Table of Contents
Continuing from the previous discussion…..
A Battle Between Truth and Falsehood, or a Conflict of Hatred and Hostility?
Hearing the doorbell, Ihtijaj came out.
Oh, it is Awham da! How are you?
After exchanging salam, he said, Come in, come inside!
Today Awham has brought sweets for everyone at Ihtijaj’s hostel.
Ihtijaj said, Dada! Why did you go through the trouble of bringing these for no reason!?
: No brother, nothing like that. I just brought a small gift for you all. Giving and receiving gifts are both Sunnah of our Prophet.
: MashaAllah, dada! You gave a very beautiful logic from the Sunnah of the Prophet. So what is the purpose of coming today?
: Mushir has gone to his village home today. So I came running to you alone with a question.
: Good, good. No problem. So what is the question, dada? Tell me.
: Arz Ali Sahib wrote, “In the present age, almost all religions of the world are theistic, especially monotheistic. Hinduism is also essentially monotheistic. If that is so, that is, if all the people of the world are monotheistic, then there should be a sense of brotherhood among them. But is there? There is every kind of envy, hatred, and malice. Being included in particular communities, human beings hate other human beings so much that no lower animal hates another in that way. To Hindus, cow dung is sacred, yet every non-Hindu human being is impure. On the other hand, to Muslims, even pigeon droppings are pure, yet every non-Muslim is impure. Even if snakes and frogs die and rot in a pond, its water is not ruined, but if a person of another religion touches it, it becomes impure. Some people also say that selling bananas, taro, and goats on the occasion of non-Muslim festivals is a grave sin. Even buying anything from Hindu shops while Muslim shops exist is also a sin. Is this human religion? Or communalism in the name of religion?”
: I understand, dada, your question. Here, notice that Arz Ali Sahib himself said that all religions are theistic and monotheistic. Even Hindus are essentially monotheistic. Right?
: Yes.
: Okay, now you tell me, do all religions believe in one God? Or do some associate three persons with one Creator, while others worship 330 million gods and goddesses?
: Brother, we see in the world that except for Islam, in all other religions there is a tendency to associate many gods with one God.
: Right. When the followers of those religions did not accept one God, did they remain upon the path of truth? Did they follow the teaching of their religion?
: No brother, they did not follow the teaching of their religion.
: Hmm. According to Arz Ali Sahib’s own statement, they too should have been monotheists. Because their religion says so. When they did not follow the teaching of their religion, it became evident that they are deceiving people in the name of religion. Is it possible to maintain brotherhood with such deceivers? Is opposing them unjust?
If it is not unjust, then why did Arz Ali Sahib try to point his finger at those who oppose those deceivers?
Moreover, those religions, by not believing in one God and by disregarding the fundamental principle of their own religions, have become travelers on the path of falsehood. Therefore, what is happening here is a battle between truth and falsehood, which has existed since ancient times and will continue forever. But he wanted to turn the battle between truth and falsehood into a battle of hatred and hostility and market it as such. He made a tremendous attempt to label the battle between truth and falsehood as envy, hatred, and malice.
Yet he himself said, “The purpose of taking up his pen was the search for truth and the removal of superstition, that is, falsehood.” That means he too was engaged in the battle between truth and falsehood. Then was he also envious? Since, in his own language, the battle between truth and falsehood and a hateful battle are one and the same.
Look, dada. All religions speak of accepting one Creator. In other words, the core message of all religions is to become believers in one Allah. This is essentially the central message of Islam. But they do not accept that. By not accepting it, they leave the path of truth and are led along the path of falsehood. Here takes place the battle between truth and falsehood. In the battle between truth and falsehood, there is no room for hatred and hostility. Hatred exists in the battle of interests.
When we were young and studying, many questions used to come in exams, and perhaps still do: “Put a tick mark beside the correct answer. Put a cross mark beside the incorrect answer.” There, too, there was a conflict between truth and falsehood. But does that mean one answer had hatred and hostility toward the other? No, such a thing does not occur to our minds.
So it becomes clear that in the battle between truth and falsehood, there is no hatred or hostility. There is only struggle for truth. An effort to recognize truth.
Those who want to know more about this may look at the writings titled “The Throwing Around of Many Religions: Which One Should We Accept?” written in response to the second volume of Arz Ali Matubbar’s collected works.
Are Non-Muslims Impure? How True Is This Accusation?
We see that Arz Ali Sahib said, “Muslims consider non-Muslims impure merely because they are non-Muslims.” This accusation is completely false. The Prophet of Islam did not teach Muslims such a thing. Rather, he instructed them to keep them close and guide them toward the right path.
In the pages of Seerah, you can still see the shining example of that non-Muslim guest who spent the night as a guest in the Prophet’s house. Because of overeating, he soiled the Prophet’s noble bedding at night with excrement and urine. Even then, the Prophet of mercy cleaned it with his own hands. If in Islam every kafir or non-Muslim were considered impure merely for being a non-Muslim, then the Prophet would not have given a non-Muslim guest a place in his home.
You know, dada! The Prophet’s son-in-law Abul As was a non-Muslim. He married the Prophet’s daughter Hazrat Zaynab, may Allah be pleased with her. At that time, marriage between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman was still permissible. Abul As, while still a non-Muslim, used to come and go in the Prophet’s house.
But where is the evidence that the Prophet stopped him? He did not expel him by saying that every non-Muslim is impure. The Prophet Karim, peace be upon him, himself spent more than two-thirds of his life with his own non-Muslim uncle Abu Talib.
Therefore, Arz Ali Sahib’s objection that Muslims consider non-Muslims impure merely for being non-Muslims is false. The objection is baseless. This is not the teaching of Islam. In Bangladesh, we Muslims and non-Muslims all want to live beautifully together. But his baseless objection against Islam could become a cause of communal riots. It could create obstacles to preserving our social harmony. He stepped into a truly reprehensible act.
From the discussion above, it also became clear that the touch of non-Muslims does not make pond water or anything else impure. He said, “Muslims consider pond water impure if non-Muslims touch it.” This is perhaps something he invented himself. Or it may be the idea of ignorant village Muslims in his village who do not know Islam. There is no basis for this in Islam. Islam even considers the leftovers of non-Muslims pure. So why would it consider their touch impure?
Special Religious Rituals, Buying and Selling, and Islam’s Position
He further said, “Islam has declared it a grave sin to sell bananas, taro, goats, etc., on the occasion of non-Muslim festivals. Even buying anything from non-Muslim shops while Muslim shops exist has been counted by Islam as a sin.”
Among these two claims, the second is completely false. Regarding the first, there are some points to discuss.
Islam has not discouraged selling bananas, taro, goats, etc., to non-Muslims, meaning Hindus, in all circumstances. It has done so only at a particular time. That is when, in their locality, there is an atmosphere of dedicating these things in the name of gods and goddesses. There is a logical reason behind discouraging it at that time.
Before understanding the reason, dada, answer me one question.
Suppose you have a piece of land. You have cultivated different things on it and planted various trees and plants. You have appointed a few people to look after them. And you have forbidden them from giving anything from those things to anyone without your permission. Now, have you given them an unjust order? Or have you discouraged them from giving charity and donations to people?
: Of course not, brother. I am the owner of those things. Without my permission, the caretakers have no right to interfere with them. That would be improper and unjust. Imposing such a restriction regarding something owned by me can in no way be improper for me.
: If they want to give away something owned by you to someone else, then is it not valid for you to prevent them?
: Of course it is valid.
: Hmm, right, dada. Now notice, we have already seen that there is a Creator of the universe. Trees, forests, animals, all things are His creation. That means the owner of these things is He alone. We may interfere with these things only by His permission.
Now the point to consider is this: at the particular time when Islam discourages selling taro, bananas, and goats to Hindu brothers, are those things spent in the channel approved by Him?
Certainly not, dada. At that time, all these things owned by the one Creator, Allah, are dedicated in the name of gods and goddesses. It is as if someone is forcibly giving away something owned by you to someone else. Just as that is unjust, this too is unjust in the same way. That is why Islam discourages helping non-Muslims in such an unjust act. At that time, it forbids selling such things to them.
Allah Ta‘ala says, “He has only forbidden you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which is dedicated to other than Allah.” Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 173.
Now tell me, dada! If giving away the produce cultivated on your own land without your permission is unlawful, and if your prohibition against giving it away is not unreasonable, then when the things of the universe owned by Allah alone are being given away without His permission to others, by slaughtering in the name of others, if in such a situation He forbids someone from assisting in such giving by prohibiting the sale of such things to them at that time, is that unjust?
Is it unlawful for Him to state how and where His own property will be spent? Is it illegal for Him to prevent His own property from being given to someone else without His permission?
I hope you have understood the matter. For this reason alone, at that particular time, when such reprehensible practices are in season among non-Muslim brothers, Islam discourages selling to them those things which they dedicate in the name of gods and goddesses. Other than that time, there is no problem in selling. In the coming discussion, we will see that buying and selling with non-Muslims in normal times is also proven from the Prophet Karim, peace be upon him.
In the hadith from which the jurists derived the ruling that selling such things to non-Muslim brothers at that time is prohibited, the Messenger of Allah beautifully explained why Islam shows such an attitude toward them at that time.
The hadith is: “It is narrated from Hazrat Abu Umamah, may Allah be pleased with him. The Prophet Karim, peace be upon him, said, Allah Ta‘ala sent me as a mercy and guidance for the worlds. He commanded me to abolish musical instruments, flutes and lyres, idol worship, the cross, and the sinful practices of the Age of Ignorance.” Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi, Hadith no. 1230; Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir by Al-Tabarani, Hadith no. 7803.
Through this hadith, the Messenger of Allah explained that he came to cleanse the earth of every kind of injustice, wrongdoing, reprehensible act, and sinful practice of the Age of Ignorance. Now, dedicating the created things of the Creator in the name of others is certainly injustice and wrongdoing. How could he support such an act?
Therefore, in light of Islam, the religion brought by him, the scholars issue the fatwa that only at that time, those things should not be sold to non-Muslim brothers which they dedicate in the name of gods and goddesses. Because that is equivalent to assisting in forcibly giving something owned by one being to someone else.
Just as it is logical for you to forbid and prevent someone from giving away the crops from your land, which are owned by you, without your permission, in the same way it is certainly logical and proper for Allah to forbid the sale of these things owned by Him to a few people at a particular time. However, this prohibition is not for all circumstances. It is connected only to that specific time.
But this statement of Arz Ali Sahib, “Islam considers it a sin to buy anything from non-Muslim shops while Muslim shops exist,” is an outright lie. There is nothing like this in Islam.
Even here in our Beanibazar, there is a Hindu hostel named Jamini. There are many Muslim ones too. Yet many times it is seen that even though Muslim restaurants exist, many great scholars and ulama buy sweets, curd, etc., from the Hindu shop Jamini. If this were a sin in Islam, then at least the ulama would not go there to buy anything.
Besides, how could this be a sin in Islam? The Prophet Karim, peace be upon him, himself engaged in buying and selling with non-Muslims. It has come in the Hadith Sharif: “Abdur Rahman ibn Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, narrates that once I was with the Prophet Karim, peace be upon him. At that time, a polytheist man with disheveled long hair came driving his goats. The Prophet asked him, Is this for sale, or as a gift? He said, For sale. Then he bought a goat from him.” Sahih Bukhari, Hadith no. 2216.
Another hadith states: “It is narrated from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her. The Prophet Karim, peace be upon him, purchased food grains from a Jew for a fixed term and pawned his armor with him.” Sahih Bukhari, Hadith no. 2509.
Now tell me, dada, was there no goat or food grain available from any Muslim at that time? Of course there was. If buying from a non-Muslim while Muslims had such goods were considered a sin in Islam, would the Prophet have carried out such transactions?
Arz Ali Sahib, being ignorant about Islam, threw a completely false accusation against Islam. The responsibility for that rests solely upon him. Islam is free from it from head to toe.
Post a Comment