By: Salahuddin Qasmi*
There has been long debate between Muslims and Christians and even it still continues over Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him, (PBUH), his mission, his birth, his teachings and his so-called crucifixion. If the Bible itself be studied minutely, the fact will be known that the beliefs, teachings, rituals and tenets which Christians spread all over the world, contradict fully what Jesus Christ (PBUH) taught the people in the New Testament .Interestingly, Christians claim about themselves to be the followers of Jesus Christ and blame Muslims for not believing in him while in reality the Christians are far away from the real instructions and dogmas preached by Jesus Christ. In this article, we shall discuss who the real followers of Jesus are, Christians or Muslims.
All Muslims have the faith that Jesus was a Prophet and a Messenger of Allah Almighty. In this world, the purpose of his advent was to guide the strayed mankind toward the right path. He kept preaching the people and telling them for worshipping only One God, acting upon His commandments and being kind to one and all. On the other hand, Christians have put this belief aside and considered him as Son of God or God which is totally untrue.
It is the faith of Muslims that Jesus Christ was not sent by Allah Almighty to establish a new religion but to renew the religion brought by the prophet Moses (PBUH). He preached the mosaic teachings, acted upon them and ordered the people to do the same. Jesus Christ himself unveils this reality in a clear cut way.
"Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tilt will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled”. (Mathew, 5: 17-18)
See, how clearly Jesus Christ denies having come with a new religion but with the law introduced before and that is Mosaic Law. This statement of Jesus plainly makes the base of Christians null and void who have established a new religion after Jesus Christ. They, instead of founding the new religion, making up fabricated beliefs, and spreading the unsaid things of Jesus, should have stuck to the true teachings brought by Jesus.
When Jesus saw that no one even the Jew clerics seemed to carry out the Mosaic Laws, he apprising his disciples of the Jews' lack of interest and indolence in the Law, exhorted thus:
“The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but don’t do according to their works’ for they say and don’t do.” (Mathew 23,)
In those days, Scribes and Pharisees were two Jewish groups who used to explain the Law and were responsible for religious matters. This statement also reiterated that Jesus did try to carry out the Law, commanded his disciples for this too. In this view point, Christians are wrong to make separate religion from Judaism. Surely, they have derailed from the right track shown by Jesus Christ and that was to observe and follow the Law.
Muslims believe that there is only One God and Jesus Christ preached the same belief as well. There is plenty of places wherein Jesus Christ conveyed the message of Unity of God such as:
It is in Luke: “Why do you call me good? No one is Good but One, that is God.” (18: 19)
It is in Mark: “Hear, O; Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” (12:29)
It is in Mathew: “Why do you call me good? No is good but one that is God” (19:17)
It is in John “And this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (17-03)
The Gospel is full of incidents which illustrate that Jesus was not a God but a God's slave who was unable to know happening occurring around him. Once, a woman touched Jesus' garments in a crowded place and he could not know who it was. So he said furiously who touched my clothes (Mark 05, 27 to 30). On a day, Jesus was feeling hungry like other human beings, he wanted to have something, he saw a fig tree in a far off place. On the expectation to eat fruits but unfortunately the tree had no fruit, he walke and cursed it. (Mark 11,12,13).
Once upon a time, the mother of Zebedees children with her sons with her sons and requested him to grant her sons sit, one on his right hand and the other one on the left, in your kingdom but he voices obviously his helplessness and says: “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to those for whom it is prepared by my Father” (Mathew, 20:20 to 23).
These quotations from the Gospel evidently nullify the doctrine of Christians that Jesus was a God. They have distorted the Gospel revealed to Jesus from Allah Almighty, altered the cherished message of Jesus Christ and misrepresented the Bible. Pitifully, they, in place of believing in Unity of God sermonized by Jesus and worshipping Him lone, regarded Jesus himself a God, adopted new ideology and groundless dogma befooling the people. Christian history itself tells that it was done with great conspiracy.
Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was not the son of God. he was a human being, a noble man, a rightful person, the son of Mary, and a salve of Allah Almighty. This very tenet is widely found in the Bible. The Holy Quran and the Bible state broadly the miracle birth of Jesus born to Mary. There are more than 55 places wherein Jesus has said about himself of being the son of Man rather than being a God. See in the Bible:
1. "For, the son of Man did not come to destroy men‘s lives but to save them." (Luke, 09, 56)
2. "Jesus as the son of Man did not come to be served but to serve" (Mathew, 20,28)
3. "Whoever confesses me before men, him the son of Man also will confess before the angels of God."(Luke, 12,08)
4. He (Jesus) asked his disciples saying, "Who do men say that I am the son of God?" (Mathew, 16,13)
On the contrary to this open fact, Christians proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God. It is exceedingly an unwise and irrational speech to declare that Jesus Christ is or was Son of God. It is nothing but a big trick which Christians play with their own Sacred Book i.e. the Bible. Any one studying the Gospel with calmness of mind will certainly come to know that Christians have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. They do on their choice whatever they want. Their dogmas absolutely go against the teachings of Jesus. No where in the Gospel any saying of Jesus is found in support of the prevailing canons of Christians as namely some of their cannons or dogmas were annulled in light of the Gospel itself. Justly, it is Muslims who follow Jesus Christ, believe him to be Prophet, a slave of Allah Almighty, the son of Mary, having being risen up to the Sky. He will come down again on the earth before the Day of Judgment and will kill Anis-Christ (Dajjal) as a leader of Muslims. So the true followers of Jesus are Muslims not Christians.
Salahuddin Qasmi, a Research Fellow
at Dept of Study of Christianity, now in Internet Dept of Darul Uloom Deoband. He can be accessed at: email@example.com
Hifzur Rahman Qasmi
Markazul Maarif, Delhi [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Moved by the results and experiences of World War II, the General Assembly of the UNO passed a resolution for protection of ‘human rights’ at global level on December 10, 1948 which later got to be known as ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR). The articles assuring the birthrights of human beings at world level, contained in this declaration were based on three basic concepts:
(1) Humanity as a whole
(2) Respect for individuals
(3) A social system based on democratic values
After this declaration, the term ‘Human Rights’ received such a great popularity around the world, especially in the West, that it became a common slogan for every social and political group. In addition to that, the whole concept of ‘human rights’ began to be seen in the secular and non-religious scenario. The advocates of human rights in the west and east, including some Muslim countries, presume and say that the concept of human rights can live only in the secular and non-religious environment. It cannot survive in the religious framework. This is the reason why the secular minded advocates of human rights in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh are heard to be reviewing that there is no use talking on the topics like ‘Human Rights and Islam’, because, as a religion, Islam has promoted the concepts and values that are not compatible with the basic concepts of the UDHR. But those, who believe that the UDHR is the greatest and matchless manifesto for human rights and feel contradiction between the principles of human rights and Islamic teachings, really need to embark, once again, on an unbiased comparative study of the basic concepts of the UDHR and Islamic teachings regarding humanity.
When we talk on the topics like ‘Human Rights and Islam’ or ‘Human Rights and Qur’an’, we actually mean that these rights have been bestowed to human beings by Allah, not by any legislative house or a ruler. The rights granted by a ruler or legislative assembly might possibly be abrogated. For example, sometimes a ruler announces many rights for his people when he is in a pleasant and a happy mood. But when he gets out from the castle of pleasant emotions, he suddenly declares all the rights invalid. But the rights granted to human beings by the Qur’an are actually granted by Allah, so no government, legislative or judiciary has the right to make any amendment or abrogation. The principles of human rights put forth by the Holy Qur’an are parts and parcel of the religion of Islam. These are meant to be applied and carried out by every follower of the religion, whether rulers or the ruled ones. The Holy Qur’an has declared its decision about the Muslims denying, amending or violating these principles in the practical life:
“Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are infidels.”
The Holy Qur’an ahs attached values and sanctity to human life as much as it considers the life of one individual equal to the whole society. Thus, in this short article, I do not intend at all to make a comparison between the underlying concepts of the UDHR and the Islamic injunctions about humanity. I only wish to show what the Holy Qur’an has to say about rights of human beings to which they are entitled by birth. In the following paragraphs, I am going to mention some of the rights allotted by the Qur’an under some basic heads.
Right to Protection Wealth and Life: Addressing on the occasion of farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet (SAWS) said, “Your lives and wealth are haram (impermissible) for each other, until you meet your Lord on the Day of Judgment.” Well to be remembered here, this command is not meant only for Muslims, but the Prophet (SAWS) is reported to have said about non-Muslims living in the Islamic territory, “The one, who kills a Dhimmi (non-Muslim given shelter in the Islamic State), will not find even the fragrance of paradise.”
Rights to Protection of Self Respect: Those who shout the slogan human rights impressed by UDHR of the UNO, focus only on human lives. They do not talk about anything beyond, whereas, apart from human lives, the importance of self respect which has been assured by the Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago can be imagined through the following verses.
Allah says: (1) “O, you who believe, no nation should poke fun at another.” (2) “Do not defame each other.” (3) Do not indult anyone by using bad names.” (4) “Do not talk ill behind anyone’s back.”
Right to Privacy: The holy Qur’an considers one’s privacy as one’s birth right and forms principles for its protection. (1) Don’t spy on each other. (2) Do not enter anyone’s house, until you get permission from owners.
Right to Protest against Cruelty: Islam gives right to human beings to protest against the cruelty and corruption of the rulers. The holy Qur’an says, “Allah does not like passing bad comments about anyone else, unless he is the oppressed.”
According to Islamic view point, all types of power and sovereignty are purely Allah’s right. Being Allah’s Deputy on earth, man is allowed to use those powers on His behalf only to maintain discipline in the society. Thus, the one who holds power is responsible before his people and the people are entitled to question him. Keeping this very point in eyes, Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq said in his first address after holding the thrown of caliphate, “Assist me, if my stand is right in any matter and reform me, if it is wrong. Continue to follow me as long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Messenger and discard me when I deviate from the path.”
Right to Justice: everyone is entitled to justice by the Qur’an. Thus it speaks very often about doing and getting justice with remarkable stress. In the context of justice, the Holy Qur’an usually uses two words: Adl and Ihsaan. Both the words give the idea of justice and indicated to the theory of balance, but there is slight difference in the meaning. The wordIhsaan is common in meaning, whereas the word adl is related to accept and encourage merits of individuals. According to the Holy Qur’an, man cannot be judged on the basis of his lineage, sex, wealth and his worldly achievements, but the only criterion to judge man’s merit is hisTaqwa (piety) which comprises both belief and good deeds.
Right to freedom of expression: the Islamic state provides its every citizen the right to the freedom of thought and expression, provided that this right is used to spread and promote the truth and righteousness, and not to propagate evil and mischief. The concept of the freedom of expression presented by Islam is far better as compared to that of West. In no case, Islam allows to use this right for the propagation of evil and mischief. Since Islam likes the policy of moderation and balance in every matter, it allows no man to use filthy and immoral language in the name of criticism. In the blessed prophetic period, the Companions used to enquire about any matter if something has been revealed from Allah. If the Prophet (SAWS) would reply negation, they would express their opinions with no delay in that particular matter.
Basically, in the Islamic perspective, the right to freedom of expression means the right to speak the truth. In the Qur’anic terminology, the truthfulness is referred to as “Haque” which is a special attribute of Allah. Thus, truthfulness is not only the right of every human, but it is a responsibility on the shoulder of the believer to speak only the truth in every case, even if it is in the presence of a cruel ruler. The Holy Qur’an commands Muslims to stand still for the cause of the truth and prohibits the society from torturing on account of speaking the truth.
Right to Belief and Religion: the Holy Qur’an gives a general principle that ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ That is because the Holy Qur’an is well acquainted with the fact that belief resides n the heart and the heart can never be commanded. In contrast to that, the Totalitarian Societies snatch all sorts of freedom from the individuals and a new kind of slavery in imposed on human beings. At a time, slavery implied full authority of an individual over another. This kind of slavery has been rejected by the law; the Totalitarian Societies have imposed a new kind of slavery instead.
Right to Protection of Religious Sentiments: Besides belief and conscience, Islam holds the religious sentiments of man in high regards as well. Thus, the Holy Qur’an prohibits Muslims to speak such words which hurt the sentiments of the followers of other religions. Numerous verses of the QUr’an clarifies that the responsibility of the Prophet (SAWS) was only to preach the Truth and not to compel anyone for acceptance. So, the Holy Qur’an also prohibited every action which compels a non-Muslim to accept Islam. It was possible that a Muslim would hurt the sentiment of a non-Muslim living in the Islamic State, so that he might accept Islam. But the Holy Qur’an completely uprooted all such kinds of possibilities by the verse: “Do not abuse those who call some other deity than Allah.”
Right to Freedom of Person: Human being is free by birth and freedom is his birthright. The greatest guarantee towards this right of human being in Islam is that no one can confine it except Allah. This idea is derived from the verse of the Holy Qur’an in which Allah says that “The right to judge the ordinances and prohibitions is with Allah alone.” This is the reason why neither the judiciary, nor the legislative in an Islamic State can compel the citizens on undue obedience. Therefore, the Prophet himself used to seek advice from his companions in public matters.
Right to Education: Education is necessary for the development of humanity. It is, therefore, counted among the basic rights of the citizens in all countries today. But the holy Qur’an has attached much stress with education since its early revelation. Thus, the very first revelation of the Qur’an encourages its addresses to acquire education. According to the Holy Qur’an education is the only weapon which can form a peaceful and a just society. Therefore, the Qur’an addresses man to ‘acquire knowledge, for those who are cognizant cannot be equal to those who are not cognizant.’
These were some points which serve as legitimate examples. In fact the Holy Qur’an gives man all rights which he should get as a human being in open terms. Even then, if man studies it with western mindset, he will surely get weakness in it. But this will not lessen the importance of the Holy Qur’an, because it is not a sin of the sun, if a bat does not behold in day light.
By Muhammadullah Qasmi
Many believe that Islam has banned critical thinking and introduced a kind of stagnation in the field. So, I want to answer the common question "Does Islam permit critical thinking?"
People state, "Most Muslim schools focus on rote memorization of religious texts and discourage independent thinking". There are two different things; critical thinking and rational or independent thinking. There are categories where the mind should play its role and where it should not poke its nose. The clear and apparent meanings of the Glorious Qur'aan and the Hadith, which are called "Mansusaat" or 'Nusoos-e-Qatiyah' in Islamic terms, have no place for criticism. Here, rational thinking to find out the depth is not only permissible but also encouraged in Islam. The principle beliefs, obligatory practices are from this category where the human mind is allowed to explore the reasons and the facts of the matters, but it is not allowed to criticize since the mind has its own limitation as other human faculties have.
For instance, what the hearing faculty can do the smelling faculty cannot, and what the eyes can see the others cannot. As we see a plane flying in the sky, looks very little, if we use only our eyes and not mind, it will be that the plane is small like a bird. But here, we use our mind and say 'no' since the plane is at a certain height that is why we see it small otherwise it is huge. As in this example, there comes one point where the boundary of eye's action ends and the boundary of mind's action begins. Likewise, there is one point where certainly the human mind fails. This is a common idea every sane believes in.
But ahead of this, there is difference between Muslims and others. Muslims believe in 'Wahy', which can be translated as 'revelation' which is by Allah almighty to his messengers and prophets through different ways. The action of 'Wahy' begins from where the action of human mind comes to an end. The 'Wahy' tells us specially about the things which generally a mere human mind cannot find out. The existence of Allah, His attributes, the hell, the paradise, Day of Judgment etc are known only by 'Wahy'. Since, these matters are out of the reach of human mind so the human beings are asked just to believe in. The issue of 'wahy' is based on a principle that every action of human being is poised with error, it is only Allah and His Messengers who are free from human mistakes. That is why there is no possibility of error and criticism in their matters. The human body is temporal and mundane so the parts of the body are also mortal. They cannot have the feeling of things which belongs to another permanent and eternal world. This even we observe in our day-to-day life that if a villager is told about the facts of astronomy he nearly denies all the same.
Besides, Islam allows critical thinking in other matters. The four major schools of thought in Islamic Fiqh i.e. Hanafi, Shaf'ee, Maliki, Hanbli are the clear proof of the claim. The scholars, having deep knowledge of the Glorious Qur'aan, Hadith and Islamic sciences, discussed the matters, which were not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'aan and Hadith, and they perform Ijtihad. In this course, they many times contradicted each other and had different opinions about same issue. But, after all, there opposition was barely not an opposition to play down the other but sincere and concrete opposition based on proofs and evidences. That is why today nearly all of the Ummah follows any of the four schools and none of them deny the other, each of them believes that all are on right path.
Likewise, in Islam 'Amr bil Maroof' (enjoining the right) and 'Nahy anil Munkar' (forbidding from wrong) are the basic rules of a social life, which Allah almighty has counted in one of the characteristics of this Ummah as He states:
"You are the best community that has been raised up for mankind. You enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and you believe in Allah." (Surah Ale-Imran, 3:110)
This is emphasized by other verses and holy Hadiths, as for example a Hadith says:
"If any of you sees an evil done he/she should stop it by his hand, if he/she cannot he/she should protest against it, if cannot then at least he/she should repulse it by heart, and this is the weakest from of faith." (Sahih Muslim, V 1 p 51)
As another Hadith assets "The best form of Jihad is to utter the truth before an oppressor ruler". You might know the story of a common person who stood before Hazrat Umar Farooq while he was delivering a sermon and said if you will go wrong we will rectify you by our swords, in reply Hazrat Umar thanked Allah that his caliphate enjoys persons determined for truth and justice. Here, one thing should be kept in mind that, though Islam has allowed criticizing, it sternly prohibits backbiting and hurting others.
"O ye who believe! Let not a folk deride a folk who may be better than they (are), nor let women (deride) women who may be better than they are; neither defame one another, nor insult one another by (insulting) nicknames. Bad is the name of lewdness after faith. And whoso turneth not in repentance, such are evil doers. O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! some suspicion is a crime. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye abhor that (so abhor the other)! And keep your duty (to Allah). Lo! Allah is Relenting, Merciful." (Surah Al-Hujrat, 49: 12, 13)
So, this means that criticism should not be for the sake of criticism, and on personal basis but it should be with a good intention, i.e. 'Islaah' based on social etiquettes.
All these things prove that Islam has never discouraged independent thinking and criticizing, it has allowed human mind to function in areas where it can work. Not only this that Islam has allowed independent thinking, but it is The Glorious Qur'aan which has set the tradition of thinking in the creation of Allah and asked its followers to reflect on the natural phenomena. For example the Glorious Qur'aan praises people who think:
"Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and (in) the difference of night and day are tokens (of His sovereignty) for men of understanding. Such as remember Allah, standing, sitting, and reclining, and consider the creation of the heavens and the earth, (and say): Our Lord! Thou created not this in vain. Glory be to Thee! Preserve us from the doom of Fire" (Surah Ale-Imran, 3: 190, 191)
Before Islam, nearly every religion, which existed then, adopted creatures as God. This concept stopped them to think in the reality of the creatures of the heaven and earth. When Islam came it concentrated the human belief only in Allah and regarded the entire universe as the servant of the human beings. Thus, Islam opened the door of independent thinking in Muslims and it led them to a grand era of science.
It is not correct to write: "they (students) are not allowed to learn about modern scientific ideas such as evolution, secular histories of other nations, or anything which would conflict with the religious tenants of Islam." There is a vast difference between believing and learning. Islam has fully allowed Muslims to learn scientific education but not to believe in the matters that contradict with established Islamic beliefs. Because, the science is ever-growing and ever-changing. For example, the scientific facts of Newton in 17th century known as 'Gravitation Laws' were so widely believed that those who denied were called as insane. But, later in 20th century Einstein came and the entire theory of Newton turned up side down. So, as a Muslim, one should think whether one is going to change one's beliefs which are told by All-Knowing Allah to the notions that have no concrete ground.
Some one wrote "Some of the religious schools (madrasas) merely propagandize militant Islamic beliefs and indoctrinate little boys into becoming warriors for the next Jihad." I do not know any madrasa, specially in India, where so called 'militant Islamic beliefs' are 'propagandized', and I do not even understand what this 'militant Islamic beliefs' mean. Likewise, the one who made this statement should point out in which madrasa little boys are indoctrinated to become 'warriors for Jihad'. I will be highly thankful to the one who wrote this to provide me correct information. Otherwise, let me very plainly say that the above statement is a lie and some people became habitual to believe in wide spread lies. They have closed their sights and hearing and blocked their minds and now believe blindly in what's being spread by some anti-Islamic elements.
Allah knows the best!
An original Deoband.org article By Shah Waliullah al-Muhaddith al-Dahlawi
Translated by Shaykh Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi
Companions of the A’raf
[a boundary between Hell and Paradise] are of various types. Some of them are as follows:
 People whom the message of Islam did not reach in the first place, such as residents of mountain tops who have not associated anyone with their Lord nor rejected [His existence] but they have also not believed in Him. They are like animals which do not turn to God, neither in negation nor confirmation. They pay attention to the things of their interest only.
Or it is such that they received the message of Islam but they did not derive benefit from it on account of their ignorance, such as those people who did not understood the language of Islam nor did they grasp its argument.
Or they were brought up heedless towards such deep thinking. The extent of their knowledge was that Muslims are people whose turbans are of a particular type and whose shirts are of a particular sort and who eat certain things and hold certain others as forbidden.
Or they are the people who engage with us in combat over kingdom, thus unavoidably we must fight with them. Despite all this, they had not associated anyone with God and were like animals even though they were constitutionally sound.
 People who are defective in intelligence, such as children, the insane, the mentally handicapped, farmers and slaves, i.e. those who are unable to distinguish right from wrong and are hardly able to recognize their Lord and worship Him. They are like water which on account of its weakness cannot be printed upon. From such people it is only sought that they bear resemblance to Muslims and obey their manifest orders so that the True Word not be divided. This much faith is enough for them which the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) considered enough for a black woman who when asked where Allah was had pointed to the sky.
As far as the first kind of people are concerned it is necessary that they are explained the truth clearly, so that they may be able to understand it, and the argument and the guidance is unambiguously proved before them as true.
p. 163-164)Source: http://deoband.org/2010/12/aqida/qiyamah-and-the-hereafter/the-people-of-al-araf/
By Shah Waliullah al-Muhaddith al-Dahlawi
Translated by Shaykh Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi
One of the difficulties in the science of Qur’anic commentary is to know which are the abrogating verses (nasikh
) and which are the abrogated ones (mansukh
). This subject has been discussed at length with considerable disagreement [among Muslim scholars]. One of the main reasons behind the difficulty of this subject is the difference of opinion between the early andlater scholars about the technical meaning of the word naskh
(abrogation). Abrogation According to the Early Scholars
What is known from some investigation into the speech of the Companions and the Followers is that they used the word abrogation in the common linguistic sense, namely, the removal of one thing by another, and not in the sense taken by legal theorists [i.e., that one verse has abrogated another verse and it is not acceptable to act upon that verse anymore]. The meaning of abrogation, according to them, is the “removal of some of the qualities of one verse by some other verse,” whether the removal be because:
1. The time for acting upon the abrogated verse has come to an end;
2. The speech has been diverted from the most likely meaning to a less likely one;
3. The condition is only accidental [not exceptive];
4. The general import is particularized;
5. The explanation of what differentiates the textual (mansus
) and the one which is plainly analogical;
6. One of the pre-Islamic pagan customs has since become extinct;
7. The abrogation of any previous sacred law (Shara’i
Thus, the subject of abrogation became very vast and its scope widened. There is considerable difference of opinion about it. This is why some commentators have elevated the number of abrogated verses to as high as five hundred. But if you think a bit more deeply, you will find that verses of this sort are near countless. Abrogation According to the Later Scholars
As regards the verses considered abrogated according to the technical meaning taken by the later scholars, their number is small, particularly in light of the assessment we have made. Shaykh Jalal al-Din Suyuti, after considering the views of some of the learned scholars about them, has given a full account of them in his Itqan
. He has noted down the verses which are taken as abrogated by the later scholars in agreement with the view of Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi, and settled their number at approximately twenty. But I have a different opinion about some of these twenty as well. Al-Fawz al-Kabir fi Usul al-Tafsir
, translated into Arabic by Salman al-Husayni al-Nadwi, p.81-84 Note
[Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi states in another place in Al-Fawz al-Kabir
that abrogation can only be ascertained in five verses according to the meaning taken by the later scholars. He offers an explanation for the remaining fifteen verses that were considered abrogated by Jalal al-Din Suyuti and others, and demonstrates why those verses are not in fact abrogated.
For example he writes that the verse "As for those with whom you have made a pledge, give them their shares. Surely, Allah is Witness over everything" (4:33), is said to have been abrogated by the verse "As for the womb-relatives, they are closer to one another according to the Book of Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of everything" (8:75). He comments, "Here I must state that the verse apparently means that the inheritance is intended for the clients (mawali
), while doing good and maintaining connection are meant for the master of clientship. As such, there is no abrogation here."
On another verse, he comments, "'The adulterer shall not marry save an adulterous or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers' (24:3), is taken as abrogated by the verse 'Arrange the marriage of the spouseless among you, and the capable from among your bondmen and bondwomen' (24:32)". He then goes on to say, "I am to state that Imam Ahmad has followed the outward meaning of the verse, while its meaning according to other scholars is that the doer of a great sin is not fit but for the adulteress or that it is not desirable to take the adulteress in marriage. The words of the verse ('All that is forbidden unto believers') is a hint toward adultery and polytheism. Hence, there is no abrogation here."
Following are the five verses that are considered abrogated by Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi: (1) Al-Anfal
65 by Al-Anfal
66; (2) Al-Mujadilah
12 by Al-Mujadilah
13; (3) Al-Baqarah
180 by Al-Nisa'
11; (4) Al-Ahzab
50 by Al-Ahzab
52; (5) Al-Muzzammil
1 by Al-Muzzammil
However, Mufti Sa'id Ahmad Palanpuri writes while quoting Mawlana 'Ubaydullah Sindhi, "Thus, according to this term, Shah Sahib sees no verse of the Qur'an as abrogated. But it should be noted that the statements of Shah Waliullah in this regard is wise; in view of the condition of people, he attempted to gradually explain this matter to them."
Mufti Palanpuri goes on to say, "'Allamah Sindhi (may Allah have mercy on him) wants to say that no verse, according to Shah Waliullah, is abrogated. But had he expressed this opinion all of a sudden, it would not have been acceptable to the people. Therefore, he wanted to take people gradually to the concept that the Qur'an underwent a process of abrogation, but there is no verse in the present Qur'an which is altogether abrogated." (Sharh al-Fawz al-Kabir,
- For more on this topic see Shah Waliullah awr un ka Falsafah by Mawlana ‘Ubaydullah Sindhi, Sharh al-Fawz al-Kabir by Mufti Sa’id Ahmad Palanpuri, and Bulghat al-Hayran of Shaykh Husayn ‘Ali al-Punjabi.
By Shah Waliullah Dahlawi
Translated by Shaykh Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi Tafhim (Instruction):
All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Allah send prayers, blessings and peace on the Chief of the Messengers, his family and all his Companions.
A questioner asked me about the statement of the Imam of the Path, the Pole of Reality, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (Allah Most High be pleased with him and give him satisfaction) in Ghuniyyat al-Talibin when mentioning the sects that will not attain salvation where he divided the Murji’ah into twelve sects, and one of them were the Hanafis. Then after a detailed explanation, he said: “As far as the Hanafis are concerned, they are the companions of Abu Hanifah al-Nu’man. He believed that faith (iman) is confession (iqrar), cognizance (ma’rifah) and belief in Allah and His messengers and what He brought through him”, all according to what al-Barhuti mentioned in Kitab al-Shajarah. Al-Barhuti then said that this statement of [al-Jaylani] (may his secret be sanctified) is invalidated by two modes of criticism:
First the Hanafis are from amongst the Ahl al-Sunnah by agreement of those [whose opinions] are counted. So, it is not correct to count them from the Murji’ah sect and regard them as deviant and consider them to be unsaved (ghayr naji).
Second, he explained the beliefs for which the Murji’ah were designated as Murji’ah, and he counted the Hanafis among them, so the implication of [his speech] is the Hanafis expressed these [beliefs], adopting them as their creed, but the fact is not so. He said that they were called Murji’ah since they believed that if any accountable person says La ilaha illa Llah Muhammad al-Rasul Allah (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and then commits all sins, he will not in principle enter the Fire. And from that which there is no doubt is that the Hanafis are free from such beliefs.
I [Shah Waliullah] say: that irja’ is of two types: one which expels an adherent from the Sunnah, and an irja‘ that does not expel [an adherent from the Sunnah]. As far as the first is concerned, it is to believe that one who confessed with the tongue and testified with the heart, will not in principle be harmed by sin. As far as the second is concerned, it is to believe that actions (’amal) are not a part of faith (iman), but it deserves reward or punishment.
The reason for differentiating between them is that the Companions (Sahabah) and the Followers (Tabi’un) agreed on the deviation of the Murji’ah in saying that actions deserve reward and punishment, and their opponents will thus be considered deviant and heretical.
As far as the second issue is concerned, it is not one among the issues on which a consensus from the Pious Predecessors (Salaf) has emerged, rather the evidences are conflicting. How many a hadith, verse and tradition are there which signify that faith (iman) is other than actions (‘amal), and how many evidences are there which suggest that faith (iman) is applied to both words and actions? The dispute is nothing but a reference to [a mere difference in] phraseology, as all agree that a sinner does not come out of iman and is deserving of punishment [merely on account of committing a sin]. Moreover, it is possible to divert the evidences signifying iman as both [words and actions] from their outward meanings with a little attention.
Imam Abu Hanifah is from among those who expressed this second view, and he is from the elders of the Ahl al-Sunnah and their imams. Yes, the followers of his school of thought and his adherents in furu‘ (secondary issues) held different opinions. From among them were the Mu’tazilah like al-Jubba’i, Abu Hashim and al-Zamakhshari, and from among them were the Murji’ah and others. Thus, these [individuals] would follow Imam Abu Hanifah in the secondary issues of jurisprudence but they did not follow him in the fundamentals of beliefs, and they would attribute their false beliefs to Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) in order to spread their madhhab and they would cling onto some of the statements of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him).
So the Ahl al-Haq from among the Hanafis like al-Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him), etc, stood up and explained the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and defended him against what they attributed to him. Numerous narrations corroborate that which we say and it is not hidden from anyone who refers to the books [on this matter]. Hence, the relation between the Hanafis and Ahl al-Sunnah is common in one regard and particular in another regard (’umum wa khusus min wajhin).
Now, you should know that the Shaykh (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned the Murji’ah, the people of irja‘, among the deviant sects who are out of the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah. He said this is the reason that they were called Murji’ah. He mentioned among them the Hanafis, i.e., people who follow Imam Abu Hanifah in furu’ and claim that he agreed with them in their position. Then he mentioned his statement which they cling onto, and thus he said that [Abu Hanifah] believed that faith (iman) is the same as confession (iqrar).
Once we have reviewed these matters, both criticisms disappear, and it is clear that the Shaykh (may Allah be pleased with him) did not accuse Imam Abu Hanifah, nor the Maturidi Hanafis, may Allah protect him against all these, and he only attributed that which he attributed to a group of the Murji’ah who affiliated themselves to Imam Abu Hanifah in the furu’ and clung onto the outward meaning of his statement and they misinterpreted his statement.
(Tafhimat Ilahiyyah, 1:27-29)