By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age
Islam
03 October 2018
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is
reported to have said that the Hijrat (migration) to Madinah or any other
place, after the conquest of Makkah, was no longer binding. This Hadith should
be regarded as one of the Islamic exhortations of why Muslims living in the
democratic countries like India do not need Hijrat at all.
The main point of Hijrat in Islam in the
early Prophetic era was the fact that Muslims were not allowed to profess and
practice their Religion in Makkah, nor do they had any
constitutionally-approved right to claim their freedom of practicing their
Religion. But the scenario is different today. For example, India
constitutionally guarantees full freedom to profess and practice any religion
and propagate it. Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed
by Article 25-28 of the Constitution of India.
After the conquest of Makkah, in the 8th
year after the Hijrah, most of the Arabian Peninsula communities willingly
embraced Islam. It was around this time that Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)
is reported to have said, "لا هجرة بعد الفتح"
which means “there is no [more] Hijrah (migration) after the conquest [of Makkah]”. (Sahih al-Bukhari: 2912). In ‘Fathul Bari’, the commentary on Bukhari, it is recorded that leaving one’s hometown for the purpose of migration is no longer compulsory. Muslim exegetes use this hadith as an argument to support the view that Muslims cannot leave the country which bestow upon them religious freedom and security.
which means “there is no [more] Hijrah (migration) after the conquest [of Makkah]”. (Sahih al-Bukhari: 2912). In ‘Fathul Bari’, the commentary on Bukhari, it is recorded that leaving one’s hometown for the purpose of migration is no longer compulsory. Muslim exegetes use this hadith as an argument to support the view that Muslims cannot leave the country which bestow upon them religious freedom and security.
This Prophetic saying encouraged Muslims
since then on to stay where they were and to worship God Almighty elsewhere.
Freedom to worship God Almighty and practice Islam was the main reason of
Hijrat in the early period of Islam and when the necessity was met, migration
was prohibited. It is for this reason migration [Hijrat] from India to
elsewhere is not allowed for anyone, as India constitutionally ensures freedom
to worship and practice Islam.
This view that Indian Muslims do not need
Hijrat gained massive support from Sunni-Sufi Muslims of India known as Barelvis
and they were the first ones who refuted baseless arguments of the Deobandi
clerics who had encouraged Hijrat from India to another country. This
refutation later made all Muslims feel that India constitutionally guarantees
religious freedom and security and thereby they no longer carried out the
theory of inspiring Indian Muslims for Hijrat. Now some clerics are reported to
have repeated the same ideology of encouraging Hijrat from India on the points
that Muslims and their religious freedom are no longer safe in India.
One must know that as long as the Indian
Constitution does ensure fundamental right of religious freedom and security,
one should not view any of the incidents like lynching, killing, riot or any
illegal happening as an argument to claim justification for Hijrat. There are
indeed happenings of such heart-wrenching incidents on a regular basis but the
Indian Constitution has nothing to do with provocation of such incidents. Those
responsible for such incidents must be brought to court of justice, regardless
of religion, caste and color. Such happenings should be viewed as just vs.
unjust, good vs. bad, and not as Hindus vs. Muslims.
One must also know that in some cases it is
Muslims who kill Muslims; it is Muslims who illegally occupy the land of other
Muslims. One Muslim brother illegally occupies the land of his own brother and
for that matter he even plans to kill him. Should we then blame Islam or
Musalmaniyat for such crimes? No, we should not. Surely It is greed, lust and
Shaitaniyat which is alone responsible for such crimes and thus if Muslims
commit such crimes they should be seen as criminals, and not as Muslims.
Similarly in cases when some Hindus kill Muslims in lynching or elsewhere,
these Hindus should be seen only as criminals and not as Hindus. Though only in
few cases, there are of course the cases in which Hindus are reported to have
been killed by Muslims, but this too should not be seen as Hindus vs. Muslims
but as just vs. unjust. To resolve such problems, one must not forget that, we
have Indian Constitution and Court of Justice; which is supported by all
Indians including Muslims, Hindus and other non-Muslims.
The extremist people who want to throw
Muslims out of India and those extremist who want to encourage Hijrat from
India should know that togetherness at least to the extent of peace and
coexistence is essential to ensure progress of India.
The implication of the above discussion is
that Hijrat cannot be justified on the basis of some unjust cases which are not
supported by the Indian Constitution.
The Indian Constitution in its various
articles directly or indirectly ensures religious freedom and security for
every citizen. It is the main reason that one should not call for Hijrat.
Another reason can be deduced from the
explanation of the Quranic verse which reads,
“And to Allah
belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is Allah’s
Entity [Allah’s Mercy is directed towards you]. Indeed, Allah is
All-Encompassing and the All-Knowing.” (2:115).
Why Did Hijrat Need In Islam?
The extremist mindsets often quote the
Quranic verse 8:72 to call for migration, but they do not consider the context
and circumstances of the revelation of this verse, as God Almighty says,
“Indeed,
those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in
the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - they are allies of
one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no
guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the
religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and
whom is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do." (8:72).
Concerning this verse in today’s context
some questions arise. Are today’s Muslims whom they are calling to migrate
identical to the early Emigrants? Is it allowed for them to migrate from India
which grants security and religious freedom to them?
Associating the condition of today’s
Muslims to that of the early Emigrants mentioned in 8:72 is extremely injustice
and violation of the Quran. It is extremely essential for today’s followers of
Islam to understand the background of the early Emigrants.
Who were these Emigrants mentioned in the
verse 8:72? They were those Muslims who had no religious freedom in Makkah. In
other words, Makka did not have any constitution granting freedom to practice
religion and ensuring security. The early Muslims repeatedly suffered heartless
oppression, torture, and abuse for thirteen years. They were those Muslims who
were not allowed to fight even in defence in Makkah but were commanded therein
to persevere patiently. Every day these early Muslims would come in the
presence of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in a state where either someone’s
head was broken, or hand was badly damaged. They were those Muslims whose
co-religionists had been brutally killed in Makkah. Hadrat Bilal was rolled on the glowing
embers. Yasir and his wife Sumaiyah were wounded with spears. Not to speak of
the poor and the helpless, even the blue-blooded could not go unmolested. For
instance, Hazrat Osman’s uncle would tightly wrap him in a fresh animal skin,
and throw him in the scorching sun. The searing sun, profuse sweat and foul
smell of the skin would choke his breath and be unbearably excruciating and
painful.
Similarly, Hazrat Abu Bakr was once
subjected to such a cruel and painful torture that he lay unconscious for a
long time. For as long as 14 or 15 years, these Muslims suffered religious
persecutions, insults, outrages and injuries at the hands of their persecutors.
They bore all these indignities with the utmost humility and patience. When the
aggression and ruthlessness of the pagan Arabs grew more hotly than ever, Allah
commanded these Muslims to migrate. These Muslims carried out Allah’s command
worshipfully and migrated to Madina –nearly 300 miles away from Makkah. Still
the animosity of the inveterate enemies of Islam had not subsided. They
inflicted fresh injuries on the Muslims; robbed them of the peace of mind and
heart. A band of pagan Arabs would raid the pastures of the Muslims and take
away their cattle. If they encounter a lonely Muslim, they would not hesitate
in killing him mercilessly. It was then these Muslims were allowed to fight back
in defence and ensure peace and religious freedom.
Indian Muslims Do not Need Hijrat
As for the context of Muslims living in
India, they have their country’s Constitution that characterizes rights of
security and religious freedom. The situation of these Muslims is completely
different from that of the early Muslims in Makkah or the early Emigrants
mentioned the Quranic verse 8:79. It is therefore not appropriate to use this
verse to incite Muslims for migration.
This idea can also be deduced from the
historical fact that after the conquest of Makkah, when Muslims had achieved
religious freedom and ensured safety, the duty of migration was annulled, as
demonstrated above in the Hadith which implies that there is no more hijrat
after the conquest of Makkah. It is therefore not allowed for any extremist
cleric or any scholar to call Muslims to migrate from India to elsewhere, for
the simple reason that India guarantees religious freedom and security.
A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is
an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar) with a Sufi background and
English-Arabic-Urdu Translator.
No comments:
Post a Comment