All posts by islamreigns

A student of Islam



Question: Many Muslim women who wear the purdah niqaab drive vehicles. It has become a normal practice. The Ulama, the vast majority or perhaps 99% of them, are all silent on this issue. They remove the niqaab while driving. Everyone can see them. When they stop, they lower their niqaabs. What is the status of these women drivers in the Shariah? What does Islam say about women driving cars?

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

Their status is that of the faasiqaat (flagrantly sinful) and faajiraat (immoral). They are the tinder of Jahannam. The women drivers of today are all signs of Qiyaamah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“I take oath by The Being Who has sent me (as the Messenger) with the Haqq! This world will not end unless khasf, qazf and maskh occurs.” The Sahaabah asked: “And, when will that be?” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “When you see women in the saddles (driving), when singing women are in abundance, when false testimony becomes prevalent, and when homosexuality and lesbianism are perpetrated.”

The prohibition of “driving in saddles’ is not restricted to horses. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has mentioned this in the context of the Impending Hour of Qiyaamah. That is, in profusion women will be driving in the era in close proximity of Qiyaamah. We are today in that era of Aakhiruz Zamaan. This prediction has materialized and the satanic phenomenon of women driving is incremental.

Although the women who are observing mock ‘purdah’ believe themselves to be purdah-nasheen ladies, they dwell in satanic deception. The ‘surooj’ (saddles) mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) refers to the driving seat of modernday vehicles. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) lumped them together with homosexuals and lesbians. When these scoundrels begin to preponderate, then it heralds the close advent of Qiyaamah.

These driving faajiraat are absolutely shameless. They have eliminated every vestige of haya from their hearts. It is not possible for a Muslim woman who genuinely fears Allah Ta’ala to drive a car. Almost every step prior to the acquisition of a driving licence is lewd. The woman has to interact with males throughout the process before being granted the rubbish driving licence. We have seen such ‘burqah bibis’ standing in queues, intermingling with kuffaar males at traffic departments. They are tested by male traffic personnel.

The woman sits alone with him in the vehicle. Her husband or father is a veritable dayyooth for permitting this type of zina.

Aiding and abetting these women to flagrantly indulge in this type of zina and lewd public projection, are the ulama-e-soo’ – the juhala, moron molvis – which issue fatwas of ‘jawaaz’ (permissibility) for this type of swinery. The worst culprits and agents of Iblees in this regard are the Tablighi molvis who commit even the kufr of proclaiming ‘permissibility’ for women to travel without mahrams on tabligh excursions.

Dealing with Conflicts between Two Muslim Groups

By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

Surah 49 – Al-Hujuraat – Ayah 9

 أَعـوذُ بِاللهِ مِنَ الشَّيْـطانِ الرَّجيـم
بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

وَاِنۡ طَآٮِٕفَتٰنِ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِيۡنَ اقۡتَتَلُوۡا فَاَصۡلِحُوۡا بَيۡنَهُمَا‌ۚ فَاِنۡۢ بَغَتۡ اِحۡدٰٮهُمَا عَلَى الۡاُخۡرٰى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِىۡ تَبۡغِىۡ حَتّٰى تَفِىۡٓءَ اِلٰٓى اَمۡرِ اللّٰهِ ‌ۚ فَاِنۡ فَآءَتۡ فَاَصۡلِحُوۡا بَيۡنَهُمَا بِالۡعَدۡلِ وَاَقۡسِطُوۡا ؕ‌ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ يُحِبُّ الۡمُقۡسِطِيۡنَ


“And if two groups of the believers fight each other, seek reconciliation between them. And if one of them commits aggression against the other, fight the one that commits aggression until it comes back to Allah’s command. So if it comes back, seek reconciliation between them with fairness, and maintain justice. Surely Allah loves those who maintain justice.”



In the foregoing verses the rights of the Prophet were set out. They also laid down the mannerism in which he should be treated. The verses prohibited any act that would annoy or hurt him. Now this set of verses [ 9-10] establishes the manners, mores, injunctions, and mutual rights and obligations to be observed in individual and social life. The common value of all these rules is to avoid causing any inconvenience to the members of the society.

Occasion of Revelation

The commentators have narrated several incidents as a background of the revelation of these verses. Among them is the clash that took place between two Muslim groups. It is not inconceivable that the totality of these incidents might have been the occasion of revelation. It is also possible that one of these incidents has been the cause of revelation and the other incidents, being similar, were also termed as the occasion of revelation.

Although the immediate addressees of this verse are rulers and those in authority who have the means to fight and wage war, [as stated by Abu Hayyan in Al-Bahr and preferred by `Alusi in Ruh-ul-Ma`ani] all Muslims are addressed in this verse indirectly to assist those in authority in this matter. Where there is no leader, ‘amir, king or president, the rule is that the two warring parties should be advised, as far as possible, to cease war. If this is not possible, common people are ordered to stay away from both warring groups: they should neither oppose nor aid any one of them.  [Bayan-ul-Qur’an].

Related Issues and Injunctions

There are several forms of mutual fighting between two Muslim parties:

[1] both parties are subjects of a Muslim government;

[2] neither of the parties is the subject of a Muslim government;

[3] one of the parties is the subject of a Muslim government, but not the other.

In the first case, it is compulsory for common Muslims to bring about an understanding between them and try to stop the mutual fighting. If they do not cease fighting by negotiations, then it is imperative for the Muslim ruler to take measures against them. If both parties cease fighting by the intervention of the Islamic government, then the laws of retaliation, retribution and blood-wit will apply. If they do not cease, then both parties will be treated like rebels. If one of the parties withdrew and the other persisted in oppression and transgression, then the persistent group will be treated like a rebel group. The obedient group will be designated as ‘Adil” (just). The detailed laws pertaining to rebels may be perused in books of Islamic law. Briefly, the law comprehends the following: Before fighting, their weapons must be seized and confiscated. Then they must be arrested and kept in prison until they repent. Neither in the course of fighting nor after fighting should their children be enslaved. Their wealth should not be treated like the spoils of war. In fact, their wealth will be held in trust until they repent. After repentance their belongings will be returned to them.

In the above verses, we come across the following directive:

فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا

‘…So if it comes back, seek reconciliation between them with fairness, and maintain justice.’ [ 49:9]

It means that if the belligerent party ceases fighting, then do not only stop fighting but also think about eliminating the cause of war and mutual dissatisfaction, so that the heart-burnings may come to an end. All enmity and hostilities will thus cease and an atmosphere of brotherhood may prevail for all times to come. Since these people have fought against the Muslim ruler, it was possible that they would not be treated by him equitably. Therefore, the Qur’an lays stress on setting things right between them equitably and justly, so that the rights of no one are violated [Adapted from Bayan-ul-Qur’an with reference to Hidayah].

If a very powerful group of Muslims revolts against the Muslim ruler, then it is necessary for the ruler to first hear out their complaint or cause of their dissatisfaction. If a doubt or a misunderstanding has arisen in their mind about some matter, it should be removed. If they show such cause on the basis of which it is permissible in Shari’ah to oppose a Muslim leader or ruler, like unjust behavior on the part of the government, it is essential for the general body of Muslims to assist the group, so that the leader or ruler may refrain from his tyranny, provided that his tyranny is proved beyond any shadow of doubt (Ibn-ul-Humam; Mazhari). If they cannot show any clearly legitimate reason for their dissatisfaction, revolt, disobedience, and waging war against the Muslim ruler, it is permitted for Muslims to wage war against the rebels. Imam Shafi`i (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) held that the Muslims should not initiate fight against the rebels unless they first start the fight [ Mazhari ]. This law applies when it is positively and unquestionably clear that the group is rebellious. However, if it is difficult to determine which group is rebellious and which is just, because each party has a valid Shari argument to justify its course of action, then the pros and cons of both parties may be weighed to determine the party that is “just” on the principle of probability. If the juristic argument of one party seems to someone more convincing, it is permitted for him to assist such a group. If someone cannot prefer the standpoint of any one of them, he should remain neutral, as it happened in the civil wars of the Battle of Camel and the Battle of Siffin when many noble Companions (رض) remained aloof.

Conflicts of the Noble Companions (Radiallahu Anhum)
Imam Abu Bakr Ibn-ul-`Arabi says that this verse of battle between Muslims covers all cases. It includes the case where both parties prepare for war on grounds of a principle of Shari’ah. Civil wars of the noble Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) were of this nature. Qurtubi, quoting this view of Ibn-ul-`Arabi, explains the actual situation of the Battle of Camel and the Battle of Siffin and gives guidelines for later generations of Muslims to follow in the light of the battles of the blessed Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) . This author has dealt with this subject in “Ahkam-ul-Qur’an” in Arabic and his Urdu book “Maqame-Sahabah”.The summary of the discussion given in that book with reference to Qurtubi (V.16, P.322) is as follows:

It is not permitted to attribute categorically, and with certainty, to any of the Companions that he was absolutely wrong in his action, because each of them acted according to his own Ijtihad. Their objective was to seek the pleasure of Allah. The Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) are all our leaders, and it is enjoined upon us that we should hold back our tongue from talking about their mutual differences, and always speak the best things about them. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallams companionship is a highly honourable position which should not be violated. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has prohibited to revile them or talk bad about them, and informed us that they have been forgiven and that Allah is pleased with them. Besides, there is the Hadith regarding Sayyidna Talhah (Radiallahu Anhu) reaching us through several transmitting authorities that:

انّ طلحہ شھید یمشی علی وجہ الارض

“Talhah is a martyr walking on the face of the earth.”

If Sayyidna Talhah (Radiallahu Anhu) was committing a clear sin by going out to wage war against Sayyidna `Ali, (Radiallahu Anhu) he could not attain the high status of a martyr. In the same way, if his act might be regarded as a failure to perform his duty on the basis of a clearly wrong interpretation, he would still not attain the status of martyrdom. Martyrdom is attained only when a person is killed in obedience of Allah. Therefore, it is necessary to construe the matter of the Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) in terms of the principle mentioned above.

Another proof of this is available in authentic and well-established Ahaadith which are reported by Sayyidna `Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) himself where Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “The killer of Zubair is in Hell.” Furthermore, Sayyidna `Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) reports that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Give news to the killer of Sayyidah Safiyyah’s (Radiallahu Anha) son that he will be in Hell.” In the light of this we need to believe that Sayyidna Zubair and Sayyidna Talhah (Radiallahu Anhum) were not sinners or disobedient to Allah in the position taken by them in the battle. Otherwise Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam would not have referred to Sayyidna Talhah (Radiallahu Anhu) as a martyr, nor would he predict about the killer of Zubair (Radiallahu Anhu) that he would be in Hell. Also, he is counted among the ten who were given the glad tidings of attaining Paradise. Traditions relating to this subject have almost reached the grade of continuity [tawatur] and the Traditions are referred to as Ahadith mutawatir.

Likewise the noble Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) who did not participate in the battles on either side, cannot be regarded as defaulters because their behaviour, conduct and attitude in this matter was also based on their ijtihad, and Allah maintained them thus. Therefore, it is not proper in any sense of the word to curse them, to taunt them, to hold them as sinners, and to neglect their virtues, their struggles and their great religious stations. Some of the scholars were posed the question: what is your view regarding the blood that was shed in the battles that took place among the blessed Companions (Radiallahu Anhum)? They simply recited the following verse of the Qur’an:

تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ ۖ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُم مَّا كَسَبْتُمْ ۖ وَلَا تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ﴿١٣٤
‘Those are a people who have passed away. For them what they earned, and for you what you earned. And you shall not be questioned as to what they have been doing. [ 2:134] ‘
The same question was posed to another scholar. He replied: “Allah saved my hands from being soiled with that blood. Now I will not soil my tongue with it.” He meant that he does not wish to make the mistake of categorically adjudging any one of the groups as the defaulter.

`Allamah Ibn-Fuwarrak (Rahmatullahi Alaih) says:
“Some of our colleagues feel that the example of the conflicts that took place between the noble Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) is like that of the episodes of conflict that occurred between Sayyidna Yusuf (Alaihis Salaam) and his brothers. They, despite their mutual differences, did not lose their status of wilayah and nubuwwah. The same principle applies to the matter of conflicts that occurred between the Companions.”

Sayyidna Muhasibi (Rahmatullahi Alaih) says: “As far as this bloodshed is concerned, it is difficult for us to say anything because there was a difference of opinion in this regard among the noble Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) themselves.”
When Hasan Al-Basri (Rahmatullahi Alaih) was asked the question concerning the wars between the noble Companions (Radiallahu Anhum) he replied:
“Those were fights in which the Companions were present and we were not. They knew all the circumstances and we do not know them. The matter in which the Companions are unanimous, we follow; and the matter in which there is difference of opinion, we observe silence.”

Sayyidna Muhasibi (Rahmatullahi Alaih) says:
“We concur with Hasan Al-Basri (Rahmatullahi Alaih) . We know that when the noble Companions meddled in any matter, they knew fully well why they were doing it. Our task is merely to follow them where they are unanimous, and where they differ we observe silence. We should not on our own introduce new ideas. We are assured that they must have exercised ijtihad and sought the pleasure of Allah. Therefore, in matters of religion they are all beyond doubt.”


By Mujlisul Ulama


Whether it is Yahudi kufr, Nasaara kufr, Hindu kufr, Chinese kufr, Buddhist kufr, white kufr, brown kufr, yellow kufr, black kufr or SHIAH kufr, it – all kufr – is a single satanic breed. All kufr is the antithesis of Imaan, and all kuffaar cherish an inveterate hatred for Islam and Muslims.

The most virulent variety of kufr is SHIAH kufr. Relative to the kufr of all its shaitaani siblings, Shiah kufr is of the worst kind. Compared to Shiah kufr, all other forms of kufr are of peripheral import. The virulence and venom which Shi’ism excretes for the illustrious Sahaabah – venom which is in reality intended for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – are not the features of any other brand of kufr.

The fundamental doctrines of the Shiah religion are:

(1) Hatred for the Sahaabah. It is their belief that barring a handful (about half a dozen), the entire Jama’ah of Sahaabah (124,000) had reneged from Islam after the demise of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

From among the vast Assembly of Sahaabah, the Shiahs have selected Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anhum) as special targets for the worst kind of vilification and abuse.

(2) The Qur’aan which the entire Muslim Ummah reveres and accepts as the Kalaam of Allah Ta’ala, is denied by Shiahs. They believe that the Qur’aan which we have is a fabrication of the Sahaabah. Never be deluded by any contrary claims made by present-day Shiahs, neo-Shiahs, and pro-Shiahs who masquerade as Muslims. These are all agents of Iblees who peddle the satanic political agenda of the Khomeini Iranian regime.

(3) Shiah Imaams: Shiahs believe in the superiority over the Ambiya of their hallucinority sinless imaams whom they believe were the recipients of Wahi via the agency of Jibraeel (Alayhis salaam) in the same way as Wahi was sent to the Ambiya by Allah Ta’ala.

(4) Taqiyah or Holy Hypocrisy is of paramount importance in the doctrinal system of Shi’ism. This belief requires the proclamation of blatant lies, viz. Concealment of beliefs from Muslims to mislead and delude, and to entrap ignorant Muslims in the tentacles of Shi’ism. Thus, on the basis of Taqiyah, Shiahs will vociferously proclaim that they too accept our Qur’aan; that they do not revile the Sahaabah, etc. But all such claims are satanic LIES which their confounded doctrine of Taqiyah constrains. Their books of theology – of all Shiah priests – unequivocally declare the true, stinking, corrupt beliefs of Shiah kufr.

Besides these few beliefs, there are more doctrines of virulent kufr and practices which engender absolute revulsion in people of sane intellect.


The one and only way of combating and neutralizing kufr is by means of Ta’leem. Satanic kufr is the product of gross jahaalat (ignorance). The cure for ignorance is education. It devolves in general on intelligent Muslims and in particular on the Ulama, to embark on programmes of educating ignorant Muslim and in particular our children about the religion of the Shiahs. This department of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkarhas been grossly neglected by the Ulama in general. Without education, there is no way of combating the ugly influences of Shi’ism which operates by conspiracy and by capitalizing on Muslim ignorance, and by dangling the bait of Iranian money in front of such juhala Muslims who are suffering with poverty.


One of the most dangerous threats to Imaan is the deceptive shaitaani call of Shiah-Sunni Unity. There can never be such unity. The chasm between kufr and Imaan, especially Shiah kufr, is unbridgeable.

Muslims should also refrain from becoming enmeshed in debates with Shiahs. Such debates are destructive. Shiahs have their holy-hypocrisy doctrine of Taqiyah which is their potent weapon used for upsetting the apple cart of Truth. Since the ignorant public is satanically ignorant of Shiah LIES based on Taqiyah, they are swayed by deception to fall into the trap of LIES and FALSEHOOD proclaimed by the Shiahs.

The Ulama should suffice with intelligent rebuttals and with programmes of education to educate Muslims, especially the children of the Ummah. Ultimately, Hidaayat (the guidance of Imaan) is Allah’s prerogative. The Qur’aan Majeed repeatedly states that “Allah guides whomever He wills, and misleads whomever He wills.” Our obligation is to only deliver the Message of Truth.

ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﮯ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﻨﺎ

ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﯿﮑﻢ ﻭﺭﺣﻤﺘﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺑﺮﮐﺎﺗه

ﺁﺝ ﮬﻢ ﺟﺲ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺯﺍﻟﮧ ﻟﮑﮭﻨﺎ ﭼﺎﮬﺘﮯ ﮨﻴﮟ ﻭﮦ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﮯ ﻟﭩﺮﯾﭽﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ ﭘﺮ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺁﭖ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﻮ ﻧﺎ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﻴﮟ ﮔﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺍﺱ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺍﺷﮑﺎﻻﺕ ﻧﺎ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ۔ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺻﻞ ﯾﮧ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﯾﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﮨﮯ ﻧﺒﯽﷺ ﺳﮯ۔ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﺎﺭﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﮨﮯ

ﺍﮮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮ ! ﺍﻥ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﮧ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﻨﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺫﯾﺖ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﺎﺋﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ۔ ﭘﮭﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﯽ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺑﺮﯼ ﮐﺮﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﮯ ﮨﺎﮞ ﺑﮍﯼ ﻋﺰﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ۔‏( ﺳﻮﺭﮦ ﺍﻟﺤﺰﺍﺏ : 69 )

ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﺍﯾﺬﺍ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﯽ :
ﺍﺑﻮﮨﺮﯾﺮﮦ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﮍﮮ ﮨﯽ ﺷﺮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﺪﻥ ﮈﮬﺎﻧﭙﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ۔ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺣﯿﺎﺀ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺪﻥ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺣﺼﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺎ ﺟﺎ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ۔ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﯾﺖ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﺭﭘﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ‘ ﻭﮦ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﺑﺎﺯ ﺭﮦ ﺳﮑﺘﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ‘ ﺍﻥ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺩﺭﺟﮧ ﺑﺪﻥ ﭼﮭﭙﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺍﮨﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻋﯿﺐ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﮐﻮﮌﮪ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺧﺼﯿﺘﯿﻦ ﺑﮍﮬﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﯾﺎ ﭘﮭﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﺩﮬﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﮐﻮ ﯾﮧ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﮨﻔﻮﺍﺕ ﺳﮯ ﭘﺎﮐﯽ ﺩﮐﮭﻼﺋﮯ۔ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻥ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺍﮐﯿﻠﮯ ﻏﺴﻞ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺁﺋﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﭘﺮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ‏( ﺍﺗﺎﺭ ﮐﺮ ‏) ﺭﮐﮫ ﺩﯾﺌﮯ۔ ﭘﮭﺮ ﻏﺴﻞ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮐﯿﺎ۔ ﺟﺐ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ﺍﭨﮭﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺑﮍﮬﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﮐﭙﮍﻭﮞ ﺳﻤﯿﺖ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﻨﮯ ﻟﮕﺎ۔ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﺎ ﻋﺼﺎ ﺍﭨﮭﺎﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﮐﮯ ﭘﯿﭽﮭﮯ ﺩﻭﮌﮮ۔ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﮐﮧ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ! ﻣﯿﺮﺍ ﮐﭙﮍﺍ ﺩﯾﺪﮮ۔ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﯽ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺖ ﺗﮏ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﮔﺌﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﺳﺐ ﻧﮯ ﺁﭖ ﮐﻮ ﻧﻨﮕﺎ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﻟﯿﺎ ‘ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﺐ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮩﺘﺮ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﮩﻤﺖ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﺕ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯼ۔ ﺍﺏ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺭﮎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﭖ ﻧﮯ ﮐﭙﮍﺍ ﺍﭨﮭﺎ ﮐﺮ ﭘﮩﻨﺎ۔ ﭘﮭﺮ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﮐﻮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻋﺼﺎ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺎﺭﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ۔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﭘﺮ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺎﺭﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺗﯿﻦ ﯾﺎ ﭼﺎﺭ ﯾﺎ ﭘﺎﻧﭻ ﺟﮕﮧ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﭘﮍ ﮔﺌﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ۔
( ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﺑﺨﺎﺭﯼ ،ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ‏)

ﺍﺷﮑﺎﻻﺕ :
ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻮﮨﯿﻦ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﻣﻨﮯ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﮐﺮﺩﯾﺎ۔ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﺍ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﮦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺩﻭﮌ ﭘﮍﺍ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻗﯿﻤﺖ ﭘﺮ ﮔﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﯾﮧ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺍﺕ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺗﯿﺴﺮﺍ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺑﻮ ﮨﺮﯾﺮﮦ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﮐﻮ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺎﺭ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻋﻠﻢ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻧﮧ ﺗﮭﺎ ۔

ﺍﺯﺍﻟﮧ :

ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﮧ ﺁﯾﺖ ﭘﺮ ﮐﺮﺍﻧﺎ ﭼﺎﮬﺘﺎ ﮨﻮ –

ﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭَﺟِﯿْﮭًﺎ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﺁﺑﺮﻭ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻋﺐ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮨﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻨﮧ ﭘﺮ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻧﮧ ﮐﮩﮧ ﺳﮑﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺩﮬﺮ ﺍﺩﮬﺮ ﺑﺎﺗﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﭘﮭﺮﯾﮟ ۔ ﯾﮩﯽ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﻧﮯ ﺳﯿﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﯿﺴﯽٰ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮐﮩﺎ ‏( ﻭَﺟِﯿْﮭًﺎ ﻓِﯽْ ﺍﻟﺪُّﻧْﯿَﺎ ﻭَﺍﻵﺧِﺮَۃِ ‏) ‏( ٣ : ٤٥ ‏) ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﻋﯿﺴﯽٰ ﺩﻧﯿﺎ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻭﺟﯿﮧ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﺧﺮﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻭﺟﯿﮧ ﮨﻮﮞ ﮔﮯ۔ ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﺩﻧﯿﺎ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾﮩﻮﺩ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺪﺍﺋﺶ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻟﮕﺎﺗﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﻣﻨﮧ ﭘﺮ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﮩﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺟﺮﺍﺕ ﻧﮧ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ۔ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ” ﻓﺒﺮﺃﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ” ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺑﺮﯼ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺎ ﻭﮦ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ۔ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ” ﻣﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻮ ” ﮐﮯ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﺟﯿﮭﺎً ﮐﺎ ﻟﻔﻆ ﻻﻧﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ﮐﭽﮫ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ﭘﯿﭩﮫ ﭘﯿﭽﮭﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﺗﮑﻠﯿﻒ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻨﮧ ﭘﺮ ﮐﮩﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺮﺍﺀﺕ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﺎ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ۔ ﺍﺏ ﺍﻥ ﮔﺰﺭﺍﺷﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﭘﻮﭼﮭﻨﺎ ﭼﺎﮬﺘﮯ ﮨﻴﮟ ﻛﻪ ﻭﻩ ﺑﺘﺎﺋﻴﮟ ﻭﮦ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﯾﺬﺍ ﺩﯾﻨﯽ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭘﮭﺮ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺍﯾﺬﺍ ﺳﮯ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺩﯼ ﺗﻮ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺗﮭﯽ ؟

ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻗﻮﻡ ﺁﭘﺲ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮐﺮﺗﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮬﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻧﮩﺎﺗﮯ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺟﻠﺪ ﮐﯽ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮨﻮﮔﯽ ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺍﮐﯿﻼ ﻏﺴﻞ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﮯ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﮐﺎ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻗﻮﻡ ﮐﮯ ﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﭘﯿﻨﺞ ﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﻠﮑﻞ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻗﻮﻡ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﻞ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻣﻌﯿﻮﺏ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻗﻮﻡ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻏﺴﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ۔ ﻣﺰﯾﺪ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﯽ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﻠﮑﻞ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﮬﻢ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﻟﻨﮕﻮﭨﮯ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﭘﮩﻦ ﮐﺮ ﻧﮩﺎ ﺭﮬﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺣﺮﺝ ﮨﮯ ؟ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﮐﮧ ﺷﺎﺭﺣﯿﻦ ﻧﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺋﯽ ﮨﮯ۔ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﮧ ﺫﮨﻦ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻤﺎﻝ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﮯ ﺣﯿﺮﺕ ﮨﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺳﻤﻨﺪﺭ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﭘﺮ ﻣﻐﺮﺏ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﺗﯿﻦ ﮐﺎ ﺑﺮﮬﻨﮯ ﮨﻮ ﮐﺮ ﻧﮩﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﻮ ﺗﻮ ﻣﻌﯿﻮﺏ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺘﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮐﺒﮭﯽ ﺗﻨﻘﯿﺪ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺁﺗﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺑﮭﮍﺍﺱ ﻧﮑﺎﻟﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔

ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﺎ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﺳﻨﺌﮯ !

{ ﻓَﻠَﻤَّﺎ ﺫَﺍﻗَﺎ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺠَﺮَﺓَ ﺑَﺪَﺕْ ﻟَﻬُﻤَﺎ ﺳَﻮْﺍٰﺗُﻬُﻤَﺎ ﻭَﻃَﻔِﻘَﺎ ﻳَﺨْﺼِﻔٰﻦِ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻬِﻤَﺎ ﻣِﻦْ ﻭَّﺭَﻕِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻨَّﺔِ ۭﻭَﻧَﺎﺩٰﻯﻬُﻤَﺎ ﺭَﺑُّﻬُﻤَﺎٓ ﺍَﻟَﻢْ ﺍَﻧْﻬَﻜُﻤَﺎ ﻋَﻦْ ﺗِﻠْﻜُﻤَﺎ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺠَﺮَﺓِ }
ﭘﮭﺮ ﺟﺐ ‏( ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺣﻮﺍ ‏) ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺩﺭﺧﺖ ﮐﻮ ﭼﮑﮫ ﻟﯿﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺷﺮﻣﮕﺎﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﭘﺮ ﻇﺎﮨﺮ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﺟﻨﺖ ﮐﮯ ﭘﺘﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺷﺮﻣﮕﺎﮨﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﭼﭙﮑﺎﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ۔
( ﺳﻮﺭﮦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻑ 22: )​

ﺍﺏ ﺑﺘﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﻥ ﺍﺣﺒﺎﺏ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺬﺍﻕ ﺍﮌﺍﻧﺎ ﺯﺍﺋﻞ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻭﺭﻧﮧ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﭘﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺮﮮ ﮔﮯ ؟

ﺍﺱ ﺍﯾﺖ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺣﻖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻥ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﮐﻮ ﮐﯿﺴﺎ ﮔﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﺗﮭﺎ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻗﺎﺭﯼ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺍﯾﺖ ﭘﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﻧﻨﮕﮯ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﻮ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺒﮑﮧ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻥ ﻗﺎﺭﯼ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺏ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺗﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺭﮬﺎ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﯾﮧ ﺭﮬﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﻨﺎﺏ ﻋﺎﻟﯽ ! ﮬﻢ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﮨﯽ ﻋﺮﺽ ﮐﺮ ﭼﮑﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﻠﮑﻞ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﻧﮩﺎ ﺭﮬﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻭﺭﻧﮧ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﯿﺠﯿﺌﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﻤﺰﮐﻢ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﻟﻨﮕﻮﭨﯿﺎﮞ ﭘﮩﻨﮯ ﮨﯽ ﻗﻮﻡ ﮐﮯ ﭘﺎﺱ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﮔﺌﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻗﻮﻡ ﻧﮯ ﺳﺎﺭﺍ ﺟﺴﻢ ﮨﺮ ﻋﯿﺐ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺺ ﺳﮯ ﭘﺎﮎ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﺧﯿﺮ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﯽ ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻗﻮﻡ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺍﯾﺬﺍ ﺩﯾﺘﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﮨﮯ

ﻣَﺎٓ ﺍَﺻَﺎﺑَﻚَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺣَﺴَﻨَﺔٍ ﻓَﻤِﻦَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﻪِ ۡ ﻭَﻣَﺎٓ ﺍَﺻَﺎﺑَﻚَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺳَﻴِّﺌَﺔٍ ﻓَﻤِﻦْ ﻧَّﻔْﺴِﻚَ

ﺗﺠﮭﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺑﮭﻼﺋﯽ ﻣﻠﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﺑﺮﺍﺋﯽ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﺗﯿﺮﮮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻧﻔﺲ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ
( ﺳﻮﺭﮦ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 79: ‏)

ﺗﻮ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﺧﯿﺮ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺍﯾﺬﺍﻭﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺎﻥ ﭼﮭﻮﭨﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﮨﻮﺍ ﯾﺎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ۔

ﺍﺱ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺁﺩﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺷﮑﺎﻝ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺯﺍﻟﮧ :

ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﭘﺮ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﺎ ﺁﺩﺭ ‏( ﺧﺼﯿﺘﯿﮟ ﺑﮍﺟﺎﻧﺎ ‏) ﮐﺎ ﻟﻔﻆ ﮐﮩﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺧﺼﺌﮯ ﭘﺮ ﻧﻈﺮ ﭘﮍﮬﻨﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﻣﮑﻤﻞ ﺑﺮﮬﻨﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﮨﮯ ﻭﺭﻧﮧ ﺧﺼﺌﮯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺁﺳﮑﺘﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﯾﮧ ﺁﭖ ﮐﺎ ﺧﯿﺎﻝ ﮨﮯ ﺁﺩﺭ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻧﮕﺮﯾﺰﯼ ﻣﯿﮟ Hydrocele ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﺱ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺧﺼﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﮔﺮﺩ ﺟﻠﺪ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﭘﺎﻧﯽ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﺮﯼ ﺗﮭﯿﻠﯿﺎﮞ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺑﮍﺍ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﺱ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺁﭖ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮﺍً ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﭘﮍﮪ ﺳﮑﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔

ﺍﺱ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺮﺩ ﮐﮯ ﺧﺼﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﺗﻨﺎ ﺑﮍﺍ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﮐﭙﮍﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﺳﮯ ﺭﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺩﺭﻣﯿﺎﻥ ﻟﭩﮑﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺻﺎﻑ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺁﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﺱ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﺎ ﭘﺘﮧ ﻟﮕﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﻣﮑﻤﻞ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔ ﭼﮭﻮﭨﯽ ﻣﻮﭨﯽ ﻟﻨﮕﻮﭦ ﮨﻮ ﺗﻮ ﺻﺎﻑ ﭘﺘﮧ ﭼﻞ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻨﺪﮮ ﮐﻮ ﯾﮧ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻟﻨﮕﻮﭦ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺑﺨﻮﺑﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﮦ ﻟﮕﺎ ﻟﯿﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺁﺩﺭُ ” ﺧﺼﯿﮧ ﭘﮭﻮﻟﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ‏( ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﯿﺪ ‏) ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺒﺘﻼ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ۔ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮔﻮﮔﻞ ﭘﺮ Hydrocele ﮐﯽ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺰﯾﺪ ﺳﺮﭺ ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ۔ ‏( ﺑﺸﮑﺮﯾﮧ ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻡ Zahid Kareem ﺑﮭﺎﺋﯽ )

ﺭﮨﯽ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﮧ ﺳﯿﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﮨﺮﯾﺮﮦ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﭨﮭﺎﮐﺮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺎﺭ ﮐﮯ ﭼﮫ ﯾﺎ ﺳﺎﺕ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﮧ ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ؟ ﺍﺱ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﭘﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﯾﺖ ﭘﮍﮬﺌﮯ

ﻭَﺃَﺭْﺳَﻠْﻨَﺎﻩُ ﺇِﻟَﻰٰ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒٍ ﺃَﻭْ ﻳَﺰِﻳﺪُﻭﻥَ
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ‏( ﯾﻮﻧﺲؑ ‏) ﮐﻮ ﻻﮐﮫ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ‏( ﭘﯿﻐﻤﺒﺮ ﺑﻨﺎ ﮐﺮ ‏) ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ ۔

ﺍﺏ ﺟﻮ ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﭼﮫ ﮨﯿﮟ ﯾﺎ ﺳﺎﺕ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﭘﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﺮﮮ ﮐﮧ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﮐﺘﻨﮯ ﺑﻨﺪﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻨﺎ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ؟ ﺟﻮ ﺗﺸﺮﯾﺢ ﺍﺱ ﺁﯾﺖ ﮐﺮﯾﻤﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ” ﺍﻟﻒ ﺍﻭ ﯾﺰﯾﺪﻭﻥ ” ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﻔﻂ ” ﺍﻭ ” ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮨﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳِﺘَّﺔٌ ﺃَﻭْ ﺳَﺒْﻌَﺔٌ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺁﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻓﻮﺭﺍً ﺟﮭﭩﻼ ﺩﻭ؟ ﺍﮨﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﮐﺎ

ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻡ ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﮬﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﮐﻮ ﮨﺮ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺳﮯ ﭘﺎﮎ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﺏ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺴﯽ ﮐﻮ ﯾﮧ ﺟﻮﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﺎﺕ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﮧ ﮐﯿﺠﯿﺌﮯ۔

ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻇﺎﮨﺮ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺧﺮﻕ ﻋﺎﺩﺕ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﯾﺎ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺍﺕ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ۔ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﺭﺍﺱ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺁﺳﮑﺘﯽ۔ ﺗﺎﮨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺗﻨﯽ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﺋﺶ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺗﺴﻠﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻟﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﺣﺠﺮ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮔﮭﻮﮌﯼ ﺑﮭﯽ۔ ‏( ﻣﻨﺠﺪ ‏) ﺍﺱ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮧ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮨﻮﮔﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﮔﮭﻮﮌﯼ ﭘﺮ ﺳﻮﺍﺭ ﺗﮭﮯ۔ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺗﻨﮩﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﭘﺮ ﻧﮩﺎﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮔﮭﻮﮌﯼ ﮐﻮ ﮐﮭﮍﺍ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﯽ ﭘﺮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ﺭﮐﮫ ﺩﯾﺌﮯ۔ ﺟﺐ ﻧﮩﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﮐﭙﮍﮮ ﻟﯿﻨﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺁﮔﮯ ﺑﮍﮬﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮔﮭﻮﮌﯼ ﺩﻭﮌ ﭘﮍﯼ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺛﻮﺑﯽ ﯾﺎ ﺣﺠﺮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﭘﯿﭽﮭﮯ ﺩﻭﮌﮮ ﺗﺎﺁﻧﮑﮧ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺁﭖ ﮐﻮ ﻧﻨﮕﮯ ﺑﺪﻥ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﻟﯿﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺁﭖ ﺑﺎﻟﮑﻞ ﺑﮯ ﺩﺍﻍ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺰﻋﻮﻣﮧ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﺳﮯ ﭘﺎﮎ ﮨﯿﮟ ۔ ﺍﺱ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﻧﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽٰ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺑﺮﯼ ﮐﺮﺩﯾﺎ۔ ‏( ﻣﻮﻻﻧﮧ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤٰﻦ ﮐﯿﻼﻧﯽ )

ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮬﻢ ﻣﻨﮑﺮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺍﺣﺒﺎﺏ ﺳﮯ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﮐﺮﮮ ﮔﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﻮ ﺟﮭﭩﻼ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺍﺗﻨﺎ ﺁﺳﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﺘﻨﺎ ﺁﭖ ﺍﺣﺒﺎﺏ ﻧﮯ ﺳﻤﺠﮫ ﻟﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ – ﻗﺎﺭﯼ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺗﻮ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺑﮯ ﺑﺴﯽ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺭﮬﺘﮯ ﮨﻴﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺳﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺘﻦ ﭘﺮ ﺟﺮﺡ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﯿﺮﮮ ﺑﺲ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﺳﮑﺘﮯ ﮨﻴﮟ – ﯾﮧ ﺍﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺳﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺯﻧﺠﯿﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﯿﻦ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺳﮯ ﮨﯽ ﺍﻥ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺟﮭﭩﻼ ﻧﺎ ﺳﮑﺎ ﺳﻨﺪً ﻭ ﻣﺘﻨﺎً ﻣﮕﺮ ﮬﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻮ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺁﭖ ﻧﮯ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﮐﺌﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻟﮑﮫ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭘﮩﻼ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺁﺧﺮﯼ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﮬﻢ ﺁﭖ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺮﺽ ﮐﺎ ﻋﻼﺝ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﮐﺮﮮ ﺗﻌﺠﺐ ﮨﮯ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮬﺪ ﮬﺪ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭼﯿﻮﻧﭩﯿﺎﮞ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺠﯿﺐ ﻭ ﻏﺮﯾﺐ ﺗﺎﻭﯾﻼﺕ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮧ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻧﺎﮎ ﻣﻨﮧ ﭼﮍﮬﺎﺗﮯ ﻫﻴﮟ ﯾﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﮨﯽ ﻧﺎﻧﺼﺎﻓﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺑﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﯽ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻋﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮬﻤﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﭖ ﮐﻮ ﮬﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﺩﯾﮟ۔ ﺁﻣﯿﻦ

Taqlid is not “Blind Following”

By Abu Yusuf

In a recent discussion with a talib al ‘ilm (student of knowledge) he argued both the linguistic (lughawi) and istilahi (technical) meaning (ma’na) of taqleed is effectively “blind following”.

I was disappointed how he deliberately distorted the lughawi wordings (lafz) of taqleed in the classical books. It was his own interpretation in adding that word “blind”, which was not there! The literal (haqiqi) of qalada is “to bind”, “to tie”, “to hold tightly”, “leashed” etc

What the scholars do say when explaining (in meaning) those linguistic wordings of taqleed, it is taking something without thinking (tafkeer) or pondering (tadabbur). In the general Arab Bedouin usage was to trust, to respect, to rely upon etc. Some fuqaha used analogy that is of a blind-man is to imitate one in whose report he has confidence with respect to the Qibla (direction of prayer) because he is not able to do more than that. But some like to reinterpret these to mean “blind-following”, which has negative connotations.

They jump to this as that serves their interest to demean the position and to mock the person that does Taqleed.

As to the istalahi meaning this is derived by ijtihad since taqleed has a legal ruling (hukm) of mubah and fard. One cannot give rulings to it without defining it from the Islamic legal texts. It was clear he misunderstood why the fuqahah added “Laisa Hujjah” or “Bila Hujjah” (ie absence of evidence) in its istilahi (technical) meaning. They added that as the follower cannot understand the primary evidence (hujjah), if he did he would be a Mujtahid and no need to refer to another mujtahid (i.e do taqleed)

If he had studied how definition (tahrif) are derived he’d be aware of al jaami wa a maani. For example, Qur’an has an istalihi meaning (linguistically it’s “to recite”). The usuliyyun related everything (jaami) included in it and everything that must be excluded.

Hence the istilahi meaning of Qur’an was derived from the legal text which has a comprehensive definition.


The Salaf followed the Hanafi Madh-hab

The Hanafi Madh-hab is the first among the four schools of thought. The Madhhab was developed very early and it had numerous followers from the pious predecessors (Salaf). Imam Abu Hanifa, himself a Tabi’i, had a panel of forty of his students where issues were discussed and the results compiled. This was the first Fiqh Academy in history. Imam Abu Hanifa was the first to compile juristic verdicts into different chapters. [See for example: Al-Khawarizmi, Jami’ al-Masaneed 1/34 and Al-Makki, Manaqib Abi Hanifa 2/131]

In this brief article, we will give a few examples of such pious predecessors who expressed their affiliations and adhered to the Hanafi Madhhab.
Hafidh Ibn Hajar said in the biography of Shu’ayb ibn Is-haq ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ad-Dimashqi al-Umawi (118-189 H), a narrator in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim: “He narrated from his father and Abu Hanifa and he adopted his Madhhab (Tamadhhaba lahu).” [Tahdhib at-Tahdhib 4/347-348]
After quoting this saying, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwama adds: “So, adhering to Madhhab is something ancient (Qadeem).” [Annotations on Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 20/7]

Another example of those following the Hanafi Madhhab is Waqi’ ibn al-Jarrah (127-196 H). He was among the teachers of Imam Ash-Shafi’i and from the narrators of both Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their respective Sahihs. Imam Yahya ibn Ma’īn said about him: “I have not seen the like of Waki’ and he would give Fatwa according to the opinions of Abu Hanifa.” [Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Al-Intiqa 211]

Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan (120-198 H), the master and authority in Hadith criticism was a staunch follower of the Hanafi Madhhab. He said: “We do not lie in front of Allah. We have not heard any better opinions than that of Abu Hanifa and we have adopted most of his opinions.” [Al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad 15/474]

There are many such examples. Citing all these will be difficult in this brief article. Only in Sahih al-Bukhari, the number of students of Imam Abu Hanifa and those adhering to his Madh-hab rose to one hundred and fifteen narrators. Shaykh Mufid ar-Rahman compiled an entire book of four hundred and seventy-nine pages on these Hanafi narrators in Sahih al-Bukhari which he entitled “Al-Warda al-Haadira fi Ahadith Talaamidh al-Imam al-‘Adham wa Ahadith ‘Ulama al-Ahnaf fi al-Jami’ as-Sahih lil Imam al-Bukhari”.
The Madh-hab of Imam Abu Hanifa thus started spreading during the time of the pious predecessors and was accepted from this blessed early era of Islam. So, there is no reason why people of this age cannot make the Taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifa. The criticism usually facing the Hanafi followers in the name of the Salaf in recent days are thus baseless.


By Mujlisul Ulama

Once there was a movement to create unity be-tween Muslims and Hindus. Hindus participated in Muslim customs and vice versa. This is not permissible. It is the effect of mental deficiency. It is in conflict with Allah’s command: “Do not aid in sin and transgression”. It is also in conflict with the Had-ith: “Whoever increases a group is of them.” (Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi)

In some cases it is improper to speak politely to the kuffaar, e.g. when debating with them. Much politeness on such occasions brings disgrace for oneself and for the Deen. For such occasions which call for sternness, the Qur’aan says: “Be stern on them.”

There is a difference between Husn-e-Khulq, i.e. an admirable moral disposition, and Muwaddah, i.e. love / affection. Regarding husn-e-khulq, the Qur’aan says: “Verily you (O Muham-mad!) are on a splendid character.” However, regarding muwaddah (inclining towards them and striking up bosom friendship), the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Those who take the kaafireen as friends besides the Mu’mineen – whoever does so – has no worth by Allah……Whoever from amongst you who befriends them, verily he is of them. Verily, Allah does not guide the zaalimeen transgressors / oppressors).”

Husn-e-Khulq (display-ing good moral conduct) with even Hindus is meritorious while muwaddah with them is prohibited. (Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi)