Federal Shari’ah Court of Pakistan: Land Reforms, Interest (Riba’) & Islamic Banking

[These are rough notes from the second day’s morning session of Historical, Intellectual and Spiritual Approaches to Islam conducted by Shaykh Kamaluddin Ahmed (db) in Karachi, during Jan, 2017]

Let’s see what the output of a Jurist ‘alim was because Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) got 22 years of case writing. I should also tell you, so you don’t think it’s too much, there are a very few cases that have gone to the Federal Shari’ah Court, and there are very few of those that appealed in front of the Shari’ah Appellate Bench. If there was a regular Judge, 22 years would mean a whole encyclopedia of cases, but, because we are talking about the Shari’ah Court, they were very few, and even less in the Shari’ah Appellate Bench. He lives in Karachi, teaches here, he would just have to occasionally go to Islamabad because the number of cases in those 20 years that came in front in his record were very few. But still, over 20 years, it makes a few volumes and it’s a very fascinating and interesting read, but at times can be very technical.

Land Reforms

Land Reform is a concept. From a purely Secular and Social Science perspective, Land Reform has been viewed in Political Science, Economics, Public Policy and Development Studies as something that’s good. If you look at the history everywhere in the world, even in Western Europe, for many centuries in the middle ages or in the medieval period, it was an age of what they call Feudalism. In Feudalism, you had very few people who owned massive — I’m not saying acres, but hectares or whatever would be even beyond that — massive lands and estates. In America also these were the slave estates. The whole Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was because you needed slaves. Why did you need so many slaves? Because you have hectares of lands in Louisiana, and you need slaves to work those lands. Whether it’s America, whether it’s Europe, whether it’s Africa, whether it’s India, whether it’s Asia; this is the global history of humanity.

The way this sorted itself out in Europe was through periods of revolutions. What happened, if I tell you a very gross simplification of your history, is that Feudalism led to Mercantilism. The Mercantile Middle Class then led these revolutions to take the political power, and overtime they were able to solve this through very violent revolutions. A lot of bloodshed and deaths took place in these revolutions. This took place much later in the Muslim world. The Muslim world may have done something similar, but before they could do that, there was colonialism. When the colonialists came in, they loved this system because they were the ultimate land owners. They wanted to own the whole country. When the colonial power comes, they basically become the land owners of the entire country that they have occupied. Therefore, they kept this system in place. It was only when colonialism ended, which coincides with World War II, so you can think 1945, then all of a sudden this becomes an issue. 1945 is way late in the game. All the other places, like America and Europe, had sorted this issue out by now.

Now I’m going to look at the Muslim world, and I’m specifically going to look at Pakistan. Here you have, what you call, the jagirdars and nawabs in Sindh. You have to go outside the city to experience this phenomenon. It’s slightly different, it has a different style; in Sindh there are a lot of land owners, same is the case in Punjab, Baluchistan and KPK. But it’s all a bit different where it takes place. Part of your political system is because of that. The reason, and if there are any PPP supporters here I’m not commenting on that, but PPP’s vote-base is feudal serfs and slaves, basically modern type slaves, who work the lands. They will always vote for the candidate the land owner tells them to vote for. That’s why PPP in Sindh is going to go on forever.

Another very interesting thing is that in other countries many times the land reforms were carried out by the military because those militaries were professional militaries which had no landed interests. The Pakistani military is also in the land game and they also have deep landed interests, so that couldn’t happen here. Otherwise, because you need to do land reform so late in the day, you need a very strong man, almost like a dictatorial rule, so General Musharraf could have done this in his time. But of course he didn’t do it because either he himself or his other buddy-generals who propped him up into power were all big land owners. So he is not going to take on this big power group because he needs their support to remain the Chief Executive.

But what did happen in Pakistan in 1959, General Ayub Khan began this process of Land reforms — this is, at least in terms of intentions, probably one of the better things, Allahu Alam. Then in 1972, again under martial law, he promulgated this thing called the Land Reform Regulation and in 1977 that became the Land Reforms Act. It has a precursor to this in the British period in 1887, which is the Punjab Tenancy Act.

What goes on in land reforms? The notion is to take away the land of the land owners. This is where the problem is going to come now. Because you want to do land redistribution. One way is to make the peasant farmers who work the lands, owners themselves. They will have small little farms that would be enough for their own and their family’s needs. There are also other ways in which governments do this.

In 1959, 2.5 million acres were claimed by the government and 0.65 of those were redistributed among farmers. The condition was that the farmers were themselves small land owners, that they themselves only had farms that were less that 12.5 acres. 0.2 million acres went to the government. If you know your statistics, if you know your maths, there’s a big discrepancy here.

  • 2.5 million acres were claimed
  • 0.65 went to the farmers
  • 0.2 government says that’s all we took
  • 1.65 was not accounted for

I tried my best, I even asked this one Economist, because I presented a paper on this once in a conference, we could not figure out where in the world the other 1.65 million acres went. Because they give out these statistics and government just reports it. There are no comments, there’s no explanation, there are no footnotes, and going back to 1959, there’s no one we could interview who would have known. But it’s just the audacity of them to even put this, I mean you are putting up false figures, anybody could read this. Allahu Aalam, but critics say that the 1.65 went to the army.

After that people started resisting land reforms, that if you are taking them from me to give them to the farmers, that’s one thing. But you took 2.5 from all of us, and you only gave 0.65 to the farmers, and the army and government took the rest. As you can imagine, people started resisting it anyway because there is nothing more dear to a Pakistani than his land.

I can tell you an anecdote about this. Once we went to go buy some land for our project in Lahore, Mahad al-Ihsan. I met this person, and literally word-for-word this is what he told me, he said zameen maa ki tarha hai, koi apni maa ko bechta hai? Literally, in English it means that land is like one’s mother, does anybody sell their own mother? What he said to me, I will never forget it, that too about selling for market-rate price. Imagine how a person like that would feel if the government says we will take it from you and give it to the poor. So you can imagine that there was a lot of resistance.

In 1972, another 1.3 million acres were claimed. In 1977, another 1.8 were claimed. Just to show you how long these cases went, and I have tried to put it slightly out of order for you, there was a family by the name of Kazi Bash [?], they claimed in 1952, that means before the Land Reforms Act by General Ayub, there’s also no way to be sure because in Pakistan documents can be forged. The online audience is stunned. I mean, I’m sorry but this is how this country is.

So in 1952, according to what they filed, they claimed that before the Land Reforms Act, we made a waqf or a Trust. So it’s not private property. It’s 1020 acres that we made into an endowment. That was the way they were arguing in their case that it should not have been taken from them because it was an endowment and that was an exception in the Act that they will not take that land that was made an endowment or a waqf or a Trust. In 1977, nonetheless, after the final thing that I told you was the Land Reforms Act, the government took their land.

  • 102 acres (10%) of their land was left with them
  • 918 acres (90%) were taken
  • 250 acres were given to the peasants
  • the rest was taken by the government

These people appealed to the Federal Shari’ah Court in February, 1979. Then the case dragged on. Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) came in 1980 and he was the one on the bench who ruled on this case. This is one of the earliest cases to come to the Federal Shari’ah Court. It was a private citizen going to the court arguing that the Land Reforms Act is against Islam. Why? Because Islam accepts private property. Islam accepts that if there is something that’s someone’s property, you cannot take it away, what’s called ghassab, you cannot usurp someone’s private property no matter how noble the intention might be. This is basically their argument.

Then there were other cases that people filed in High Court. A KPK land owner filed a case in the Peshawar High Court, and the Peshawar High Court declared, although the Peshawar High Court, strictly speaking, constitutionally, doesn’t even have the authority to decide what’s Islamic or un-Islamic. If they want to address that question, they are supposed to refer the matter to the Federal Shari’ah Court. But without referring it, they themselves declared land reforms to be un-Islamic. Then the Kazi Bash guy also made that part of his case, because that’s what we call legal precedence, that the High Court has also said that it’s un-Islamic, therefore I’m taking it to Federal Shari’ah Court, you people should say that it’s un-Islamic and therefore I get my land back. This is just to show you how this case started.

Arguments Presented by the Government

We are basically suing the government. The government made two arguments in defense of the Land Reforms Act. There are just two, I am not presenting just two of them, but they made two and only two arguments. From Islamic Law perspective, you would think the case is now in Federal Shari’ah Court, because now it’s a case of Islamic Law, the government should also bring in many verses of Qur’an, quotes from mufassireen, many ahadith, hadith commentaries, previous Jurists’ opinions and past fatwas. One verse, that’s it. Just one verse of Qur’an al-Kareem, that’s the level of the government’s ability to argue its case in the Federal Shari’ah Court, and I don’t think the government’s ability has gotten much better in the last 20-30 years.

The first reason they gave was this verse:

Indeed the Earth belongs to Allah, He should bequeath it to whom He wills from His creatures. [7:128]

That’s correct. But what does that have to do with Land Reforms Act? Allah (swt) didn’t make the Land Reforms Act, you i.e. government made the Land Reforms Act. You are supposed to defend it. Interestingly, what they were trying to say, although I don’t think they even realized this, this would be what would be called pure, classical, communist Marxism which is that there is no such thing as owning land. That’s what, strictly speaking, Marxism believes. That was the Marxist ideal that you would move to a classless society by moving to a landless society.

When Marx was writing, although it was after the Industrial Revolution, but still class was mostly based on land. His idea and his dream was to make people classless. That itself is a beautiful dream. Classless means there is equity between humanity and that’s a very Islamic concept. But he wanted to make the society, or any society that chose to be Marxist, classless by making them landless. There was no ownership allowed in private property. Don’t look at what the Soviets of the Chinese did. They are not Marxist, they are totally Capitalist, the whole world realizes that now. But just because they didn’t follow Marxism, doesn’t change what Marxism is. Just like if a Muslim doesn’t follow Islam, it doesn’t change what Islam is. Islam is what it is, even if Muslims don’t follow it. Marxism is what it is even if Chinese and Russians don’t follow it.

The reason I’m mentioning this to you is because this was the time of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and it enters Zia ul Haq’s time. Marxism was very much in vogue and in fashion in Karachi in intellectual circuits. The Marxists joined the government in the defense of the Land Reforms Act. Up till today, and literally there were a couple of professors from LUMS who used to and up till today hate Mufti Taqi Usmani specifically because of this ruling which I am going to show you he is about to give that the Land Reforms Act is indeed against Islam.

The second reason they gave was welfare. They tried to argue in Islamic sense of maslaha; public welfare, the public good, the greater good. So they argued with one ayah, and the concept of maslaha for the sake of public welfare.

Mufti Taqi Usmani’s Reply

First of all, he mentioned another verse:

To Allah belongs all that is in the Heavens and in the Earth. [2:284]

Are you going to do reforms of what lies in the heavens as well? Are you going to re-allot plots in samawat, just like you are claiming to re-allot plots in the ardh? So this is something else. This is referring to the dominion of Allah (swt), His absolute dominion and sovereignty over every single thing. The verse that they quoted cannot be used to negate private ownership any more than this verse can be.

Then he tried to do a reform by suggesting that they should be brought to a system of Mudarabah. It’s very long. For several pages he talks about the abuses of the Feudal class on the peasant farmers. There are so many abuses; they are paid such horrible wages, they are mistreated. All of these things should be stopped. In other words, he said that rather than take the land away from the land owner, you should criminalize their abuse of the peasant farmers and you should criminalize their economic subjugation of those peasant farmers by giving them such small compensation. And rather they should move to a Mudarabah arrangement where somebody owns the land and another person does the work, and the profit shared in ratio between the farmer and the land owner should be something that in our Shari’ah we call ma’roof, you can call it for purposes like this an economically, marketly equitable share of that profit.

But strictly speaking, the catch there, and this is why the Marxists were upset with him, is that that was just his opinion. The judgment is simply on this; is Land Reforms Act Islamic or un-Islamic? The judgement is that it is un-Islamic, and the rest of his opinion nobody followed because, to be fair also, constitutionally, that wasn’t the ambit of his case. His ruling can only carry force simply on this matter; whether Land Reforms Act is Islamic or not. That’s the only affect it has. All the other stuff he wanted would require another act. You could call it Feudal Oppression Zone Reform Act, and that would be then to make sure that the land owner doesn’t do all the mistreatment and abuse. But his own opinion doesn’t carry that enforcing power, although he wrote about it, but none of that stuff ever came into existence.

Then he mentions, because there are many ahadith, irrelevant of how much it may dismay and disappoint the Marxists, that Islam does allow private property. No doubt, that is one basic feature of Capitalism — the ownership of private property. Ownership of private property in of itself is not oppressive, remember I told you yesterday, those things that are at the level of permission may be abused. Islam will not take away the permission for that reason. For example, in the case of divorce, which we did yesterday, Allah (swt) created the permission of divorce. Of course Allah (swt) knows people will abuse and misuse that and divorce improperly, wrongly and unfairly, but that permission needs to be there.

That’s true for any system of law. When any system of law declares something legal, it doesn’t mean they are guaranteeing that the legality won’t be abused. People will abuse it, misuse it, but they will say we have no basis to declare this thing illegal. So there’s no Shar’i basis to declare ownership of private property illegal, and on the contrary, as I mentioned this to you, there’s a whole book actually and then he wrote another book on the topic, separate from his rulings. So you can read about 200-300 pages on this in Urdu, if you want. There are many ahadith that he talks about; maal in the ownership of property, in the ownership of assets; that Islam recognizes and acknowledges ownership of assets.

Then, when the government uses the welfare argument, they had tried to extract or you can even say in a way they tried to do qiyas; they tried to infer from the Islamic concept of zakat that zakat is about welfare for the poor, so we are just following the spirit of zakat when we are trying to do land reforms. His reply was that zakat doesn’t negate the ownership of the wealth. It actually only takes place when you own the wealth, and when you have owned it for one year, then you have to pay zakat. Zakat is definitely a welfare principle, but it doesn’t negate ownership of wealth.

Another thing, which is famous in Arabic, is called Muzara’a which in English is called sharecropping, and this is another very interesting debate from the very earliest debates of Islamic Jurisprudence that is Muzara’a permissible or not? Mufti Taqi Usmani’s position, and this has been the majority’s position throughout history, is that it is permissible and so he gave some of those arguments as well. It means he gave something similar, in Arabic we call this nazir; what’s the closest similar case that we can find from the lifetime of Prophet (sws) or the Khulafa-e-Rashidoon or the Salaf Saliheen? This is the order:

  • Prophet (sws)
  • Khulafa-e-Rashidoon (ra)
  • Sahaba (ra)
  • Tabi’in (rh)
  • Tabi’ Tabi’in (rh)

These are the more authoritatively precedent. So Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) found precedent for this in the time of Prophet (sws) and from Khulafa-e-Rashidoon in the time of Syedna Umar (ra) that they allowed, which is what sharecropping means, that you allow this arrangement that one party owns the land, there’s a different party that works the land and they share in the profit and produce of the product which is called the crop. This is to show you he has given a very long and detailed reply to the one verse and one principle of welfare argument presented by the government. So that was his argument and some features about his ruling. I will explain some things to you.

  1. You cannot impose limits on private ownership of any goods. For example, if a billionaire comes and he wants to buy one million acres, it’s permissible. He can do that. Again, remember permission is not the same as prescription, it’s not the same as preference, it’s not the same as recommendation, it’s not the same as obligation. Because, no doubt, other than the permission part, owning such large amounts of land is not in any way the preference of Islam, or the recommendation of Islam, and obviously not an obligation in Islam. Here, you have this principle of sadaqah, but that’s voluntary, and it has always been, you can never make it compulsory. But there are so many tax on sadaqah, and I don’t know if you know this but there are some reports by American think tanks that Pakistan is one of the philanthropic countries in the world. But that has to be voluntary. You cannot forcibly confiscate or cease a person’s land.
  2. Welfare is the responsibility of the state towards the citizens, not the private individuals. If there’s an issue that there’s a welfare concern for peasant farmers, it’s not the job of the private land owner to see to their welfare, it’s the job of the state to see to their welfare.

Then when he announces these recommendations, he tells the state, which is again outside the ambit of his case of ruling, but he tells them this is what you should be doing. There are other ways to fix this problem. And I already explained to you what were the things. He suggests a whole bunch of other reforms, but the end result and affect of this was that the Land Reforms Act was declared un-Islamic and after that no form of land reforms occurred, and one by one people tried to get their land back.

It didn’t always work out smoothly, because once the poor people have been given land how can they give it back? But the Kazi bash people got a fair amount back. To be fair to them, I mean I have never met them, but I will assume that they were more interested in the land that was unaccounted for. I don’t think people got back the land that was given to the poor, or probably they were not even bothered by that. But the unaccounted land, and probably also the land that went to the government, that must have been what they were most upset about and they got a lot of that back.

Islamic Banking

This was something that took place in 1980-1982. What I did in that paper was that I fast forwarded to 2016, which is 34 years later. Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) has been involved for the past 10-20 years in yet another area which is Islamic Banking and there’s another case that plays out a bit differently. But what I want to show you about the land reforms is that for the sake of Islamic Banking, he has perhaps developed a more refined toolkit now than he had at his own disposal in 1981-82 when he was looking at land reforms.

For the sake of Islamic Banking & Finance, which was to find some halal or interest-free alternative to all of these very complicated, western, capitalist modes and modalities of investment financing, he has done a couple of interesting things. Interestingly, then there was a whole group of new town ulema who wrote a book critiquing him for doing it. And then he wrote a whole book in response to it.

There’s another interesting anecdote, once a LUMS student came to me and he wanted to do a project on Islamic Law. He said I want to look at some recent debate. I told him to read these two books. I said I haven’t read them but these are the things that have just come out. You tell me which one do you think is right. He actually read the book in Urdu that the new town ulema had written critiquing Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) and then he read the book that Mufti Taqi wrote in response to them. Then he came to me in the office and he said it’s clear-cut completely one way, there’s no question about it. This one person has answered anything and everything they have said. He showed all the fallacies and all the flaws in the arguments. There’s nothing much to write about. I said, so just write that. So he wrote his whole senior project on that.

But in his reply what I found, and someday when I get a chance to sit with him, more beneficial things as opposed to other things that I talk to him about these days, I’ll try to raise this with him, in that book he talks about a lot of things that he didn’t do for land reforms.

One of the things he did for Islamic Banking was ifta bil madhabin akhir: You can legitimately use positions of Maliki fiqh, Shafi’i fiqh, Hanbali fiqh for this greater purpose of the war on interest. So he has done that. He has gone beyond Hanafi fiqh, which is one of the critics, not the only, but one of the major ones that the ulema wrote against him. He defended himself against that saying that there are certain cases, and that’s something that I want to show you, when required and when needed to the extent needed, we do say you can go beyond Hanafi fiqh. If you didn’t do that, you wouldn’t have this Islamic Banking & Finance. And there is a whole other area of cutting-edge usul he has used to do this.

What I wonder, and one day if I ever get a chance to catch him totally free and sit down with him, is that if he takes his new toolkit and goes back to the issue of land reforms, he might actually come up with a better, and more interesting Islamic way to figure out what to do because the issue is still there; we still have the Feudal system, we still have the oppression of the peasant farmers, we still have the horrific conditions. Everything now is exactly as bad as it was 34 years ago. The problem is he is out of the system, that I will do later with the slides, he was deliberately removed when he was taken out in 2002. There was a reason for this. This is General Musharraf, he would deliberately remove him from his position due to the interest issue.

To be fair to him (Mufti Taqi [db]), it’s not his fault really, but one of the things we explored in our paper was that part of it is class. When you have capitalist factory owners and rich people come to you as a mufti and tell you that we need you to devise a system for us, we are not saying you are going to take money from them, but there’s a motivation to do it. I know personally several rich factory owners and businessmen who go to muftis and tell them, try to make Islamic bank, try to make Islamic investment. Who has ever even gone to Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) as a spokesman for the poor?

Part of it is that a lot of these things are demand-driven, so to speak, as many things are. A lot of research in the world is demand-driven. If a pharmaceuticals company tells Harvard’s department of biochemistry that we are going to give you a $10 million grant because we need this medicine for some reason, the Harvard biochemistry department will get to work on it. But if they don’t get that grant, and they don’t get that demand, they might not work on it on their own. So the capitalist class of this country, in a good way, highest mutaqi, salih, capitalist’s of country went to different ulema and muftis, repeatedly and persistently, over decades, with this demand that we need you to come up with halal ways of investment and finance, and nobody has done that on the behalf of the feudal poor. Again, Mufti Taqi (db) is not a full-time qadhi. The full-time qadhis will take the suo motu notice and realize what’s going on with the poor anyway. But I have explained this to you, we don’t have that system anymore.

You don’t know, liberals don’t know, how many liberal values and progressive goals would be fixed if we did what I told you about reforms. A perfect case is this. There may be no force other than Islamic Law, I feel the only hope for the feudal poor is Islamic Law. But we need to somehow activate that. And unfortunately, sometimes the reason why legal research is not activated is because we know there’s no enforcement. So if I go to Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) and I tell him to work on this, he is going to do it.  We can spend days and nights, and months, cooking up and designing the perfect way to address the issue of the poor by their feudal land owners, but nobody’s going to do it. Over here, we had private sector people saying that if you designed for us the bank, we will build it, so Meezan guy built it. We had people saying if you designed for us Sukuk, we would buy it. We had people saying if you designed for us the Musharaka contract, we will start using it. We had people saying if you designed for us the Mudarabah, we will change our whole business on it. So it’s not just about the demand, it’s also about the execution.

To be fair to him, if he is thinking what should I work on? Here I can see follow-up and follow-through and project execution taking place so I’m going to work on that. Here there is nothing. I might know better than him that he is right from political science perspective, he would be even more right because nobody cares about the poor in this country. All of the interest groups; whether it’s army, feudal, capitalists, every one would resist this project. And, like I told you, the political parties are dependent on this feudal control. The day feudal system ends in Sindh is the day PPP’s monopoly ends in Sindh. Then they will have to win on their own merit; on the basis of their platform, their policies. They could still win. But they will have to do it the right way. They will not have that guaranteed voter-bank anymore. So they would also obviously resist this. That’s the sad thing.

I have to tell you another controversial topic, but now you will understand it. This is why you need Islamic Law and the State together. This isn’t some radical concept, because without the enforcing capacity of the state, Islamic Law loses its teeth. Yes, here there was some enforcement on the private sector, and as I will show you in case of interest, there was some enforcement in state also, which created space for Islamic Banks to operate.

Here, on the issue of the poor, and in terms of land reforms, again we wouldn’t do land reforms but we could find a way to solve problem that exists. Land reforms is one way to solve it, Islamic Law will find a different way. That usually doesn’t take place because we don’t have the state. There’s no enforcement mechanism, there’s no implementation mechanism. Forget state, there’s no actor in the state, there is no political actor, there is no vested interest, there is no powerbroker at all that cares about the poor in this country. That’s why you need the state.

So now I have shown you why you need Islamic Law, why you need a State, and why the State needs Islamic Law. Otherwise, a lot of the great things in our deen will not be implemented. The solution to this is through our own legal tradition, that’s my position, as opposed to political parties, or making tanzims, or trying to make khilafat. It’s never going to happen. People who had these ideas, had ikhlas, no doubt, but if you look at it honestly, they haven’t even moved one inch closer to establishing khilafat. It’s just not possible. All of their ikhlas couldn’t do it because you need more than ikhlas when it comes to fixing the world.

When it comes to fixing yourself, fixing your akhirah, fixing your relationship with Allah (swt), sometimes ikhlas is the be-all and end-all. But when it comes to the other things that people talk about — the social reality, remember I told you the fourth thing in deen is the social reality — when it comes to fixing the social reality, ikhlas is a necessary, but not a sufficient in of itself condition. You need to do it the way Allah (swt) guided you to do it. That’s called Shari’ah.

So when you hear the word Shari’ah, don’t think some medieval beware code. Shari’ah is the way and the path to attain social and economic justice in any reality, in any culture, in any society, in any time according to wish and will and guidance of Allah (swt) by a person who has ikhlas. If you don’t have Shari’ah, you can’t touch feudalism, you can’t touch corruption. You have so many things you can’t touch. Your hands are tied. You have voluntarily tied your hands from using a system that is revealed by Allah (swt) in His infinite knowledge and His infinite wisdom and His infinite mercy; al-Aleem, al-Hakim, ar-Rahim. That’s His hidayah for us.

The reason I’m stressing this now, so I used all of these words; Islamic Law, State, Shari’ah, is because other people use these three words for these radical extremist concepts. So we should not shy away from them. It’s important that the ulema should explain the proper understanding of these concepts. Otherwise, even many religious people don’t want to hear the word Islamic Law, they don’t want to hear the word Shari’ah, they don’t want to hear the word State. Because they say that’s the radicalist, and I’m, well, a normal person. Why are you giving up? Why are you abandoning all of Islamic Law and Shari’ah and State?

Understand, for 1200 years — that’s longer than Roman Empire, longer than Byzantine Empire, longer than Persian Empire, longer than Chinese Empires, longer than Khan Dynasties, and way longer than United States of America, in fact at that time the world was going through a depression, it really became the superpower shortly before and due to World War II, it’s not even a hundred years yet — we had 1200 years, we did this in the history of this ummah, we did it, we made systems of law which enacted and established Shari’ah and justice through Shari’ah across different cultures and societies, over 1200 years, with, like I told you, definitely very noticeable and serious lapses and gaps as well, across time, and across places, but overall it was still being done. If there was a gap here, it was being done somewhere else.

There’s no time in the first 1200 years where you could say it was not happening anywhere. Our current condition is like that. In our current condition, there’s no place on earth, and this is how you should frame it, not how there’s no place in the earth where thieves get their hands cut, there is Saudi Arabia. But there’s no place on earth where Shari’ah is being used to enact social and economic justice that Allah (swt) wants as a part of the hidayah of humanity. That requires much more than just cutting a thief’s hands off. But in our history, it’s there, and we did it. This is what I call reform through renewal. Not reforming Islam. Reforming society through the renewal of Islamic Law. Not reforming the Islamic Law for the renewal of society. Reforming the ills in society and economy and polity through the renewal and re-enactment of Islamic Law and Shari’ah.


Now I’m going to the next case. The first case i.e. of land reforms, I chose to do in detail for you. The second case I did briefly. And the third thing, I just want to give you this idea about zakat. Because zakat is something that I think could be a private sector initiative. Land reforms cannot take place without the state. Although it is being done to an extent in private sector, one of the critics people have about Islamic Banking and Finance is that it has not brought about a change in the welfare, which is also something that truly an Islamic economic system can do. And that is correct. It will not bring about a change in welfare until it’s done at the majority level. That cannot be done without the state. Yes, it can be a minority level of accounts and capitals and banks, that can be done through private sector’s initiative — people who want to do tawba from riba and open up Islamic bank accounts, or businessmen who want to do tawba from interest-based financing and move to Islamic financing.

That itself is a huge, tremendous, enormous success that at least there is a path out, and this is the greatest achievement of Shaykh al-Islam Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) that he created a path out of sin. This is itself tajdeedi karnama (act of renewal) that there were people who were stuck in sin with no way out. People would say, I mean I wasn’t here, but I can imagine that people in 60’s and onwards would go to him and say that I’m a businessman and there is no way out of interest. You cannot operate other than interest. So he listened, and he got them a way out. This is tajdeed of deen. This is fard al-kifaya, this is the level of work that he did.

Next thing that people want is that they should transform the society in terms of welfare. That won’t take place unless the vast majority does it. Allah’s (swt) barakah is not going to come if just the minority makes tawba. Allah’s (swt) barakah comes on a society or a country when the vast majority makes tawba and only a minority is left in that sin. As all of you know, no matter how much Islamic banking might be growing, the vast majority of people, businesses and companies are still involved in this sin. So there also you need the state.

The third thing I told you was zakat’s ability to eliminate poverty, but at a micro level, maybe picking one particular basti or area and figuring out a way to apply zakat to them in such a way, not just that they get their medical care, or clothes, but to overtime actually uplift their income level. You take them out of the class that is known as the ultra-poor. That is something that could at least be applied on a micro level by a private sector initiative and then could be replicated, and might even one day attract interest of the state. If the state starts doing it, then it could inshaAllah eliminate poverty in the entire country, and eventually the entire ummah. It could begin at least as a private sector initiative. Much like the Islamic banking and finance has begun like that, and now that’s enough. They have all the research done, practice, experience, documents’ blueprints, that were the state ever to adopt it, it could be used all the way.


Now just to show you a bit of politics, so to speak, of Islamic law in this country. In 1991, a case came in front of the Federal Shari’ah Court, and following its constitutional mandate, it had to decide whether interest was repugnant to Islamic injunctions i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah. In 1991, the Federal Shari’ah Court passed the decision that interest and any and all laws pertaining to and facilitating interest are repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah Islamic injunction. Now what happens is that immediately banks file an appeal. It’s a feature in Pakistani judicial system that things drag on, so the very vested powerbrokers want it to drag on, and it drags on till 1999 i.e. for 8 years. Which means that once it’s appealed, justice is suspended because it is called a pending appeal, otherwise it was immediately supposed to become law, like I told you, under constitution all courts have to follow it. But once you file the appeal, it’s suspended. So from 1991-99, all the banks continue to work freely because that decision was suspended.

Now what’s supposed to happen, according to the constitution in any other country, once the Supreme Court hears an appeal and passes a decision, it’s finished. That’s it. But you are going to watch how this plays out, and I will update you further on some of the latest stuff that has happened. Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) was not alone, he was one ‘alim on that three-person Shari’ah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. They heard the appeal, but they upheld the Federal Shari’ah Court’s ruling, therefore according to Pakistan’s own constitution, and any legal understanding in the world, it now should immediately become law.

So in 1999, appeal heard by the Shari’ah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court upholds the Federal Shari’ah Court’s ruling and bans interest in all its form by whatever name it may be called. This was also his kamal — learning that these people use language and semantics to get out of things, like profit, because there were people operating on the PLS — Profit Loss Sharing account. It was just a marketing ploy, basically a fraud, to make you think that it wasn’t interest. As a consequence of this judgment, certain laws will cease to take effect, it means the laws that were facilitating pertaining to allowing interest, from March 31, 2000, some other laws from July 31, 2000, and all other laws permitting or condoning interest from June 30, 2001.

That’s fair enough and shows a very sophisticated level of understanding of his that if you need to roll out things, and we are making such a huge change, then you have to do it in phases. To give you the contemporary example, when the UK is going to leave the EU, it takes time. These things take time. So they basically have, like this, certain benchmarks, a certain timeline, until the complete withdrawal from EU takes place. Just like that, a complete timeline was set by the Shari’ah Appellate Bench, so if you go from 1999-2001, basically about 2 years’ timeline was given.

At this time, we had General Parvez Musharraf. So when June 30, 2002 came, it wasn’t all finished. And now he was in this awkward position that there is a standing Supreme Court ruling saying that it’s all over now. The timeline is finished. We have reached the last stage, and there is a Justice still sitting there, Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) who passed this ruling, and he is talking about this that the date has expired. So on June 11, 2002 Musharraf removes Mufti Taqi Usmani after 20 years of service from the Shari’ah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Another interesting thing that happens, if you remember your Pakistani politics, there was the whole judicial crisis that took place at this time. There were the PCO judges, and then people didn’t like the PCO judges, and finally when Musharraf is removed, then your Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, remember that fellow? He comes back and gets rid of all of the PCO judges. Remember the constitutional judges took hold under Pervez Musharraf, he nullifies all of them?

Next thing that he does, on June 24, 2002 — just look at the dates; June 11 and then June 24, 13 days, this is not a conspiracy theory, it’s not possible, nothing moves so fast. Go back to 1991-99 i.e. 8 years to just to hear the appeal. Within 13 days of removal of Hadrat Mufti Taqi Usmani, another bench with new judges was appointed, and within 13 days they decide to suspend the ruling. How did they suspend the ruling? They came up with a unique idea which has no constitutional basis, that we will refer it back to Federal Shari’ah Court. It had already come up to you from the Federal Shari’ah Court, you already had a standing decision on it, they come up with this thing that we will remand the case back to the Shari’ah Court so they may re-examine this, whether it is truly against the injunctions of Islam, within 13 days.

Fast forward, several years after this, first thing the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry should have done was what he did; that he removed the PCO judges. The second thing he should have done, if there was any way that Musharraf had interfered with the proper workings of Justice, he should have turned that back. The very next thing he should have done was this. He should have said that this Supreme Court ruling, which was made by those PCO judges on June 24, 2002 to remand the case back to the FSC, we as the current Supreme Court declare that null and void, and the act is back where it was, according to proper legal norms.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, despite all of his Harvard awards, and all of his global fame, did nothing of this sort. What would that mean? He was also just a puppet of these bankers and these powerbrokers and the major financial players. Because this is what judicial integrity demands. It’s not once or twice, this person spoke repeatedly against Musharraf, and he presents himself at that time, and still does, to the world as the Justice of integrity who rolled back everything that the military dictator did, except this. Why not? Why not this?

From 2002, as of 2015, I will tell you the latest, for these 13 years the case is pending. When it is pending, so this law which was supposed to be enacted from June 30, 2001, according to the Supreme Court ruling, all law had to immediately cease to exist. Null and void. That is still suspended because for 13 years it had been pending. What happened in 2015 and 2016, and I don’t know the latest, but in this time the government, particularly UBL, I want to name them because I have one document, so United Bank Limited, they hired this fellow Salman Akram Raja, I will name him because he has chosen to be the lawyer for this, and it is a matter of public record.

Salman Akram Raja, along with a bunch of other lawyers, are preparing a deep argument, looking at al-Azhar, looking at Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamdi, looking at other people who basically believe interest is fine, and trying in a very, very elaborate — not like that old one-verse argument, this Salman Akram Raja guy knows his stuff — so a very elaborate document is being prepared. And when they feel that they are ready, Allahu Alam what’s going to happen, but I don’t know if anything has happened in the last 9 months. Last I kept track of this was in 2015. To the best of my knowledge, the case hasn’t happened yet, but they were preparing for the case, and again the case would be in the Federal Shari’ah Court.

What would happen? Let’s say they lose, or lets say they win, either side will appeal. Lets say they win, and the Federal Shari’ah Court decides interest is not against injunctions of Islam. Then obviously, people like us will appeal, or Mufti Taqi (db) will get people who will appeal it. How long will that appeal take? It could take 10-20 years to be held by the Supreme Court. If they lose, they will appeal. Either way, they bought their time. This is also what I was trying to tell you, which is the second part, that the reason Islamic banking and finance is not going further is not because the ulema and mashaikh don’t want it to go further. We want Madni financial system, we want to take it all the way. But you can’t do that without the state. And I have showed you the state’s obstruction in the process. The state is obstructing and preventing the process from going any further. So it is limited to minority level of financing in this country, which is a private sector initiative, but don’t underestimate that still, at least it is a way out of the sin and the evil of riba.

Sometimes when we used to do this in the university that look if I get you out of the bathroom, it’s a big thing, I got you out of nijasat. It doesn’t mean I took you all the way to Madina Munawwara. I just got you out of the bathroom. That was one big journey. Now the next step is, once you are out of the bathroom, you are out of nijasat, to find the purest type of purity, and that would be the Madni financial system. But that requires a complete overhaul. And a complete overhaul can’t be done by the muftis. It has to be done by the state, the government, by the stakeholders. But that can be done. That’s the beauty of it. It’s not that it can’t be done. For some people, they will have to take it as a part of their faith in Islam. But I’m telling you, Allah (swt) is al-Hadi. His sifat of ‘adl and hidayah are there in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It’s not just that it’s His own intrinsic attribute. He had manifested His sifat of guidance and justice through this revealed religion of deen of Islam. Any and every type of justice, fairness, equity can be discovered and adopted through the hidayah that is known as deen of Islam.

It’s not like it can’t be done, it’s not like the ulema and muftis don’t want it to be done, but it’s not going to practically happen without the people to make it happen. So this was to show you there are ulema working in these areas. There is scope for deen of Islam to make an impact on society. And I’m not trying to do a complete denial and refutation of people who try to use political or social movements. But I’m actually showing that knowledge is not entirely just academic. Even knowledge in our deen has the ability to be used and developed and applied to actually impact society.

More on Zakat

Third idea is a project that I have delayed till 2018 due to my own busyness, and due to my lack of success in being able to do this in 2015. So in 2015 I had an idea, and I will share it with you that idea, what I tried to do and how I failed to do it. That was what I have mentioned to you a couple of times about zakat; that zakat must have the ability to absolutely eliminate and eradicate poverty altogether. But obviously it would do that one step at a time. It’s like an eraser. So if I have to erase the whole board, but to check if the eraser works, that I can tell just by erasing a little bit.

Another problem is that, unfortunately, a lot of people misuse zakat, misapply zakat, and some people, without revealing to you all the details, but they use something that is called hila-e-zakat, which is kind of a legal loophole to use zakat technically in a permissible way, but it will not really help eliminate poverty. It will not be used for the spirit of zakat, but it will be used according to the letter. Obviously, every letter has been revealed by Allah (swt) to create a spirit and to create a reality. So these are the reasons why zakat may not be having the affect Allah (swt) wanted it to have.

The idea I had was that I would get a group of people; muftis, economists, social workers/NGOs, public policy, myself and we would form a working group and do some research, both in Islamic law and Islamic history, and in public policy, and economics, social work — because there is a lot of effort through the organizations in the world which are trying to combat poverty — and try to see if we can come up with ideally the best, but it may not be a single best, rather a better or more ideal way to distribute zakat which has more of an impact, which is, again, to take the poor out of their poverty. That’s the asal; to take the poor out of their poverty, not only to give the poor medicines, healthcare, clothing, shelter and elementary schools.

One reason I failed in this was because of my own lack of expertise in this area and lack of time that I could dedicate to this project.

Another reason I failed was that I went to one economist who wasn’t very religious. He was semi-practicing but seemed to be deen-friendly. But during one conversation I realized that he was upset at the limits obviously me and the muftis would place on the project in terms of Shari’ah compliance. For example, there is a place in Bangladesh called Grameen Bank, and this person Muhammad Grameen once won a Noble or a Peace Prize, or some other prize. But that was for interest-based micro-finance. And at that time a lot of people were upset with ulema who were saying interest is haram because they thought don’t you see the great benefit this can have? There have been some interest-free micro-finance initiatives even here in Pakistan, but nothing to the level of Grameen Bank, but it at least shows it can be done. So I realized from him that he would not be happy with us putting certain restrictions, which is very unfortunate because he is actually a wonderful person. But we lost him.

I went to an economist who was outwardly much more religious and practicing in deen. His view was that whatever I say would be correct because I’m an economist and you people don’t know anything about that. So we don’t need this group. I will just sit down and tell you what to do, and you people should to do it. And then he engaged in a huge, long critic of Mufti Taqi (db) and Islamic banking, so I say okay I can’t work with him. Obviously a person has to try with more than two people, I accept that. One of the reason being, like I told you, that I couldn’t devote enough time to the project.

I found it hard. The reason I’m sharing this with you is because this is also a problem; this inability of people from different backgrounds and perspectives to come together, this isn’t there in the dunya. If I was a CEO, I could easily make a committee of people from all types of different backgrounds, and just because I’m the CEO, and just for the sake of increasing the corporate profit, they will sit down and work with each other as peers. They won’t be like I’m the sales guy, or I’m the marketing guy which is better. They will all sit together and they will do it. They will be willing to outsource consulting. They will be willing to hire change-management consultants. And they will say we trust you, whatever you people say we will do it. That level of trust isn’t there.

It’s a problem whether it’s among ulema, or between ulema and other professional experts of knowledge. That problem also wasn’t there in our first 1200 years of history. Like today, in America they call it expert’s testimony. If you look at old qadhi courts, you will see experts testifying; jurists, judges, statesmen, bureaucrats, all working together, again, with large gaps and lapses, but you see it also throughout 1200 years. That’s also something that is lacking now. In fact there are literally very few such places where any such interactions can take place, call it an idea-lab, call it whatever you want. How many times will you see a mufti and an economist or a social worker and a bureaucrat sitting at one table talking about anything to do in society? It’s almost non-existent. So these interactions and engagements don’t take place, that’s why there’s no real dynamism and synergy.

So anyway, in 2018 we plan to resume and we plan to try that again. I don’t know how far it would go. It’s an idea. I will also tell you very frankly, a lot of people have tried to give us zakat for our own on-going project, and we strictly don’t take zakat. Because we don’t personally believe in using the hila-e-zakat. But with the amount of money people were trying to give in zakat, we realized that mashaAllah people have serious amounts of money to give in zakat, and apparently they trust us to use that, so maybe Allah (swt) is opening up another door for me so we could do some khidmet of the poor.

That’s a very big thing, I will be telling you about this in the afternoon. Khidmet of the poor is one big thing that is missing from the best of believers, forget ordinary people. One of the greatest attributes of the Anbiya (as) was the khidmet of the poor, suhbat of the poor, muhabbat with the poor, and mahbubiyat of the poor and rafaqat with the poor. After the Anbiya (as) this used to be the hallmark of awliya Allah. No doubt, awliya and tasawwuf is about dhikr, qurb with Allah (swt), tazkiya, purification from sins, but this was also a very big thing. And that’s one thing, because I’m also a part of the tradition of tasawwuf that we are lacking. We don’t have that.

So this is one thing, along with the other thing we did on land reforms, because I have been to the rural areas of Pakistan also, not even once or twice, I have traveled in this country. The type of poverty you see it’s ajeeb. And the poor have no friend, they have no spokesmen, they have no patron, no benefactor, they are, what you call, lawaris. Barring, you know, there are some NGOs, international and domestic organizations who are trying. But overall the picture that you get, again, it comes back to politics, because there are no real genuine social or civil movements in this country.


The problem with sitting together of ulema and people from different professions, is it because of two separate educational systems?

This could be one reason; that we have two separate systems of education, religious learning and secular. But it’s not that simple either. People can still get together. You will have sometimes, in the name of consulting, the engineer who runs to automation technology and the sales and fine they all went to different systems, find they work in a university, but they were basically differently educated and they are willing to sit and work together. So I don’t think it’s enough to explain it. No doubt, that’s a separate topic how you can integrate religious educations with professional education. Meanwhile, I’m trying to figure out how to integrate people who have non-religious education and religious education. In fact, I think that would be the pre-requisite of integrating the systems themselves; if you cannot integrate persons, how are you going to integrate entire systems.

What about convincing a particular party to take the approach of socio-economic equality?

No doubt, that could be an effort. But that itself speaks volumes that a political party that has been around for decades would need me to go to them and give them this idea of social justice and  economic equality. That’s their job. It’s like saying why not go to the doctors and tell them they should actually heal people. If a person doesn’t realize that, and he is in that profession, that’s a big problem in of itself. But it does point out to something, which is important, which in English we call advocacy. We need people who engage in advocacy, who go to political parties, who even, I will go one step further than this, even join political parties with the intention to try to bring good policies in their platforms. It doesn’t mean I would necessarily advice anyone of you in particular to join any specific political party, but I’m saying generally as a society that might be one problem.

I don’t know enough about this in the particular context of Pakistan. But I suspect that some of these parties have a structure that’s so rigid that they may not be so welcoming to somebody who is coming in, not because of the same class, or caste, but coming in purely because they want to introduce new and interesting ideas in social justice to the party-platform. I don’t know if there will be a platform. Things may not be as bad as I might think they are. No doubt, if they are not as bad as I think they are, then there would be scope to do the kind of effort that you are talking about.

When implementing the Islamic law at the state-level, how will differences of opinions between madhahib be addressed for individuals?

I told you, when you are talking about public policy, and this is one of the major things that Mufti Taqi Usmani (db) wrote in-depth in that book, which is a response to the critic of the new town ulema on some of his positions on Islamic banking, when you are talking about public good, greater good, systemic thing, you can cross madhabs and use different tools from different toolkits. That’s not just to fight the war on interest, that would be true for any and every public policy area. As far as person ibadah, and fiqh of ibadah and wudhu, the state has nothing to do with that. So that’s not an issue. That’s not a matter that comes in front of the courts or the bureaucracy or parliament.

How can the qadhi system be implemented in this day and age?

I don’t think it will be implemented in these days. It’s not possible to revive Islamic courts because courts provide a service function to a society that wants that service function. If ever you can recreate such individuals who want such a society, and then have a society that wants that service function, then the courts will be able to come back. Otherwise, there is no other way for them to come back. That’s my answer for 2-3 similar questions: how can you bring about state-level Islamic change, how can you bring about Islamic change in the parties?

Let me open this up. You have to look at the seerah. When you talk about history, the ultimate history is the history of the life of Nabi Kareem (sws), and the history of his (sws) life is also a source of hidayah for us. So when Nabi Kareem (sws) was in the Makkan phase, which lasted 8-10 years before hijrah, in that phase he (sws) did not try to change the society around him (sws), state is still out of the question. He (sws) did not try to change any type of policies, state, structure, or system. He (sws) didn’t initiate jihad. Otherwise, when Syedna Bilal (ra) was being tortured, they could have said we will do jihad on you. When they put him (sws) in the boycott in the valley, he (sws) didn’t do jihad. He (sws) could have said, forget it, they are putting us in boycott, we refuse, we will do jihad, fine, we will die, we will become shaheed, no problem. He (sws) didn’t do that. Why? Because he (sws) was at the level of building individuals and building a community.

After hijrah, when he (sws) went to Madinah Munawwarah, he (sws) did not sit down with Sahaba Karam (ra) and plan fateh Makkah. There was no military aspect to his (sws) coming to Madinah Munawwarah. In fact, he (sws) was fleeing from conflict. The first thing he (sws) did, which Nabi Kareem (sws) had already been doing, and had almost completed even before the arrival, was to completely patch up Aws and Khazraj so that there was domestic peace and harmony within Madinah Munawwarah. Then these new people who came, the muhajiroon i.e. the Makkans, he (sws) made what is called nisbat-e-mwakhat; he (sws) joined every Muhajir (ra) with every Ansar (ra), so there was complete harmony within the ummah.

Immediately thereafter, he (sws) made peace treaties with the neighboring Jewish tribes so that there was complete harmony in the foreign relations. That’s it. He (sws) made no plan of attacking Makkah Mukaramah. He (sws) didn’t send a message to Quraysh that now we are a society, we are coming after you. He (sws) just wanted to live in peace. Then the Makkans sent the army, first in Badr, then in Uhad, and then for those of you who know, it goes on and on and on. Ultimately, finally when Nabi Kareem (sws) realized that these people will never give up, so then he (sws) went back and did fateh Makkah.

If you look at the way the seerah unfolded, where do we find ourselves now, we are in the pre-hijrah Makkan stage. There is no concept of state. We are back at the level of individuals and trying to form communities. We are not even anywhere near society, let alone polity, let alone state. That’s my reading of it. And I will tell you openly, Jama’t-e-Islami has a different reading, Tanzim-e-Islami people have a different reading, other individual ulema may give you a different reading. What can you do? Next question will come that different ulema say different things, how do you know which one to follow? Follow whoever you want on this matter.

My advice for you, that for 99% of you, you really don’t need to figure this issue out, unless you are an activist who themselves is going to bring about change, and you really are planning to dedicate your life, it’s a big commitment and dedication, to bring about a change in society and state, unless you are this person, you don’t even need to discover the question that who is right about how to bring about that change. It’s just armchair journalism that you are doing. If you truly, really are an activist who’s going to dedicate the entire rest of your life in the service and khidmet of society, then yes you meet different ulema and whichever one you feel has the correct understanding of how to bring about that change, you do it. There’s no problem. But in a non-violent way. So that’s one signal for you. You can learn a lot from Gandhi. I know this is like heresy in Pakistan and I always do it in front of you, but Gandhi accomplished more with non-violence than some Muslims accomplished using violence. You to have see.

So there are a lot of questions on this line; everybody wants the state! I don’t know if I should say more to you. Our teacher used to say only say as much as the audience can digest. But at times I cannot estimate your ability and capacity to digest. I will just say that the fikr, the concern is very good. But you have to understand, is it a real thing? Or is it just an emotional thing — how to fix the system, how to get to state, how to get to state? Or are you really going to do something about it? And if you really are going to do something about it, like I told you, start with the best non-violent way that you think. Do it. You don’t need me to answer your question to do it. I don’t have a monopoly on religion.

What I say is that you need to work on individuals and communities, if you want to know what would be my answer to that. A house is made up of walls, and a wall is made up of bricks. Nobody is ever going to build a good house without good bricks. But if somebody says I’m going to build a house without good bricks, that’s fine. Go and try. I’m not going to stop you. I’m trying to make good bricks and trying to be a good brick. If they are clever, they say if you ever become a good brick, can we use you in our wall? Or will you give us your bricks for our walls? I’m just teasing you. But these are the things that are done.

Isn’t there a benefit in academically devising a plan even if it is not being implemented at state level?

Sometimes I think the academic society would have been a big thing. In our deen, we call it itmam-e-hujjat. Otherwise people will say that, you know, if we take interest away, how are you going to run the economy? Now there’s an answer for that, forget whether someone is implementing that or not, but the fact that an answer exists, or at least there is a dawah. The critics say what you are doing is just running 10% of the banking sector, if you ran it 100% it wouldn’t work. Fine, that’s your claim. But we claim that we have a way to run it 100%, because earlier had you given us 100% we wouldn’t even have been able to run it. Now we have a way to run it. You may not like the way we will run it, you might think the way we would run it won’t work. But we have a way in which we would run it. It has been done as far as the banking and financial sector, that’s just one aspect of society. There are many other things that are there.

Just to give you an example, if you read the Pakistan’s constitution, let’s say the ulema were trying to write the constitution, what would it look like? Nobody has done that. Even sometime purely academically, were people to do it, it would be interesting. It could even start some interesting conversations. It would be a platform for discussion. It’s possible some of those groups have done that. It could very well be possible that the Jama’t-e-Islami or Tanzim-e-Islami or others may have drafted what they felt would be the right thing to do. In fact, they should have, given that that’s their field.

South African political parties are pushing for land redistribution. Is it similar to what happened here in Pakistan?

This is a slightly different situation. The questioner is asking about, when you are talking about unlawful acquisition of land in the first place, which took place in South Africa with the Dutch boards coming in and basically they created a colonialism type of state. And this is the situation in almost all of the Sub-Saharan Africa. So 100% I personally believe that, but it’s problematic. Because what you are talking about is someone’s great-great-great-great grandfather misappropriated the land. This would require a lot of ulema to sit down and deliberate over the matter. But this much I can tell you, Islam will also acknowledge facts on the ground to a certain extent. And there will have to be a level of sulah that will have to take place between the white farmers over there and those who have been, even though they are descendant of colonial oppressors, but a lot of them have now become just peace-loving citizens of Zimbabwe, in South Africa.

So one way could be to start a discussion that how could we do some type of sulah. This concept of sulah is not just between brother and brother and families. It is also something used for social justice in society. It might be that we see this white farmer, how big is his family? What is his legitimate need, based on his legitimate standard of living with a reasonable comfort level and maybe let them keep their farm to that extent, and beyond that, the rest of the land can be given to the government. But things are never that easy. Because if you give it to the government, the problem is that the government is corrupt.

That is why you need a just government in place already before you do the societal reforms, but then you would also need a just society to get the just government. It is a very tricky thing. So the people may say how do you know the government will redistribute that land equitably, and unfortunately in the cases of these African countries, the answer is no, in fact we can guarantee you that they will not give it away equitably, whatever the political party is, all their puppets and cronies will be given these pieces of land taken away from the white farmers. The point is that Islamically speaking we will not necessarily recognize the private property ownership of somebody who acquired that land through colonialism. That is not a legitimate basis of ownership.

There is a particular question about Islamic banking, but my topic today was not Islamic banking, it was about the jurisprudence of the Shari’ah courts in Pakistan and how law plays in that. This much I will say that you have two options in life.

One is to be completely free of banks and to keep your money in your drawer and to run a business on whatever existing capital you have, and have no concept of financing. Obviously, that is a safer way.

Second is that you say I need to, for whatever reason, be engaged in banks. If you say that you need to be engaged in banks, then you have only two possibilities.

  1. Those banks that everyone agrees are not Shari’ah compliant and are interest-based.
  2. Those banks that a lot of ulema have certified as Shari’ah compliant but you might not fully understand what’s the difference between them, but at least there is this difference that there are a number of ulema who say it is Shari’ah compliant.

These are the only two choices you have. There is no other choice. So I think it’s only rational that if you must engage in any type of business; personal current account or the investment relation with the bank, then obviously it’s clear that you should choose those banks that have been certified by reputable ulema, even though that certification might be contested by others, even though you might not be able to understand, because the other choice is guaranteed, all the ulema agree on that they are not Shari’ah compliant.


How to Increase Baseerat

[These are rough notes of a talk delivered by Alimah S. Ahmed on April 24, 2016.]

Allah swt is al-Baseer, He is all-Perceiving, He knows about everything no matter how concealed or shrouded. In yesteryear, we used to have paper etc, then we had TV that was 2D, then we had 3D. They have amusement parks where you can smell as well, as an added affect to 3D, so they call it 4D. Now they also have something called 5D. So there are various dimensions. 

There was a book named The Little Prince in our childhood. When a child reads it, they look at it differently. But as you age, you will read that book on a different level than a child, you will read deeper meanings and deeper themes into it. 

The person is the same but their dimensions are changing, their dimensions of perception are increasing. It means that the dimension of our perception is not static; it can be increased. The Allah-walas look at the world through a different dimension; they have a different level of baseerat. So how can we increase our baseerat? 

Know that Allah (swt) is qareeb. Allah (swt) says in Quran that when my servant asks you about Me, indeed I am near. Try to always remember that Allah (swt) is near you. Then you will get a deeper understanding. Allah (swt) says when a person mentions me in a gathering, I mention them in a gathering. When they remember me alone, so I remember them in Myself. 

Understand your true self. When we realize our own faqiri, then we understand the Kibriyai (Grandeur) of Allah (swt). We get a higher level of understanding. When we realize that we are fani (finite) we will realize Allah swt is Baaqi (Self-Subsisting). Your CGPA, exams and everything else is fani. People get so much anxiety when facing a problem; what will parents, people say etc? And they get tensed because it feels like the problem will last forever, however, everything, including your problems, is fani.

No matter how  much we we fuss over our bodies, or run after beauty ideals, it will go in the opposite direction. This is something we keep losing, as we age, our bodies tend to become unattractive, but our souls can be beautified more and more with the passage of time. There are some people who become more attractive as they age, they look more beautiful because of grey hair, they get more noor on their face. This is something beyond physical beauty.

Look for Allah (swt). This is a part of sulook. First step is to know Allah (swt). Allah (swt) created the world because He wished to be known. We have to know Allah (swt), that is the purpose of life. To love this world for the sake of the world is not okay. If you are looking for Allah (swt) then as you go, you will enjoy the world as well. If you love the world, then you will not enjoy it. It will only cause you anxiety and pareshani. 

Those who have the baseerat see Allah (swt) everywhere; in good people, in bad people. Our nafs is enclosed in an iceblock. There are people who can see through the iceblocks. There are some people who can melt your iceblock. To have this longing to see what is behind this? There is a book Secret Garden in which a girl is so curious to find out about a garden that has been locked out for years. 

Remember death. Those who know their time is soon to come, they are not interested in thinking about the world anymore. Those who are not religious or Muslim, they turn to relationships. A man found out that he had cancer. He said okay how should I spend my 1 year? He started to look at his life in a different way. 

There was a man in physics who said that I can prove life after death scientifically. He said that energy once created can never be destroyed. Like water evaporates but doesn’t cease to exist, it changes state. A human being has enough electricity that it can light a bulb of 60 Watts. When a person dies, that energy does not end, it is transformed to another state. That was his argument that that energy must have transferred somewhere. It cannot simply cease to exist.

Have a presence of heart. Qalbi huzoori. It seems difficult, but those who have it, every moment is a moment of reflection for them. If I am at my home and I keep thinking if I were in U.S. then this would happen, or that would happen, then I will end up making mistakes here because here things are done differently. Allah (swt) says about some people that they have hearts but they do not understand, they have eyes but they do not perceive, they have ears but they do not listen. They are like animals, or rather worse than them. If you look at domestic animals, bhains, gaye etc they can only perceive food which is directly placed in front of them. They dont care if there is a bike passing by, or a car, they are focused on their food. We humans have to live in this world but we have to be attentive. Attentiveness is a habit, increase it and work on it. 

Whoever you see, whatever situation you are in, take a lesson from it. Be attentive. All these things create baseerat in us. Allah (swt) is Baaqi and everything else melts away. 

Maktubat-e-Rabbani Session 3

[These are rough notes from the third session of the workshop conducted by Shaykh Kamaluddin Ahmed (db) in UK, in 2011]

[Notes for Session 1 and Session 2]

The last stage (i.e. baqaa), Imam Rabbani (rah) says, is that you will have a 100% attachment to Allah (swt) in your heart and you remain aware of Him 100% of the time. This is what Allah (swt) has described in Qur’an:

رِجَالٌ ۙ لَّا تُلۡهِيۡهِمۡ تِجَارَةٌ وَّلَا بَيۡعٌ

By the men whom no trade or sale makes neglectful of the remembrance of Allah [24:37]

It is a Qur’anic state. Tasawwuf is just a methodology to reach that Qur’anic state. Just like the Qur’an talks about tartil:

وَرَتِّلِ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ تَرۡتِيۡلًا
and recite the Qur’an clearly with tartil (in a distinct and measured tone). [73:4]

Tajweed is just the name of a methodology to recite Qur’an in tartil. The word tajweed is nowhere in Qur’an or Hadith, but the word tartil is. The word tasawwuf is no where in Qur’an and Hadith, but tazkiyah, qurb, marifah of Allah (swt) – all of these words are there.

Allah swt (says) in this ayah that they are such people that nothing in this world, literally, neither trade nor commerce — no trading, buying, selling, no commercial activity — nothing can distract them from the dhikr of Allah (swt). That is the last stage; keeping that awareness and attachment of Allah (swt) is ain-e-Qur’an; that is exactly in Qur’an. The fact that they are doing tijarah and bayah — that is the first 100%. They are engaged in the world, they are occupied in the world, in fact they are doing, what we call, a worldly activity; buying, selling, trading, negotiating, so that is the first 100%, it is not able to distract them from dhikr of Allah (swt) — that is the second 100%.

These are Qur’anic terms; the ayat of Qur’an-e-Kareem is explaining these states of human experience. Tasawwuf is just a method. It is not the necessary method. It is not a method. Just like any tajweed book is not necessary, but it is an attested, proven, established way at successfully getting correct Qur’anic pronunciation, this is attested, established, true way to get those feelings of Qur’an.

That’s why Imam Rabbani (rah), when he talks about these four stages, quotes another ayah from Qur’an:

قُلۡ هٰذِهٖ سَبِيۡلِىۡۤ اَدۡعُوۡۤا اِلَى اللّٰهِ ‌عَلٰى بَصِيۡرَةٍ
Say, “This is my way. I call (people) to Allah with full perception [12:108]

That say that this is my path, that I call to Allah (swt) ‘alaa baseera; with an eye of deep insight. This engagement in the world, and the last stage of baqaa is the work of the prophets, it is dawah. This is the way dawah is done in tasawwuf; a person makes themselves a person of dhikr, they get this connection with Allah (swt), and they bring that connection to the dawah.

This is the way Hadrat Maulana Ilyas [Kandhlawi] (rah) used to make dawah. He was sahib-e-dhikr and sahib-e-nisbat. Today, people are trying to do dawah without dhikr. It’s not possible. Allama Shami or Allama Shafi’i (rah) wrote all of those books on the basis of their ‘ilm. If someone says I want to be like them, but I don’t want the ‘ilm, how can you do khidmet of deen the way they did it, without the ‘ilm that they had which enabled them to do that khidmet? Similarly, how are you going to do this type of khidmet of deen, i.e. dawah, unless you have that baseerah? That’s what the Qur’an is saying. In another ayah Allah (swt) says:

وَ لَا تُطِعۡ مَنۡ اَغۡفَلۡنَا قَلۡبَهٗ عَنۡ ذِكۡرِنَا
And do not obey the one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance [18:28]

You should not follow that person’s heart that is empty of dhikr. You should not listen to the dawah of that person.

Fanaa means passing away from the self and baqaa means abiding in God. These are loose translations. I don’t think it’s the translator’s fault. Arabic word fanaa is a concept that just took me two charts to explain to you, so it’s not easy to find that one English word that would do justice to this Arabic word. Just like when you give $1 and you get Rs. 85, so when you give 1 Arabic word, you should get about 85 English words for that.

So fanaa i.e. passing away from the self, let me explain it to you: losing awareness of everything that is other than Allah (swt), forgetting that knowledge voluntarily, deliberately so that you are un-learning everything; becoming unaware of everything. And baqaa is translated as abiding in God, but that’s not how we are going to talk about this because you are not abiding inside Allah (swt). Baqaa, those of you who know Urdu would know the word baqi, it means to subsist due to the will and command of Allah (swt).

Normally, what human beings engage in is called self-preservation. You are conscious of yourself. You are keeping yourself alive. At that stage of fanaa, you lose the consciousness of your own self. So what is keeping you alive is the wish and will and the hukm of Allah (swt). And then you realize that even when I was conscious of myself, the only thing that was keeping me alive was the wish and will of Allah (swt). I am utterly needy and dependent on Him. My being is dependent on His Being. Only His Being is independent. You do not become one with Allah (swt), so he is making it clear here.

Fanaa and baqaa are experiential, not existential. This is one of the most famous things that Imam Rabbani (rah) is known for. And he has written many letters on this topic. I haven’t given them to you because they are extremely long, detailed and complex. But they have an extensive critique of wahdat al-wujud, that they thought it was wujudi when it was actually shuhudi. Let me explain. The English here is good; these are the proper philosophical terms. Wujudi would be translated as existential and shuhudi would be translated as experiential. But this loose translation does not mean that you understand the concept.

Wujudi i.e. existential, what does it mean? Wujud, existentially means in actual reality. So in actual reality you have not passed away. You’re not fanaa. You exist. You cannot eliminate your existence. Even suicide doesn’t do that. Every human is eternal. It is the wish of Allah (swt), He has created us that way. There is nothing any human being can do that, from Syedna Adam (as) all the way to whoever the last human being would be, no human being has the power and ability to eliminate their existence. In reality, they cannot cease to exist.

If fanaa was wujudi, had it been wujudi, that’s what it would have meant; that you actually would have been able to erase yourself from existence, you could actually become non-existent, and then Allah (swt) would be the only one who was existent because you would have eliminated yourself. So he says that this is not a reality. What is it then? Instead, it is shuhudi. It means experiential, in perception. You go through an experience that makes you perceive as if you don’t exist anymore.

For example, like that Sahabi (ra) [1], it’s not that the arrow stopped to exist; the arrow existed, the blood existed, the wound existed, but, because he was unaware of it (shuhud), his perception and awareness of it did not exist. In his world of perception, he was unaware and not conscious of that arrow, just like that a person in dhikr, in ibadah can become unconscious of their own self.

I will give you the opposite example as well. You are sitting in class  and you are not even aware of the itch on your nose. You just start praying, and then you notice it. You lasted two hours (in class) and it was completely fine. We are the opposite. We are so engrossed in the dunya that we are unaware. When you are deeply involved in something, you become unaware.

Forget even qalb, let me go to a lower faculty which is the human mind; it is lesser than your spiritual heart. Sometimes a person is so lost in their thoughts that they become unaware. You would say to that person snap out of it, because that person is so engrossed in some thought that they become unaware. You being unaware does not mean you stop to exist, you still exist, but your awareness stops to exist. It’s shuhudi. Fana-e-nafsi doesn’t mean that your self stops to exist, rather your awareness, perception, shuhud (from shahadah; testifying, witnessing) that stops to exist. Your self-awareness stops to exist.

He says that when these people came up with the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud, they misunderstood. Actually they reached a level where their awareness of their existence didn’t exist anymore, so they thought that nothing exists except for Allah (swt). When they re-opened their awareness of themselves, they perceived themselves to be Allah, and that was the mistake they made. The mistake they made was they thought fanaa and baqaa were wujudi, when actually they are shuhudi.

A human being does not become Allah (swt), and is not united with Him. Because that’s what they thought; you erase your existence, to become one with Allah. He says this doesn’t happen. ‘Abd (slave) is ‘abd forever, and Allah is Allah forever, remember the farq (absolute separation). There is no unity, ever.

There are wicked theorists who think fanaa and baqaa are wujudi, that the man discards his ontological limitations and unites with the primal source. Sometimes people who support wahdat al-wujud give this example that Allah (swt) is an ocean, and He created everyone out of drops from that ocean, and when we experience fanaa, we return to that ocean and become a part of that ocean again. And this is also, by the way, what Agha Khani Ismaili theology teaches, this is what they believe. That’s why they don’t actually believe in an afterlife. They think that they are going to be the drops that will become reunited with the ocean. So, this belief is incorrect.

What does limitation and determination mean? It’s just a philosophical term that means human beings have bodily limitations and spatial limitations. To put it simply, you exist in time-space. Allah (swt) exists outside the realm of time-space. For you to even, hypothetically, unite with Him, you will first have to also become a being who transcends time and space, and you can’t do that. So on the side, he is giving a philosophical refutation as well.

That the drop of water loses itself and mingles in the ocean, it casts away its individuating limitations and becomes one with the absolute. May Allah (swt) save us all from their blasphemous ideas. Real fanaa (so what is fanaa in reality?) is to forget; to be unaware of ghairullah (which is called not-divine in English); to free oneself from the love of the world; to purify the heart from all of the desires and wishes (and what they mean by desires is obviously the unlawful desires) as is required of a servant. 

That’s what an ‘abd is supposed to do. Fanaa is nothing other than ubudiyyah (slave-hood), that’s what he is trying to say. Earlier he had said that wilayat is nothing but ubudiyyah in totality. And now he is taking all parts of wilayat and showing that’s also nothing other than ubudiyyah. So fanaa is nothing but ubidiyyah.

And real baqaa is to fulfill the wishes of the Lord. There’s another way to understand baqaa; when I have erased all of my wishes, so how am I existing? Whose wishes am I fulfilling? What’s keeping me baqi? It’s the wish of Allah (swt). Now I fulfill Allah’s (swt) wishes. That’s why they say in Urdu jo Allah ki marzi, woh meri marzi ban gayi. They say that now I have no will and wish left, whatever is the will and wish of Allah (swt), that is my will and wish. That’s what is left. That’s what is baqi after I erased everything — just the will and wish that Allah (swt) has for me.

When I erased everything and became a pure servant and slave, so what’s left is just my slavehood, just my ubudiyyah. So what does an ‘abd do? Just like in this world, a slave does whatever his master tells him. The slave sleeps when the master tells him to sleep. He gets up whenever the master tells him to get up. If the master tells you to get up at 4 A.M., you will get up at 4 A.M. That’s called baqaa.

There’s another way to understand baqaa; I continue to exist, I have not erased my existence, I still exist, but my continuity in existence is only in the will and wish of Allah (swt). I am just an ‘abd now, that’s it. There’s nothing I can do, it’s not even in me to go against ubudiyyah, that’s what he means.

Real baqaa is to fulfill the wish of the Lord and to make His will one’s own will without losing one’s self-identity. That’s the key thing. This is the beauty of it, this is submission, this is tasleem, this is Islam; you are still who you are. You are still you, but you become a person who only does what Allah (swt) wishes, that’s why you get the sawab — it’s you who wills to only now will what Allah (swt) wills for you. You wish only that what Allah (swt) wishes for you. That’s what Allah (swt) has put us on this earth for; not to lose that self-identity, but to maintain that self-identity, and to erase anything in that identity that goes against the wish of Allah (swt).

When we do that (i.e. fanaa) then we continue to exist until death overcomes us (i.e. baqaa) only and only doing what is the will and wish of Allah (swt) (i.e. retaining our self-identity).

After writing this, he does mention that some of the writings by some of the sufis seem to suggest otherwise. Even some of the writings by the rightly guided mashaikh of tasawwuf sometimes just seem to suggest otherwise, so he is going to talk about that.

In the writings of some sufis, one comes across words like mahw (; to erase, efface) and izmehlal (; dissolution, to dissolve, to fade away). What they mean by these words is experiential effacement, not existential effacement. It doesn’t mean that they literally become erased from the map of the earth, it means their own wish and will becomes erased.

The identity of the person of tasawwuf disappears only from his vision. It is never abolished in reality. Now he is talking about when the person is really deep into that dhikr. For example, when you are in a dream, you forget who you are, but you are still you, aren’t you? In the dream-like state, your experiences in the dream are so overpowering that they can even make you forget who you are in reality. But in actuality, you are still who you really are, you don’t stop being you, it’s still you that’s dreaming.

Similarly in dhikr, sometimes a person has an overpowering experience that they forget who they are. They have an overpowering experience in ibadah. When some people go for tawaf, they forget everything, they are lost. They don’t remember who they are, where they are from; they are from Pakistan, they are from Syria, they are from Indonesia, they are a father, they are a mother, they are a daughter — all of it is gone. All the identities are gone. They don’t remember their national identity, they don’t remember their family identity, they don’t remember their professional identity. It’s completely out of their consciousness if they are a computer programmer, if they are a teacher.

That’s what it means to efface. In reality, he is a father, she is a mother, she can’t erase that reality, but she has entered a state now where she is unaware, she is not conscious of that identity. Normally, a mother can never forget her children, but the woman can be so lost in ibadah, she could actually forget them. It doesn’t mean neglect. Understand what I mean, she can enter a state that is so overpowering that all other aspects of her identity are gone, the only identity that remains is that she is an ‘abd. That’s what he is talking about.

It only disappears from his vision (; perception, awareness). It is never abolished in reality (he doesn’t stop being who he is). In fact to believe in the latter (to actually believe that he actually stops being who he is) that’s theoretical and wicked. A number of amateur sufis have interpreted these misleading words to mean existential dissolution and  have been guilty of blasphemy. They have denied the punishment in the Hereafter. So what did they do? They said that there is no real punishment in Jahannam and there is no real reward in Akhirah, because they said you just go back to becoming one with Allah (swt), so as in their belief they once perceived it from unity to multiplicity. For example, these people misinterpret verses so they say:

اِنَّا لِلّٰهِ وَاِنَّـآ اِلَيۡهِ رٰجِعُوۡنَؕ
“We certainly belong to Allah, and to Him we are bound to return.” [2:156]

They say it’s in Qur’an; we are from Allah (swt) and to Allah (swt) we are going back. This is how they interpret it that we are literally pieces of Allah (swt) and we go back to Him. Imam Rabbani (rah) was making it clear that this is wrong. You are from Allah (swt) means your ruh came into this world from the presence of Allah (swt). Your body was created through your mother and father, your ruh was created by Allah (swt) directly. Allah (swt) mentions this in Qur’an that He gathered all the arwah; all of the human ruh(s) and He asked them:

وَ اِذۡ اَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنۡۢ بَنِىۡۤ اٰدَمَ مِنۡ ظُهُوۡرِهِمۡ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمۡ وَ اَشۡهَدَهُمۡ عَلٰٓى اَنۡفُسِهِمۡ‌ ۚ اَلَسۡتُ بِرَبِّكُمۡ‌ ؕ قَالُوۡا بَلٰى‌ ۛۚ شَهِدۡنَا 
(Recall) when your Lord brought forth their progeny from the loins of the children of ’Adam, and made them testify about themselves (by asking them,) “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Of course, You are. We testify.” [7:172]

And they all said qalu balaa, yes. This is Qur’an. Then every time a child a conceived in the womb of a woman, Allah (swt) sends their ruh in, that’s after the conception, ruh was there before. So where was the ruh existing before it came into your physical body, in fetus in the womb? The ruh is with Allah (swt), that’s what this verse means, we are all going back to Him. Back to and entering are two separate things.

Then he says, and this is also important to show you what Imam Rabbani’s main method is, some of these misguided people view this dissolution as the great Resurrection, and deny the real Resurrection, Judgement, Bridge, Balance — they deny all of these things. They say there is no pul sirat, there’s no meezan, there is no Yaum al-Qiyamah. It’s just reuniting with Allah (swt).

They have gone astray and they have led a lot of people astray. I saw one of them siting and supporting this view through following couplet of Abd ar-Rahman Jamī (who is an authentic and great scholar and a great shaykh of tasawwuf): our origin as well as our end is unity, and nothing else. We live in mist of multiplicity which is false and unreal. Imam Rabbani explains this, and this is exactly what you will see in the example, that sometimes the mashaikh of tasawwuf make statements that:

  1. can be interpreted in a correct way, and
  2. more importantly, and more dangerously, sometimes they mean it metaphorically/figuratively, but if you take it literally (which most people would normally do — most people take a person’s words at their face value) so then it is actually suggesting an incorrect belief.

How does Imam Rabbani handle this? He says what Imam Jamī really means by return to unity is return in vision and experience only. In other words, in the beginning when we were in alim-e-arwah, in ruh form, before Allah (swt) put us in our body in the womb of our mother, at that moment the only thing our ruh was aware of was You, the only thing our ruh perceived was You. And now that we have been put in this world, now we are perceiving all of these multiple realities. But when we go back into Akhirah again, we will be again given the ru’yat; the perception of You. That’s what he meant.

Jamī never means the existential return (doesn’t mean that you will physically become one with Allah (swt)). These people are just blind. They do not see that no matter how perfect one becomes, one cannot transcend their humanity (if nothing else, your very humanity will prevent you from becoming one with Allah (swt)); human limitations, imperfections, deficiencies etc. Hence the ontological return of multiplicity to unity makes no sense. If they think it will happen after death, they are infidels. They deny the reality of punishment in the Hereafter and they falsify the teachings of the prophets (as).

You may remember earlier that Imam Rabbani (rah) mentions sometimes when a sufi is in a state of ecstasy, he makes an utterance. These are called shat’hat, sometimes they are called shat’hiyat. In English you would call it an utterance; it means something someone says uncontrollably. Not words that are said with deliberation, not words that articulate someone’s aqidah or theology, rather words that erupt out of a person’s mouth when they are in a state of intoxication. I have discussed intoxication before — it’s the statement they say when their perception of reality is skewed, because they were overcome by a particular feeling that happened to them in some type of ibadah, some type of dhikr. It’s not meant to be taken literally. I will give you its example from a Hadith.

Syedna Hanzala (ra) [great Sahabi (ra)] starts running around in a frenzy [2], literally that’s what he says. And what is he saying? Nafaqa Hanzala, nafaqa Hanzala. At that moment when he was saying those words, he was not making an aqidah (creedal) statement that I have become a munafiq (hypocrite). Because, in aqidah, munafiq is that person who has 100% kufr in his heart, but claims a 100% iman with his tongue. The Qur’anic definition of munafiq was a person who genuinely disbelieved, he truly was atheist in his heart, but he pretended to believe on his tongue.

Syedna Hanzala (ra) is not saying that he has become like that, he’s not saying that I have stopped believing. And everybody knows that. No commentator of Hadith has ever suggested that these words should be taken literally. So the question arises what was it that made him say words that shouldn’t be taken literally, but are meant to be taken figuratively? Because he was overpowered by an emotional state. What was that emotional state? So later on the Hadith continues that when he goes to the Blessed Prophet (sws) and he explains his emotional state that he realized that O Rasool Allah (sws) when I am with you I am one way, and when I am separate from you (sws) my spirituality goes down. This loss of spirituality that happens to me when I am away from you (sws) compared to when I am with you (sws), that feeling of loss just overpowered me and that’s why I was saying nafaqa Hanzala, nafaqa Hanzala.

So it’s not an accurate description of that person’s reality. It’s an emotional statement they are saying when they are overpowered by feelings. This even happened to Sahaba Karam (ra) at the time of Syedna Rasool Allah (sws). Just like Syedna Hanzala (ra) never even had the slightest drop of nifaq in him, even for a smallest fraction of a second, just like that when some of these people in tasawwuf said something, they were not united with Allah (swt) even in the slightest of drop even for a fraction of second.

The example for this he gives you; Glory be to me. Abu Yazid al-Bastami said this. So normally we say sub’hanAllah. He said sub’han to himself. So the question is, if you look at these words technically, if you take them, again, at the surface value, then it should be an incorrect statement, because that is what we only say for Allah (swt). Now how will this operate? If you are looking at this as a scholar of aqidah and kalam, you would immediately get him off the hook of kufr anyway. Because these are words, even though it may not be appropriate, but you could use them for ghairullah.

For example, we say sub’han Allahi wal hamdulillahi wallahu akbar; praise is to Allah (swt) alone. Sometimes you praise somebody so you say you did a really good job, you tell somebody he was saying such high praises of you. It doesn’t mean a person is going against Sub’hanAllah. We say Allahu Akbar. But a person can say you did a great job, they actually use the word great for somebody, it doesn’t mean you are going against Allahu Akbar. So a theologian would get him off the hook using that method of husn-e-zan I had told you before. That was the fair reading.

But if you take the honest reading, however, then at that moment something was happening to Shaykh Bayazid Bastami (rah) because of which he said this statement. So the honest reading would be let’s try to understand what was happening to him. What was that emotion that made him say this? That’s what Imam Rabbani (rah) tries to do. He takes the honest reading just to understand what was the experience that was going on in tasawwuf.

So Imam Rabbani continues that I however think that Bayazid was informed about his shortcoming towards the end of his life for the time of his passing away he said, “I did not know You except after an unknowing (remember this whole concept of learn and un-learn), and I did not serve You except after the lapse of that period.” So what he’s saying that actually Bayazid Bastami had realized that I went through this phase where I made a mistake in terms of my knowledge of Allah (swt), and I had to unknow, I had to unlearn, I had to make tawbah and istighfar for that, then when I did that, I got the true knowledge of Allah (swt).

Then he explains, this is Imam Rabbani (rah) himself commenting, he does consider his first awareness of God a non-awareness, for it was not the awareness of Allah (swt) but the awareness of one of Allah’s (swt) shadows in appearances. Let me explain what he meant. The uses of the term ‘shadows in appearances’ is not a good translation for this.

  • Allah (swt) and the world are separate (this is the view that Imam Rabbani takes)
  • Wrong position: Allah (swt) and the world are the same.
  • Second wrong position: the world is a shadow of Allah (swt).

So he says the correct position is that Allah (swt) is completely separate and the world is completely separate in terms of being completely distinct and different separate entities. But there is a relationship between the two and this is what is called the relationship of Allah (swt) to the world. This is the hidayah He sends on this world, the books, the prophets (as), the ilham that he sends to individuals, the madad, nusrat — so many words in Qur’an that Allah (swt) has used for this. His fadhl, His fayz, His karam, His rehmah, so many things that He sends.

In Arabic, they try to come up with just one word to encompass all of these things which are the relationship of the things that Allah (swt) sends on this world. For example, one is wardat, tajalliyat, one is shuyunat, ihtibarat, all of it means the way Allah (swt) relates with the world. He is completely different from the world, but He is not an absent Lord. He is completely dynamically focused on and engaged in that world. And those engagements, and that interaction and relationship, that is what Imam Rabbani says is the shadow.

Sometimes a person sees something and it’s not Allah (swt), that maybe the fadhl of Allah (swt), it maybe the Mercy of Allah (swt), it may have been the karam of Allah, or the nur of the hidayah of Allah but it wasn’t the nur of Allah (swt). So, for example, Allah (swt) uses this metaphor, very famous ayah they call it the ayat-e-nur and so many commentators have tried to comment on it. And Allah (swt) gives this whole long simile of the nur, and the lamp, and the lantern and the niche.

On one hand, Allah (swt) didn’t need to say this. There must be some reason Allah (swt) chose to say it. There must be some reason for His likening, using this example of nur, but it doesn’t mean that every time, because Allah (swt) also uses the metaphor of nur in Qur’an, He uses it for Himself, He also uses it for His hidayah. So the nur of the hidayah is a shadow of the nur of Allah (swt). That’s what he means when he talks about shadows. Because Allah (swt) is beyond everything, shadows and appearances mark the beginning of the way, they are only aids and means. 

Next letter.

Praise be to Allah (swt) and peace be upon his chosen people. I received your letter which tells of your commendable attainments. I was very much pleased to read it. (So this is obviously a letter written in response to somebody’s earlier letter). In the path of love, in this path of muhabbah, a lot of strange experiences happen. You must pass over those experiences and changes and try to reach that One Being Allah (swt) who produces those states. By reach, by the way, he doesn’t mean union. Reach means qurb. This is a word in the Qur’an:

أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ ٱلۡمُقَرَّبُونَ

Those are the ones blessed with nearness (to Allah). [56:11]

i.e. you should not want to be close to your own spiritual state, you should want to be close to Allah (swt) who produced such a state in you. Let me show you from Qur’an that these states exist. Allah (swt) says in Qur’an:

فَاذۡكُرُوۡنِىۡٓ اَذۡكُرۡكُمۡ
So Remember Me, and I will remember you [2:152]

Now when a person does so much dhikr, that means Allah (swt) is going to be doing so much dhikr of them. You think a person is not going to feel that? That feeling a person experiences when Allah (swt) does azkurkum, as He promises in the Qur’an, when Allah (swt) does dhikr of someone, that someone feels something but are not able to explain properly in words what that feeling is. They can construct a whole set of vocabulary and terminologies, like I told you tajaliyat, anwarat, fuyuzat, wardat, to explain the dhikr that Allah (swt) was doing on them, but they can’t explain it in words properly.

That, however, is an existential reality. That’s a real thing. Allah (swt) really does dhikr of a person because He said it in Qur’an, and a person will really feel it. They may not understand that feeling sometimes, they may not be able to express those feelings in words sometimes, because feelings and words are two separate things. Feelings cannot always be expressed in words.

For example, Imam al-Ghazali (rah) loves to give example of a fruit. If we take a mango, can you really express how mango tastes in words? You can’t. I can say it’s soft, succulent, sweet, juicy, fleshy — but let’s say somebody has never eaten a mango, those words can give them an approximation of that feeling but they can never capture the feeling of taste. If something so mundane as your tongue and something so low as just the feeling of what a fruit tastes like on your tongue, even that cannot be captured in words, then when Allah (swt) does azkurkum or when he says in Qur’an:

وَمَنۡ يُّؤۡمِنۡۢ بِاللّٰهِ يَهۡدِ قَلۡبَهٗ‌ؕ
And whoever believes in Allah, He guides his heart. [64:11]

That He sends hidayah on a person’s qalb (spiritual heart), so you don’t think the qalb has a sense of taste? Just like when a mango comes on your tongue, your tongue can experience it, if the hidayah of Allah (swt) comes on your heart, your heart won’t experience it? Just like this one cannot be perfectly captured in words, the other one can also not be perfectly captured in words. The big problem in this is — and that’s why we don’t normally like to read and teach the text of tasawwuf — that if the person has never felt it, the person is looking at the words and they are trying to understand.

I’m saying this because you are going to see, we are going to talk about a particular feeling in the next letter. And you will never be able to understand it by the words. You will never understand. My only aim today is to make sure you don’t misunderstand; to help and prevent people from misunderstanding the words of tasawwuf. You can never understand the words of tasawwuf through words. You will only understand the words of tasawwuf through feelings.

For example, let’s go back to the mango, and let’s say if I was a brilliant poet, and I wrote you a poem on the mango, you would enjoy every line, you would understand the word succulent, immediately your experience of the mango taste comes to your mind. If I say the word tasty, it comes to your mind. If I say the word sweet, it comes to your mind. The word sweet, because you have experienced sweetness, produces an understanding in your mind, not because of the word, but because you have experienced sweetness.

Just like that, when they are going to say words here, Imam Rabbani (rah) was writing to people who had experienced these realities, so the word is just a marker — and this is all what philosophy of language teaches anyway — word is just a marker and a place-holder for a meaning, and the person who knows the meaning, understands the meaning from the word. You all know the difference in how orange and apple juice taste. You know that because I am pretty sure almost all of you here have drank both. So I would say the word ‘orange juice’ or ‘apple juice’, and you will immediately understand the difference. If I tell you ikhlas and tawakkul, these are also two words, but do you know what the difference is in feeling them? You won’t know unless you experience them.

In this path of love there are a lot of strange experiences, that happens because Allah (swt) is an amazing Being, when He does dhikr of a person, it’s going to be wondrous. Actually, the word here used is strange. If you know Urdu, the word is ajeeb. Ajeeb can hold the meaning of wondrous, amazing, mind-boggling, inexplicable, not capturable in words. That’s going to happen when Allah (swt) does dhikr of a person, guaranteed.

If afterwards you are given true knowledge, you would be really fortunate. Mind one thing, everything that comes to you in vision and understanding (all of your feelings, inspirations, kaifiyat, ahwal, kashf, ilham) negate all of it. This is one of the highest teachings of Imam Rabbani (rah) he says that’s also ghairullah. Everything is ghairullah, your own kashf, your own ilham, your own kaifiyat, your own ahwal, feelings, states, stations, experiences — all of that is also ghair.

Today people don’t understand that. Sometimes some murids are so into these experiences that the shaykh produces in them. I was once visiting someone recently, and within one minute the person just started telling me, this is all he wanted to talk about, that my shaykh did this and that, and he produces this feeling or that feeling in a person’s heart. And he didn’t realize that these are like the lower, the baby-things of tasawwuf. But this person’s understanding was that this was the height of tasawwuf, that when my shaykh did dhikr, so-and-so cried, or so-and-so said that I felt something in my heart like I have never felt before. This is like the elementary stuff of tasawwuf, but they couldn’t get over it.

This causes problems. People don’t understand that the shaykh was the person who was supposed to give you taqwa. They thought shaykh was the person who was supposed to give me spiritual feelings. So now they run around looking for feelings. Then what happens is that suddenly they stop feeling these feelings from one person, then they go to the second one, then he makes them feel the feelings, then they go to the third, then fourth, then the fifth one. They are just like spiritual groupies. They are running around looking for one thing to another.

I see them in the bayans, they are always sitting at the back and I know they are not listening to me, they are not looking at me, rather they are listening to and looking at the crowd. That’s how they decide whether they like the bayan or not. They look at the crowd’s reaction; how many people felt this way or that way. They don’t understand what deen is about. Yes, these feelings happen to a person, they get these feelings. We are emotional creatures and Allah (swt) has structured deen in such a way that it will move and motivate you emotionally. But all of that is for ubudiyyah, for the servant-hood and slave-hood to Allah (swt).

So, he says, negate your vision and understanding; even the vision of union and multiplicity for the real unity does not appear multiplicity. Allah’s (swt) wahdaniyat (oneness) is never going to be contained in the multiplicity of this world, never. Allah’s (swt) wahdaniyat is something completely separate, it has nothing to do with world. What actually appears is a reflection that we are His creation. When you see a unity in creation, you are just looking at the fact that we are all His creation, you are not perceiving the wahdaniyat of Allah (swt) Himself, the Oneness of Allah (swt), the singularity of Allah (swt) Himself, you cannot witness that in this world.

So the best thing for you at this stage is to repeat the words la ilaha illallah. This is the great kalimah of tawheed. There’s nothing that you should heed other than this. This is why Imam Rabbani (rah) used to teach this later instead of starting dhikr at la ilaha illallah. For example, in sufi silsila in other silsilas, the first lesson they give a person is la ilaha illallah. In Naqshbandi silsila, the first lesson that is given is what we call ism-e-zaat, dhikr of Allah, Allah. So the person is getting love for Allah (swt) in their heart, and they are getting detached from the love of the world.

In that process, what happens is that they have the love for Allah (swt), they have these feelings, experiences. So he waits and when the person has taken out all of the love for the world from their heart, and is filled to the brim with love for Allah (swt), you can imagine a person like that will have a lot of emotional experiences, then he would tell him to do la ilaha illallah, to wipe off all of those emotional experiences, so that you shouldn’t feel emotional ecstasies. You should just have the pure, servant-hood love for Allah (swt).

When a person reaches that, and this person has obviously written that he had all of these experiences, so now he is giving him the punch line; now you are having the experiences, you wrote me a letter, I commend you that you lost the love for the world, you have love for Allah (swt), you are following Shari’ah, you are regular in tahajjud, so you felt some it’minan in your dhikr, you felt:

اِذَا ذُكِرَ اللّٰهُ وَجِلَتۡ قُلُوۡبُهُمۡ
those whose hearts are filled with awe when (the name of) Allah is mentioned [8:02]

You are saying you got taharuk, hararat, now what you should do is la ilaha illallah. Take the sword of la ilaha illallaha and run it on all of those experiences. You had a vision, or a dream, and the murids they love — this is not the letter they want — they want a reply that mashaAllah you had such a great dream. You have such a higher ruhani maqam (spiritual stature), you are such an elevated person. That’s what the murid wants. That’s what they love. Imam Rabbani knows so he says do la ilaha illallah, keep doing it. You should go on repeating this kalimah until nothing is left of your ilham. Finish it.

You come to hairat (unknowing) in jahl (ignorance), and you think you’ve got marifah of Allah (swt)? Rather you’ve become a jahil (ignorant), that’s what he’s saying. You think you know Allah (swt)? Keep repeating la ilaha illallah and you will realize you are completely ignorant of Allah (swt).

This is exactly the same thing that Imam al-Ghazali (rah) wrote in his Risala fi bayani Ma’rifatillah, he said that knowing Allah (swt) is to know that He is unknowable. Knowing Allah (swt) is to know that you can never know Him. To ultimately know Allah (swt) is to know that you can ultimately never know Him. This is called ajz (humility), to be ajiz. Real ajz is real marifah, and real marifah is real ajizi.

And then the only experience that you feel is hairat. This is a word we cannot understand, it’s a feeling. The only thing that is left is complete awe, amazement, wonder of Allah (swt), that’s it. That’s what you will be left with. You will just be awe-struck by Allah (swt), that’s Azmat of Allah (swt). It’s His Majesty, His Greatness, His Might and His Power, it leaves a person humble and completely awe-struck.

Unless you reach wonder and unknowing, you will not attain fanaa. Fanaa doesn’t mean that you know Allah (swt) intimately. Fanaa means that you know yourself intimately that you can never really know Allah (swt). His reality is unknowable to you, and you will just be lost in a state of wonder and amazement of Allah (swt). So what you think to be fanaa is actually nothing. It is certainly not fanaa. So first reach unknowing, then you will realize fanaa. This is the first step on the way. And don’t think of arriving in Allah (swt) or meeting Allah (swt). And then he quotes a poet:

How can you reach swat [?]
There are mountains in the way
And high peaks, and deep ditches.

So he says your experiences are right, it’s good what you’ve written. We don’t know what he wrote, but I’m assuming that he wrote that I’m feeling this, and you will have feelings on the path. You will have feelings when you fall in love with Allah (swt). You will have experiences. This is correct. There is nothing against Shari’ah in that. That’s what he’s making clear. That look there wasn’t anything against Shari’ah, but even when you have experiences and ilham that fall within the bounds of Shari’ah, even then you should negate that with the kalimah. That’s how you go to the next level. That’s what he is teaching. So here you are getting a very inside look into a sort of this advance teaching of tasawwuf of Imam Rabbani (rah).

But you must go beyond those experiences. Blessed are those who follow the guidance and walk in the path of the Blessed Prophet (sws). And that is to come out of all of those experiences and do the work of dawah, the work of khidmet, the work of ihya-e-deen (revival), tajdeed-e-deen (reformation), khidmet-e-deen (service).

My second advice to you, (so the first advice was to negate the experiences that were within the bounds of Shari’ah, but you should negate them all anyway) stick firmly to Shari’ah and judge all of your experiences that you have had, and may have in the future, on the principle of Shari’ah. If you feel any slightest disparity in word or deed with Shari’ah, then you should fear that it may be your undoing (you will lose everything). This is the way sufis are rightly established (that they do these two things). And my best wishes to you. 

Next letter.

Ever changing states and experiences are not to be relied upon. Those are momentary. These are called ahwal and kaifiyat in Arabic. You’re not always going to feel like that, you’re not always going to have a particular feeling in dhikr, you’re not going to cry every time you read that verse. So yes it’s good that you cried this time when you read that verse, but don’t get attached to that, don’t celebrate it, don’t inside be so happy that look I’m crying on Qur’an, because it’s not going to happen to you every time you read that verse.

Don’t get attached to experiences and feelings that are just fleeting, are momentary, are occasional. Don’t care for what comes and goes, is said and heard. The goal is altogether different. It transcends whatever you hear or see, because the goal of tasawwuf is not something that can be heard, seen or felt or experienced. Because the goal of tasawwuf is to make yourself the slave of Allah (swt).

These things are just like sweets and cookies to please the children of suluk. That’s what he says, that Allah (swt) does it to keep you going. He gives you tawfiq, it’s His grace, favor and mercy that He made you cry when you read that verse. But that was to make you read more, that wasn’t to make you focus on your crying. And think about it — you are focused on Qur’an and you were able to cry, so you shifted your focus to crying? You left Qur’an for such a small thing? For your own tears?

Sometimes we do this, and it is especially true for people who do do dhikr, and they do get feelings, you will get feelings, you will feel feelings of taqwa, you will feel feelings of sabr, but look at Sahaba Karam (ra) — Syedna Umar’s (ra) life is full of two things: full of his own taqwa and full of how till the end of his life he never felt he had taqwa. They had the feelings, but they were always negating the feelings. This is exactly describing what the Sahaba (ra) were like. They felt all of these feelings. But they didn’t revel in them, they didn’t chase them. They were unaware, they just kept negating them. They kept thinking I’m nothing, Allah (swt) is everything. That was their whole life.

If you look at the great mufassarin, muhadithin, fuqaha, usuleen, mujtahidin, the awliyah kamileen, siddiqeen, saliheen, you will find exactly the same thing. You read about them, especially towards the end of their life, acting as if they never had a moment of taqwa in their life, they are so terrified, talking about themselves as though they are truly nothing, although in our eyes they were amazing. But they weren’t faking that humility. That was the type of a human being they were, that despite all of those feelings, they viewed themselves to be nothing. They felt the feelings of tawakkul, sabr, shukr, ikhlas, they felt all of the sifat-e-mu’mineen mentioned in Qur’an, but they still viewed themselves to be nothing.

And today’s sufi doesn’t feel any of these things, and he gets to pray tahajjud one night, and he’s on cloud 9. One day the shaykh may say something that moves his heart, the next time he meets anyone he tells the whole world that my shaykh can move people’s hearts.

The real thing to seek is different from these petty things. He is calling these ahwal and kefiyat petty. He was doing this to train the person. Don’t get too caught up in these things, because they are unreal, like a dream. If in a dream you see that you are a king, you do not become a king.

Muftis here cannot put up with Punjabi and Siraiki poetry, but there was one wali who used to address himself like this — you wake up in the night, why do you celebrate yourself? Don’t you see that the dogs and the animals themselves are awake also? What’s the big thing in you? So you are up every night, you pray tahajjud, so the rooster is also up every night at tahajjud as well. That’s how they used to think. They didn’t let their a’maal and ibadat let them think highly of themselves. This is real humility. We don’t even have those feelings and we still can’t be humble. And those people were humble despite their accomplishments.

The dream offers hope, it’s a promise. That’s why you do get the feeling, Allah (swt) wants to give you an enticement, He wants to give you hope, He wants to spur you on. In naqshbandi tariqat, visions and experiences are not to be counted on. You will find this couplet in the books that mashaikh of tasawwuf use to explain this: I love the sun, I sing of the sun. I’m not night, nor do I love night, so I never talk of dreams. In other words, dreams, or these feelings, take place in the night. But what a person is in love with is the sun. The sun is symbolic for the nur and the Majesty of Allah (swt). Because you love the sun, you wouldn’t even talk about the things that happened to you at night.

When one state comes, the other goes, there is nothing to be sorry for, there is nothing to be happy over. This is an important teaching that the mashaikh used to teach that some people, when they do dhikr, they feel something. Next day they do dhikr, they don’t feel anything. They get sad. So he is saying that happiness and sadness are not about feeling and not feeling. Happiness should be that today I was according to Shari’ah, sadness should be today I slipped and sinned against the Shari’ah. That’s something to be sad over.

We do find that the practitioners of tasawwuf are less sad over their sins, and they are more sad that they don’t feel. They are less likely to send an sms that they missed fajr, they are more likely to send an sms saying I did dhikr today and I didn’t feel anything, please make du’a for me. They are worried about that. But when they commit a sin, they are not worried about that.


We are going to pause here to take some questions. I actually empathize with a lot of you because, except for a handful of you, you absolutely had no idea whatsoever is in Maktubat-e-Rabbani. So you may have not actually signed up for all of this theoretical stuff. But I wanted to show you that sometimes when you see something in its full force, it makes you appreciate it. And maybe sometimes for people to appreciate tasawwuf is to actually see it in full force.

Though we may not be able to experience these things, we may not be at that level yet to experience it at a full force ourselves, but — look, can you even imagine, we would be even lucky to have the experiences this person wrote about, let alone moving to that stage where we negate those feelings with la ilaha illallah. There are very few people alive today who probably even had the experiences he wrote about in the first place.

It just shows you how deep deen is, and how deep these people were. And if you really want to understand or appreciate any person in any field or discipline of learning, sometimes you have to look at the accomplishments of excellence in that field. So one way to look at Physics is to look at first year university stuff, and one way is to look at what Einstein’s Relativity is really about, and then you will be amazed that Physics is actually something quite phenomenal, it’s not something trivial.

The real power of deen of Islam is to make a human being even on earth close to Allah (swt). Today we want to revive the economic power of deen, or its political power. We have underestimated the spiritual power of deen. We don’t know what power Allah (swt) has put in Qur’an and Sunnah; what type of a human being can be created by this deen. So when we get a glimpse into some of these people who are on the right path, and how they were working and training trying to create people who are like that, we get quite amazed.

With regards to dreams, what can be the response to a friend who believes their dreams came true?

We are living in a day and age in this ummah where there is no single aspect of Islam that has not been misunderstood. You will find people who misunderstand every single thing; whether it be about the clear-cut prohibition of interest, people even misunderstand that and some of them think that’s okay. Even in terms of faraidh, and haram, which are complete black and white cases, people have misunderstood those things. So when it comes to stuff like this, a lot of people have misunderstandings.

My own experience has been that sometimes Allah (swt) tests a person who has such a misunderstanding, and sometimes Allah (swt) can also punish such a person who has such a misunderstanding by making that misunderstanding appear to be true. Allah (swt) explains this in Qur’an:

يُضِلُّ بِهٖ ڪَثِيۡرًا وَّيَهۡدِىۡ بِهٖ كَثِيۡرًا
By this He lets many go astray, and by this He makes many find guidance. [2:26]

He has the ability to yahdi, and yudhillu, He guides and He also misguides. What does it mean for Allah (swt) to misguide? A lot of the mufassirin have written in detail, because this is a very important concept, and it is also something that comes up in the whole predestination and free-will debate, as in how much free-will do you have if Allah (swt) misguides you? When I was in college, I wrote a paper on this. I gathered all of the ayat of Qur’an where Allah (swt) uses this concept for when He misguides. When I did that study, I saw that every single time Allah (swt) talks about misguiding, He is talking about misguiding someone further who has chosen already to be misguided and has refused repeated calls to come back to the path. Sometimes, in that case, Allah (swt) can make things happen. It can be tarot cards, it can be palm reading, it can be, quote unquote, reading the future. It’s actually a source of misguidance, it’s not guidance.

My point is that being correct or incorrect is not necessarily the measure of whether someone is rightly guided or incorrectly guided. Obviously, there are people who will try to couch and explain their visions and experiences in the authentic language, and it is difficult to tell. So, as far as we are concerned, you don’t need to know about anyone else’s visions and experiences, they are irrelevant to us because they are not going to help us in our life in following Shari’ah and Sunnah.

Anyone who themselves feel that I saw something in a dream, and it came true a month later, obviously that’s something that would disturb a person and would make that person want to ask. They can ask someone who they believe is authentic and capable of guiding them, they can seek guidance on that on how their response should be to that. Because, as it genuinely happens, every time they get a dream, they are going to get worried if it would come true or not and it could lead to a whole set of psychological and emotional tensions. That person should themselves seek guidance.

As far as the theory goes, those people who do get such a vision, the Islamic understanding of this — and it is an extremely rare thing, extremely rare that Allah (swt) would unveil to someone some piece of knowledge about what is going to happen in the future — the rule that governs this is that a person can never know with certainty; because kashf is not what we call qati’, it is zanni. It is not a certain, authoritative, guaranteed proof in deen. It’s just a possible source. So nobody can think that what I have been shown is going to happen definitively, they can just think that it may possibly happen. If the event actually happens, the course of the event confirms the thing that they saw.

How does this happen? The way it is understood is that Allah (swt) gave a person a piece of knowledge that the person didn’t have themselves, and was not able to acquire themselves. Where did they get it from? They got it from the knowledge of Allah (swt). The knowledge of Allah (swt) exists outside time and space. It’s actually incorrect to say that Allah (swt) knows the future. There is no such thing called future for Allah (swt), because He exists outside of time. Just imagine if there was a line on the board, the first third was your past, the middle third is your present, and the last third is your future. You can see the whole board in one shot. That’s how Allah (swt) sees us. It’s quite an amazing concept. It’s not that Allah (swt) sees your future as clearly as He sees your present, as clearly as He saw your past.

It’s something to think about when we sin also, and also when we pray, that the moment when we sin Allah (swt) is simultaneously — so to speak, that word itself doesn’t properly apply to Allah (swt) because that implies a unity in time and Allah (swt) is beyond time — but He also saw, or, quote unquote, simultaneously, saw us pray. And when we pray, He also sees us sin. This is His hilm, this is His attribute of al-Haleem; He is that being who knows so much about you that He would be very well in His right to punish you, but He doesn’t. He holds back and lets this whole system of linear time play itself out in your life.

So when Allah (swt) gives a person a piece of knowledge, or ilham, it’s not knowledge of the future as far as Allah (swt) is concerned, it’s a part of His knowledge, which encompasses everything from past, present and future. Sometimes a person may see something, but in reality, a person who actually sees something like this, they may see it maybe once or twice in their entire lifetime, and such people maybe 5 or 10 on this earth.

That’s why, with all the statistical probability, your friend is not one of them. But the number of people who think they have such experiences, there’s no shortage of that. The point was to show you today what Imam Rabbani is teaching that even people who maybe from those 1 or 2 of billions, even they should negate it, they shouldn’t be worried about it. So, at least from our perspective, that person who genuinely has an experience or vision, even if he is being told that he should just forget it and ignore it, if Imam Rabbani would tell that to somebody who may have themselves been a wali, you could just say the same thing to your friend. You can just say that we have been taught that even if such visions and experiences are true, we should ignore them, and we should focus more on getting hidayah, on getting deen.

Can you repeat the three positions on wahdat al-wujud?

These are not three positions on wahdat al-wujud; these are three views regarding Allah (swt) and the world.

  1. One view was that Allah and the world are the same. And some people have used the term wahdat al-wujud for that.
  2. The second was the view that Allah and the world are separate, but the world is a shadow of Allah (swt).
  3. Third was that Allah (swt) and the world are separate completely; the world isn’t even a shadow of Allah (swt).

Then Imam Rabbani (rah) explains that the shadow doesn’t mean creation. The term shadow zil in Arabic can only be used for ayat sha’a’irullah that are on earth; the signs of Allah (swt) on earth, because He talks about them in Qur’an and He Himself is sha’a’irullah, meaning He made a nisbat to Himself. So Imam Rabbani says the term like zil, shadows, can only be applied to something like that. Or it could be applied to the way Allah (swt) engages with this world; the way He sends His madad, His nusrat, His barakah.

How can the case of the Throne be explained in terms of wahdat al-wujud?

Allah (swt) cannot be the same as His creation. The throne issue is a whole separate discussion. There are ayat in Qur’an where Allah (swt) speaks about what is called in Arabic istiwa; which means — and it’s very difficult to try to translate this because I personally feel you can only select a word accurately when you really know the meaning, and I don’t think anyone knows the meaning of this, so when they select words in English, they are selecting words inadequately — some of them say Allah (swt) is established on the throne, He is sitting on the throne, His sovereignty emanates from above the throne. So He is a sovereign means He is Malik. His being Malik emanates from above the throne. All of these are just guesses in my opinion.

The position I follow in aqeedah and kalam is istiwa; it’s something that we believe in just like we believe in Alif Lam Meem. We believe in everything in the Qur’an, but we say we don’t know all of it, what we call the bi-la kaifa position, where we have no idea whatsoever that means. Point was that Imam Rabbani (rah) is not saying that Allah (swt) and the world are separate because the world is under the throne and Allah (swt) is above the throne. It’s not a spatial difference. It’s not a location difference.

How do you go from 100% engagement in the world to 0% engagement in the world?

That’s a very good question. There are two ways to do it. One way is accessible to everyone, and the second way is accessible only to a few people. So if you asked this question, for people with worldly engagements, you can do the first one. First one means practicing dhikr along with functioning in the world. When you do dhikr — and this is 99% of how tasawwuf is taught today — using this method, you are still a university student, you keep working as a software programmer, you keep working as an English professor, you keep doing all of that, but now you add something additional to your day that is the dhikr of Allah (swt). And you keep working on the quality of that dhikr. You try to increase in its quantity. You reduce your sins. And you increase your Sunnah, and you keep doing these things.

Each of these things will take down your attachment from what is unlawful in this world, and your awareness of that which is unlawful in this world. For example, as a person does more dhikr, more Sunnah, has more taqwa, they will be able to lower their gaze more. Second, they will start becoming unaware. They can actually say that today I went in the tube and I didn’t even realize. Before I would have been able to say within two minutes who was a pretty woman on the subway car. Now I sat there, I was so absorbed in my dhikr, I have no idea who’s pretty. So they are getting more and more absorbed in Allah (swt). They can even change — they may say there’s a woman who is my boss or my colleague. Before I used to notice that she’s pretty. Now that I have started following Shari’ah and Sunnah and left other sins and made dhikr, I still interact with her, she is still the secretary, let’s say, or the boss, whatever she is, but now I don’t even notice her looks anymore. I’m completely oblivious to her.

So the person will keep increasing the quality of their dhikr, and sometimes a bit more quantity, maybe 1 hour, maybe max 2-3 hours a day, but obviously they are still functioning in the world. But their attachment and love of the world, that’s going from 100% to 0%. So outward engagement is still there, but their inward engagement is going down. Obviously then if the person keeps doing it, it’s going to take time. It’s going to take years using this method. But that’s okay, it took years to get a B.A. You can call it B.A. in dhikr, or B.A. in taqwa. Same thing, the harder a person works, they get a distinction in their taqwa, they may get a second medal in taqwa.

The second way, which is today 1%, but at that time it was more, was that a person would go in what we call khalwah. It means they would actually withdraw themselves from society at large, and due to certain reasons in Qur’an and Hadith, they would prefer 40 days or 4 months, but these are not set in stone. The tablighi jama’at has taken it from tasawwuf; this concept of 40 days and 4 months. So they would go in the period of khalwah in seclusion from this world. The two prophetic incidences of this is Blessed Prophet (sws) going in Mount Hira, and second is the Sunnah of ‘itikaf, which is the 10 days in the month of Ramadan, and there is also nafl ‘itikaf. This is part of deen and you can do it any time you want.

So you can put it this way then, because maybe people are a bit unfamiliar with terms like khalwah and chilla, they used to go into nafl ‘itikaf for 40 days or for 4 months, or for some other period of time. That’s quick because then it doesn’t take years. They wanted to get it done faster. Just like in dunya, you can do things part-time, so a person can say that I’m doing this course part-time. If I do it in half-time, it will take me 6 years. If I do it for full-time, it will take 3 years. So they have to look, and it depends on financial constraints, it depends on what haqooq al-ibaad are over them, but there were some people in that day and age who, while maintaining full haqooq al-ibaad, like a person goes for a 6 months course, they leave everything saying I will be back in 6 months, so they would actually go for that. Some people would get it done in 40 days, for some it took 4 months. For Imam Rabbani (rah) it took 22.5 months [1:11:57]. But that’s because he did it day and night.

So in this method, people go into nafl ‘itikaf. Just like in Sunnah ‘itikaf, nafl ‘itikaf means all you do is ibadah, dhikr, tilawat, salah, ‘ilm, du’a, istighfar, durud salawat, listening to bayan, dars-e-tafsir, dars-e-hadith, etc. That’s all you do day and night. That was a quicker way. This is the clarification I tried to make in the beginning that I couldn’t make in detail. And that was why I have to give you the bidah workshop audio, which is about 3.5 hours long. So that’s our gift to all of you. That answers this question in detail.

Let me make it clear. Following Qur’an, Sunnah and Shari’ah — remember tasawwuf is not something separate — Qur’an and Sunnah is the thing, that is the subject matter of deen. Tasawwuf is a methodology that helps you internalize and follow that. In that methodology, there will be dhikr practices that are not found in hadith. Just like in tajweed methodology, there are exercises given to do on your tongue which you will not find in hadith. Just like that in hadith methodology, there are categories, and labels, and terms, and texts that are not found in hadith. Just like that in tafsir, that’s probably the greatest example I could tell you.

People have this misconception. It’s a very emotional concept that if the Blessed Prophet (sws) did not do it, it’s not deen. This whole workshop actually shows from Bukhari and Muslim, that in the lifetime of the Blessed Prophet (sws) and after the Blessed Prophet (sws) passed away, Sahaba Karam (ra) used to engage in all types of nafl ibadah, and dhikr which the Blessed Prophet (sws) never taught them. I have documented this completely on the workshop with complete references.

Why this is allowed is because it is nafl ibadah. In fard, wajib, and Sunnah ibadah, you cannot add anything other than what Blessed Prophet (sws) himself did. But in nafl ibadah, and there are many types of it, but the two most prevalent are dhikr and du’a, and Sahaba (ra) added in front of the Blessed Prophet (sws) and he (sws) approved it, and after the Blessed Prophet (sws) passed away, Sahaba (ra) added, and nobody censured them right up to Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya no one censured that for them.

Actually when we talk about salaf, the real understanding of salaf saliheen means this; whatever the Sahaba (ra), Tabi’in and Tabi’ Tabi’in allowed for themselves, that is allowed for us. I have documented this on that 3.5 hour workshop that Sahaba (ra), Tabi’in and Tabi’ Tabi’in (rah) allowed for themselves, without anyone in the history of Islam ever censuring, reprimanding any one of them, they allowed for themselves to do new types of dhikr that were not found in hadith, and make new types of du’a that were not found in hadith.

The greatest example is tafsir. You will find tafsir written by Tabi’ Tabi’in and later mufassirin, and they are telling you that the meaning of this verse is abc, and there is no hadith that the meaning of that verse is abc. If you will confine your understanding of tafsir to just the hadith, so let’s take Kitab at-Tafsir from Sahih Bukhari, it’s about maybe 20 pages long, depending on the font size and editions, it’s very small. Those who have studied Bukhari would remember. If you look at any tafsir, even of the great mufassiroon from the earlier times, it’s quite big. It’s like 20 volumes, forget 20 pages. And if I say show me that tafsir from hadith, no way you can do that.

So when tafsir al-Qur’an has been allowed by the entire ummah that you can make tafsir and say things that the Blessed Prophet (sws) never said about Qur’an, why could you not engage in nafl dhikr, and nafl du’a? So the definition of bidah when it comes to nafl ibadah is not that is it found in hadith or not. That is the definition of bidah for fardh, wajib and Sunnah ibadah. For nafl ibadah, definition of bidah is is it against Shari’ah? If it’s something against the teachings of Shari’ah, then it’s haram. As long as it’s nothing against Shari’ah, so that’s what the mashaikh of all the silsila teach, definitely, I would not want to leave any misrepresentation.

Naqshbandi mujaddadi silsila teaches many dhirk adhkar that have been derived from Qur’an and Hadith, and also teaches dhikr adhkar that have been designed by different mashaikh of a time and names of those mashaikh are in something what we call, quote unquote, shajra. Just like in Hadith, we have a sanad. And different muhadithin have commented on Hadith differently over time. For example, there are four major commentaries on the Sahih Bukhari, by Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Imam Badr al-Din al-Ayni, al-Kirmani and al-Qastallani (rah). Quite often, they have disagreed on the meaning of a hadith. So you have hadith commentators giving different meanings of hadith. And we all have sanads and chains that go through them. Just like that, you will have different methods of doing dhikr. The criterion for accepting whether a dhikr is acceptable is:

  1. No one should claim to you that it is sunnah. If they claim it is a sunnah way of doing dhikr, then they have to show you the hadith. If they claim it is fard, or wajib, then they have to do even more. So they must view it to be nafl ibadah, even if they do it very regularly.
  2. There must be nothing in that dhikr that is against the Shari’ah, so like the music, the dance; the things that Imam Rabbani (rah) has pointed out.


Every Muslim has a shajra going back to the Prophet (sws). Let’s say you converted at the hands of a Muslim whose father, or grandfather, or great grandfather must have also converted at the hand of some Muslim, everyone then converted at the hands of Sahaba (ra) who all took Islam at the hand of Blessed Prophet (sws). In that sense, everyone has a chain, or a shajra. We may not know it, but everyone has it. We are all converts or descendants of converts. Sahaba (ra) were also all converts.

Now, everyone is part of the chain, everyone is part of the ummah. Being part of the chain is like having teachers and all that. But nothing makes a person beyond error. The only thing that makes a person beyond error is a strong adherence to the Shari’ah. For example, I could give you people who studied hadith under a hadith scholar, who in turn had studied under another hadith scholar. So how can they make a mistake? It’s because they have a nafs. Their nafs, just like everyone else’s nafs, made them sin. The fact that their nafs made them sin is not a stain on their teachers. It doesn’t mean that people should stop studying hadith or that teaching of hadith is flawed. It just means that this person did not successfully purify their bad nafs.

What were Shah Wali ullah’s (rah) views on this debate of wahdat al-wujud in the discussion?

At this point, I don’t want to touch that. There are different people who teach Maktubat in different ways, I’m not teaching it using an intellectual-historical approach. There are people who don’t even do dhikr at all and they teach Maktubat-e-Rabbani. I’m offering something different. Shah Wali Ullah (rah), very briefly, he tried to join the two, but he wasn’t joining the side which Imam Rabbani (rah) was critiquing. He was trying to join those Chisti mashaikh who interpreted ibn al-Arabi’s words in such a way that wahdat al-wujud did not mean union and unity with God. So that’s a different type of wahdat al-wujud. They used the same term, but what they meant by that term was different.

Imam Rabbani (rah) keeps using the word union, it shows that he is attacking that wahdat al-wujud term which was being used to present the view that a human being unites with Allah (swt). Later on there were some people who felt, rightly or wrongly, that they were also being unfairly attacked because they were using this term in a different way, and not to explain the unity with Allah. So Shah Wali Ullah (rah) advocated their side that they were using the term wahdat al-wujud for the same meaning that Shaykh Ahmed Sir Hindi was using for wahdat as-shuhud. What they used to call wujudi was the same thing he called shuhudi. There was no real difference.

If these extra dhikr practices are beneficial, why did the Prophet (sws) did not himself tell the Sahaba (ra) to do it?

I could say the same thing about tajweed. If these tajweed exercises that the qaris have come up with are so beneficial, why did the Prophet (sws) not tell the Sahaba (ra) to do it? Or if all of these tafsirs that the whole ummah reads; every single person who becomes an ‘alim in the world has to go through these classes of tafasir, and all of them have to read the 15-20 volumes, were I to ask you, if those meanings and understandings and explanations of Qur’an were so beneficial that you feel it’s required for becoming an ‘alim, why didn’t the Prophet (sws) teach all of these things to Sahaba (ra)? What would your answer be to that?

So one answer can be that you are right, we have been totally duped. All the mufassiroon are totally bidatis. People take the same answer for dhikr that we have been totally fooled. All of tasawwuf and dhikr is bidah so take it all out. So why don’t you use the same approach with tafsir? In fact I would even say that dhikr is nafl and everyone agrees it is nafl, but tafsir is Qur’an. You are telling me the meaning of KalamUllah and you can’t give me hadith to back up what you are saying? If I use the line that show me the hadith, all tafsir is finished, except for those 20 pages. Then what will we do?

People don’t realize that it’s a very emotional thing. I know it’s very difficult for converts to Islam because they don’t know who to trust, there is a big trust issue. And then definitely it does seem like a safer path, and there is nothing wrong with it, by the way, because dhikr is nafl. So if a person comes to me and says that look, I’m only going to do what’s in the hadith, I say it’s fine. I could even tell you, for you, as an individual, if you only want to follow the words of Qur’an and the words of hadith, I don’t feel you will get access to complete hidayah of deen, but can you get sufficient hidayah of deen to save yourself from Jahannum? Yes, I think you could. But I would respond to the question that there are things of great benefit in that tafsir.

If you look at the hadith commentary, even Ibn Hajr Asqalani (rah) sometimes wrote pages on the meaning of a hadith, so if someone says to me that why didn’t the Prophet (sws) tell us the meaning of these words? How can I accept that Ibn Hajr is going to tell me what the Prophet (sws) meant? Who is he to tell me? Show me the hadith, brother Ibn Hajr. You are saying this is the meaning of this hadith, show me the hadith. So Ibn Hajr will have to go away. You will have to throw out all of the muhadithin. Once you are done throwing out all of the mufassirin and the muhadithin, then you can come to fuqaha on tasawwuf. But the deception is that they make you throw out the fuqaha and the scholars of tasawwuf, and they don’t touch the mufassirin and the muhadithin.

That’s something to think about if you look at what would be the greater sin; to speak about Qur’an and hadith without prophetic backup or the nafl ibadah? So it’s not a sin. Allah (swt) has continued the understanding of Qur’an, but the subject matter is fixed. I’ll tell you something and it will shock you and you may not be able to digest this. But if you think about it calmly, you will realize that it is factually true. There will be, let’s say, whoever you think is the greatest tafsir scholar, we cannot pin-point, but let’s say hypothetically there’s a person of that rank. He may know certain things about certain ayahs not every Sahaba (ra) even knew. It’s possible.

The question is what is that amount of hidayah which we need for salvation, and what is the entire pool of hidayah? The entire pool of hidayah is very vast. I don’t think there’s any mufassir, alive or dead, or even any Sahaba (ra) who could say they knew every single meaning of Qur’an. Let’s take all of the tafsir books that have been written, and let’s take any Sahabi (ra), let’s say Syedna Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (ra), because you don’t really need to know every single possible meaning and grammatical and linguistic analysis of every single letter and word to get hidayah. The asal (core) is hidayah. The worlds of ilm and dhikr are very vast. You will need part of that to get hidayah. No one can say they know everything about ilm, and no one can say they know everything about dhikr. Don’t you see that in Qur’an Allah (swt) says to Syedna Musa (as) who was the nabi of his time that even you don’t know everything, you will have to go to Khizr (as), and he will do things that you will not be able to understand. But Musa (as) was a nabi and as a nabi he was superior — so superiority is based on taqwa. Allah (swt) says in Qur’an:

إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ
Surely the noblest of you, in Allah‘s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. [49:13]

So the superiority of Syedna Abu Bakr (ra) to every other Muslim is his taqwa. It’s not because he was the greatest muhadith, or the greatest mufassir, or the greatest dhikr person, it’s not like he was the greatest qari or he had the best tajweed ever in the history of Islam. It’s his taqwa. Ilm and dhikr are not end in of themselves, they are a means to taqwa. However much dhikr a person needs to get their taqwa, they should partake of it.

The questioner has specifically asked that if the naqshbandi dhikr of the heart is so beneficial, why didn’t the Prophet (sws) do it, why didn’t he (sws) tell us to do it? That’s why I am saying, there are things that are beneficial, whether it’s in the ilm of tafsir, ilm of hadith, ilm of fiqh or ilm of tasawwuf. Just look at the usul of ijtihad. The Prophet (sws) didn’t teach us Abu Hanifa’s usul, Shafi’i usul, Maliki usul, Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s usul. What are these usul? They are a way of understanding Shari’ah. And the Prophet (sws) didn’t teach us that. Imagine if I tried to trick you up with that. You would be like oh my God how could Nabi-e-Karim (sws) not teach us a way of understanding the Shari’ah?

Allah (swt) inspires the mujtahidin with their ijtihad. Allah (swt) inspires the mufassiroon with their tafsir. Allah (swt) inspires the muhadithin with their hadith commentaries. Just like that, Allah (swt) inspires the mashaikh of tasawwuf with the nafl dhikr practices that they teach. All hidayah is from Allah (swt). The greatest hidayah Allah (swt) gave was through the Book and the sunnah. But Allah (swt) continues to give hidayah, that’s why in Surah Fatiha you say:

 اِهۡدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الۡمُسۡتَقِيۡمَۙ‏
Guide us on the straight path [1:05]

You wouldn’t need to say ihdina, you could just make the du’a that Allah (swt) make me read hadith. You ask for hidayah. Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) received hidayah. There’s majm’ua of khitab of Ibn taymiyyah (rah) and, depending on the print, it’s 32 volumes. Not everything that he said has a hadith to back it up. He also did types of ijtihad. His ijtihad is also a part of hidayah from Allah (swt), it’s part of deen.

[1] Referring to the incident of Syedna Abbad ibn Bishr (ra) at the valley in Najd.

[2] I met Abu Bakr. He said: Who are you? He (Hanzala) said: Hanzala has turned to be a hypocrite. He (Abu Bakr) said: Hallowed be Allah, what are you saying? Thereupon he said: I say that when we are in the company of Allah’s Messenger (sws) we ponder over Hell-Fire and Paradise as if we are seeing them with our very eyes and when we are away from Allah’s Messenger (sws) we attend to our wives, our children, our business; most of these things (pertaining to After-life) slip out of our minds. Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I also experience the same. So I and Abu Bakr went to Allah’s Messenger (sws) and said to him: Allah’s Messenger, Hanzala has turned to be a hypocrite. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (sws) said: What has happened to you? I said: Allah’s Messenger, when we are in your company, we are reminded of Hell-Fire and Paradise as if we are seeing them with our own eyes, but whenever we go away from you and attend to our wives, children and business, much of these things go out of our minds. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (sws) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if your state of mind remains the same as it is in my presence and you are always busy in remembrance (of Allah), the Angels will shake hands with you in your beds and in your paths but, Hanzala, time should be devoted (to the worldly affairs) and time (should be devoted to prayer and meditation). He (the Holy Prophet) said this thrice. [Sahih Muslim]