The Holy Prophet ﷺ mentioned that lying was permissible in three cases. Huh? One was in making peace between enemies. Now I understand. You mean when he referred to Hazrat Ibrahim. You perhaps mean that he referred to Hazrat Ibrahim ﷺ. No, sorry, sorry. Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ. I know. But the tradition you are referring to, the only tradition which is found in this subject is the one which I am telling you now. So that must have been what you read somewhere and you have forgotten what it was.
Because the tradition on the question of lies is the only one which I have just referred to about Hazrat Ibrahim ﷺ. Otherwise the Holy Prophet ﷺ has never permitted Muslims anywhere, not even remotely, to indulge in lies of any sort. I was wondering if perhaps in the translation the word lying was an exaggeration. No, I am telling you. I am just explaining to you. Number one, the tradition you think is there is not there. There is no such tradition which permits the Muslims to indulge in lies under any circumstances. That is out of all questions.
So, what you have read is a different tradition. And that tradition is also debatable. It is said in Bukhari there is one tradition which tells us that the Holy Prophet ﷺ once said that Hazrat Ibrahim ﷺ lied three times in his life. And he mentioned those so-called lies. And the explanation for that is, number one, some scholars tend to believe that this is one of the Israelites’ traditions, which is called in Islamic terminology, Israeliyat. Sometimes the Holy Prophet ﷺ quotes an Israeli tradition telling the Muslims that this is what they believe in. And one who listens to this forgets about the situation which was being described and he falsely believes that this was the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself giving this narration as if it happened like this.
So, there is not only one instance, there are so many others, where the Holy Prophet ﷺ is known to have related a tradition by the Jews as it was prevalent in Medina in those days. And that tradition he mentioned by way of Jewish views and Jewish beliefs. That was unfortunately adopted by either the listener who first heard it or maybe later on in the future generations. It was adopted as such. Secondly, there is a large volume of such traditions which are not traditional at all. In fact, Islam was later on infiltrated by the Jews who intentionally and consciously added into the world of tradition, planted things here and there, and their own views were thus introduced into the Islamic wealth of literature.
So, the scholars, even the earlier scholars also agreed to it that this was one source of tradition which was perhaps sifted very thoroughly by certain scholars like Imam Bukhari. And most of those such traditions were rejected. But some others, less responsible or less precautious people, admitted those traditions and they were turned into a part of Islamic literature. I think I read this in Riyadh-e-Salaheen. Riyadh-e-Salaheen, but the one in Riyadh-e-Salaheen is the one which I have just mentioned. It doesn’t say that, now because Imam Bukhari accepted it, so this tradition in particular presented much greater difficulties for the Muslim scholars than the other traditions related by lesser people than Imam Bukhari.
So, the explanation for that has been given by me in one of my sermons delivered in Rabwah a few years, two, three years ago, in which this particular aspect was made the subject of the sermon and I explained in detail what was the style of the Prophet and what message it carried. In fact, all those three instances which have been quoted are not lies at all. This is what I was hoping to get at. They are not lies. This is how the Prophet explained the false allegations about Hazrat Ibrahim. What he meant to say was that look here, these are the lies, that is the so-called lies, quote-unquote, which are attributed to Ibrahim. And the way he has explained those things, those situations, they are apparently not lies.
For instance, I mean there is a way of argumentation. For instance, one relating to the idols when they were shattered by Hazrat Ibrahim, and that is also mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, and the other one is also mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, which I am going to quote after this. It is said that Hazrat Ibrahim, and this is a fact, I mean this is not a Jewish tradition alone, it has been fully authenticated by the Holy Qur’an. He broke the idols, and after he broke the idols, he left one chief idol, who was the Supreme God according to them. And when the people came and learned of the news, they came in large numbers to find out what had happened.
But let me see, before that, a few people entered, not all of them together, but that happened later on. When they came and enquired, Hazrat Ibrahim, who kept standing there, waiting for some people to arrive. He didn’t want to escape punishment at all. That is what he did, and kept waiting for someone to arrive. When the first person, whoever it was, it was his uncle, he arrived and he asked, what had happened, who broke these idols? The answer according to the Holy Qur’an was, here is the chief, ask him if they speak. So now, the point is, if Hazrat Ibrahim was telling a lie, it was to escape punishment.
So why did he stand there waiting, remain there waiting for them to come? Number two, he wanted to show the absurdity of the situation. He wanted to prove to them and demonstrate to them that these people do not lie, do not speak, they are lifeless people, lifeless things. And as such, it’s meaningless to worship them. And obviously, those who believe that what is meant was that he has broken, this is a lie. That is obviously wrong. Why it is wrong? Because even if, I mean, the allegation of lie to this statement is wrong, that is what I mean to say.
Even if we accept this, that the words he used did not indicate, ask him, he is there for you to answer, but they indicated they could mean both. That he is the one who broke them. Ask them if you please. I’m sorry, yes, just a minute. The word is used in plural, so this is the only possible explanation which I stand corrected here.
Now I remember the full verse. The word is used plural. Hazrat Ibrahim A.S. responded by saying, ask them if they speak. So this situation is interpreted in two ways. Number one, Kabiruhum Haaza, the eldest among them, is here. Whatever was done was done in his presence. Ask them if they speak. The ones who were broken and shattered to pieces. This is exactly what he said. The two interpretations are that what he meant was that the Kabiruhum Haaza, the eldest among them, is here. He has killed them, he has destroyed them. Ask them if they speak.
The second explanation is this, that what he said was, the eldest remains intact. He is present before you. Ask them what may have happened. Now this doesn’t read full sense. What does it mean, why doesn’t he say, ask him if he speaks. What he says is, ask them who are being shattered, if they speak. So by that it means, it is obvious, that number one he is pointing to the death of gods which they couldn’t believe. Gods cannot be destroyed. And yet he says, ask them if they speak. The point is, as I have understood, although I didn’t mention this in that sermon, but now I am going to tell you in more detail. The only plausible explanation is this, that those who worshipped idols, in fact did not worship those idols as such.
They worshipped some imaginary powers behind them. The idols were only symbols. So this was the weakness of their belief which was being pointed out by Hazrat Ibrahim A.S. Because it is so illogical to believe that somebody has shattered the gods into pieces, one remains intact. Yet Hazrat Ibrahim A.S. does not refer to the one who is intact, but refers to the ones who are shattered, as if they are killed. This is their death. And demands that if you want to make an enquiry, ask them. Why not ask him? The explanation, as I have understood, is this, that because idols were worshipped as symbols, and there were supposed to be powers behind them, and those symbols were so many, hundreds of thousands perhaps, belonging to one so-called power as deity.
So if one is destroyed, that doesn’t mean the deity is also destroyed, because such symbols are so many in numbers, spread all over the country. So what he wants to point out is this, that if this big idol has done this, of course he will not admit. Why should he profess? The only people who would speak against him would be these, who have been undone. And because you believe that there are living powers behind them, so they should answer you. Now they have been insulted, they have been destroyed, their symbols have been.
So this is the right time, if they ever speak, they should speak now, and let you know. Now this is exactly what might have happened, there is no other plausible explanation to this. And this is not a lie. This is a way of argumentation, to establish the falsehood of their claim. And to tell them that this is what you believe in, this is all rotten. And all the time he knew, that even if he had claimed that this elder one has broken them, they wouldn’t admit, they wouldn’t agree, they wouldn’t accept this explanation.
Now here, in my sermon which I referred to, I first defined what a lie is. And when you define the lie properly, then all these so-called lies are solved immediately. When, for instance, a child plagues his mother and bothers her with so many questions and says, who took this, who took this, where is my, for instance, my hockey, show me where is my hockey. And the mother says, I have eaten it. It so many times happens. Is it a lie? Why not? Because a lie is a misstatement of facts with an intention to deceive the hearer and to make it appear to him as a fact which he could swallow, which he could accept. This is the full definition of a lie.
If these conditions are not present, then the lie can be turned into an argument instead of a lie. A way of a strong expression and strong condemnation which is not a lie at all. So, if this is, this explanation, this definition is correct and in my opinion, this is the only definition to a lie which holds water and which explains every other human situation. In that case, his other so-called lies are also not lies. Because at one time, he says, he sees a star and says, this is my God.
And when the star sets, he said, oh, it has set and it couldn’t be God. So, it was not only a lie but also idolatry. In the second case, he says, this is, the moon, this is a bigger one. And perhaps this is the God. And then the moon sets and he says, oh, it has set, so the setting ones are not my Gods, couldn’t be Gods. Then he says the sun and so on and so forth. Now, if these are taken as lies, what would be the explanation of Prophet Ibrahim having observed all the phenomena of sun set, star rising and setting, moon rising and setting, sun rising and setting, all through his life, why didn’t he know that these things set?
They rise and set, come and go. So, obviously, it was not the first, for the first time that it dawned upon him that the star had risen and set, the moon had risen and set. It was only an argumentation, nothing more than that. To establish the fact, first to tantalise them, oh yes, as if, it is wrong, it is beautiful, to carry them along for a while and then to frustrate their hopes that he is being converted. So, this is why Prophet Ibrahim A.S. has been given a great compliment in the Holy Quran, that he was a master debater. When he said this, he didn’t left anything for the opponent to argue later on, after that.
So, this is the style of Prophet Ibrahim A.S., the way he used to argue things. You know the non-Muslim, non-Ahmadi scholars, they believe that this was a lie, this was an idolatry and every time he saw, this is exactly what they believe in. Every time they saw the star setting or the moon setting and the sun setting, he rectified himself and said, alright, now God, I repent what I have believed in and now I stand rectified. This is wrong. But the explanation, listen at the explanation, which is just a joke. One can’t imagine how a sane man could believe in that explanation. Once I read in a book which is now being taught in Pakistani schools as well, about Hazrat Ibrahim A.S. This was, I think, written by some Karachi lady.
I’m not sure where it’s being taught in the schools, but I saw it in the hands of children. I mean, this was very popular with the children of non-Ahmadi children in Pakistan. And there is a series of books about prophets and Hazrat Ibrahim A.S., as you mentioned, I mean, made the subject of in one of the books. You know, it says that this is exactly how it happened. But you would raise, the question would be raised in your mind that where he was earlier. Why didn’t he see a star before?
Why was he surprised at the star setting? He said the answer is that when he was born, immediately his uncle knew that this is going to be a prophet. And because he was afraid that he would destroy the idol worship, so he imprisoned him in a cave. And it was, all light was shut to that cave. And until he grew to majority, became adult, he was kept imprisoned in that cave. He had never seen a star rising or setting or moon rising or setting and so on. So the moment he came out, it was night. And immediately he started debating this. And because he wanted to believe in a God, so he said, oh, now I’ve got. All these years, you know, poor thing was kept away from the starlight and moonlight and sunlight.
And this, all this, you know, jargon is being fed into the children’s minds in Pakistan nowadays in this age of light. So unfortunately for us, we have been relieved by the Prophet and ushered from darkness to light. So though they are yet named lies by our Prophet, but not without inverted commas. What he means to say is that these are the lies of a prophet which the Jews attribute to him. But they are not lies at all. They are gems of argumentation.
