S. Abdullah Tariq
Q.1. Refer to your Islamic Voice Feb. issue Chapter Our Dialogue, Tablighi Jama’at Six Point Programme. In this regard it is submitted that this commmente made by respected S.Abdullah Tariq on Tablighi Nisab is not based on this fact. I wonder how he dared that Sheikhul Hadith viz. H.Sheikh Zakariyah R.A. will write in his book FALSE narrations. I think it is not easy to such words about such person who was Wali of Allah. What he had to gain by putting false narrations! I want to know what flase narrations he has mentioned in his famous dedicated work.
(Hussain .A.Shah, XXXX)
Please know that Maulvi Zakariah saheb was not conferred with the title of Sheikhul-Hadith by the Prophet(Pbuh) or his companions. He is called Sheikhul-Hadith because he taught Hadith in mazahir-ul-Uloom, Saharanpur (U.P). He was a pious man, no doubt. Why did he include false narrations in his collection? I do not know. There are some questionalble narrations even in Sihah-e-Sittah; the most authentic collections of hadiths. Maulvi Zakariah Saheb, however learned he may be, was no match compared to Imam Bukhari and Muslim etc. Those great scholars took every precautions to inclucde only the authentic Hadiths in their collection but later researches proved that inspite of all their caution some discrepenciers remained in those most authentic collections. Your shoc over my comment on “Tablighi Nisaab” stems from the fact that no sscholar of stature and fame tried to make corrections in Tablighi Nisaab, all these years.
I could have said that Maulvi zakariah Sahab included false narrations by mistake as he was only a man (not a Prophet(Pbuh)) and could err like the greatest of scholars from among the Ummah erred in some places. Surely a number of false narrations have been included by him by mistake but the fact is that quite a number of Za’eef Hadiths and false narrations have been included knowingly,(probably with the good intention and innocent purpose of motivation) for a good cause. Do Iseem to commit sacrilege by my allegation? Well, this is not an allegation. I am stating a fact without maligning the respected Sheikhul Hadith or questioning his intentions. The pages of our dialogue will not suffice, if I quote over two hundred instances which need attention of a panel of scholars but please bear with me till I finish with some of the examples given below:
(All references of page nos. are from 1956 Urdu edition published by “Idara-e-Ishaat-e-Deeniyat”, New Delhi)
Exageration beyond belief:
Following are a few instances of many such incidents quoted by Sheikhul Hadith, which do not need investigation to be rejected. 1. On Page 479 of Fazail-e-Ssadaqat, there is an event describing Hazrat Jibriel offering water to a man at death-bed.
* The incident is without any anthentication, reference and basis. Archangel Hazrat Jibriel is not spared by Allah for such duties.
2. A ‘Buzurg’ is stated to offer 2000 Rak’ats of Salat daily.(P.427 ibid)
* Counting 2 minutes per Rak’at, which, nevertheless, is too quick for a “Buzurgs Salat’, 2000 Rak’at at require 4000 minutes which is about 167 hours, while a day is comprised of 24 hrs. only. The Buzurg, naturally would aslo have spent a few hours per day for the ‘Far’z’ Salat, food, sleep and other necessities.
3. Another saint, is stated to have never lain for 98 years. (P.428,ibid)
* Needs no comment.
Rejectable for being against Qur’an and authentic Hadiths:
1. Refer to Musuad Abuya’la, Sheikhul-Hadith quotes “that 'Zikr-e-Khafi’ (Subtle remembrance) is preferred by seventy times, which even the angles are unable to hear on the day of Qiyamah, the Lord would thus inform the angels about such persons. We have in store such of his virtue which you donot know and that is ‘Zikr-e-Khafi’. (P.43, Faza’el-e-Zik’r)
* If the subtle remembrance is not apprehended by the angels, a good lot of other silent and subtle virtues would also be left unrecorded by the recording angels. An authentic Hadith tells us that there is reward on every good intention even if it is not enacted. The holy Qur’an describes the woe of the sinners who would be wailing:
“They, will say: woe to us! what-a record is this! It leaves out nothing small or great, but takes account therefore” (18:49)
2. There are two narrations on PP.172-73 of ‘Hikaayaat-e-Sahaaba,’ quoting from highly unauthentic sources, stating the Prophet having infromed those companions who licked the Prophet’s(Pbuh) blood that the Hell-fire would not touch that body in which his blood would enter. After the narration the Sheikul-Hadith comments.” There should be no doubt in it as the urine, excrement etc, body refuse of the Prophet(Pbuh), are all clean.
* If that would be true Wudu and Ghusul would not have been obligatory upon the Prophet(Pbuh) except after a sleep. A number of authentic Hadiths, tell us that the ablutions were compulsory for him as well, in all such cases. Regarding blood, the Word of Allah is very explicit.
“Forbidden to you is dead meat, blood (5:3)
3. Without any reference whatsoever the Sheikh records that the Prophet(Pbuh) said that he had seen God Almighty and Allah put His hand on his chest. (Fazael-e-Namaz P.34)
* The Qur’an syas: “No Vison cangrasp Him “(6:103) About the Prophet Musa, Qur’an says:” “He said, O my Lord! show Theyself to me that i may look upon Thee. Allah said, by no means can you see Me (inthis life)” (7:143)
Opinions were divided amongst that Companions about the Prophet having seen Allah. Hazrat Ayesha firmly discarded any such thought saying, whoever believes that any man can directly look at God, is not a Muslim. Then she recited the aove noted Qur’an verse (6:103). Although some companions thought that the Prophet(Pbuh) had looked at Allah, the difference of opinion is confined to seeing only. “Allah place His hand on the Prophet’s(Pbuh) chest”! I seek refuge of Allah. I think the learned Sheikhul-Hadith has made a great slip of his life by calling it a Hadith.
Intentiional inclusion of weak and false narrations:
1. A lenghty Hadith (!) is given in Fazaael-e-Namaz PP.28-30 describing rewards of a person who cares for Namaz and punishments to whomsoever is careless about it.
* Below the text of the said Hadith Sheikhul-Hadith has himself mentioned that according to ‘Meezaan’ (an authentic critical investigation work on Hadiths) this Hadith is ‘Baatil’ (false).
2. The text of a Hadith(!) is recorded as followws: “whoever renders his Namaz, Qaza (after the prescried time), he will be burned in hell for a ‘Haqab’ even if he offers it later. A Haqab is equivalent to 28.8 million years. (Fazaael-e-Namaz, P.36)
After the text, Sheikhul Hadith comments; “I could not find this Hadith in those book of Hadith which I possess. The Sheikhul Hadith has quoted ths narration froma book named Majaalis-ul-Abrar. However most Muhaddisin (Hadith scholars) have pronounced it as ‘Mauzoo’ (concocted).
3. A Hadiths (!) is narrated as follows: The Prophet(Pbuh) says, “Make a child learn La Ilaha Illallah in the beginning whe he starts learning to speak and as the time of his death approaches, tell him say La Ilaha one whose first Kalima and the last kalima are La Olaha he will not be accounted for any sin even if he lives for a thousand years.” (Fazaael-e-Zikr, P.107)
* After the text, Sheikhul-Hadith himself admits tht it is ‘Mauzoo’ (concocted).
There are quite a number of such alleged Hadith below the text of which, he has honestly mentioned that the said Hadith is weak, or flase or concocted. Now, you have enquired me, “ What he had to gain by putting false narrations”. He, quite certainly wanted to inspire the believers to adhere to good deeds. But even with good intentions, the narration of false Hadiths knowingly is the gravest of sin.
But that is not all in this context. The work ‘Tablighi Nisab’ was compiled for average masses who donot know the Arabic language. Now please be ready for the bomb-shell. All the honest declarations about the Hadiths being weak, false or concocted printed below their texts are in Arabic language only. In all such cases, Urdu translation is given of the text of Hadith only and the concerned declaration has not been translated in Urdu anywhere. Except for a microscopic minority of the readers of Tablighi Nisab,, no one knows the Arabic language and hence, you and the millions of othe readers are ot aware that they are being led to believe in weak, false or concocted narrations in the name of Hadiths.
Before the conclusion of this topic, let me point out a few more instances of the contents, which in my opinion, should be reviewed by a panel of religious scholars.
1. Onpage 54 of Fazaael-e-Qur’an, the verse 54:17 has been translated thus: “And we have made the Qur’an easy to memorize. Is there any that will memorize?
This translation is not correct. The Arabic word ‘Zik’s’ does not correspond to memorizing.
2. Onpage 30, of Fazaael-e-Haj, Hazrat Umar is reported to have declared that whoever despite possessing eligibility, does not perform Haj, you can swear about him that he has died a Jew or a Christian.
After this narrtion, Sheikhul-Hadith comments: It may be his (Hazrat Umar’s) finding but according to ‘Ulema’ Non-performer of Haj is not a Kaafir.
* In my humble opinion Hazrat Umar’s finding should not have been overruled by the oopinion of Ulema in such a casual manner. Either ascribing the statemtn to Hazrat Umar, is wrong or sufficient grounds should have been given to overrule a person of the stature of Hazrat Umar. Granted, that Tablighi Nisab is not meant for scholarly discussions, but then it was better if this part would not have been included in it.
3. There are quite a number of indecent verses of Urdu poetry which should not be part of a book like
‘Tablighi Nisab’. Whatever the context and the meaning derived by Sheikhul-Hadith from those verses, the original sense ascribed to the composers and poets of these verses is quite famous and it does not augur well to use these verses of ‘Husn’(beauty) and ‘Ishq’(passion) for the ‘Love of God’.
See the instances below:
Meer kya saada Hein
Beemar Huey Jis Ke Sabab,
Usi Attaar ke Laundey se
Dawa Lete hein.
(How simple is ‘Meer’ that he still goes for remedy to the same boy of the herb-sheller, for whose sake he fell ill).
The verse is so vulgar and in such a bad taste that Urdu critics of ten worder, how a great poet like meer could have composed it.
Azal Se Husn Grasst; Likhi the Qismat mein,
Mera Mizaj larakpan se aashiqana hai,
(Beauty worship was written in my fate from eternity. Since childhood I have a lover’s disposition).
Paida Huey to haath jigar par dharey huey,
Kya Jaane hum hein kab se kisi par mare huey. (ibid)
( I was born with a hand placed on my heart. Who knows, since when I am smitten over someone.)
Meri tifli mein shaan-e-Ishq baazi aashkaara thi,
Agar bachpan ein khela khel to aankhan larane ka. (ibid)
(The glory of my flirtness was evident even in childhood. If ever I played in the childhood, it was a game of winking.)
Brother, I am sorry if you and other readers attached to Tablighi Jama’at are hurt over the above disclosures. I may have erred in some of my observations as in none except the Prophets(Pbuh) is above faults, no matter what title he is adorned with. I did not intend to point these things out till someone specifically demanded. With all regards due to the reverred Sheikhul-hadith, I sincerely feel that about one tenth part of the work should be edited or revised by authentic scholars. The modification and not the blind belief in the book would be the real tribute to the pious man, that he was. Beware, You will not be reekonned by Tablighi Nisab, but Qur’an and the Qur’an clearly dmonishes: “And do not confoundtruth with falsehood and do not conceal the truth knowingly. (2:42)
Q. Islamic Voice is continously publishing 'Allah' as God, even in the Quranic verses. I would like to say as a true Muslim that Allah is neither God, Bhagwan or Ishwar. God is a masculine word, having a feminine partner Goddess. It is same with the other two words Bhagwan - Bhagwati & Ishwar - Ishwari. If we equate Allah with God, Bhagwan & Ishwar, then it would be assumed that he is a male having a female partner. It may amount to shirnk. If I call a human being an animal, will he like it? Allah would also not like some one calling the Supreme Being by the above-mentioned names. (M.Imtiaz Mallick, Culcutta).
Ans. God with a Capital 'G' is exclusively used for the Supreme Being. It has no faminine equuivalent like Goddess. You seem to be confused between the two words starting with a Capital letter and an small letter. The word 'god' with a small "g" has its feminine e quivalent goddess. It also has a plural i.e. "goods", while God has no plural. In Funk & Wagnalls English Dictionary, God is explained as : In monotheism, the rule of life and universe.
Similarly 'Nalanda Vishal Shaab'd Sagar', a very authentic Hindi dictionary explains the word Ishwar as: 1. Accroding to yoga shastra, "(who is beyond) sorrows, deeds, age and desires." Parmeshwara. 2. Lord, Owner.
The word has neither a feminine equivalent nor a plural.
Iswari is no word of either Sanskrit or Hindi language. If a woman is named as Ishwari at some place, it does not make it a proper word of the written or spoken language. We sometimes find the names like 'Allah Jaan' among the ignorant. It does not induce us to abondon the use of the word 'Allah'. If the name of a girl or woman is kept Ishwari, her father or she must be reasoned with to change her name. You can't do anything if she does not change it as you are not responsible if 'Allah jaan' is not prepared to change his name.
In fact the above two words, God and Ishwar are between than the Persian word 'Khuda' quite frequently used by Muslims in India. 'Khuda' is an equivalent of Arabic 'Ilah' and not 'Allah'. It's plural 'Khudaon' is used in Urdu language. Khuda, in a sense has more proximity to 'god' than 'God'. Still, whenever the word Khuda is spoken nobody in the world is ever in doubt that it is being used for some other being than Allah. Therefore whatever the sementics and etimological analysis, the use of the word 'Khuda' is also not improper it has come to be a synonymn of Allah and God.
Bhaqwan, indeed is not exlusively menat for Almighty and it can ot be used in a translation in place of Allah. However in those contexts where there is no room for confusion, it may be spoken as well as written for Allah. It is like an attribute. For example, when soem one says, "I am well by the grace of Maalik", the use of the word 'Maalik' (Lord) is not improper although Maalik is an attribute which is also used for human being e.g. Maalik Makaan (Land Lord).
It may be argued that the differentiation between a capital 'G' and a small 'g' can only be made in a written language but in spoken language, both the words sound as same. The answer is tht the context almost always decides the actual meaning.