Protestants refer to forms of worship in Islam
and in Christianity in the second chapter of the book Ghadâ-ul-mulâhazât. Therein they try to prove that Christianity is superior to and
more meritorious than Islam. According to them, “Forms of worship in the
Islamic religion consist in a certain number of certain actions and modes at
certain places at certain times. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on
essentials instructing how to do worships soulfully and heartily, to have
belief in salvation, which will take the place of superficial and formal
worships, to improve yourself, to purify your heart of vices, and to beautify
your moral habits. Qur’ân al-kerîm does not contain any clear and true information concerning the
forgiveness of the sinful by their having belief and repenting. Whereas the
Gospel of Matthew declares, in the twentieth and later verses of the first
chapter, that the Angel of God showed himself to Joseph the Carpenter in his
dream, gave him the glad tidings that Mary would have a son, and enjoined him,
‘You shall name him Jesus, which means, he who redeems his people of sins’, Qur’ân al-kerîm, while shelving the notion that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ is the redeemer from sins by hushing up the matter, downgrades
him to prophethood and equates him
with other Prophets. If a person’s sin
were no more than ignorance and erring, a Prophet’s guidance would suffice for him. Yet, alongside the human
deficiencies such as ignorance and being prone to error, man is by his nature
vulnerable to wrongdoing and is under the slavery of the devil, which is
augmented by his innate depravity, [a consequence of the original sin committed
by Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’], a teacher or Prophet’s coming afterwards would not suffice [for the salvation of human
beings]. Freeing the everlasting human soul from slavery and from the burden of
sinfulness would certainly require the advent of a savior. Whereas the Bible
has announced that
mankind could be saved from the dirt of sinning and from the
temptations of the devil only at the sacrifice of the blessed blood of Jesus
Christ, the one and only Savior, Qur’ân al-kerîm has disignored this redemptive capacity of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
and has made getting rid of sins dependent upon some principles such as
uttering the kalima-i-tawhîd and kalima-i-shahâdat, suffering some
chastisements, and obeying the religious commandments. The Bible, while
encouraging people to do true penance, to have perfect, superior belief, and to
thank and laud Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is able to change what is in any heart, has
presented reasonable and admissible forms of worship and religious duties by
eradicating all forms of worship and custom that were being observed among the
Jews in the time of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. None the less for this fact, Qur’ân al-kerîm has re-established the physical and
outward worships and customs of such a religion as Judaism, which is far from
perfect and deprived of spirituality. Such physical worships as namâz, abdest
(ablution), facing the qibla (during namâz), hajj, and fasting have no effect
on the heart, and since it is onerous and arduous to observe these worships,
the religion of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is not suitable for every community on
the earth. In short, Qur’ân al-kerîm’s not confirming the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ had no other way
than shedding the blood of His only Son for the forgiveness of His sinful born
slaves and for their salvation from the pestering of the devil, proves the fact
that Qur’ân al-kerîm has not been
revealed by Allah. The rules stated in Qur’ân al-kerîm refer to physical worships only, and there is no injunction
pertaining to the purification of the heart of vices or betterment of moral
qualities. The commandments in Qur’ân al-kerîm, that is, those injunctions that are termed farz and wâjib, are
unnecessary.”
ANSWER: This impugnment [and these slanders]
of the priestly author of the book Ghadâ-ul-mulâhazât clearly evince the
fact that, either he has never read Qur’ân al-kerîm or the books of the Islamic savants and therefore is vulgarly
incognizant of Islam, or he is bluntly lying though he may know better. This
priest likens Qur’ân al-kerîm, which was
revealed to our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ through the wahy of Jebrâîl (Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’, to those books
that are ascribed to Matthew or John and which were compiled and fabricated by
a number of anonymous priests. Writing sophisms quite contrary to facts, he
insolently attacks Islam. This priest, [and all other priests and also the
entire world] have to know that Qur’ân al-kerîm is
-239-
the Word of Allah. It contains no lie, no human interpolation. If Qur’ân al-kerîm contained falsifications like various Christian beliefs, such as that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the Son of God [may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so], that Allâhu ta’âlâ, having no other way to forgive the sins of people whom He created, sent him through hadrat Maryam, left him helpless in the hands of a few Jews, who treated him with insults, slapped him on the face, and then crucified him, and that finally He made him accursed by burning him in Hell, it would not be the Word of Allah. Like today’s existing Gospels, it would lose its quality of being the Word of Allah. Furthermore, if this priest had read only a few books of Tafsîr and Hadîth-i-sherîf and thus acquired only a smattering of the styles and technicalities in those books, he would think shame to propose an ambiguous statement derived from a book which was written by Matthew and which is full of insertions as a proof against Muslims in his argument that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ were the Savior for all nations. If he were reasonable and did not mean harm as he professes in the preface of his book, he would not be annoyed to see that Qur’ân al-kerîm does not contain any preposterous
statements like today’s copies of the Bible. He would not have the daring to
say, “Qur’ân al-kerîm hushes up
the fact that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the Savior for all mankind”, as if it were
a fact and Qur’ân al-kerîm concealed
it. As for the expression in the Gospel of Matthew which we have mentioned
earlier; the word ‘Savior’ used here is not used in its full sense. [The
absolute Savior is Allâhu ta’âlâ, when the word is used in its full sense. The
word ‘Savior’, which is used about Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in the Gospels, is a
hyperbole which denotes through overstatement that he, being a Prophet, shall intercede for his sinful ummat and
cause them to be saved in the hereafter. As a matter of fact, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ told his companions time and again that he was not a ‘savior’
but a humble born slave, and that power and authority belong solely to Allâhu
ta’âlâ, who has no partner or likeness and whose existence is absolutely
necessary, that is, who is wâjib-ul-wujűd. For instance, it is written in the
twenty-third verse of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew that Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ said about the sons of Zebedee, “... but to sit on my right
hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Matt: 20-23) On the other hand, in the
thirtieth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of John, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
is quoted as having said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I
-240-
hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine
own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (John: 5-30) And
again, it is written in the twenty-eighth verse of the fourteenth chapter of
the Gospel of John that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “... for my Father is greater
than I.” (John: 14-28) What on earth could be so ignorant, so blasphemous and
so devious as saying, “He is the only Son of God, and is the same as God Himself.
He redeemed the sins by shedding his own blood”, about Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
whose statements we have quoted above? Supposing the purpose of Allâhu ta’âlâ
were, as Christians allege, to forgive His sinful born slaves; what, then, was
the point in first creating His only Son through a mother and displaying many
miracles through him throughout his prophethood, and then making all the Israelites except five to ten humble
devotees enemies, and him fleeing here and there of their fear and then at last
succumbing to the Jews’ chase and, after being subjected to various insults,
being killed yelling with pain on the cross, and after all, scorching him for
three days in Hell and tormenting him in other ways? Who was there for Him to
fear? If all human beings were by their nature kneaded with wrongdoing and
sedition and therefore definitely needed such a (Savior), why did Allâhu ta’âlâ
postpone sending him for six thousand years? Would it not have been much better
if, for instance, He had sent him as a brother to Cain, the (eldest) son of
Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’, in which case Cain, who had been predestined to commit
homicide, would have killed God’s only Son, thus saving millions of people from
Hell? Is it compatible with the justice and compassion of Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is
the most merciful of the merciful, to put into Hell and torment so many pious
people, among whom were Prophets who were
visited by the Rűh-ul-quds, for thousands of years till the advent of His “only
Son” Jesus Christ, on account of a sin that had been innate in them [since Âdam
‘alaihis-salâm’], though they had no share in the sin? If what is meant by the
‘original sin’ is Âdam’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ peccadillo of eating the fruit of the
forbidden tree, did he not have his deserts by being sent out of Paradise? Was
that not enough? What is the contribution of all his descendants to this sin?
What other penal code or system of justice imposes retribution on the son for a
guilt committed by the father? So many cruel and barbarous rulers lived on the
earth. Is there any record in history telling that any of them punished a newer
generation for an offence committed by an older generation? Is
-241-
Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is the most compassionate of all the
compassionate, more cruel than all those tyrants and barbars (may Allâhu ta’âlâ
protect us from saying so)? According to this logic (of Christians), the Jews
who (are said to have) killed Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ should have attained the
fortune of causing forgiveness for all people. For when these Jews are bid to enter
Hell on the Day of Judgement they may say, “O Lord! Since Thou would not have
forgiven the sins of Thine human creatures unless someone had shed the blood of
Thine only Son, whom Thou had sent unto the earth to this end only, we killed
him to fulfill this decree of Thine. If we had not killed him all these people
created would not have been saved. We killed him only in order to execute Thine
will and to save people from Hell. Doing this atrocious deed of manslaughter,
we evoked general hatred. Is it worthy of Thine justice to castigate, let alone
rewarding, us for this self-sacrifice of ours?” If they say so, will they not
elicit the compassion or at least the sympathy of even those people gathered
for the Judgement? Moreover, being the first man, Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ was not
aware of Satan’s adversity and turpitude, and it never occurred to him that
Satan, who had been dismissed from the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ, would enter
Paradise to mislead him. As is written in the Taurah, Satan first deceived hadrat
Hawwa (Eva) by using various stratagems [and hadrat Hawwa, in her turn,
inadvertently caused Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ to commit an error. Now, (the
Christian paralogism takes up the matter at this point), this error, being
aggrandized in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ, spread beyond Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’
and infested all his descendants up to God’s only Son. Thus it became
inevitable that all should go to Hell and would not be pardoned unless God’s
only son came to the world and his blood was shed. [For pardoning that sin,
Allâhu ta’âlâ had no other way than shedding His only Son’s blood (may Allâhu
ta’âlâ protect us from saying so). According to the reasoning of some priests
we have talked to, “In past religions Allâhu ta’âlâ commanded to make a
sacrifice for each sin committed and declared that requital for sinning was
shedding blood, dictating the number of animals to be sacrificed for each sin.
Expiation for each sin was shedding blood. This fact is written in the Old
Testament. Yet animal blood would not suffice for the original sin; human blood
would be necessary.” On the other hand, as has been mentioned above, according
to the Bible, “Allâhu ta’âlâ, having no other way than (may Allâhu ta’âlâ
protect us from saying so) sacrificing His only
-242-
Son, sacrificed His only Son, thus shedding
human blood and forgiving the original sin, which had been inherited from the
first father.”]
Following (today’s existing copies of) the
Taurah and the Bible, Christians believe that a Christian who has committed one
of the forbidden acts, such as murder and fornication, will attain forgiveness
by giving a certain amount of money to a priest, who in his turn will say that
he has forgiven him, or by uniting with the Lord by consuming his flesh and
blood, or by standing bare headed and gazing at the sky. [Since it is so easy
to attain forgiveness, would it not have been better if God’s only Son, instead
of being sacrificed, had begged God, so that God would have forgiven that sin
for the sake of His divinized Son?]
Furthermore, sacrificing one’s life for
something is optional and is therefore dependent on one’s full assent. Had the
consent of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ been obtained for killing him? There is
sufficient evidence to prove to the contrary; as is written in the Bible, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ prayed to the Father, “O Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me: ...” (Matt: 26-39); fearing a possible danger, he said (to
others), “Do not tell anyone where I am”; and he supplicated on the cross,
“E’li, E’li, la’ma sa-bach’tha-ni (My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me)?”
(ibid: 27-46); all such events show that his blood was shed, that is, he was
sacrificed regardless of his option. For instance, if a person willingly spends
some money for the sake of his religion or nation, his case will be an example
of self-sacrifice. But a person who has had to give something or has been
forced to do so cannot be said to have done self-sacrifice. [Then, how can
Christians, who believe that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
us from saying so) killed and that he made the above-quoted statements, hold
the belief at the same time that he sacrificed himself for the sake of sinful
people? This latter belief of theirs and the statements quoted from Îsâ
‘alahis-salâm’ in the Gospels are contradictory. “Two opposite facts cannot
coexist.”]
It is written in the existing copies of the
Bible that if a person blasphemes the Holy Spirit he shall never be forgiven.
There are no prescribed punishments for other sins in the Gospels. On the other
hand, Catholic priests deliver from sins in return for a certain amount of
money, depending on the gravity of each sin.
According to the âyat-i kerîmas in Qur’ân al-kerîm, there are three kinds of sins:
-243-
1 — Ţirk:[1] means to worship something other than, or besides, Allâhu ta’âlâ.
It means disbelief, unbelief, atheism. Disbelief is forgiven only if the
concerned person repents and believes by heart. The hundred and sixteenth âyat
of Nisâ sűra purports: “Allâhu ta’âlâ will not forgive those who attribute a partner (or partners) to Him, that is, disbelief.” [Of all the sins
and vices, disbelief is the worst. A person who slights one of the commandments
and prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ becomes a disbeliever. None of the
goodnesses, pious and charitable deeds of a disbeliever will do him any good in
the hereafter. If a person does not have îmân, none of his goodnesses will be
rewarded. There are kinds of disbelief. The worst, the gravest kind is (Ţirk). It has
been a generally accepted rule that when several subjects are to be referred to
under one common nomenclature, the gravest one is mentioned. For this reason,
the word (ţirk) used in âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs comprehends all sorts of disbelief. So it is understood from the
âyat-i-kerîma cited above that disbelievers will be scorched everlastingly in
Hell. A Muslim who abandons the Islamic faith and becomes a disbeliever is
called murtad (apostate). All the former worships and thawâbs (all pious deeds
that deserve to be rewarded in the world to come) of an apostate will come to
naught. Unless an apostate repents and ceases from his behavior that has made
him a disbeliever, he shall not become a Muslim by saying the Kalima-i-shahâdat or by performing namâz. Therefore, one should be very much afraid of disbelief. It is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Always say what is good and useful. Otherwise keep quiet.” One should shy away from words and behaviors that are not compatible with Islam. It is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Beware from ţirk. Ţirk is more stealthy
than the sound of an ant’s footsteps.” Because
disbelievers would remain disbelievers if they lived forever, the punishment
for their disbelief is to be tormented in Hell forever. Therefore, it cannot be
asserted that it would be cruelty to torment disbelievers forever.]
2 — Grave sins: are the acts of violating the
prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Homicide, theft, lying, arrogance, i.e. conceit,
are only a few examples. He who has done these, that is, who has committed a
grave sin, if he has not made tawba[2] (before dying)
---------------------------------
[1] The first letter of the word, i.e. the Turkish letter (Ţ), is an equivalent for the English (sh).
[2] Tawba means to repent for having sinned, cease from the sin or sins one has committed or has been committing, beg Allâhu ta’âlâ for forgiveness, and to be resolved not to commit the same sin(s) again.
-244-
and if he does not attain shafâ’at (intercession) in the next
world, shall be scourged with Hell fire as long as he deserves on account of
his sins, and shall attain forgiveness by Allâhu ta’âlâ owing to the îmân he
has had.
3 — Not to do the worships that are termed
(farz) and (wâjib) and which have been enjoined by Allâhu ta’âlâ.
There are two kinds of tawba:
Firstly: Tawba for the sins that involve
violating the rights of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Examples of sins of this sort are
neglecting the worships termed (farz) and (wâjib) and committing the acts
forbidden by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Not performing namâz (which is farz) and not giving
the prescribed alms termed zakât (which is farz under the conditions dictated
by Islam) are sins of this category. Those Muslims who have committed sins of
this sort shall be pardoned by Allâhu ta’âlâ when they make tawba-i-nasűh. The
eighth âyat of Tahrîm sűra purports: “O Believers! Repent for your sins and make tawba-i-nasűh
to Allâhu ta’âlâ.” Tawba-i-nasűh means to repent for
one’s sins, supplicate Allâhu ta’âlâ for forgiveness, and to be determined not
to sin again till one dies. The two hundred and twenty-second âyat of Baqara
sűra purports: “Allâhu ta’âlâ loves those who make tawba.” As it can be inferred from these and other glad tidings in Qur’ân al-kerîm and from the hadîth-i-sherîf which announces the good news, “A person who makes tawba for his sin is identical with one who has
never sinned at all,” sinners who make tawba shall attain
forgiveness by Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Secondly: Tawba for the sins in which rights of
the born slaves, e.g. people, are involved, too. Examples of these sins are
usurpation, oppression, backbiting, etc. People who have committed one of these
sins, [if they have not repaid the wronged person his right or settled the
matter with him somehow or obtained the wronged person’s consent or
renunciation], shall never attain Allah’s forgiveness and shall be punished in
the hereafter, unless the plaintiff withdraws his action on the Day of
Judgement. However, being Believers, they shall be tormented as long as they
deserve, and then they shall enter Pradise. Or, Allâhu ta’âlâ, the most
merciful of the merciful, shall offer such gifts to the wronged party as will
wheedle him into agreeing to the waiver. Thus, the wronged party attaining
these gifts and renouncing their right willingly, the wrongdoer shall be
pardoned.
As it will be understood from the information
given above, contrary to the suppositions and calumniations of the demurrant
-245-
priests, pardoning of Muslims’ sins is not possible only by their
saying the Kelima-i-tawhîd or the Kelima-i-shahâdat. Islam has clearly declared
that there cannot be a likeness, a partner or a deputy of Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Therefore, in the hereafter, sinners will be interceded for only with the
permission and decree of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Muslims, putting their trust in the
âyats of good news expressed in Qur’ân al-kerîm, look forward to the infinite blessings of Allâhu ta’âlâ in a
state of (beyn-al-khawfi wer-rajâ), which means ‘midway between fear and hope.’
Christians, on the other hand, expect that their sin, regardless of its kind,
will be pardoned only by the priest’s saying, “I have forgiven thee,” and thus
they will attain God’s kingdom, that is, Paradise. Now, it only takes honest
reasoning to decide which of the two creeds is worthy of the Honour of Divinity
and compatible with the humility that born slaves must endue themselves with.
The book (Ghadâ-ul-mulâhazât) traduces Qur’ân al-kerîm, especially in its hundred and
forty-fifth page, as follows:
“Qur’ân al-kerîm demotes Christ to Prophet by not referring to his grade of Savior. It denies the fact that
he is the Savior, the man who fulfilled the desire of his heavenly Father by sacrificing
his life for the sake of other people and thus saving men from the slavery of
the great sin. Instead, it states that the true and the latest Savior is
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, who, as is written by the scholars of Siyer,[1] approved of others’ being sacrificed for protecting his life and
carrying out his commandments.”
ANSWER: The dogma that people have been born
sinful since Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ and are therefore under the slavery of
depravity, is a Christian fabrication. The Gospels do not contain such a
statement. It would be futile to cudgel the brain trying to solve this enigma.
Islam not only guides people in their outward
behaviour, [such as deeds and worships], but also teaches them how to cleanse
their hearts and souls. The eighty-eighth and the eighty-ninth âyats of Shu’arâ
sűra purport: “On the Judgement Day, neither property nor progeny shall do good.
Yet one who comes to Allâhu ta’âlâ with qalb-i-selîm, [with a heart purified of vices], is an exception, [that is, he alone
shall be saved].” This âyat-i-kerîma and hundreds of hadîth-i-sherîfs commending and advising purification
of the heart, doing good and having beautiful moral
---------------------------------
[1] Branch of knowledge teaching facts about our Prophet, Muhammad ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’
-246-
habits, in addition to manners and actions of Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ and the kindnesses he did even to his enemies, are in the open.
When these facts are known, it will spontaneously be seen how mendacious and
how illiterate the priestly author of this book is. We have already explained
by giving quotations from the Bible that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ did not sacrifice
his life in order to fulfill the desire of his heavenly father. That is, it is
written in the Gospels that before he was crucified he prostrated himself with
anxiety and said, “O Father, let this cup pass from me.” [This event is told in
detail in the fourteenth chapter of Mark and in the twenty-second chapter of
Luke. It is written in the forty-fourth verse of the twenty-second chapter of
Luke: “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it
were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke: 22-44) All these
things are derived from the Christian creed. According to the Islamic creed,
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was neither crucified, nor killed at all. It was his
hypocritical betrayer Judas Iscariot that was crucified. The Jews mistook him
for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and crucified him. Allâhu ta’âlâ elevated Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ to the third heaven. He prayed very earnestly so that he could
be one of the Ummat of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, the only comforter, whose good
news is given even in today’s copies of the Bible and whom Christians call
Paraclete, which is translated into English as encourager (or admonisher).
Towards the end of the world Allâhu ta’âlâ shall send him (Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’)
down to earth again. Then Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ shall follow the Sharî’at of
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and shall say halâl (permitted) for whatever he said
halâl, and harâm (forbidden) for whatever he said harâm. Paraclete means Ahmad.
And Ahmad, in its turn, is one of the names of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ is one of the Prophets called
Ulul’azm (the highest Prophets). He is not
the son of Allah (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so). He was not a
God from God, or a light from light. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was a human being. He
cannot be worshipped.]
This slanderous priest, by his statement, “who
approved of others’ being sacrificed for protecting his life”, implies our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ ordering
hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ to lie in his (the Prophet’s) bed during the Hijra (Hegira). Explaining in the next page
that this event is what he means, he essays to demonstrate, as it were, that
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the last Prophet and therefore superior to and more
-247-
virtuous than Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. However, his argument
seems to prove to the contrary. For he says in the twenty-ninth page of the
same book, “Jesus Christ appeared among the Israelites and found them ready to
accept him.” And further ahead, from the hundred and twelfth page to the
hundred and thirteenth page, he endeavours to prove that the Arabs, being
heathens, were not ready to accept a new religion.
According to a narrative, people who believed
in Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ were no more than twenty men, and a few women who had been
cured of epilepsy. Supposing these believers had at the same time confirmed, as
Christians presume, that he was divine; then why is it that none of these
believers complied with his admonitions, such as, “If you had a streak of
belief, you should lift up a mountain,” which he asseverated in order to
instill a mature belief and trust in Allah into them, and “If one of you
sacrifices his life for my sake, he shall attain eternal life,” the good news
he had given them a few days before his (supposed) crucifixion? On the
contrary, one of the Hawârîs who are looked on as Messengers, [Apostles, that
is], by Christians, namely Judas, let alone sacrificing his life, showed the
Jews the place where Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was in return for a bribe of thirty
pieces of silver. The other disciples, who occupied the position of
Apostleship, “forsook him, and fled” when Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was caught [Matt:
26-56]. Peter, who was the highest of all, had sworn an oath to Christ and
said, “Though I should die with thee, yet I will not deny thee, ...” [Matt:
26-35]. Amongst those tumults, as Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was being taken away, he
followed him afar off [Matt: 26-58]. Then, when the rooster crowed, he denied
three times with imprecations that he knew Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ [Matt: 26-74].
[On the other hand, all the Ashâb-i-kirâm,
who belonged to the Arabic nation that this priest asserts were not ready to
welcome a new religion, confirmed the Prophethood of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and did not hesitate to sacrifice
their lives and property willingly for the sake of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’.
Here are a few examples:
The Ghazâ (Holy War) of Uhud[1] is one of the greatest and most important holy wars in the
history of Islam. This holy war was about to end in a victory of the Ashâb-i-kirâm,
when the heathens, making a detour of the valley, circumvented the As-
---------------------------------
[1] Uhud is
pronounced as /Uhud/, according to the IPA.
-248-
hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihimur-ridwân’ and attacked them from behind. The
Islamic army disintegrated. Many of the Ashâb-i-kirâm attained the rank of
martyrdom. The valour and bravery of the Ashâb-i-kirâm who took part and were
martyred in this war made up the most honourable legend of heroism in the
history of Islam. We shall relate the states in which some of the Sahabîs were:
That day Talha bin Ubaidullah ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’,
seeing that Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ was surrounded by the
heathens, was at a loss as to where to run, which way to turn. He was now
fighting back those who attacked from the right, then grappling with the
assailants from the left. Meanwhile he was shielding Rasűlullah with his own
body and shuddering with the fear that Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’
might be injured. Keeping close to Rasűlullah, he was fighting, turning about,
and fighting on. Among the heathens there was a skilled archer who hit whatever
mark he aimed at. This villain, Mâlik bin Zubair by name, aimed at our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ and threw his
arrow. It was just about too late to stop the arrow whizzing towards
Rasűlullah’s blessed head, when Talha ‘radiyallâhu anh’, seeing there was no
other way to stop it, swiftly opened his hand and held it against the arrow.
The arrow pierced his palm.
Umm-i-Umâra ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, one of the
female Sahabîs, together with her husband and her son, was fighting beside
Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’. Her son, her husband, and she herself
were shielding Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ with their bodies.
Meanwhile she was bandaging the wounds of her son and the other Sahabîs, and
fetching water to the thirsty Sahabîs. Then, snatching a sword, she began to
fight. An unbeliever named Ibni Kâmia had sworn an oath to kill Rasűlullah.
When he saw Rasűlullah he assailed. Umm-i-Umâra stood before his horse, stopped
his horse, and charged against him. The heathen being armour-clad, her blows
did not have much effect. Had not he had his armour on, he would have joined
the other killed heathens. The heathen made vehement counter-attacks and
finally delivered her a fatal wound on the throat. Here is Rasűlullah’s blessed
remark about her: “On the day of Uhud, wherever I looked I always saw Umm-i-Umâra,
and Umm-i-Umâra again.”
Mus’ab bin Umeyr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was
carrying the banner of Muhâjirs in the Holy War of Uhud. He had two sets of
armours
-249-
on him. The wicked unbeliever Ibni Kâmia set upon Mus’ab
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. For Mus’ab ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was shielding Rasűlullah with
his body. With one stroke of his sword, Ibni Kâmia cut off Mus’ab’s
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ right arm. So he held the banner with his left hand. In the
meantime he was soliloquizing and saying the fourteenth âyat-i-kerîma of
Âl-i-’Imrân sűra, which purported: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah alone.” A second stroke, and this time his left arm was cut off. Upon
this he pressed the banner on his chest, using what remained of his mutilated
arms and at the same time reiterating the same âyat-i-kerîma. He did not let go
the Banner of Islam. At last he succumbed to a spear that was thrust into his
chest, and attained martyrdom. Yet he was still in possession of the Islamic
Banner.
Hubeyb bin Adiy and Zayd bin Desinna
‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ had been entrapped, enslaved, and then sold to the
polytheists of Qoureish by the sons of Lihyan, who were polytheists, too.
Before martyring Hubeyb, they told him that they would set him free if he
abandoned his religious faith. He replied, “I swear by the name of Allah that I
shall not abandon my religious faith! I would not abandon Islam even if the
entire world were given to me in return.” Upon this the polytheists asked,
“Would you rather put Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ in your place and have him
killed, so that you may go home and live comfortably?” Hubeyb ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ answered, “I would sacrifice my life even to prevent a thorn from stinging
the blessed foot of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ in Medina. The unbelievers
marvelled at this excessive love of Hubeyb’s. Then they martyred him.
These events and hundreds of other examples
that could be written here bear witness to the fact that all the Ashâb-i-kirâm
and all the other Muslims that have come to the earth for fourteen hundred
years were and have been willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of
Rasűlullah and for attaining love of Allâhu ta’âlâ. The Apostles, on the other
hand, who are accepted as Messengers by Christians, not only deserted Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ and ran away at his most grievous time, but also swore
afterwards that they did not know him. These cases are written in today’s
Gospels.]
Every truth is fully known only by Allâhu ta’âlâ;
our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’
enjoining this sacrificial act on Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ in the night of Hegira
was intended to answer
-250-
any possible future question as to why the latest Prophet did not arise from a nation who were ready to
welcome a new religion, thus silencing those Christians who might ask such a
question once and for all. [For though he had arisen among a nation not ready
for a new religion, an injunction given to a person who believed in him was
carried out willingly despite the danger of losing his life. This fact is one
of the greatest proofs demonstrating the superiority and virtue of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’. This priest
contradicts himself.] Another very subtle point of hikmat here is this: it may
be considered that Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ assigning this
duty to one of his Companions must have been one of his admonitory miracles
(mu’jizas), for this event makes up a good criterion by which to compare the
Apostles and the Ashâb-i-kirâm, and gives a mortifying answer in advance to the
objectors and adversaries who assert that “Islamic religion spread through outward advantages and by
compulsion.” [For Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ lay in
Rasűlullah’s bed without hesitation, as opposed to Peter and the Apostles’
forsaking Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and running away.]
Oppugning Islam, Protestant priests say: “The
Bible exempted its believers from the worships performed by the Jews
contemporary with Jesus Christ, and showed and taught its believers the most
reasonable and acceptable forms of worship. However, Qur’ân al-kerîm relapsed into imperfection by
commanding the soulless, physical and outward customs and worships of Judaism.”
ANSWER: We ask them: What is the meaning of
Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ statement, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfill.” “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled,” in the seventeenth and eighteenth verses of the fifth chapter of
the Gospel of Matthew? Why was he circumcised as prescribed by the religion of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’? What was the reason for his celebrating fully all the
certain feast days peculiar to the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ all through
his lifetime? Why were his disputes with the Israelites about the Sharî’at of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, and why did he rebuke them for nor following that
Sharî’at? All these facts show that the assertions of this Protestant priest
are quite incongruous with the teachings of the Bible and with the practices of
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Qur’ân al-kerîm is never dispossessed of perfection and spirituality. A person
who does not
-251-
perform the physical worships of a religion cannot benefit from
the spirituality of that religion. This subject will be dealt with in detail
later.
The Christian priests’ primary objection is
Islam’s tahârat (cleanliness). Their first target, therefore, is the matter of
tahârat, where they make their major offensive.
This priest says, “If Islam’s ablution were
intended for the cleanliness of the people and for the cleaning of the body of
its dirt, nothing could be said against it. Yet the soundness of worships,
which are performed for the sake of Allâhu ta’âlâ, has been made dependent on
making ablution and thus ablution has been made one of the essentials of
worship. The predication that ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ will not accept a namâz without
ablution’ is something to be dwelt on. Since it is declared in the Taurah, ‘The
Rabb will not look as man looks. For man looks at the appearance, and the Rabb
looks at the heart,’ making ablution before namâz will have no effect on the
purification of the heart or on the inner essence of namâz. Nor will it be of
any use for the soundness and acceptability of namâz. Accordingly, Qur’ân al-kerîm has made the sincerity and the
presence of heart, which is the inner essence of worship, dependent on useless
norms and customs. Moreover, the washing of hands and feet is useful and
suitable for people living in hot climates and going about bare footed. As for
those delicate and civilized people who live in cold zones and therefore have
to protect their feet by wearing socks and shoes; ablution is an unhealthy
obligation for them, especially for people who live in the Arctic regions: how
onerous and how enervating it would be for them to break the ice and make
ablution five times daily, and how unfair it would be to enjoin this obligation
on them. Furthermore, turning towards the qibla is imitating the Israelites.”
ANSWER: It should be known that the Islamic
religion is the most perfect and the most consummate form of all the religions
and sharî’ats. In other words, it is a religion of unity that has brought
together the outward and spiritual perfections. It contains no principle that
might give the slightest harm to men. Each of its principles comprises many
substantial and spiritual benefits for mankind. An apparent proof testifying to
the fact that Islam has been sent by Allâhu ta’âlâ is that all its seemingly
outward and formal principles embody many inner ultimate causes and innumerable
benefits to mankind. These benefits are coming to the open as scientific and
technical progress is made. People with
-252-
eyes covered with the curtain of ignorance cannot perceive these
ultimate truths and judge by appearanace only. The seventy-second âyat of Isrâ
sűra purports: “A person [whose heart is so] blind [that he
cannot admit the truth] in this world, will be blind in the hereafter, too, [and will not be able to see the way to salvation].” The people mentioned in this âyat-i-kerîma are the priests who make such statements as the ones quoted above. People who adapt themselves to Islam shall attain the rewards proportional to their sincerity and intention in the hereafter. High grades pertaining to the world to come have been promised to those whose eyes have been opened with the light of spiritual knowledge and who have gotten their shares from the heavenly blessings suffising the entire universe as far as their discernments and comprehensions would allow them. These promises, these blessings have been announced through âyat-i-kerîmas. What remains to be done on the part of the people of wisdom and sagacity, then, is to hold fast to the worships enjoined by Islam and at the same time, as
is explained in detail in books of Tafsîr and Hadîth-i-sherîf, to purify their hearts of vices. How these will be done has been explicated in books written by thousands of ’Ulamâ of Ahl as-sunna. In addition, those who wish to be guided spiritually should resort to the Awliyâ-i-kirâm, who are the sources and the helmsmen of the voyage leading to Allâhu ta’âlâ.
’Ulamâ of Tafsîr state that abdest (ablution)
and tahârat, that is, cleanliness, being on the one hand very useful for
physical health, as this averse priest also admits and acknowledges, are on the
other hand a sign of the heart’s purity and peace. Namâz is to stand in the
presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ. It is obvious that when you stand in the presence of
Allâhu ta’âlâ your heart will be purified of vices. You cannot enter the
presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ with a heart that has not been purified of vices. As
a matter of fact, this case applies to wordly affairs, too.
Making ablution means physical cleanliness,
which deterges the body of germs five times daily; this is an obvious fact, and
everyone with reason and knowledge is aware of this fact. On the other hand,
even priests know that ablution invigorates the heart and purges the soul of
vices. For instance, while explaining the virtues of ablution, the book (Riyâd-un-nâsihîn) relates the following event: Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq[1] visited a monk in order to
---------------------------------
[1] Ja’fer
Sâdiq passed away in Medina in 148 [A.D. 765].
-253-
give him a piece of advice. The door was opened rather late. When
he asked why the monk said, “When I saw you through the chink, I was very much
frightened by your awe-inspiring appearance. So I made ablution right away. It
is written in the Taurah that when a person fears someone or something he
should make ablution, for ablution protects against harms.” When Imâm gave him
some advice, he became a Muslim then and there. His heart was purified with the
barakat of ablution.
A person wearing dirty clothes will not be
admitted to enter the presence of a sultan. This indicates that, contrary to
the antagonistic priest’s supposition, ablution and tahârat are not inutile for
(spiritual) peace and sincerity. People who live in northern countries, when
they need ablution, make ablution with hot water only in the morning and then
put on their socks and mests (soleless boots made of light leather). For the
other four daily prayers of namâz, they may either keep their ablution or, if
they cannot keep it, renew their ablution by making masah[1] on their mests. [Thus their feet will not be cold because they will not have to wash them, and at the same time they will be able to perform namâz. Those who cannot use cold water make tayammum by using soil in their snug rooms. The Protestant priest’s allegation is out of place because there is no need to break ice five times daily. Do those people lose their health because they have to break ice three times daily for washing their hands before meals?] If a person is too ill to make ablution, that is, if washing with water may impair his health, he can make tayammum. For the real purpose is not only to wash the hands, the face and the feet, but to purify the heart, [that is, to get ready to stand in the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ, to remember Allâhu ta’âlâ]. In case of strong necessity, Islam never
enjoins quandary. As a matter of fact, it is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “There is no difficulty in the religion.” Qur’ân al-kerîm purports in
the two hundred and eighty-sixth âyat of Baqara sűra: “Allâhu ta’âlâ would not enjoin on man
something he would be unable to do.” In other words,
Allâhu ta’âlâ commands an individual what he will be able to do, not what is
beyond his capacity. [The twenty-eighth âyat of Nisâ sűra purports: “Allâhu ta’âlâ wishes your worships to
be easy. Man is weak, frail by creation.” In Islam,
there are two ways of worshipping. One of them is called
---------------------------------
[1] There is detailed information about masah in the third chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
-254-
(Ruhsat), and the other is called (Azîmet). Ruhsat embodies the facilities recognized and permitted by Islam. Choosing the easier way of doing something is acting upon the ruhsat. Preferring the difficult way is called azîmet. Acting upon the azîmet is more estimable than acting upon the ruhsat. If a person’s nafs does not wish to utilize the facilities, it will be better for him to give up following the azîmet and to act upon the ruhsat. However, acting upon the ruhsat should not make way to searching for facilities.] The hadîth-i-sherîf, “The most virtuous deed is the one which the nafs feels most averse
to doing,” makes it quite clear what way would be the
most correct to follow in doing the Islamic worships. For this reason, those
Believers who have îmân-i-kâmil (perfect belief) prefer doing things that sound
difficult to their nafs in order to attain the approval and love of Allâhu
ta’âlâ. By doing so, they wish to attain high grades in the hereafter.
Christians, who worship only by uncovering
their heads and gazing at the sky, do not even touch on bodily cleanliness and
go to church with stinking bodies and dirty clothes and shoes and then expect,
in that dismal, noisome atmosphere, that their hearts will be cleaned and they
will (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so) unite with Allâhu ta’âlâ
only by consuming a piece of bread and a draught of wine. It must certainly be
very difficult for people with such a stupid presumption to comprehend the inner
essence of Islam’s injunctions. Learning cleanliness from Muslims, they have
saved themselves from being dirty, yet they are still maintaining those wrong
beliefs and spurious worships of theirs.
Another objection raised by priests concerns
namâz. They say, for instance, “Tekbîr, qiyâm, rukű’, and sajda are not
appropriate outwardly; nor are they spiritual.”
ANSWER: They cannot seem to deliberate upon
what the purpose of worshipping Allâhu ta’âlâ could be, from both physical and
spiritual points of view. In whatever form, worship means to pay homage to
Allâhu ta’âlâ, to thank, praise and laud Him for the countless blessings He has
bestowed upon us out of His infinite treasury, to acknowledge your impotence,
and to invoke the compassion of Allâhu ta’âlâ. If we are to investigate the
elements of paying homage to Allâhu ta’âlâ (in namâz), all the rukns (rules,
obligatory actions) in namâz, such as the qiyâm, during which one clasps one’s
hands, stands in khushű (deep, humble, submissive reverence) in the presence of
Allâhu ta’âlâ, thanks, praises and lauds Allâhu ta’âlâ by saying the
Besmele-i-sherîfa and reciting the Fâtiha sűra, the rukű’ (bowing in namâz)
-255-
and sajda (prostration), in which one makes tesbîh of Allâhu
ta’âlâ, (that is, recites prayers praising Allâhu ta’âlâ), who is
wâjib-ul-wujűd (being whose existence is indispensable), and affirming the
greatness of Allâhu ta’âlâ by uttering the expression (Allâhu ekber) at each change of posture (during namâz); all these actions
express homage to Allâhu ta’âlâ.
As it was informed by the Prophets of Benî Isrâîl (the Children of Israel), the
qibla used to be in the direction of (Beyt-i-muqaddes) in Jerusalem. Later it
was changed to (Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama). Because Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama had been built by
Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ wished to
worship in the direction of Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama. Allâhu ta’âlâ, whose compassion
is boundless, granted His beloved what he wished by changing the qibla from the
direction of Mesjîd-i-aqsâ (Beyt-i-muqaddes) to Mesjîd-i-harâm (Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama). The hundred and forty-fourth âyat of Baqara sűra purports: “Now turn your face towards
Mesjîd-i-harâm.”
The Islamic religion includes a number of the
rules that existed in the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, such as sacrificing
an animal (at a certain time of the year), circumcision, prohibiton of (the
consumption of) pork and carcass (animal not killed as prescribed by the
religion), prohibition of earning interest, prohibitions of fornication and homicide,
lex talionis (retaliation), and many others. Many of the rules that were
existent in the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ have been falsified in today’s
Christianity despite the admonitions of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; yet some of the
principles of the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, e.g. the prohibitions of
fornication and homicide and the obligation of turning in the direction of
qibla, have held on so far. Christians do not follow the Taurah though they
say, “All the principles of the Taurah are valid and confirmed.” [When they are
asked why they do not act upon the rules of the Old Testament (Taurah) though
they believe its being a part of the Holy Bible, in which they believe as a
whole, and say that the Old Testament also is a heavenly book revealed by
Allâhu ta’âlâ, they answer that its rules have been abrogated. On the one hand
they believe in the Taurah as a book of Allâhu ta’âlâ and quote verses from the
Taurah whenever they need evidences to testify to the trueness of the Christian
cult, and on the other hand, when they are asked why they do not follow its
principles, they answer that its principles have been cancelled.] However,
although some Christians, following a priest named Luther, who appeared in 923
-256-
[A.D. 1517], ceased from turning in the direction of
Beyt-i-muqaddes as their qibla, millions of Catholic Christians are still
facing Beyt-i-muqaddes (in their worships). They take no heed of Protestants’
ceasing from turning towards their qibla. For the purpose in worshipping is to pay
homage to Allâhu ta’âlâ, to thank, praise, laud, pray and invoke Him. What
could be in turning with a peaceful heart in a certain direction associated
with a certain spiritual value that could be detrimental to the serenity and
honour of worship? On the contrary, the heart will feel more placid when the
direction to be faced is known.
Because their worships lack postures
symbolizing servitude to Allâhu ta’âlâ, such as qiyâm (standing posture), rukű’
(bowing down), and sajda (prostration), Christians only look at one another’s
faces in church services. Young boys and girls, notwithstanding the prohibition
of visual fornication, cannot take their eyes off each other. Then, consuming
the bread and wine which they believe have, by the breathing of the priest, become
the flesh and blood of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, their supposed divinity, they
celebrate the Eucharist and expect to unite with the Holy Spirit just by doing
so. [Protestants celebrate the Eucharist as a memorial.]
The purpose of worship is to submit and pay
homage to Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Creator of all. It is evident which one of the two
religions contains this submission.
In the Islamic religion, first the azân (or
adhân) and then the iqâmet is recited before the farz (compulsory) part of the
five daily prayers of namâz. The muazzin announces the azân loudly, as follows:
ALLÂHU
EKBER: Allâhu ta’âlâ is
great. He needs nothing. He does not need the worships of His born slaves.
Worships give Him no use. [This expression is repeated four times in order to
establish it (its meaning) firmly in minds.]
ESH-HEDU EN
LÂ ILÂHA ILLÂ-ALLAH: I certainly testify and believe that,
though He is too great to need anyone’s worship, no one other than He is worthy
of being worshipped. Nothing is like Him.
ESH-HEDU
AN-NA MUHAMMADAN RASŰLULLAH: I testify and
believe that Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the Prophet sent by Him and the instructor of the way of doing the worships
enjoined by Him.
HAY YA ’ALES-SALÂH, HAY YA ’ALAL FELÂH: O
-257-
Believers, run to salvation and happiness, run to goodness, i.e.,
to namâz.
ALLÂHU
EKBER: No one can do the
worship worthy of Him. He is far too great for any person’s worship to be
worthy of Him.
LÂ ILÂHA ILLÂ-ALLAH: He, alone, deserves to be worshipped, to mortify yourself before. No one can do the worship due to Him, nor is anyone except Him worthy of being worshipped. [Saying these words, he (the muazzin) invites Believers to namâz.]
[Allâhu ta’âlâ says about His beloved one, as
is purported in the fourth âyat of Inshirâh sűra: “I shall raise thine name [in the
east, in the west, all over the earth].” As you go westward the times of namâz
become four minutes later at each longitudinal distance [111.1 kilometres]. At
every twenty-eighth kilometre the azân of the same namâz is called again one
minute after the one called at a place twenty-eight kilometres eastward. Thus
azân is called every moment all over the earth, and the name of Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ is heard everywhere every moment. There is not a moment when
his name is not mentioned within twenty-four hours.]
On the other hand, Christians’ invitation to
church is done with bells. It is clear which one of the two methods of
invitation to worship is more reverential to Allâhu ta’âlâ and more spiritual;
the Islamic method or the Christian method?
Muslims perform namâz after azân. Before
beginning to perform namâz, there are conditions to be fulfilled so that namâz
be acceptable. They are six. If one of them is not fulfilled namâz will not be
acceptable:
1 — Tahârat from hades: Means for a person
without ablution to wash his limbs (of ablution) well. [Or for a person who is
junub, (in a state that necessitates ritual washing), to make ghus] (ritual
washing).]
2 — Tahârat from nejasat: Means to clean
one’s body and clothes (or dress) and the place where one is to perform namâz
of the dirt that can be seen. (What these dirts are, the amounts that will
cancel namâz, ways of cleaning them have been dictated by Islam.)
3 — Istikbâl-i-qibla: To turn in the
direction of Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama.
4 — Setr-i-awrat: Means for both men
and women to cover the
-258-
awrat parts of their bodies which Islam commands must be covered
when performing namâz. These parts of awrat must always be covered when in
company of others; it is farz.
5 — Waqt: Since there are certain times of
worship in the religious cult of every community, by the same token, Allâhu
ta’âlâ has allotted certain times for Muslims’ prayers of namâz. It is a grave
sin to call azân before the prayer time comes, and the namâz performed
prematurely will not be acceptable.
6 — Niyyet: Means to intend, to know the name and
the time of the namâz one is to perform, not for a worldly reason or purpose,
but for the sake of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and because it is a command of Allâhu
ta’âlâ.
Christians go to church without washing. They
annoy one another with their dirty smells. Because they do not have a form of
worship that can be performed with a serene heart by turning in a certain
direction, they keep looking at one another.
A comparison of the conditions that are to be
observed by Muslims and those which Christians observe will reveal which one is
more spiritual and more compatible with servitude to Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Now, let us explain what the rukns of namâz
are:
1 —
Tekbîr iftitâh: For beginning to perform namâz, a Muslim first raises his both
hands to his ears (and women to their breast), dispels all kinds of thought
except that of Allâhu ta’âlâ out of his heart, imagines himself in the presence
of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and says, (Allâhu ekber). Its meaning is, “Allâhu ta’âlâ is
far from resembling any figure, any fancy, any creature, and greater than
everything qualified with perfection.”
2 —
Qiyâm: Means to clasp the wrist at the navel (and for women on the
breast) and to stand in the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ in a perfectly deep,
humble reverence, that is, with khushű’ and adab.
3 —
Qirâ’at: Means to say the
Besmele and recite the sűra Fâtiha-i-sherîfa, which consists of, as we have
stated earlier, thanking, praising, lauding Allâhu ta’âlâ, paying homage to
Him, and invoking Him for hidâyet and selâmet (guidance to the right way and
salvation and happiness). [In qiyâm, an additional sűra or some âyats are
recited immediately after Fâtiha sűra.]
4 —
Rukű’: Means to bow down once, gripping the
knees with the hands and holding the back and the head level. The prayer to be
recited during the rukű’ is: (Subhâna Rabbiyel azîm), which
-259-
means, “I know my Rabb (Allah) is greater than everything, far
from all attributes of deficiency and sacred.” [This prayer can be recited three,
five, seven, nine, or eleven times.]
5 —
Sajda: Means to put your face on the ground
with a realization of your incapability and in humility, supplication,
submission and invocation, twice, and to recite, (Subhâna Rabbiyel a’lâ). Its
meaning is, “I know my Rab is higher than everything, exclusively far from all
attributes of deficiency.”
In the Islamic religion, rukű’ and sajda are
made only for Allâhu ta’âlâ, whose existence is absolutely necessary. When
performing namâz, a Muslim stands in the direction of Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama and
makes sajda to Allâhu ta’âlâ. Sajda is made towards Ka’ba, not for Ka’ba. He
who makes sajda for Ka’ba will become a polytheist. It is not permissible to
make sajda towards a human being or any other creature. For man is the noblest
of all the creatures of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and in being human no man is nobler than
another. Worldly positions or ranks cannot change man’s nature. [Even those
people who professed themselves to be deities, i.e. Pharaohs and Nimrod, could
not exempt themselves from eating, drinking or the other needs of human beings,
or from death finally. Also Prophets
‘alaihimus-salâm’, the born slaves whom Allâhu ta’âlâ has chosen from among
other people, are identical with other people in being human. That is, they,
too, will eat, drink, and feel cold in cold weather. However, Allâhu ta’âlâ has
endowed special blessings and various miracles on them. No pious born slave can
attain the grade of a Prophet. Prophets are innocent; that is, they never sin. Some Prophets have committed venial faults called zalla.
Zalla does not mean sin. It means not to do something in the most appropriate
manner. It is a beautiful act, but not the most beautiful one.]
Putting the face on the ground, that is,
paying homage by prostration, means to admit one’s humility and inferiority and
to acknowledge the greatness, the superiority of the person one pays homage to.
Reverence of this kind is not justifiable to anyone except Allâhu ta’âlâ, who
is the real Sustainer, the Creator of the universe. In fact, our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ had, let alone
reverence, prohibited the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihimur-ridwân’ to stand up when he
entered. Nor was there a special seat, a throne or a sofa allotted for him
among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Whenever our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ joined the Ashâb-i-kirâm, he would
sit at a vacant and proper place. People who joined them afterwards, if they
had not seen
-260-
him before, would not know who he was, and sometimes they would
ask where Rasűlullah was. This behavior of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ could be taken as a good parameter to determine how we incapable
people should act.
6 — Qa’da (sitting) as long as (to recite the
prayer of) tashahhud: Means, after raising the head from the
second prostration, to sit on both knees and recite the prayer of tahiyyât. The
meaning of tahiyyât is: “All sorts of reverence and homage paid and all
worships made belong to Allâhu ta’âlâ, and, O thou, Nebîy-yi zîshân (Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’), may salâmat (salvation, happiness, peace) and the Compassion
and barakat of Allâhu ta’âlâ be on thee. May salâmat be on us and on all pious
born slaves. I testify that there is no god but Allâhu ta’âlâ to be worshipped,
and Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the born slave and Messenger of Allâhu ta’âlâ.”
So these are the six rukns, essential principles of the prayers of farz
(obligatory) namâz which Muslims have to perform five times daily. Since Âdam
‘alaihis-salâm’, namâz was enjoined on the ummats of all Prophets. And the most perfect form of namâz has been
enjoined and bestowed upon the Prophet of the
latest time.
Now, is there anything that would detract from
the divinity of Allâhu ta’âlâ or from the reverence due to Him in these actions
which are the rukns of namâz? It is so strange that Protestants, who assert
that the Islamic worships are not spiritual with all their clearly stated
principles and conditions, have no established types of worships save Baptism,
the Eucharist, and gospelling. According to them, these Christian worships are
spiritual, and Muslims’ namâz is not (!).
The book (Menâqib-i-chihâr-i-yâr-i-ghuzîn) relates the following event in the ninety-third narrative about
Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’: Whenever Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ began to
perform namâz, he would be quite unaware of what was going on around himself.
During a holy war an arrow pierced his blessed foot and stuck into his bone.
The surgeon said that it would be impossible for him to endure the pain it
would cause while being taken out, and suggested anaesthesia. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ answered, “There is no need for anaesthesia. You can take it out as I
perform namaz.’ So, as he was performing namâz, the surgeon incised his blessed
foot, pulled the iron out of the bone, and bandaged the wound. The namâz being
over, he (hadrat Alî) asked the surgeon if he had extracted the arrow. When the
answer was positive, he remarked, “For the sake of
-261-
Allah, I felt no pain.” There are many hadîth-i-sherîfs declaring that the namâz of pious
Muslims is identical with this.
Now let us make a brief survey of Christians’
worships:
1 — Baptism: [It is the primary
Christian worship, or sacrament. Christians believe that baptism was imposed by
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ did not baptize anyone throughout his
life. Nor did he ever enjoin baptism. [Christians believe that baptism is
compulsory when a person becomes a Christian or changes his church, and carry
out baptism in the name of Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. According to
Christians, baptism is the unification of Jesus’ spiritual body, that is, his
divinity, with his physical body, and it means rebirth with the Holy Ghost.
They believe that the original sin, which they believe to have come from Âdam
‘alaihis-salâm’, will be forgiven with baptism. Baptism is administered in
church. Different churches hold different manners of baptism. Some of them
administer baptism by immersion into water believed to be sacred, and others
give it by sprinkling or pouring water upon the person. Also, the age of the
person to be baptized differs in accordance with the church that will give
baptism. Christians believe that a person who dies without baptism will remain
sinful.] There is no spirituality in this.
2 — The Eucharist: We have already
explained this sacrament in detail. [According to the Bible, in his last supper
with the Apostles, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ broke the bread into pieces and gave a
piece to each Apostle, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matt: 26-26)
Then, holding out a cup of wine and saying that it was his blood, he made them
drink it. Paul interpreted this and thus the Christian church established it as
a sacrament. Formerly it used to be celebrated once a year. Later it began to
be performed every week. We would like to ask priests: Could a worship be
performed by drinking wine and eating bread dunked in wine? From what point of
view would such a worship be apt to spirituality?]
3 — Reading the Bible (Gospelling): The
pope reads a passage from the Bible and others listen to him without
understanding the meanings. This could not be spiritual, either. For today’s
Gospels are not the real Holy Book that was revealed to Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’;
they consist of human statements.
Christians are also opposed to Muslims’
binding duty of hajj; they say, “Their (worship) is a reminiscence of the
Jewish custom of visiting Beyt-i-muqaddes (al-Aqsâ), which is in Qudus-i-sherîf
-262-
(Jerusalem), three times a year. For Allâhu ta’âlâ had promised to
manifest Himself at that sacred place. But later Jews were smitten by the
scourge of Allâhu ta’âlâ on account of the massacres they had committed. Their
government was annihilated, their enemies invaded their territory and
demolished Beyt-i-Muqaddes. As a substitute for Beyt-i-muqaddes, Allâhu ta’âlâ
appointed the body of Jesus Christ His Beytullah (The Home of Allah). To this
end He sent Jesus Christ to His born slaves. And, reinforcing those who
believed him with the Holy Spirit, He blessed each of them with the grade of
living Beytullah. Thus there was no more need for a special manmade home for
Allâhu ta’âlâ to manifest Himself at. Allotment of another such home would run
counter to the hikmat (ultimate divine wisdom) of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Jesus Christ’s
statement, as is quoted in the Bible, ‘There shall come such a time when you
shall neither offer this worship to Father nor make sajda in Jerusalem. Yet
those who make true sajda; let them make sajda with their souls and in devotion
everywhere. For Father wishes them to make sajda for Him in this manner,’ shall
remain valid till the end of the world. This being the case, it would mean to
reduce the high spiritual position of Christianity to a very low grade to
fabricate a new home for all people to visit, to make the attainment of the
infinite blessings of Allâhu ta’âlâ dependent upon that place alone, and to
urge people to visit that place. And this, in its turn, would mean to relapse
into the obsolete formal, outward Jewish customs.”
ANSWER: These objections of theirs are, like
others, groundless, as follows:
1 — For one thing, Christians have to specify
the verse and the Gospel from which they have derived this argument that the
body of Jesus Christ replaced Beyt-i-muqaddes. It is a plain fact that the
statements of an ecclesiastic who is employed in the church service for a
salary of five to ten gold pieces could not be bases for Christian tenets.
2 — As it is written in the Gospels,
throughout his life Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ visited Beyt-i-muqaddes and even tried
to clean the place by ousting the pedlars in it. As it is seen, if
Beyt-i-muqaddes had been annulled and he had superseded it, he would not have
visited it continually, nor would he have purged the place of people who had
been there to earn their worldly needs. And he would have said to his disciples,
“Do not give regard to this Beyt-i-muqaddes any longer. I possess its
significance. And each of you is a home of Allah.”
-263-
3 — Why should it be contrary to the ultimate
divine wisdom of Allâhu ta’âlâ to choose another beyt (home) after the demolition
of Beyt-i-muqaddes? According to the Islamic belief, Allâhu ta’âlâ does not
have a partner or a likeness. He exercises His free will on His property. He
appoints Beyt-i-muqaddes as the qibla for a certain length of time, then makes
Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama the qibla. No one can meddle with Him.
In the days when the Gospels were being scribed, all the Nazarenes
were acting upon the Sharî’at of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and the Apostles and
their disciples were visiting Beyt-i-muqaddes. There is no mention in the
Gospels, therefore, as to the place to be visited.
4 — Also, the statement, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has
not made the attainment of infinite heavenly blessings dependent upon visiting
Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama,” is wrong. It is a prevarication fabricated by the priest in
order to support his argument. If Qur’ân al-kerîm or hadîth-i-sherîfs contain any
narrative purporting that “Attaining plenty of heavenly blessings depends only
on visiting Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama,” he must state it clearly.
5 — Visiting Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama is not an
injunction upon Muslims in general. A person who is to make hajj has to fulfill
the conditions for making hajj. For instance, he must be rich and healthy, the
expedition must be safe, etc. The priest’s prejudice and antagonism are
palpable in this respect, too.
6 — A religion will not necessarily depreciate
itself from a high grade and spirituality to the lowest grade simply by
appointing a certain place for visit and for qibla. Nor is there any verse
stating that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the ‘Beytullah (the Home of Allah)’ in the
Gospels. This detraction from merit and spirituality is the priest’s personal
vagary.
7 — The injunction of visiting
Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama on Muslims is not a relapse into a void formal custom. For
the religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had not abrogated visiting Beyt-i-muqaddes.
Both the religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and the Islamic religion maintain many
rules peculiar to the Sharî’ats of past Prophets. Maintaining them does not mean returning to the Sharî’at of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Moreover, the priest exhibits his ignorance by qualifying
hajj as ‘a formal worship’ without knowing its essential.
Let us give some brief information on hajj,
one of Islam’s commandments:
First of all, a
Believer who intends to make hajj has to make
-264-
tawba truly and sincerely, (that is, with ikhlâs). If he owes
anything to other people, he must pay them their dues. He must prepare the
subsistence that will maintain his family during his expedition of hajj. He
must take with him money enough to meet his needs during his journey to and
from Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama, provided the money will be his halâl property, find
meritorious fellow-travellers for himself, and he and his fellow-travellers
must appoint the best-mannered, [the most knowledgeable and experienced] one
among them as their emîr (leader), obey his suggestions and carry out his
measures. [In addition, the journey must be safe, so that his life and property
will not be at risk of destruction. If the journey is not safe, it will not be
farz to make hajj.]
There are three farz (obligatory) acts in
hajj:
1 —
To wear (the garment called) ihrâm: Upon arriving at one of the places
called mîkât which are at a certain short distance from Mekka-i-mukarrama, the
hadjis (Muslim pilgrims) take off their clothes and assume the (garb called)
ihrâm. They do not wear anything else. That is, like going to the place of Last
Judgement, they disenthral themselves from worldly ornaments and garments and
go, all in uniform dress, masters and slaves alike, with bare heads and feet
(without wearing socks).
[It is farz to make hajj in ihrâm; a hajj done
otherwise will not be sahîh (acceptable). (Ihrâm) consists of two white pieces of cloth
like bath towels. One piece is wrapped around the part of the body below the
waist, and the other piece is wrapped around the shoulders. It is not tied with
threads or knotted. Certain things are forbidden for the person wearing ihrâm.
Its details are written in books of fiqh and ilmihâl.][1]
2 —
Tawâf: Means to go round Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama
seven times to perform the sunnat-i-sherîfa of Ibrâhîm and Ismâîl
‘alaihimus-salâm’. [Tawâf is done within the Mesjîd-i-harâm. It is farz to make
a special niyyat (to intend) for tawâf. The tawâf which is farz is called (tawâf-i-ziyârat). It is sunnat to begin tawâf by the (Hajar-ul-aswad).] During tawâf it
is necessary to recite the prayers taught by Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger.
The blessed meanings of these prayers are to pay homage to Allâhu ta’âlâ in the
most beautiful way and to invoke Him for His Compassion.
---------------------------------
[1] There is detailed information about hajj in the seventh chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss, which is available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi, Fâtih, Istanbul, Turkey.
-265-
3 —
Waqfa on Arafa: (To perform the
pause on Arafat): All Muslims, young and old, rich and poor alike, with only
their ihrâm on, like people gathering for the Last Judgement, gather on the
hill of Arafat and invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ for forgiveness and compassion from
immediately after the time of early afternoon prayer begins on the day of
Arafa, which is the ninth day of Zilhijja month, till dawn of the following
day. [If a person makes this waqfa (pause) on the hill of Arafat one day before
or after this date, his hajj will not be sahîh.] Here, hundreds of thousands of
Muslims recite the formula of Telbiya in Arabic with one accord. The meaning of
Telbiya is: “I am Thine obediently, o my Allah, whose existence is absolutely
necessary. I am ready for Thine command and I shall obey Thine Divine Will.
Thou hast no partner or likeness.”
As for the spiritual aspect of hajj;
connoisseurs of this matter have cited innumerable meanings pertaining to the
proprieties and essential principles of hajj. In past religions, for being
close to Allâhu ta’âlâ, one would leave society and live alone in mountains.
Instead of enjoining this monastic life on the Ummat-i-Muhammad, Allâhu ta’âlâ
has commanded them to make hajj. When a person makes hajj, his mind retreats
from worldly interests such as trade, and he thinks only of Allâhu ta’âlâ. When
Muslims, far from ostentation or hypocrisy, leave their families and homes and
fall into this valley and desert, they get out of this world and contemplate
the place of Judgement and the hereafter. When they take off their clothes and
assume the white-coloured ihrâm, they envisage themselves to be entering the
presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ in their shrouds. While reciting, “Leb-beyk”, that is, “I am Thine obediently, o my Allah, I am ready for Thine
command,” between the hope that their prayer will be accepted and the fear that
it may be refused, they beseech Allâhu ta’âlâ for mercy and forgiveness. When
they attain to Hârem-i-sherîf [Mesjîd-i-harâm], they know by now that the
efforts of those who have come to visit Beytullah shall not come to naught.
Because they visit Beytullah (the Home of Allah) for His sake, they are secure
from His torment. When they visit the Hajer ul-aswad, rub their faces and hands
against it and kiss it, they promise themselves that they shall always abide by
the oath of allegiance they have made to Allâhu ta’âlâ. When they hang on to
the cover of Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama, they imagine themselves as a culprit trusting
himself to his benefactor, or a lover surrendering himself to his beloved one.
All these are the proprieties of hajj.
-266-
On the other hand, Christians protest, “Some
pilgrims’ hometowns are close (To Mekka), while others live in places far away.
Therefore, the injunction of hajj upon all the Ummat-i-Muhammad runs counter to
the justice of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” This statement can never be justified. For it is
written in the Gospel of Matthew that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “The gate to
the eternal life is extremely narrow, and the road leading to Hell is wide.”[1] Its meaning is this: “The deed that will guide to Paradise comes
extremely difficult to the nafs. And the deed that will lead to Hell feels very
sweet to the nafs.” Our Prophet “sall-Allâhu
alaihi wasallam’ stated, “The most virtuous deed is the one that comes most difficult to the
nafs.” The worse the difficulty, the better the
reward; therefore, those hadjis who come (to Mekka) from remote places shall
attain many rewards. And this, in its turn, is not injustice, but it is the
very justice itself. The Islamic religion does not contain any injunction
impossible for man to do. People for whom hajj is not farz will not be sinful
for not making hajj. As it is stated in the hadîth-i-sherîfs, “Deeds are dependent upon intentions” and “The Believer’s intention is more virtuous than his deed,” those who have not had the opportunity to make hajj though they
have wished to do so shall attain the rewards their intentions deserve.
The priests, who are opposed to fasting in
(the month of) Ramadân, too, assert that it has been adopted from the Israelite
traditions and add, “The Bible, which has no injunction pertaining to fasting,
has conferred freedom upon people in this respect.”
Protestant priests allege, “There is a kind of
dietary fast among some Catholic, Byzantine, Armenian and other Christian
communities; yet this is an imitation of Jewry. The Bible has no such
commandment. Protestants avoid imposing such a heavy burden on mankind. They
only advise people to refrain from evil intentions and superstitions. Thus, a
religion that leaves people to their options with respect to outward and
trivial worships such as these is certainly more virtuous than a religion which
compels people to formal and outward worships. For worshipping of one’s own
accord is the habit of a child that obeys its father willingly. Compulsory
obedience to canonical injunctions, on the other hand, is the attribute of a
slave who has to obey his master. It is
---------------------------------
[1] “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, ...” “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, ...” (Matt: 7-13, 14)
-267-
extremely unhealthy, especially in summertime, to shift the habit
of eating and drinking during the day to eating and drinking at night and to
continue this one month. It is averred by medical doctors that it may cause
many illnesses. Moreover, because the durations of days and nights differ from
one country to another, performance of this binding duty takes a longer time in
some countries of the world than it does in others. This, in its turn, is
incompatible with the justice of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Daytime takes one month in
countries with sixty-seven degrees of latitude, two months in those with
sixty-nine degrees of latitude and three months on latitude 73°. For this
reason, fasting is impossible for Muslims living in countries with these
latitudinal degrees. It would obviously be incongruous with the ultimate divine
wisdom and the absolute divine justice of Allâhu ta’âlâ to enjoin a religion
which is not suitable in all cases and for people all over the world upon all
mankind. On the other hand, thousands of people in such countries are following
Christianity and performing its tenets without any difficulty. And this, in its
turn, is a palpable evidence to prove the fact that Islam could not be more
virtuous than Christianity.”
ANSWER: All these objections [and vilifications] have been rebutted with
innumerable evidences; as follows:
1 — Fasting existed in the religion of Műsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’. It maintained its original form in the religion of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, too. We shall explain this later. Existence of fasting in the
Islamic religion cannot be censured.
2 — The statement, “The Bible does not contain
any commandment pertaining to fasting; it leaves everyone to his (or her)
option,” would be a bare lie. For there is no Biblical verse giving people the
option between fasting and not fasting by clearly stating, “Everyone is free to
fast or not to fast.” If there is one, let the priests quote it.
3 — The diet existent in the tenets of
Christians belonging to Catholic, Byzantine and Armenian churches was
originally fasting. Yet later, along with the interpolations and abrogations
pertaining to worships, which Paul executed [in order to sever the Nazarene
religion from Judaism for good and to turn it into idolatry], it was brought
into its status quo. To say that the Bible does not contain any commandment
pertaining to fasting is to slander the Bible outright. It is written in the
Gospels that “And when he (Jesus) had fasted forty days and forty nights, he
was afterward an hungred.” (Matt: 4-2); that he ordered, “Moreover
-268-
when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance:”
(ibid: 6-16); and that he said, “Likewise, fasting will take the devil out,” to
the astonished on-lookers when he exorcised the devil out of a paralytic
person. Hence it is understood clearly that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ both fasted
himself and commanded to fast with ikhlâs and only for Allah’s sake. As Paul
tormented, persecuted, and executed true Believers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
fabricated a chimerical lie, which we have detailed above, established the
so-called Christianity, either distorted or abrogated the rules of the Sharî’at
of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, such as fasting and circumcision, now with the pretext
that they would mean to follow Judaism, then likening them to inexplicable
abstractions, Peter tried to prevent him. Yet Paul’s men, being too aggressive
for Peter, thwarted him. It is stated clearly in the Gospels and other books
written by Christian dignitaries that Peter, though highly meritorious and
virtuous, was weak-hearted enough to fear Jews and deny knowing Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’.
4 — Protestants have no right to say, “Instead
of imposing such a heavy burden as fasting on mankind, we advise all people
only to keep away from depraved, evil intentions and superstitions.” For the
principles of a true religion sent down by Allâhu ta’âlâ cannot be changed by
people. It is for this reason that many priests objected to all the decisions
taken in ecclesiastical assemblies. Also, Protestants refuse and rebut most of
the decisions of these councils. Therefore, such pieces of advice given by the
priestly founders of Protestantism such as the priestly author of the book
(Ghadâ-ul-mulâhazât), who are hired by Protestant organizations, cannot be of
any value. Fasting is not only abstinence from eating and drinking. There are
many spiritual virtues and uses in fasting. No one, a priest or otherwise, has
the authority to change or interpolate a farz based on divine principles.
5 — Fasting is not an outward or trivial
worship. As is known by people of sagacity, the body is the abode of the soul
and the place where sensuous desires circulate freely. The more victorious the
physical desires of the nafs, the fewer the spiritual manifestations. [In fact,
no spiritual manifestations take place in such cases.] This rule applies to all
religions and sects. In all of them, abridging sensuous desires, i.e. austere
self-discipline, will bring one closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ. Ascetic discipline
will mortify the carnality innate in the nafs. It is for this reason that all
religions and sects have prized ascetic discipline.
-269-
Islam prescribes three standards for fasting:
1)
Fasting
of
Awâm (the common people): It is the fasting of
those who abstain from eating, drinking and sexual intercourse within the time
dictated by Islam [in the month of Ramadân].
2)
Fasting of Hawâs: It is the fasting of those people who, along with observing the
obligatory requirements of fasting, perform all the commandments of Allâhu
ta’âlâ involving the eyes, ears, tongue, hands, feet, and all the other limbs,
and refrain from what He has declared to be harâm or mekrűh.
3)
Fasting of Hâss-ul-hawâs, (that is, of the Awliyâ): It is the fasting of those who, in addition to observing all the conditions existent in the fastings of awâm and hawâs, which we have mentioned above, desist and protect their hearts from all sorts of mundane thoughts, even from any thought other than that of Allâhu ta’âlâ. In a hadîth-i-sherîf narrated by Imâm-i-Bukhârî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’,[1] our Prophet ‘sall-allâhu alaihi wasallam’ states, “If the fasting person does not abstain
from lying, Allâhu ta’âlâ does not need his ceasing from eating and drinking.” People of haqîqat (inner, real essence of worships) have already
realized that defective fasting performed without observing these conditions
would be an outward and trivial deed, and declared this fact. [Those who commit
sins while fasting should not give up fasting with the qualm that their fasting
is worthless. Instead, they should go on fasting, invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ for
forgiveness, and turn away from sinning. In fact, going on with fasting will
protect one against sinning.]
6 — Also, the comparison, “Worshipping of
one’s own accord is the habit of a child that obeys its father willingly.
Compulsory obedience to canonical injunctions, on the other hand, is the
attribute of a slave who has to obey his master,” is wrong for various reasons,
such as:
a) Man has two great enemies: (his own) nafs,
and the devil. Therefore, had it not been declared that those who ignored the
religious commandments and prohibitions would be tormented, that is, if they
had been made optional, it is doubtless that many people would not obey the
injunctions.
b) While leaving all people to their options
as regards fasting, why do not these Protestant priests give all people the
same freedom in such tenets as Baptism and Eucharist? Why do they
---------------------------------
[1] Muhammad
Bukhârî passed away in Semer-kand in 256 [A.D. 870].
-270-
compel people to follow their instructions?
The Islamic religion classifies worships in
accordance with their grades:
First grade: The most valuable and the most
virtuous worship is to avoid harâms (Islam’s prohibitions). When a person turns
his face away upon seeing something forbidden for him to look at, Allâhu ta’âlâ
fills his heart with îmân. If a person intends to commit a harâm and yet does
not commit it, he will not be recorded (by angels) as having committed a sin.
Because committing a harâm means revolting against Allâhu ta’âlâ, avoiding it
has been made the most virtuous worship. According to the Islamic religion, no
one is born as a sinner or disbeliever. In addition, such a theory would be
quite unreasonable.
Second grade: is to do the (commandments that are
termed) farz. It is a grave sin to omit these commandments. Things that Allâhu
ta’âlâ commands us to do are called farz. It is very meritorious to do the
farz. It is all the more valuable to do these commandments at a time when they
are being forgotten and the harâms are being spread far and wide. People who do
the farz shall be rewarded greatly.
Third grade: is to avoid doing (those prohibitions
called) mekrűh tahrîmî, which are virtually close to harâms. Avoiding the
prohibitions called mekrűh tahrîmî is more meritorious than doing the wâjibs
(explained below).
Fourth grade: is to do the wâjibs. Doing the wâjibs
deserves much thawâb (rewards in the hereafter), though not so much as doing
the farz does. Wâjibs are those types of worships about which there is doubt
whether they are farz or not.
Fifth grade: is to avoid doing (those prohibitions
called) mekrűh tenzîhî, which means mekrűh (action, speech, behavior, etc. not
approved by our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’) which is closer to halâl (permission).
Sixth grade: is to do the sunnats (actions, words,
attitudes liked and commended by our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’) that are (called) muekked. It is
not sinful not to do the sunnats. Yet it is a venial sin to make it a habit to
omit them without any good reason to do so. And it is kufr (disbelief) to
dislike a sunnat.
Seventh grade: is (to do) the nâfila
(supererogatory) and mustahab (recommended, laudable actions). Muslims are free
to do or not to do the supererogatory, yet those who do them with good
intentions shall be rewarded (in the hereafter).
-271-
Since it is declared definitely by the âyats
of Qur’ân al-kerîm that fasting is
farz, it can never be optional. For the Islamic religion is based on the
commandments and prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ. No man can have the authority
to change the form or the time of fasting. Christianity, on the other hand, was
changed and interpolated very many times, and all these changes gave birth to
other successive arbitrary changes.
c) We are not the sons of Allâhu ta’âlâ (may
Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so). We are His impotent born slaves. He
is our Creator, Sustainer. Acting upon His commandment can never be
embarrassing for us. Turning away from worshipping Allâhu ta’âlâ is an attitude
that would become antagonistic, vain, conceited people.
The statements, “It is extremely unhealthy,
especially in summertime, to shift the habit of eating and drinking during the
day to eating and drinking at night and to continue this one month. It is
averred by medical doctors that it may cause many illnesses,” are not
vindicable, either. [They are quite contrary to facts, slanderous.] For one of
the proprieties of fasting is not to fill the stomach at the time of iftâr
(breaking the fast) and to stop eating as you still have appetite for food. All
medical doctors unanimously acknowledge that those who observe this propriety
will heal, rather than become ill. It is a definite fact that fasting in this
manner is extremely hygienic. If these Protestant fallacies were true, all
Muslims in Islamic countries would become ill, and most of them would die, in
Ramadân. On the contrary, medical statistics indicate no adversities in the
month of Ramadân. Moreover, for rational reasons, many people eat only twice
daily, in the morning and in the evening. What sort of change may take place in
one’s body by making a few hours’ change in one of the two meal-times? Perhaps
one will feel somewhat perturbed for the first one or two days of the fasting
month. Yet this will not cause any impairment to health.
[Fasting does not give birth to gastric
ailments. On the contrary, it is conducive to gastronomical hygiene. This is an
indubitable fact proven plainly by today’s modern medical expertise. It is
stated in medical books written in various languages by specialized doctors
that dieting will cure, or at least help cure, many illnesses. A person
suffering from a stomach illness, a pregnant woman, a nursing mother, a person
who fears that his or her illness may become worse (in case he or she fasts), a
soldier who is fighting, a person who is safarî, that is, who has
-272-
set out for a voyage that would take three days if he walked, [a
distance of hundred and four kilometres according to the Hanafî madh-hab and
eighty kilometres according to the other three madh-habs]: these people may not
fast. It is obvious that these priests are utterly ignorant of Islam. Or,
rather, they either do not know anything of Islam and have their own image of
Islam or do not tell the truth though they know Islam.
Here are some examples to prove that fasting
is not harmful, but useful to health.
It is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Fast, (and) be healthy.”
Fasting is reposing the stomach and the entire
alimentary system after a whole year’s work, and clarification of man’s body.
Ailment most commonly suffered by people is disorder of digestion. It causes
fattening, heart and blood vessel diseases, diabetes, and high tension. Fasting
not only protects against all sorts of disease, but also is a means of medical
treatment. As we have mentioned above, diet is an indispensable method for
recovering from many diseases.
It is doubtless that one will acquire a strong
will power by fasting. It is for this reason that quite a number of people have
rallied from harmful addictions such as alcohol and heroin owing to their
fasting.
Fasting causes activation of carbohydrates,
proteins, and especially fat stored in the body. Because of fasting, kidneys,
relieved from their duty of excreting waste matter, have a day off during which
to overhaul and reinstate themselves and to rest.
All these explanations strike the lies and
falsifications of some priests to their teeth. Would they not attempt to use
knowledge as a false witness for their mendacities.]
As for countries with different lengths of
days and nights; this can never be incompatible with divine justice because
people whose fasting continues a few hours longer than others’ shall attain
heavenly rewards in proportion to their deeds.
In polar regions, each night lasts several
months, and so is the length of daytime. There is no hardship for people
fasting in such countries. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares plainly in Qur’ân al-kerîm that there is no hardship in the Islamic
religion and that a person is not commanded to do something beyond his power or
capability. For instance, the number of limbs to be washed in ablution is four.
If a person has lost his both feet, this number is reduced to three. If a
person is not able to perform namâz standing, he may perform it
-273-
sitting. If he cannot manage this either, he may perform it by
îmâ, (that is, by signs). It is farz for Muslims to fast in the month of
Ramadân. Yet if a person becomes ill or sets out for a journey of more than
three days’ walk, obligation of fasting is temporarily deferred. Later,
whenever he finds convenience, he makes qadhâ of the fasts which he could not
perform in their proper time, (that is, he pays his debt of farz by fasting a
day for a day).
As for people living in polar countries with
days and nights lasting two, three, or more months; these people shall fast,
too. In such countries, as well as in any country where daytime continues for
more than twenty-four hours, times of beginning and breaking fast are set in
hours. The criterion to be taken (for the length of each fasting period) is the
duration observed by Muslims living in the closest city where daytime is not so
long, (that is, shorter than twenty-four hours). [By the same token, a Muslim
who goes to the moon, for instance, follows the same rule, if he has not
intended to be safarî, or if he decides to live there. These priests apparently
know nothing of Islam.]
As it is known, manifestations, blessings,
injunctions of Allâhu ta’âlâ upon His born slaves are not equal on every
individual. Giving riches to some of His believing born slaves, He commands
them to make hajj. And giving poverty to some believing born slaves of His, He
does not enjoin hajj on them. He bestows power, energy and health upon some,
and commands them to fast. On the other hand, He grants permission that those
who are not strong or healthy enough to fast (in Ramadân) may fast later.
Bestowing the nisâb[1] amount of property
upon some of His born slaves, He commands them to give zakât and to help with
the subsistence of their needy relatives. He gives poverty to some born slaves
of His, on the other hand, and enfranchises them to take zakât. [All these are
thoroughly compatible with the divine justice of Allâhu ta’âlâ. He bestows many
blessings upon some of His born slaves. And they, in turn, thank for these
blessings, thus attaining the high grade of gratefulness. To other born slaves
of His, He gives few blessings. And these people are patient, thus attaining
the high grade of patience. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not nullify the good deeds of
any of His born slaves.]
---------------------------------
[1] Boundary between poverty and richness prescribed by Islam. Muslims whose wealth has reached this boundary have to pay the obligatory alms called zakât. Please see the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
-274-
The Protestants’ statement which purports, “In
polar countries thousands of people follow Christianity and perform their
religious rights without any difficulty,” is quite mendacious. For the
countries meant here are those which are close to the North Polar Circle,
namely the northernmost part of America and the northern ends of Siberia.
Eskimos, Samoids, and very few other primitive tribes live in those regions.
They make their living by fishing and hunting. Because they cannot raise such
crops as wheat and grapes, they do not know of bread or wine. We would like to
know how the priest in charge for the performance of the Eucharist has been
managing this out there. For, inasmuch as the bread and wine represent the
flesh and blood of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, the Christians living there will not be
able to consume their god. [Consequently, because they will not unite with
their god, their sins will not be pardoned and they will not be purified of the
depravity of the original sin. Poor Christians! We wonder if these priests, who
assert that fasting and ablution will impair health while tolerating the dirty
and filthy water used in Baptism, believe their own assertion? Or do they cast
such abhorrent, irrational, unreasonable aspertions for the sake of the
payments they receive from Protestant societies?]
Now, a fair comparison of the two religions
will reveal clearly which one of them is more practicable. The Islamic religion
is a dispensation that can be practised easily and without any sort of hardship
by any society in any part of the world, [and which is the only guide to
happiness in the world and in the hereafter.] It is a religion of tawhîd (unity
of Allâhu ta’âlâ). That this religion is superior to and more virtuous than
trinity-based Christianity is a fact as bright as the sun.
[I have said little, lest I should break your
heart;
For I know you would be hurt, else I have much
to say.]
One of the criticisms which Protestant priests
direct to Islam concerns qirâat in namâz. They say, “Qirâat, that is, reciting
a passage from Qur’ân al-kerîm, which is
one of the farz (obligatory actions) of namâz, is seemingly spiritual at some
places; but a closer thought will reveal that it is not spiritual at all, like
the other farz of namâz. In the five daily prayers of namâz, litanies called
tekbîr (saying Allâhu ekber), Fâtiha (the first chapter of Qur’ân al-kerîm), et-tehiyyât (the prayer said during
sitting posture), the tesbîhs of rukű’ (bowing in namâz) and sajda
(prostration), and other similar prayers are recited. They (Muslims) repeat
these at certain times every day throughout
-275-
their lifetime. One would be tired of this.
“The following two Biblical verses show that there
is no use in carrying out all sorts of formalities or busying with a series of
mortal and trivial deeds. These verses quote Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as saying:
“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think
that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” “Be not ye therefore like
unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask
him.’ ” [Matt: 6-7, 8]
ANSWER: As will be granted by people of wisdom, like the body, which has
a way of life and nutrition, the soul has its own peculiar way of life and a
system of nutrition. The soul feeds on forgetting the mâsiwâ, that is,
everything other than Allâhu ta’âlâ, and (thinking of Allâhu ta’âlâ alone and)
mentioning His name. Raising the curtains between the Creator and the creature
is possible only by weakening the carnal desires of the nafs by mortifications
and reinforcing the soul by mentioning the name of Allâhu ta’âlâ. A person’s
love and affection for another will be seen in his remembering and mentioning
him frequently. For it is natural for one to remember one’s beloved friend or
relative frequently. People who are ardently, zealously in love are sometimes
so deeply absorbed in their love that they forget about themselves and always
and only remember and mention their beloved one.
In the Islamic religion, the ultimate goal is
(Muhabbatullah=Love of
Allah). To this end the heart is reinforced by
numerous reiterations of the name of Allâhu ta’âlâ in the five daily prayers of
namâz. The reinforcement of the heart and soul, in turn, causes removal of the
curtains in between and attainment of the end, i.e. approaching the beloved
one. Since all the prayers uttered during namâz, e.g. tesbîh and tekbîr, are
for the same essential purpose, they definitely nourish and reinforce the soul
and the heart, let alone wearying or tiring a Believer. The ’Ulamâ of Ahl
as-sunna have made very many explanations on the esoteric meanings of
Fâtiha-i-sherîfa, which is repeated at every rak’at (of namâz). (These
explanations are so numerous that) it would take rather onerous work even to
compile them or make a list of them. Sadr-ad-dîn Konawî[1] ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ wrote a splendid book titled (I’jâz-ul-beyân), which explicates the
---------------------------------
[1] Sadr-ad-dîn Muhammad passed away in Konya, (a city in central Turkey), in 672 [A.D. 1272].
-276-
occult meanings of Fâtiha-i-sherîfa. He acknowledges in this book
of his that he has been able to state only very few of the inner meanings and
preternatural subtleties in Fâtiha-i-sherîfa. [The âyats (verses of Qur’ân al-kerîm), the tesbîhs and prayers prescribed
to be recited during the performance of namâz express greatness of Allâhu
ta’âlâ and drill supplication to Him. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He “loves
those who recite these prayers and shall give them much thawâb [many rewards].”
Anything which is to be recited or done in order to attain love of Allâhu
ta’âlâ and to acquire thawâb, hard as it may be, is easy, very enjoyable and
delightful to those who have îmân. A person who has tasted sugar or honey knows
its flavour. But one who has not tasted it may disbelieve its pleasing flavour,
judging by its colour, which he sees from a distance and finds unattractive.]