The Quran or the Consensus of the Ummah? Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.
[Hassan Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, we have a question, which is
a point of view or argument presented is that
the collective insight of the Ummah,
the presence of thousands and millions of Ulema.
A concerted effort of 14 Centuries, if something is commonly held by them
and all of them have a consensus on it,
then this is such a big proof in itself.
Hence for different matters with regard to the matters of Deen,
if we get this proof or justification
from the collective understanding or insight of the Ummah
then in such a situation to present the Aayaat of the Quran
or to convince someone for accepting something based on the Quran,
why does such a need remain?
The matter with the Quran is that even for the meaning of a word,
controversies arise.
Debates occur on its composition and the context.
There are scores of varying explanations in its Tafaseer (Exegesis).
Hence, in the existence of such a huge and strong justification that
the whole Ummah says a certain point,
then in such a case
why does there remain a need to insist on an Aayat or words of the Quran?
[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] Prior to ours, there has been an even larger Ummah.
Even now, the Christians are a bigger Ummah than ours.
During the revelation of the Quran, they constituted a big Ummah.
Prior to it, they had even established a great Empire too.
They have had Saints, theologians, Ulema, of the highest order born among them.
Then why was the Quran needed to be revealed and criticize their thought?
Their consensus on those realities, which they considered as reality,
just enumerate and see what those were?
Syedna Isa A.S. being the physical manifestation of God
and thus being the son of God. He was crucified,
and that crucifixion was an expiation necessitated because of the sins of Adam.
And as a result, expiation of all the sins committed by humanity took place.
Now it was just sufficient to believe in Isa A.S.
i.e. not the deeds of virtue rather accepting the Iman would suffice.
Good deeds should also to be done.
Nevertheless, if you have faith in him, then it would be the means of Salvation.
The Shariah of Allah (swt) was for Bani Israel.
It had nothing to do with the followers of Isa A.S.
They are free from the bounds of Shariah.
Among eatables, if pork or wild animals are consumed,
whether prayers are offered or not, fasting or no fasting,
all these are left to their discretion and they are not bound to anything.
There had been a general consensus on all these points.
The whole of the Christian community was presenting this.
See the history post that period.
This was the same Christian Ummah where Protestants arose.
Of which a large part constitutes the Orthodox Christianity.
They had always been differing with each other.
However, even today they completely agree with these points.
Then you tell me what is to be done,
i.e. whether the Quran is to be read or not?
Or should there be a discourse in the light of the Quran or not?
It is the Quran which when revealed stated that
all these comprise 'kufr', all these are 'Shirk'.
These are absolutely baseless.
You have thrown yourselves into misunderstandings.
It was the Quran that revealed that neither Isa was crucified,
nor was he killed, rather,
the whole incident was a means of doubt and suspicion for Christians.
It was the Quran that revealed that Isa A.S.
had been appointed to complete the Torah.
All these points were revealed by the Quran.
So if you do not read the Quran with this status,
and if you do not give it this status, then you tell me
apart from the points to be discussed among ourselves,
what is to be discussed with these Christians?
Why won't they say that they have a complete tradition of consensus,
they have their Pope, Saints, Ulema, and theologians.
The book that you are presenting is written in words,
there can be a debate upon it. What sort of argument is this?
In the Quran, this point has been clarified about itself,
that it is The Judge, The Final Authority,
it is The Scale, it will decide about the Right and the Wrong.
And this status has been given to it till Qiyamah.
It is the statement of the Quran itself.
It hasn't been given by me.
Rather Allah (swt) has said the purpose for the revelation of His Book,
so that "Li Yahkumu Bainan Naas Fi Makhtalafu Fihi"
it decides between your differences. The decision about differences
are not done through the consensus of the Ummah.
Or through the opinions of the Ulema. Their agreement is not sufficient.
The whole nation or community, if you look at their numbers,
they exceed us by more than a billion.
If you include all of them.
Then why won't they reason thus in challenge to us?
When you carry the Dawah against Shirk to the Hindus,
they also have had great Rishis (sages) and Avatars.
They will relate their sayings to you. They would narrate their traditions.
They would say that this had been the Deen of their ancestors.
Wherefrom have you come, talking about new prophets?
Won't we read to them the Quran?
We shall say that the Book of Allah has been revealed.
That Book is telling us that these are your superstitions.
These Shiva, Vishnu, and this Brahma are not to be worshipped.
The sole Creator of this Universe is One alone.
From where will you tell all this to them?
Will you tell them sourced from the Book of Allah or will you use your own logic?
What do you possess other than the Book of Allah
which would decidedly and with finality teach us the Deen?
There is nothing else.
Hence we should not even dare to challenge the status of the Book of Allah.
It has been revealed solely for this purpose.
That it should become 'Furqan' (Separates Truth from Falsehood).
It should become the Scale. It is the final Judge.
Hence, the reasoning would only be done using the Book.
It would be a source of great joy if in some Ummah or some nation
have the consensus on whatever concepts have been stated by the Book of Allah.
It would be great if they agree on it. i.e. whatever has been stated in the Bible
if the Christians had come to consensus on it, then it would be great.
However, if the case is not such, then who will decide,
the Christians or the Bible? Hence the Quran would decide.
[Hassan] However, Ghamidi Sahab,
you say that before the revelation of the Quran,
there existed a full Christian Ummah,
there are some unanimous beliefs among them,
for example the concept of Trinity, or the abrogation of the Shariah,
or the atonement of sins, and as the Quran was revealed,
With its revelation, these concepts which had consensus were negated.
If for them and on their consensus,
the Quran was decisive,
hence why it won't be for the consensus of the present times?
The question that arises on it is that they are negating the last Prophet.
They are the deviated group, God himself has stated that
He did not make them into Jews or Christians.
They themselves became thus. However, in the present times,
the consensus of Ummah or the understanding of the Ulema,
it is the Ummah which has faith in the Prophet (pbuh),
it is a Muslim Ummah, that one nation which turned to Shirk
and this nation which accepts the Messenger of Allah,
stands on the tradition of the last revelation of the Divine.
How can you make the comparison between the two?
[Ghamidi] How do make a distinction?
They too are the believers of the Prophets of Allah.
They too have an outstanding history of their own.
They too believed in Hazrat Musa and all the Prophets that followed him (pbut).
They believed in Isa A.S. Is Isa A.S not the Prophet of Allah?
Aren't they associated to him? My brother, the point is
will there be a separate law for us and for them a separate law?
Allah (swt) has answered this question by stating,
"That My Prophets warn, give glad tidings, however,
My Books are the final authority".
For them too, the Bible is the Authority.
Just read Surah Maida, it is said that whatever Allah has revealed in the Gospel,
the people of the Gospel will have to decide based only on that.
When the Torah was revealed, the people of the Torah
have to decide only according to Torah.
"Wal yahkum Ahlul Injeele Bima Unzila Ilaihi"
God has not left any scope for stating the fact that
it is My Book which will govern over your (religious) affairs.
The rest of the things have their importance,
however, they would come second to the Book.
There can't be anything above the Book.
It is very nice to have a consensus on good things.
It is great if all the Ulema narrate something good.
It is also quite good that we possess a big corpus
of the oral Narrations attributed to the Prophet (pbuh).
Where a lot of things become elucidated and explained.
And a lot of historical events come to our knowledge.
However, all this happens under auspices of the Book of Allah,
i.e. how can it become higher than the Book of Allah?
And how does it matter that we are the followers of the last Prophet.
They too are the followers of the last Prophet of Bani Israel.
They too have the same relationship with Hazrat Isa A.S.
They have even exceeded us to call their Prophet the son of God.
He is the physical incarnation of God.
After this, they would put a lot of other justifications for it.
They would say that our Prophet was born without a father.
He used to bring alive the dead. What is all this?
Is there a reason behind this except partisanship?
Regarding all the Prophets of Allah the Quran says,
"La Nufarriqu Baina Ahadim Min Rusulihi"
We do not make any difference among the Prophets of Allah.
All the Prophets have been bestowed with gifts in different aspects
and to accept them all is the demand of our Deen as well.
Have we been told that we would accept just
Muhammad as the Messenger of Allah and we would become Muslims?
If this had been demanded of them that they accept Muhammad
as the Messenger of Allah too, then we too have been demanded that
we accept the rest of the Prophets as well.
Hence the Deen and Guidance of Allah is one and the same.
And its principle and its method is also the same.
And its consequences are also the same.
The sequence would remain the same.
"Wal Yahkum Ahlul Injeela Bima unzila Ilaih"
God tells us too that
the people of the Quran would decide according to the Quran.
Accepting this superiority, and status of the Quran,
below that, whatever we wish to present as proof, we may do so.
However, this disdain about the Quran,
that there would be such words creating discord and this and that.
It is the Quran based on which we would talk to the Christians,
it is the Quran based on which we would talk to the Hindus.
It is the Quran based on which we would talk to the Buddhists.
Other than this, what else do we have for presenting?
And the Quran says that unfortunate are those
"Bighairi Hudam Wala Kitaabim Muneer" who talk without it.
This is an enlightened Book. The Quran says,
"Qad Ja'akum Minallahi Noorum Wa Kitaabum Mubeen",
There is a light that has come from Allah,
i.e. a clear Book has been revealed to you.
That clear Book which is the greatest Blessing on Earth,
this is derision against it that how will it state its message?
It states its message with complete certainty.
It is the last and final argument of God. And it has stated this status itself.
[Hassan] Okay, Ghamidi Sahab what would be your rebuttal for the argument,
the Quran on whose sovereignty you insist,
and you justify it from the Quran itself,
so that Quran too has been conveyed to us
by the joint effort of the whole Ummah.
So if the Ummah is removed from in between,
then we can't even establish that this is the Quran,
people say that it is this consensus of the Ummah
from which we establish the Quran as the Quran,
so we accept that consensus, however, we negate it in another place?
[Ghamidi] The point is does the Ummah wish
to be paid back for this favor? Since it has transmitted the Quran
hence it would now rule over the Quran?
It was their obligatory duty to convey the Quran.
It had been their responsibility. And transmitting the Quran is one thing,
after that who is negating it? If they had transmitted the Quran,
so now is it forbidden to read it?
Is it forbidden to accept the status of it as described by the Quran itself?
Now has this Ummah, its Ulema, and their consensus
acquired such an elevated status?
Since we are conveying the Quran, for this reason
the Sahaba have transmitted the Quran.
It has been transmitted into history.
And this Muslim Ummah is transmitting that history in the capacity of the Quran.
It is not stating its understanding and interpretation.
it is not stating in its own words after understanding its meaning.
This transmission is their obligation and their responsibility.
After this, if they say that since we have transmitted the Quran,
and handed over in your hand with full protection,
so it's not the Quran, now what we say will have to be accepted.
What argument is this?
i.e. their whole understanding will be scrutinized in the light of the Quran.
No matter how big a scholar or Aalim is he/she cannot present his/her ideas
against that of the Quran.
[Hassan] Right, right. Ghamidi Sahab you have explained your answer in detail.
In the discussion, you made a point
on which another related question comes to mind,
that you often say that the Jews or the Christians,
these people of the Book, are actually the deviant sects of Islam.
When we listen to this we get shocked as
the sects that we are aware of in Islam are Deobandi, Barelwii,
Ahl-e Hadees, Ahl-e Tashaiyyo. They were so called.
However, these people are the followers of another religion,
so how have you and in what capacity declared them another sect of Islam?
[Ghamidi] In the light of the Quran.
The Quran says that Islam has always been the Deen of Allah.
All the Prophets of Allah have brought Islam.
Even the Prophet (pbuh) had been enumerated
the names of the Prophets and told, "Fa Bi Huda Hum iqtadih"
So that same Guidance has to be followed.
Allah's Deen has never been any other than Islam.
Hence deviating from Islam or by wrongly interpreting it,
whatever other name would be adopted by any group,
all of them would be the Sects of Islam.
Islam is that religion which was initiated in its revelation since Hazrat Adam,
and the Prophet (pbuh) is its last Prophet.
So the Prophet of Allah never said the point that
I have come with a religion, which is different from that of other Prophets.
He has repeatedly said that it is the same Deen, the same Dawah,
the same message, that was of Musa, Ibrahim, (Alaihumusalam),
I too am presenting the same. The Quran itself declares that
I have given the same Deen to Muhammad (pbuh)
which I have given to Ibrahim prior to it.
Which I have given to Nuh, which were given to Musa And Isa.
So this is the Deen of all the Prophets,
obviously, prior to it too
the sects had branched out from them and later on as well.
When this responsibility was given to Bani Ismael by the Quran,
then it said that your father Ibrahim has named you as Muslim.
i.e. the followers of Islam were the first time given
the name of Muslim or Musalman by Syedna Ibrahim.
So did the Jews and Christians exist before Syedna Ibrahim
or did they come later?
They too were told that your Deen was Islam.
This Dawah or the Dawah of the Quran is this itself.
I am not telling them that their Deen (religion) is something else,
and I am telling you about a new Deen (Religion).
We are telling them and the Quran is telling them,
that their Deen is Islam, it was Islam, they are the followers of Islam.
All the Prophets had come with Islam,
come towards that Islam and understand its reality.
[Hassan] SubhanAllah. [Ghamidi] This is our Dawah.