Best Sunnah for Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya and other Muslims to follow

URL: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2012/07/best-sunnah-for-sunni-shia-ahmadiyya.html

May God power your thinking with peace;

This column is in response to correspondence about Muslims judging other Muslims about their faith, and yet invoking the same Islam.  

The word Kaffir simply means someone who hides or denies the truth. However, the usage of the word has been derogatory.  It’s like the “N” word.   You have your preference and mine is not to use the word at all in general conversation without this understanding. 

The Prophet did not use it as a derogatory word, but simply meant that those people who did not agree with his version of the truth as an identifier. (Refer to Sura Kafirun - Prophet’s language should be taught as course in civil dialogue)

The Ahmadiyya are Muslims, as they believe in the God, like every other Muslim believes; furthermore, their pledge of allegiance, the Shahadah is same as all other Muslims - La Ilaha Illal Lahu, Muhammadar Rasool Allah. We should be minding our own business rather than worrying about others.

No one is responsible for others burden, you stand alone on the day of accountability of your actions. No one will be there for you; you have to take the responsibility for your actions. Let each one of our tribes, and other faiths from the family of faiths do their best. The best ones among all of us would be the ones who care for neighbors, and respect God’s creation and those who work towards restoring harmony, just as God had created the world to be.

Division is natural among all people, there is a magical number beyond which all groups split, and Islam is no different. First it was Shia and Sunni, then among Shia there are many, and Sunni also got split into numerous groups beyond our imagination. Then Ahmadiyya has three or four divisions and as we grow in size, each one of our groups will further split… now we have progressive Muslim group in the last few years, there will be more.

Prophet Muhammad prophesized about the division, it is a natural phenomenon (fitra) and he used the number 72/73 tribe, this number is not a real number, and it’s a number to mean multiplicity.  Imagine the class room where the teacher urges every on to be the best, and there will be only one first rank and most others pass in varying degrees and one or two may fail. A few Ulema have interpreted this to mean only one tribe will go to Jannah and others to hell and shamefully this has been perpetuated without questioning it. How wrong can we be? We have to learn to respect the otherness of other without having to agree.

Let Sunnis, Shias, Ahmadi and their branches all practice Islam as they are taught, let’s not become God and judge others, instead we need to judge ourselves  and be the best human we can. But for God’s sake let’s not call each other with disrespect, would that be a Muslim thing to do?

What can we judge? We can judge the acts that affect our social life - like lying, stealing, robbing, hurting family members or breaking the contracts and messing with social cohesiveness (a dynamic value).

What can we not Judge? One’s faith, period! It is between God and the individual. Only God will judge how much of a Muslim you were in your heart. When God says he is closer to than our jugular vein, it means he knows everything we do, think and discard. No one bears others burden, Islam is about individual responsibility and free will. There is no compulsion in matters of faith.

The first word Prophet Muhammad received was Iqra, the broader meaning of which is read to understand, understand to think and think to create a better world for you and for others around you.

If you would like me to speak about the Prophet and his role in creating a better world, I will be happy to do that.  It is nothing new; it is from the existing 15 stories that we talk about in every Mosque and probably every Muslim will tell those little and big stories. What we need to do is Iqra it, think about his examples from a pluralistic perspective. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and every prophet were committed to create cohesive societies where people got along with each other and lived without the apprehension or fear of the other.

What is our role in the world? Isn’t it to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill and give back to God, what he created; a perfect world in harmony? Isn’t that what serving God means?

Remember the first model of the prophet? He was called Amin, the trustworthy, the truth seeker and the honest. Guess who honored him that title? It was not Muslims.  It’s a model for us to follow. Let you and I become like him, earn the respect of every human on the earth, with malice towards none, and with love for all of God’s creation.

Would you want to be the Amin? To be Amin, we have to use the civil language and earn the trust of all Muslims, and all other people on the earth.  When people see a Muslim, their first response ought to be - here comes a Muslim, I can trust this man or woman, he/she will tell the truth, is trust worth and everything he or she will do is for every one’s good.

Isn’t that the best Sunnah to follow?

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

Muslims Together building a cohesive world

www.IslamTogetherfoundation.com

NOTE: Following is the conversation on the net between several people. It is posted at www.WorldMuslimCongress.org and atWorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com 

---

Mike Thanks for your efforts in bringing community together, but the problem is that people misunderstood the word "Kafir"

The word "Kafir" is an Arabic word and derived from "Kufer" which has to fold meaning:

1- To "Disbelieve"

2- To call "Lair" to some one saying a Truth which you do not believe.

The Holy Book Quran repeatedly used the word Kafir for all those who deny the Prophet-hood of all Prophet sent by Allah The Almighty.

The debate will never finish, as it was there at the time of Adam, Nova, Abraham, Moses & Essa, and also at the time of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (swa) and still exist in our time

I think we should agree with and follow the foot steps of Prophet Muhammad (swa) when he recited the verses of Surat Al-Kafiroon (chapter 109) before the leaders of "Kuffar-e-Makkah"

As Mike Ghouse has said earlier 'We have to learn to believe in Rabbul Aalameen' and follow the teachings of Rahmatul Aalameen(swa).

Please spread the message of Allah the Almighty on your own way as mentioned in Holy Quran. "You are responsible for your own DEED" in front of Allah The Almighty, and you will not be asked for what others do.

May Allah Bless you all.

Abdul Latif

---

 ( PLEASE NOTE - I HAVE BLIND COPIED THIS NOTE TO MY AHMADIYYA MUSLIM FRIENDS - AND NORMALLY I DON'T POST THESE, SINCE MUSHTAQ WAS NOT JUDGEMENTAL, I HAVE POSTED THIS AT WORLD MUSLIM CONGRESS DISCUSSION FORUM AND INSHA ALLAH, WILL ALSO POST AT WWW.WORLDMUSLIMCONGRESS.ORG - AS A RECORD)

AA

Inam Bhai,

You have a very legitimate argument.

However, you may consider not using the derogatory language towards someone, who is admired by millions around the world. Isn't it Islamic to talk with respect? Take a look at one of the most beautiful Suras in conducting a civil dialogue in Quraan- http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.html

Why are we so bent on proving "qadianis / ahmadi / mirzai / lahoris" wrong? On the Day of Judgment are you and I responsible for anyone other than you and me respectively? Doesn't Allah say no one will bear the burden of others?

If you are concerned about protecting the Deen - hasn't Allah taken that responsibility? Do we want to become partners with him in that business?

Do we want to go against the prophecy of the Prophet that eventually his Ummah will be split in too many tribes, and that many was a metaphoric number of 72 or 73. No one will go to hell, until the Day of Judgment, and none of the tribes will be thrown in to hell as long as they recite the Shahadah, do their prayers and Zakat, Hajj is an option.

Allah's wisdom is rich - when he says, the noblest among you are the ones who know each other, meaning conflict and diversity is given, but when you know each other, and accept them as God's creation, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. He is the only one to recompense for the good we do. The "qadianis / ahmadi / mirzai / lahoris" are doing good in the communities they live, and serving God's creation, and Allah will not be happy with them or anyone who does care for the neighbor.

Let's accept each other. You fight back when someone throws you out of your house, messes with your family or steals your food, breaks the contracts with you; otherwise, let others do what they do. You and I don't own Islam, it is not our property to begin with, and we follow one version of it, because it works for us.

The above words are not mine, its all in Quraan.

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

 

---

zahid.inam@yahoo.com writes:

Mike & etc etc,

Just wait any one to claim to be a mahdi, or prophet or bla bla and believe that same is already provisioned in this pity religion. Islam's lap is open to any view you add. Let any one allow to do the modification work to islam.

Whoever sees light of guidance in Quran and Sunnah, must raise his voice for sake of truth. If 73 liars claiming prophethood could not secure this holy place in islam, how do we accept it for one-eyed liar of qadiyan, who didn't posses ANY of the qualities that Allah's messangers should possess, although with any qualities, he couldn't be accepted as prophet.

Just close your eyes and this afternoon, instead of getting your sick kids to an established doctor, get them checked from a plain hakim who would lack any desired knowledge and who would apply contradicting medicine. Am sure you will not do it as that is matter of life of your kids not of religion.

Pluralism should be sought but going that much behind so as to negate what is right and what is wrong is petty *sense.

If you are not convinced of that, just go through whole literature of one-eyed liar Mirza Ghulam Qadiani and his followers, and decide yourselves if a limit has been left untouched by qadiani devils.

The holy things you see in qadianis / ahmadi / mirzai / lahoris is the part of islam they follow, and what you ignore is the damage they impart to foundations of islam.

Pray for divine guidance of all (which for sake of clarification shall not be given through a one- eyed liar or mahdi, but from quran and sunnah).

Inam

---

Subject: Re: H. MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD DID NOT CALL ANYONE KAFIR.Re: CAN MIKE GHOUSE CONDE...

AA

Brother Rashid Jahangiri Sahib;

I am glad to see your note, and I have seen a similar note from the other Ahmadiyya Muslims as well. If you read my note, I said, " If Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad calls you or me a Kafir, we don't become one, do we? However, as I understand, he meant those who disagreed with him"

It appears that some one has cooked it up to malign one or the other. We need to resist the temptations to put down any one without knowing it first hand, or an announcement from their religious leader, all other notes stand the chance of not being the truth.

Alhamdu Lillah, I have attended the conferences of both AM and LAM groups, one in Pennsylvania last year, and the other in Columbus Ohio a few weeks ago and I admire both the groups for the good work they are doing towards making the world a better place.

Three Questions:

1. Can you pray behind any Muslim Imam?
2. Will you consider all others, equally valid, divine traditions?

3. Will you withdraw calling others Kafir?

We have to learn to believe in Rabbul Aalameen, Rahmatul Aalameen and us to be Mukhlookhul aalameen and make our religion to accommodate and absorb all the differences. don't worry about what others do or don't, be the leader take the step and declare - we are all Muslims and we have the responsibility to create a better world for every one of God's creation and see how close you get to God. Amen

Mike Ghouse

World Muslim Congress

---

rashidanywhere@yahoo.com writes:

Dear Mike Ghouse sahib, It is ALLEGATION on H. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib that he called ANYONE kafir (nauzubilah). It is base less allegation by Qadianis and by opponents of H. Mirza ghulam Ahmad sahib. This allegation is relatively new by qadianis. This is their effort to cover their beliefs and teachings of their qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza mahmud Ahmad. Please see following link to see yourself what HMGA actually said

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/takfir/index.htm

take care

Rashid jahangiri

---

( PLEASE NOTE - I HAVE BLIND COPIES THIS NOTE TO MY AHMADIYYA MUSLIM FRIENDS - AND NORMALLY I DON'T POST THESE, SINCE MUSHTAQ WAS NOT JUDGEMENTAL, I HAVE POSTED THIS AT WORLD MUSLIM CONGRESS DISCUSSION FORUM )

As-Salaam Alaikum,

Brother Mushtaq,

May you be drenched in peace and think and act peace.

You are not a Kafir, no matter who says it, only Allah decides that, not now, but on the Day of Judgment, giving time and room for people. What we as a society decide is if you steal, rob, loot, rape and break contracts with people.

If Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad calls you or me a Kafir, we don't become one, do we? However, as I understand, he meant those who disagreed with him. I have asked the Ahmadiyya Jamaat (http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2012/03/draft-proposal-to-ahmadiyya-muslims-on.html) to clarify it, and I have asked them to join me for Iftaar in every Mosque of every Muslim denomination and do the Namaaz (salat) behind the respective Imam, when they do that, we can put the matter to the rest.

However, a few groups are out there like some in Ahle-sunnat, some among Shias, and some among Sunnis who will not pray in other mosques.. shame on all those who refuse to pray in a mosque, Allah's house. It is my Niyya(t) and not the Niyya of the Imam that matters to me and Alhamdu Lillah, I have prayed in every Mosque (http://Ramadanexclusive.blogspot.com )

Would you rather listen to Allah?

This is what Allah says, " Do not curse others, lest, they turn around and curse you" There is a magical wisdom in it - when Prophet Muhammad was pelted with stones on his way to Taif - did he curse them back? When Jesus says turn the other cheek, he means, do not aggravate the conflict, indeed, all the prophets, messengers and peace makers have said the same thing and have practiced it.

The role of a Muslim is to mitigate the conflicts and nurture goodwill to create peace for all of God's creation.http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2012/01/mission-of-world-muslim-congress.html

I listen to Allah and Muhammad and I will not condemn any one, I will pray for them, would you do the same? You have to rise above the common fallacies, would you do that? Let's get the hell out of mediocrity and do positive things... when some one meets you or me, they should think, he is a Muslim, a man I can trust, a man who tells the truth, a man who is not petty, a man who is good to all of God's creation.

Would you be that Muslim?

Mike Ghouse

---

rashidanywhere@yahoo.com writes:

Brother Mike Ghouse said very rightly to condemn everyone who issues Fatwa of Kufar against others. Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad and their followers declare EVERYOTHER MUSLIMS INCLUDING LAHORI-AHMADIS AS KAFIR. Now question is if Mike Ghouse impresses us by condemning all such bigots. Thanks

---

My Dear Brother Mike Ghouse

Assalamo Alaikum WW

Yes you are very right. No one no matter what his position is, be he an Imam of Kaaba, Imams of Khatme-Nabuwwat, Khalifas of Qadiani Ahmadies, especially their Musleh Maud ( Khalifa Sani ) or their Qamrul Anbiyya ( Brother of Khalifa Sani of Ahmadies ) ,Lahori Ahmadies Amirs of Mufties of various Muslim denominations or sects have no GODDAMNED right to take the place of Allah SWT, kick Him from His Throne and started issuing Fatwas of Kufar against fellow Muslims and kick them out of pale of Islam by declaring them or labelling them as KAFIR, be they Sunnis, Wahabies, Shias, Barelvies, Deobandies, Ahmadies ( Qadianies or Lahories ) Let us all condemn all those Ulemas who gave such Fatwa-e-Kufar against fellow Muslims. All those issuers of Fatwas of Kufar are Cursed by Allah SWT and promised by Him Everlasting Hell.

We are all Muslims by the Grace of Allah SWT.

MUSHTAQ MALIK

---

So ahmed Ismail, when did you kick Allah out of his throne and took over from him? Are you Allah, the master of the day of judgement?

No one has goddamned right to judge another persons faith, it's between Allah and the individual.

You are not God and you should not be judging who is Muslim or not.

Mike

---

ahmed ismail <aismaail@hotmail.com> wrote:

" Qadiyanis are non muslims.mirza qadiani was a british agent,who planted him to harm muslims of india.shame on mirza lanti qadiyani

shame on his lanti followers."

We have seen Mullahs hiding under the burqa in the past and now we see some one among us also doing the same shameless trick.
Let us be really ashamed for this Hijdas act.

Any way, as regards to the allegation of Ahmadies being British agent, replies in very much indetail were given so many times before and it need not be repeated again.

But, I want to ask a simple question.
Who could be a British agent?. The peple like you who holds the same belief of these Britishers ( Christians ) whose belief is that, Jesus ( Isa -as ) is above Muhammad Rasululla (sa) due to his superior qualities or Ahmadies, who sitting right in their middle and claim that their God-Jesus is dead and buried in Kashmir in India.?

Further, by boldly preaching the truth of Islam to every individual there and slowly converting their churches and Synagogues in to Mosques where Allah Towhid is broad casted continuously. Is this the way to become agent for Britishers? Shame on you,

---

From: rubina_naz24@yahoo.com Subject: Re: An Article in Times of India about Dr. Abdul Salam Qadiyanis are non muslims.mirza qadiani was a british agent,who planted him to harm muslims of india.shame on mirza lanti qadiyani shame on his lanti followers.

---

Is it not a shame for a country which gave such an unforgivable treatment to one of its noble citizens who brought nothing but glory and fame to his country?

And this, for what fault?. Because, he believed in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as)

He was not spared even in his 'Maqbarah'. What sort of people are these? May Allah forgive them.

Wasalam, Ahmed Ismail

---

Role of Dr. Abdul Salam sb for the discovery of Higgs boson. Today's news in Times of India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pakistan-shuns-its-only-Nobel-laureate--physicist-linked-to-discovery-of-God-particle/articleshow/14768961.cms

Kafir and Kufr

On the Terms Kafir and Kufr
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)

Mike Ghouse' commentary is followed by the Article

I hope a few more Maulana's can join and take this further. The given meaning of the word is Kafir is divisive and should have no place in civil societies. I really like Maualana Wahidudin Khan's analysis.

Kaffir is not "one who denies" , rather it one who does not believe in what you believe. Putting both on par, a symbol of humility and a guarantee to decimate arrogance.

I have written quite extensively on this, and we have debated the meaning of the word Kaffir. Most words become larger in meaning or more pluralistic in meaning as the world shrinks. After all, religion is about mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill, hence, the sensitivity enhancements are to be made to accommodate more people in to the fold of friendship.

Indeed, as the Maulana has expressed, it is used in a derogatory way, and it should not be used in civil societies.

The word of God remains the same, our understanding of it improves. One of the model surah's in term of civil dialogues is Kafirun. I have worked on it to reflect those who live in pluralistic societies, indeed, Prophet Muhammad lived in a pluralistic society and that was his model. All the sharia laws and Hadith's were created and compiled in a mono-religious society, not the kind Qur'aan and Islam was born in.

Here is Kafirun; http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.htmlPlease read the beautiful Chapter (Sura) from Qur’aan that addresses the believers (in other systems) in the most dignified way, putting every one on par and without putting anyone down. It is an exceptional example of civil conduct for Muslims to follow. No where in this chapter it claims the faith of Muslim to be superior and other's to be inferior. It is the recognition of the otherness of other.

Mike Ghouse
www.worldMuslimCongress.com
www.WorldMuslimCongress.org

According to Marxism, as it is generally interpreted, human society is divided into basically two classes—the working class and the bourgeoisie. The word 'bourgeoisie' is of French origin. In the beginning it denoted the middle classes, but later, when it was employed as a key term in Marxist discourse, it came to be seen in a derogatory sense. Consequently, in Marxist analysis the bourgeoisie came to be regarded as the source of all social ills, while the working class was considered to be the epitome of virtue.

Somewhat the same thing has happened with the term kafir. In the beginning, the term simply meant what its dictionary meaning denotes—'one who denies'. However, later it came to be used and seen in a derogatory sense, and today this latter sense in which the term is generally understood is the source of much conflict between Muslims and others.

Let me cite an instance to illustrate the possible consequences of the wrong use of the term kafir. The noted poet Muhammad Iqbal penned a Persian couplet in which he mentioned his Hindu Pandit origins, referring to himself as a brahmanzada or 'descendant of a Brahmin'. Now, the term brahmanzada is not seen as offensive by anyone. But suppose it was replaced by the term kafirzada or 'descendant of a kafir', lovers of Iqbal's poetry would react in horror. This is because the term kafir has come to be widely perceived and used in a very derogatory sense.

The general usage of the terms kafir and momin ('believers') by Muslims causes a great deal of anguish for many non-Muslims. So much so that some extremists opposed to Muslims and Islam have even demanded that the word kafir should be expunged from the Islamic lexicon, claiming that till this is done Muslims and non-Muslims can never live in amity with each other.

In actual fact, the misuse of the word kafir is not something that only extremists in other communities are vehemently opposed to. To be honest, it has become a major problem for many Muslims themselves. In today's age, Muslims and non-Muslims live and work together, and in this context many educated Muslims feel that they cannot properly adjust to a pluralistic situation while continuing to uphold traditional understandings of the term kafir. Consciously or otherwise, many of them feel that many aspects of the sort of Islam that they have been reared on have lost their relevance in today's age. They have no idea how they can live respectably in society today if they continue to cling to this sort of Islam.

I know of a certain very well-educated Muslim man who lives in Delhi, and who often meets me. He says that although he was born in a Muslim family he has lost faith in Islam. Democracy, he tells me, is his religion, not Islam, because, according to him, Islam sharply divides humankind into momins and kafirs, while democracy regards all human beings as equal [….]
So, as I just mentioned, this issue has become a very real and serious one for many Muslims today. It is imperative, therefore, to seriously address it. This is essential in order to answer the questions people are asking about the contemporary relevance of Islam as well as to help create a climate wherein Muslims and others can live together amicably.
If the issue is studied carefully and deeply, it emerges that the entire question is based on gross misunderstanding. In the general Muslim understanding, the term kafir is seen as synonymous with non-Muslim. Consequently, most Muslims think that anyone who is not a Muslim is a kafir. However, this is a completely wrong notion. The word kafir is not synonymous with non-Muslim.
According to the shariah, the role of true Muslims is that of dais or those who invite others to the path of God. The status of non-Muslims, therefore, is that of madu, or those who are to be invited to God's path. This relationship between dai and madu, between true Muslims and others, necessarily demands that true Muslims, as dais, must constantly seek to maintain good and friendly relations with people of other faiths. It is said that a shopkeeper must always be customer-friendly. Likewise, a true Muslim must always be madu-friendly.
A true dai must be inspired by a genuine sense of concern, love and welfare for the madu. If that is really the case, the dai would never tolerate using any term that might stir hatred in the heart of the madu. In addition, a true dai can never have hatred in his own heart for the madu.

The ancient Aryan invaders of India referred to the indigenous people of the country as Mlecchas. Likewise, medieval Christian scholars referred to Muslims as 'infidels'. Both terms were used in a derogatory sense, and those whom these terms were used to refer to obviously did not approve of them. The proper way in such cases is to use terms that do not have this derogatory implication. Unfortunately, the Muslim scholars have not adopted a proper approach in this regard. In their writings and their translations of the Quran they have indiscriminately used the term kafir to mean 'infidels'. In the Indian context, this has led to much misunderstanding and conflict between Hindus and Muslims. And because the term kafir has been used by the ulema in this sense it has created a particular sort of mind-set among Muslims generally, as is reflected in the writings and speeches of many Muslim scholars. It has played a major role in fashioning an entirely negative approach in the Muslim community in general towards people of other faiths. It has built up a pronounced sense of 'Muslims versus Others', 'We versus Them', which is very unfortunate and lamentable.

My own reading of the Quran leads me to believe that when it says, 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1), using the term kafirun for this, it refers only to the Qureish of Mecca of the Prophet's time who, despite the Prophet having provided them all proof of his divine mission, rejected and opposed him. It was then that God declared that they had become kafirs or deniers of the truth in His eyes. Nowhere else in the Quran has any other group been declared in such clear and specific terms as kafir. This way of addressing people does not, I believe, apply to other non-Muslims, who should be addressed as human beings, rather than as kafirs.

More on the Term Kafir

As I indicated earlier, the Arabic word kufr means 'denial', and the related term kafir denotes 'one who denies', that is 'one who refuses to accept'. Thus, the word kafir denotes an individual character rather than being a label for a specific community or race. In many English translations of the Quran, the word has been translated as 'unbelievers', but this, I feel, is wrong. An unbeliever is someone who does not believe, but a kafir is a person who refuses to believe despite all the proofs of God having been presented to him in an appropriate way.

In the early part of the Prophet's mission, as evidenced in the initial verses of the Quran, the people he addressed were not referred to as kafirs, but, rather, as people. For instance, addressing the Prophet the Quran says, 'O Messenger, deliver whatever has been sent down to you by your Lord. If you do not do so, you will not have conveyed His message. God will defend you from mankind (al-nas). For God does not guide those who deny truth.' (Quran: 5:67). In this verse, God says that He would protect the Prophet from 'mankind' (al-nas), and does not use the word al-kuffar or kafirs. There are numerous such verses in the Quran that indicate the use of the general word insan ('people') or related words to refer to all human communities […]
It was only after thirteen years of the Prophet's struggling to present the Qureish of Mecca of his time all the required proofs of his mission while addressing them as 'people' that, after they deliberately denied him, the above-mentioned Quranic commandment 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1) was revealed. And that too was an announcement from God Himself, and it was not the Prophet's own statement.

The Difference Between Deeds and the Doer

Elsewhere in the Quran the words kufr and kafir have been employed in the sense of referring to certain deeds or acts that are tantamount to kufr, and the person who does this is a kafir in God's eyes. However, other than with regard to the Qureish of Mecca, and that too only after the Prophet's mission among them for thirteen long years which they rejected, there is no specific declaration in the Quran labeling any particular community as kafir. From this it appears that while a dai or an Islamic scholar can point out that a particular deed amounts to kufr he does not have the right to declare any particular community as kafirs. As I mentioned above, the word kafir relates to a certain set of actions, and is not the name of or label for any community.

This point can be further clarified with the help of a hadith report attributed to the Prophet which talks about the sin of a Muslim deliberately abandoning his regular prayers and linking it with kufr. In this context, it is acceptable for someone to appeal to Muslims in general to regularly pray and also tell them about the grave implications of abandoning regular worship. But it would be totally incorrect if he were to prepare a list of Muslims in his area who do not regularly worship and then specifically name them as having turned kafirs for this sin.

In exactly the same way, a true Muslim who calls people to the path of God can, on the basis of Quranic teachings, point out the actions which lead people to be seen as kafirs in the eyes of God. But he would be exceeding his boundaries if he were to address non-Muslim individuals and communities by name and declare that so-and-so non-Muslims are kafirs.

Hence, on the matter of kufr and kafir it is crucial to make a distinction between an act or deed of kufr and the person who commits that act or deed. It is only God's prerogative to make a specific declaration in this regard, and that He has done just once, with regard to the Qureish deniers and opponents of the Prophet in Mecca to whom the Prophet had provided complete proofs of God's revelation. With regard to the rest of humanity, God will decide Himself, and this would be made known in the Hereafter. Hence, the task of a true Muslim is simply to invite others to the path of God, and not to declare people to be kafirs.

Consequently, in my opinion, from the Islamic point of view the status of non-Muslim communities all over the world, including of the Hindus of India, is simply that of being human beings (insan). None of these communities can be branded as kafirs, because as of yet the essential conditions that characterized thirteen years of the Prophet's preaching in Mecca among the Qureish have not been fulfilled, only after which the Qureish were declared as kafirs. Likewise, it is incorrect to term them as 'deniers' (munkir).

I believe that the many of the conflicts and complaints that characterize relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are essentially communal and economic. These are, at root, conflicts about worldly or material interests. These cannot be considered to be religious as such. Muslims must take the initiative to desist from these conflicts over worldly or material interests and focus all their intention on their real mission, which is to invite people to the path of surrender to God.

Investigating Kufr

When can it be established with regard to a particular person that he has become a 'denier' (munkir)? The Quran supplies an answer to this. The revelation of the Quran started in 610 C.E. in Mecca, and through the Quran the Prophet invited the Meccans to the path of worship of the one God. In this period, he never referred to his fellow Meccans as kafirs. Instead, as I mentioned before, he referred to them as 'human beings' or by similar terms, such as 'Qureish' or 'my community'. He conveyed to them God's message while considering them part of his own community (qaum). This, therefore, shows that the words kafir and kufr relate to a particular attribute and not to an entire community as such.

In his mission to invite the people of Mecca to God's path, the Prophet was filled with a sense of deep concern for the welfare of those he was addressing, and even though they heaped all sorts of oppression on him he always beseeched God to guide them. And the Prophet continued to do this steadfastly throughout the thirteen long years after receiving his prophethood in Mecca. Even after that he did not refer to these people as kafirs on his own. It was only later that God revealed this commandment 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1). From this it appears that only after these thirteen years of the Prophet's dedicated mission in Mecca that God declared those whom he had addressed but who had rejected him as 'deniers', and it was then that God revealed this commandment. It is thus impermissible to declare anyone to be a 'denier' or kafir without having engaged in this sort of dedicated, sustained mission as the Prophet did in Mecca. To repeat what I have written earlier, it was only after thirteen years of the Prophet's mission in Mecca that God declared certain people or be kafirs or deniers, and for ordinary Muslims like us to do so even a hundred and thirteen years of preaching work will not be adequate.

In some Quranic verses revealed while the Prophet was in Mecca there are certain references to non-Muslims living outside Arabia. For instance, the Quran mentions the Romans, who were Christians, over whom the Persians had secured a temporary victory. But here it refers to them as Romans, not as kafirs. Likewise, the Quran refers to the non-Muslim ruler of Yemen, Abraha, but it does not label him as a kafir ruler. In contrast, the Quran uses the terms kafir and kufr with regard to the Qureish of Mecca who denied the Prophet. It did not refer to all non-Muslims as kafirs. For instance, when the Prophet migrated to Medina, he did not refer to the people of Medina as kafirs, but, rather, as 'people'. There were several non-Muslim tribes living around Medina at that time, but they, too, were not referred to as kafirs by the Prophet. Instead, he referred to them by their usual names, such as Ahl-e Saqif ('the people of Saqif'), Ahl-e Najran ('the people of Najran'), Ahl-e Bahrain ('the people of Bahrain'), and so on.

In the same way, in the early Islamic period, soon after the Prophet's demise when the Arab Muslims spread out of Arabia into other countries, they referred to the non-Muslim communities they encountered there by their own names, not as kafirs. For example, they called the Christians of Syria as 'Christians' (Masihi), the Jews of Palestine as 'Jews' (Yahud), the Magians of Iran as 'Magians' (Majus), the Buddhists of Afghanistan as 'Buddhists' (Bodh or Boza), and so on.

Likewise, when the first Muslims landed in India they did the same. They referred to the non-Muslims of India as 'Hindus', which is the Arab way of pronouncing the word 'Sindhu'. One of the earliest Arab Muslim chroniclers of India, Abu al-Rehan al-Biruni, author of the well-known Kitab ul-Hind ('Book of India'), referred to the non-Muslims of India as 'Hindus', not as kafirs.

Some Historical Instances

As I have repeatedly mentioned above, the form of address contained in the Quran 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1) applies only to those Meccans who denied the Prophet even after he preached among them for thirteen years and provided them with all the necessary proofs. The Quran does not address anyone else in this specific manner besides these people of Mecca of the Prophet's time. After the Prophet's conquest of Mecca, several Arab tribes sent delegations to meet him. For instance, some people came to meet him from Yemen. He addressed them as 'people of Yemen' (Ahl-e Yaman), not as 'kafirs from Yemen'. Similarly, the Prophet sent letters to the rulers of various lands near Arabia, inviting them to the path of God. He did not refer to them in these letters as kafirs [….]

To reiterate what I have said above, the investigation of kufr with regard to a particular person can happen only after all the necessary proofs of the faith have been presented before him, and the model of setting out the proofs (itmam-e hujjat) is just one—that is, the thirteen year preaching mission of the Prophet in Mecca. Further, even after one has properly and adequately set out the proofs of the faith it is only for God to specify, if He wishes, a particular person to be a kafir or 'denier' of the Truth. We cannot do this ourselves.

Heated Polemics

When the British ruled India, Muslim and Hindu preachers engaged in heated public polemical debates (munazara). This took the place of what rightly belonged to dawah or inviting, with love and concern, people to the path of God. These debates contributed in a major way to the rapid worsening of Hindu-Muslim relations across the country.

This is not the Islamic way of approaching others. The true Islamic way is through addressing others by being inspired by a spirit of love, compassion and concern for their welfare, even despite their opposition. On the other hand, polemical debates aim at defeating and demeaning others. Instead of love and understanding, they produce only more hate and conflict, thereby creating even more problems.

The Notion of Dar ud-Dawah ('The Abode of Inviting People to the Path of God')

The terms dar ul-kufr ('the abode of infidelity') and bilad al-kuffar ('the land of the infidels') are not found in the Quran. They are a later invention which emerged after the demise of the Prophet and date to the Abbasid period. They were not in use among Muslims before this. In my opinion these terms are not proper. Lands other than those that can, if at all, be called 'Islamic' countries, must be seen and termed as dar ud-dawah abodes of inviting others to the path of God, and these include even those countries that some Muslims might regard as opposed to them.

In the Quran, God addresses the Prophet and instructs him thus:
'This is a blessed Book which We have revealed, confirming what came before it, so that you may warn the 'Ummal-Quraa [Mother of Cities] and the people around it' (Quran, 6:92).

The term 'Ummal-Quraa in this verse refers to Mecca. When this verse was revealed, Mecca was in the control of non-Muslims, so much so that they had installed numerous idols inside the Kaaba. Yet, despite this, the Quran did not refer to the Mecca of this period as dar ul-kufr, but, rather, as 'Ummal-Quraa or 'Mother of Cities', and asked the Prophet to engage in the work of dawah there. From this one can infer that all places that are under the control of non-Muslims can be considered as dar ud-dawah, thus indicating to Muslims their duty of dawah or inviting to God's path the people of these lands. To refer to them with terms such as dar ul-kufr or bilad al-kuffar is not proper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a translation of a chapter titled Kufr Aur Kafir Ka Masla ('The Issue of Kufr and Kafir'), in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's Urdu book titled Hikmat-e Islam (Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2008) (pp.35-48).
For more information about Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and his writings, see www.alrisala.org, www.cpsglobal.org, www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com and www.goodwordbooks.com
To order this book, write to info@goodwordbooks.com