Harshness Against Deviance and Transgressions
Even a perfunctory reading of the lives of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen will provide ample backing for Maulana Ahmad Sadeq’s harshness against the Ulama-e-soo Mufti A.S.Desai on stating the Haqq and tone his tone of voice (evil scholars who lead others to Jahannum), deviance, and transgressions of the Deen. The following couple of letters provide some explanation for his methodology:
Your e-mail dated 12 March 2011 refers. While we do not answer letters questioning our attitude and methodology, we shall go this extra mile to assist you to understand reality.
People who have no real intention of following the Deen, present the excuse of ’harsh attitude’ and ‘akhlaaq’ to justify their misdeeds. With this red herring they deflect the minds of people from the problem and the corruption.
For example, when a Molvi sits in a church under twelve crosses alongside priests and engages in prayers, these critics do not see the harshness, the lack of akhlaaq and the kufr of this practice. But when someone criticizes the kufr, he is reviled on the basis of his ‘harshness’.
When molvies commit capital kufr by abrogating the ahkaam of the Shariah with their kufr MMB, people accept such harsh perpetration of kufr. But when we criticize this perpetration, we are reviled for being ‘too harsh’. Furthermore, what you are blissfully unaware of is that our ‘harsh attitude’ is instituted after all other methods of consulting and convincing the miscreants have failed. When they are not prepared to listen and meaningfully discuss in privacy, then our ‘harsh’ attitude becomes Waajib, nay Fardh.
Since all of these critics enjoy the haraam activities which the molvies have halaalized nowadays, they try to justify and defend the evil practices and the errant molvies. But in the process of doing so they are unable to refute our arguments. They only harp on our attitude and methodology. In this way they detract attention from the problem.
Our attitude is commensurate with the crime. If our tone appears to be ‘too harsh’, then their crime is too vile. The attitude is the effect of the villainy of the sin.
Most people fail to understand the permissibility, efficacy, and necessity of the ‘harsh’ attitude because they lack knowledge of the variety of attitudes among the Ambiya and the Sahaabah. While they harp on one dimension of Rasulullah’s attitude, they are ignorant or deliberately blind to the other ‘harsh’ dimension which dictated even gouging out the eyes of criminals. They forget that in Daarul Islam the consequence of the type of kufr they are perpetrating nowadays is execution with the sword. We do not know if execution with the sword is ‘too harsh’ or within the confines of ‘good akhlaaq’. We do not know if whipping in the public is perhaps ‘too harsh’ or not within the limits of ‘good akhlaaq’.
Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) remarked to a person who looked into the house, that he felt like throwing a scissors into his eyes. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that hot iron rods will be inserted into the eyes of a man who looks at the beauty of a strange woman. Are these comments perhaps ‘too harsh’, and do they not form part of ‘good akhlaaq’.
Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) without making the slightest investigation to establish the factual position grabbed hold of the hair and beard of Nabi Haaroon (alayhis salaam), his elder brother, and violently shook him. Allah Ta’ala did not upbraid him for this act. Allah Ta’ala upheld it. Was his violent act against his elder, Nabi brother perhaps ‘too harsh’. Was his action beyond the confines of ‘good akhlaaq’?
When the Qur’aan and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) describe the believers and doers of immorality and kufr to be kaafiroon, fasiqoon, faajiroon, jaahiloon, munaafiqoon, etc., are these epithets ‘too harsh’ and beyond the confines of ‘good akhlaaq’?
Is the halaalizing and consumption of rotten, diseased haraam carrion a tolerable deed? Is it not ‘too harsh’ to make halaal what Allah has made haraam’. Does ‘good akhlaaq’ allow that we feed carrion and poison to your children? If your beloved child is about to ingest a lethal poison and we who are observing this suicidal act leave the child to consume the poison because he/she refuses to accept our soft and ‘akhlaaqi’ approach to abstain from the poison, will you praise and commend us for our ‘good akhlaaq’ and not adopting ‘too harsh a tone’, when you see the dead body of your child – dead because of the poison and dead because we contented ourselves with ‘good akhlaaq’? Or will you praise us and shower on us other rewards if we had harshly grabbed your child’s hand and rudely snatched the poison from his hand and left him kicking up a tantram like Sanha and Radio Shaitaan?
Once when a molvi said that he felt like becoming a Christian, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) gave him a full and a hard clout full in the face and shouted at him: ‘Shaitaan! Get away and become a Christian!’ Those who have read the writings of Hadhrat Thanvi can testify to his ‘too harsh’ attitude. So ‘harsh’ was his attitude and methodology that even The Majlis would not have become his mureed if it (The Majlis) had existed during Hadhrat’s lifetime. Was the action and attitude of Hadhrat Hakeemul Ummat then ‘too harsh’ and beyond the confines of ‘good akhlaaq’ merely because we may not be able to tolerate it?
Hadhrat Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) said in his fatwa that those who believe against and propagate against polygamy like the MMB crowd, will ‘hang upside down in Jahannum’; they are ‘kaafirs, murtads, enemies of Allah, enemies of the Rasool,etc., etc.’ Was his attitude ‘too harsh’ and beyond the limits of ‘good akhlaaq’?
Brother, we can write a volume of examples from the lives of the Ambiya, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah and the Auliya to show the beloved ‘harsh attitude’ which by Allah Azza Wa Jal is an act of ibaadat of the highest merit. You will not hesitate to permit the doctor to treat you harshly by stabbing into your body and cutting you up and opening up your heart to save you from the disease which threatens to destroy you. Because you understand physical and worldly benefits, you will praise and reward the doctor who had treated your harshly. But since deep down in your heart Deeni benefit is an insignificant issue, the ‘harsh attitude’ argument is a convenient scape-goat for justifying the maladies of kufr, fisq and fujoor. But when we adopt ‘harsh attitudes’ to operate on Muslims who are suffering from spiritual cancer and spiritual Aids, then there is a clamour of baseless criticism.
People should look at their crimes and their harsh attitudes of pride and arrogance, not at our ‘harsh’ remedial attitude. The problem, disease and cancer are their sins while our ‘harsh’ attitude is the medicine and the cure for the malignant cancer which is devouring their hearts, souls and bodies.
Mujlisul Ulama of S.A.