Religion - BYISLAM

Did religion come to imprison us or to set us free?

August 5, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

Freedom, from the point of view of religion, can be studied under two headings: spiritual freedom and socio-political freedom. From the spiritual perspective, man’s essence or immaterial self is free from corporeality, materiality, and material characteristics. It is nostalgic of its place of origin, the realm of the Dominion and the spiritual world. But due to the attachment of his soul to the body, it is entangled with worldly and material affairs. Man has no choice but to pursue his perfection through the means that this world affords, for this world is the cultivation field for the hereafter. However, most people tend to view the world in an independent way and are ignorant of its true value which is found in its relation to the hereafter. Hence they get caught up in frivolities and trivial pleasures and this bars them from ascending to the heights of perfection. Instead of concentrating on the essence and reality of things they are distracted and consider the sensible phenomena as ultimate reality—being utterly oblivious of the malakut (the celestial realm) and spiritual reality of things. It is in this vein that the seekers of the material world perceive freedom as paramount to enjoying the pleasures of the world without any restraints, whereas true freedom lies in extricating oneself from the snares of lust, and it is this freedom which religion encourages. From the religious point of view, even the mighty king who is constantly expanding his empire might be a slave, a slave to his self, while it is very probable that someone living in utter poverty might have absolute sovereignty.

In conclusion: what the seekers of the material world pursue is the illusion of imaginary freedom, but that which religion encourages is real freedom.

Regarding social and political freedom, Islam neither advocates radical freedom and anarchy, nor does it compel the believer to surrender to all external circumstances and unjust powers, something that would undermine his dignity.

It can be said that individual and social freedoms do exist in Islam but with a qualification that fundamentally distinguishes them from those that are espoused by the Western worldview. For Islam is Allah-centred, and as such, ordains that man, in his intellectual discernment and application of will, refer only to Allah (awj). In the domain of moral upliftment and cultural progress, Islam exhorts the human community to establish justice and forbids its members from infringing on the rights of each other, while at the same time encouraging them to expand their knowledge and intellectual endeavours with a view to the proper application of knowledge.

What is the Jews’ belief concerning the return (raj’ah) of Imam Mahdi (a.s.)?

July 24, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

Similar to other faiths and people, the Jews definitely believe in the coming of a savior at the end of time. In the current Torah, there are many glad tidings of the coming of a universal reformer. In the Psalms of David titled “Mazamir”, among the books of the Old Testament, various promises are mentioned in this regard. What is interesting is that the Quran quotes the Psalms of David when speaking of the coming of Imam Mahdi (aj)[i], and the exact same excerpt can be found in the current Torah today without any distortion. As shall be mentioned later on, Imam Mahdi’s name has not been explicitly mentioned but there are some signs which could be applied to him.

—————————————
[i] – Anbiya: 105.

Can Buddhism be considered a divine faith?

July 23, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

Some believe Buddha to be a divine prophet who had acquired the fundamentals of his religion through revelation. This theory seems to be acceptable for two reasons (although the faith underwent major alteration later):
1- Considering ancient Buddhist teachings: The work history attributes to Buddha is that of a prophet’s. The awakened Buddha, considered the awakening, insight and salvation of the people as his first priority. This salvation was only contingent upon acquiring ethic virtues and knowledge. In ancient Buddhism, there was no staying away from knowledge and using sorcery and magic and enslaving jinns and unordinary mortification. Buddha was against some of the Hindu lifestyles then, and in contrast to the dominant Hindu view at his time, such things didn’t lead to insight and enlightenment in his opinion, but actually did the opposite and backfired on the individual.
His standpoints on matters regarding the existence of God and the hereafter were all religious ones, not philosophical or gnostic. He kept silent regarding the truth and essence of certain matters like the spirit and soul, God, and creation and believed that philosophy wasn’t capable of unveiling the truth about them and that the intellect and rational argument in no way can accomplish what disclosure can. Some of the passages of the holy book of Buddhists leave no doubt for the reader that this religion was indeed a divine one backed by revelation, although it has undergone much alteration.
2- In the story of “Bluher and Yuzasif”, which was narrated as a hadith for the first time in the hadith book of Kamaluddin, Yuzasif is introduced as a divine prophet. There is evidence that Yuzasif is none other than Buddha himself.
What was said till now had to do with ancient Buddhism; as for contemporary Buddhism, it sees Buddha as a god that is worshipped. Buddhism today symbolizes belief in magic and sorcery, reincarnation, stays away from intellect and is full of vagueness and ambiguity. Surya Das, the founder and speaker for Western Buddhism says that Buddhism today is the religiosity of God in which man’s experience is a bridge to finding the truth.[i]

[i] See: Surya Das, Awakening the Buddha Within, translated to farsi by: Maliheh Karbasiyan, pp. 159 and 259.
Detailed Answer
Theory: “The religion the Buddha brought to the people was a divine one”
Reason 1: The teachings of early Buddhism
Reason 2: The story of “Bluher and Yuzasif” and applying to the Buddha.

Reason 1: Teachings of early Buddhism
a) Early Buddhism: Early Buddhism is very clear and in no need of any philosophical understanding and analysis. Profound secrets and philosophical complexities are something later Buddhists have added to this religion.[1] All Buddhism was about in the past was to awaken and enlighten the people and free them from individual and social hardship and give them inner and outer peace.[2]
One of the vital elements of all religions is the simplicity of their concepts so that everyone can understand and grasp them. Without a doubt, a religion can’t be full of vagueness and hard to understand subjects that hardly anyone can comprehend and still be a religion for all people. It is hard to accept that a mystic who believes in existential unity or a mind-centered philosopher to bring a religion for everyone in general, because the terms and concepts employed in such a religion won’t be understandable to all.
This is why divine messengers didn’t use philosophical and gnostic discourse when transmitting their teachings, what they did was speak the same way everyone else would in a way understandable to all.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that divine religions are simple ones lacking depth; depth can be found in all divine religions, what is trying to be said is that speaking complexly and using hard to understand rhetoric has nothing to do with depth and profoundness.
Answering philosophical questions that didn’t have a direct impact on one’s salvation and enlightenment was something early Buddhism would seriously refrain from, and in the few cases in which the Buddha was forced to answer a question of this genre, he wouldn’t imply that it isn’t possible to get into the details of the existence of the soul and how one can reach salvation.[3]
This approach to metaphysical questions is one expected from a divine religion. Our prophet (pbuh) had the same approach when it came to questions like these.[4]
Early Buddhism maintained that man’s main problem has nothing to do with confusing philosophical discussions and has to do with our thoughts and desires and that one needs to dominate these desires in order to be enlightened and freed from pain and suffering.[5]
This approach is evident in Islamic teachings as well; for instance it is said that one needs to purify himself of everything other than Allah (swt) and that wisdom must flow from his heart to his tongue.[6]
To make it short, the following points related to early Buddhism can be considered proof that this religion was a divine one in the past:
1- The spiritual and metaphysical origin of Buddhism[7]
2- Passages in their holy book that show Buddhists were true monotheists[8]
3- The spiritual journey of the Buddha from the material world to the domain of oneness and back to guide the people[9]
4- Belief in the fact that it is impossible to know god[10]
5- Belief in the transiency of this world[11]
6- Belief in an immaterial element residing in man (the soul)[12]
7- Belief in the fact that man doesn’t perish through death[13] and that after death, the soul is reborn (goes through different stages; not reincarnation)[14]
8- Belief in that when the body dies, the soul continues its life in another ‘imaginal’ (mithali) body[15]

b) Doctrines of early Buddhism
1- God in Buddhism: Buddha would never speak of the essence of God because to him, it was impossible to completely understand Him.[16] Speaking of Allah’s (swt) essence and trying to comprehensively understand Him is something that our imams (as) have also prohibited in hadiths.[17] Contemporary Buddhism pursues disclosure of the creator of the universe, not to prove him through ration and reasoning.[18]
This teaching has roots in early Buddhism. The Buddha considered reasoning and logic to be incapable of being applied to metaphysics and the world above. We believe that the mind can enter these realms, but the only conclusion it will reach in the form of philosophy and introspective mysticism is that “I know that regarding the immaterial world, I know nothing”. Indeed! The only way to learn of the immaterial world is to be immaterial and have no attachments to this world, and this is something shared by Islam, the final accepted religion by Allah (swt) and early Buddhism.
This is a passage from the Buddhists’ holy book:
“I am Brahma. I am a great and exalted god. I am not begotten nor created. I created the world. I am the lord of the world. I can create, cause change and grant life, I am the father and master of everything.”[19] These phrases remind us of the verses of surah Tawhid.
According to phrases of Nirvana, “the one who does what He wishes” (God) is eternal, stable, non-temporal (qadim), without time, never dying, not begotten, goodness itself, one, and the only virtue and perfection that cannot be reached in our lives.[20]
Considering that the Buddha, contrary to what is believed and practiced today, never introduced himself as a god and unlimited being and also didn’t believe in a personified destiny-determining god[21], and at the same time saw all phenomena in this world as temporal and transient and changing and unstable[22], it can be concluded that all of the virtues and attributes mentioned for the gods above are ones that apply to a unified and one god; a god that can in no way be comprehended and is limited in no way to any material thing or place.
2- The world from Buddhism’s perspective
Buddhism looks at the world in a way that will only entail guidance and righteousness. From its perspective, the world is temporal and always changing, pursuing it brings suffering and deprives of peace of mind; such a thing isn’t worth getting attached too![23]
Imam Sadiq (as) portrays the temporality of this world in such: “…و ان کانت الدنیا فانیة فالطمأنینة الیها لماذا؟” (If the world is temporal, then why do you get attached to it?!)[24] Imam Hasan (as) portrays it like this: “…ان الدنیا دار بلاء و فتنة و کل ما فیها الی زوال” (This world is a place of hardship and examination, everything in it is doomed to perish and end.)[25]
3- Man in Buddhism
Early Buddhism insists on a spiritual and immaterial dimension to man. He doesn’t cease to exist through the death of the body, but continues to live in a new spiritual or ‘imaginal’ (mithali) body.[26]
The Buddha believes in the spiritual teacher (the complete individual; prophet) and that he must be followed, but at the same time believes that one must take the path to perfection himself.[27] When a person, with the guidance of his teacher, takes the path and suppresses his desires and lusts, he reaches enlightenment and becomes a radiant torch, giving off light [of guidance].[28]
Belief in an immaterial element in man and its life after the death of the body and also, belief in a complete individual being one’s teacher, in addition to one taking the path for his or herself are all fundamental beliefs of Islam.
Keeping in mind all of these early Buddhist teachings, it can strongly be theorized that contemporary Buddhism has roots in revelation.
Nevertheless, contemporary Buddhism has swayed from its original form and contrasts it dramatically because:
1- It believes in reincarnation[29]
2- It believes in Buddha being a god and worshipping him.[30]
3- It refrains from intellect and ration and believes in magic and sorcery and capturing jinns and shooing devils, while the Buddha would prohibit his followers from engaging in these matters.[31]
4- Belief in reciting sutras that have remained since the times of the demons and devils and gods and other fictional characters in which according to urban legend, had been created during the time of unawareness in order to obtain knowledge and understanding. The Buddha denies all matters like these that have found way into contemporary Buddhism and insists that man must strive to take the path to perfection.
5- Complex and ambiguous concepts are a common thing in today’s Buddhism, while in early Buddhism, there was no such thing and it was a clear religion; its clarity being like the sun and moon.[32]

Reason 2: The story of “Bluher and Yuzasif” and its application to the Buddha
This story was first narrated in Kamaluddin[33] and after that in Biharul-Anwar[34] and Aynul-Hayat[35]. Allamah Majlisi calls this story a unique one regarding cutting off from the love of this world and knowing its deficiencies. He says that knowing these stories make one needless of knowing philosophical themes that waste one’s life and sometimes lead to not reaching salvation and peace of mind.[36] In this story, Yuzasif is a divine prophet.[37]
There is evidence that the Yuzasif in this Islamic hadith is the Buddha himself. We will discuss two of these evidences: 1- Lingual 2- Transcriptive
Specific Persian names are written in a different way in Arabic. In all cases, the letter ‘پ’ in Farsi, is written as a ‘ف’ or ‘ب’; for instance, the word ‘پارسی’ is written as ‘فارسی’, or the word ‘پهلوی’ is written as ‘فهلوی’ and the word ‘پردس’ is written as ‘فردوس’. Also, the letter ‘د’, which in old times had a pronunciation similar to the letter ‘ز’, was written as the letter ‘ذ’ or ‘ز’. For example, the word ‘یوداسف’ was written as ‘یوزاسف’, or ‘بزرکمهر’ was written as ‘بوذرجمهر’. What is trying to be said is that specific names have always been subject to change in pronunciation and transcription throughout history. Another example is the term ‘بودای شاکمونس’ which is written as ‘بورکمال چاکیامونس’ in philosophy.
The second proof is the harmony between the life of the Buddha and the narrative of Yuzasif.[38] The following are examples of some of the similarities between the two:
1- The birthplace of the two was India and both were of high classes of society.[39]
2- The prophecies of astronomers regarding his prophethood and monasticism.[40]
3- Stressing on the fact that this world is a transient one.
This second proof finishes the job and makes it clear what the answer to the question this article is addressing is.
Once again, we stress that what these reasons prove, is that early Buddhism was a divine religion. As was repeatedly noted, as with other religions such as Christianity and Zoroastrianism, Buddhism underwent much change, totally contradicting its original form and suffering from distortion.

——————————————————-

[1] Jalaluddin Ashtiyani, Erfane Buddhism, pg. 77.
[2] Ibid, 364.
[3] Erfane Buddhism va Jaynism, pg. 226. See: Manuchehr Khodayar Muhebbi, Eslamishenasiye Dine Tatbiqi, pg. 160; see: Ahmad Aram, Tarikhe Tamaddon, vol. 1, pg. 497.
[4] Isra’:85.
[5] John B. Nas, Tarikhe Jame’e Adyan, Ali Asghar Hekmat, pg. 188.
[6] See: Wasa’ilul-Shia, vol. 11, pp. 122-124; Muhammadi Rey Shahri, Mizanul-Hikmah, vol. 2, pg. 66.
[7] Amir Husein Ranjbar, Dar Justejuye Rishehaye Asemani, vol. 1, pg. 42.
[8] Ibid, pg. 155.
[9] See: Tarikhe Jame’e Adyan, pg. 184; Seyyed Hasan Amin, Baztabe Usturehaye Buddha dar Iran va Eslam, pg. 24.
[10] Seyyid Abu Taleb Fana’i, Mahmoud Ebrahimian, DinShenasiye Tatbiqi, vol. 1, pg. 57.
[11] Ibid, pg. 58.
[12] Ibid, pg. 60.
[13] Ibid.
[14] See: Muhammad Baqir Mu’meni and Muhammad Sadiq Hamedani, Tarikhe Jahane Bastan, vol. 1, pg. 381.
[15] Seyyid Abu Taleb Fanai and Mahmoud Ebrahimian, Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, vol. 1, pg. 60.
[16] Ibid, pg. 57.
[17] See: Sheikh Saduq, Seyyid Hashem Hoseini Tehrani, Al-Tawhid, pp. 454-458.
[18] Dar Jostejuye Rishehaye Aseman, pg. 154.
[19] Ibid, 155.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Erfan, Buddhism vaJaynism, pg. 296.
[22] Baztabe Usture’iye Buddha dar Iran va Islam, pg. 36; Dar Jostojuye Rishehaye Aseman, pg. 155; Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pp. 54, 58 and 60. This world has been looked at as transient and temporal in Islamic hadiths, see: Al-Tawhid, pp. 376-378.
[23] Seyyid AbuTaleb Fanai and Mahmoud Ebrahimian, Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pp. 58-60; Erfan, Buddhism va Jaynism, pg. 235.
[24] Al-Tawhid, pp. 376-378.
[25] Ibid.
[26] See: Seyyid Abu Taleb Fanai and Mahmoud Ebrahimian, Din henasiye Tatbiqi, pp. 60-62.
[27] Erfan, Buddhism va Jaynism, pg. 296.
[28] See: Tarikhe Jame’e Adyan, pp. 188-191.
[29] See: Ali Asghar Hekmat, Noh Goftar dar Tarikhe Adyan, pg. 77; Tarikhe Jahane Bastan, pg. 381; Tarikhe Jame’e Adyan, pp. 188-191; Ali Akbar Kasmai, Khoda Bavari dar Din va Falsafeh
[30] Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pp. 57-58; see: Abdullah Muballeghi Abadi, Tarikhe Adyan va Mazahebe Jahan, vol. 1; Dar Jostojuye Rishehaye Aseman, pg. 42.
[31] Erfan, Buddhism va Jaynism, pg. 299.
[32] Ibid, pg. 77.
[33] Sheikh Saduq, Kamaluddin wa Tamamul-Ni’mah, Ali Akbar Ghaffari, pg. 577-638.
[34] Allamah Majlisi, Biharul-Anwar, vol. 75, pp. 383-485.
[35] Allamah Majlisi, Einul-Hayat, pp. 315-386.
[36] Ibid, pg. 386.
[37] Ibid, pp. 381 and 384.
[38] Baztabe Usture’iye Buddha dar Iran va Islam, pp. 44-81.
[39] See: Einul-Hayat, pg. 322; Hashem Raziyy, Adyane Bozorge Jahan, pg. 178.
[40] Einul-Hayat, pg. 322; Adyane Bozorge Jahan, pg. 188.

Is Zoroastrianism a divine faith?

July 23, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

Theory: “Zoroastrianism is a divine faith”
Reasons:
1- The essence of the its teachings
2- Quranic approval of its divinity
The essence of the teachings of Zoroastrianism:
a) The core and essence of Zoroastrianism
Considering what the Gathas say[1], the Zoroastrian faith is 100% divine. After doing research on what the Gathas say, most experts in the field of Zoroastrianism concluded that Zoroaster spoke of pure monotheism. Polytheistic myths in Avesta’s teachings appeared in the later Avesta and in the Mani sect.

As a matter of fact, the monotheism Zoroaster propagated was changed by his followers to a polytheistic faith, similar to what happened in Christianity.

We can conclude that the religion of Zoroaster was a divine one at birth, but the current book of Zoroastrians, Avesta, implies polytheism[2]. It is because of this that when we refer to Zoroastrianism, we say it is a distorted faith far from its original teachings.

b) Ideological teachings of Zoroastrianism
God in Zoroastrianism: The Gathas teach that God is one and unique. He is the Creator of the world. A creator who is not affiliated to a certain place, time or tribe. They introduce God as is the absolute knowledge who is the Creator of all phenomena and who is the greatest, merciful, just and powerful. Clearly, such a belief leaves no room for idols or a second hand God[3]. It is interesting that the Gathas see Zoroaster as a Prophet of God and true monotheist bearing, calling Him at the highest levels of monotheism, saying:

“O granter of existence! I humbly have a question to ask you. How is one who is in love with you supposed to worship you? Oh great beloved one! My heart is full of your love, may it be that we are aided by you under in line with correctness and truth and that our hearts are enlightened by your pure light.”[4]

The world in Zoroastrianism: The world is the creation of God and He is its protector and guardian. The world is totally depended on God in a sense that nothing can happen without His will. Ahura Mazda (God) has created the world for ethical purposes[5].

Man in Zoroastrianism: Man has a high status in Zoroastrianism. Unlike Christianity, it believes in the purity and sinlessness of people at birth. Zoroastrianism says that humans have free will and that it is he who has to choose between good or evil[6].

Life after death in Zoroastrianism: Just like in other faiths, it says that the soul of man doesn’t die as a result of physical death. Man will go to heaven or hell based on his actions[7]. In the Gathas, there are teachings that differ from those in Avesta. One of the principles of its teachings which are referred to as “the first Zoroastrianism” is that after death, man crosses the bridge of “Cheenood” meaning selection[8]. It’s a bridge that the sinners cannot pass. The fate of the bad will be hellfire, and the fate of the good will be paradise[9]. Occasionally, the Gathas speak of a world after death[10]. Anyhow, crossing the bridge of “Cheenood” perhaps relates the issue of resurrection in Zoroastrianism.

A contemporary Zoroastrian writer believes that man’s eternity after death is the reward of his good deeds, and also believes resurrection to be one of the fundamentals of Zoroastrianism.

Anyway, the bridge of Cheenood can be a reason to attribute believing in a hereafter to Zoroastrianism.

Quranic approval of Zoroastrianism’s divinity:
The holy Quran calls the followers of Zoroaster the “Majus”[11]. Hadiths from the infallibles introduce the Majus as people with a prophet and book[12]. These traditions tell us that the fundamentals of this religion were altered by Zoroaster’s followers. Therefore, if one wants to make the right conclusion from these hadiths, he will have to say that they assert that Zoroastrianism has undergone alteration, but don’t determine what type.
Related question of this website: Materialistic resurrection according to the People of the Book, Question 1916 (website: 1917).

————————————————————–
[1] The Gathas are a collection of hymns that were written 3500 years ago that have illustrated the right way of life through poetry. See: Jalaluddin Ashtiyani, Zartosht, vol. 6.

[2] See: Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi,pg. 107. Despite this fact, Zoroastrian thinkers try to somehow interpret implicative Zoroastrian teachings with a philosophical and gnostic perspective in order to justify them and prove that their religion is a pure monotheistic one.
[3] Zartosht (Zoroaster), pg. 122; Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pp. 107-108.
[4] See: Zartosht, pg. 133.
[5] Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pp. 109-110.
[6] Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pg. 110.
[7] Ibid, pg. 112.
[8] These teachings have been mentioned in six principles, and this point has been mentioned in the sixth.
[9] Adyan Asiayi, pp. 42-43; quoted by Abdul-Rahim Sulaymani Ardestani, Seyri dar Adyane Zendeye Jahan, pg. 112.
[10] Tarikhe Tamaddun, pg. 246; See: Din Shenasiye Tatbiqi, pg. 112.
[11] Hajj:17 “إِنَّ الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَ الَّذِینَ هادُوا وَ الصَّابِئِینَ وَ النَّصارى‏ وَ الْمَجُوسَ وَ الَّذِینَ أَشْرَکُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ یَفْصِلُ بَیْنَهُمْ یَوْمَ الْقِیامَةِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلى‏ کُلِّ شَیْ‏ءٍ شَهِید”.
[12] Abd Ali Al-Arusi Huwayzi, Nurul-Thaqalain, vol. 3, pg. 475; Hasan Hurr Al-Ameli, Wasa’ilul-Shia, pg. 96; Naser Makarem Shirazi, Tafsir Nemouneh, vol. 14, pg. 46.

What are the reliable sources of religious thought in Islam?

July 23, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

Needless to say religious thought, like other forms of thought, must have reliable sources from which the raw material of its thought originates and upon which it depends. Similarly, the process of reasoning necessary for the solution of mathematical problems must have a series of established mathematical facts and principles.

The single source upon which the divinely revealed religion of Islam depends and upon which it is based, inasmuch as it is based on a revelation of celestial origin is none other than the Holy Quran. It is the Quran which is the definitive treatment of the universal and ever-living prophet hood of the Prophet and it is the content of the Quran that bears the substance of the Islamic call.

Of course the facts that the Quran is alone the source of Islamic religious thought dose not eliminate other sources and origins of correct thinking, as will be explained later.

Is Islam a religion of peace and brotherhood, or a religion of war and violence?

July 23, 2014/in Beliefs, home, Religion /by amin edrisi

Salm and Salam are the root words for the “Islam” which mean peace and tranquility.[1] The importance of peace and tranquility has been pointed to in the Quran numerous times.[2] For instance, as a verification of Islam being a religion of peace and tranquility, it says:
“یا ایها الذین آمنوا ادخلوا فی السلم کافة و لا تتبعوا خطوات الشیطان انه لکم عدو مبین” “Oh ye who believe! Enter into peace and tranquility altogether and follow not the footsteps of Satan; for he is to you a clear enemy”[3].
From the Quran’s point of view, endless and universal peace and the tranquility of societies are only reachable under the shadow of faith in God, and what connects different societies with all their differences in language, race, wealth and poverty and geographical locations, can only be the belief in God. The belief of Muslims that during the reign of Imam Mahdi (a.s.) there will be universal peace and social justice, is good evidence for such a claim.
The Quran even says: “But if the enemy shows a tendency to peace, do thou (also) show a tendency to peace…”[4]
Of course, all people are born with freedom of choice; some choose to be oppressors and tyrants, causing corruption, therefore it is necessary for a complete religion to have a solution and specific instructions and guidelines for confronting these obstacles that are preventing the guidance of humanity.
Sometimes, oppression and aggression reaches the point that the only thing left to do is self-defense and the usage of force, and that is why Islam has legislated jihad.
In other words, the Quran teaches us to be tough and aggressive with those who don’t follow logic and purposely prevent the prophet’s words from spreading and don’t allow others to be guided because of their enmity towards the truth. The Quran says: “Oh Prophet! Fight hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be harsh with them…”[5]. “The Muslim nation and Muslims must cause fear and intimidation in the hearts of their enemies, so that they don’t even think about invasion, treachery, and harming the Muslims.”[6]
Of course, Islam’s instructions on military alertness and the protection of the country’s borders[7] (which is another form of Islam’s emphasis on keeping peace and friendship and settlement) and its call on jihad for the sake of Allah (which in reality is one of the most important forms of Islamic worship and is the manifestation of true love to God and human fellowship, and is the opposition of corruption and impurity) completely differ from bloodshed, tyranny, panic, war and violence.
Concerning the importance of jihad, Allah (s.w.t.) says: “And do Jihad in (the way of) Allah, (such) a Jihad as is due to him…” [8]
Since jihad hasn’t been legislated for conquest and the expansion of one’s power, one can easily conclude that jihad is a way of freedom and self-defense and not a way of violence. Therefore, if the objectives of jihad are reachable in a peaceful manner, using force and military methods are forbidden. This is also the reason behind why it is wajib to invite the disbelievers to Islam before going to battle with them if a battle ever wants to begin (this shows that what is important for Islam is for the truth to be heard, not fighting and violence, or else, such a thing wouldn’t be wajib).
Therefore, Allah has made jihad wajib for the defeating of tyrants, the freedom of the oppressed and helpless, and in order to get the grounds ready for those who have been kept in ignorance and unawareness regarding divine teachings and how to prosper in this world and the next, to be able to learn about these things and become familiar with them.[9]
Allamah Tabataba’i says in rejection of Islam being pro-war and after violence, and pertaining to the reality and the reasoning behind jihad: “The whole purpose of jihad is the establishment of Islam and for the word of Allah to rise, therefore jihad is a type of worship that needs to be done with the intention of seeking nearness to Allah (because one of the conditions of something being worship is for it to be done with the intention of seeking nearness to Allah). Jihad hasn’t become wajib in order to take over others’ property and households , it has become wajib for the defending of human rights. Originally, defense has limits, while transgression is breaking the limits. Because of this, the end of the verse says: “لا تعتدوا ان الله لا یحب المعتدین[10]; Do not exceed the limits, for verily Allah does not like the transgressors.”[11]
Therefore, not only isn’t true Islam a religion of transgression, dispute, war and violence, but its instructions and rulings (in which one of them is jihad) have all been legislated for the purpose of helping mankind and for spreading peace and security as a result of godly ruling and the rejection of the ruling of taghut (Evil) and fighting against oppression and injustice. In short, jihad is a fair and holy war for reaching high godly goals.[12]
Thus, maintaining peace with enemies and those thinking of kufr, depends on them keeping the respect of the believers and also depends on the believers not losing their strength and might due to keeping peace with them. When sending Malek-al-Ashtar to Egypt to be in charge and run it, Imam Ali (a.s.) says: “If your enemy invites you to a Peace Treaty that will be agreeable to Allah, then never refuse to accept such an offer because peace will bring rest and comfort to your armies, will relieve you of anxieties and worries, and will bring prosperity and affluence to your people. But even after such treaties be very careful of the enemies and do not place too much confidence in their promises because they often resort to peace treaties to deceive and delude you and take advantage of your negligence, carelessness and trust [13].” [14]
On the other hand, the Quran says among believers, peace is the only way, and Islam calls upon brotherhood and reconciliation by asking the believers to have forgiveness, kindness and affection.[15]
Of course, the Quran scolds peace that is a result of fear, weakness and feebleness in which results in retreating from Islamic values and has warned those with weak faith who choose peace in order not to go to jihad and stay away from the hardships that accompany it in the warzone and says: “فلا تهنوا و تدعوا الی السلم و انتم الاعلون و الله معکم” “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye are the uppermost: for Allah is with you…” [16]
Therefore, according to what has been said till now, one can easily conclude that true Islam isn’t the main factor behind violence and terror in the world today, and Islam’s logic and teachings will never confirm such a concept. We accept the fact that Islam has been recognized as a complete religion with high godly goals, awakening and guiding Muslim and non-Muslim nations to stand up against oppression and tyranny.[17] It is clear that oppressors and tyrants and those after force, materialistic desires, and treachery especially Istikbar, consider true Islam[18] as the main barrier between them and the accomplishment of their wicked goals and will do anything to poison, abolish and paint a harsh and violent portrait of it and blame it for all the wars, violence and terrorist acts in the world, while they are the true ones who must be blamed, not the Muslims who are merely defending themselves.
Meanwhile, the believers must follow the teachings of the Ahlul-Bayt and show the real face of Islam and strive to neutralize the plots and conspiracies that have been made in order to abolish it, and show the world that true Islam differs from the harsh, violent and illogical terrorist groups out there, who in reality have been established and supported by Istikbar itself.

For more information, see the following sources:
1- Allamah Tabataba’i, Tafsir al-Mizan, v.10.
2- Morteza Motahari, Jihad va Mavarede Mashroo’iyyate an dar Quran.
3- Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, Porseshha va Pasokhha Darbareye Nezame Siyasiye Islam (Questions and Answers on the Political Structure of Islam, pg. 226-239.
4- Allameh Tabataba’i, Amoozeshe Din, pg. 259-264.

Also, see the following indexes:
1- Faith and enjoining good and…and Initial Jihad, Question 196.
2- Initial Jihad, Question 113.
3- Religion and Force, Question 293.

—————————————————–

[1] Kitab Al-Ain, v.7, pg.267. Also, see indexes:
– The concept of Islam in verse 19 of surah Ale-Imran, Question 956.
– The Quran and the meaning of Islam and Muslims, Question 829.
[2] Naml: 32-44.
[3] Baqarah: 208.
[4] Anfal: 61.
[5] Tahrim: 9.
[6] Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, Porseshha va Pasokhha Darbareye Nezame Siyasiye Islam (Questions and Answers on the Political Structure of Islam), pg. 233.
[7] واعدوا لهم ما استطعتم من قوة … Anfal: 60
[8] Hajj: 78.
[9] ”Ma’refat” Magazine, no. 102, article “Goals and Wind in Islam”, Hamza Ali and Hadifesh.
[10] Baqarah: 190.
[11] Allamah Mohammad Hussein Tabataba’i, Al-Mizan, Al-A’lami Press, Beirut, v.10, pg. 63.
[12] For further information, see: Morteza Motahhari, Jihad va Mavarede Mashroo’iyyate an dar Quran.
[13] Nahjul-Balagha, letter 53.
[14] Hossein Eskandari, Ayehaye Zendegi (The Signs of Life), v.1, pg.300.
[15] Hujurat: 9-10.
[16] Muhammad: 35.
[17] The occurrence of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and the spreading of Imam Khomeini’s high goals and slogans, have played a major role in this issue.
[18] What is meant by Islam here, is the true Islam that Prophet Muhammad brought and invited to, and in other words, the school and teachings of the Ahlul-Bayt, which can never stay calm and quiet regarding the oppression of tyrants.

How does Islam solve the collision between religion and science?

July 23, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

The collision of science and religion was first set forth after the Middle Ages, when modern sciences first began contradicting the portrait that the church had painted of scientific concepts and the Bible had, according to the church’s interpretation, and as a result, the church was slowly put aside in order for modern sciences to grow.[1] To solve the problem, some said that the language of religion differs from and has nothing to do with the mind and intellect and is above all of them. Individuals such as Kirkegor believe that anything discovered by the mind has nothing to do with religion and faith.[2]

The issue of the collision between religion and science which mainly belonged to Christianity and its look at religion[3], was brought into the teachings of Islam by some who didn’t take into consideration its delicacy in Islamic beliefs.

In order to answer this question, two subjects need to be spoken about; one being religious assertions, and the other being scientific discoveries.

Religious Doctrines and Assertions
Here, a few points must be noted:
1- When referring to Islamic sources (The Quran and tradition), one is required to consider the terms and conditions of a certain ruling (that might be mentioned in other texts and sources, not necessarily in the same text that the ruling has been mentioned in) and cannot be certain about a ruling being absolute and unconditional in the first look without searching for and making sure that there aren’t any context clues or anything else in religious texts that might be of help in reaching the true meaning of a statement and the conditions of a ruling.

In order for this issue to clear up further, we will give a small example from a religious text. In the Quran, honey has been named as a cure for people.[4] Now, if one perceives that honey is a cure for all sicknesses, but on the other hand science proves that it is dangerous for a certain disease, he/she will conclude that here science and religion have collided, while in reality, the Quran hasn’t claimed that honey is a cure for all diseases, all it has said is that it is a cure.

Under this verse, Fakhr Razi mentions this same question and says: “In this verse, Allah (swt) isn’t saying that honey is a cure for all people, all diseases and in any condition, but what He is saying is that in some cases, it is a cure.[5]
This point needs to be considered when dealing with religious assertions, and one mustn’t quickly conclude that an assertion is absolute and unconditional without such an observation.

2- In contrast to theories belonging to some Westerners, Islam has high respect for the mind and logical reasoning to the extent that it has coined the name “Inner Messenger” for it, and considers the worship of the wise individual higher than that of others, and of more virtue.[6]
Because of this, just like how some narrations serve as terms and conditions for other narrations, sometimes intellectual assertions also act as terms and conditions for narrative ones. This fact has been pointed to in the science of Usulul-Fiqh or the science of principles of jurisprudence. For instance, assuming their validity, it has been stated in some traditions that diseases aren’t transmitted from one person to the other.[7] Meanwhile, science has proven that some diseases are in fact transmitted.

Nevertheless, there is no collision here between science and religion. Here, these scientific laws that have been experimented and proven by science and are for sure, work as context clues, meaning that they show that this tradition is talking about diseases that aren’t transmitted, not all diseases.
Therefore, one can say that sometimes there is collision between intellectual religious reasoning and narrative religious reasoning, not between intellect and religion, because we believe that our religion is made up of both intellectual and narrative assertions.

3- Sometimes traditions express the spiritual causes of an event, not the materialistic ones. This can sometimes result in one mixing the two up and concluding that religion and science have collided in that particular issue. (Spiritual causes of an event are prior to materialistic ones, meaning that an event’s spiritual causes must first come, then the materialistic ones in order for it to take place.)
For instance, some traditions state that earthquakes are a result of our sins. On the other hand, science has proven that earthquakes occur because of a series of natural changes that take place in the earth’s crust. It is wrong to believe that these scientific assertions contradict what Islamic traditions are saying regarding the cause of earthquakes. That is because the traditions are expressing the spiritual reasons for such an incident, and that doesn’t violate the fact that in order for an earthquake to take place, it is necessary for some changes to take place in the earth’s crust. So, one must distinguish between material and spiritual causes of different phenomena.

Scientific Discoveries
Some points must be noted:
1- When dealing with scientific subjects, one must distinguish between theories and hypotheses that need proving, and scientific laws that are certain. Before it becoming a scientific law and in other words, one hundred percent proven, a scientific theory cannot be considered as one that is in conflict with any religious doctrine or assertion, because it is still only a theory or hypothesis and there are chances in the future that it will turn out to be an incorrect one. Sometimes, a theory has been proven correct in some instances, but its application in all of the instances that a certain tradition is speaking of is yet to be proven. In such cases, a tradition can’t be considered as one contradicting science. Of course, if such theories that are in contradiction are ever proven, then one needs to find a way to solve the conflict.

2- Another point which needs to be noted about science, is that in epistemology (the study of the philosophy of knowledge), some believe that scientific theories have nothing to do with the physical world and their base is rather the mind and they are merely ideas, but since they benefit us in analyzing and explaining different phenomena that take place in the physical world, they are acceptable. For instance, Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t say that man was really born from monkeys, all it says is that if it is assumed that this theory is correct, some of the questions we have on the life of man will be answered. This theory (that says that man can never have absolute knowledge of the physical world), which is well-known in epistemology today, is referred to as “sense perception”.[8] On this basis, some claim that there is no collision between religion and science because what religion says is the truth and actuality, while what science says is merely an idea pertaining to the mind and thought that we make use of in the physical world, being of no reality.

3- Some say that since each of religion and science have two different subjects, there is no collision between the two, because in order for two things to collide, they need to have the same subjects while each relate a rule to the subject which contradicts what the other relates. In this case, one can say that these two have collided, or else, there will no longer be any collision between the two.
Ian Barbour says that analysts usually see science as an instrument, meaning that they know scientific theories as “beneficial” rather than “realistic” and believe that what science does is help us predict and control earthly events, while religion’s main responsibility is to prescribe and legislate a way of life and to help us submit to a series of moral principles.[9]

This viewpoint has some positive points, yet its major problem is that it hasn’t taken into consideration one of the dimensions of religion, which is the fact that in addition to the above mentioned tasks, religion also sometimes expresses laws of nature. It cannot be denied that in all divine books, including the Quran, different natural events such as wind and rain have been spoken of. Therefore, emphasizing on some dimensions of religion while disregarding the others isn’t the correct way of solving the claimed paradox between science and religion. On the contrary, this problem needs to be solved between science and religion in its entirety. True, religion is for expressing one’s submission to God or is there to show us a way of life, but all it has spoken of isn’t limited to this. It has also spoken of this world in a way that sometimes gives the feeling that it is colliding with science, so we have to find an answer.[10]

In the end, one point that needs to be pointed to is that not only isn’t the Quran in collision with science, but scientific miracles can also be found in it. What is meant is that the Quran has pointed to different scientific subjects and facts that science has recently discovered after centuries. For instance, in the 125th verse of surah Ma’idah, concerning those who have gone astray, it has been stated that they are like the one who ascends into the sky and reaches the top layers of the atmosphere and as a result, can no longer breathe correctly and begins to feel pressure on the chest, while till a few centuries ago, scientists believed that air has no weight and pressure. It was in the year 1643 that Evengelisgta Toricelli invented the barometer and discovered atmospheric pressure. So today, after centuries and the scientific discovery of atmospheric pressure on earth and that this pressure corresponds with man’s blood pressure while changing as he goes up into the atmosphere, it has eventually cleared up what is meant by the verse.[11]

Conclusion: Considering what was said till now and the development of science and technology, one can conclude that the certain and concrete assertions of Islam in no way collide with scientific laws which have been proven to be for sure; these scientific phenomena are Allah’s proof and signs that have no conflict with what the Quran or the infallibles have asserted.[12]

————————————————————————————

[1] Hadavi Tehrani, Mabaniye Kalamiye Ejtehad (The theological principles of jurisprudence), pg. 313.
[2] Ibid, pg. 315.
[3] Ibid, pg. 315.
[4] “شفاء للناس” Nahl:69
[5] Tafsir Kabir, under the relevant verse, Safinatul-Bihar, vol. 3, pg.483.
[6] Safinatul-Bihar, vol. 3, pg. 541.
[7] Ali Akbar Ghaffari, Talkhis Miqbasul-Hidayah, pg. 48.
[8] Muhsin Javadi and Alireza Amini, Ma’arefe Eslami (Islamic teachings), vol. 2, pg. 40.
[9] Ian Barbour, Science and Religion, pg. 153-155, quoted by Ma’arefe Eslami, vol. 2, pg. 43.
[10] Alireza Amini and Muhsin Javadi, Ma’arefe Eslami, vol. 2, pg. 43.
[11] Muhammad Hadi Ma’refat, ‘Ulume Qur’ani (Quranic Studies), pg. 425.
[12] Obtained from the discussion of science and religion by Ayatullah Javadi Amoli on 12/1/1384 (solar) in his Excellency’s tafsir class.

What are the reasons for the backwardness of the Muslims?

July 9, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi

It can be clearly concluded from the verses of the Qur’an that whenever we suffer reverses and failures, they are always a result of one of the following two factors: Either we have neglected and failed in our jihad and in our efforts, or that we were lacking in sincerity. And if these two were to gather together, as per the emphatic Divine promise, success and guidance shall certainly come our way.

Why have Muslims, the leaders of yesterday, lagged behind today?

Why do they extend their hands to the foreigners for everything, even for their culture and their own laws?

Why should they rely upon others to protect themselves vis-à-vis political storms and military assaults?

Why is it that yesterday the others benefited from their knowledge and culture whereas today they (the Muslims) have to turn to the others?

And finally, why is it that they are captives in the clutches of others and their lands are under the occupation of the transgressors?

All these ‘whys’ possess just one answer: Either they have forgotten the jihad or that the intentions have become polluted.

Indeed, jihad in the fields of science, culture, politics, economics and military has been thrust into the dark world of forgetfulness. Affection for the self, love of the world, desire for comfort and pleasure and personal motives have prevailed over them to the extent that those of them who are killed by own hands, are more than those killed by the enemies!

The overwhelmed state of some West-stricken and East-stricken individuals, self-selling by some of those vested with authority, and isolation of intellectuals and scholars have not only taken the jihad from them but also the sincerity.

Whenever there manifests slight sincerity amongst our ranks and our warriors jolt themselves into activity, successes are achieved one after the other and the fetters of captivity fall apart. Despairs turn into hopes, failures into successes, humiliation into dignity, and disarray and hypocrisy into unity and cohesion. How inspirational is the Qur’an, which, in a short sentence, has not only mentioned the malady but has also presented its remedy!

Truly, those who strive in the path of Allah (s.w.t.) are the beneficiaries of Divine guidance and it is self-evident that in the presence of His guidance, deviation and failure are inconceivable.

In any event, every person plainly senses and perceives this Qur’anic reality in his efforts that when he sets out to strive for Allah (s.w.t.) and in His path, doors open up before him, problems decrease in severity and adversities tend to become more bearable.1

——————————————————–

1. Tafsir-e-Namuna, vol. 16, pg. 350

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

July 9, 2014/in Beliefs, home, Religion /by amin edrisi

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?

July 7, 2014/in Beliefs, Religion /by amin edrisi