|
Revisiting the Jihad of the Companions
after the Demise of Prophet Muhammad (sws)
Prologue
According to Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī, the guidance of the
Almighty in the era of messengers works on the basis of the concept of itmām al-hujjah.
Itmām al-hujjah means communication of the truth to the extent that that no
excuses remain for the addressees. When itmām al-hujjah is done on a group of
people, they can no longer claim that they genuinely did not become convinced by
the message of truth. After itmām al-hujjah the only reason that a person may
reject the truth will be his own arrogance. Itmām al-hujjah is the basis of
worldly reward and worldly punishment of the believers and rejecters who have
been the direct addressees of a messenger of God. For these groups the worldly
reward or punishment continues into the Hereafter. According to Ghāmidī, the
offensives launched by the companions on the neighbouring countries after the
demise of the Prophet (sws) was on the basis of itmām al-hujjah. These were the
same countries whose rulers were sent warning letters by Prophet Muhammad (sws).
The mechanism of how itmām al-hujjah applies to these countries, as understood
by Ghāmidī, is a complex one. This article is the outcome of series of detailed
discussions with Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī and aims to reflect his views on this
important subject.
The article ends with my reflections on the subject.
The article has been written for a reader who is already
familiar with the concept of itmām al-hujjah and its consequences as explained
by Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī. A brief reminder is given at the start of this article.
For the sake of brevity throughout the rest of this article I will use Ghāmidī
to refer to Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī.
Itmām al-Hujjah and Daynūnah
وَ لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَسُولٌ فَإِذا جاءَ رَسُولُهُمْ قُضِيَ
بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ وَ هُمْ لا يُظْلَمُون (١٠:
٤٧)
And for each community,
there is a messenger. Then when their messenger comes, judgement will take place
among them with justice and they are not wronged. (10:47)
The above verse is about one of the most important Sunan
(ways) of the Almighty which in the words of Imām Hamīd al-Din Farāhī can be
referred to as daynūnah. Daynūnah (from dayn in Arabic, meaning retribution) in
its general meaning refers to the system of rewards and punishments of the
Almighty that is fully manifested on the day of judgement. Daynūnah in its
specific meaning, as Ghāmidī puts it, refers to the miniature day of judgement
that takes place in this world for the direct addressees of a messenger of God.
It may thus be noted that the daynūnah is the consequence of itmām al-hujjah.
In the words of Ghāmidī:
By this phase (i.e. itmām
al-hujjah), the truth has become so evident to the addressees that they do not
have any excuse except stubbornness to deny it. In religious parlance, this is
called itmām al-hujjah. Obviously, in it besides the style adopted and the
arguments presented, the very person of the rasūl plays a role in achieving this
end. The stage is reached that the matter becomes as evident as the sun shining
in the open sky. Consequently, at this instance, a rasūl to a great extent
communicates the fate of the addressees to them, and his preaching takes the
trenchant form of a final warning.”
Once the itmām al-hujjah takes
place, daynūnah of the addressees of the messenger starts. From the time of
Prophet Abraham (sws) onwards, this daynūnah has had two dimensions:
- Internal: This
refers to the reward that the believers and the followers of the messenger
receive in this world. This reward is mainly in the form of political strength
and domination over other politically associated nations. This reward continues
as long as they obey the religion of the Almighty. If they break the covenant
that they made with their Lord then their reward will cease and will be replaced
with humiliation, hardship and subservience to other nations.
- External: This
refers to the punishment of the rejecters during the era of the messenger. Those
rejecters that are polytheists are executed or perish at the hands of the
followers of the messenger or by natural calamities. Those rejecters that are
originally monotheist become subservient to the believers. Obviously the
internal dimension of daynūnah relates and contributes to the external
dimension. This external dimension of daynūnah also applied to the nations
before prophet Abraham (sws).
Ghāmidī has described five phases for the process of itmām
al-hujjah and daynūnah in his book Mīzān..
However in order to better understand the relationship between daynūnah and
itmām al-hujjah, in this particular discussion, Ghāmidī breaks up the process of
itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah into three phases as follows:
Phase one: General Da‘wah (preaching)
In this phase, the messenger starts giving da‘wah
(preaching) and indhār (warning) to mainly the leaders but also to the people of
the nation that he is addressing. The indhār is to let the addressees know the
consequences if they arrogantly reject the messenger and his message. One of the
instrumental tools for warning the nations at this phase is to remind them of
the destiny of those nations before them who had been warned by their messengers
and had been punished and who perished as a result of their arrogant rejection
of the truth.
Phase two: Implementation of Daynūnah for the Leaders
Following da‘wah and indhār, once the phase of itmām al-hujjah
is concluded for the leaders of the nation, the punishment of these leaders
starts. This is more specifically true when the divine punishment was carried
out by a messenger and his immediate followers. In other cases, as described in
the Qur’ān, phase two and phase three were practically merged together as one
phase and the divine punishment appeared in the form of a natural calamity.
Phase three: Ultimatum to the Common Masses
This phase according to Ghāmidī is the natural consequence
of the previous two phases and happens inevitably after them. The punishment of
the leaders of the nation contributes towards itmām al-hujjah for the common
masses and therefore an ultimatum is given to them that unless they let go of
their arrogance and submit to the truth, they too will face the same or a
similar punishment as their leaders. Phase three ends with implementation of the
ultimatum.
It is important to note that like a chain reaction, phase
three is simply the consequence of phases one and two. In other words, just as
the destiny of the nations who were punished in the past serves as a concrete
evidence of the truth for the leaders of the addressed nation, the punishment of
these leaders (along with the punishment of the past nations) serves as a strong
evidence of the truth for the common masses of the addressed nation.
To be more specific about the era of the prophet (sws), the
application of the above three phases to his time is as follows:
Phase one: The Prophet (sws) started indhār-i ‘ām (general
warning and preaching) after a short period of private preaching to his friends
and trusted ones. Sūrah Muddaththir can be seen as the beginning of this general
warning and preaching for the Quraysh. While this warning was towards all the
Quraysh (and in fact all who could hear and understand it at the time) it was
specifically focusing on the leaders of the Quraysh. Many of the chapters of the
29th and 30th sections (juzw) of the Qur’ān (that is the seventh group of
chapters of the Qur’an in the thematic sense)
are specifically warning the leaders of the Quraysh. One of the means of warning
was to remind the Quraysh about the destiny of the nations before them who like
them, were among the direct addressees of messengers and met their punishment or
were rewarded in this world. The stories of these nations were considered as
historical facts by the Quraysh or the people of the book in the Arabian
Peninsula. In particular the Quraysh had a clear historical memory of what
happened to the people of Thamūd and ‘Ād.
Phase two: The punishment of the leaders of the Quraysh
started by their defeat in the battle of Badr and their subsequent defeats and
retreats after that. During these battles a number of chief heads of Quraysh
where either killed or humiliated.
Phase three: The defeat and humiliation of the leaders of
the Quraysh naturally and automatically served as further proof for the truth of
the Prophet’s (sws) message and therefore further contributed in warning the
common masses of the Quraysh. This warning reached its culmination at the time
of the invasion of Makkah, as described in Sūrah Tawbah. The defeat and
humiliation of the Quraysh itself served as a proof of the truth for the rest of
the Arabs in the peninsula.
Elaboration of the Mechanism of Itmām al-Hujjah
Before proceeding to the itmām al-hujjah after the demise
of the Prophet (sws), it is helpful to describe and illustrate some of the
details of the above process as explained by Ghamidi:
Itmām al-hujjah works in a chain reaction. In this chain
reaction, God provides the required means. One of the main means is the reward
and the punishment of a previous group/nation to whom a messenger was sent.
Witnessing or hearing the news of the past punishments or rewards serves as a
means for the next group/nation. A messenger of God (and if applies, his
followers) will use this means for itmām al-hujjah. However, as for the
followers, all they can do and all that they are responsible for is putting
their efforts to strive for itmām al-hujjah. In the words of Ghāmidī, this
endeavour and effort can be translated as ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah in Arabic
(literally meaning to strive for itmām al-hujjah). Ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah by
the believers may or may not result in the actual itmām al-hujjah and in the
absence of any divine indications there will be no way to establish whether the
actual itmām al-hujjah took place. However a messenger of God completes the
actual itmām al-hujjah with the direct support of the Almighty. Once itmām al-hujjah
happens for the new group/nation and the reward and punishment takes place for
them, again this reward and punishment is used as means for ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah
by the believers for the next group/nation, and as means for actual itmām al-hujjah
where a messenger is also sent to that group/nation. This mechanism of the chain
of itmām al-hujjah can be illustrated as follows:
Figure 1: Chain of itmām al-hujjah as described by Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī
Note:IH: itmām al-hujjah; IIH: ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah
As described earlier, in the above chain of events, where
applicable, the itmām al-hujjah and punishment of thse leaders of a nation
precedes the itmām al-hujjah and punishment of the nation. One of the other
important points that needs to be emphasized in the above figure is the division
of responsibilities between a messenger, his companions (from among the chosen
nation) and the rest of the chosen nation (ie. from the generation of the
companions). This is further clarified by the following table:
|
Phase
|
Responsibility
|
|
Messenger |
Companions from among the chosen nation |
Chosen Nation (other than the companions) |
|
Ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah |
Not Applicable |
Yes |
Yes |
|
itmām al-hujjah |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Implementing the Punishment |
where applies |
where applies |
No |
Table 1: The dividing of responsibilities of events in the
process of itmām al-hujjah, as explained by Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī
As it is clear from the above table, it is only the
companions (immediate followers) of a messenger that may be allowed to implement
the punishment after the messenger has done itmām al-hujjah. The next
generations of the believers do not have that permission and responsibility. The
expression “where applies” in Table 1 refers to the information given in the
Qur’ān about the ways of punishing the previous nations. Ghāmidī explains in
Mīzān:
At times, this punishment
is through earthquakes, cyclones and other calamities and disasters, while, at
others, it emanates from the swords of the believers.
According to Ghāmidī, the
position of a nation being appointed as witness (shahādah) to the truth, as
mentioned in the Qur’ān (2:143; 22:78), is in fact the authority of that nation
to do ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah.
Application of the above after the Demise of the Prophet (sws)
Ghāmidī explains that exactly the same process was adopted
for the countries that were invaded by the companions after the demise of the
Prophet (sws). These were the same nations to which the Prophet (sws) sent
letters of warning. The companions, through their ijtihād (deduction),
considered it their responsibility to do their duty with this regard just as
they fulfilled their duty with regard to the direct addressees of the warnings
of the Qur’an (i.e. Quraysh and the People of the Book in the Arabian
Peninsula).
This similar process of itmām al-hujjah after the demise of the Prophet (sws) is
explained in the following section. To illustrate this better, Persia is
referred to as an example where the following had a full application according
to Ghamidi:
Phase One: The victories of Muslims, along with the general
knowledge of reward and punishment of nations which existed before, provided the
means for itmām al-hujjah by the Prophet (sws). The Prophet (sws) initiated
itmām al-hujjah by sending letters to Khusrū Parvayz the then king of Persia.
The letters warned the king to accept the message of Islam and informed him that
his country will fall apart if he (the ruling body) does not accept the message
of truth. Although the letters were literally addressing the king of Persia,
they were in fact addressing the ruling body of Persia. As the king of a
powerful country at the time, Khusrū Parvayz and his ruling body were aware of
the developments in Arabia. They were later aware of the fact that the leaders
of Quraysh were defeated and that the whole Arabia was dominated by Muslims.
They were also aware of some of the stories of the nations before them who were
punished due to rejecting the messengers of God. All this provided them with a
clear opportunity to realize and appreciate the message of truth and as a
consequence they were subjected to itmām al-hujjah. As history reveals, the
warning was not taken seriously by Khusru Parviz or the later kings of Persia
and their ruling bodies.
Phase two: The companions were aware of the history of some
of the nations who witnessed itmām al-hujjah before them. They had obviously
heard the directives and warnings in the Qur’ān related to the concept. They
themselves were the direct addressees of some of these directives and they knew
and had practically witnessed their own role in this regard. They were therefore
fully aware of the concept of itmām al-hujjah and its implications. They then
witnessed the sending of letters by the Prophet (sws) and noticed the contents
of the letters where (in case of Persia) the falling apart of the country was
predicted. They therefore concluded through their ijtihād that the law of itmām
al-hujjah is also applying to and is in fact in process for these nations,
including Persia. They also had the means of ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah provided
to them. Accordingly they first carried out their responsibility of punishing
the ruling body of Persians. The Persian nation witnessed how against all odds,
a powerful empire fell down apparently at the hands of much less powerful and
less skilful army of Arab Muslims. What once was seen as one of the two super
powers of the time was defeated by a nation that was not even considered as a
serious rival in the region.
Phase three: The defeat of the then king of Persia and his
ruling body provided further means for ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah for the
Persian nation. Ghāmidī asserts that the Persian nation overall were aware of
the letters of the Prophet (sws) to their leadership and were also aware of the
Prophet’s (sws) prediction of Persia falling apart if they did not submit to the
truth. In this way, the letters of the Prophet (sws) initiated a process that
eventually reached itmām al-hujjah for the Persian nation as well. As explained
earlier, according to Ghāmidī this third phase takes place naturally after the
first two phases. It is therefore correct to say that the itmām al-hujjah for
the entire Persia was the work of no one but the Prophet (sws) himself
(supported and blessed by the Almighty of course).
In the above mechanism of itmām al-hujjah for Persians, the
letters of the Prophet (sws) should be seen as an instrumental tool that served
as a leading sign. While the ruling body of Persians and through them the
Persian nation were warned by these letters, the companions considered them as
indirect instructions to implement the punishment on Persia if they do not
submit after itmām al-hujjah. Not only this, the companions also considered the
contents of the letters to be a clear indication and a divine information that
the process of itmām al-hujjah is taking place and will be competed for the
Persian ruling body and the Persian nation. As explained above, this
understanding was backed by their full awareness of the law of itmām al-hujjah
for which they themselves played a key role in the Arabian Peninsula. As stated
before, the letters contained predictions of Persia falling apart if they did
not submit to the message of truth. The ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah by the Muslim
army in Persia should be seen as the offshoot of the process of itmām al-hujjah
that was started by the Prophet (sws). Accordingly the Muslim army subjected the
Persian nation (on a gradual scheme) to the law of punishment of people of the
book after itmām al-hujjah, that is, becoming subservient to the chosen nation
by paying jizyah.
The above is illustrated in the following figure. Figure 2
is in fact application and elaboration of figure 1 for Persia after the demise
of the Prophet (sws):
Figure 2: Application of the chain of Itmām al-Hujjah on
Persia after the demise of the prophet (sws), as described by Jāved Ahmad
Ghāmidī
Note:IH: itmām al-hujjah; IIH: ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah
Ghāmidī explains that while the source of events related to
itmām al-hujjah for the Arab nation is the Qur’ān, the source of the events
related to itmām al-hujjah for Persians is history. He explains that the history
of invasions of Muslims after the demise of the Prophet (sws) has never been
looked at from the itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah point of view. Ghāmidī is of the
view that if the history of these invasions were looked at from this standing
point then many supporting evidences for the above explanation could have been
derived. He has noted these supporting evidences himself and is keen for his
students and other scholars to study and document them through research.
Summary of the main points
A few important points that can be derived from the above
explanation are singled out and emphasized here. I intend to avoid the risk that
the reader may not notice these very crucial points in the above rather long
writing:
1. The attack of the companions to Persia and other
countries were motivated by their ijtihād after observing the letters of the
Prophet (sws) to those countries. The companions on their own ijtihād concluded
that they were responsible to implement the due punishment, after itmām al-hujjah
on these countries had been done by the Prophet’s (sws) initiative.
2. It was not the companions or the Muslim army that
completed itmām al-hujjah for the Persian rulers. It was in fact the Prophet (sws)
that did it.
3. Ghāmidī is not claiming that the letters of the
Prophet (sws) were enough to do itmām al-hujjah for the Persian rulers. The
letters were in fact part of a system of means that are always available for
messengers when they do itmām al-hujjah. This system included the news of the
past punished and rewarded nations as well as those in the Arabian Peninsula at
the time of the Prophet (sws).
4. Following from the above point, in the words of
Ghāmidī, there is no difference between the Prophet’s letters to the heads of
the countries and his talks with the heads of Quraysh. Both these were supported
by the evidences of punishment after itmām al-hujjah and it was together with
these evidences that these letters or those talks contributed in itmām al-hujjah
for the heads of the countries and the heads of Quraysh.
5. Similarly it was not the companions or the Muslim
army who completed itmām al-hujjah on Persia or the other countries. Itmām al-hujjah
for these countries was a natural and “automatic” consequence of observing the
destiny of their ruling bodies.
6. The companions and the chosen nation of God were
not responsible for itmām al-hujjah, they were not necessarily capable of itmām
al-hujjah and did not even know on their own, whether itmām al-hujjah was done
for a group or a nation. As the intermediate nation who had been given the
position of shahādah (being witness of the truth for others) they were and they
are only responsible to do ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah. From among the chosen
nation, only the companions had the extra responsibility of implementing God’s
punishment on nations for whom itmām al-hujjah had been done.
7. The companions knew that itmām al-hujjah was taking
place for the Persian rulers and Persian people because the letters of the
Prophet (sws) had promised punishment of Persia in case they did not accept the
Prophet’s (sws) invitation to the message of Islam. Since the Persian rulers
rejected the message of Islam the companions concluded that the perdition of the
Prophet (sws) would then materialize, which indicated to them that itmām al-hujjah
was done for the rulers and was naturally going to be applied to the Persian
people as well.
8. Ghāmidī believes that history shows that the
punishment that was carried out by the companions in Persia (and other places)
was implemented based on the principles of itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah.
However, since the companions were not directly guided by the Almighty or His
Messenger (sws) in this endeavour, Ghāmidī does not rule out the possibility
that there could be mistakes and errors happening occasionally as well.
9. Although Ghāmidī derives the principles of itmām
al-hujjah and daynūnah and their implementation in the Arabian Peninsula from
the Qur’ān, he does not claim that the details of application of these
principles in Persia and other countries are also mentioned in the Qur’ān. He
appreciates that the only source of reading about the application of these
principles in these countries is history.
Author’s Reflections and Thoughts
I would like to end this article with some final personal
reflections on the subject. My main problem with the idea of applying the
principle of itmām al-hujjah on Persia and other countries was that at times I
felt that in our keenness to uphold the principles of itmām al-hujjah, we
sometimes seemed to unconsciously try to rewrite the history of these invasions
in order to make them fit with these principles. I could not help but notice
some not very impressive stories about some of the things that happened during
these invasions. Although I had not studied the reliability of these reports, I
found it not very academic and not quite objective to dismiss these reports only
because they were not in line with the principles of itmām al-hujjah. All this
however was based on indirect narratives of Javed Ahmad Ghāmidī’s thought that I
was exposed to and not based on direct discussion with him.
Throughout the long sessions of discussing this subject
with Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī I pleasantly found my mind at peace. The assertion of
Ghāmidī that the companions acted on their own ijtihād solved conflicting points
in my mind. This simply means that from an academic point of view, we should not
worry about reports of unjustified acts at the time of invasion of these
countries. If we do find reliable reports of some acts that were not in line
with the principles of itmām al-hujjah, then this does not question those
principles. These reports of unjustified acts and practices, if proved reliable,
are simply showing the fact that the army of Muslims, in the absence of direct
leadership of the Prophet (sws), was not benefitting from a direct divine
supervision and was therefore prone to errors, mistakes and mishandling of
affairs. In fact even when the prophet (sws) was supervising the battles at his
time, some mistakes of the Muslim army that were out of his control and
observation would take place. It is only natural that in his absence more
mistakes and unacceptable deeds may take place during the extra ordinary war
situation.
This notion of the invasions being on the basis of ijtihād,
answers many questions, at least in my mind. Questions like how the companions
knew how far to go and how they decided when punishment was applicable to a
particular city or group of people, are all easily answerable by the concept of
ijtihād, which denotes that the companions (and under their leadership, the
Muslim army) did what to the best of their understanding was correct.
However, in my view, there are still a couple of inquiries
that need further discussion and elaboration. One relates to the Qur’ān and the
other one is about the practicality of itmām al-hujjah for some of these
neighbouring countries. I am not raising these points as criticisms. I refer to
these points as questions that demand further research and clarification:
The silence of the Qur’ān about the destiny of the
neighbouring countries in my understanding is a challenging point. In the Qur’ān,
we do not see any directives or any news about these countries (in the era after
the Prophet (sws)). The directives of the Qur’ān to the Prophet (sws) and its
warnings all appear to be limited to the Arabian Peninsula. On the other hand, I
can also understand and consider the potential argument that the Qur’ān does not
need to include directives about the application of the rule of itmām al-hujjah
on other nations, which is supposed to take place after the demise of the
Prophet (sws). It is worth listing all the verses that directly relate to itmām
al-hujjah and to study which ones are specific to the Arabian Peninsula and
which ones can bee generalized to other nations.
The second point is on the practical possibility of
completing itmām al-hujjah for the neighbouring countries. This is a point that
needs detailed historical research. The students of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
(including myself) need to arrange for research projects to carefully review the
history of the companions and the neighbouring countries after the demise of the
Prophet (sws). The aim of such research will be to establish a number of facts
or nearly certain facts about the controversial era of history pertaining to the
attacks of the Muslim army to these countries. A number of questions may be
answered through these research projects, including, how did the companions
begin to decide about attacking those countries; what does history say about
their motives and purpose for these attacks; how consistent was the attitude of
the army of Muslims towards the people who they attacked; to what extent were
the heads of the states of these countries as well as the general public aware
of the developments in the Arabian Peninsula given that some of these nations
were not associated with Abrahamic religions to what extent were they aware of
the concept of daynūnah; people in most of these countries could not understand
Arabic, how was this obstacle overcome; what was the speed of spreading of news
in the era where no modern media and technology were in place; to what extent
were the general public in these countries aware of the letters of the Prophet (sws)
to their leaders, their contents and the response of their leaders to these
letters; what versions of the narrated contents of the Prophet’s (sws) letters
are reliable and what do they say; are there any evidences that the perception
of the Persians (for example) about the invasion of their country by Muslims was
any different from their perception of the past invasions by other armies (like
the Alexander’s army); when and how jizyah was applied to the residents of some
of the invaded countries and to what extent were they encouraged to become
Muslims rather than being punished by paying jizyah; how and through what
processes the residents of these countries gradually became Muslims.
Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī believes that when the history of these
events is read from the standing point of itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah then
things start to make better sense and more evidences will emerge in support of
these principles. It is interesting to see what parts of the history of that era
may match these principles and what parts may not match them.
However, since the understanding is that these invasions
were on the basis of ijtihād of the companions, no historical report will be
able to question the very principles of itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah. These
principles and their applications up to the demise of the Prophet (sws), as
skillfully and comprehensively explained by Ghāmidī, are clearly mentioned in
the Qur’ān. In fact “clearly mentioned” is an understatement. The whole theme of
the Qur’an and the whole thematic evolution of the Qur’ān are on the basis of
these principles. Whether the companions, in the absence of the Prophet (sws),
intended and managed to successfully adopt and apply all these principles in
detail is only a historical inquiry that does not change our understanding of
the principles themselves.
I personally believe that in this context it is also
important to consider another aspect of the concept of daynūnah, that is the
reward of the believers. I think (and I believe that this is what Ghamidi also
agrees with) that the invasion of the other countries was not just about
punishing those countries, but was also about rewarding the believers and the
new believers that would emerge from those countries. In my personal opinion,
even without itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah taking place, still those countries
were supposed to become part of the Islamic territory at the time to fulfill the
promise of rewarding the believers. In fact from purely political point of view
this promise needed to be fulfilled anyway. History shows that when a nation
starts to prosper in an extra ordinary way it needs more political dominance in
the world. In our time, this political dominance can easily take place by the
use of media and online technology as well as modern cultural symbols and tools.
However, in the past much of this political dominance could only take place by
physical, geographical dominance, i.e. invasion. In my understanding, the
promise of reward for the believers matched very well with the political
requirements of a fast growing nation of Islam at the time.
At the end, I would like to add that another thing I
learned through my interviews with Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī was that it was possible
to be a very knowledgeable and formidable scholar and at the same time to remain
open minded, research oriented and humble in discussing Islamic issues. His eyes
were even shinier when I was bluntly and insistently questioning his whole
reasoning. For me, this point was even more educational than the whole
discussion on itmām al-hujjah and daynūnah:
نه هر
که چهره برافروخت دلبری داند نه هر که آینه سازد سکندری
داند
غلام همت آن رند عافیت
سوزم که در گدا صفتی کیمیاگری داند
هزار نکته باریک تر ز مو
اینجاست نه هر که سر بتراشد قلندری داند
Glossary
Itmām al-hujjah: Refers to communication of the truth to
the extent that no excuse remains of the addressees.
Ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah: Refers to the efforts to strive
for itmām al-hujjah.
Daynūnah: God’s reward and punishment that applies to the
direct addressees of His messengers.
Means of ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah and itmām al-hujjah:
This refers to exposing the rewards and punishments of previous group/nations
for a present group/nation.
Chain reaction of itmām al-hujjah: Refers to the fact that
itmām al-hujjah for a group/nation and its consequent rewards and punishments
serve as means to do itmām al-hujjah for another group/nation.
Shahādah (position of the messengers): Refers to their
responsibility of doing itmām al-hujjah and consequently judging among their
addressees.
Shahādah (position of the chosen nations): Refers to their
responsibility of doing ihtimām bi itmām al-hujjah.
_______________
|