THE BCCSA RECONCILIATION SETTLEMENT
A DISPASSIONATE APPRAISAL
After the ‘reconciliation/settlement’ process effected by the Ulama of the dispute which SANHA had created and for which it had sought ‘relief’ and resolution in the BCCSA forum, it was not our intention to comment further since we believed that ‘reconciliation’ had effectively buried the hatchet. However, the childish and self-vindictive statement gloatingly issued by SANHA has constrained us to embark on another dimension of the controversy.
If SANHA had a sincere intention to merely apprise the Muslim community of the outcome of the arbitration, it should have acted with a maturity necessary for men of responsibility and sagacity. A brief statement announcing an ‘amicable’ settlement and reconciliation would have sufficed. Since SANHA deemed it appropriate to upset that apple cart, we shall now take the liberty of commenting on the terms of the so-called ‘reconciliation’ and ‘settlement’ without resorting to our usual mannerism employed for the excoriation of SANHA.
THE TERMS OF THE ‘RECONCILIATION’ AND OUR COMMENTS
(1) “The parties will not condemn or criticize each others view points.”
This stipulation is in conflict with the Shariah. It is tantamount to Kitmaanul Haq (Concealing the Truth of the Deen). The primary concern of the Aalim is or should be the defence of the Shariah. He is in the stead of Waarith (Heir/Representative) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Occupying this lofty sacred Office, there frequently develops the exigency to criticize and condemn a baatil (baseless/false/haraam) view which is peddled under Deeni guise. Such a view may not be tolerated. It has to be outrightly condemned.
The masses may not be left to labour and dwell in deception and falsehood. They must be informed that the baatil veiw is beyond the parameters of legitimate Ikhtilaaf (Difference of Opinion), hence it may not be tolerated. Among such baatil views which have to be incumbently criticized and condemned are the carrion chicken and television views.
(2) “In matters where there is a difference of opinion, each party will present its view positively.”
What is the meaning of “positively” in this context? To us it implies condonation of an opposite view regardless of its butlaan (falsehood/conflict with the Shariah). Where one’s view is the Haqq and one is aware of the total falsehood of the opposite view, it will be Islamically positive to reject and revile the baatil view.
(3) “When specifically questioned about the viewpoint of the other party, one should simply refer the query to that party.”
This will be valid only in cases of valid Ikhtilaaf. If the opposite view is baatil and haraam, it will not be permissible to refer a person to the other party. In so doing, the Seeker of Truth will be sent to his spiritual doom into the den of the wolf. The Haqq may not be concealed or suppressed for the sake of maintaining smiles and sustaining superficial ‘brotherly’ relationship. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Proclaim the Haqq regardless of it being bitter.”
The Deen is not an idle academic topic to be treated like a hobby. Imaan and Najaat (Salvation) in the Aakhirah are reliant on it. Precisely for this reason do we find the Muhadditheen branding a fabricator of Hadith as “Kath-thaab” (a great liar) as well as other pejorative attributes.
(4) “Where there is a difference of opinion on any particular matter, each party will present its viewpoint in a positive manner without condemning and criticizing each others view point.”
This is a regurgitation of terms 1 and 2. The same comments above are applicable to it.
(5) “The parties forgive each other for whatever has transpired, and for any inflammatory statements made against each other.”
Forgiveness is the product of having realized one’s error. Without believing that one has erred there can be no remorse and regret. The ‘forgiveness’ will then be an outer, hollow façade of dishonesty. The issue will fester in the hearts breeding malice and animosity.
SANHA’s latest pamphlet in which it has gloated at what it perceived to be a ‘victory’ for itself confirms that the term of ‘forgiveness’ is farcical. Furthermore, it will be wrong for Mufti A.K.Hoosen to seek forgiveness for the Haqq which he has propagated. Forgiveness is for uttering baatil, not for proclaiming the Haqq of the Shariah.
The term, Scholars for Dollars, is not inflammatory. It is a statement of Haqq. It is paraphrasing Rasulullah’s castigatory statement, Abdud dinar wad dirham (the slave of dinar and dirham – of gold and silver). When such criticism or worse, is directed to an Aalim, he, if he is indeed an Aalim, should take it in stride and ruminate on it. If his meditation indicates that indeed he is a scholar for dollars, he should repent and reform his ways. If he is convinced that he is not a scholar for dollars, he should gracefully set it aside without creating a self-vindictive fuss, hue and cry. Such attitude is not befitting the lofty status of an Aalim of the Deen who is not supposed to react in self-defence when criticized or slandered. An Aalim of the Haqq only speaks up for the Deen, never for exculpating himself from the false charges and slanders which the Ahl-e-Baatil direct to him, and it is completely nugatory of Imaan to seek refuge, relief and resolution in a kaafir court for perceived ‘inflammatory and defamatory’ statements of criticism.
Once while Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh) was delivering a bayaan, a person interjected and said: “You are a liar.” Without displaying the slightest vestige of annoyance, Hadhrar Basri (rahmatullah alayh) addressing the gathering, said: “Of all the people, he has recognized who I really am.”
Once when Hadhrat Ismail Shaheed (rahmatullah alayh) was delivering a Wa’z in the Jaami’ Musjid of Delhi where tens of thousands of musallis had assembled, a man interjecting said: “We refuse to listen to you. You are waladuz zina (an illegitimate child.) Ponder on this inflammatory and defamatory abuse uttered in a crowd of tens of thousands whilst the great Hadhrat Maulana was on the mimbar delivering a Wa’z. Without displaying the slightest sign of hurt or annoyance, Hadhrat Ismail Shaheed (rahmatullah alayh) responded: “Brother, the witnesses to the Nikah of my parents are still alive.”
It is not in the constitution of Imaan for a Muslim to feel defamed and to seek relief in the kuffaar courts. We are always worse than whatever the ‘inflammatory’ statement connotes and conveys. However, Allah Ta’ala is Saatirul Uyoob (The Concealer of our sins). The worse in us always remains concealed. Therefore, be contented and settle with the lesser epithets which generally invoke in us the urge to disgorge venom in self-defence. This is the effect of Takabbur.
(6) “The parties undertake to abstain from any such misconduct and agree to co-operate in the spirit of Islamic brotherhood.”
The latest pamphlet of SANHA was most certainly not issued in the “spirit of Islamic brotherhood”. It portrayed the usual misconduct with which SANHA reacts when the Haqq is flung into its presence.
Furthermore, proclamation of the Haqq, and calling a spade, a spade, are not ‘misconduct’ nor nugatory of ‘Islamic brotherhood’. In addition, a brotherhood which demands acceptance of the opposition’s baatil or maintenance of silence thereby concealing the Haqq, is haraam. An Aalim of the Haqq may not tolerate such baatil attitudes.
It is our dua that Mufti A.K.Hoosen will not submit to the attempt or conspiracy to gag him – to prevent him from proclaiming the Haqq of the Shariah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“He who searches for the Pleasure of Allah (and in the process) courts the displeasure of the people, Allah suffices for him. And, he who searches for the pleasure of the people (and in the process) courts the Displeasure of Allah, He (Allah) casts him to the people.”
Never will they be able to protect him.
27 Jamadiyuth Thaani 1435 – 28 April 2014
|< Prev||Next >|