Were all the Companions of the Noble Prophet (S) Upright and Righteous?

/in , , /by

10499152_657223307700957_750100417_n

Some of the Sunni brothers, due to the respect and importance attached to the ‘first of the Muhajirs (Emigrants)’ by the Noble Qur’an, have sought to infer that they had not committed any wrongdoing until the end of their lives and so, without exception, all of them ought to be looked upon with great esteem.

They then generalized this issue to include all the ‘companions’ because of Qur’an’s praise for them in connection with the ‘pledge of Ridhwan’ and other events. In practice, without taking into regard the deeds of the companions, they considered all of them to be exceptional humans and refused themselves the permission to indulge in any kind of examination and criticism with respect to their deeds.

One of them, the celebrated commentator and the author of al-Manar, has vociferously attacked the Shi’ites as to why they single out some of the initial Muhajirs for criticism… little realizing the great inconsistency of such beliefs with the spirit of Islam and its history?

Undoubtedly, the companions, especially the initial Muhajirs, possess a special reverence; however, this would only have been until so long as they had continued to tread the correct path and exhibit devotion (towards Islam), but from the day some of the companions deviated from the true path of Islam, the Noble Qur’an would surely view them differently.

For example, how can we ever exonerate Talhah and Zubayr for reneging the pledge and opposing the leader – one, who, apart from the explicit statements of the Noble Prophet (S) attesting his leadership, had been elected by all the Muslims, including themselves? How can we clear them of the deaths of seventeen thousand Muslims, whose blood had been spilled during the Battle of the Camel? If a person were to shed the blood of one innocent person, he would have no excuse to present before Allah, what then to speak of this large multitude!

Basically, is it possible to conceive that ‘Ali (a.s.) and his companions, as well as Talhah, Zubayr and some others of the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) who had teamed up with them, were both on the side of truth in the Battle of the Camel?

Does any logic and intellect accept this manifest contrast? Can we, in the name of ‘inviolability of the companions’ close our eyes, regard them as special personalities and shove the entire history of Islam after the departure of the Noble Prophet (S) into oblivion? And should we flout the Islamic criterion of:

إِنَّ أَکْرَمَکُمْ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ أَتْـقَاکُمْ
“Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah (s.w.t.) s (he who is) the most righteous of you.”

What kind of irrational and illogical judgement is this?

Basically, does there arise any problem if, one day, a person or persons were to stand in the ranks of the inmates of Paradise and supporters of truth, while on another day in the ranks of the inmates of Hell and opponents of truth? Are all the people infallibles? Have we ourselves not witnessed all these transformations taking place within individuals?

The story of the People of Apostasy – a group of Muslims who had turned apostates after the departure of the Noble Prophet (S) – has been narrated by the Sunnites, as well as the Shi’ites in their books, that the first Caliph initiated a military expedition against them and suppressed their uprising. Had the People of Apostasy not witnessed the Noble Prophet (S) and were they not his companions?

More amazing is the fact that in order to escape from this strange inconsistency some have brought in the pretext of ijtihad (independent reasoning) and state that individuals such as Talhah, Zubayr, Mua’wiyah and their supporters had been mujtahids (religious jurists) and although they had erred in their ijtihad, they had not perpetrated any sin; on the contrary, for these very acts of theirs they shall receive their rewards from Allah!!

Honestly, what a disgraceful logic! Is rebelling against the successor of the Noble Prophet (S), breaking the pledge and shedding the blood of thousands of innocent people – and that too for the purpose of power, rank and wealth – so complex an issue that one is unable to perceive its evils? Does shedding that great measure of innocent blood entitle one to receive rewards from Allah (s.w.t.) ?

If we were to exonerate a group of companions, who had perpetrated offences in such a manner, without any doubt not a single offender would remain in this world, for we would have acquitted all criminals by this logic. Such unstructured defence of the companions would cause Islam to be viewed with great cynicism.

Consequently there lies no alternative except to look upon everyone – especially the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) – with reverence and esteem, however only for so long as they do not deviate from the path of truth, justice and the agenda of Islam!1

Numerous Sunni commentators have reported this tradition from Hamid ibne Ziyad, who says: I approached Muhammad ibne Ka’b al-Quradhi and said to him: What do you have to say in connection with the companions of the Noble Prophet (S)? He replied:

جَمِيْعُ أَصْحَابِ رَسُوْلِ اللهِ فِي الْجَنَّةِ مُحْسِنُهُمْ وَ مُسِيْئُهُمْ.
“All the companions are the inmates of Paradise – the righteous ones as well as the evil ones!”

I said to him: From where do you state such a thing? Whereupon he recited the following verse:

وَ السَّابِقُونَ الأََوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَ الأََنْصَارِ وَ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَضِيَ اللٌّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَ رَضُوا عَنْهُ
“And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him.”2

And then continued: With respect to the ‘Followers’ there is a condition that they ought to have followed only the righteous deeds of the companions (only in this case would they attain deliverance, but this is not a condition for the companions to attain deliverance).3

However, this claim is unacceptable for several reasons:

The ruling mentioned in the above verse should also be applicable in the case of the ‘followers’, who, as we had alluded previously, are those, who follow in the footsteps of the initial Muhajirs (Emigrants) and Ansar (Helpers). Therefore, the entire ummah, without exception, should be of the delivered ones!

As for the fact that in the tradition of Muhammad ibne Ka’b it has been said that Allah (s.w.t.) has placed a condition of good deeds with regards to the ‘followers’ i.e. they should only follow the righteous deeds and conduct of the companions, and not their sins, this is an amazing statement.

This is because if the condition prescribed for the followers in order to attain deliverance is to follow the righteous deeds of the companions, then it is all the more necessary for this condition to be prescribed for the companions too.

In other words Allah (s.w.t.), in the above verse, says that His pleasure and happiness shall encompass all the initial Muhajirs and Ansar, who were righteous and treaded the correct path, and all those who follow them. The verse does not say that He desires to encompass the Muhajirs and Ansar with His happiness, irrespective of whether they are good or bad, but as for the ‘followers’, He shall accept them only on the basis of that specific condition.

Reason and intellect totally reject this issue; this is because reason does not consider the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) to possess any distinction over the others in this regard. Where lies the difference between the Abu Jahls and those, who initially embraced Islam but later deviated from it?

And why should those, who came into this world years and centuries after the Noble Prophet (S) and whose sacrifices and heroisms were no less than those of the early companions of the Noble Prophet (S), not be eligible for this Divine mercy? Especially since they possessed this distinction that despite not witnessing the Noble Prophet (S), they had accepted him and had brought faith upon him.

How can the Qur’an, which says: Surely the most honourable of you with Allah (s.w.t.) s the one who is the most righteous amongst you, ever approve of such irrational discrimination? How can the Qur’an, which in its various verses, curses the sinners and unjust ones, and regards them as deserving of Allah’s chastisement, approve of this irrational safety of the companions with respect to Divine punishment? Can there be exceptions to these threats and curses of the Qur’an such that a particular group is kept exempted? Why and for what reason?

Apart from these, can such a ruling not be regarded as showing a green light to them to perpetrate any and every kind of sin and offence?

This ruling does not conform with the history of Islam at all, for there have been numerous individuals who once had stood in the ranks of Muhajirs and Ansar, only to later deviate from their paths and find themselves incurring the anger of the Noble Prophet (S) and consequently the wrath of Allah. Have we not heard of how Tha’labah ibne Hatib Ansari deviated and became the object of the Noble Prophet’s (S) anger?

To state this more clearly, if what they have intended is that the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) did not commit any sins, and were pure and infallible from every kind of disobedience and transgression, this is tantamount to rejecting the most obvious and self-evident issues.

And if they meant that the companions did commit offences, but despite this Allah (s.w.t.) s pleased with them, this claim would mean that Allah (s.w.t.) has been pleased with sins!

Who is it that can absolve and acquit Talhah and Zubayr, who initially had been of the special companions of the Noble Prophet (S), and ‘Aishah, his wife, of the death of seventeen thousand Muslims in the Battle of the Camel? Was Allah (s.w.t.) pleased with these killings and blood-shed?

Would opposition to ‘Ali (a.s.), the representative of the Noble Prophet (S) – who, even assuming that he had not been appointed as the Caliph by the Noble Prophet (S), at the very least, had been chosen by the consensus of the ummah – and battling him and his loyal companions be acts that would obtain the pleasure of Allah (s.w.t.) ?

The truth is that the advocates of the notion of inviolability of the companions, by their insistence and emphasis for the issue, have disfigured the pure face of Islam, which has always considered faith and righteous deeds to be the measure for gauging a person’s character.

And finally, the pleasure and happiness of Allah (s.w.t.) that has been mentioned in the verse under discussion is associated with four titles – emigration, assistance, faith and righteous deeds. Thus, as long as all the ‘companions’ and the ‘followers’ adhered to these, they would be the object of Allah’s (s.w.t.) grace, but the day they distanced themselves from these, they also distanced themselves from Allah’s (s.w.t.) pleasure.

From the above discussion it becomes plainly apparent that the statements of the erudite, albeit prejudiced commentator – the author of al-Manar – in which he criticizes the Shi’ites for their lack of belief in the purity and uprightness of all the companions, possess no value and worth. The Shi’ites have not committed any sin save for the fact that they have accepted the rulings of intellect and reason, and the testimonies of the Noble Qur’an and history, and disregarded the unfounded and incorrect distinctions presented by the prejudiced ones.4

——————————————————————

1. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 7, pg. 263
2. Suratul Tawbah (9), Verse 100
3. Tafsirul Manar and the commentary of Fakhr Razi, while discussing the above verse.
4. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 8, pg. 108

Were all the Companions of the Noble Prophet (S) Upright and Righteous?

/in , /by

ImageThumb2

Some of the Sunni brothers, due to the respect and importance attached to the ‘first of the Muhajirs (Emigrants)’ by the Noble Qur’an, have sought to infer that they had not committed any wrongdoing until the end of their lives and so, without exception, all of them ought to be looked upon with great esteem.

They then generalized this issue to include all the ‘companions’ because of Qur’an’s praise for them in connection with the ‘pledge of Ridhwan’ and other events. In practice, without taking into regard the deeds of the companions, they considered all of them to be exceptional humans and refused themselves the permission to indulge in any kind of examination and criticism with respect to their deeds.

One of them, the celebrated commentator and the author of al-Manar, has vociferously attacked the Shi’ites as to why they single out some of the initial Muhajirs for criticism… little realizing the great inconsistency of such beliefs with the spirit of Islam and its history?

Undoubtedly, the companions, especially the initial Muhajirs, possess a special reverence; however, this would only have been until so long as they had continued to tread the correct path and exhibit devotion (towards Islam), but from the day some of the companions deviated from the true path of Islam, the Noble Qur’an would surely view them differently.

For example, how can we ever exonerate Talhah and Zubayr for reneging the pledge and opposing the leader – one, who, apart from the explicit statements of the Noble Prophet (S) attesting his leadership, had been elected by all the Muslims, including themselves? How can we clear them of the deaths of seventeen thousand Muslims, whose blood had been spilled during the Battle of the Camel? If a person were to shed the blood of one innocent person, he would have no excuse to present before Allah, what then to speak of this large multitude!

Basically, is it possible to conceive that ‘Ali (a.s.) and his companions, as well as Talhah, Zubayr and some others of the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) who had teamed up with them, were both on the side of truth in the Battle of the Camel?

Does any logic and intellect accept this manifest contrast? Can we, in the name of ‘inviolability of the companions’ close our eyes, regard them as special personalities and shove the entire history of Islam after the departure of the Noble Prophet (S) into oblivion? And should we flout the Islamic criterion of:

إِنَّ أَکْرَمَکُمْ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ أَتْـقَاکُمْ
“Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah (s.w.t.) s (he who is) the most righteous of you.”

What kind of irrational and illogical judgement is this?

Basically, does there arise any problem if, one day, a person or persons were to stand in the ranks of the inmates of Paradise and supporters of truth, while on another day in the ranks of the inmates of Hell and opponents of truth? Are all the people infallibles? Have we ourselves not witnessed all these transformations taking place within individuals?

The story of the People of Apostasy – a group of Muslims who had turned apostates after the departure of the Noble Prophet (S) – has been narrated by the Sunnites, as well as the Shi’ites in their books, that the first Caliph initiated a military expedition against them and suppressed their uprising. Had the People of Apostasy not witnessed the Noble Prophet (S) and were they not his companions?

More amazing is the fact that in order to escape from this strange inconsistency some have brought in the pretext of ijtihad (independent reasoning) and state that individuals such as Talhah, Zubayr, Mua’wiyah and their supporters had been mujtahids (religious jurists) and although they had erred in their ijtihad, they had not perpetrated any sin; on the contrary, for these very acts of theirs they shall receive their rewards from Allah!!

Honestly, what a disgraceful logic! Is rebelling against the successor of the Noble Prophet (S), breaking the pledge and shedding the blood of thousands of innocent people – and that too for the purpose of power, rank and wealth – so complex an issue that one is unable to perceive its evils? Does shedding that great measure of innocent blood entitle one to receive rewards from Allah (s.w.t.) ?

If we were to exonerate a group of companions, who had perpetrated offences in such a manner, without any doubt not a single offender would remain in this world, for we would have acquitted all criminals by this logic. Such unstructured defence of the companions would cause Islam to be viewed with great cynicism.

Consequently there lies no alternative except to look upon everyone – especially the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) – with reverence and esteem, however only for so long as they do not deviate from the path of truth, justice and the agenda of Islam!1

Numerous Sunni commentators have reported this tradition from Hamid ibne Ziyad, who says: I approached Muhammad ibne Ka’b al-Quradhi and said to him: What do you have to say in connection with the companions of the Noble Prophet (S)? He replied:

جَمِيْعُ أَصْحَابِ رَسُوْلِ اللهِ فِي الْجَنَّةِ مُحْسِنُهُمْ وَ مُسِيْئُهُمْ.
“All the companions are the inmates of Paradise – the righteous ones as well as the evil ones!”

I said to him: From where do you state such a thing? Whereupon he recited the following verse:

وَ السَّابِقُونَ الأََوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَ الأََنْصَارِ وَ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَضِيَ اللٌّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَ رَضُوا عَنْهُ
“And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him.”2

And then continued: With respect to the ‘Followers’ there is a condition that they ought to have followed only the righteous deeds of the companions (only in this case would they attain deliverance, but this is not a condition for the companions to attain deliverance).3

However, this claim is unacceptable for several reasons:

The ruling mentioned in the above verse should also be applicable in the case of the ‘followers’, who, as we had alluded previously, are those, who follow in the footsteps of the initial Muhajirs (Emigrants) and Ansar (Helpers). Therefore, the entire ummah, without exception, should be of the delivered ones!

As for the fact that in the tradition of Muhammad ibne Ka’b it has been said that Allah (s.w.t.) has placed a condition of good deeds with regards to the ‘followers’ i.e. they should only follow the righteous deeds and conduct of the companions, and not their sins, this is an amazing statement.

This is because if the condition prescribed for the followers in order to attain deliverance is to follow the righteous deeds of the companions, then it is all the more necessary for this condition to be prescribed for the companions too.

In other words Allah (s.w.t.), in the above verse, says that His pleasure and happiness shall encompass all the initial Muhajirs and Ansar, who were righteous and treaded the correct path, and all those who follow them. The verse does not say that He desires to encompass the Muhajirs and Ansar with His happiness, irrespective of whether they are good or bad, but as for the ‘followers’, He shall accept them only on the basis of that specific condition.

Reason and intellect totally reject this issue; this is because reason does not consider the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) to possess any distinction over the others in this regard. Where lies the difference between the Abu Jahls and those, who initially embraced Islam but later deviated from it?

And why should those, who came into this world years and centuries after the Noble Prophet (S) and whose sacrifices and heroisms were no less than those of the early companions of the Noble Prophet (S), not be eligible for this Divine mercy? Especially since they possessed this distinction that despite not witnessing the Noble Prophet (S), they had accepted him and had brought faith upon him.

How can the Qur’an, which says: Surely the most honourable of you with Allah (s.w.t.) s the one who is the most righteous amongst you, ever approve of such irrational discrimination? How can the Qur’an, which in its various verses, curses the sinners and unjust ones, and regards them as deserving of Allah’s chastisement, approve of this irrational safety of the companions with respect to Divine punishment? Can there be exceptions to these threats and curses of the Qur’an such that a particular group is kept exempted? Why and for what reason?

Apart from these, can such a ruling not be regarded as showing a green light to them to perpetrate any and every kind of sin and offence?

This ruling does not conform with the history of Islam at all, for there have been numerous individuals who once had stood in the ranks of Muhajirs and Ansar, only to later deviate from their paths and find themselves incurring the anger of the Noble Prophet (S) and consequently the wrath of Allah. Have we not heard of how Tha’labah ibne Hatib Ansari deviated and became the object of the Noble Prophet’s (S) anger?

To state this more clearly, if what they have intended is that the companions of the Noble Prophet (S) did not commit any sins, and were pure and infallible from every kind of disobedience and transgression, this is tantamount to rejecting the most obvious and self-evident issues.

And if they meant that the companions did commit offences, but despite this Allah (s.w.t.) s pleased with them, this claim would mean that Allah (s.w.t.) has been pleased with sins!

Who is it that can absolve and acquit Talhah and Zubayr, who initially had been of the special companions of the Noble Prophet (S), and ‘Aishah, his wife, of the death of seventeen thousand Muslims in the Battle of the Camel? Was Allah (s.w.t.) pleased with these killings and blood-shed?

Would opposition to ‘Ali (a.s.), the representative of the Noble Prophet (S) – who, even assuming that he had not been appointed as the Caliph by the Noble Prophet (S), at the very least, had been chosen by the consensus of the ummah – and battling him and his loyal companions be acts that would obtain the pleasure of Allah (s.w.t.) ?

The truth is that the advocates of the notion of inviolability of the companions, by their insistence and emphasis for the issue, have disfigured the pure face of Islam, which has always considered faith and righteous deeds to be the measure for gauging a person’s character.

And finally, the pleasure and happiness of Allah (s.w.t.) that has been mentioned in the verse under discussion is associated with four titles – emigration, assistance, faith and righteous deeds. Thus, as long as all the ‘companions’ and the ‘followers’ adhered to these, they would be the object of Allah’s (s.w.t.) grace, but the day they distanced themselves from these, they also distanced themselves from Allah’s (s.w.t.) pleasure.

From the above discussion it becomes plainly apparent that the statements of the erudite, albeit prejudiced commentator – the author of al-Manar – in which he criticizes the Shi’ites for their lack of belief in the purity and uprightness of all the companions, possess no value and worth. The Shi’ites have not committed any sin save for the fact that they have accepted the rulings of intellect and reason, and the testimonies of the Noble Qur’an and history, and disregarded the unfounded and incorrect distinctions presented by the prejudiced ones.4

—————————————————————————

1. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 7, pg. 263
2. Suratul Tawbah (9), Verse 100
3. Tafsirul Manar and the commentary of Fakhr Razi, while discussing the above verse.
4. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 8, pg. 108

Is Qisas (the Law of Retaliation) against the Norms of Intellect and Human Sentiments?

/in /by

ImageThumb2

There are a group of people who, without reflection, have sought to criticize some of the penal issues of Islam – especially the issue of ‘qisas’ (law of retaliation) with respect to which they have raised great commotion, saying:

The crime perpetrated by a killer is nothing more than taking the life of a person, but you, by means of qisas, are repeating the same act!

Qisas is just plain vengefulness and brutality. This repugnant attribute needs to be uprooted from amidst the people by means of correct education; however, the supporters of qisas breathe fresh life into this abhorrent attribute every day!

Murder is not a crime that takes place at the hands of sound individuals; surely the murderer suffers from some psychological disorder and ought to be treated, and qisas cannot be a remedy for such sick individuals.

Issues that are related to social order need to develop in step with the society; hence, laws that used to be implemented fourteen hundred years ago should not be implemented in today’s society!

Is it not better that instead of qisas the killers are placed in prisons, compelled to work and utilized for the benefit of the society. In this way, not only would the society remain protected from their evils but simultaneously, they could be utilized to the maximum extent possible.

These are summarized versions of the objections that are propounded in connection with the issue of qisas.

A close study of the verses of qisas in the Qur’an would make manifest the answers to these objections.

وَ لَکُم فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَياَةٌ يَا أُولِي الأََلْبَابِ
“And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.”1

This is because, at times, elimination of dangerous individuals is the best option for the development of a society and since qisas safeguards life, it is perhaps for this reason that it has been placed as an instinct within man.

Be it the medical system, agriculture industry or animal husbandry, etc… each and every thing is based upon this rational principle – elimination of a dangerous and troublesome entity. We observe that for the purpose of protecting the body, the diseased part of the body is amputated; or for ensuring the growth of a plant, harmful and inconveniencing branches are sawed away. Those, who regard the killing of the murderer as being a loss of another individual, only visualize it from an individual perspective; however if they were to take the welfare of the entire society into consideration and were to know what role the implementation of qisas plays in safeguarding and educating all the other individuals, they would surely review their words.

Eliminating such blood-shedding individuals from the society is akin to severing a harmful limb or a branch, which, as per the ruling of reason, must necessarily be severed. And indeed, it must be realized that until today, no one has ever objected to the amputation of a diseased limb or detrimental branch. This was in connection with the first objection.

With respect to the second objection, it must be realized that fundamentally, the legislation of qisas is in no way related to the issue of vengefulness. This is because vengeance means smothering the flames of anger arising due to a personal issue. On the other hand, qisas has been decreed for preventing a repetition of oppression within the society and with the objective of seeking seek justice for the other innocent individuals of it.

As for the third objection that the killer must necessarily be suffering from a psychological disorder and that it is not possible for such a crime to be perpetrated on the part of normal individuals, it must be said that this speech is true in certain instances and Islam too, in such instances, has not imposed the ruling of qisas for an insane killer or the like.

However, the sickness of the killer cannot be provided as an excuse since the evils that this would unleash and the audacity that it would impart to offenders is evident for one and all. And if this argument is true in the case of killers, it should also be true for all the criminals, offenders and those who violate the rights of others. This is because a person possessing a complete soundness of intellect shall never encroach upon the rights of others. Accordingly, all penal laws should be annulled and all offenders should be dispatched to hospitals housing psychologically-diseased patients instead of prisons.

The fourth objection stated that the development of society does not accept the law of qisas, for qisas could only play a role in the ancient societies. Accordingly today, qisas being regarded as a ruling contrary to conscience must be deleted. The answer lies in this one sentence:

The above claim, taking into account the widespread nature of offences in today’s world and the statistics of casualties of the battle-fields and other locations, is one which is worthless and merely a flight of the imagination. And upon the assumption that such a world does come into existence, Islam has never presented qisas to be the one and only way but has also placed the ruling of pardon alongside it.

Undoubtedly, in that assumed environment, the people might themselves prefer granting pardon to the killer – however, in today’s world, wherein offences in various forms are surely more numerous and barbaric than those in the past, deletion of this law would not achieve anything except an increase in the offences.

With respect to the fifth objection it must be comprehended that the aim of qisas, as explicitly expressed by the Qur’an, is to safeguard the general life of the society and prevent the repetition of crime. Certainly, prisons do not possess a noticeable influence (especially today’s prisons, which are better than the houses of many of the offenders). It is due to this that in countries where capital punishment had been annulled, in a short time, the crime and murder figures had skyrocketed.

This is particularly so if the sentence of imprisonment, as is usual, can be graced with pardon, for in such a case criminals would perpetuate criminal violations with a greater peace of mind and tranquillity of thought.2

———————————————————–

1. Suratul Baqarah (2), Verse 179
2. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 1, pg. 607

Does ‘Good Omen’ and ‘Evil Omen’ Possess any Reality?

/in /by

success

Perhaps the concept of good and evil omens have always prevailed amongst men and nations, all through the ages; they interpreted certain things as auguring good for themselves and considered them to be an indication for their victory and progress, and interpreted some others as portending evil for themselves, looking upon them as a sign for their defeat, failure and lack of success. This belief was held when there existed no logical relation whatsoever between these things and victory and defeat; especially so in the case of ‘evil omen’, which was and is superstitious in essence.

Although these two do not possess any natural effect and influence, nevertheless they can undoubtedly possess a psychological bearing. Predominantly, a good omen induces hope and activity while an evil omen results in despondency, hopelessness and weakness.

It is probably for this reason that whereas auguring good has not been prohibited in the Islamic sources, auguring evil has been intensely criticised. A well-known tradition of the Noble Prophet (S) states:

تَفَاءَألُوْا بِالْخَيْرِ تَجِدُوْهُ.
“Regard things as being good omens (and be hopeful) in order that you achieve it.”

The positive aspect of this issue is also observed in the life of the Noble Prophet (S) and the Imams (a.s.) who, at times, interpreted events as possessing a good omen. For example, during the encounter of the Muslims with the disbelievers of Mecca in Hudaibiyyah, we read that when Suhail ibne ‘Amr, in his capacity as the representative of the disbelievers of Mecca, desired to meet the Noble Prophet (S) and he was informed of his name, he said (to his companions):

قَدَ سَهَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَمْرَكُمْ.
“(I interpret the name Suhail to be a good omen and that) this meeting shall go easy upon you.”1

A celebrated scholar and writer of the 8th century ah alludes to this point in one of his works when he says: “The Noble Prophet (S) approved of a good augury because whenever man is hopeful of Allah’s favours, he ventures on the path of good whereas when he severs his hope from Allah, he shall venture out on the path of evil. Presaging evil results in misgivings and causes one to await misfortunes and endure misery.2

As far as the evil omen, which the Arabs refer to as ‘tatayyur’ and ‘tiyarah’, is concerned, the Islamic traditions strongly criticize it; the Qur’an too has repeatedly censured it.3 In a tradition we read that the Noble Prophet (S) said:

اأَلطِّطَّيْرَةُ شِرْکٌ.
“Auguring evil (and considering the evil omen to have an influence upon the life of man) is a kind of polytheism (shirk).”4

We also read that the only influence that an evil omen possesses is the psychological one. Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) has said: “An evil omen affects only in the measure you consider it to possess. If you take it lightly, its influence would be trivial, but if you regard it seriously, it would affect you immensely and if you totally disregard it, it would have no effect.”5

It has been reported in traditions from the Noble Prophet (S) that the way to combat evil auguries is to disregard them. It has been narrated that the Noble Prophet (S) said: “There are three things from which none can remain safe (and its whisperings are found within the hearts of most men): auguring evil, envy and mistrust.”

He (S) was asked: “What then should we do?”

He replied: “When you augur evil, ignore it and go your way; when envy manifests itself in your heart, refrain from doing anything in accordance with it, in practice; and when you experience mistrust, disregard it.”

Strangely, the issue of good and evil omen had existed and suntil exists in industrially developed countries and amidst intellectuals and even amongst celebrated geniuses. Passing beneath a ladder, falling of a saltcellar and gifting someone a knife are gravely looked upon as evil omens by those living in the West.

Of course, the existence of good omens, just as we had previously mentioned, is not an important issue – it mainly possesses a positive impact and influence. However, the factors of evil auguries must be opposed, fought and expelled from the minds, and the best way for this is by strengthening the spirit of tawakkul (relying on Allah (s.w.t.) ) and trust in Allah (s.w.t.) within the hearts, as has been stated in Islamic traditions.6

——————————————————-

1. Tafsirul Mizan, vol. 19, pg. 86
2. Safinatul Bihar, vol. 2, pg. 102
3. Like verse 19 of Surat Yasin, verse 47 of Suratul Naml and verse 131 of Suratul A’raf.
4. Tafsirul Mizan, while interpreting the verse presently under discussion.
5. Ibid.
6. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 6, pg. 317

Does ‘Injury by an Evil Eye’ Possess any Reality?

/in /by

0.557471001300058989_irannaz_com

In verse 51 of Suratul Qalam, we read:

وَ إِنْ يَكَادُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَيُزْلِقُونَكَ بِأَبْصَارِهِمْ لَمَّا سَمِعُوا الذِّكْرَ…
“And those who disbelieve would almost smite you with their eyes when they hear the reminder…”

In view of the above verse the question that arises is: Does injury by means of an evil eye possess any reality?

Many people are of the belief that some kinds of eyes possess a peculiar influence such that if they happen to look at something in wonder, they destroy it or break it, and if they happen to look at a person, they can make him sick or (even) insane.

According to the intellect, this is not something which is impossible. Many of today’s scientists believe that concealed in some eyes lies a special magnetic force which possesses great utility, such that it can even be developed by means of training and exercise; the magnetic sleep is induced by means of this very magnetic force of the eyes.

In a world wherein x-rays are able to perform tasks, the like of which even the most destructive of weapons are unable to perform, acknowledging the presence of a force in certain eyes that is capable of influencing someone by means of some special waves should not appear to be fantastic.

It has been widely reported that people have personally witnessed individuals, possessing this mysterious power of the eyes, to have incapacitated humans, animals and things by injuring them by means of ‘evil eye’.

Thus, not only should one not insist on rejecting such issues but instead acknowledge the possibility of their occurrence – scientifically and intellectually.

In the Islamic traditions too, various expressions meet the eye which, to a certain extent, corroborate the existence of such an issue.

In a tradition we read that Asma Bint ‘Umays once said to the Noble Prophet (S): “At times, some people inflict injury to the children of Ja’far by means of ‘evil eyes’. Should I procure a charm for them?” (Charm means prayers, which people keep in their possessions to protect themselves from ‘evil eyes’; this is also referred to as ta’widh).

The Noble Prophet (S) replied:

لَوْ كَانَ شَيْ‏ءٌ يَسْبِقُ الْقَدْرِ لَسَبَقَهُ الْعَيْنَ‏.
“Yes (there is no harm in it). Had there been something that could have superseded Divine fate and destiny, it should have been ‘evil eye!’”1

In another tradition it has been reported that the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) said: The Noble Prophet (S) secured a charm for Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) and recited the following supplication:

أُعِيذُكُمَا بِكَلِمَاتِ اللٌّهِ التَّامَّةِاتِ وَ أَسْمَائِهِ الْحُسْنَى كُلِّهَا عَامَّةً مِنْ شَرِّ السَّامَّةِ وَ الْهَامَّةِ وَ مِنْ شَرِّ كُلِّ عَيْنٍ لاَمَّةٍ وَ مِنْ شَرِّ حَاسِدٍ إِذَا حَسَدَ.
“I place you in the refuge of all of the Perfect Words and the Best Names of Allah (s.w.t.) from death, harmful animals, evil eye and from the evil of the envious when he envies.”

Then turning to us, he (S) said: “Likewise Prophet Ibrahim did the charm for Isma’il and Ishaq.”2

In Nahjul Balaghah we read:

الْعَيْنُ حَقٌّ وَ الرُّقَـى حَقٌ‏.
“Injury by the evil eye is true and resorting to prayers to ward away its evils is true too.”3 and 4

———————————————————

1. Majma’ul Bayan, vol. 10, pg. 341

2. Tafsir Nurul Thaqalain, vol. 5, pg. 400
3. Nahjul Balagha, Short Sayings 400. This tradition has also been narrated as: العين حق in Sahih Bukhari, vol. 7, pg. 171 in the chapter العين حق. In the book al-Mu’jam al-Mufahhras Li-Alfadh al-Hadith al-Nabawi, (vol. 4, pg. 451) this same meaning has been reported from various sources.
4. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 24, pg. 426

What is meant by ‘The Courses’ (Sunnat) of Allah’?

/in /by

45qnsfkr62u2osnw0gy

In verse 62 of Suratul Ahzab, the Qur’an mentions that one of the unchanging ‘courses of Allah’ is ‘exterminating the conspirators (against Islam) by means of one general attack – the like of which have been observed in the former nations too’.

Similar expressions have also appeared on other occasions in the Qur’an.

In verse 38 of Suratul Ahzab, the Noble Qur’an, after issuing the permission to break the incorrect pagan custom, which prohibited a person from marrying the divorced wife of his adopted son, says:

سُنَّةَ اللٌّهِ فِي الَّذِينَ خَلَوْا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَ كَانَ أَمْرُ اللٌّهِ قَدَراً مَقْدُوراً
“Such has been the course of Allah (s.w.t.) with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah (s.w.t.) s a decree that is made absolute.”

In verse 43 of Suratul Fatir, after threatening the sinning nations with perdition, the Noble Qur’an says:

فَهَلْ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلاَّ سُنَّةَ الأََوَّلِينَ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللٌّهِ تَبْدِيلاً وَ لَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللٌّهِ تَحْوِيلاً
“Then should they wait for aught except the way of the former people? For you shall not find any alteration in the course of Allah; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah.”

In Suratul Ghafir, verse 85, after asserting that bringing faith after witnessing the annihilating chastisement descending upon them was not at all helpful for the obstinate disbelievers of the past nations, the Qur’an adds:

سُنَّةَ اللٌّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ فِي عِبَادِهِ وَ خَسِرَ هُنَالِكَ الْكَافِرُونَ
“But their belief was not going to profit them when they had seen Our punishment; (this is) Allah’s law, which has indeed obtained in the matter of His servants, and there the unbelievers are lost.”

In verse 23 of Suratul Fath, after speaking about the victory for the believers, defeat for the disbelievers and non-existence of any protector or helper for them in the battles, it adds:

سُنَّةَ اللٌّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَ لَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللٌّهِ تَبْدِيلاً
“Such has been the course of Allah (s.w.t.) that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah’s course.”

And again in verse 77 of Suratul Isra’, when speaking of the conspiracy to either banish or kill the Noble Prophet (S), it adds:

سُنَّةَ مَنْ قَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِنْ رُسُلِنَا وَ لاَ تَجِدُ لِسُنَّتِنَا تَحْوِيلاً
“(This is Our) course with regard to those of Our messengers whom We sent before you, and you shall not find a change in Our course.”

From all these verses, it can be clearly inferred that ( سنة or سنَنت) courses, in these instances, refer to the fundamental laws related to creation and legislation which are never subject to any alteration. In other words, in the world of divine creation and legislation, Allah (s.w.t.) has ordained certain principles which, similar to the constitutions prevailing amongst the people of the world, cannot become victims of distortion and alteration. These rules had prevailed over the past nations and shall continue to do so over the present and future ones.

Assistance to the prophets, defeat of the disbelievers, the compulsion to act in compliance with the Divine commands howsoever displeasing they may appear to a society, futility of repentance at the time of descent of Divine chastisement and the like are some examples of these eternal courses.1

——————————————————

1. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 17, pg. 434

What is the Reality of Dreams?

/in , /by

timthumb

It is necessary that we discuss, in a concise manner, the various opinions that have been propounded in connection with this subject:

There have been numerous interpretations about the reality of the dreams which can be categorized into two categories:

1. Materialistic Interpretation
2. Spiritual Interpretation

The materialists say there could be several causes of dreams:
It is possible that dreams are a direct consequence of the daily acts of man; i.e. whatever has transpired with man over past days becomes embodied for him in his thoughts, whilst he sleeps.

Possibly, a series of unfulfilled desires become a reason for witnessing dreams – a thirsty person observes water in his dreams, and a person awaiting someone, who has gone on a journey, dreams that he has arrived. (From ancient times, it has been said that a camel witnesses cottonseed in its dreams!)

It is likely that fear of something causes man to dream about it; it has been repeatedly observed that those who possess fear of thieves witness them in their dreams.

Freud and the followers of his ideology have presented another material explanation for dreams:

In the course of a detailed introduction they define dreams as being the gratification of repressed tendencies which, with alterations, creep into the arena of self-consciousness, to deceive the “I” within man.

Explanation: After accepting the fact that the human mind is comprised of two parts: The self-conscious part (that, which is associated with the day-to-day thoughts, voluntary knowledge and the freedom of choice of man) and the sub-conscious part (that, which is concealed within the inner-self as an unfulfilled tendency and inclination), they go on to state: It frequently happens that in the state of sleep, when the ‘self-conscious’ apparatus has shut down, the inclinations and tendencies which we have been unable to gratify due to certain reasons and which have accumulated in our inner-self turn to the sub-conscious in order to achieve a kind of fictitious and imaginary gratification.

At times this is reflected without any change (like an aficionado, who witnesses his beloved, whom he has lost, in his dreams), while at other times there occurs a change in form which is reflected in appropriate appearances, in which case there arises the need for interpretation (of the dreams).

Accordingly, dreams are always associated with the past and never informative of the future. It can only be a useful for reading the unconscious self, and it is for this reason that the dreams of patients are utilized for the treatment of psychological disorders that rely on exposing the unconscious mind.

Some of the experts of the field of nutrition believe that there exists a relationship between ‘dreams’ and ‘the nutritional need of the body’, and are of the opinion that if, for example, a person happens to witness blood trickling from his gums in his dreams, it means that the quantity of ascorbic acid in his body has diminished! And if he dreams that his hair have turned white, it can be inferred that he suffers from an inadequacy of vitamin B!!

However, spiritual philosophers offer a different explanation for the occurrence of dreams. They state that dreams are of several kinds:

– Dreams that are related to the bygones, inclinations and desires – and these constitute a major portion of man’s dreams.

– Dreams that are distressing and incoherent; these are an outcome of delusion and imagination (although it is possible that they could possess psychological reasons)

– Dreams that are related to the future and provide information in connection with it.

Undoubtedly, dreams that are related to the past and the embodiment of the scenarios that man has seen in the course of his life do not possess any particular interpretation. Similarly, distressing dreams – technically referred to as أََضْغاَثُ أََحْلاَم – which are an outcome of disturbing thoughts and are similar to the thoughts that manifest themselves for man in the state of delirium, too cannot possess any particular interpretation in connection with the future issues of life.

However, psychologists and psychoanalysts utilize them and consider them to be a door for the comprehension of the human unconscious self and a key for the treatment of psychological disorders. As such, interpretation of these dreams is used for the purpose of uncovering the mysteries of the mind and the origins of diseases, and not for revealing future happenings of life.

As for the dreams that are related to the future, they too are of two kinds: One kind consisting of dreams that are plain, clear and explicit, and which do not require any interpretation whatsoever; and amazingly enough, at times, materializing exactly as witnessed either in the near or distant future – without the slightest of differences.

The second kind are those dreams which prophesize future events but, due to the influence of certain mental and spiritual factors, have undergone a change of form and hence need to be interpreted.

There are so many instances for each of these dreams that the existence of all of them cannot be denied. Not only have they been mentioned in religious sources and books of history, but these have also been noticed in our own lives and the lives of those who are known to us, in a measure that prevents us from considering them to be mere coincidence.1

——————————————————–
1. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 9, pg. 312

Is the theory of evolution of species inconsistent with the viewpoint of the Noble Qur’an with regards to the creation of Prophet Adam (a.s.)?

/in , , /by

beautiful_nature_006

Interestingly the supporters of the theory of Evolution of Species, as well as those from amongst the Muslims who oppose it, have sought to adhere to the Qur’an to prove their stances. However, probably being influenced by their own beliefs, some have sought to base their arguments on verses which do not have a complete bearing on their views. Accordingly, we shall select, from both the sides, only those verses which can be placed under discussion with regards to the issue under consideration.

The most important verse upon which the supporters of evolution lay great stress is verse 33 of Surat Ale ‘Imran:

إِنَّ اللٌّهَ اصْطَفى‏ آدَمَ وَ نُوحاً وَ آلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَ آلَ عِــمْرَانَ عَلـى الْعَالَمِينَ
“Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of ‘Imran above the nations.”

They reason that since Nuh (a.s.) and the descendants of Ibrahim (a.s.) and the descendants of ‘Imran (a.s.) lived in their ummah and were chosen from amongst them, therefore the case of Adam (a.s.) too ought to be similar. That is, during his period, humans – who have been referred to as the nations – must have necessarily existed and Adam (a.s.) had been chosen by Allah (s.w.t.) from amongst them. And this reveals that Adam (a.s.) was not the first human on the earth but rather, there had been humans before him; the distinction of Adam (a.s.) over the other humans was his superior intellect and spirituality, and this was the factor that resulted in his selection from amongst the individuals, similar to him.

These supporters have also mentioned numerous other verses, some of which have no relation whatsoever with the issue of evolution such that interpreting them to mean this would be interpreting the Qur’an by personal opinion, while other verses are such that they can be considered to be consistent with the theory of evolution as well as with the independent creation of Adam (a.s.). Hence, we have decided against mentioning them here.

As for the objection against this argument, it can be stated that if the term العالـمين (nations) in the verse is in the meaning of ‘contemporary people’ and اصطفاء (to choose) means that the selection must have necessarily taken place from similar individuals, then this argument could be accepted. However if one were to say that العالـمين includes individuals, who are contemporary and those who are not, just as has been reported in the well-known tradition of the Noble Prophet (S), in connection with the excellence of Hadhrat Fatimah (s.a.), wherein he says:

أَمَّا ابْـنَتِي فَاطِمَةُةَ فَإِنَّهَا سَيِّدَةَُ نِسَآءِ الْعَالَمِينَ مِنَ الأَوَّلِينَ وَ الآخِرِينَ‏.
“As for my daughter Fatimah, she is the chief of the ladies of the world, from the first to the last.”

Then, in such a case, their argument on the basis of the above verse would be inappropriate. This is because it would be exactly as if one says: Allah (s.w.t.) had chosen a group of people from amongst the humans (humans of all eras and epochs), one of whom is Adam (a.s.). In such a case, there is no need for humans to have existed during the time of Adam (a.s.) such that the term العالـمين becomes applicable to them or that Adam (a.s.) is chosen from amongst them. This is especially so when the choosing was being done by Allah (s.w.t.), Who had been fully cognizant of the future and of all the generations that were to come.1

However, more importantly, the verses which the proponents of ‘constancy of species’ have selected as proof from the Qur’an are those that say:

Allah (s.w.t.) has created man from dry clay, which had been taken from dark-coloured and stinking mud. Interestingly, this expression has been utilized in connection with the creation of ‘insan’…

وَ لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الإِِنْسَانَ مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِنْ حَمَإٍاءٍ مَسْـنُونٍ‏
“And certainly We created man of clay that gives forth sound, of black mud fashioned in shape.”2

as well as for ‘bashar’…

وَ إِذْ قَـالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي خَالِــقٌ بَشَراً مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِنْ حَمَإٍاءٍ مَسْـنُونٍ
“And when your Lord said to the angels: Surely I am going to create a mortal of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape.”3

And later, also for Adam (a.s.) – this being inferred contextually from the mention of the prostration of the angels (Note the verses 29, 30 and 31 of Suratul Hijr.)

At first glance, the apparent meaning of the verse appears to be that initially Adam (a.s.) was created out of black mud and then, when his form was completed, the divine soul was blown into it subsequent to which the angels fell down in prostration before him, except Iblis.

The style of speech indicates that between the creation of Adam (a.s.) from mud and the emergence of the present form no other species existed.

The term ‘ثـم’, appearing in some of the verses and used in the ‘Arabic language to denote ‘a sequence with intervening time intervals’, can never be taken as evidence to claim the passage of millions of years and the existence of thousands of species; rather, it could quite possibly allude to the intervals that existed between the various stages of Adam’s (a.s.) creation – from mud and then from dry clay and then the blowing of the divine soul.

And it is for this reason that this very term ‘ثـم’ has been employed in connection with the creation of man in the embryonic world and the stages of his development within it. The Noble Qur’an says:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنْ كُنْـتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِنَ الْبَعْثِ فَإِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ عَلَقَةٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ مُضْغَةٍ مُخَلَّقَةٍ وَ غَيْرِ مُخَلَّقَةٍ لِنُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ وَ نُقِرُّ فِي الأََرْحَامِ مَا نَشَآءُ إِلـى‏ أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ثُمَّ نُخْرِجُكُمْ طِفْلاً ثُمَّ لِتَبْلُغُوا أَشُدَّكُمْ‏
“O’ people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs until an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies, then that you may attain your maturity.”4

You observe that there is no necessity for ‘ثـم’ to indicate upon a lengthy interval; rather, just as it is employed for protracted intervals, it can also be utilized for short intervals too.

From what we have mentioned above, we infer that although the verses of the Qur’an do not directly mention the issue of evolution or ‘constancy of species’, nevertheless, the apparent meanings of the verses is more in accordance with the concept of independent creation (of course, this is as far as the creation of man is concerned).

Despite not being entirely explicit, the apparent meanings of the verses dealing with the creation of Adam (a.s.) mostly tend to revolve around the concept of independent creation; but with regards to the other living beings, the Noble Qur’an remains silent.5

———————————————————–

1. Another possibility is that within a short time, the children of Adam (a.s.) constituted a small society and Adam (a.s.) was the chosen one from amongst them.
2. Suratul Hijr (15), Verse 26
3. Suratul Hijr (15), Verse 28
4. Suratul Hajj (22), Verse 5
5. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 11, pg. 86

What is Islam’s perspective with regards to Jabr (compulsion) and Ikhtiyar (free-choice)?

/in , /by

931186

This problem is an ancient issue that had been the bone of contention of scholars; a group advocating freedom of will while another supporting compulsion and each of them presenting proofs to substantiate their viewpoints.

But interestingly, in practice, both these groups have formally recognized and accepted the notion of choice and freedom of will. In other words all these debates are only within the periphery of theoretical discussion and not in practice, clearly revealing that the concept of freedom of will is inherent to every person. And were it not for the various insinuations and whisperings, everybody would have supported this concept.

This general conscience and universal innate – one of the most lucid of all the proofs for ikhtiyar (freedom of choice) – manifests itself in various forms in man’s life; if man considered himself to be compelled in the performance of his deeds and to not possess any choice, why is it that: At times, as a result of performance or non-performance of an act, man experiences a sense of regret, and resolves to utilize his experience in the future. This state of regret occurs numerously for those who advocate the concept of jabr (compulsion); if there is no ikhtiyar, why this rue and remorse?

Everyone rebukes and censures the evil-doers; if there is jabr, why should they be rebuked in such a manner?

Those who do good deeds are praised and commended?
Everyone strives to educate their children in order that they become successful and fortunate; if everyone is compelled (in the performance of his deeds); what is the point in educating them?
All the scholars, without exception, exert themselves for the purpose of raising the standard of ethics in society?
Man expresses repentance over his blunders; if the concept of jabr is accepted, repentance becomes meaningless.

Man rues his shortcomings; why?

Universally, the criminals are subjected to trials and are exposed to intense interrogation; are these acts that are beyond one’s choice and free-will and need no interrogation and trials?

All over the world and within all communities – irrespective of whether they are materialists or Allah-worshippers – punishments have been prescribed for the criminals. But are these punishments for acts that they were compelled to perform?!

When someone transgresses upon their interests, even the advocates of the doctrine of jabr clamour for justice and, considering him to be guilty, drag him to the courts of law!

In short, if man truly had no choice of his own, what could repentance possibly mean? Why then the reproach and censure? Can one, whose hands and feet tremble involuntarily, be rebuked and criticized?

Why are those, who perform good acts, praised and encouraged? But do they possess choice of their own that they shall continue their good acts as a result of this encouragement?

Basically, with the acknowledgement of the influence of education, the concept of jabr breaks down. In addition, issues related to ethics, without acknowledging the concept of freedom of will, become totally meaningless.

If we are compelled in our acts, what is the meaning of repentance? Why should one yearn and rue? Placing a compelled person on trial is one of the most oppressive of acts, and punishing him is worse.

All these indicate that the concept of freedom of will is inherent to all humans, and in accordance with the conscience of the entire mankind. It is not just the general public, but even the learned class, the philosophers and the proponents of jabr too, in practice, accept ikhtiyar.

اأَلْجَبَرِرِيُّونَ اإِخْتِيَارِِيُّيُونَ مِنْ حَيْثُ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ!

“Those, who profess the doctrine of ‘jabr’ are, (in practice) the proponents of the doctrine of ‘ikhtiyar’, but only they realize it not.”

It is interesting to note that the Noble Qur’an has repeatedly emphasized this issue too. In verse 39 of Suratul Naba it says:

فَمَنْ شَآءَ اتَّخَذَ إِلـى‏ رَبِّهِ مَآباً

“So whoever desires may take refuge with his Lord.”

In other verses too great emphasis has been laid upon man’s will, and since mentioning all of them would only serve to prolong the discussion, we shall content ourselves by presenting only two verses below:

إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِراً وَ إِمَّا كَفُوراً

“Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful.”1

فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَ مَنْ شَآءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَارًا

“So let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire.”2

The discussion regarding this issue is a very protracted one with numerous books and articles having been written in this regard. What has been mentioned has just been a superficial glance at the issue from the standpoint of the conscience and the Noble Qur’an. We continue our discussion by mentioning one important point:

Support for the issue of jabr, on the part of a group of people, did not arise only due to philosophical problems; rather, important psychological and social factors undoubtedly contributed to the birth and continuation of this belief.

Many of those, who have accepted the belief of jabr, predestination or ‘qadha and qadr’ (fate and destiny, but with the attribute of compulsion attached to them), have done so in order to escape the burden of responsibilities or to cover up their failures, which have been a consequence of their own shortcomings and negligence, or to provide for themselves a covering for their wild carnal desires (They would state: Allah (s.w.t.) knew from pre-eternity that we would consume wine; and we consume wine now in order that Allah’s (s.w.t.) knowledge does not become ignorance!)

At times the colonialist powers, in order to suppress the resistance of the people and put out the flames of anger of the nations, would make themselves dominant over the others by making use of this doctrine. They used to say: ‘Your fate, from the very beginning, had been ordained to be this; where is there any alternative except submission and happiness (over our dominance)?

By accepting this doctrine all the deeds of the criminals and the sins of the sinners would become justified and there would be no difference between an offender and an obedient person.3
The verse:

وَ مَا رَبُّكَ بِظَلاَّمٍ لِلْعَبِيدِ

“And your Lord is not in the least unjust to the servants”4

is a clear proof with regards to the issue of ikhtiyar and freedom of will, and is illustrative of this reality that Allah (s.w.t.) neither punishes anyone inexplicably nor does He increase the punishment of anyone unwarrantedly. His work is absolute justice; this is so since oppression stems from shortcomings, deficiencies, ignorance, unawareness or carnal desires, and His Holy Essence is free from all of these.

Qur’an, in its manifest verses, simultaneous to pronouncing the doctrine of jabr – which is a source of dissemination of wickedness, an approval for various kinds of evils, and a tool for the rejection of every kind of obligation and responsibility – as being incorrect, considers each person to be answerable for his own deeds and is of the view that the consequences of every person’s deeds would be directed towards that person himself.

And hence we read in a tradition that one of companions Imam ‘Ali ibne Musa al-Ridha (a.s.) asked:

هَلْ يَجْبُرُ اللٌّهُ عِبَادَهُ عَلى الْـمَعَاصِي؟

“Does Allah (s.w.t.) compel His servants to commit sins?”

فَقَالَ: بَلْ يُخَيِّرُهُمْ وَ يُـمَهِّلُهُمْ حَتَّـى يَتُوبُوا.

Whereupon he (a.s.) replied: “No. Rather, he gives them the choice and respites them until they repent.”
The companion persisted:

فَهَلْ يُكَلِّفُ عِبَادَهُ مَا لاَ يَطِيقُونَ‏؟

“Does He place upon them obligations that are beyond their ability to perform?”
The Imam (a.s.) said:

كَيْفَ يَفْعَلُ ذٌلِكَ وَ هُوَ يَقُولُ: وَ مَا رَبُّكَ بِظَلاَّمٍ لِلْعَبِيدِ

“How can He do such a thing when He Himself has said (in the Qur’an) ‘And your Lord is not in the least unjust to the servants?’”

The Imam (a.s.) then adds: My father Musa ibne Ja’far (a.s.) narrates from his father Ja’far ibne Muhammad (a.s.) that: “One, who is of the belief that Allah (s.w.t.) compels His servants into committing sins or places upon them obligations that are beyond their ability (to perform), do not eat the meat of the animal slaughtered by such a person, do not accept his testimony, do not offer prayers behind him and do not give him anything from the zakat! (In short, do not apply the laws of Islam to him).5

The above tradition implicitly alludes to this subtle point that the doctrine of jabr originates from the concept of ‘obligation that cannot be performed’; this is because if, on the one hand, man is compelled into committing sins while on the other hand, he is prohibited from it, this becomes a clear case of placing an obligation that cannot to be performed.6

In verse 29 of Suratul Insan, we recite:

إِنَّ هٌذِهِ تَذْكِرَةٌ فَمَنْ شَآءَ اتَّخَذَ إِلـى‏ رَبِّهِ سَبِيلاً

“Surely this is a reminder, so whoever pleases takes to his Lord a way.”

And since it was possible that narrow-minded individuals might have interpreted the above expression to mean absolute and unqualified tafwidh (entrusting to Allah), the next verse goes on to say:

وَ مَا تَشَآؤُوْنَ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَشَآءَ اللٌّهُ‏

“And you do not please except that Allah please.”

And finally says:

إِنَّ اللٌّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً

“Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.”

And this, in reality, is establishing the well-known belief of:

أَلأَمْرُ بَيْنَ الأَمْرَينِ.

“The (actual) issue is that which lies between the two (extreme) issues of total compulsion and total freedom.”

On the one hand it says: “Allah (s.w.t.) has shown the way and selecting it is upon you. On the other hand it adds: Your selection is dependent upon the Will of Allah (s.w.t.). This means that you do not possess absolute freedom and independence; rather, your strength, power and freedom of will are entirely from Allah (s.w.t.) and by His Will and permission; the moment He desires, He can take away this strength and freedom from you.”

As such, neither is it tafwidh and unqualified entrusting, nor is it compulsion; rather, it is a subtle reality that lies between these two. In other words it is a kind of freedom, which is related to Allah’s (s.w.t.) Will such that He can take it away as and when He desires so that the people can carry the burden of responsibility – which is actually the secret of their achieving perfection – upon their shoulders, while at the same time, not envisage themselves as being independent of Allah (s.w.t.).

In short, this expression is for the purpose that the people do not regard themselves as being independent of the guidance, support, grace and blessings of Allah (s.w.t.) but, during decision-making, entrust themselves to Him and place themselves under His support,.

It thus becomes clear that the reason some of the commentators, who advocate the doctrine of jabr – like Fakhr Razi – have adhered to this verse is due to the preconceived views which they had harboured in connection with the issue. Fakhr Razi says:

وَ اعْلَمْ إِنَّ هَذِهِ الْآيَةَ مِنْ جُمْلَةِ الآيَاتِ الَّتِيْ تَلاَطَمَتْ فِيْهَا أَمْوَاجُ الْجَبْرِ وَ الْقَدْرِ.

“Do know that this verse is one of the verses which indicate upon ‘jabr’ and predestination!”7

Yes, if we were to extricate this verse from the verses previous to it, there would be room for this delusion; however, in view of the fact that in one verse the effect of ikhtiyar has been mentioned while in the other verse the effect of Allah’s Will, the issue of:

أَلأَمْرُ بَيْنَ الأَمْرَينِ.

is quite plainly established.

Incredibly, the advocates of tafwidh cling on to that very verse, which speaks of total freedom of choice whereas the proponents of jabr adhere to that very verse, which speaks only of jabr – each of them wanting to justify their preconceived opinions by means of the respective verses. However, the correct comprehension of Allah’s (s.w.t.) speech (or any other speech for that matter) demands that all the verses be placed alongside each other and then, without prejudices and prejudgments, the judgment should take place.

It is likely that the last part of the verse which states….

إِنَّ اللٌّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً

“Surely Allah (s.w.t.) s Knowing, Wise.”

also alludes to this meaning. This is because the Knowledge and Wisdom of Allah (s.w.t.) necessitate that the people be left free in journeying the path towards perfection; for if it were not so, the perfection that is imposed would not be perfection at all. Besides, His knowledge and wisdom does not permit Him to compel some into performing good deeds and others into committing evil acts, and later reward the first group and punish the second.8
————————————————————————-
1. Suratul Insan (76), Verse 3
2. Suratul Kahf (18), Verse 29
3. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 26, pg. 64
4. Suratul Fussilat (41), Verse 46
5. ‘Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha, as quoted in Tafsir Nurul Thaqalain, vol. 4, pg. 555
6. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 20, pg. 308
7. Commentary of Fakhr Razi, vol. 30, pg. 262
8. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 25, pg. 385