This letter, written to Molla Maqsūd Alī Tabrīzī, says that the
uncleanliness of the disbelievers refers to the unclean moral state of their
souls, of their creed. Their bodies, their limbs may not be unclean.
Every kind of thanks belongs to Allahu
taālā by right. I send my salāms to the pure people whom He has chosen. My
merciful Sir! We can not understand why you sent us Tafsīr-i-Husainī. This interpretation, in
explaining the twenty-ninth āyat of Sūrat-ut-Tawba, says, Since disbelievers souls and beliefs are filthy, they are
certainly filthy. Also, savants of the Hanafī Madhhab
explained it in this manner. That is, they said that the reason why Allahu
taālā declared Disbelievers are filthy is because their
hearts, their creeds are filthy. It is written in Tafsīr-i Husainī that some savants said,
Since disbelievers do not perform a ghusl (ritual washing) or abstain from
najāsat[1], they are foul. Yet it is not suitable
to interpret it in this manner, for the majority of the Muslims in India today
do not avoid najāsat. Some ignorant Muslims, too, like disbelievers, slight
cleanliness. If not avoiding najāsat caused one to be foul, the life would
become very difficult for Muslims. But, it was declared: There is no hardship
in Islām. Though it is written in Tafsīr-i Husainī Abdullah Ibni Abbās
radiy-Allāhu anhumā said that disbelievers bodies are foul like dogs great
men of religion have received much information such as this which does not
conform with what the majority of the other savants think, and which is not
like what everybody understands. Such expressions should be somehow adapted to
what is generally accepted. How can the skin and the bodies of disbelievers be
foul in light of the fact that our Prophet ate a meal in a Jews home? He
cleaned himself with a disbelievers water container. Also, Hadrat Umar
(Radiyallahu anh) cleaned himself with a Christian womans container. If one
claims that these might have been done before the āyat was revealed, one will have
based this statement on sheer supposition; it should be proven that the āyat
came afterwards. If it can be proven, it still does not prove that they are
foul, dirty or that the things which they touch will be foul and harām. At
most, it shows that their creed is foul. A
------------------------------------
[1] Every kind of dirt. In this context, it
means the dirt that prevents one from performing namāz. It will be explained in
the third fascicle of Endless Bliss.
prophet never does something that was
harām or that would be harām in his own Sharīat or in other Sharīats. That
is, he does not use something that will be harām later though it is currently
halāl (permitted). For example, formerly it had been halāl to drink wine. Later
it became harām. No Prophet drank wine at any time. If it were to be declared
afterwards that disbelievers bodies were foul like dogs, Hadrat Muhammad, who
is the darling of Allahu taālā, would have never touched their containers.
Then in this case, would it ever be possible for him to drink their water or
eat their food? Moreover, when something is foul, it is always foul. It cannot
be thought of as foul one time and clean at some other time. If disbelievers bodies
were foul, they would always be foul, and Hadrat Muhammad would have never
touched them. Nonetheless for drinking their water and eating their food.
Moreover, when something itself is foul, it will always be foul. It will never
be permissible, neither beforehand, nor afterwards. If disbelievers themselves
were foul, they would have been so formerly, too, and Rasūlullah sall-Allāhu
alaihi wa sallam would have acted upon this principle. Since this major
premise does not exist, how can the minor premise exist? Furthermore, it
imposes great difficulty on Muslims to think of their bodies as foul. May
Allahu taālā give infinite goodness to the savants of Hanafī madhhab because
they made the life of a Muslim easier. They rescued them from committing the harām.
How could it ever be a righteous act to speak ill of these great savants and to
censure the accurate interpretations they wrote, instead of thanking them? Can
anything be said against the mujtahids? They will also be given rewards for
their wrong deductions. Muslims who act according to the wrong findings [of a
mujtahīd] will be rescued from torment. If disbelievers are foul, the things
which they touch and do will be foul and harām. Those who describe disbelievers
as foul will have said harām about the meals and sherbets which they make. In
such a case, people cannot protect themselves againts this harām. It is next to
impossible, especially for Muslims in India, to protect themselves. Because
Muslims are in contact with disbelievers everywhere, it is better to give the
fatwā[1] which is the easiest. Even if it is not
compatible with ones own madhahb, the easy fatwā in another madhhab should be
given to him. The hundred and eighty-sixth āyat of Sūrat-ul-Baqara declares: Allahu taālā wants
to have you do the things that are easy. He
------------------------------------
[1] Answers which a religious savant gives to peoples questions.
does not want what is difficult. It is declared in the
twenty-eighth āyat of Sūrat-un-Nisā: Allahu taālā wants your worships to be light, easy. Man was
created weak, frail. It is harām to oppress or hurt Muslims, and
it is something which Allahu taālā dislikes. Shāfiī savants submitted a fatwā
that gave permission for the things that were difficult in their madhhab to be
done according to Hanafī madhhab. Thus, they facilitated the life of a Muslim.
For example, according to Shāfiī Madhhab, zakāt[1] should be given to each of the eight
classes of people declared in the sixtieth āyat of Sūrat-ut-tawba. Out of these
eight classes, the classes of disbelievers whom one must please [and the class
of officials who collect the zakāt and the class of debtors that must be
rescued from slavery] do not exist today. Since it has become impossible to
find them, Shafiī savants (rahmatullahi taālā alaihim ajmaīn) issued a
fatwā sanctioning giving zakāt according to Hanafī madhhab; in Hanafī madhhab
it is permissible to give to any one of these classes.
[Likewise, in performing a ghusl (ritual
bathing), it is fard in the Hanafī madhhab to rinse the mouth, to wash between
the teeth and the tooth sockets. Since water cannot penetrate into crownings
and fillings, the ghusl of those who have them is not accepted, and they remain
in a state of impurity. But in the Shāfiī madhhab it is not fard to rinse the
mouth. If a person in the Hanafī madhhab has his teeth crowned or filled for some
necessity, he says through his heart when performing a ghusl, O my Allah! I am
performing a ghusl ablution according to the Shāfiī madhhab, then his ghusl
ablution will be accepted, and he can perform namāz in a clean state. It is
written on the seven hundred and ninth page of the book Hadīqa, It
is permissible to imitate another madhhab in abdast (ritual ablution) or in
ghusl. For doing this, the principles of the madhhab imitated must be observed.
If all its principles are not observed, it will not be permissible to imitate
it. It is permissible to imitate another madhhab even after having done the
action that does not conform with ones own madhhab. For instance, Hadrat Abū
Yūsuf, after having performed a Friday prayer, was told that a dead mouse was
seen in the well where he had performed his ablution. He said, Our ghusl is
acceptable according to the Shāfiī madhhab. It was declared in a hadīth that
when something foul gets mixed
------------------------------------
[1] A certain amount of ones property given
yearly to those whom one prefers of the eight classes of people prescribed in
the Qurān.
with water that amounts to a qullatayn, it
is not foul unless one of its three peculiarities is changed. A qullatayn is
two hundred and twenty kilograms of water. The book al-Barīqa, explaining this point, says
that it is permissible to imitate another madhhab when necessity for it arises.
The book Durr-ul Mukhtār
says at the end of its chapter on Prayer Times,
When there is darūrat (compulsion, strict necessity), another madhhab is
imitated. While explaining this, the book Ibni Ābidīn says, One of the two
inferences (qaul) is written here. According to the second inference (qaul),
when there is harāj, hardship, one of the other three madhhabs is imitated, no
matter whether there is darūrat or not. This is the preferrable inference. When
there is difficulty in doing something, if your own madhhab shows a way of
making it easy, or if it is excused, there will be no need to imitate any other
madhhab. Quoting from the book Husn-ut-tanabbuh Fit-tashabbuh, it is writen in the two
hundred and eleventh page of the book Hadīqa: When someones nafs does not
want to do what is easy, then it is useful for him to act according to a
rukhsat by leaving the azīmats (difficulties). But this should not lead one to
search for rukhsats because collecting the easier parts of madhhabs, which is
called Talfiq, is
harām and an act of obeying the nafs and shaytān (satan).]
If disbelievers themselves were foul,
necessarily they wouldnt be clean after accepting īmān. Then, calling them
foul is intended to declare that their hearts are foul. When they accept īmān,
this foulness dissappears and they become clean. That their beliefs and their
hearts are foul does not mean that their bodies are foul. These āyats declare
that disbelievers are foul. These facts do not change. Changes can be made in
commands and prohibitions. Changes cannot be made in the fact of how something
is. [The book Hadīqa, in explaining the disasters
incurred by the tongues says, Allahu taālā has made alternations, changes in
twenty āyats that communicate His commandments and prohibitions. He has not
made any alterations in qisas (facts about ancient people) and facts.] Since
facts do not change, disbelievers must be always foul. This is the foulness of
disbelief and of creed. Thus, the interpretation made will be compatible with
the original information. Thus teachings will not contradict each other. It
will not be harām to touch disbelievers and their possessions. One day, while
explaining this, I recited part of the fifth āyat of Sūrat-ul-Māida: It is halāl
[permitted] for you to eat what the men with holy books, that is, Jews and
Christians, cook and
slaughter; and you said that it was
wheat, chick-pea and lentil which was permitted. Today, if one of the Muslims
under these conditions likes this word of yours, I cannot say anything against
it. But, to be reasonable, the right word is obvious. Then, pitying Muslims, we
should not look upon disbelievers as foul, nor should we deem dirty the Muslims
who have relations and trade with disbelievers. We should not abstain from the
food and drinks of such Muslims by assuming that they have become dirty; we
should not deviate into the way of abstaining or parting from Muslims. This
state is not a precaution. It is a precaution to get rid of this state. Let me
not cause your head to ache any longer. My salāms be upon you.
A couplet:
Saying little, I paid attention not to break your heart
A lot to tell you but I feared breaking the heart.