Questioner: Some Muslims use the hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) inna allaha yaz’ahu bil Qur’an inna allaha yaz’ahu bil sultan ma la yaz’ahu bil Qur’an meaning that Allah can establish through the authority things that cannot be established only by the Holy Qur’an, or maybe I am translating the hadith wrongly, I am not sure. So they say that to reach the authority, to be in power, to be in government is the first objective of Muslims. And when we reach the seat of government then we can apply and spread the light of the Holy Qur’an. What do you say about this sir?
Huzoor: That is the maududi view in fact. It has nothing to do with the conduct of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (sa) because he established the Holy Qur’an before he ever reached authority. And the practice of the Holy Qur’an was carried out despite the fact that the authority was opposed to the Holy Qur’an. So Hazrat Muhammad’s (sa) conduct is the only source of light for us. And if a tradition of Hazrat Muhammad (sa) is misinterpreted, it stands contrary to what he practiced himself or what he established through his conduct, then all the ulema of islam are of one opinion about it that so called tradition should be rejected either as an interpolation in hadith, that is, somebody must have changed it or a fabrication altogether, that somebody concocted that hadith while Hazrat Muhammad (sa) never said it. Or the least you should do is that you should reject the interpretation not the tradition and find a compromise between that tradition and the fact of Hazrat Muhammad’s (sa) established conduct and that of the Holy Qur’an as well. So this so-called claim is contradicted, number one, by the tradition of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (sa), his established practice. and secondly, by the fundamental verses of the Holy Qur’an which speak of laa ikraha fiddeen.
Again the Holy Qur’an tells us that if Allah had so desired, he would have guided all his people, all the people on earth. But this is not the scheme of things. He does not want to establish through force his word. So that has been made manifestly clear not only in the verse I am referring to but so many other verses. Again, the Holy Qur’an, in the Holy Qur’an, Allah ta’ala addresses Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (sa) as innama anta muzakir lasta alaihim bi musaitir. What is the distinction between muzakir and musaitir? If that interpretation of the tradition is expected, which you are referring to, then either this verse has to be abrogated and fortunately, this is not one of those 500 verses which are supposed to be abrogated by certain people. The fancy of those scholars even touched this so it stands intact anyway in the view of all the scholars. So that is a very interesting situation. Either it has to be abrogated or as long as it stays, musaitir and muzakir cannot get together. They are two distinct things apart from each other. And one is denied and other is confirmed. Innama anta muzakir lasta alaihim bi musaitir. So that means when Hazrat Muhammad (sa) also acquired authority, even then he was not a musaitir. That is to say, the authority was in dispensation of the state affairs but he did not force the Holy Quran upon others. And as far as that went, that was an independent affair altogether.
Now as far as the state rules, part of the Holy Qur’an applies to statecraft. That part is applicable, of course, through the state which requires law and order and dispensation of justice between the people. But the part which goes, which concerns the purification of the people and their relationship with God and their inner attitude towards moral or other questions, in that part, there is no coercion whatsoever. And as far as the statecraft is concerned, there is coercion in every country of the world in every state and that coercion is, in fact, has a different nature because the liberty is something which is to be understood before you reach the question of coercion in state. Liberty is a relative term when applied to two individuals. You are at liberty and as A, let’s say A is at liberty, and B is at liberty so when A strikes B, apparently A is at liberty, but then B is not at liberty because his liberty has been trespassed upon by A.
So when the two liberties cross the boundaries of the other person’s liberty, in that case, state has to interfere to establish liberty. So if that has to be established through force, it is not a coercion of that nature which contradicts the verses of the Holy Quran, La ilaha illa Allah wa ta’ala wa bihi. It is for the sake of establishment of liberty that a sort of coercion has been applied. This is the underlying principle of statecraft. When rights are grouped, either individually or in sections of society as groups, in that case, those rights are the fundamental rights for the exercise of those rights. Everybody is at liberty. When somebody trespasses upon another person’s right, he has to be stopped, either an individual’s right or state’s right. In that case, coercion is required. So that coercion is a common factor all over the world, it is not a distinctive feature of Islam at all.
So to confuse that part of Islam, when it gained power, and as statecraft, it had to apply coercion to keep law and order in the state and to establish rule of law. People confused that part with the religious part and thought that religious enforcement was not possible without gaining power. So that confused thinking has resulted into a completely erroneous view. While as far as the establishment of Islam is concerned, for instance, when I say establishment of Islam apart from the statecraft, I mean dogmas, views, doctrines for establishing these things, belief in a certain thing. No force was ever used by Hazrat Muhammad (sa). Either prior to the time when he achieved state power, or after the time, there is no difference in his conduct whatsoever. He remains the same unchangeable Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. His attitude towards religious dogmas and views and faith was exactly the same in Medina as it was in Mecca.
So those who attribute erroneously to him such things, as he used his power after coming to power, to establish Islam in these matters, they are totally wrong and they are making a false allegation against Hazrat Muhammad (sa). As far as the faith goes, the views, the doctrine, the theory, the philosophy, no force was ever applied and this is Deen. What is Deen is, what is Deen that can be described as a way of life, and to enforce a way of life as philosophy, and as beliefs upon another person, that is not permitted in Islam. And Hazrat Muhammad (sa) never did laqum deenukum wa liya deen. That was declared and that remained consistent in Medina as well as in Mecca, in Mecca as well as in Medina.
The second part is the relationship of man with God, as far as that part goe,s that also falls under the category of Deen where there is no question. And we do not observe any difference, whatsoever, in Hazrat Muhammad (sa) in his life in Medina, and life at Mecca regarding the enforcement of relationship between man and God. If somebody said prayers, he was at liberty in Medina as well as in Mecca. If he did not say prayers, he was never forced, He was never beaten up. If somebody kept roza, he was at liberty. Only a sort of question was used in zakat, neither in hajj nor in fasting nor in salat, only in zakat because there it is the public right. It is like a tax which is collected by every government through coercion.
So what I want to impress upon you is the fact that wherever Islam uses, permits force in that region, every country of the world already exercises force, and all human beings act together so that is not a distinctive feature of Islam. That is a common practice by all human beings everywhere in the world, and that is established as human right and right of the governments. So those who say that Islam believes in forcing Islam through coercion, they are totally wrong because they can’t quote a single example where the world does not practice coercion and Islam permits coercion. Nowhere in the world can you find such a thing. So once you understand the statecraft, and where it applies and what are its limitations, then you will understand that because Islam is a complete code of life, it also speaks of statecraft. And in statecraft, everywhere in the world, you will find an element of coercion, and the philosophy of coercion in statecraft also lies in the region of freedom, to establish freedom and to establish liberty. In relative sections, a coercion is required not to take away another person’s right, but to rehabilitate a person’s right which has been snatched away by another person, or to rehabilitate a group’s right which has been snatched away by another group or by another person.
So when rules and regulations are laid down clearly regarding rights of individuals and groups, from then on, statecraft comes into being, and that coercion, apparently, it may look like a coercion to others, interference in other’s rights, but in fact it is for the establishment of rights not for snatching away the rights that that coercion is used. So Murana Maududi and all those scholars, either they were confused or they intentionally did it to gain power over other people, and to become dogmatic and intolerant in religion, and to seek power to impose their own personal views about the Holy Qur’an upon other people. If that was done advertently, then it was a very malicious act. But whether done advertently or inadvertently, the fact remains that a blemish is cast upon the face of Islam by the very scholars of Islam, of which Islam is totally absorbed…it has nothing to do. Murana Maududi sahib goes to the extent that he says that, for a while, Hazrat Muhammad (sa), for many years, he tried whatever he had by way of argument, by way of his power of purification, and persuasion, and whatever he could but he utterly failed unfortunately. A oodhu billahi mina shaitan niraheem. But when he took the sword in his hand, then he brought people to understand things, then he removed their confusions and they began to feel light under the sword of Muhammad Mustafa (sa), as if an enemy Islam is speaking of Hazrat Muhammad (sa). This is exactly what the orient has been painting him as. As a religious founder who had sword in one hand, and pen in the other. You believe Qur’an in the other hand. Believe through Qur’an or the sword comes, and you will be made to believe. This concept is entirely contrary to put the Holy Qur’an and the conduct of Hazrat Muhammad (sa) throughout his life, and this is a blemish upon Islam. Then I think, in many cases, for personal reasons, the ulema, through this dogmatic approach, wanted to acquire political power and to enforce their own views upon others so they used the sandals.
