Al Hakam - 14 June 2024

Let our hearts perform tawaf of the Ka‘bah

Dhul-Hijjah is here, the sacred month when Muslims worldwide journey to Mecca for Hajj, the fifth pillar of Islam. This compulsory pilgrimage, for those who meet the conditions, occurs annually between the 8th and 12th of Dhul-Hijjah, following the tradition of the Holy Prophetsa, who revived and remembered the tradition and sacrifice of Prophet Abrahamas

The Holy Prophetsa is reported to have said that Islam is built upon five pillars: (i) Shahadah – worshipping Allah alone and rejecting all other gods; (ii) Salat –establishing prayer; (iii) Zakat – giving alms; (iv) Sawm – fasting in the month of Ramadan; and (v) Hajj – the pilgrimage to Mecca.

During the month of Hajj, all five pillars of Islam are highlighted. The shahadah is always central to Muslim faith, salat is performed daily, zakat is given abundantly, fasting is observed, and Hajj is performed. This makes Dhul-Hijjah unique as the month where all pillars of Islam converge, emphasising its significance in the Islamic calendar.

While it is possible that not all of us may be able to travel to Mecca for Hajj, we should not let this deter us from our love for Allah and the significance of Hajj. We should always be in a state of spiritual tawaf

Hadith-e-Rasul – Sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa

Sacrifice in Allah’s cause

Hazrat Jundab ibn Sufyanra reported that during one of the battles, the Prophet’ssa finger was wounded and bled. Thus, he said, “You are but a finger that has bled, and what you have encountered, is in the cause of Allah.”

Fear of contravening Allah’s commands

A question was asked about performing four units [rak‘at] of prayer on Jumu‘atul-Wida‘, referring to it as qaza-e-‘umri, intended to compensate for missed prayers. It was asked whether there was any evidence for this practice. The Promised Messiahas responded: “It is a futile act. However, once a person was observed praying at an irregular time. When someone suggested to Hazrat Alira, who was the Khalifa at the time, to prohibit him, he replied, ‘I am afraid of being culpable under the following verse[s]:

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, In His Own Words

(Sahih al-Bukhari, kitab al-jihadi wa s-siyar, Bab man yunkabu fi sabilillah, Hadith 2802)

<< Continued from previous page

our souls should constantly be circulating in the remembrance of Allah, upholding the five pillars of Islam. This commitment will sustain our faith.

Even though we may be physically far from the Ka‘bah, we must emulate the teachings and practices of the Holy Prophetsa so that our souls remain close to his. We can achieve this by following the Messengersa of Allah in all that he did.

It is recorded in the ahadith, that the Holy Prophetsa used to recite takbirat after all the obligatory prayers from the dawn of the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah to the last day of the tashreeq days, that is, the Asr prayer of the thirteenth day of Dhul-Hijjah. The takbirat are as follows:

Hazrat Alira and Hazrat Ammarra narrated that the Holy Prophetsa used to recite the takbirat from the Fajr prayer of 9 Dhul-Hijjah, to the Asr prayer on 13 Dhul Hijjah. (Al-Mustadrik lil-Hakim, Book of Eidain, Chapter Takbirat al-Tashreeq)

So, as we glorify Allah with these profound words, let us remember Allah’s greatness, affirm His Tawhid, express gratitude and praise, truly embody unification within the ummah, and ignite a sense of spiritual reflection and remembrance. Only then can we, with heart, mind, and soul, let our hearts make tawaf of the Ka‘bah.

<< Continued from previous page

“‘[‘Hast thou seen him who forbids a servant (of Ours) when he prays?’

(Surah al-‘Alaq, Ch.96: V.10-11)]’

“Yes, if someone deliberately omits their prayers with the intention of compensating them later during qaza-e-‘umri, their action is improper. However, if one performs such prayers out of regret to make amends, then let them be. Why forbid them when they are merely supplicating? Indeed, there is a lack of resolve in this, but beware, lest in prohibiting you also fall under those verse[s].” (Al Hakam, 24 April 1903, p. 12)

Pray for Palestinians and Ahmadis in Pakistan

During his Friday Sermon, delivered on 7 June 2024,

Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih Vaa said:

“As I always urge, keep praying for the oppressed people of Palestine. May Allah the Exalted soon devise ways to seize the oppressors. Innocents are being slain in the same manner as the Companionsra were martyred. Through deception, they are sent to one place, then another, only to face bombardment there. May Allah the Almighty have mercy.

“Furthermore, pray for the general state of the world. The world is rapidly advancing towards ruin, and signs of escalating conflict are evident. May Allah the Almighty shield Ahmadis from the detrimental impacts of war and its evils.

“Particularly pray for the Ahmadis in Pakistan. They are currently experiencing an increase in hardships. May Allah the Almighty show mercy and grant them deliverance from the oppressors.” [Amin.]

Peace Symposium held by Lajna Imaillah, NSW, Australia

Amatul Malik Najam

Secretary Tabligh, Lajna Imaillah Australia

Lajna Imaillah NSW hosted a Peace Symposium on 28 April 2024, at the Baitul Huda Mosque, Sydney. The event was organised by the National Tabligh Department, in collaboration with the NSW regions, on the theme “Human Rights According to My Faith”. A total of 150 members participated and 54 external guests from various sectors of society were also present, including representatives from different faiths and organisations dedicated to human rights advocacy.

The formal event started with the recitation from the Holy Quran and its translation. Ms Andrea Nevill, a Bardi/ Jawi woman from the Kimberleys in Western Australia and a radio broadcaster on Koori Radio 93.7FM, then stated an Acknowledgement of Country.

During the event, representatives from various faiths and organisations presented their perspectives on human rights, including representatives from Christianity, Hinduism, First Nations

people, Buddhism, and various other dignitaries.

The formal session ended with concluding remarks, a vote of thanks and a silent prayer led by Sadr Lajna Imaillah Australia, Abida Chaudhary Sahiba.

The highlights of the symposium included a Holy Quran exhibition, showcasing translations of the Holy Quran in 34 different languages. There was also a bookstall offering a variety of literature and pamphlets. “Try a Hijab” and calligraphy stalls were also highlights of the day, attracting numerous guests to enjoy these hands-on experiences. A documentary showcasing the efforts of Lajna Imaillah Australia on the topic of “Ahmadi Women are Striving for Humanity”, was also played for the audience.

The external guests were interviewed, providing an opportunity for dialogue and the exchange of ideas. Feedback and comments were recorded in a guest book and on a feedback wall. Here are some of the comments and feedback:

Andrea Nevill said: “An inspirational day! Today was very enlightening and it

was wonderful to hear the various speakers. Thank you.”

Angela Johnston said: “I congratulate your group for a great event that unites various faiths for a common purpose.”

Colleen Foley said: “Thank you for such a lovely, friendly welcome, and for the speakers who inspired us.”

Kanda Quinlan said: “Fantastic to see powerful women today and we are on the same page, promoting human rights. Keep up the good work.”

Margaret Tishu said: “All the speakers were very informative. Good, you had such a variety of speakers.”

Photo courtesy of Suhaib Ahmad

‘Spend at least an hour playing outdoors’

Amila of Majlis Atfal-ul-Ahmadiyya Canada seeks guidance from Huzoor

On Sunday, 9 June 2024, the national amila of Majlis Atfal-ul-Ahmadiyya, Canada visited Islamabad, Tilford, UK, and had the honour of a mulaqat with Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih Vaa

Upon arrival at the MTA studio, Huzooraa greeted everyone with salaam and invited them to sit down.

Huzooraa commenced the meeting with a silent prayer, after which all members present had the opportunity to introduce themselves and seek guidance.

Upon learning that some members of the amila had contracted Covid-19 and could not attend the meeting, Huzooraa kindly enquired about their well-being and suggested providing them with homoeopathic medicine.

Tauseef Ahmad Sahib, Muhtamim Atfal, reported that there were 2491 atfal in Canada. Further, when asked about the activity levels of all the majalis, he mentioned that around 50-60% were active.

Then, all members present had the opportunity to introduce themselves.

In a conversation with Qasim Ghuman Sahib, the Secretary of Tarbiyat, Huzooraa enquired about the participation of the children in offering salat and their recitation of the Holy Quran. Qasim Ghuman Sahib shared updates on the ongoing efforts, noting that one-third of the children were performing salat five times a day. Upon hearing this, Huzooraa suggested focusing efforts on engaging the others as well.

Naveed Ahmad Chatta, Secretary of Taleem, reported that they arranged various

classes for the atfal. Then, speaking with Adnan Hamid Sahib, Secretary of Tajnid, Huzooraa asked if the tajnid records were accurate. Adnan Hamid Sahib replied that 96% of the records were correct and efforts were being made to verify the remaining 4%.

Next, Huzooraa discussed various budgetary matters with Waqar Sheikh Sahib, Secretary Maal. Huzooraa advised, “The Tarbiyat Department should make efforts to instil the habit of offering salat [among the atfal].”

Usman Hamid Sahib, Secretary of Sehat-e-Jismani, reported that 490 children participated in sports. Huzooraa noted that this number was still insufficient. He added that children should spend at least one hour playing outdoors instead of spending time on the internet, saying, “It’s beneficial for both their physical and mental health and well-being.”

Haris Mohar Sahib, Secretary of Sanato-Tijarat, reported that they are teaching young atfal various practical skills. This year, for example, they are focusing on firstaid training.

Throughout the meeting, members had the opportunity to ask Huzooraa questions on various matters.

When asked how one can dedicate more time to Atfal-ul-Ahmadiyya, Huzooraa responded that since various nazimeen-eatfal have been appointed, they should be actively giving time to the atfal. An amila should be formed for the nazimeen, and they should undertake the same responsibilities

that qaids do in Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya.

“Appoint proactive individuals as nazimeen,” Huzooraa emphasised, adding that it is the duty of Sadr Sahib to select diligent and hardworking individuals. Huzooraa added that the nazimeen should also have na’ibeen with them.

Next, a question was posed regarding the current world situation and the possibility of Khilafat migrating again.

In response, Huzooraa said, “God knows best. Even the previous migration [hijrah] was not pre-planned.” Speaking about potential future challenges, Huzooraa added that a time will come when Europe and other Western countries may also oppose the Jamaat. Huzooraa added that, when that time comes, the Khalifa of the time will decide the course of action, and Allah will guide us to a place where the continuous growth of the Jamaat can continue.

When asked how to instil both love and fear of God in children, Huzooraa said that emphasising God’s love and compassion can naturally foster love for Him.

Huzooraa elucidated that, just as children obey their parents not out of fear but from a desire not to disappoint them, similarly, children should be encouraged to foster a reverence for God that stems not from fear of Him, but from a fear of losing His love or displeasing Him. Huzooraa noted that if we only talk about punishment, children might think God exists solely to punish. Instead, one should teach them about all the blessings He has given.

“Thus, fear should not be that God will

be angry with us, but rather that He may become displeased with us. This sentiment can only arise from a loving relationship with Him. Therefore, first, instil the love of God in their hearts, and a respectful fear [of His displeasure] will naturally follow,” Huzooraa said.

Next, upon being asked if the Khalifa of the time would ever lead salat at the Holy Ka’bah, Huzooraa responded:

“If the opportunity arises and Allah creates the circumstances, then the Khalifa shall lead the salat. This will be decided by the Khalifa of the time.”

The subsequent question addressed the timeline for the Jamaat’s global victory. In this context, Huzooraa was also asked about the status of the interest-based financial system at that time.

Huzooraa said: “When the Islamic system takes root, the practice of interest will automatically fade away.” He further encouraged the questioner to delve into Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra book, The Economic System of Islam [Islam Ka Iqtisadi Nizam], where they would find the answers. Huzooraa emphasised that the Holy Quran denounces interest, and historically, in regions governed by Islamic principles, transactions and businesses flourished without relying on interest. Some Companions were notably affluent through interest-free trade. Therefore, Huzooraa concluded, that with the establishment of the Islamic system, interest will naturally become obsolete.

Continued on next page >>

This Week in History

A glimpse into the rich history of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat

14 June 1903: Lala Bhim Sin was a pleader by profession, who happened to be a class fellow of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, along with Maulvi Muhammad Hussain of Batala, when they were all pupils of Gul Ali Shah Sahib. On this day, Huzooras replied to a letter from Lala Bhim Sin, clearing his misconceptions regarding religion. Despite Huzooras being occupied with other undertakings, he spared some time for this old acquaintance to guide him to the right path. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad [2008], Vol. 1, pp. 86-93)

14 June 1948: On this day, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra delivered a lecture at the York House in Quetta as part of

a series of lectures titled “Istihkame-Pakistan” – Consolidation of Pakistan. The session was attended by the Iranian Consul, the Minister of the State of Qalat, tribal leaders, civil and military officials, officebearers of the Muslim League, local dignitaries, doctors and press representatives.

For more details, see “‘The consolidation of Pakistan’: Lectures by Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud on how Pakistan can see success” at alhakam. org, 6 May 2022, pp. 10-13.

15 June 14 June

15 June 1912: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira travelled to Lahore and laid the foundation stone of the house of Hazrat Sheikh Rahmatullahra. Sheikh Sahibra had been told by the Promised Messiahas that he would bless the house by laying its foundation stone, but destiny did not allow him. On this, the first successor of the Promised Messiahas did not desire for a single promise of his master to remain unfulfilled. Accordingly, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira bore patiently the hardships of travel and reached Lahore to lay the foundation stone. The following day, Huzoorra delivered a lecture too. Huzoorra returned to Qadian on 19 June. During this journey, Huzoorra also gave speeches in Amritsar, Batala and Lahore. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 3, pp. 397-400)

15 June 1915: On this day, Hazrat Sufi Ghulam Muhammadra arrived at Port Louis to establish the Ahmadiyya

Mission in Mauritius. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 4, p. 170)

16 - 17

June

For more details of his journey, see: “100 Years Ago… – Progress of Ahmadiyyat in America and first Ahmadi missionary in Mauritius” at alhakam. org (16 December 2022, p. 12).

15 June 1955: During his tour of Europe, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra reached the city of Nuremberg, Germany, from Austria on this day. Chaudhry Abdul Latif Sahib, Missionary of Germany and various other devoted fellows were present there to welcome Huzoorra. There were 15 Ahmadi men and women in Nuremberg at that time.

16 June 2008: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa travelled to America. Huzooraa travelled from London and landed at Dulles International Airport. Huzooraa reached the Bait-ur-Rahman Mosque, the headquarters of the USA Jamaat, where he was given a warm welcome. (Al Fazl International, 18 July 2008, p. 16)

For more details about the history of Jamaat in Germany, see: “Germany: The gateway to Europe and beyond” at alhakam.org (5 July 2019, pp. 1417).

17 June 1928: On this day, Seerat-unNabi jalsas were held across British India following the scheme of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra

For more details, see “Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s services to the Muslim cause: Guiding Muslims of the Indian subcontinent amid religious and political conflicts,” Al Hakam, 26 February 2021, Issue, 154, p. 19.

17 June 1974: During the antiAhmadiyya agitation in 1974, on this day, the crops belonging to Ahmadis were destroyed in Chak 39 DB, a village in Sargodha, Pakistan. (Daily Al Fazl, 6 March 2003, p. 2)

The house of Hazrat Sufi Ahmad Jan

20 June 1974: On this day, opponents of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya set alight the Ahmadiyya Mosque in Talvandi Khajoor Wali, in District Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan. (Daily Al Fazl, 6 March 2003, p. 2)

20 June 2009: On this day, Major Afzaal Mahmood Sahib’s body was brought to Rabwah and was buried with full army protocol.

This Ahmadi member of the Pakistan Armed Forces was martyred a day before, on 19 June, while fighting against militants in Bajaur Agency. He went on patrol with his men on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Near Bajaur, their convoy was attacked and he was martyred.

For more details, see “Forbidden history: Monumental services of Ahmadis in the Pakistani Armed Forces”, at alhakam.org (16 July 2021, pp. 10-11).

14 - 20 June

<< Continued from previous page

Furthermore, Huzooraa addressed the contemporary banking system, stating that a committee had been formed to thoroughly investigate and research the matter. The aim is, Huzooraa said, to have a solution ready for when the time is ripe. Huzooraa remarked that even in the current system, there are certain aspects that cannot be explicitly labelled as interest. However, because they are intertwined with a system that operates on interest, further research is required to understand the matter thoroughly.

20

June

Regarding the current conflict in the Holy Land, a questioner highlighted the current educational focus in schools, which, he said, appears to generate more sympathy for Israel, with Jewish events receiving considerable celebration. The questioner expressed concerns about the lack of attention given to Palestinian children and enquired about the role Ahmadi children could play and whether they should engage in protests in this regard.

In response, Huzooraa underscored that it was not necessary for Ahmadi children to engage in protests against the actions of their schools regarding this issue. He advised that instead of protesting, they should communicate effectively with their school administrations to express a balanced perspective on the injustice that occurred not only against Israeli children but also the continuous injustice against Palestinian children.

Huzooraa emphasised the importance of raising awareness about the plight of all affected children in the conflict and exploring practical ways to support and protect them. He stressed the necessity of teaching compassion towards all suffering children, regardless of their nationality, to cultivate a sense of justice and empathy among Ahmadi children. Parents, Huzooraa said, should also play an active role in this regard.

18 - 19

June

18 June 1974: During the 1974 antiAhmadiyya riots, the severity of the attacks on Ahmadis by their opponents was so extreme that instead of deterring the assailants, the police and administration began arresting Ahmadis themselves. On this day, 12 Ahmadis were arrested in Pak Patan, Punjab. (Daily Al Fazl, 6 March 2003, p. 2)

19 June 1955: On this day, Mian Afzal Hussain, the then ViceChancellor of the Punjab University, visited Rabwah and addressed the convocation ceremony of the Talim-ul-Islam College. The Civil and Military Gazette published a detailed report on this event, along

with some photographs, under the heading “Train Students to be Good Citizens – Talim-ul-Islam College Convocation”, on 21 June 1955.

Atfal is typically a mature individual, being from Majlis Ansarullah, they should be among those who uphold tarbiyat. Even if the Nazim Atfal is younger, they should still cooperate with them, demonstrating an understanding that true cooperation is essential. “‘Help one another in righteousness and piety’ This is what God commands,” Huzooraa said.

With regards to sex education and LGBTQ, a questioner asked Huzooraa how to safeguard the youth.

In response, Huzooraa said:

“First and foremost, it is the duty of parents to address their children at home.” Huzooraa mentioned that in the UK, concerns are being voiced that children are too young to grasp the topics covered in sex education, and it is likely that similar discussions will emerge in other regions as awareness increases. The essence is that when certain questions arise in the minds of the atfal, they should be delicately explained that certain topics are not suitable for their age and require a certain level of maturity to comprehend. They should be guided gently rather than strictly.

Huzooraa emphasised that parents must take the lead in addressing this matter and be educated on how to handle it effectively. One effective approach is for the Mohtamim Atfal to create guidelines on this issue and provide them to parents in need of education in this regard. Huzooraa said that he had many times said that parents should strive to befriend their children and approach conversations with them in a friendly and open manner.

Next, Huzooraa was asked about when national office holders, occupied with their duties at the Centre (Markaz), are unable to attend Jamaat events.

Huzooraa mentioned that if they are extremely busy and unable to attend, they can be excused. However, if they are free, then attending the events is encouraged. It is not acceptable to skip a majlis meeting solely because you are holding an office. Huzooraa added that when he served as Mohtamim, he would also participate in the local majlis’ events.

Next, it was highlighted that most parents, in order to avoid participating in atfal events, mention difficulties in bringing their children and request transportation. The questioner sought guidance from Huzooraa on this matter.

For more details on this Convocation, see “75 years of Rabwah: A glimpse into its early years”, at alhakam.org (22 September 2023, pp. 6-9).

19 June 2012: During his tour of the USA, on this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa visited the Bait-un-Nasir Mosque in Columbus, Ohio. (“Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Continues Tour of USA”, www.pressahmadiyya. com)

Addressing the distinction in the efficacy of prayers between regular individuals and those deeply connected with Allah, Huzooraa elucidated that those who maintain a strong bond with Allah often experience a higher rate of answered prayers. He expanded on this by referencing the Holy Quran, noting that even individuals who might not follow God’s commandments as they should or might not fully believe in God, find themselves praying in times of extreme distress. These prayers, driven by immediate need, are sometimes answered, leading such individuals temporarily closer to faith before they revert to their usual ways. Despite this, their prayers can still be answered. Huzooraa emphasised that while God hears all supplications, the prayers of the devout are more consistently favoured with acceptance.

When asked about enhancing coordination between the Murabbi Atfal at both the Markaz and the local amila levels, Huzooraa said that the administration work and planning are to be undertaken by the Nazim Atfal, and the Murabbi Atfal should focus on the implementation. Huzooraa emphasised that the duty of the Murabbi Atfal is to oversee the tarbiyat of the atfal and not interfere with administrative matters. In this way, coordination shall occur automatically.

Huzooraa added that since the Murabbi

Huzooraa responded, “If they have a genuine reason, then you can consider while assessing your budget, if it is feasible [to provide transportation]. However, if the reason is not valid, then one can only keep reminding them.” Huzooraa emphasised that events should be organised in a manner that facilitates participation for everyone. For instance, Huzooraa suggested holding events of various auxiliaries simultaneously to make it easier for all to attend. Additionally, in light of rising inflation and increasing expenses, Huzooraa recommended considering carpooling as an option.

Then, near the end, Huzooraa graciously called additional members of the delegation, who were not in the meeting and personally spoke to them. In the end, Huzooraa conveyed his salaam and the meeting came to a successful conclusion.

(Prepared by Al Hakam)

From disowned to being ‘undeserving’ The painful story of Nobel Laureate Dr Abdus Salam

Ata-ul-Haye Nasir & Iftekhar Ahmed UK

Time and again, those whose eyes are green with envy at the success Ahmadi Muslims have achieved around the world lash out, attacking the individual achievements of Ahmadis and seeking to discredit them.

While eminent figures like Prof. Brian Cox, a professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester, laud the contributions of Prof. Dr Mohammad Abdus Salam to the field of physics in the highest terms, a voice of wilful defamation of the Ahmadi Muslim Nobel laureate emerges. A pseudo-intellectual, utterly unequal to the subject, has attempted to assert that Dr Salam did not actually deserve the Nobel Prize. A closer look reveals him to be someone cosying up to Pakistan’s religious far-right. In his X biography, devoid of substantive credentials, he presents himself merely as a “critic”—a designation that seems to be his sole qualification and description. He is not an individual engaged in positive, creative work that propels society forward. Rather, his sole aim appears to be undermining the achievements of others, maintaining his relevance by promoting conspiracy theories about the real, substantive work of more productive minds.

He claims his motives are not rooted in hatred for Ahmadi Muslims, but such assertions prove to be mere babble when one examines his track record of railing against Ahmadis for quite some time, with his latest YouTube video simply the most recent instalment in this sorry series. This YouTuber, who bemoans “unoriginal” work, has ironically adopted the groundbreaking strategy of constructing his entire video around the recycled arguments of a certain Professor Norman Dombey.

45 years have elapsed since Dr Salam was awarded the Nobel Prize, and during that time, many critics have emerged, only to have their objections refuted by those far more qualified to weigh in on the matter—a trait this particular individual sadly lacks.

A cursory glance at Wikipedia’s comprehensive listing of so-called “Nobel Prize controversies” reveals a conspicuous absence: the year 1979, when Prof. Abdus Salam was honoured for his groundbreaking work in theoretical physics. The list chronicles debates surrounding the awards in 1923, 1938, 1974, 1978, 1983, 1997, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2017—but no such controversy is noted for 1979. One must wonder, then, what ulterior

motives or vested interests could be driving this attempt to stir up controversy over something long considered uncontroversial in the scientific community.

Engaging in the scientific details would be futile, as the critic himself does not delve into such technical depths. His charges against Dr Salam rely not on scientific dissection, but on selective quotations and perspectives. We shall not rebut the scientific merits, as Dr Salam’s work needs no vindication from us. Instead, we will expose the inadequacies of the arguments presented in this video and the motives behind them.

In support of his claim that Prof. Salam was undeserving of the Nobel, the critic leans heavily on the words of Norman Dombey, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Sussex. He also presents comments from Sheldon Lee Glashow, who shared the 1979 Physics Nobel with Salam and Steven Weinberg.

In an interview with David Zierler on 3 June 2020, Glashow referenced Dombey’s paper, stating, “Everything he says is true, to my knowledge.” (www.aip. org) However, it is important to note the measured critique of Peter Woit, a senior lecturer in the mathematics department at Columbia University. Interestingly, Glashow was Woit’s undergraduate advisor at Harvard, where he studied from 197579. Commenting on Dombey’s paper, Woit stated that Dombey “more or less seems to argue that Salam didn’t deserve his 1979 Nobel. He describes a lot of history I didn’t know, but I’m not completely convinced.” (Not Even Wrong: “How to Win the Nobel Prize”, www.math.columbia.edu) This nuanced perspective from a respected voice in the field highlights the lack of convincing evidence in Dombey’s argument against Prof. Salam’s deserving of the 1979 Nobel Prize.

Plagiarism?

In a bold accusation of plagiarism, the video presents an excerpt from Sheldon Lee Glashow himself, Dr Salam’s co-recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics.

First of all, it needs to be understood that the Papers by Dr Salam and Ward and by Glashow were published in peer-reviewed journals that are reviewed by at least two experts in the field. If there was a hint of plagiarism, we don’t think this would have gone unnoticed.

In his interview, Glashow states:

“My Nobel Prize depended on that one paper written in 1960. Steve’s Nobel Prize depended exclusively on that one

paper he wrote in 1967, a wonderful paper which applied the notion of spontaneous symmetry breaking to the—my electroweak model. So, the question arises, what did Salam do? He introduced the electroweak— the SU(2)XU(1) model in 1964. That was over three years after I did. He copied my work but did not cite me.”

Yet this allegation stands in stark contrast to Glashow’s own words in his Nobel Lecture of 8 December 1979, in which he speaks quite clearly about the communal nature of scientific discoveries:

“All is woven together in the tapestry; one part makes little sense without the other. Even the development of the electroweak theory was not as simple and straightforward as it might have been. It did not arise full blown in the mind of one physicist, nor even of three. It, too, is the result of the collective endeavor of many scientists, both experimenters and theorists.” (“Towards a Unified Theory— Threads in a Tapestry”, www.nobelprize.org)

The video acknowledges the possibility of independent minds arriving at similar conclusions, but quickly dismisses this notion by presenting Glashow’s response to a direct inquiry on the matter:

“Absolutely not. He knew my work when I wrote a paper—falsely claiming that the Yang-Mills theory would be renormalizable when masses were put in by hand. I claimed it would be renormalizable. I spoke about that work in London when I visited in 1959. Salam listened patiently to my work. And when I got back home, there were two articles awaiting me from his institution, one by him, another by a Japanese co-worker, each of them showing

that I had made a stupid mistake and that my paper was wrong. So, he certainly read my papers carefully. I have no doubt that he had read my 1961 paper as well, because the similarities were too great in his 1964 paper. In any event, even if independently conceived, it was fully three years later.” (“Oral History Interviews | Sheldon Glashow”, www.aip.org)

However, in his haste to indict Dr Salam, the critic stumbles into a quagmire of chronological confusion. He erroneously conflates Glashow’s 1959 Paper—which Glashow also presented at Imperial College London at Dr Salam’s invitation—with Glashow’s 1961 Paper. This misunderstanding leads him down a rabbit hole of spurious claims. He does not seem to comprehend that it was Glashow who had to admit to making ‘stupid mistakes’ in his 1959 Paper—mistakes that were rightfully critiqued by Dr Salam and a Japanese colleague. The critic then ludicrously contends that Glashow’s 1961 Paper ultimately proved sound, rendering the criticisms from Prof. Salam invalid. Yet, this entire narrative is built on a foundation of sand, a muddling of the 1959 and 1961 papers, for it was indeed Glashow’s 1959 work that drew warranted criticism—a fact Glashow himself conceded—not his subsequent 1961 publication.

If one is not intimately familiar with the history of these events and has not studied them in depth, such a mistake can easily creep in when relying solely on this isolated statement from Glashow.

What actually happened is chronicled in the very work the critic himself later cited. He seems, however, not to have studied that

Sheldon Lee Glashow, Dr Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg | Monthly Khalid

work thoroughly, cherry-picking only what fits his pernicious agenda. We read:

“Nonetheless, by November 1958 Glashow had convinced himself— erroneously, as it would turn out—that his theory was in fact renormalizable. He wrote a paper that was published in the journal Nuclear Physics on New Year’s Day, 1959. [“The Renormalizability of Vector Meson Interactions,” Nuclear Physics, Vol. 10, pp. 107-117]

“During 1958 Salam too had been attempting to unite the weak and electromagnetic interaction. He had responded to Ward’s suggestion that they build a theory of the weak interaction by inviting Ward to join him at Imperial College. They had read Schwinger’s paper that suggested the existence of a massive W boson and were trying to unite the weak and electromagnetic forces themselves. They completed their paper at almost the same time as Glashow, and it was published in February 1959. [“Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions” (Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. XI, No. 4, 16 February 1959, pp. 568-577)]

“Glashow’s paper examined a model containing a triplet of ‘photons,’ or gauge bosons, the conventional photon being partnered by two electrically charged massive siblings. This was similar to what Salam and Ward were also doing at that juncture.

“The peripatetic Ward had left Imperial College on his travels when Glashow came to give a talk in the spring of 1959. Glashow was claiming that his theory was renormalizable. The problem was that Salam and Ward, both experts on renormalization, had been unable to get rid of infinities, which kept emerging from their calculations like mushrooms. Consequently, Salam was astonished when ‘this young boy’ claimed that the theory was viable—renormalizable—after all.

“During the days immediately after Glashow’s visit, Salam was sufficiently worried that he and colleagues went through the arguments carefully. What could Salam and Ward have missed? In fact, they had overlooked nothing. Glashow’s claim that the theory was renormalizable was completely wrong, and if Glashow had done the calculations properly, he would have shown that the infinities were unavoidable, the exact opposite of what he had thought.

“Glashow was extremely embarrassed. Years later he recalled the episode as follows: ‘Anyone competent in quantum field theory could have spotted my error. Nonetheless, Abdus Salam invited me to speak about my work at Imperial College. My talk was well received and afterward, Salam had me to his home for a marvelous Pakistani dinner. But when I returned to Copenhagen, two Imperial College preprints awaited me showing that I was wrong. Couldn’t Salam simply have told me of my mistake?’

“Whatever the truth of this in detail, Salam’s reaction was mixed. On the one hand, he must have been relieved that he and Ward had not overlooked something so basic. They were, after all, two of the world’s leading experts on renormalization, and it would have crushed their morale to have missed making such a discovery themselves, leaving a graduate student to uncover the great truth. This was their first contact with Glashow, and it left Salam somewhat scornful. Salam was a bit inclined to put

people in categories and not move them out again. This episode was an extreme example, Salam claiming that as a result he never again read any of Glashow’s papers, although he himself later admitted that this was a mistake.” (The Infinity Puzzle, Frank Close, 2011, Basic Books, New York, pp. 114-115)

The following facts emerge from this quote: Firstly, that it was not Glashow’s 1961 paper that Prof. Salam had criticised. Secondly, that his criticism was justified and that even Glashow knew this and had to recognise it. Thirdly, and this is a crucial fact, that Prof. Salam had not studied any of Glashow’s papers after this gross blunder. Therefore, Prof. Salam could not have known anything about Glashow’s 1961 paper.

It is further written that “Abdus Salam’s first exposure to Glashow in 1959 had led him, as we have seen, to ignore Glashow’s papers thereafter. [...] That was the state of Salam and Ward’s insight when Glashow first appeared on the scene, giving the talk at Imperial, which led to Salam’s ignoring Glashow’s future papers. [...] Salam appears not to have read Glashow’s subsequent papers, for in their 1964 work, Salam and Ward cited Glashow’s 1959 paper about renormalization, which has only marginal relevance to them, and ignored his 1961 paper, which was very close to their concerns.” (Ibid., pp. 120-121)

The question which comes to mind is: Was Glashow’s 1961 paper a big thing?

“Due to the absence of quantitative predictions, Glashow’s theory did not attract much attention from the relevant physics community.” Moreover, “according to the Web of Science data, between the years 1961 and 1967, Glashow’s 1961 paper was cited only once each year; two of these citing publications were co-authored by Glashow himself.” (“The Construction of the Higgs Mechanism and the Emergence of the Electroweak Theory”, Koray Karaca, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, February 2013)

Continuation of the 1959 work

The critic has alleged that Dr Salam had “copied” the 1961 Paper of Glashow and published it in 1964, asserting a misleading point that prior to this, Dr Salam’s own calibre was not enough to carry out independent ground-breaking works in the field of physics. Hence, it is crucial to understand that Dr Salam’s 1964 work was in fact a continuation of the work carried out by him along with John Clive Ward— an Anglo-Australian physicist—many years earlier.

In his Nobel Lecture in 1979, Dr Salam highlighted the fact that “[t]he ideas of today started more than twenty years ago, as gleams in several theoretical eyes. They were brought to predictive maturity over a decade back. And they started to receive experimental confirmation some six years ago.” (“Gauge Unification of Fundamental Forces”, www.nobelprize.org)

This statement is supported by many other accounts as well. For instance, it is stated that Prof. “Abdus Salam’s major independent contribution to particle physics in 1956 was the proposal that a new type of invariance principle, called γ5invariance, should hold for the neutrino,

thereby predicting that neutrinos should exist only in the left-handed spin state. This so-called two-component theory of the neutrino was also later formulated by Landau and by Lee and Yang. [...]

“Subsequently, Abdus Salam and John Ward worked on a local gauge theory for the weak and electromagnetic interactions, obtaining the SU(2)×U(1) model in 1964. This was a continuation of their work on the same topic that they had started in 1959. In the intervening period and thereafter, Salam had become deeply convinced that all elementary particle interactions are gauge interactions. This was a recurrent theme in his papers and lectures in the sixties. [...]

“Incidentally, Sheldon Glashow in 1961 had also proposed the group SU(2) xU(1) for describing the electromagnetic and weak interactions.” (Selected Papers of Abdus Salam (With Commentary), Ed. T Kibble, C Isham, Riazuddin, A Ali, World Scientific Series in 20th Century Physics, Vol. 5, p. 149)

Even Norman Dombey, who has extensively been quoted in the video, has mentioned Dr Salam’s 1956 work, “On parity conservation and neutrino mass”, and stated that “Paul Matthews wrote to him [Dr Salam] from the United States, ‘you’ve really hit the jackpot this time’. His friend and collaborator John Ward wrote, ‘So many congratulations and fond hopes for at least one-third of a Nobel prize’. Onethird because the prize would presumably be shared with Lee and Yang.” (Abdus Salam: A Reappraisal Part I — How to Win the Nobel Prize, p. 4) Gordon Fraser has also mentioned this episode. (Cosmic Anger, Oxford University Press, p. 225)

Though at that time only Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize, considering the above-mentioned quote, it is evident that Dr Salam was already being considered by the leading physicists to be deserving of a Nobel Prize. This point is very important and its significance shall become more evident later in this article.

Shedding light on the fact that Dr Salam’s work was independent of anything done by Glashow, Frank Close has stated:

“Glashow’s thesis, in 1958, was not public knowledge outside Cal Tech, and there is no doubt that Salam and Ward’s first foray into this area was completely independent of anything that Glashow had done. In December 1958 they submitted their paper titled ‘Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions’ to the Italian journal Il Nuovo Cimento, where it appeared in February 1959. They had been inspired by Schwinger, as had Glashow. However, they had set off in a different direction than he did.”

(The Infinity Puzzle, p. 120)

Mentioning the

contributions of Dr Salam since the late 1950s, Glashow stated during his Nobel Lecture delivered on 8 December 1979:

“Another electroweak synthesis without neutral currents was put forward by Salam and Ward in 1959,” and “in a continuation of their work in 1961, they suggested a gauge theory of strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions based on the local symmetry group SU(2) x SU(2). This was a remarkable portent of the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) model which is accepted today.” (“Towards a Unified Theory—Threads in a Tapestry”, www.nobelprize.org)

In the video, it was also claimed on the basis of The Infinity Puzzle (p. 300) that while Dr Salam published a Paper every six weeks between 1966-68, none of them was on the topic of electromagnetic and weak unification. The above-mentioned facts indicate that Dr Salam had been working on this subject, from one aspect or the other, since 1956.

Independent work

Since the video has alleged that Dr Salam’s work was not original and hence, “didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize”, it is essential to clear this misunderstanding. Even Glashow himself, in his Nobel Lecture, stated:

“We come to my own work done in Copenhagen in 1960 [published in 1961], and done independently by Salam and Ward. We finally saw that a gauge group larger than SU(2) was necessary to describe the electroweak interactions. Salam and Ward were motivated by the compelling beauty of gauge theory.” (“Towards a Unified Theory—Threads in a Tapestry”, www.nobelprize.org)

It makes it crystal clear that Dr Salam’s work in 1964 was independent and original, opposite to what has been asserted in the video.

According to Weinberg as well, it was an “independent 1964 work of Salam and Ward,” and he stated that “the four of us

had independently come to the same SU (2) x U (1) group structure.” (50 Years of Yang-Mills Theory, Ed. Gerardus ‘t Hooft, pp. 106-107)

Here, “four of us” means Dr Salam, Glashow, Ward and Weinberg.

In his Nobel Lecture as well, Weinberg stated that “The naturalness of the whole theory is well demonstrated by the fact that much the same theory was independently developed by Salam in 1968.” (“Conceptual Foundations of the Unified Theory of Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions”, www. nobelprize.org)

In addition to the 1964 Paper of Dr Salam, the critic has also attempted to cast doubts on Dr Salam’s 1967 work as well. Hence, it will seem important to quote Peter Woit who has mentioned the problems in Glashow’s model and the subsequent independent works by Dr Salam and Weinberg, in the following words:

“One more idea was needed to fix the gauge symmetry problems of the Glashow model and make it consistent. What was needed is something that has come to be known as a Higgs field.” After mentioning the subsequent work of Weinberg, he continues: “The same idea was independently found by Abdus Salam, and this kind of unified model of electro-weak interactions is now known variously as the Weinberg-Salam or Glashow-WeinbergSalam model. [...] It was this idea [Higgs mechanism] that Weinberg and Salam used in 1967 to turn Glashow’s earlier model into the one that would be the basis of the electro-weak part of the standard model.” He mentions a very important point that Glashow’s “early version of the electroweak theory was incomplete (unlike the later Weinberg-Salam model) because it lacked something like the Higgs to break the gauge symmetry.” (“Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics”, Jonathan Cape London, pp. 78, 83, and 100)

Kibble has narrated about “the history of the development of the unified electroweak theory” as he saw it from his “standpoint as a member of Abdus Salam’s group at Imperial College”, and stated:

“In 1964, Salam and his long-term collaborator John Ward, apparently unaware of Glashow’s work, proposed a very similar model also based on SU(2)×U(1).” (“History of electroweak symmetry breaking”, https://arxiv.org)

S. Gasiorowicz (American theoretical physicist) and P. Langacker (Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania) have also stated, “S. Weinberg (1967) and independently A. Salam (1968) proposed an extremely ingenious theory unifying the weak and electromagnetic interactions.” (“Elementary Particles in Physics”, www. physics.upenn.edu)

No documentary evidence?

In the video, Norman Dombey has been cited to support the notion that there is no documentary evidence of the 1967 lectures at the Imperial College. However, the fact is that Dr Salam “gave a series of lectures on the complete electroweak theory in the autumn of 1967, but did not publish until the spring of 1968 in the Proceedings of a Nobel Symposium.” (“Professor Abdus Salam (1926-1996), Nobel Prize in Physics 1979”, www.imperial.ac.uk)

Let’s see what Frank Close has to say about this. He goes into sufficient detail about these lectures to refute this allegation:

“Salam’s priority for discovering this golden path, independent of Weinberg, who published his theory in November 1967, is that he had already given some lectures at Imperial College during 1967, in which he outlined his ideas on spontaneous symmetry breaking. These lectures, which, as we shall see, probably occurred in October 1967, collectively form the germ of what became known in the 1970s as the Weinberg-Salam model. [...]

“Chris Isham, who became one of Salam’s research collaborators, recalled having heard ‘some lectures on electroweak theory just after the end of my first year,’ which is consistent with the autumn of 1967. The only detailed memory comes from Bob Delbourgo, who was a research collaborator of Salam and is today emeritus

professor in Tasmania.

“During Kibble’s absence, Delbourgo took responsibility for organizing the seminars. Abdus Salam liked to talk about his pet projects, and Delbourgo told me that Salam wanted to give a series of lectures about his recent work on the spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in gauge theories. Delbourgo recalls, ‘To the best of my recollection I organized some three talks on Tuesday afternoons where he explained his now famous work.’ Unfortunately, Delbourgo took no notes and knows of no one else who did: ‘It all seemed so esoteric at the time.’

“‘Soon after this,’ Delbourgo told me, he was in the physics departmental library and saw Weinberg’s article in Physical Review Letters, which Delbourgo thought ‘looked suspiciously like what Salam had recounted to us.’ He mentioned this to Salam, who ‘looked really chagrined and worried. So I urged him to write up his work as soon as possible, as it was done independently and at roughly the same time as Weinberg’s. Salam mentioned that there was to be a Nobel Symposium, and that this would provide a vehicle for rapid publication of his own work.’ [...]

“There is no doubt that some lectures by Salam took place, though it is less clear whether more than a handful of people were present. Delbourgo’s testimony is confident even after four decades; he played a seminal role in the events, which are burned in his memory. The only written record that I have found is a letter, which was sent in 1976 to Ivar Waller, of the Nobel Committee for Physics.” (The Infinity Puzzle, pp. 298-299)

He further mentions that Paul Matthews wrote to Waller, “confirming that he had attended ‘the course of postgraduate lectures … during the autumn term of 1967 at which [Salam] described the unified gauge theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions using the recent work of Kibble… At the time these lectures were delivered, Weinberg’s work had not appeared.’” (Ibid., p. 301)

Mentioning the unified gauge theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions proposed by Weinberg and Dr Salam, Kibble states:

it. This is an excellent occasion to set the record straight and recount my view of its history; if nothing else to refute innuendos which have occasionally surfaced during the 1970s that Salam was not deserving of the Nobel Prize. That autumn of 1967 I had been in charge of organizing the seminars at IC. Because Salam was constantly on the move and hardly spent more than one month at a stretch in London, I arranged with him to give a couple of lectures on his recent research (in October, to the best of my recollection) during his spell at IC to kick off the seminar season, as it was early in the academic year. He agreed to do so even though the audience attending those talks was somewhat thin. Paul Matthews was certainly present, but Tom Kibble was away in sabbatical in the USA. My memory of his lectures is a bit indistinct nowadays, but I do remember that he kept on invoking these k-meson tadpoles which disappeared into the vacuum which induced the spontaneous breaking of the gauge symmetry: what we now know as the expectation value of the Higgs boson.”

He further states:

“A week or so later, I wandered into the Physics Library and came across Steven Weinberg’s Physical Review Letter, which I noticed looked suspiciously like Salam’s attempt. I showed the article to Salam, who was rather troubled that it was almost the same as his own research, but which was of course entirely independent. Matthews and I urged him to publish his work at the earliest opportunity and this happened to be the upcoming Nobel Symposium. As they say, ‘the rest is history.’ I hope that this account of the events at the time scotches all aspersions that Salam should not have been a prize recipient.” (Memorial Volume on Abdus Salam’s 90th Birthday, Ed. Lars Brink, Michael Duff, Kok Khoo Phua p. 13)

Peter Woit has also mentioned this account from Delbourgo in his blog, dated 2 August 2022. (Not Even Wrong: “Glashow Interview”, www.math.columbia.edu)

“Essentially, the same model was presented independently by Salam in lectures he gave at Imperial College in the autumn of 1967—he called it the electroweak theory. (I was not present because I was in the United States, but I have had accounts from others who were.) Salam did not publish his ideas until the following year, when he spoke at a Nobel Symposium, largely perhaps because his attention was concentrated on the development in its crucial early years of his International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste.”

(“History of electroweak symmetry breaking”, https://arxiv.org)

Though the video acknowledges the accounts of Robert Delbourgo and Paul Matthews, it attempts to undermine those testimonies. Robert Delbourgo’s detailed account is as follows:

“I have been asked by the organizers to comment upon the birth of the standard model during 1967 and Salam’s prominent role in

Even Dr Salam himself, as acknowledged in the video, made it clear at the 1968 Nobel Symposium that “The material I shall present today, incorporating some ideas of Higgs & Kibble, was given in lectures (unpublished) at Imperial College.” (“Elementary Particle Theory—Proceedings of the Eighth Nobel Symposium held May 19-25, 1968...”, p. 367)

The video quotes Norman Dombey again, where he states, “The proceedings of the Nobel Symposium [of 1968] were published as an expensive monograph with circulation limited to a few specialist libraries. Hardly any of the more than 1500 of physicists who have cited Salam 1968 in their papers have read the paper.” (Abdus Salam: A Reappraisal Part I — How to Win the Nobel Prize, p. 9)

Here, too, Dombey has made nothing more than a pure assumption, yet he is presented as a witness in the video.

As far as the significance of Dr Salam’s work in 1967 is concerned, the following passage would be enough:

“In the years 1961-64, a lively debate developed about whether the Goldstone theorem could be evaded. P.W. Anderson, using an analogy with the superconductor, pointed out that the Goldstone (plasmon) mode becomes massive due to the gauge field

Where is Muslim unity in the ICJ Palestine case?

Daniyal Kahlon UK

When South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, people might have thought that all, if not most, Muslim countries, out of empathy for their Palestinian brethren, would join South Africa. After all, the plight of the Palestinians is a matter of pain to all Muslims, as the Prophet Muhammadsa is reported to have said:

Muslims are like one body of a person; if the eye is sore, the whole body aches, and if the headaches, the whole body aches. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-birri wa s-silati wal l-adaab, Bab tarahumi l-muminina wa t-ta‘atufihim wa ta’adhudihim, Hadith 2586d) Unfortunately, so far, most Muslim countries have not formally joined the case against Israel. The countries that have either joined, submitted a formal request to join, or expressed their desire to join, include Mexico, Chile, Ireland, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Libya. Out of all of these countries, Nicaragua, a Christian-majority country in Central America, led by example and was the first to join.

Turkey, a country with a Muslimmajority population, has also expressed its desire to join the case against Israel. However, it would be interesting to note

<< Continued from previous page

interactions whereas the electromagnetic modes are also massive due to the Meissner effect, despite gauge invariance. However, Anderson had not explicitly given a proof of the evasion of the Goldstone theorem in a relativistic theory. This proof was provided in subsequent theoretical developments pioneered by Peter Higgs, and independently by F. Englert and R. Brout. They also proposed a mechanism by which local symmetries could be broken spontaneously without introducing Goldstone bosons. That this was a way to give masses to the gauge bosons and fermions without introducing explicit mass terms in the Lagrangian was immediately sensed by Salam, and independently by Steven Weinberg. So, all the ingredients mentioned earlier, namely local gauge theory, γ5-symmetry (leading to chiral fermions), and renormalizability, on which Salam had worked for years, were there. In 1967/68, these developments culminated in the famous papers of Weinberg and Salam resulting in the electroweak unification (a name coined by Salam), based on the

that although the majority of the population of Turkey is Muslim, the country itself has been a secular republic, since an amendment to its constitution in 1928, during the era of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

The newest country to express that it would join South Africa is Spain – another Christian-majority country, with Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Albares, commenting: “We made this decision in light of the continuation of the military operation in Gaza.” (“Spain says to join South Africa’s Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ”, www.aljazeera.com)

The countries that have joined (or want to join) South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ have shown great courage and humanity in standing up against the oppressors. Ironically, these countries, despite most of them being non-Muslim countries, have done the Islamic thing by joining together. The basis for this can be found in a verse of the Holy Quran:

justly. Verily, Allah loves the just.” (Surah alHujurat, Ch.49: V.10)

“And if two parties of believers fight [against each other], make peace between them; then if [after] that one of them transgresses against the other, fight the party that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah. Then if it returns, make peace between them with equity, and act

SU(2)×U(1) group with spontaneous symmetry breaking. This was a crucial step in the construction of a viable theory of weak interactions, made possible by the imaginative strokes of genius of Higgs, Salam and Weinberg.” (Selected Papers of Abdus Salam (With Commentary), Ed. T Kibble, C Isham, Riazuddin, A Ali, World Scientific Series in 20th Century Physics, Vol. 5, p. 150)

In addition to asserting that Dr Salam “copied” Glashow’s 1961 Paper, the critic gave another false impression that Dr Salam did not have any significant work in the following years too that could be deemed deserving of a Nobel Prize. Hence, it becomes essential to present some crucial points from Glashow’s Nobel Lecture of 1979, wherein he narrated the timeline of the whole story, as in what was accomplished when and by whom, and highlighted the crucial role of Dr Abdus Salam at several junctures during the post-1964 era. For instance, he stated:

“It soon became clear that a more farreaching analogy might exist between electromagnetism and the other forces.

This verse clearly speaks about two ‘believing’ parties – i.e., Muslims – and the commandment requires us to either make peace between them or fight the transgressing party. If this is how we should deal with our own Muslim brethren in such a situation, then would it not make sense to apply this to the current situation, where our Muslim brethren in Palestine are suffering at the hands of their oppressors, regardless of whether they are Muslim or not?

Joining South Africa in their case at the ICJ would not just be legal, but also a moral and Islamic act for Muslim countries. It would be in line with the following teachings

They, too, might emerge from a gauge principle. A bit of a problem arises at this point. All gauge mesons must be massless, yet the photon is the only massless meson. How do the other gauge bosons get their masses? There was no good answer to this question until the work of Weinberg and Salam [1967-68] as proven by ‘t Hooft (for spontaneously broken gauge theories) [1971-72] and of Gross, Wilczek, and Politzer (for unbroken gauge theories) [1973]. Until this work was done, gauge meson masses had simply to be put in ad hoc.”

He further said:

“Both Salam and Weinberg had had considerable experience in formal field theory, and they had both collaborated with Goldstone on spontaneous symmetry breaking. In retrospect, it is not so surprising that it was they who first used the key. Their SU (2)XU (1) gauge symmetry was spontaneously broken. The masses of the W and Z and the nature of neutral current effects depend on a single measurable parameter, not two as in my un-renormalizable model. The strength of

of the Prophet Muhammadsa:

“He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, [even] then he should [abhor it] from his heart, and that is the least of faith.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-iman, Bab bayani kawni n-nahyi ‘ani l-munkari mina l-imani wa anna l-imana yazidu wa yanqusu wa anna l-amra bi l-ma‘rufi wa n-nahya ‘ani l-munkari wajiban, Hadith 49a)

the neutral currents was correctly predicted. The daring Weinberg-Salam conjecture of renormalizability was proven in 1971. Neutral currents were discovered in 1973, but not until 1978 was it clear that they had just the predicted properties.” (“Towards a Unified Theory—Threads in a Tapestry”, www.nobelprize.org)

ICTP, nominations and letters

It has already been mentioned in the beginning that prominent physicists considered Dr Salam’s work deserving to be awarded the Nobel Prize even in 1957, but the video asserts that Dr Salam compelled some physicists to approach other leading physicists in order to be nominated for the Nobel Prize. As an argument, the critic states that “the Nobel Committee does not go into the depth as to how good the work is,” and “normally they trust the other physicists or people of that field” who recommend a certain individual to be awarded. He asserts that “Dr Salam was

safary248

trying to somehow associate himself with the prominent individuals [of his field].”

The video claims that in the 1970s, Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac continuously nominated Dr Abdus Salam for the Nobel Prize due to Dr Salam’s involvement with the ICTP (The Abdus Salam International Centre of Theoretical Physics), which Dirac had a standing invitation to visit, with expenses paid. Strangely, the critic politicised the ICTP’s establishment, asserting it was linked to the Italy-Yugoslavia conflict over Trieste, and portrays Dr Salam as using his influence to compel nominations, citing Norman Dombey’s work as proof. However, there is no evidence that Dr Salam had any vested interest in the ICTP’s establishment.

The critic also mentions that Ivar Waller, member of the Nobel Committee from 1945-1972, would also visit the ICTP every summer. He seems to be portraying the ICTP as a means for Dr Salam to fraternise with important physics dignitaries.

Regarding the objection that Dr Salam misused the ICTP, the following account of Miguel Ángel Virasoro – himself a theoretical physicist and former director of the ICTP (1995-2002) – is worth a read, wherein a refutation has been given to those who show prejudice against Dr Salam.

He states that Dr Salam’s approach, “at every crossroad” was “to think which way would be the right one to reach the high goals he had imposed on himself,” and “his actions were always transparent, his goals always explicit and he has worked unrelentingly for the benefit of others.

“A typical discourse that exposes those prejudices in a clear articulated way but that ends with misleading, wrong conclusions is presented by N. Dombey in an article called ‘Abdus Salam: a reappraisal’. I am not judging here the author but I want to expose how his reasoning, which may convince those who prefer a rule-abiding, neutral, unengaged individual, reveal serious limitations and lead to definitely wrong misleading conclusions.

“His basic criticism is that Abdus Salam took advantage of the ICTP infrastructure to promote his candidacy to the Nobel Prize disregarding the goals of the ICTP. [...]

“[I]t is a fact, well accounted in all records of the Centre and in particular by A-M Hamende’s contribution included in the same document cited by Dombey that Salam’s Nobel prize had the following effects:

“‘The Nobel Prize to Abdus Salam is definitely the milestone in the history of the ICTP. … For the Centre, it meant a first leap in the financing of its programmes. … From 1970 to 1979, the increase in financial resources came mainly from the IAEA and UNESCO and allowed for an increase of activities (expressed in person × month) of about 3.5% every year. After the Nobel Prize until 1984, the average annual growth rate jumped to 9% thanks to increased contributions of the IAEA and the Italian Government. In 1987, the Italian Government became by far the biggest sponsor of the ICTP.’

“Furthermore Salam didn’t sit idly on the Nobel Prize. On the contrary he took it as a new opportunity to address the governments of Third World Countries to argue about importance of science

for development. He took the road and visited: in 1979 Mexico; in 1980 Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Argentina and Venezuela; in 1981 India, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and Jordan; in 1984 Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Ethiopia, Malawi and Zaire; in 1986 Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, in 1987 Senegal, Niger, Mali.” (Memorial Volume on Abdus Salam’s 90th Birthday, Ed. Lars Brink, Michael Duff, Kok Khoo Phua pp. 128-130)

The point that must be kept in mind is that the “hours spent in administrative work obviously took away from research.

Steven Weinberg, who shared the Nobel Prize with Salam, remarked at the amount of time he devoted to the ICTP ‘at the cost of physics.’ ‘I don’t know that I would be able to do that,’ Weinberg said, but for Salam the matter went beyond choice.” (Ibid., p. 517)

As far as the letters are concerned, Dr Salam’s biographer, Gordon Fraser has stated, “On several occasions, Paul Dirac, as a Nobel laureate, had put Salam’s name forward to Stockholm. So had Bethe. Momentum built up after the key discovery of the neutral current in 1973. Salam’s colleague Paul Matthews wrote to Stockholm to explain how Salam had lectured on the unification idea at Imperial College in 1967, prior to its publication in the obscure proceedings of the Nobel Symposium.” (Cosmic Anger, Oxford University Press, pp. 225-226)

Kibble was among those who nominated Dr Salam for the Nobel Prize. Mentioning about what he had argued in that nomination, Frank Close stated:

“One of those who nominated Salam for the 1979 prize was Tom Kibble. In eight pages his nomination provides an elegant summary of the state of physics, recalling Salam’s breadth of contributions and identifying various aspects of Salam’s work on the weak interaction—spontaneous symmetry breaking, electroweak unity, gauge invariance—where although several had contributed, only Salam ‘played a leading role in every stage in this success story.’” (The Infinity Puzzle, p. 308)

Paul Dirac would receive invitation letters from the Nobel Committee to nominate the potential physicist for the award, for instance, Dirac received letters from the Committee, asking him to make nominations for the 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978 award. Hence, we find his handwritten letter of 1975, to the Nobel Committee— sent in 1978 as well—wherein he highlighted the 1956-57 works of Dr Abdus Salam. Mentioning Dr Salam’s contribution to the development of the particle physics, he stated:

“Most of the people who have made outstanding contributions to this development have already received the Nobel Prize, but an important exception is a Salam, who put into order our ideas about neutrinos and weak interactions.

“Salam was the first to realize the necessity for a two-component wave function for the neutrino and the principle for γ5 symmetry in neutrino interactions. He came to these ideas from theoretical arguments and they were subsequently confirmed by experiment. Other physicists, namely Landau and Yang and Lee, (all Nobel laureates) came to the same conclusion independently, but some months later than

Salam. [...]

“Salam’s ideas have stood the test of time and are now incorporated into the accepted basis of Physics.

“Salam’s work was pioneering and surprising (he had to push against strong opposition of Pauli). [...] I feel strongly that it should be awarded with a Nobel Prize.” (The Florida State University Digital Library, https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu)

These are the words of that person who is, according to Frank Close, “one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the [20th] century.” (The Infinity Puzzle, p. 20)

Dr Salam’s 1957 paper “was cited in nominations that he be awarded a Nobel Prize — on the grounds that his theory had preceded the definitive experiments proving parity violation, and that Lee and Yang ‘had not proposed a theory of parity violation, nor attempted to link it to any deep principle of physics.’” (Ibid., p. 296)

The video then quotes Norman, where he states, “Spurred by Ward’s and Matthews’ letters, Salam now could turn his attention to his prime goal. On the wall of his office in Trieste he put the Persian prayer ‘O Lord, work a miracle!’ And he set to work hard to make it happen using ICTP’s resources: the miracle he wished for was the Nobel Prize in Physics.” (Abdus Salam: A Reappraisal Part I — How to Win the Nobel Prize, p. 7)

Whether or not this miracle meant the Nobel Prize, there is no wrong in praying for achieving a distinction or even a welldeserving award.

The fact is that Dr Salam had accomplished many milestones that were deserving of a Nobel, as Frank Close notes that Murray Gell-Mann, Physics Nobel laureate in 1969, “judged Salam and Ward together to have made many very important contributions to particle physics, worthy of consideration for a Nobel Prize.” Gell-Mann “added that if he had been awarding a prize to Salam, he would have done so for a set of things, which included the weak interaction rather than just for that alone.” Close says,

“Gell-Mann’s assessment mirrored Kibble’s nomination of Salam: A prize for Salam could be awarded for a set of things.” (The Infinity Puzzle, p. 310)

Furthermore, Close writes that “following an article by Weinberg in Scientific American in 1974”, “[i]n a letter to that journal, Ward objected to Weinberg’s having described Salam’s 1968 talk as occurring “later” than Weinberg’s own contribution. In Ward’s perspective, Salam’s 1968 talk was reporting on work done with him, which had occurred ‘several years earlier’ in 1964.’” (Ibid.)

The Nobel Prize

Coming to the Nobel Prize, the official press release from the institution, dated 15 October 1979, announced that Dr Salam, Glashow and Weinberg were being awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize “for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, including inter alia the prediction of the weak neutral current.”

It further states:

“In a series of separate works in the 1960s this year’s Nobel Prize winners, Glashow, Salam and Weinberg, developed a theory which is applicable also at higher energies, and which at the same time unifies the weak and electromagnetic interactions in a common formalism. Glashow, Salam and Weinberg started from earlier contributions by other scientists.” (www.nobelprize.org)

On the official website of this institution, we find the following words that acknowledge Dr Salam’s contribution to Physics:

“According to modern physics, four fundamental forces exist in nature. Electromagnetic interaction is one of these. The weak interaction—responsible, for example, for the beta decay of nuclei—is another. Thanks to contributions made by Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow, and

Dr Abdus Salam | Dr Abdus Salam musalmano ka Newton

Steven Weinberg in 1968, these two interactions were unified to one single, called electroweak. The theory predicted, for example, that weak interaction manifests itself in ‘neutral weak currents’ when certain elementary particles interact. This was later confirmed.” (“Abdus Salam—Facts”, Ibid.)

The same AIP (American Institute of Physics) from which the interview of Glashow has been cited, states:

“Abdus Salam won the Nobel Prize, along with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, for electroweak theory. [...] Salam realized that at high temperatures, the electromagnetic and weak nuclear force were the same. He showed that the two forces were components of one unified force, the electroweak force.” (“The Heritage of All Mankind—Abdus Salam and the Four Fundamental Forces”, www.aip.org)

Highlighting another important point, the same platform states:

“Abdus Salam donated all of his prize money to fund scholarships for physicists in countries underrepresented in the international physics community.”

(“Biography of Abdus Salam—The Heritage of All Mankind”, Ibid.)

The critic has asserted that Dr Salam misused his influence at the ICTP to get the Nobel Prize, however, the above testimony highlights the fact that once he won the award, he donated his prize money for the further development of physics in Third World countries.

Another article on this platform states that “the story of Dr Abdus Salam is one of the most complex stories in the history of physics. Nevertheless, several things are quite clear in his life: he was deeply committed to his Ahmadi Muslim faith, he was dedicated to advancing physics in countries underrepresented in the global physics community, and his contributions to physics were groundbreaking.”

(“Breaking the Barrier: Dr Abdus Salam”, Maria Stoke, Ibid.)

One ought to understand that it was not only one distinct Paper contribution that was given the Nobel Prize, but rather, it was the decades of contributions of all three scientists.

Conclusion

In short, Dr Salam’s works were original and independent. He played a crucial role in the development of particle physics and there can be no doubt that he indeed deserved the Nobel Prize. Moreover, it is evident that scientific theories and ideas evolve with time and include the efforts of many, and this is what must be considered before crafting any conspiracy theories.

As far as the importance of his works in the field of particle physics is concerned, the following words from Abigail Beall –a freelance science journalist who has a master’s degree in Science Journalism –would be enough to summarise:

“In 1979, Pakistani scientist Abdus Salam won the Nobel Prize for physics. His life’s work was key to defining a theory of particle physics still used today, and it laid the groundwork for the 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson – the particle responsible for giving all other particles mass.” (“Abdus Salam: The Muslim science genius forgotten by history”, 15 October 2019, www.bbc.com)

Responding to allegations

A

Why did Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas not perform Hajj?

series looking into the allegations raised against Hazrat Ahmad’sas personality, writings, revelations, and prophecies, along with the answers he has provided

Awwab Saad Hayat Al Hakam

Opponents of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat raise a question as to why the Hazrat Ahmadas did not perform Hajj. Let it be known that this allegation is not new; rather, it was raised during the lifetime of the Promised Messiahas. In response to this allegation, the Promised Messiahas said:

“These people raise this objection out of mischief. The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, lived in Medina for ten years. It was only a twoday journey between Medina and Mecca, but the Holy Prophetsa did not perform any

Khilafat Day commemorated in Trinidad and Tobago

Adila Yacoob

Trinidad & Tobago

On 26 May 2024, Jalsa Yaum-e-Khilafat was held at the Baitul Azeez Mosque in Valencia, Trinidad.

The event began with a recitation from the Holy Quran with its translation, followed by a poem and a presentation. A speech was delivered by Noor Sahib, the local missionary of Valencia. The concluding address was given by Amir Jamaat, Ibrahim Bin Yaqub Sahib.

On 29 May, a Jalsa was also held in Freeport, at the Nasir Mosque, which was attended by 26 members. The event began with a recitation from the Holy Quran with its translation, followed by a presentation on the topic of Khilafat. This was then followed by some short videos from the MTA programme Inside Ahmadiyya. A mu‘allim, Nasir Yacoob Sahib, spoke on the significance of Khilafat Day.

Hajj for ten years, even though he could have arranged for transport, etc. However, the condition for Hajj is not only sufficient wealth, but it is also essential that there is no danger of mischief and that there are means available to reach there in peace to perform the Hajj. When barbaric-natured clerics are issuing edicts of death here and do not fear the government, then what else could they not do there? But what interest do these people have if we do not perform Hajj? If, for instance, I do perform Hajj, then will they consider me a Muslim? And will they join our Jamaat?

“Firstly, these Muslim scholars should write a declaration that if I perform Hajj,

then all of them will repent at my hand, enter my Jamaat and become my followers. If they do so and take a solemn oath, then I will perform Hajj. Allah the Almighty will arrange means of convenience for me, so that the discord emanating from the maulvis comes to an end in the future. It is not proper to object mischievously. Otherwise, this objection of theirs would not only fall on us but on the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, as well, because he only performed Hajj in his final year.” (Malfuzat [1984], Vol. 9, pp. 324-325)

A pivotal moment for two key democracies Opinion

The 2024 European Parliament elections (Thursday, 6 June – Sunday, 9 June 2024) and the Indian general election (Friday, 19 April – Saturday, 1 June 2024) represent pivotal moments that have the potential to shape the trajectories of two of the world’s largest democracies on critical issues of freedom of speech, religion, human rights, and the treatment of refugees and immigrants. These elections come at a time of rising geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty.

In Europe, the expected gains by farright populist parties hostile to immigration and EU integration pose a serious threat to minority rights, democratic norms and the rule of law. A potential far-right majority in the next European Parliament could undermine the EU’s ability to sanction member states like Hungary, where civil liberties are eroding. Progressive forces will need to articulate a compelling vision of pluralism and shared prosperity to stem the nationalist tide and defend an open, tolerant Europe.

The rise of far-right nationalism is likely to further jeopardise the rights and status of the EU’s 26 million refugees and immigrants. Parties like France’s National Rally and Italy’s Brothers of Italy have campaigned on rolling back asylum protections and imposing draconian antiimmigrant laws. A populist right coalition in the European Parliament would seek to push the European Commission to allow member states more discretion to limit refugee intake and asylum obligations.

Interestingly, the donor nations of the

EU, such as Germany and France, were never under Ottoman rule, suggesting their animosity towards Muslims may be rooted more in nationalism than religion. While European nationalism surges, religious values are on the wane. The EU’s founding economic principles were based on the belief that economic interdependence prevents war. However, as Western powers’ appetite for promoting social reforms in weaker member states diminishes, intolerance and extremism are likely to rise among fiercely nationalistic nations, as exemplified by Marine Le Pen in France and the AfD in Germany.

Meanwhile, although the BJP is expected to win re-election in India, the opposition has made the government’s record on civil liberties and the treatment of minorities a major campaign issue. Critics accuse the Modi government of enabling discrimination and attacks against Muslims and other minorities, suppressing dissent, and eroding institutional checks and balances – charges the BJP denies. While the BJP’s Hindu nationalist rhetoric plays well with its base, its policies have raised concerns about the status of India’s 200 million Muslims and other minorities.

However, the BJP and Congress are not cut from the same cloth. Congress champions a secular nationalism, while the BJP’s brand is deeply intertwined with religious affiliation. Since assuming power, the BJP has skillfully conflated nationalism with Hinduism, suggesting that true patriots must be Hindu. (“The BJP in Power: Indian Democracy and Religious Nationalism”, carnegieendowment.org)

But despite heated campaign rhetoric, the actual differences between the BJP and Congress on minority rights may be

more modest than suggested. India’s next government will have to manage majorityminority relations carefully as it confronts economic challenges. As the Holy Quran reminds us, “O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female; and We have made you into tribes and sub-tribes that you may recognise one another.” (Surah alHujurat, Ch.49: V.14) In an interconnected world, retreating into narrow nationalism is not a viable path forward.

Ultimately, both elections reflect the fragility of pluralism and minority rights amid the global democratic recession. The EU faces a fundamental conflict between its liberal democratic values and the illiberal, nativist forces ascendant in many member states. Majoritarian politics is testing India’s syncretic traditions.

How the EU and India balance these competing pressures and whether they can chart a course of inclusion, openness and respect for diversity will have profound implications for the future of democracy

Third National Peace Symposium held in Georgia

Haroon Ahmad Ata Missionary, Georgia

Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya Georgia hosted its 3rd National Peace Symposium in Tbilisi, Georgia, on 19 May 2024. The theme of this year’s symposium was “Voices for Peace –Building a Sustainable Peace.”

The speakers included Mrs Mariam Gavtadze (Board of Directors of the Tolerance & Diversity Institute), Mr Beka

Mindiashvili (Head of the Tolerance Centre), Mr Malkhaz Songhulashvili (Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia) and Mr Rolf Bareis (Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Georgia).

The event began with a recitation from the Holy Quran with its English and Georgian translations, followed by an introduction to the Jamaat’s contribution to peace.

After the speech of Mr Malkhaz

Songhulashvili, the President and Missionary of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya Georgia, Jawad Ahmed Butt Sahib, delivered a speech. In addition, the guests were shown a video of the worldwide peace efforts of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa

In the end, the audience was also given the opportunity to give feedback or comment on the question of how to contribute to world peace. The viewers also gave positive comments on this and on the

in a world increasingly defined by identitybased polarisation. As the Holy Quran states, “Surely, Allah changes not the condition of a people until they change that which is in their hearts. And when Allah wishes to punish a people, there is no repelling it, nor have they any helper beside Him.” (Surah arRa‘d, Ch.13: V.12)

The 2024 elections will test whether the two largest democracies on the planet, Europe and India, can protect the basic rights and freedoms of all their citizens, including refugees and immigrants, and resist the siren song of xenophobic populism. The crucial difference lies in the role of religion: while European nationalism is largely secular, the BJP has skillfully fused Indian national identity with Hinduism. Progressive forces in both polities must articulate a compelling vision of shared prosperity, pluralism, and international cooperation to stem the nationalist tide. The future of democracy hangs in the balance.

organisation of the event in general. Each audience member also received a gift: the Georgian translation of the keynote address by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa at the 2024 National Peace Symposium UK.

A total of 65 guests participated in the symposium. The event hosted an Islam Exhibition with information on various topics regarding the teachings of Islam. The symposium ended with a silent prayer, followed by a dinner.

Fazal Masood Malik & Farhan Khokhar Canada

Image courtesy of AMJ Georgia

Image: Library

Understanding shirk, and the significance of the Black Stone in Islam

Ariyo Fadlul-Hakeem Ahmad Jamia Ahmadiyya International, Ghana

Shirk involves the belief of associating any partner or partners with God Almighty. The Holy Quran emphatically addresses this, stating:

“Surely, Allah will not forgive that a partner be associated with Him; but He will forgive whatever is short of that to whomsoever He pleases. And whoso associates partners with Allah has indeed devised a very great sin.” (Surah an-Nisa’, Ch.4: V.49)

Shirk can manifest in various forms. The Promised Messiahas elucidates on this, stating:

“Associating others with God takes many forms and is called shirk. There is the obvious shirk in which Hindus, Christians, Jews and other idol worshippers indulge, in which a man or stone or lifeless things or faculties or fictitious deities are worshipped as God.” (Malfuzat, Vol. 3, pp. 79-82, as quoted in Essence of Islam, Vol. I, 2007, p. 172)

This makes it abundantly clear that shirk is strictly prohibited and condemned within Islam and has no place in its teachings. However, we still see some people raising allegations against the religion of Islam regarding the Black Stone.

The Black Stone

The black stone, commonly known as alhajar al-aswad, is a stone embedded in the eastern corner of the Holy Ka‘bah, and is believed to be one of the stones showered from space and used when Prophet Abrahamas built the Holy Ka‘bah. When the walls of the Ka‘bah were raised to a certain height, Abrahamas placed a distinctive stone at one corner to indicate where people should begin their circumambulation (tawaf) of the house of Allah. (The Life & Character of the Seal of Prophetssa – Vol. I, p. 101)

Clarifying a misconception

A common misconception challenges the actions of Muslims in relation to the Black Stone during Hajj, posing the question: if major religions condemn idol worship, why isn’t the “veneration” of the Black Stone seen as such?

This misunderstanding arises from observing Muslims who travel to Mecca and strive to see or touch the Black Stone, suggesting parallels to idolatry. However,

this comparison is fundamentally flawed. The Islamic faith, as dictated by the Holy Quran, expressly prohibits all forms of shirk. Muslims firmly believe in tawhid, the Oneness of God, and directing any form of worship, supplication, or hope for benefit towards anything other than Allah is considered a grave sin. The rituals involving the Black Stone are not about worshipping the stone itself; rather, they are a symbolic emulation of the actions of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa, demonstrating love and respect for his traditions. They are outward expressions of reverence towards God and a symbolic connection to the Prophet Abraham and the origins of Islam. Moreover, pilgrims are not obligated to kiss or touch the Black Stone as a prerequisite of Hajj, indicating that its role is symbolic rather than divine. Above all, Muslims do not attribute any divine powers to the Black Stone; unlike those who engage in idol worship, Muslims believe that Allah alone possesses all power and authority, and no object, person, or entity can grant blessings or inflict harm independently. Thus, it is not believed to confer benefits or cause harm.

It was narrated by Hazrat Umarra, a close companion of the Prophetsa that upon seeing the Black Stone, he remarked:

“You are just a stone that can neither cause harm nor bring benefit; were it not that I saw Allah’s Messengersa kissing you, I would not have kissed you.” (Sunan anNasa’i, Kitab manasiki l-hajj, Hadith 2938)

This statement underscores the symbolic significance of the Black Stone in Islamic practice. It is essential to recall that when the Holy Prophetsa returned to Mecca, he cleansed the Ka‘bah of the idols that had been placed there, re-establishing the pure monotheistic worship of Allah. The act of kissing the stone does not imply that it possesses any divine power but rather is a gesture of respect and emulation of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa, signifying a spiritual connection with the Prophet’ssa actions and his devotion to Allah. He expressed his reverence for the Ka‘bah upon his return to Mecca after a long absence by touching and kissing the stone, demonstrating his emotional connection to this sacred site. The above hadith clearly illustrates that the significance of the Black Stone is rooted in tradition and symbolism, rather than any supernatural attributes.

According to the teachings of Islam, only Allah possesses divine attributes, embodying perfection in every sense. This principle is eloquently described by the Promised Messiahas who emphasises the allencompassing power of God:

“We found the Messengersa who manifested God to us and we found the God Who created everything through His

perfect power. How majestic is His power that nothing came into being without it and nothing can continue to exist without its support? That True God of ours possesses numberless blessings, numberless powers, numberless beauties and beneficences. There is no other God beside Him.”(Nasime-Da‘wat, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 19, p. 363)

In Islam, physical actions such as kissing the Black Stone are deeply symbolic and are meant to express devotion, not idolatry. This is emphasised in the practices observed during Hajj, where pilgrims perform circumambulation (tawaf) around the Ka‘bah, a symbolic gesture echoing the actions of the prophets Abrahamas and Muhammadsa, not an act of worship towards the stone itself.

Moreover, Islam teaches that true devotion is measured by the purity of one’s intentions, as reflected in a hadith narrated by Hazrat ‘Umarra b. al-Khattab. When pilgrims kiss the Black Stone, they do so with the intention of fulfilling a sunnah of the Prophetsa, acknowledging the stone’s historical significance rather than perceiving it as a source of benefit or harm.

Hazrat ‘Umarra b. al-Khattab narrated:

“I heard Allah’s Messengersa saying, ‘The [reward of] deeds depend[s] upon the intentions.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab bad‘ al-wahy, Bab kayfa kana bad‘ al-wahy ila rasulillahisa, Hadith 1)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas eloquently articulates the profound spiritual significance of the Black Stone in the broader context of Islamic devotion:

“In the world of love, the human spirit

always circles around its lover and gives a kiss towards its threshold. Likewise, the Holy Ka‘bah is a physical manifestation for all the fervent lovers [of God]. Allah states that this is His house and the Black Stone [Hajr-e-Aswad] is the stone of His threshold. He gave this order so that a person could practically express their ardent love. Hence, pilgrims physically walk around it [the Ka‘bah] on the occasion of Hajj, in a way that they are intensely in love with Allah. They put aside their beauty, shave their head, and walk around the Ka‘bah. They kiss the Black Stone with the thought that it is the stone of the threshold of Allah.

“This physical passion creates spiritual warmth and love, and the body circles His house and kisses the threshold’s stone, and with this, the spirit circles its true lover and kisses its spiritual threshold. Similarly, the soul circulates the true Beloved and kisses His spiritual threshold.

“There is no shirk [associating partners with Allah] involved in this practice. When a friend receives a letter from a beloved friend, they kiss it as well. No Muslim worships the Holy Ka‘bah, nor do they ask anything from the Black Stone, but only considers it a model of God’s manifestation which has been established by Allah. Just as we lay prostrate on the ground and this prostration is not for the material earth, in exactly the same manner do we kiss the Black Stone, but that kiss is not for the Black Stone. A stone is merely a stone and can neither benefit anyone, nor cause any harm, but it has been bestowed from the hands of the Beloved, Who has declared it to be a manifestation of His threshold.” (Chashmae-Ma’rifat, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 23, pp. 101-102 as quoted in “The philosophy of Hajj and sacrifice in Islam”, www.alhakam. org)

Jaweria Mushtaq | Pexels

100 Years Ago...

Sowing seeds for the future: Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud announces Europe’s tour of 1924

Al Fazl, 24 June 1924

Upon receiving the invitation to the Conference of Religions, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih IIra convened Shura-e-Aam (General Shura) on 16 May 1924. After prayers, istikharah, and consultation with members of the Jamaat, Huzoorra announced his decision to visit England. This pronouncement was published in the 24 June 1924 issue of Al Fazl. Its summary is as follows:

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra said:

“Brothers! Assalamu alaikum.

“I sought your counsel on how to respond as regards the invitation to Conference of Religions expected to be held in England. I have received replies from 112 anjumans [chapters of the Jamaat in India]. Of these, around 100 support the idea that I should personally attend the conference, while 12 are against it. It appears to be divine providence that a significant majority of the jamaats are in favour of my visit.

Istikharah

“However, before making any decision, I considered it prudent to perform istikharah, [i.e., to implore God for khair so that He may grant goodness in the matter being prayed for]. More than 40 individuals were asked to perform istikharah. When consulted afterwards, roughly 18 people were against the visit, around 24 were in favour, and 2 or 3 were indecisive. Consequently, I decided it was wise enough to make arrangements for a personal visit, as in every form of consultation, those in favour of the tour were in the majority compared to those opposed. […]

Difficulties

“One of the challenges I am facing, as mentioned earlier, is my financial situation, which makes it difficult for me to take on additional burdens. Secondly, I have health concerns, and enduring such a long journey and its associated difficulties might be too much for me. It would be a waste of money if I am unable to utilise the time fully and exert maximum effort after spending such a significant amount, which is something I am reluctant to do. Thirdly, I dislike being away from Qadian for an extended period, especially in a distant and unfamiliar place. Fourthly, considering my health issues and the uncertainties of life, I feel concerned. Lastly, two of my wives are expecting, […] and the thought of my absence weighs

heavily on their hearts.

Duty to faith takes precedence

“Despite all these difficulties, I have decided that my duties to faith and nation must take precedence over my personal comfort and the wishes of my relatives. There are many things I am fully aware of but cannot express, and if you were to become aware of them, many of you would feel deep compassion and sympathy. However, I place my trust in the One God, who is

[AllPowerful]. He has not abandoned me despite my shortcomings, supporting me in every endeavour and helping me through every difficulty. […] Thus, I proclaim:

“[‘My Prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are [all] for Allah, the Lord of the worlds.’ (Surah al-An‘am, Ch.6: V.163)]

“[‘In Him I put my trust, and to Him I always turn.’ (Surah ash-Shura, Ch. 42: V. 11)]

When is the departure?

“I wish to inform our friends that, unless God Almighty manifests His Will otherwise, we will depart from Bombay [now Mumbai] on 15 July. The exact date of departure from Qadian will be communicated later.

Fulfilling the Holy Prophet’s prophecy

“During this journey, I intend to fulfil a prophecy of the Holy Prophetsa by spending a few days in Damascus. This prophecy pertains to the era of the Promised Messiah, and Prophet Ahmadas has interpreted it to mean that either he or one of his Khulafa will travel to Damascus. Although this will require altering my travel route, such opportunities are rare, and it is essential to make the most of this journey. Furthermore, it is a great blessing to demonstrate a sign of the Jamaat’s truthfulness in this manner.

Significance of Khalifa’s presence at Markaz

“I wish to draw the attention of members to an important point. Some friends have expressed their view that attending the

religious conference is imperative because we have received an invitation. Additionally, they believe that this journey could lead to the spread of Islam in Europe, with hundreds of thousands of people embracing this faith. However, I believe it is not appropriate to base their opinions and hopes on these assumptions.

“I have reiterated many times that the Khalifa is not like a visiting speaker who travels wherever there is a need to deliver a lecture. He is not a soldier who goes to fight but a commander who teaches the soldiers

to fight. It is not appropriate for him to leave the Markaz [Centre] just to attend a religious conference or deliver a lecture. This was also the practice of the Promised Messiahas and the rightly guided caliphs of the ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa

“Therefore, I am personally opposed to the view that I should leave the Markaz in response to an invitation from a religious conference. One member astutely pointed out that if another conference is held on a much bigger scale next year, will we again request our Khalifa to attend? This is a very

valid concern. Religious conferences can be held annually, and if a large number of people’s attention is sincerely turned towards faith, they can be organised on a grand scale. However, the Khalifa of the Time cannot leave their Markaz for these events, or else, it will become all the more difficult for them to maintain their presence at the Centre. […]

“From my personal experience, I know that Khilafat is an extremely demanding duty. Its responsibilities are so immense that without the grace of God Almighty, the person holding this office would not endure for long. However, as God Almighty is the Guardian of this institute, He Himself grants the necessary support for the smooth continuation of its works.

Foreign visits and duties of Khulafa

“In short, foreign visits to attend events and deliver lectures, even when invited by prestigious religious conferences, go against the duties of the Khulafa. In fact, such visits can create numerous difficulties. It is conceivable that, in the future, invitations could come from religious conferences in America, Japan, and other countries. If the Khalifa were to attend all these events, it would initiate an endless cycle. Conversely, if they did not attend, the people of those countries might perceive it as disrespect due to their extreme nationalism, which would hinder the Jamaat’s efforts in tabligh [preaching]. European nations, in particular, are highly sensitive to national pride; what we may see as trivial, they consider matters of life and death. Therefore, I oppose the idea of attending religious conferences in response to receiving an invitation and I align with those who are against the visit.

View on the outcome of the journey

“Likewise, I disagree with expecting any outof-ordinary victory as a result of such a brief journey. The people of Europe are distinct from us in every aspect, be it religion, culture, morals, or habits. The Promised Messiahas and I visited Lahore and Delhi. What extraordinary revolution occurred as a result of our few-day stays in those places? Neither thousands upon thousands of people joined the Jamaat, nor did their views change drastically. The Holy Prophetsa received delegations from various nations, but there were no immediate effects. If our own countrymen, who are similar to us in many ways, are not significantly impacted by a short visit and require continuous spiritual connection and purification, how can those who are spiritually devoid be expected to join the Jamaat in large numbers after a few days of company and a single lecture?

Unprecedented revolutions happen by God’s Will

“I do not deny that unprecedented revolutions can occur, but they do not happen because of an individual’s presence or lecture. Such changes happen with the immense support of the All-Powerful God. The Promised Messiahas stayed in Delhi, Lahore, and Ludhiana for several weeks without manifesting any significant change. However, before his journey to Jhelum for a court case, he received a revelation from God Almighty indicating he would

witness Allah’s succour during the visit. Consequently, 1100 people performed bai‘at (pledge of allegiance) during his three-day visit. Such transformations occur by the Will of Allah the Almighty, not merely through the visit of any individual, influential or otherwise. We cannot control Allah’s decree and cannot decide for ourselves that ‘This will surely be His Will, so we ought to do this work.’ Therefore, we should not base our advice on such hopes. If it is Allah’s Will to manifest a sign, the walls of disbelief will begin to crumble inevitably. Otherwise, under normal circumstances, even guiding one individual during a few weeks’ stay seems a monumental task.

A great revolution in the West

“There is no doubt that it is the Will of God Almighty to bring about a revolutionary change in the West. The Holy Prophet’ssa prophecy about the “rising of the sun from the West” is a testament to this fact. The divine vision of the Promised Messiahas, witnessing the people of Western countries joining this Jamaat, also supports this credence. Moreover, I have personally had two divine visions, which I shared long before the proposal to visit England, both affirming our future success in the West.”

Huzoorra then narrated his aforementioned two divine visions. In the second vision, someone referred to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra as “William the Conqueror.” Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud[ra] continued:

“William [1028-1087] was an ancient king who conquered England [in the 11 century AD]. […] When I narrated this vision to members of the Jamaat, Mufti [Muhammad Sadiqra] consulted an English dictionary for the meaning of ‘William.’ We found that it means ‘the one with a solid opinion,’ ‘the one with firm determinations,’ or, in other words, Ulul ‘Azm [the one with firm resolve and determination]. Thus, it would translate as Ulul ‘Azm Fateh [Conqueror with firm resolve and determination].

“These visions indicate that Allah the Almighty has decreed significant goodness for the West, and it is likely associated with one of my journeys there. I say ‘likely’ because sometimes dreams represent not just the individual but their successors as well. However, despite these visions, we cannot assert that these results will manifest immediately following this journey. Rather, it is possible that the seeds [of great victories] will be sown during the journey, with the fruits to be reaped later.

Grounding decisions in apparent realities

“In brief, while we possess absolute trust in the grace of Allah the Almighty, we must never attempt to impose our will over God’s Will and must not do shirk, because both these acts intensify His displeasure. Our decisions should be based on apparent realities, accompanied by prayers that may the Will of God Almighty not only make our decision a source of immense blessings but also help us achieve its objectives.

Journey’s objectives

“In my view, the objectives of this journey [are twofold]. First, to fulfil the divine vision of the Promised Messiahas, who saw

himself in these places, thereby manifesting that one of his successors would visit them. Second, it addresses the religious need for our Jamaat to carry out Islam’s tabligh on a global scale. Since it is our duty to bring the entire world into the fold of Islam, it is essential to establish a proper system for this task. [After its establishment], we should have sincere confidence that this system will fulfil our objective and accomplish the duty incumbent upon us. As for the grace of Allah the Almighty, it rests solely in the hands of God Almighty. Once we fulfil our duties, we can hope that His grace will descend, for this work of spreading Islam belongs to Him, not us.

“To establish such a system, it is essential for the Khalifa of the Age to personally observe the state of Western countries. The greatest challenge we face nowadays comes from Western ideologies. Islam is dominant over all other religions in its arguments. However, the tendencies and culture of the West are as contrary to Islam as night is to day – so much so that they cannot coexist. Though Europe might be ready to accept Islamic beliefs, it is not at all prepared to abandon its practices. Additionally, it seeks to eradicate Islam completely by influencing Asia and Africa to adopt its mindset. The ways and lifestyles of its people are so different from ours that making decisions about them from afar is like trying to understand the Moon while standing on Earth – perhaps even more challenging. The Moon can at least be observed through a telescope, but reforming a living nation requires understanding their inner thoughts and biases, not just their outward appearances.

Tabligh expenditures in the West

“We have already spent over 150,000 rupees on our tabligh endeavours in the West, and our annual expending is around 16 thousand rupees. […] If we wish to continue these efforts successfully and justify this expenditure before God Almighty, it is crucial for the Khalifa of the Time to personally visit these places. By understanding their challenges and consulting with diverse groups of people, the Khalifa can formulate a comprehensive scheme for all missionaries to implement. Every day that passes without such a scheme results in wasted funds. If,

after two years, we devise a scheme that is different from the current one, it would mean that around 40 thousand rupees spent in the intervening period would be wasted. While subsidiary changes are inevitable, setting the fundamentals ensures stability and prevents damage. […]

“Therefore, keeping the aforementioned needs in sight and considering the invitation to the Conference of Religions as a divine plan, I have decided to undertake this journey despite the difficulties. This is not merely to attend the Conference of Religions but to establish a permanent scheme for tabligh in the Western countries and to become acquainted with their detailed circumstances. These nations pose significant hurdles to the spread of Islam, and it is our foremost duty to overcome them. Hence, I do not see this religious conference as the sole purpose of my visit, nor do I intend to go just for the sake of it. I believe God Almighty has reminded us of our duty through this invitation.

Great sacrifices for significant achievements

“Members of the Jamaat should remember that significant achievements require great sacrifices. Religions confined to a single country cannot achieve global victory. Consider the Hindus; despite being 240 million [1924], almost equal to the Muslim population worldwide, they are not highly regarded outside as their religion does not possess a global status because it is primarily confined to India. The progress of religions lies in their global spread. A religion with fewer members but established with missions across the globe has more opportunities to spread than a larger one confined to a single country.

“Thus, if we truly wish to fulfil our duty of spreading our faith, we must carry out tabligh in all parts of the world. For this, it is essential to formulate a complete grand scheme that considers all fundamental points. Otherwise, a significant amount of money will be wasted, and we will be required to repeatedly amend our system.”

(Translated by Al Hakam from the original Urdu, published in the 24 June 1924 issue of Al Fazl)

The True Revolution

English translation of Inqilab-e-Haqiqi

An

address by Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra , Khalifatul Masih II, al-Musleh al-Mau‘ud

Delivered at Jalsa Salana Qadian on 28 December 1937

Part II

In this address, delivered at Jalsa Salana Qadian on 28 December 1937, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra discusses material movements in world history and the secrets of their success, followed by an exploration of the grand epochs of religious movements. He declares that the revolution brought about by the Promised Messiahas was, in essence, a revival of the teachings of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa. He then speaks about the revolution initiated by the Promised Messiah, outlining the objectives of Tahrike-Jadid and associating this revolution with the demands of Tahrik-e-Jadid. Concluding his address, he sheds light on the means to establish an Islamic civilisation and directs the attention of Ahmadis towards their responsibilities.

Five Great Civilisations

A look at the major conquests of the world reveals that only those movements that have brought a new message and given birth to some form of revolution have achieved sustained success and influence. In other words, civilisations which are at variance with the previous order and are founded on a new set of principles. Civilisations of this type are rare. One such civilisation is that of the Aryans, whose reach was not only confined to the Indian subcontinent but also extended to Europe. Secondly, the West saw the emergence of the Roman Empire and a third civilisation that I will refer to as Persian greatly influenced the Middle East and China. As I see it, the fourth civilisation was that of the Babylonians, who ruled over Western Asia and Africa. Fifthly, in our own time, a world order exists which spans the entire globe—that is, modern-day Western civilisation.

History reveals that these five movements or civilisations are, in a material sense, the greatest, [most systematic] and international movements that have ever existed. That is the Aryans, the Romans, the Persians, the Babylonians and the Western civilisation. All of them were driven by new ways of thinking and modes of living. Their rule was remarkable, not because of the unsheathing of swords and the conquest of territory, but because their founders destroyed the previous order and sowed the seeds of a new culture or opened the doors to new forms of enlightenment. Despite the

fact that over a period of time, the leaders of these civilisations had their political influence curtailed by other people yet those who precipitated their downfall were unable to free themselves from the fundamental imprint of these movements. The victors may have ceased to be political subjects, but they remained slaves to their intellectual and ideological perspectives. Thus, actual power continued to reside with the architects of the previous order. The terms ‘new ideology’ or ‘revolution’ can only be applied to such complete ascendency. Seemingly, Aryanism and the ancient empires of Persia, Rome and Babylonia ceased to exist in the world after a certain period of time, but in reality, their impact continues to be felt in some way or another. The opponents of these movements never truly freed themselves from the bonds of slavery, and the governments that proceeded them represented little more than just the change of the ruling elite. In fact, the central principles of governance and law continued to be the ones established by these celebrated movements. The insurrections that occurred in the final days of these civilisations were directed against the rulers of the time and not against the civilisation itself. Reform simply meant the passing of the same ideology of the nation from one hand to another. While the colours and perimeters of flags were changed, the underlying principles of government remained the same. When looked at closely, the changes that have occurred in the West since the fall of the Roman Empire are merely variations of the Roman model. Similarly, the governments that have followed the Persian Empire clearly contain elements of the original civilisation. After the rule of the founders of Aryanism, both Buddhists and Jains ruled over the government, but the system of the Aryans was impressed upon all of them. After the Babylonians, Arabia, Syria and Egypt witnessed a number of rulers and uprisings, yet the influence of the former remained and did not disappear.

Today, Western civilisation dominates the world. Currently, the nations of Asia and Africa are attempting to free themselves from Western rule. The two continents of the Americas were also successful in their struggle for liberty. Japan and Turkey, which are situated on the opposite ends of Asia, have also gained their freedom.

However, what has been the true outcome of all this? Only that the rulers of these countries have changed, but the underlying system of government remains the same. Indeed, the Japanese and Turks are more exposed to Western influence now than they were before.

Today India cries out for independence. Its youth are ready to sacrifice their lives to free their country from the clutches of a foreign [colonial] power, and yet their

efforts are confined to supplanting the English ‘Westerner’ and replacing him with one who is Indian. This is the sum total of their efforts. By adopting traditional cotton clothing, Mr Gandhi has sought to show that he would not be influenced by Western culture, yet those who are privy to the truth understand that the skeleton remains the same, only now it is adorned in traditional Indian cotton and not Scottish worsted [tweed]. Or, in the words of Jesusas, new

wine has been poured into old wineskins. This is the extent of the transformation. I will attempt to shed some light on all five of these movements and civilisations, so that one may arrive at an understanding of the new systems and beliefs they imparted to the world. What did they give to humanity that even after hundreds and thousands of years of struggle, the world is no freer from their influence than it was before?

The Ideological Roots of the Aryans: Distinction at Birth

The foundation of Aryan civilisation was based on eugenics. In other words, the cornerstone of Aryan belief is that all people are not the same, but divided by [certain] differences. Aryans believe that some people are superior to others; some are rich, others are poor, some are strong and others are weak, some are highly intelligent while others possess no genius whatsoever, and so on. Hence, under specific circumstances, this system [of social inequality] can be permanently established. Societies can only flourish by promoting the more gifted of their members. In this way, mankind is able to attain greatness.

Aryans claim that the child of a strong father will, [in accordance with hereditary laws], perforce be invested with strength. The same is true of the weak. They also aver that if a child is able to inherit a strong body from their father, there is no reason why this should not apply to the intellect as well. Therefore, they postulate that a child born to parents of a strong intellectual constitution will naturally possess the same intellectual strengths. Thus, a society that places the burden of reproduction on its more accomplished members will thus always excel over other nations.

Wherever the Aryan movement has spread, it has governed according to this key principle. That is, the belief in the hereditary distinction drawn upon intellectual, mental and religious lines.

Aryans claim that the child of a Brahman will perforce have greater intellectual capabilities than other children. Similarly, a child born into the Kshatriyas will have more soldierly qualities than others. Therefore, a nation that excels over others through its hereditary superiority and continues to marry within its own members, can never be eradicated from the world. Hence, the religion of the Aryas also functions according to this principle. For example, under the law, if a Shudra listens to a recitation of the Vedas, then he or she must be punished by having molten lead poured into their ears, as this honour belongs only to the Brahmans and to the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. The Shudras do not enjoy any such rights. Hence, one can see the powerful influence this principle exerts on the religion of the Aryans. As far as the Aryan belief that people are reincarnated into the world in different forms and bodies, my own personal study on the matter has led me to conclude that this idea was also born from the doctrine of hereditary distinction. Aryans believe that the continuity of superior progeny rests upon superior souls. For this purpose, they have devised the idea that after death, the superior souls of the world converge in the house of Brahman. The souls that possess valour are reborn into the Kshatriyas,

whereas those that have financial acumen are revived as the Vaishyas. Similarly, souls deemed to be of no value come again from among the Shudras. Their particular caste system acts as a safeguard against the danger of an uprising by the lower classes, for if the social order decreed that shudras were to remain so forever, it was possible that they would rise in rebellion. Or if the Kshatriyas were always expected to sacrifice their lives for the sake of society, they would revolt against the rule of the Brahmans. Thus, the lower classes were pacified through this belief so that they would willingly submit to the superiority of the Brahmans. They were made to believe that these categorisations are not based on lineage. Rather, they are like rankings that are awarded to each soul according to its particular state. In the army, for example, a junior soldier is unlikely to oppose the decision of a cavalry officer. Likewise, a cavalry officer accepts [the command of] his lieutenant on the basis that they have achieved their rank through merit. Both [the soldier and the cavalry officer] know that if they exhibit the required skill and talent, they too are eligible for promotion. Similarly, a Shudra ought not to have any grievances against the status of a Vaishya, nor a Vaishya against a Kshatriya and neither a Kshatriya would have grievances against a Brahman because the life they have been given is a result of their previous deeds. If a Shudra acts righteously in the present life, they may be reincarnated as a Brahman. Likewise, an unrighteous Brahman will be reborn amongst the Shudras.

This caste system made it possible for the founders of the Aryan faith to, not only protect the interests of the ruling elite, but to stifle the spirit of rebellion. They were able to so deeply embed this fanciful hope within society that, like children, these communities became engrossed with this hypothetical plaything, whilst ignoring the reality of their day-to-day misery and sorrow. Despite generations of suffering, the class deemed inferior for thousands of years—the Shudras—have remained satisfied with their position. The doctrine of reincarnation has ensured that the Shudras view the period of their degradation as limited to the present life. The Shudras, who are seized by the desire to revolt against the status quo, eventually yield to the thought that their plights stems from their previous sins. Perhaps they too had once been a Brahman and may yet be in the next life by earning the pleasure of the Brahman in their current existence. The thought of attaining this status offers them comfort and they conclude that it would be imprudent to harm the very institutions they aspire to enter.

In reality, the doctrine of reincarnation as a safeguard of hereditary superiority is a product of an exceptional mind. Had it not been the cause of subjugating millions of people for thousands of years, it would merit great acclaim.

The Foundations of the Roman Empire: the Rule of Law and the Rights of Citizens

The Roman Empire was based on the rule of law and the rights of citizens. After first accepting and establishing full rights of citizenship, the rulers of the empire created

a judicial system that ensured that people would be tried and judged in accordance with the law. Politics was also brought under the umbrella of the law to ensure that governments ruled in accordance with established procedures. It is for these reasons that the laws of the Roman Empire are still taught in the West and that the lawmakers of today continue to refer back to their legal system.

The

Ideology of the Persian Empire: Ethics and Politics

The civilisation of the Persians was based on good moral conduct and politics. That is why they believe that God Almighty was incapable of creating sin or impurity. Therefore, they formulated the concept of two gods; one who had authority over good and one who controlled evil. Good ethics held such an exalted place in their society that it was inconceivable for them that Allah the Exalted could be responsible for the creation of anything corrupt. However, due to the presence of sin in the world, they developed the philosophy of a second god who was responsible for the creation of evil. Instead of being worthy of worship, this god was deserving of hate.

The second cornerstone of Persian civilization was the concept of mutual interest. Hence, it was the Persians who set the foundations for the system of rule known as empire or commonwealth.

Thus, it was in the Persian civilisation that the principle of political alliances between independent states first emerged and was established. The principle [of cooperation] was, in reality, born out of their dualist beliefs. The Persians believed in two independent gods of whom one was superior to the other. In much the same way, they established a system in the world which consisted of a central ruler, and a number of smaller kings who were at once independent monarchs and also subjects of the primary leadership. And it was from this that the concept of imperial rule was developed. A structure by which a powerful king submits to a weaker ruler because he is his imperial master is incomprehensible

to the Indian mind and indeed to many others. This system of rule was innovated by the Persians and was in truth a new method of establishing peace.

During certain periods of Persian history, the subordinate kings were more powerful than the actual emperor, however, at the slightest command, they hastened to his assistance. The British Empire and Abbasid Khilafat in its final years are replicas of the Persian model. If one looks closely at the final years of the Abbasid Khilafat, one can see that the basis of its existence lies in the fact that its subordinate governments were either Persians or allies of the Persians. Despite their greater strength, the rulers of these states had for generations been instilled with the belief that they had a duty to serve the caliphate; therefore, they continued to submit to its rule.

The Cornerstones of the Babylonian Civilisation: Academia, Geometry and Astronomy

The fourth civilisation, [I made reference to] was Babylonia. This civilisation was built on the principles of [academic learning], geometry and astronomy. The architects of Babylonian civilisation considered the success of their society to rest on the emulation of the system by which God Almighty had created the sun, moon and stars and created an ordered structure in the world. Therefore, they considered the study of the solar system, and the application of the principles on which it functioned as the primary means of worldly progress.

The Ideology of the West: Materialism and Nationalism

The fifth civilisation, that is the Western civilisation, is based on the principles of materialism and nationalism.

Footnotes: 1. Mathew, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, 9:17 [Publishers]

Friday Sermon

Mubarak Mosque, Islamabad, Tilford, UK

17 May 2024

Muhammadsa: The Great Exemplar

After reciting the tashahhud, ta‘awwuz, and Surah al-Fatihah, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa stated:

Accounts relating to the expedition of Raji’ were previously being related. There are further details which have been recorded in the ahadith [traditions of the Holy Prophetsa] and books of history. In Sahih al-Bukhari, details in relation to the expedition of Raji’ have been recorded in the following manner; Hazrat Abu Hurairahra relates that the Holy Prophetsa sent 10 individuals on a reconnaissance mission and he appointed Hazrat Asim bin Thabit Ansarira as their leader. They departed and travelled until they reached Hada, a place between Usfan and Mecca. This news reached a branch of the Hudhail tribe called the Banu Lahyan. Subsequently, about 200 men from the enemy tribe, who were expert archers, set out to encounter these Muslims. They followed their tracks until they found the place where they had eaten dates, which were the provisions they had brought with them from Medina. The Banu Lahyan said, “These are the dates of Yathrib (i.e., Medina),” and continued to follow their tracks. When Asim and his Companions saw them, they took refuge on a hill. The enemy encircled them and said, “Come down and surrender to us. We promise not to kill any one of you.” Asim bin Thabitra, the leader of the expedition said: “By God! As far as I am concerned, I will not come down under the protection of a disbeliever.” He then supplicated: “O Allah! Convey our circumstances to Your Prophetsa.” The enemy then fired arrows at these Companions and killed seven of them, including Hazrat Asimra. Three men came down after accepting their promise. Among them were Khubaib Ansarira, Ibn Dathinahra and another individual by the name ‘Abdullah bin Tariqra. The enemy captured all three of them. They removed the strings of their bows and used them to tie them up. Upon this, the third individual said, “This is the first betrayal. By Allah! I will not go with you. There is most certainly an example [to be followed] among them, i.e., the martyrs.” They dragged this Companion and forced him to go along with them. However, he refused as a result of which they martyred

him. They took Hazrat Khubaibra and Hazrat Ibn Dathinahra with them and sold them in Mecca. Khubaibra was bought by Banu Harith bin ‘Amir bin Naufal bin ‘Abd Manaf. It was Hazrat Khubaibra who killed Harith bin ‘Amir on the day of Badr. Hazrat Khubaibra remained as a prisoner in their custody. This narration is from Sahih alBukhari. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-jihad wa s-siyar, Hadith 3045)

According to the narration of Sahih alBukhari, a group of 10 Companions set out secretly for reconnaissance and recognising the date stones to be from Yathrib, a woman raised a hue and cry and the enemy launched an attack on them. However, most historians say that this group was sent to investigate the surrounding areas. But they had not yet set out when the Holy Prophetsa dispatched this group along with the delegation that came [to visit him].

In relation to this, Hazrat Musleh-eMaudra and Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmadra have also analysed this from various books of history and stated that this group went with the people of this tribe [that came to visit the Holy Prophetsa]. Therefore, it seems that there has been an error on the part of the narrators in Bukhari or in other biographies in which there is mention of them travelling in secret, because there was no longer any need for the party to remain hidden, as they were going with the people of the Adal and Qarah tribes. It can of course be considered that when they reached between Usfan and Mecca, as part of their plot to capture them, the tribes of Adl and Qarah, who had brought them as part of the wider ploy, broke their oath and in line with what they had already planned, they informed the Banu Lahyan, who came with 200 armed men. Allah knows best.

In any case, the 200 people of the Banu Lahyan, 100 of whom were expert archers, launched an attack and surrounded the Companions. When the chief of the group, Hazrat Asim bin Thabitra, and his Companions came to learn about these people, they climbed up a mountain called Fadfad. According to another narration, the

name of this mountain was Qardad. The idolaters surrounded the Companions and said, “If you climb down to us, we will make an oath not to kill any of you. By God, we do not desire to kill you. Our only wish is for the Meccans to gain something through you.” (Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rashad, Vol. 6, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, p. 40)

Upon this, Hazrat Asimra said, “By Allah, I will not climb down to take refuge with any disbeliever! I have made a firm resolve that I shall not accept taking refuge in any disbeliever as long as I live.” The other two Companions alongside him gave the same answer saying, “We will never accept the oath or promise of a polytheist.” Thereafter, Hazrat Asimra supplicated:

“O Allah, inform Your Prophetsa about our condition.”

Subsequently, a fight ensued between them. (Sirat Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 453, Darussalam, Riyadh 1434AH)

The leader of the group, Hazrat Asimra displayed immense bravery and courage and recited couplets, the translation of which is:

“Why should I lay down my arms, when I am a valiant and a skilled archer and the string attached to my bow is strong. From the midst of this bow, mighty arrows, sharp as razors, are shot at great speed. Death is inevitable, and this world is futile. Whatever God Almighty has decreed for man shall surely come to pass. It is to Allah alone that mankind shall return. If I do not fight you, then may my mother be bereft of me.” This is the translation of these couplets.

All of the Companions bravely took a stand against the enemies and continued to challenge them. Hazrat Asimra showered arrows on the enemy until he ran out of arrows. He then continued to fight with a spear in hand until it broke and only his sword remained. When he was certain he would be martyred, he became worried that he would become exposed. This is because

it was the custom of the enemy that they would trample over them and unclothe the bodies of those they had martyred. And so, at that moment, he beseeched God:

“O Allah, from the start of the day, I have protected your religion. Now, at the end of the day, protect my body.”

Upon completing this prayer, he became engaged in battle once more. He severely wounded two people and even killed another with his sword. Eventually his end drew nigh and he was martyred. The other six Companions also attained the lofty station of martyrdom. (Dairah Ma’rif Sirat Muhammad Rasool Allahsa, Vol. 7, Bazm-iIqbal Lahore, 2022, p. 140)

Whilst mentioning this incident, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmadra stated:

“In the month of Safar 4 A.H., the Holy Prophetsa assembled a party of ten Companions, appointed Aṣim bin Thabitra as their Amir and ordered them to secretly go towards Mecca and obtain intelligence with regards to the Quraish, and then inform him about their plans and motives. However, this party had not yet departed, when a few people from the tribes of ‘Aḍal and Qarah presented themselves before the Holy Prophetsa, and said that many people from among their tribes were inclined towards Islam and that the Holy Prophetsa should send a few men with them, who could convert them to Islam and educate them. The Holy Prophetsa was happy to hear their request and the same party which had been assembled for the reconnaissance mission was sent off with them instead. However, in actuality, as was later discovered, these people were liars and had come to Medina upon the incitement of the Banu Lihyan, who sought revenge for the execution of their chief, Sufyan bin Khalid, and had thus contrived the plan that when the Muslims come out of Medina on this pretense, they will attack them. In lieu of this service, the Banu Lihyan promised the people of ‘Aḍal and Qarah a hefty reward of many camels.

When the treacherous people of ‘Adal and Qarah reached between ‘Asfan and Mecca, they secretly sent word to the Banu Lihyan that the Muslims were accompanying them and that they should come as well. Upon this, 200 young men from the Banu Lihyan, 100 of whom were archers, set forth in pursuit of the Muslims, and subdued them at a place known as Raji‘. But how could 10 men compete against 200 warriors? The Muslims, however, had not been taught to throw in their arms. The Companions immediately ascended to a nearby hillock and prepared for battle. The disbelievers, who did not consider deception as being reprehensible, called out to them and said, ‘Come down from the mountain, we give you a firm promise that we shall not kill you.’ Asimra responded, ‘We have no confidence whatsoever in your treaties and agreements. We cannot descend on your guarantee.’

“Then, he raised his head towards the heaven and said, ‘O God! You are witnessing our state. Do convey knowledge of our condition to Your Messenger.’ Hence, Asimra and his Companions stood and fought and were finally martyred in battle.” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyeen, pp. 513-514)

How was Hazrat Asim bin Thabit’sra body afforded divine protection? He prayed earlier for Allah the Almighty to protect his body. Regarding this, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmadra writes:

“In the context of this very incident of Raji‘, a narration has been related that when the Quraish received news that ‘Aṣim bin Thabitra was also among those who had been martyred at Raji‘ at the hands of the Banu Lihyan, since ‘Asimra had slain a principal chieftain of the Quraish, they especially sent some men towards Raji‘, and emphatically instructed them to return with the head of ‘Asimra or another part of his body, so that they could be put to rest and their thirst for revenge could be quenched. It is related in another narration that the mother of the person whom ‘Asimra had slain had vowed that she would drink alcohol in the skull of her son’s killer. And she had placed a reward of 100 camels to the one who would bring his head. (They were prepared to go to this extent in order to quench their thirst for revenge.)

“However, the power of God was such that when these people arrived there, lo and behold, they found swarms of hornets and male honey bees resting upon the body of ‘Asimra and they just would not budge. These people tried their level best to send off these hornets and bees, but no attempt proved successful. Finally, with no other choice, they returned frustrated and unsuccessful. Soon after, a storm of rain came and took the body of ‘Asimra elsewhere. It is written that upon accepting Islam, ‘Asimra vowed that he would completely abstain from anything that was polytheistic, to the extent that he would not even touch an idolator. When Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra was informed of his martyrdom and of this occurrence in particular, he said, ‘Look how beautifully Allah guards the emotions of his beloved servants. He fulfilled the vow of ‘Asimra even after his demise and safeguarded him from the touch of idolaters.’” (Sirat Khatam-ulNabiyeen, p. 516; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol. 3, p. 353, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 1990; Al-Mawahib Al-Dunya, Vol. 1, AlMaktab Al-Islami, Beirut, 2004, p. 424)

Hazrat Asimra was also called “Hami al-Dabbur”, meaning the “one who was protected by hornets or honeybees”, since God Almighty protected his body after death with a swarm of hornets.

Then the martyrdoms of Mu’attib bin ‘Ubaidra and other innocent victims are mentioned. While fighting, Hazrat Mu’attib bin ‘Ubaidra incurred a great number of injuries. The enemy forces got hold of him and martyred him. Five other Companions who were fighting valiantly were also martyred by a flurry of arrows. And thus, a total of seven Companions were martyred.

Now only three Companions remained on the battlefield: Hazrat Khubaib bin ‘Adiyyra, Hazrat Zaid bin Dathinahra and Hazrat ‘Abdullah bin Tariqra. (Al-Asaba, Vol. 3, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1995, p. 461; Sirat Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, Darussalam, Riyadh 1434 AH, p. 454)

The disbelievers gave them an oath of safety, saying they would not harm them. They said, “Surrender yourself to us.”

Hearing this, the Companions came down from the hill. When the enemy subdued them, they unfastened the chords of their bows and tied the Companions up. Abdullah bin Tariqra expressed that this was a breach of their truce, saying, “By God, I shall not go with you. Following in the footsteps of my martyred brothers is preferable to me.”

The enemies tried their best to force him along with them, but Abdullah bin Tariqra refused to do so, and thus they martyred him as well. (Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rashad, Vol. 6, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, p. 41)

According to some narrations, the disbelievers were on their way to Mecca after taking all three Companions captive. Their captors sought to sell them to the Meccans. When their caravan reached a place called Marr al-Zahran, situated 22 kilometres North of Mecca, Hazrat Abdullah bin Tariqra managed to break free of his hand-tie and readied himself for a skirmish, with his sword drawn. When the enemy witnessed his deep passion for fighting, they backed away, casting rocks at him from afar instead, until he too was martyred. His grave is in fact in Marr alZahran. (Dairah Ma’rif Sirat Muhammad Rasool Allahsa, Vol. 7, Bazm-i-Iqbal Lahore, 2022, p. 141)

Regarding this, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmadra has written:

“When seven Companions had been put to death, and only Khubaib bin ‘Adiyyra, Zaid bin Dathinahra, and one other Companion were left, the disbelievers whose actual desire was to capture these people alive, called out again and said, ‘There is still time. Come down and we promise not to cause you any harm.’ This time, these innocent Muslims fell into their trap and descended. However, as soon as they stepped down, the disbelievers tied them with the strings of their arrow bows. Upon this, the Companion of Khubaibra and Zaidra, whose name has been recorded in history as being ‘Abdullah bin Tariqra, could not restrain himself and called out, ‘This is your first breach of agreement and who knows what you shall do hereafter,’ and Abdullahra refused to continue along with them. For some distance, the disbelievers dragged ‘Abdullahra along, beating and assaulting him, and then killed him and left him for dead. Moreover, now that their revenge had

been sought, in order to please the Quraish, and also in the greed of money, they took Khubaibrra and Zaidra and made their way to Mecca; upon reaching there, they sold both of them to the Quraish. As such, Khubaibra was purchased by the sons of Harith bin Amir bin Naufal, because Khubaibra had slain Harith in the battle of Badr and Zaidra was purchased by Ṣafwan bin Umayyah.”

(Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyeen, p. 514)

Hazrat Khubaib bin Adiyyra and Hazrat Zaid bin Dathinahra were captured by the idolaters and taken with them to Mecca. Upon reaching Mecca, both Companions were sold. As mentioned earlier the sons of Harith bin Amir bought Hazrat Khubaib bin Adiyyra in order to avenge their father, who was killed on the day of Badr by Khubaibra. According to Ibn Ishaq, Hujair bin Abu Ihab Tamimi bought Hazrat Khubaibra. He was the confederate of the sons of Harith and Harith’s son, Uqbah bought Hazrat Khubaibra from him in order to avenge the killing of his father. It is also reported that Uqbah bin Harith bought Hazrat Khubaibra from the Banu Najjar tribe. According to another report, the sons of Abu Ihab, Ikrimah bin Abu Jahl, Akhnas bin Shuraiq, Ubaidah bin Hakim, Umaiyah bin Abu Utbah Hadhrami and also Safwan bin Umaiyyah collectively bought Hazrat Khubaibra. All of these individuals were those whose fathers were killed during the Battle of Badr. All of them bought Hazrat Khubaibra and gave him to Uqbah bin Harith, who imprisoned him in his home. (Al-Istiaab, Vol. 2, Dar-ul-Jil, Beirut, 1992, pp. 440-441)

Ibn Hisham says that they sold Hazrat Khubaibra and Hazrat Zaid bin Dathinahra in exchange of the prisoners of Huzail who were in Mecca. According to one narration, Zaidra was sold for one mithqal of Gold and according to another narration, he was sold for 50 camels and Hazrat Khubaibra was also sold for 50 camels. According to some other narrations, Hazrat Khubaibra was sold for 100 camels and in other narrations, it is reported that he was sold for 80 mithqal of Gold. It is reported that some of them [who bought him] were also from among the Quraish and they took both Hazrat Khubaibra and Hazrat Zaid bin Dathinahra and they entered the month of Dhul Qa’dah and they were kept as prisoners till the sacred months passed. (Imtia’ Al-Asma’, Vol. 13, p. 275, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut; Dairah Ma’rif Sirat Muhammad Rasool Allahsa, Vol. 7, Bazm-i-Iqbal Lahore, 2022, p. 140; Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rashad, Vol. 6, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, p. 41)

In the previous sermon, I explained in detail about the sacred months.

Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d state that Hazrat Zaidra was bought by Safwan bin Umaiyyah so that he could kill him in order to avenge for his father, Umaiyyah bin Khalf. Safwan later became a Muslim. He kept him as a prisoner with the people of Banu Jum’ah and it is also reported that he kept him prisoner with his servant, Nastas. When the sacred months passed, Safwan sent his servant, Nastas towards Tan’im. Tan’im is approximately 3-4 miles from Mecca in the direction of Medina and Syria. In any case, he was taken out of the Haram in order to kill him and a party from among the Quraish also gathered there. Among them was Abu Sufyan bin Harb and just as when

Zaidra was about to be killed, Abu Sufyan said to him, “O Zaid! By God, does your heart not desire that on this instance, in your stead Muhammad[sa] was in our hands, and we would kill him while you would be with your family?” Hazrat Zaidra replied, “By God, I would not even prefer for a thorn to prick the foot of the Messengersa of Allah in the home where he resides in exchange of me being with my family.” Upon this, Abu Sufyan said, “I have never seen any individual love another person as much as the Companions of Muhammad[sa] love Muhammad[sa].” Thereafter, Nastas killed Hazrat Zaidra. According to another narration, some of the members of the Quraish also joined and shot arrows at him until he was martyred. Later, Nastas, who killed Zaidra, also became a Muslim. Ibn Uqbah has narrated that Zaidra and Khubaibra were both martyred on the same day. The day they were martyred, the Holy Prophetsa was heard saying, “Wa Alaikum Salam! May peace be on you both as well.” (Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rashad, Vol. 6, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, p. 42; Sharah Zarqani, Vol. 2, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1998, p. 493; Furhang-eSirat, Zawar Academy, Karachi, p. 77) Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmadra mentions this incident as follows:

“Safwan bin Umayyah took his prisoner Zaid bin Dathinahra outside the Haram. A crowd consisting of the chieftains of Mecca accompanied him. Upon reaching outside the Ḥaram, Ṣafwan ordered his slave Nastas to execute Zaidra. Nastas stepped forward and raised his sword. At this instance, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, the chieftain of Mecca who was also among the spectators stepped forward and addressed Zaidra saying, “Tell the truth, does your heart not desire that on this instance, in your stead Muhammadsa was in our hands, and we would execute him while you would be spared to spend days of joy with your family?” The eyes of Zaidra began to gorge with blood in rage and he furiously retorted, “Abu Sufyan! What nonsense do you utter? By God! I would not even prefer that in lieu of me being spared a thorn were to prick the foot of the Messenger of Allah!” Abu Sufyan uncontrollably proclaimed, “By God, I have never seen any individual love another person as much as the Companions of Muhammadsa love Muhammadsa.” After this, Nastas martyred Zaidra.” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyeen, p. 516)

Regarding the incident of this execution, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra states:

“Among the spectators was Abu Sufyan, chief of Mecca. Abu Sufyan turned to Zaidra and asked, ‘Would you not rather have Muhammad[sa] in your place? Would you not prefer to be safe at home while Muhammad[sa] was in our hands?’ Zaidra replied furiously saying, ‘What, Abu Sufyan? What are you saying? By God, I would rather die, than that the Prophetsa should tread on a thorn in a street in Medina.’ Abu Sufyan could not help being impressed by such devotion. He looked at Zaidra in amazement and declared unhesitatingly, but in measured tones, ‘God is my witness, I have not known anyone love another as much as the Companions of Muhammad[sa] love Muhammad[sa].’” (Dibacha Tafsir-ulQuran, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 20, pp. 262263)

Regarding the martyrdom of Hazrat Khubaibra, a historian writes, “Hazrat

Khubaibra was under the charge of Hujair bin Abu Ihab and was bound in the house of Harith bin Nufail’s sons. They treated Hazrat Khubaibra very brutally. After witnessing their unlawful treatment, Hazrat Khubaibra said ‘No respectable nation keeps their captive in this way.’

“Nonetheless, the hearts of the disbelievers were greatly affected by this. After this, they started to treat him well. (Dairah Ma’rif Sirat Muhammad Rasool Allahsa, Vol. 7, Bazm-i-Iqbal Lahore, 2022, p. 144)

Ibn Shihab says that Ubaidullah bin Ayyaz told him that Harith’s daughter mentioned that when they agreed [i.e., the disbelievers] to execute him, Khubaibra asked for a razor. Thus, they gave him a razor. The daughter of Harith says, “At that time, while I was unaware, one of my children went to Khubaibra, so he took hold of him.” She says “I saw that Khubaibra had placed the child on his lap, and the razor was in his hand. Upon seeing this, I became extremely worried. Khubaibra saw the worry on my face, and said, ‘You are scared that I will kill him. I am not someone who would do such a thing. Muslims fulfil their vows, and do not commit such injustices.’”

The daughter of Harith used to say, “By God, I have never seen a captive greater than Khubaibra.” She then said, “I swear by God, I saw him one day, and he was holding a bunch of grapes, which he was eating. However, he was bound in shackles and there were no fruits in Mecca during that season.” She would say that this was a provision from Allah to Khubaibra When the Quraish took them outside the Haram [sacred boundary] so they could kill them in a place outside the Sacred Land, Khubaibra asked for permission to offer two rak’at [units] of prayer. They granted him permission to do so. After offering the two rak’at of prayer, he said, “Had you not thought that I was praying at this moment as a result of fear, then I would have surely prolonged my prayer.” In other words, he said, “Perhaps you suspected that I am prolonging my prayer as a means to escape. I have offered a short prayer so that you do not think that I have prolonged my prayer out of fear or to save myself. If it did not occur to me that you might suspect me for prolonging my prayer – and had looked to me normally, without any suspicion –perhaps I would have prolonged my prayer.” Nonetheless, following this, he supplicated to his Lord and said, “O Allah! Destroy them one by one” (He is referring to the enemies.) He prayed against his enemies. Then, Khubaibra recited a few couplets:

about Khubaib’sra accounts in the following words:

“These two Companions were still in a state of captivity when one day Khubaibra asked the daughter of Harith if he could be given a razor for his own personal use, and she gave him one. When Khubaibra was holding this razor, a small child of the daughter of Harith happened to come over to Khubaibra playing here and there; and he placed him on his thigh. When the mother saw that Khubaibra was holding a razor in his hand and her child was sitting on his thigh, she began to tremble and her face turned pale in fear. When Khubaibra saw her, he understood that she was fearful and said, ‘Do you think that I will kill this child? Do not think this. God-Willing, I shall never commit such an act.’ Upon hearing these words, the faded countenance of the mother lit up. This lady was so deeply influenced by the high moral character of Khubaibra that afterwards, she would always say, ‘I have never seen a prisoner as good as Khubaib.’ She would also say, ‘On one occasion, I saw a bunch of grapes in the hand of Khubaibra and he was picking grapes one by one and eating them, although there was no sign of grapes in Mecca during those days and Khubaibra was shackled in strong iron chains.’ She says, ‘I believe that these were heavenly provisions which would come to Khubaibra.’” (Sirat Khatam-unNabiyeen, pp. 514-515)

Another narration describes the events surrounding their imprisonment with a slight difference. One narration about the imprisonment of Khubaib bin ‘Adiyyra states that Ma’wiyah was the freed slave girl of Hujair bin Abu Ihab. Khubaibra was held captive in Mecca in their home so that upon the completion of the Sacred Months, he could be killed. Ma’wiyah later accepted Islam, and she became a devout Muslim follower. Ma’wiyah would later recount, “I swear by Allah the Almighty! I have not met anyone better than Hazrat Khubaibra. I used to observe him through the opening of the door whilst he was chained. There was not even a single grape in the world that I could eat (that is, there were no grapes in that region), however, Hazrat Khubaibra would be holding bunch of grapes the size of a human head (in other words, a very large bunch). This did not just happen once. (According to this narration, she saw him eating grapes many times.) It was nothing but provisions from Allah Himself.”

The philosophy of Hajj and sacrifice in Islam

The concept of pilgrimage, in one form or another, can be found in almost every religion across the globe. However, the pilgrimage in Islam is a unique and universal representation of Muslim unity and the believers’ love for Allah the Almighty.

To read the full article, visit: www.alhakam.org/the-philosophy-of-hajj-and-sacrifice-in-islam/

The narrator says that he was not her real son, rather Ma’wiyah had only raised him. In any case, she says, “When the child went, the thought occurred to me that by Allah Khubaibra has found the opportunity to take revenge. My son is with him, and he has a razor and he will certainly exact revenge. What have I done? I have sent my child with a razor, Khubaibra will kill him with the razor and say ‘a life for a life, I have taken my retribution.’ When my son reached him with the razor, he took it and playfully said to my son, ‘You are very brave. Does your mother not fear my betrayal? She sent you with a razor for me whereas you people have intended to kill me.’” Hazrat Ma’wiyah says, “I could hear Khubaibra saying this and I said, ‘O Khubaib, I have not feared you because I placed my faith in Allah and having put my trust in your Beloved I sent my child to you with a razor. I did not send it to you so that you may use it to kill him.”

he would be killed. When Hazrat Khubaibra was taken to Tan’im along with Zaid bin Dathinahra, the polytheists ordered that a long piece of wood be hollowed out, and when the people took Khubaibra near the wood which was standing there, Khubaibra said, “Can I be given time to offer two units of prayer?” The people responded in the affirmative. Hazrat Khubaibra offered two short units of voluntary prayers and did not prolong them. (Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol. 8, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, p. 399; Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad Wa Al-Siyar, Hadith 3045; Usdul Ghaba, Vol. 1, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 2003, p. 683)

As I mentioned earlier – so that they would not think he was extended his prayer in order to avoid death.

It means: “Now that I am being killed as a Muslim, I do not worry for which side I shall fall as it is for the sake of Allah. I fall only for the sake of Allah, and if He so wishes, He can bless even the severed limbs of my body.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab aljihad wa al-siyar, Hadith 3045) Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmadra writes

Editor-in-Chief:

Hazrat Khubaibra would recite the Quran during tahajjud [pre-dawn voluntary prayer] and the women would cry upon hearing it and feel sorry for Hazrat Khubaibra. She says, “One day I asked Hazrat Khubaibra, ‘O Khubaib, do you need anything?’ He replied, ‘No. Although there is one thing; please give me some cold water to drink, and never give me any meat which was slaughtered in the name of an idol. Thirdly, inform me when people are planning to kill me.’”

She says, “Then, when the sacred months passed and people decided to kill Khubaibra, I went and informed him.” She says, “I swear by Allah, he did not care about being killed. He said to me, ‘Send a razor for me, so that I may groom myself.’” She says, “I sent a razor with my son Abu Hussain.”

Hazrat Khubaibra said, ‘It is not like me to kill him. We do not consider betrayal to be allowed in our religion.’” She says, “Then, I informed Khubaib that the next morning, people would take him away in order to kill him.” Then the next day, he was taken in shackles to Tan’im and as mentioned this was at a distance of three miles from Mecca. Many people, including children, women, slaves and people from Mecca gathered there in order to witness the spectacle of Khubaib’sra killing. None of those who sought to exact revenge remained in Mecca, rather they had all left to see him [be killed] in order to cool their eyes. And those who did not seek revenge but were opponents of Islam went there merely as a display of their opposition and pleasure, to see how

According to the narrations just mentioned from Ibn Sa’d, Mu’awiyyah was the freed slave of Hujair bin Abu Ihab, in whose home Hazrat Khubaibra was imprisoned. According to Allama ibn Abdul Barr, Hazrat Khubaibra was imprisoned at the home of Uqbah and Uqbah’s wife would send him food and untie him when it was time to eat. (Al-Istiaab, Vol. 2, Dar-ul-Jil, Beirut, 1992, p. 442)

In any case, these were the sacrifices of those people and their fearlessness of death. The Companions were always ready to lay down their lives for the sake of Islam. I will mention the remaining accounts of this expedition in the future, God willing.

(Official Urdu transcript published in the Daily Al Fazl International, 7 June 2024, pp. 2-6. Translated by The Review of Religions.)

Qaasid Muin Ahmad | Executive Editors: Ataul Fatir Tahir, Aqeel Ahmed Kang

Research: Awwab Saad Hayat, Iftekhar Ahmed

Jalees Ahmad, Ata-ul-Haye Nasir