'Taqwa': 'Shun the Roots of Evil'

'Ghibbat'- VIII

Alhamdulillah, Summa Alhamdulillah, today also I continue my series of sermons on Surah Al-Hujurat, and [more specifically] the Hadiths on the subjects of “Ghibbat” (backbiting, gossips - spreading misinformation), thinking badly of others and spying on people, etc.

I now quote a second Hadith that is very long and found in [the book of] Muslim and also in [that of] Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Adab.

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) as saying: “Avoid suspicion, for suspicion is the gravest lie in talk and do not be inquisitive about one another and do not spy upon one another and do not feel envy with the other, and nurse no malice, and nurse no aversion and hostility against one another. And be fellow-brothers and servants of Allah.” (Muslim)

In another version of this Hadith, reported in Muslim, Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) tells us to stay away from badzani, to think badly of a person, because badzani is a bad kind of lie. Do not stay engaged in looking for the faults of others. Do not spy on your brothers, do not be greedy for good things, do not be jealous, have no enmity for your brothers, do not be insolent. Do not break relations with your brothers. Become servants of Allah and live like real brothers. A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim. And do not commit injustice among you. A Muslim does not diminish his brother and does not humiliate him either.

And Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) also pointed to [in the direction of] his heart and said that: Taqwa is here.

‘Jihad’: The Views of Imam Al-Mahdi

Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) of Qadian, the man who claimed under Divine revelations that he is the long- awaited Messiah of the Latter Days and the Mujaddid and ‘Imam Mahdi’ of the 14th century of Islam, lived his life at a very significant period in world history (1835-1908 AD; 1250-1326 AH). The times witnessed a great political transition in India and elsewhere, with the decline and fall of the mighty Mughal Empire (1526-1857) and the simultaneous rise and rise of the British colonial suzerainty over the whole subcontinent (1857-1947) as well as other regions/nations around the world. As it happened, the Christian-missionary activities among the Muslim peoples became yet another front in the larger battle of the European imperial powers in Asia and Africa for land, riches and souls. Hence, the world of religious debates also became a battle field, with Islam coming under relentless attack at the hands of an ascendant Christianity. Hence, along with the political flux, also came profound questions of spiritual doctrine and of practical significance for the Muslims of the day. 

The debate around the doctrine of Jihad in Islam is fairly representative of the kind of issues and concerns that characterized the Muslim-Christian encounter in the colonial era in India. Against the backdrop of the anti-Muslim rhetoric by the Christian missionaries in India, there were incidents of violence involving such preachers, and those who attacked them were apparently motivated by religious hate. There are searing ironies in the whole episode: the Christian missionaries, in their zeal for tarnishing the fair name and image of Islam, propagated a false doctrine of Jihad among the ignorant masses, whereby they claimed that it is obligatory for Muslims to kill disbelievers/enemies. Certain Muslim divines, without a deeper examination of all issues, also agreed with this false notion of Jihad that legitimated extreme intolerance and indiscriminate violence against all non-Muslims. The expressions of bigotry and senseless acts of violence against innocent victims is often directly linked to the myth-making around Jihad.

Several learned Muslim scholars during the period wrote treatises against the widespread distortions and grave misunderstandings that characterized the popular concept of ‘Jihad’. For instance, Maulvi Chiragh Ali of Hyderabad (1844-1895) wrote the classic ‘A Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad’, setting forth the historic/persecuted circumstances of the early Muslim community forming the actual context of the Qur’anic verses concerning Jihad. He wrote: 

‘...A cruel or revengeful tyrant may not be justified in taking up arms in his own defence, or in seeking to redress his personal wrongs and private injuries; but the whole Muslim community at Makkah was outraged, persecuted and expelled- and the entire Muhammadan commonwealth at Madina was attacked, injured and wronged- their natural rights and privileges were disregarded- after such miseries the Muslims took up arms to protect themselves from the hostilities of their enemies and to repel force by force; and were justified by every law and justice’. (A Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad, p. xxiv-xxv, Delhi: Idarah-i-Adabiyati Dilli, written in 1885; reprint 1984)

Likewise, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), the illustrious founder of the Aligarh Muslim University and a towering Muslim personality of the age, also wrote extensively to elucidate the true concept of Jihad in Islam. He emphatically asserted that ‘as long as the Muslims can affirm their faith in One God and preach it in peace, the religion does not permit them to rise against the rulers irrespective of their faith or race’. 

Further, he avers that ‘Islam admits no scope for mischief, treachery, mutiny or rebellion. In fact, whosoever guarantees peace and security, he be a believer or disbeliever, is entitled to Muslim gratitude and obedience’.

'Keep Away from Spreading Rumours'

'Ghibbat': Part VII

Alhamdulillah, Summa Alhamdulillah, today I continue my series of sermons on the subject of “Ghibbat” (backbiting, palavers, etc.). And like I told you, I come now with Hadiths on the subject.

Understanding Hadith reports: The need for Caution 

We should know, even in the case of reporting Hadiths, that we should be very careful lest we do not report the words of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) in the right way. For example : Hazrat Abu Huraira (ra) narrated that Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) said that the worst people are those with two-mouths. 

That is to say, he comes here and say something and then he goes elsewhere and reports another thing [i.e. not the original wordings]. In other words, he is a great hypocrite and a circulator [of news… i.e. gossip-monger/ tale-teller]. The translator is him who is hypocrite and a tale-teller as he is the one circulating the news on that person and telling it in a twisted manner. He uses such wordings which has not been originally spoken. He puts it in the way that he has understood it, even if the wordings may resemble and mean the same thing. But we should be very careful when doing translations; first of all we should say the exact translation and then we can state that it means such and such things. [i.e. give the exact translation/ meaning of the original sayings, and then you explain what has been stated in the original saying].

'Two-Faced' Persons spread false stories to ruin relations

That is why when we cross-check this Hadith, we find that those are not the exact wordings of Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) – i.e. his Hadith. When we look at it closely, we find that these are indeed not the words he used. The Hadith is in fact like this:- Abu Huraira reported: 'The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said,“Verily, among the worst of people is one with two faces, he who comes with one face to these and another to those" (Bukhari, Muslim). 

As for the conclusion we draw from this Hadith, despite the fact that the first choice of words used means nearly the same thing, i.e. double-face and two tongues, two mouths, but the exact wordings which have been used is: two faces. 

Likewise, out of the context of the Hadiths, when a circulator readies himself (or herself) to spread some news (on someone), he either add to it or remove some words from the original talk of someone, and thus he change the actual meaning of the saying/ talk.

When we now analyse the Hadith where Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) has mentioned that the worst kinds of people are those with two faces, this is because the curse of being double-faced remains linked with betrayal (betraying someone) and it becomes an integral part of it.

When we look at the circulation of news and gossip and tell-tales in a global way, we will find that much disorder is created because of those hearsays. Sometimes, it enters the fold of close family circle and sometimes it reaches till a point that family ties are broken, in such a way that it becomes difficult to connect them again.

'Jihad' and World Politics

One of the most misunderstood and much maligned concepts in the world of religion today is the doctrine of ‘Jihad’ in Islam. Unlike any other matter of devotional piety in any religion, ‘Jihad’ brings around it images of a deadly cocktail of religion, identity politics and armed violence involving wily politicians, extremists and terrorists; generating genuine anxiety, confusion and fear among the people. Indeed, ‘Jihad’ has come to mean different things to different people in our times. 

In our deeply troubled world, where powerful nations set the rules of the global game, non-State actors are also increasingly becoming vital players. In States where turbulent political conditions exist, ‘Jihad’ is almost invariably associated with the call to arms and violence by certain Muslim-groups ostensibly working to protect the collective interests of the Muslim communities concerned. For many governments with separatist movements or insurgent groups in their territorial domain; ‘Jihad’ is nothing but an ideology of unbridled violence and mayhem championed by non-State actors. In sharp contrast to this, the groups fighting States look upon ‘Jihad’ as the ideology of their political resistance against unjust regimes- the moral and ethical justification for their militant campaigns against governments that ‘oppress’ the people. Inspired by their own notions of injustice and agency; often seeking retribution for alleged past crimes of the State concerned or to induce change in State policies vis-a-vis certain matters; organized groups as well ‘lone wolfs’- including suicide bombers- perpetrate violent crimes, targeting symbols of State power. These attacks often indiscriminately impact civilians as well, leading to ‘collateral damage’- unnecessary suffering for common people caught up in such incidents.

For instance, the horrific 9/11 terror attacks in the United States of America at the beginning of this century- in the year 2001- directed at the symbols of American military and economic heft resulted also in the death of thousands of people going about their everyday lives. The terrorists who executed this most audacious attack claimed they were driven by the ideals of ‘Jihad’ in committing this mass murder. Those who waged this ‘war’ on America were seeking vengeance upon the country for its dreadful policies abroad- including military interventions that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and even destroyed entire societies in the Muslim world. Despite the moral high-ground the parties in conflict- States and the terror groups- seek to assert for themselves, both State terrorism and non-State terrorism are problematic for their means and methods of warfare and also due to the profound consequences such violence has upon its innocent victims, common folks like us.