Category Archives: Quranists/ Hadith Rejectors

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

ﺳﻮﺍﻝ۔
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

The Quranist Fallacy: How Quranism Ultimately Undermines the Quran’s Authenticity

[By Brother Abdullah Feras]

In the 20th century, a fundamentalist doctrine, known as Quranism, began to emerge which called for the sole reliance upon the Quran as a source of Islamic law and guidance. Proponents of this new doctrine thus rejected the authority of traditions ascribed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, known as hadiths. The basis upon which these calls were made varied in nature: some stemmed from skepticism in the authenticity of hadith collections, while others stemmed from a more fundamentalist outlook that dismissed the Prophet’s role as a source of legislation. Regardless of their leanings, Quranists are all united under the proposition that the Quran is the only viable source of Islamic legislation and guidance.

In this article, I am not interested in delving into traditional Muslim-Quranist polemics. Rather, I am primarily interested in exploring the Quranist paradigm and taking it to its logical conclusion.Though the Quranist doctrine fundamentally revolves around the utilization of the Quran as the sole source of Islamic legislation/guidance, it ironically ends up undermining the entire basis and authenticity of the Quran for two (related) reasons:

  1. Its inability to demonstrate the authenticity of the Quran itself.
  2. Its inability to explain the presence of textual variations in the Quran today.

The Quran’s Authenticity

Since the Quranist polemic is mostly directed at other Muslims who already take the Quran’s authenticity for granted, its logical conclusions are often overlooked. The rejection of primary historical sources that have documented the history of the Quran results in absolute ignorance in the history of the Quran’s compilation and its authenticity.

  • When was the Quran compiled?
  • Who compiled it into its current arrangement/form?
  • Who outlined its script?
  • Who outlined the diacritical marks in its script?
  • How can one ensure the authenticity of our current recension of the Quran?

All of these questions are questions one simply cannot answer if he/she were to entirely dismiss the hadith canon, which provides necessary historical context behind the compilation of the Quran.

Some may claim that the Quran is mutawātir (mass-transmitted), and, thus, definitively authentic. Asides from blindly following later authorities on the Quran who had claimed that the Quran was mutawātir, the Quranist polemicist simply cannot substantiate this claim. Blindly following those authorities is self-defeating, since they all considered hadith collections to be viable sources of Islamic legislation.

Some may cite 15:9 (and similar verses) to argue for the Quran’s authenticity; however, such appeals are circular, since they already presume the authenticity of the Quran. The Quranist narrative simply cannot demonstrate the authenticity of the Quran independently of the Quran. It is merely grounded in several assumptions upon which the entire doctrine is based.

The Ten Qirā’āt: Errors or Recitations?

As known, various parts of the Muslim world recite the Quran in different modes/recitations, known as qirā’āt. The textual variation in these different recitations varies in nature and spans differences in pronunciation, spelling and meaning. The geographical distribution of the qirā’āt has constantly changed throughout history, and the most prominent recitation in the Muslim world today is the recitation of Ḥafṣ b. Sulaymān al-Kūfī (d. 180), which he reportedly inherited from his stepfather, ‘Āsim b. Abī al-Nujūd (d. 127). The recitation is commonly referred to as Ḥafṣ ‘an Āsim. 

The predominant recitation in North and West Africa is the recitation of ‘Uthmān b. Sa’īd al-Miṣrī (d. 197), who was known as Warsh. Warsh partially inherited his recitation from his teacher, Nāfi’ b. ‘Abdurrahmān al-Madanī (d. 169). The recitation of another student of Nāfi, ‘Isā b. Mīna al-Madanī (d. 160), who was known as Qālūn, is prominent in Libya and Tunisia today.

The geographic distribution of the recitations across the Muslim world, however, has varied throughout history due to many factors. Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 855), for example, noted that the predominant recitation in Al-Shām, Hejaz, Egypt and Yemen during his time was that of Abū ‘Amr al-Baṣrī (d. 154) (Ibn al-Jazarī 292). This would quickly change, however, as the Ottomans institutionalized and enforced the recitation of Ḥafṣ, which, as a result, became the predominant recitation in the Muslim world till this day.

Nevertheless, the presence of textual variants in the different qirā’āt of the Quran does not necessarily pose a problem to traditional Muslim scholarship, since it is authentically established, as reported by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dawūd, al-Tirmiḍī, al-Nasā’ī and many others, that the Prophet recited the Quran in different modes of recitation (aḥruf). These variants in recitation can thus be contextualized and explained by the Prophet’s recitation of the Quran in different modes. Even traditional scholars who held the position that some errors may exist in some of the qirā’āt were able to navigate their way through these different recitations, since they believed that the Prophet himself was a source of textual variations in the Quran.

Since Quranists reject the authenticity and authority of Prophetic traditions, they have no basis for the concept of qirā’āt and Quranic modes of recitation. Rather, the implication of the Quranist polemic is that all of the discrepancies in the qirā’āt simply are errors and accretions that have gradually accumulated in the Quran as it was disseminated across the centuris. They have no way to differentiate the “erroneous” from the “correct” in the Quran today.

Most Quranists simply opt to recite the Quran according to the recitation of Ḥafṣ, for no reason other than the fact that it is recited by the majority of Muslims today.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to appeal to the necessity of the hadith canon out of desperation, for we have, on several occasions, outlined the objective reasons behind our belief in the integrity of the hadith canon. Rather, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the Quranist paradigm, which calls for the sole reliance upon the Quran for guidance and legislation, ultimately undermines the authenticity of the Quran itself. This ironic reality is often overlooked due to the fact that the Quranist polemic is mostly directed at Muslims who already believe in the authenticity of the Quran. By taking the Quranist doctrine to its logical conclusion, we can observe its flaws, defects and contradictions. Similarly, we are able observe the double standard of this paradigm, which prides itself in its intense historical skepticism with Prophetic traditions yet laxly presumes the historical authenticity of the entire Quran for no objective reason(s).

Works Cited

Ibn al-Jazarī, Muḥammad. Ghāyat al-Nihāyah fī ṭabaqāt al-Qurrā’. Edited by Gotthelf Bergsträßer vol. 1, DKI, 2006.

Response to the Hadith Rejectors’ Contention: “Is Saheeh Bukhaari a Revelation from Allaah that it cannot contain a Mistake!!?”

By Haafidh Muhammad Zubayr

Whenever the topic of defending the Hadeeth comes, this is the question that often gets asked by the Rejectors of Hadeeth.

So the very first thing to note here is that, whatever is between the two covers of Saheeh Bukhaari is not a revelation from Allaah, and no one has claimed it so! Rather the right phrase is to say, “the revelation of Allaah is found in Saheeh Bukhaari, but Saheeh Bukhaari itself is not the revelation of Allaah”.

Second and a more important thing to note is that, “Hadeeth” is what we call revelation, not Saheeh Bukhaari. Saheeh Bukhaari CONTAINS that hadeeth, but not every single thing Saheeh Bukhaari contains is a Hadeeth! Hadeeth refers to that narration which contains the sayings, actions, or approvals of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), while Saheeh Bukhaari also contains the sayings of the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een as well as the A’immah.

Third and even more important thing is that, no one ever refers to the Hadeeth as a “literal revelation”, on the contrary, Hadeeth is an “interpreted revelation”. Hence, the “meaning” of the hadeeth is a revelation from Allaah, but its “wording” is that of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), if it is a Qawli Hadeeth. Similarly if it is a Fi’li Hadeeth (action of the Prophet) or a Taqreeri Hadeeth (Approval of the Prophet), then in that case the wording is that of a Sahaabi (Companion of Allaah’s Messenger). Now even though a lot of effort has been put in preserving the exact wording of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the reality is that it is only his “meaning” that is preserved.

The rejectors of hadeeth do not usually take these key things under consideration when casting doubts on Ahaadeeth. Like, for example, they object on Saheeh Bukhaari by saying that it contains a story which says a monkey committed fornication and his fellow monkeys did rajam on him. Now Imaam Bukhaari has narrated this incident from Amr bin Maymoon, a taabi’ee, and it is him who says that I once saw such and such thing happening in Yemen. Now this is not even a Hadeeth, even though it is narrated in Saheeh Bukhaari.

Now as far as critiquing Saheeh Bukhaari is concerned, then the Imaams and experts of this field have already critiqued it and the Imaam and experts have also replied to those critiques. And now after all the criticisms and their answers, it has been clarified and made clear as to what those places are where criticism can possibly be done and what their answers are. And this conclusion has been reached after over a thousand years of practice. Now you cannot create a new objection on Saheeh Bukhaari, while those that were made in the past have already been answered.

That is why after all the extensive criticisms and their answers on Saheeh Bukhaari and Muslim, all those places in these books have been pointed out where any Ilal (Defect) are found, and the status of those Ilal has also been clarified as to whether those Ilal are Qaadiha (harmful) or not?

Now if someone tries to criticize a hadeeth of Saheeh Bukhaari or Saheeh Muslim basing it on the research of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni or any other Muhaddith from the A’immah of Salaf, then this criticism of his on Saheehayn will not be considered an independent criticism, and such a criticism has already been answered with a sufficient and convincing reply from Muhadditheen of the A’immah of Salaf themselves.

And if someone criticizes such a narration of Saheehayn which was not even criticized by anyone among the A’immah Salaf, then such a person is opposing the Ijmaa of Muhadditheen, because the narrations which the Muhadditheen did not lay a criticism on, proves that those were agreed upon to be Saheeh near all the Muhadditheen. Hence criticizing on those narrations simply means challenging the claim and Ijmaa of all the Muhadditheen. Such a criticism itself is not worth paying attention to, let alone doing its Tahqeeq.

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

The Kufr of Rejecting Hadith

QUESTION
Some people say that they believe in only the Qur’ān, not in Hadith. They reject all Ahaadith claiming it to be spurious, and fabrications. Please expound on this issue in the light of the Qur’ān.

ANSWER (by Mujlisul Ulama): 
The deniers of Hadith are in reality rejectors of the Qur’ān. They are confirmed kuffaar. They are among the Munaafiqeen breed of kuffaar. It is not possible to honestly believe in the Qur’ān without believing in Hadith. Minus Hadith there is no Qur’ān – no Islam. The entire structure of Islam – its foundation and its edifice are 100% reliant on Hadith.

On what basis do these moron munaafiqeen/ kuffaar believe in the authenticity of the Qur’ān? The Shiahs, presenting their “rationale” for rejecting the authenticity of the Qur’ān, claim that the compilers of the Qur’ān, namely the Sahaabah, had reneged from Islam becoming murtaddeen, hence a compilation by them is a false fabrication. This is their convoluted satanic logic for presenting ‘logical’ argument to deny the authenticity of the Qur’ān. On the other hand, these modernist kuffaar professing to be Muslims “accept”, that is ostensibly in the manner of the Munaafiqeen, the authenticity of the Qur’ān, but in common with the Shiahs deny the integrity of the Sahaabah. Thus, their ‘acceptance’ of the Qur’ān is more illogic than the Shiah deniers of the Qur’ān.

The deniers of Hadith (the modernist zanaadaqah) have absolutely no valid, rational and logical daleel (proof) for claiming that the Qur’ān is authentic that the Qur’ān is Divine Revelation (Wahi) – that it was Jibraeel (Alayhis Salaam) who had conveyed the Divine Revelation to Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

All these irrefutable facts and information, and the entire Structure of Islam is substantiated by the Hadith. The imperative corollary for accepting the authenticity of the Qur’ān is acceptance of the authenticity of Hadith.

The Qur’ān was not revealed in a completed book form. It did not descend from the clouds in a compiled book as did the Tauraah to Nabi Musa (Alayhis Salaam). The zanaadaqah will agree that the Qur’ān was revealed over a period of many years – 23 years. Since they do accept this irrefutable fact, they are obliged to answer rationally the following questions:

1. How do you know that the Qur’ān is the Book of Allah?

2. How do you know that the Qur’ān is an authentic Book?

3. How do you know that the Qur’ān was authentically piled?

4. How do you know that the order in which the Verses and Surahs is divine or was instructed by Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)?

5. How do you know of the validity of the different modes of Qiraa’t?

6. How do you know that command to perform Salaat mentioned numerous times in the Qur’ān refer to specifically the five daily Salaat? The Qur’ān does not provide any precise information in this regard.

7. How do you know the number of the fardh and Sunnat raka’ts of each of the five daily Salaat?

8. How do you know of the specific modality of Salaat that it requires, Qiyām, Ruku, Qa’dah, Sajdah, etc. etc.? Nothing of these rules is mentioned in the Qur’ān.

9. Similarly, how do you know of the vast multitude of rules and regulations governing all spheres of Islam is Life? There is  no reference to these laws, tenets, practices, etc. in the Qur’ān.

10. Yes, how do you know that the Qur’ān was revealed to Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)?

The answers to these questions are obtainable from only the Hadith. There is absolutely no other source besides the Hadith for accepting the Qur’ān as the kitaab of Allah Ta’ala. Those who reject Hadith, in reality reject Allah Ta’ala. Confirming this truth, the Qur’ān Majid states:

“Verily, those who commit kufr with Allah and His Messengers, and they intend to differentiate between Allah (i.e. His Kitaab) and His Messengers (i.e. the Ahaadith), and they say: “We believe in a portion (i.e the Qur’ān) and we reject a portion (i.e the Hadith), thereby intending to follow a path (of their base desires) in between, indeed they are the veritable kaafiroon. We have prepared for the kaafireen a disgraceful punishment. [An-Nisā,  Aayaat 150, 151]

In these gracious verses, Allah Ta’ala states with profound clarity that those who reject Hadith, i.e. the statements and practices of the Nabi, are Kaafiroon. To emphasize the incorrigible kufr of these Zanaadaqah and Munaafiqeen, Allah Ta’ala uses the term haqqan which means in reality, without doubting, most certainly. There is not a vestige of doubt in the kufr of the Zanaadaqah who deny and reject Hadith. Denial of Hadith is in fact  denial of the Qur’ān. It is tantamount to accepting a part of the Qur’ān and rejecting a part. And this renders these types of morons ‘kaafiroon haq-qan’.

Commanding acceptance of Hadith, Allah Ta’ala says:

“Whoever obeys the Rasool, verily he has obeyed Allah. And whoever turns away (rejecting the Hadith of the Rasool), then (know) that We did not send you (O Muhammad!) as a guard over them.” [An-Nisā, 79]

Without accepting what the Rasool said and had done, it is not possible to accept and obey Allah Ta’ala. What Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, is Hadith. Whatever he did, is Hadith. This āyat and many other Qur’aanic verses explicitly state that obedience to Allah Ta’ala is inextricably interwoven with obediences to His Rasool.

“Hold on to that which he (the Nabi) gives you. And abstain from whatever he forbids you.” [Al-Hashr, 7]

Rasulullah’s acts which the Qur’ān commands us to adhere to, and his prohibitions from which we have to abstain are all in the Hadith, not in the Qur’ān.

It should be well understood that the reality of Hadith rejection is Qur’ān rejection. When Hadith is rejected, Allah Ta’ala is rejected. Stating this reality, the Qur’ān says:

“Verily, we are aware that you (O Muhammad!) are grieved by what they are saying. (But in reality) most certainly, they are not belying (rejecting) you. But (on the contrary), the zaalimeen (brutal oppressors) are denying the Aayaat (i.e the Qur’ān) of Allah.” [An’aam, 33]

Belief in the Qur’ān without belief in the Hadith is a Qur’ānic and a rational impossibility. An ‘islam’ developed on the Qur’ān minus Hadith, is Satanism. It is a religion of Shaitaan.

These moron modernist zanaadaqah who are the slaves of base desire and the agents of Iblees deny Hadith in order to perpetrate unbridled corrupt interpretation of the Aayaat of the Qur’ān to appease their whimsical shaitaani fancies and the lustful dictates of the nafs. Since the Hadith places a firm clamp on their inordinate nafsaani cravings, they deny and reject one great portion of Wahi (Divine Revelation), namely, Hadith. In so doing, these modernist Juhhaal are, in Qur’ānic terminology: “Kafiroon Haq-qan.”

Response to the Modernist Contention: “It is Not in the Qur’aan!”

By Mujlisul Ulama

SOME IGNORAMUSES WHEN arguing to negate a confirmed tenet of the Shariah, surface with the retort: “It is not in the Qur’aan!”. At the juncture when this argument is presented, it should be realized that the best response for such mental density and total ignorance is to adopt the following Qur’aanic advice: “And when the jaahlioon (ignoramuses) address them (the Mu’mineen), they say: ‘Peace”. In other words, the intelligent Mu’min honourably terminates the discussion and does not degenerate to the level of ignorance of his adversary.

In the context of academic and rational debate and discussion, the aforementioned retort perhaps is the lowest ebb of ignorance. A man who is equipped with even a basic understanding of the Shariah – he need not be an Aalim – understands the ludicrousness of this argument which exposes the total jahaalat (ignorance) of the one presenting this stupidity.

Firstly, the invalidity of this argument is conspicuously manifest because the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (the Followers of the Four Math-habs) do not claim that Islam with its Divine Shariah is confined to the Qur’aan Majeed. It never was the contention of any authority of the Shariah, that everything of Islam is to be found in the Qur’aan in detailed form. It is not contended that the Qur’aan is the only Source of the Shariah. This retort would be appropriate only if directed to deviates who claim that every iota of the Islamic Shariah is found in the Qur’aan. But we are not concerned with such deviates. There may be a deviate sect known as Ahlul Qur’aan, who may proffer the preposterous principle that whatever is not in the Qur’aan is not Islam. But there never existed such a legal quibble in the jurisprudence of the Shariah.

The absence of a specific rule, teaching, custom, practice, etc. from the Qur’aan is not grounds for invalidity or spuriousness of such a tenet. Morons for example argue that since the incumbency of the beard is not stated in the Qur’aan, keeping a beard is not Waajib (obligatory). Morons of this calibre who operate within the extremely restrictive confines of their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Shariah are too dense in the mind to understand that the performance of the five daily Fardh Salaat too is not found in the Qur’aan. The number of Fardh, Sunnat, Witr and Nafl raka’ts, the methodology of Salaat such as the particular method of Qiyaam, Ruku’, Sajdah, Qiraa’t, folding the hands, Qa’dah, Tashahhud, Durood, Dua, Salaam and the myriad of specific masaail related to Salaat are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan.

In fact, the term ‘salaat’ literally means to supplicate, to bestow blessings, to praise, tasbeeh (to glorify), mercy, etc. It does not mean the specific and peculiar style of Islamic prayer which we perform five times a day. Similarly, Zakaat and the innumerable rules regulating this fundamental institution of Islam are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan. 

The Qur’aan merely commands: “Establish Salaah and give Zakaah”. If the stupid ‘principle’, ‘it is not in the Qur’aan’, has to be applied, 95% of the Shariah will have to be expunged. The Qur’aan is the Divine Scripture of Guidance in which reference is made to some tenets of Islam, and on the basis of which the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (the highest category of Jurists of Islam) have evolved the immutable Usool (Principles) of the Islamic Shariah.

The greater part of the Shariah comprises of the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which are encapsulated in his verbal pronouncements and practical demonstrations. Further, a great part of Islam is based on Qur’aanic and Hadith principles evolved by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. Thus, the argument: ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, is the dictum of morons who are academically bankrupt, and who are absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of congeniality with knowledge. The Sources of Islam are Kitaabullah (The Qur’aan), the Sunnah (the verbal and practical expressions of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Ijma’ (the Consensus of the Authorities of Islam), and Qiyaas (the Shariah’s process of Analogical Reasoning).

So, when any crank or moron flings the argument, ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, your only response should be: “Our Islam is not confined to the Qur’aan. Peace on you. We do not engage the Jaahileen in discussion.”

Refuting Rashad Khalifa’s Difference between Prophet and Messenger

By Ebrahim Saifuddin

Rashad Khalifa (the mini-dajjal), claimed to be a messenger of Allah Ta’ala and to justify that messengers can come even after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he inversed the definitions of the words ‘prophet’ and ‘messenger’. His followers known as ‘Submitters’ or ‘Submitters International’, back this claim of his and choose to accept the misinterpretations given by him. Muslims believe that the difference between a prophet and a messenger is that messengers are sent to a particular nation. A prophet also always follows the law given to the messenger before him and does not introduce new laws. Messengers on the other hand either bring in completely new laws or alter the laws of the past. These are the fundamentals differences between a messenger and a prophet. In short, all messengers are prophets but all prophets are not messengers.

Rashad’s Misinterpretation and its Refutation

Rashad Khalifa however wishes to intertwine and twist one verse of the Qur’an to show that the definitions are the other way round. He quotes the Qur’an:

When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. – [Qur’an 3:81]

Then he distorts the meaning of the verse saying that prophets are the ones to receive a Scripture and knowledge while the messengers are the ones who come to confirm what was revealed to the prophets. A proper analysis of the verse would prove that Rashad Khalifa only misinterpreted and twisted the meaning of the above verse.

This verse speaks about the time when man was not yet physically created but existed spiritually with their Lord. Then Allah Ta’ala took the covenant from the prophets. Do note that the verse says “then comes to you a messenger”, the phrase “a messenger” is very important in trying to understand this verse. This verse is speaking of a single messenger that will come and all the prophets will have to believe in him. Who is this single messenger that will come confirming that which is with the ones in the past? That messenger is none other than Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who came after all the ones in the past and confirmed to that which was sent to them. Had this verse said, “then comes to you messengers, confirming what is with you”, then Rashad could have had a stronger foundation to build his misinterpretations upon.

Further, Rashad Khalifa wishes to imply that this verse includes Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and this it cannot be referring to him. The answer to this lies in the Qur’an itself. When we read the context of the verse we see that 3:81 is part of the evidence that Allah Ta’ala is giving to the people who doubted the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Later on it continues and in 3:84 we see Allah Ta’ala saying:

Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. – [Qur’an 3:84]

This is the messenger which Allah Ta’ala referred to as “a messenger” who will confirm that which was sent before him and thus is evidence enough to know that Prophet Muhammad was not included in the verse 3:81. If the verse 3:81 was referring to Rashad then 3:84 would have included the name of Prophet Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wasallam) as well.

Moreover this also proves that Rashad’s claim that it is the prophets and not the messengers who receive the Book is seriously flawed because Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), a messenger according to these verses, did receive a Book.

Scriptures were also given to the prophets but the difference was that they did not have in them the law. For example Ibrahim (alayhissalaam) who is always referred to in the Quran as a ‘prophet’ was given suhufi as seen from the Quran:

But the Hereafter is better and more enduring. And this is in the Books of the earliest (Revelation),- The Books of Abraham and Moses. – [Qur’an 87:17-19]

Thus the Quranic verse is not incorrect in any sense when applying the true meaning of prophets and messengers. Prophets did get books and so did the messengers and thus when the Quran says ‘prophets’ it encompasses all the prophets who did get the books which include messengers. It is thus obvious that receiving a scripture is not the criteria to differentiate between a prophet and a messenger.

Evidence Supporting Rashad and its Refutation

Supporting evidence provided by people who wish to cling onto the misinterpretation by Rashid is the following verse:

And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant: – [Qur’an 33:7]

Thus they conclude that this verse is referring to 3:81 and as a result Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is included in 3:81. What they fail to do is read the very next verse which says:

That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty. – [Qur’an 33:8]

Reading this verse makes it clear that Allah Ta’ala is referring to a different covenant and not the one in 3:81. Hence without a question Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the one referred to in 3:81 and is not
included in the verse.

Analysis of other verses quoted by Rashad Khalifa

“Never would a human being whom GOD blessed with the scripture and prophethood say to the people, “Idolize me beside GOD.” Instead, (he would say), “Devote yourselves absolutely to your Lord alone,” according to the scripture you preach and the teachings you learn.”  – [Qur’an 3:79]

“Those were the ones to whom we have given the scripture, wisdom, and prophethood. If these people disbelieve, we will substitute others in their place, and the new people will not be disbelievers.”  – [Qur’an 6:89]

“We granted him Isaac and Jacob, we assigned to his descendants prophethood and the scriptures, we endowed him with his due recompense in this life, and in the Hereafter he will surely be with the righteous.” – [Qur’an 29:27]

“We have given the Children of Israel the scripture, wisdom, and prophethood, and provided them with good provisions; we bestowed upon them more blessings than any other people.” – [Qur”an 45:16]

“We sent Noah and Abraham, and we granted their descendants prophethood and the scripture. Some of them were guided, while many were wicked.”  – [Qur’an 57:26]

Using all these verses Rashad Khalifa wants to prove that it is not the messengers but the prophets who receive the books. A person who believes in this misinterpretation of Rashad Khalifa would know at a glance that these verses do not support his claim and instead support the Muslim view. I will use Rashad Khalifa’s interpretation to refute his claim. According to him, prophets are the ones to whom are given the books. So if we are to take that explanation, why does the Quran mention the two separately in all these cases? Shouldn’t it then be obvious that a person given prophethood will be given a book? Why does the Quran mention them separately? Mentioning them separately would mean that while they are given prophethood, which is one thing, they are also given scriptures, which is another. Hence prophethood does not necessarily mean that they are given the scriptures.

Rashad Khalifa’s explanation stands on a very weak foundation and thus crumbles at the simplest of analysis.

Conclusion

Rashad Khalifa’s difference between a prophet and a messenger has been disproved throughout this article. The entire foundation of the misinterpretation by Rashad is based on a single verse from the Quran (Chapter 3, verse 81). The explanation of the verse is given in this article and it clearly refutes Rashid Khalifa. The verse does not include Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and is referring to the coming of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It refers to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as a messenger who will come to attest that
which was sent before him. Messengers are sent with some changes in the previous law. Some might argue that Prophet ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) did not change the law but they are incorrect in this assumption. The Qur’an mentions prophet ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) saying:

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.” – [Qur’an 3:50]

Thus it is seen that Prophet ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) did bring a change in the law and thus is referred to as in the Quran as a Messenger. Prophet Ibrahim(as) did not bring a law but did receive a book and thus is referred to
as only a Prophet.

Hence it is evident that all Messengers are prophets but all prophets are not Messengers.