻟَﻮۡ ﻟَﺎ ﯾُﮑَﻠِّﻤُﻨَﺎ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﺍَﻭۡ ﺗَﺎۡﺗِﯿۡﻨَﺎۤ ﺍٰﯾَۃٌ ؕ ﮐَﺬٰﻟِﮏَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾۡﻦَ ﻣِﻦۡ ﻗَﺒۡﻠِﮩِﻢۡ ﻣِّﺜۡﻞَ ﻗَﻮۡﻟِﮩِﻢۡ ؕ ﺗَﺸَﺎﺑَﮩَﺖۡ ﻗُﻠُﻮۡﺑُﮩُﻢۡ ؕ ﻗَﺪۡ ﺑَﯿَّﻨَّﺎ ﺍﻟۡﺎٰﯾٰﺖِ ﻟِﻘَﻮۡﻡٍ ﯾُّﻮۡﻗِﻨُﻮۡﻥَ
‏ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺮۃ 118 ‏

 ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﻢ ﺳﮯ ( ﺑﺮﺍﮦ ﺭﺍﺳﺖ ‏) ﮐﻼﻡ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﯾﺎ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﭘﺎﺱ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﯽ ﺁﺋﮯ، ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ، ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻝ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻠﺘﮯ ﺟﻠﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﯾﻘﯿﻦ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﺮ ﺁﯾﺘﯿﮟ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯼ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟٰﯽ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﻨﺪﻭﮞ ﺗﮏ ﭘﮩﭽﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﻣﻨﺘﺨﺐ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺁﺗﺎ
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﻮﻟﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟٰﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺻﺤﯿﻔﮯ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺁﯾﺘﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺸﺮﯾﺢ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﯿﺎﺭ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﮨﮯ

ﻭَ ﺍَﻧۡﺰَﻟۡﻨَﺎۤ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮏَ ﺍﻟﺬِّﮐۡﺮَ ﻟِﺘُﺒَﯿِّﻦَ ﻟِﻠﻨَّﺎﺱِ ﻣَﺎ ﻧُﺰِّﻝَ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮩِﻢۡ ﻭَ ﻟَﻌَﻠَّﮩُﻢۡ ﯾَﺘَﻔَﮑَّﺮُﻭۡﻥَ
ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻞ 44 ‏
ﺍﻭﺭ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺁﭖ ﭘﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺫﮐﺮ ‏( ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ‏) ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺗﺎﮐﮧ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺁﭖ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﺮ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﮟ ﺷﺎﯾﺪ ﻭﮦ ﻏﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻓﮑﺮ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ

ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺁﯾﺘﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻨﯿﺎﺩ ﭘﺮ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﮐﻮ ﺷﺎﺭﺡ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ


By Mujlisul Ulama


Because there is no aggrandizement, no limelight, no Yahood and Nasaara to bootlick in this case! The victims are poor, illiterate village folk, off the beaten track, hence no disingenuous dust and smoke is kicked up in bootlicking functions for gratifying nafsaani lusts.

More than 130 people were killed in an attack on a village in central Mali on Saturday by armed men wearing traditional Dogon hunters’ clothing.

Gunmen surrounded the village at dawn before attacking people in their homes in Ogossagou in the Mopti region.

The attackers targeted members of the Fulani ethnic community who are accused of having ties to jihadists.

The attack took place while UN ambassadors were in Mali to discuss increased violence.

The Security Council mission met Prime Minister Soumeylou Boubeye Maiga to talk about the increased threat from jihadist fighters in central Mali.

The victims of Saturday’s deadly attack were “killed with guns and machetes”, a local security official told AFP news agency.

Witnesses also told AFP that nearly all the huts in the village had been burned down.

The mayor of the neighbouring village of Ouenkoro, Cheick Harouna Sankare, described the attack as a “massacre”.

Clashes between Dogon hunters and semi-nomadic Fulani herders can occur over access to land and water.

The Dogon also accuse Fulanis of ties to jihadist groups. The Fulanis claim that Mali’s military has armed the hunters to attack them.

Last year, hundreds of people died in clashes between Dogon hunters and members of the Fula ethnic group.

On Friday, a Mali-based al-Qaeda affiliate said it had carried out an attack last week on a military base that left more than 20 soldiers dead.

The militants said it was in response to violence against Fulani herdsmen.

One Ogossagou resident, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters news agency that Saturday’s violence appeared to be in retaliation for the attack on the soldiers. From the BBC (End of report)

While considerable dust has been kicked up regarding Allah’s Punishment for the New Zealand Muslims, the morons who are deriving nafsaani pleasure from their public shows and hollow demonstrations of ‘solidarity’, etc., are ominously silent about the greater massacre in Mali. While this too is an Athaab of Allah Ta’ala, and on a greater scale than the New Zealand massacre, the zindeeq morons do not shed even a teardrop, not open their vile mouths in sympathy with the Muslims hacked to death and countless others injured. There is no nafsaani benefit for them in even thinking of the Mali massacre, hence the silence.

The insincerity of those who sympathize with the New Zealanders, but sweep the Mali massacre under the carpet, is conspicuous and loud. All of these miserable characters have no genuine concern for the suffering Muslims. Their motive is to only promote themselves, aggrandizement and other contemptible nafsaani agendas.

Dress-Style & the Misleading Fatwa of a Deviant “Shaykh”

Question: According to one Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, it is permissible to wear any type of clothes. The dress styles of kuffaar are permissible. He also rejects Hijaab. He says that we should not be worrying if girls walk about without scarves. He presents some Hadith narrations in which is mentioned that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) donned a variety of garments. Please comment.

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

A person who rejects Hijaab and denies the compulsion of hair-covering for women is not a Muslim. If he was a Muslim once upon a time, then his beliefs of kufr eliminate his Imaan. He is a deviate and a mudhil. He deviates the ignorant from the Deen.

The permanent dress of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as well as that of all the Ambiya, was the qamees (kurtah) and izaar (lungi). The confounded murtad ‘shaykh’ is guilty of confounded lies. It was a rare occasion that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) donned for a couple of minutes a gift of a foreign garment. It was not his dress style nor the style of the Sahaabah.

The momentary donning of a foreign garment only served the purpose of permissibility should such a garment in future become a style of the Muslim community. If a style which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not wear, but is the style of a Muslim community, then it will be permissible provided that it is within the confines of essential Islamic guidelines.

The garment must be above the ankles. It should not reveal the shape of the body. It should not be bright feminine colours for males. It should not be a specific kuffaar style. The lower part of the body should be covered with the qamees or a shawl. Muslim com-munities of the various countries have their dis-tinctive Islamic dress. As long as the essential guideline requisites are fulfilled, all such dress styles will be permissible. The very dress style is Islamic and only Mus-lims in the country don such a style.

It was never suggested by the Ulama that only the specific style of the Sahaabah is permissible and all other forms are haraam.

But, kuffaar styles and fashions are haraam. Such styles are Tashabbuh bil kuffaar.

The shaykh, if he has any intention of saving his skin in Qiyaamah, he should renew his Imaan, repent and renew his nikah if he happens to have a wife.


Only Islam Values Sanctity of Life

By brother Abu Yusuf

Only Islam truly values the sanctity (hurmah) of life. It defines it, preserves it and practically protects it!

Many secular-liberalist may value ‘the sanctity of life’ but as they cannot actually define this sanctity, life itself becomes easily dispensable when material interests are greater! They may value a life if they know, relate or resonate with it – like the biases we have seen to the killer of NZ terrorist, or a fellow citizen in the developed world but not as much sympathy (or empathy) to others in far greater numbers being massacred in Yemen, Rohingya, CAR, Filistin, etc

Sufficient proof of their disregard for life in pursuit of materialism can also be found in secular-liberal societies from individuals and families on rampant knife-crime, mass shooting, organised assassinations to the highest authority of the state in perpetual wars and supporting massacres of tyrants. Not to mention modern day infanticide and patent laws on desperately needed medication, its restriction and absence led to the death of millions!

They may argue they have laws that punish the killer but the concern is not protection of life but the protection of individual freedom. Laws – viewed as a necessary evil – exist in secular-liberal societies to guarantee the individual’s liberty and to prevent infringement of another’s freedom!

The enlightenment believed in the creator and therefore understood, as a self-evident truth the sacredness of life, its utmost value and a responsibility and a trust from the creator that one would be accountable for – all due to religious concepts inherited from Christianity. However over time atheism and agnosticism became the dominant and religiosity weakened (at an alarming rate, almost diminished in certain areas) and subsequently the meaning and value of life became a commodity, and pursuit of individual freedom became a sacred duty! And we are witness to its misery and senseless killing today!

Islam understood the sanctity of life: “We ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone slew a person, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole of mankind. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people.” [Qur’an 5:32]

However the difference to Christianity and other religions is that Islam actually guarantees its protection via the State. The Rule of law is an integral part of Islam. The religions rely solely on the hope of individual’s personal will to act good but cannot protect life from murderers who do not wish to follow the ’Rules of do’s & don’ts’. Islam not only relies on the Taqwa of individuals but actually demonstrated the saving of a life by enforcing its strict laws in al-hudud, jinayat and ta’dheer that seek to preserve life by either a deterrent, just punishment or rehabilitation. Other religions simply have no system to regulate life’s affairs in politics.

It may be argued that there are Muslims, not liberalists, who do not value the sanctity of life like the isis militia and boko haram. That they kill innocent civilians in the name of Islam!

There are Muslims who sin this does not make it islamic, and killing in the name of Islam makes them no different to Ku Klux Klan killing in the name of Christianity! Furthermore these militia movements who initially began on a noble cause in defending their lands and the oppressed became excessive (ghulu) in imitating the enemies in targeting innocent civilians, and this has nothing to do with Islam or its theology. Islam places strict rules in the preservation of life, and in taking of a life in just causes like murder, adultery, highway robbery, retribution etc via the judiciary of the state and not left to whims of a people that feel oppressed.
Muslims must be on the offensive intellectually in exposing the capitalists in its audacity to police the world on its ‘high horses’ and ‘moral high ground’ when it is they the real cause of the decay and misery of the world! They are the causes of the violent militias that target innocent civilians. Muslims also must learn and present the true alternative that saves and protects the sanctity of all life.



Q. Is it permissible to allow non-Muslims into a Musjid? In response to this question, the Darul Ifta of Azaadville said:

If entering the Masjid is permitted for a Kaafir as explained above, there is no harm in them viewing the Masjid particularly when done with the Niyyah of giving them Dawat towards Islam. Obviously, giving them Dawat means that we simply invite them towards the oneness of Allah and the Risaalat (prophethood) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and not to engage in any sort of interfaith dialogues as has become rife in various places. (End of Azaadville’s fatwa)

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

In several articles have we explained the impermissibility of allowing non-Muslims into the Musjid. These articles are available on our website. It will suffice here to say that the Darul Ifta has erred in its view. Da’wat to the kuffaar is never reliant on inviting them to the Musjid.

Although the Mufti Sahib says: “not to engage in any sort of interfaith dialogues as has become rife in various places”, he has portrayed short-sightedness and lack of wisdom.  Shaitaan is a cunning ustaadh. He initiates his plot with permissibilities, in fact, with even masnoon acts. Only purified Aql fortified with the noor of Taqwa is able to detect the subtle snares of Iblees. To save people from zina, Allah Ta’ala commanded them to abstain from such permissibilities which lead to zina, hence the Qur’aan Majeed states: “Do not come near to zina.”

The Mufti Sahib has not applied his mind in his fatwa. Non-Muslims entering the Musaajid in our era are not rare occasions or isolated acts. They are nowadays invading the Musaajid with the consent of the trustees, the ulama-e-soo’, and short-sighted Muftis, in droves.  Tourist buses bring droves of kuffaar wallowing in janaabat and kufr, and dressed lewdly – men and women – to do some sight-seeing in the Musaajid. The molvis in the Musaajid dupe themselves with their ‘dawah’ stupid argument. The male musallis stare lustfully at the kuffaar women dressed immodestly. The entire atmosphere in the Musjid is polluted with fisq, fujoor and najaasat.

The first step in the plot of Iblees was to convince the molvis and muftis with the ‘dawah’ chimera. Gradually, it developed into interfaith dialogue right inside the Musjid. Then the situation deteriorated. Instead of giving them da’wah, the kuffaar give da’wah of Christianity to Muslims right inside the Musjid. This was recently a shaitaani accomplishment in a Musjid in England.

Degenerating further into the cauldron of kufr, the priest ridiculed the Qur’aan Majeed and denigrated Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) right inside the Musjid which had a full-house of musallis, all listening attentively to the kufr preachings of the priests and the insults to Islam. Not a word of protest escaped the lips of a single musalli on that vile occasion created by the Imaam of the Musjid.

The situation has deteriorated further. Now Muslims in New Zealand, drunk with bootlicking and fearful of their own shadows, have invited Christians to sing hymns of shirk and kufr right inside the Musjid. And, the situation is set to deteriorate further when actual cross-worship by Muslims will take place inside the Musjid. Anyone who denies this reality is a kaafir because this is Rasulullah’s prediction. Qiyaamah is in close proximity of our era.

We have today reached this deplorable state of kufr and shirk being accepted inside the Musaajid as a consequence of zig-zag and downright baatil fatwas issued by moron muftis and the ulama-e-soo’ who have their own pernicious agendas. In fact, they are without Imaan. They have absolutely no fear for Allah Ta’ala. Thus they fear their shadows and bootlick the kuffaar.

It is indeed lamentable that Muftis, even sincere ones, of this era are so disgracefully short-sighted to fail to discern the danger in issuing fatwas based on just any permissibility. They lack the ability of applying the mind, and that is because they have hitherto failed to understand the meaning of Taqwa for themselves. Today, branding carrion as haraam, is a ‘taqwa’ not fatwa for these muftis who have lost the Path – Siraatul Mustaqeem.

Once when Hadhrat Shah Abdul Aziz (Rahmatullah alayh) was giving a bayaan to his mureeds and some Ulama, two persons from the public entered and sought a fatwa. The one said: ‘Today my friend drank water which was the left-over of an Englishman. What is the fatwa?” Hadhrat Shah Sahib adopting a very sombre attitude said that since this issue was extremely delicate, it will take time to search for the fatwa. He told them to return for the fatwa after a couple of days. The audience consisting of Ulama, was surprised. The fatwa according to the Shariah is simple. If the kaafir’s mouth was paak (taahir), the water remains paak, hence there was no concern. If his mouth was impure due to liquor or haraam food, then obviously the water was impure. Why did Shah Sahib adopt this strange strategy? But no one had the courage to question him.

On the appointed day, the two chaps came for their fatwa. Shah Sahib said: “The fatwa is Tajdeed-e-Imaan (i.e. renewal of Imaan. By implication he had become a murtadd); Tajdeed-e-Nikah (renewal of his marriage).” Shah Sahib furthermore prescribed some penances to be performed as an expiation (kaffarah) for having drunk the water which had touched the lips of the Englishman. The two persons being sincere, were satisfied. They left and observed the prescription and the penalty.

When the surprised Ulama questioned Hadhrat Shah Sahib, he responded: “By this measure, I have saved their Imaan.”

Muftis should reflect, apply their minds and not acquit themselves like morons enslaved to the nafs. The objective of fatwa is not to ruin the morals of Muslims and to open the avenue for fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. A Mufti should be far-sighted. He should be able to fathom the one who poses a question and not pander to the vagaries of people. But bootlicking has become an ingrained disease in the Ulama of today, in even the sincere ones, hence they all are in line for Allah’s Athaab. About them, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“Beware of such a punishment which will overtake not only the transgressors among you.” It will overtake and utterly destroy even the molvis and the buzroogs who excelled in bootlicking and accommodating baatil.

The muftis who have legalized entry into the Musaajid for kuffaar wallowing in janaabat and kufr are the culprits who are laying the foundation for cross-worship in the Musaajid.


By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam guided his Ummat to drink while sitting down. He specifically commanded his Ummat not to drink while standing up, He in addition commanded those who drink while standing to vomit. Yet, he did drink while standing as is correctly reported of him.

Some people said that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s drinking while standing overrules his command not to drink while standing. Another group said that his drinking while standing only demonstrates that this practice is only disliked not prohibited. Another group said that there is no contradiction between the two Ahadeeth. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam drank while standing when he needed to do so, as he came to the well of Zam Zam and was given a bucket of water that he drank from while standing (This applies to Zam Zam).

Drinking while standing begets many ailments and does not quench the thirst, nor will the water settle in the stomach so that the liver transfers it to the rest of the body. In this case, the water will descend quickly to the stomach and will aggravate it, and the water will not be digested properly.

Drinking water in three separate breaths

It is narrated in Muslim Shareef that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam used to sip the water in three separate breaths and would say:

“This method quenches the thirst better and is more palatable and sanitary.”

This Hadith indicates that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam used to remove the cup away from his mouth, take a breath and then drink some more.

In another Hadith, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam commanded that one should not breathe in the cup, but should move the cup away from his mouth and breath away from it. This method of drinking is very beneficial for quenching the thirst and more sanitary as Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has stated.

When the water enters the hot thirsty stomach in intervals, the second sip of water will quench the thirst left by the first, and the third will quench the thirst left by the first two.

In addition, this method is better suited for the temperature of the stomach, so as not to suddenly invade it with cold substances. In addition, when one drinks the water in one breath, it will only partially quench the thirst unlike when he drinks it in separate sips. This method [that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam taught us] gives better results than drinking the water or liquid in one breath, since water might dissipate the instinctive heat or weaken it, thus spoiling the temperament of the stomach and the liver.

Water might in addition beget many other ailments, especially for those who live in warm areas, such as Yemen and Hijaz, and especially during summer. Drinking in one breath is dangerous for such people because their instinctive heat is weak especially during hot weather, as we have stated.

Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s statement, “It quenches the thirst better and is more palatable and sanitary,” is similar to what Allah said: “And enjoy it without fear of any harm.” (4:4)

In addition, when one takes the drink in one breath, he might choke on it because of the large amount of the liquid. However, there is no fear from choking when one takes a breath while drinking. Further, when one takes a drink, the hot gases accumulating in his body will ascend from around the liver and the heart because of the cold water or liquid that is descending on the stomach. In this case, the water will come rushing down while the gases are ascending, causing flatulence and sometimes choking the person. One will not enjoy the drink in this case.

In addition, when cold water descends suddenly on the liver it will weaken it and cause a decrease in its temperature. However, when one takes the drink in separate sips, the liver will not lose its warmth and thus will not weaken. Similarly, when one pours water on a boiling pot, it will not decrease its temperature significantly,

At-Tirmidhi Rahmatullahi Alayhi narrated that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said:

“Do not drink in one breath just as the camel does. Rather, drink twice and thrice, and mention (Allah’s) Name before drinking and thank (Him) upon finishing.”

Mentioning Allah’s Name before drinking and thanking Him upon finishing has a significant effect in benefiting from the drink, enjoying it while fending off its harm. Imam Ahmad Rahmatullahi Alayhi said,

“When the food has four qualities, it will have become perfect: when Allah’s Name is mentioned before having it, when Allah is thanked after finishing with it, when there are many hands to eat from it, and when it is from legal, pure sources.”

Source: Healing with the Medicine of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam)