‘Hijab’- an analysis of modern view

          

A modern view about commandment of ‘hijab’ restricts this commandment for women to covering only chest of women’s body excluding face. This modern view is held by a Pakistani religious scholar. Let us analyze this view in the succeeding lines.

Regarding ‘hijab’ of women, the most relevant Quranic verses are stated below:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their head covers over their bosoms……” (al-nur-31).

This verse clearly commands Muslim women not to display their adornment, except what is apparent; (it may be appreciated that it is natural as well as artificial adornment) and the method to do it is to draw their head covers over their bosoms. It is obvious if head cover is drawn down from the head to cover the bosoms, all parts of woman’s body adornment- head, face and bosoms- are covered. It may be appreciated that word ‘yazrib’ means ‘to draw’. But according to the modern view under discussion, the head cover is not to be drawn from the head; rather it is to be drawn from the neck to cover the bosoms, leaving the face uncovered. But this modern view overlooks the fact that face is one of the most important parts of a woman’s adornment. If face is left uncovered, woman’s adornment cannot be concealed completely. The exception of ‘what is apparent’ does not mean what is uncovered; rather it means what is apparent despite covering e.g. body contours etc.

However, this verse may be interpreted in different ways, creating ambiguity in one’s mind.  But it is the quality of Quran that meanings contained in a verse are safeguarded by other verses of Quran. It is true in this case as well; the meanings contained in verse al-nur-31 are safeguarded/ supported by the following verses as well:  

“And those who harm/ torture mentally believing men and believing women for [something] other than what they have earned have certainly born upon themselves a slander and manifest sin. Prophet (s.a.w.w), tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be identified (as Muslims) and not be tortured. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful” (al-ahzaab-58-59).

The verse 59 clearly states for Muslim women to bring down over themselves part of their outer garments. The outer garments are those which are wrapped around the body. This verse is stating that a part of outer garment should be brought down (from the head) over the woman’s body; it means the woman should cover her face with her outer garment.

But according to modern view under discussion, this commandment is not permanent; rather it is conditional. The condition has been described in verse 58 which states those who harm/ torture mentally Muslim men and women, through baseless allegations, are slanderer and sinner. Therefore, in verse 59, Muslim women have been directed to cover their bodies (when they step out of their homes) including their faces so that they may be identified (as Muslim) and may not be tortured mentally through baseless allegations. According to modern view, the injunction of ‘hijab’ contained in verse 59 applies only if Muslim women, by stepping out with naked face, are likely to receive mental torture through baseless allegation. If women do not have to face baseless allegations, they do not have to cover their face.

This modern view is not tenable due to the following grounds:

Firstly, the injunctions contained in verse 58 and verse 59 are exclusive to each other. The verse 58 states that a person leveling baseless allegations on Muslim men and women is sinner and slanderer; whereas verse 59 states about providing an identity to Muslim women by directing them to cover their bodies including their faces. It may be appreciated that provision of identity to Muslim women through ‘hijab’ (including ‘hijab’ of face) is a permanent consequence of ‘hijab’; whereas avoiding baseless allegation is not a permanent consequence of ‘hijab’; women may be or may not be able to avoid baseless allegation through hijab. What I mean is that the primary consideration behind direction of ‘hijab’ (including of face) is providing Muslim women with an identity (which is a permanent consequence of ‘hijab’) but avoiding baseless allegations is a secondary consideration behind direction of hijab (including ‘hijab’ of face). Therefore the modern view which takes injunction of ‘hijab’  contained in verse 59 as conditional to situation (of likelihood of baseless allegation) mentioned in verse 58, is not tenable. The basic objective of hijab (including of face) is to provide Muslim women with an identity.

Secondly, even if commandment of hijab (including of face) is based on condition of likelihood of baseless allegation, women have to observe ‘hijab’ (including of face) in all societies because no society is present or has passed in the history or will pass in the history (most likely) where women have not faced or will not face likelihood of mental torture due to naked face. It may be appreciated the basic thing forbidden in verse 58 is to met out mental torture to Muslim men and women and this mental torture is the result of ‘what has not been earned by them’ ; this what has not been earned by Muslim women includes not only reasons of baseless allegation but also (among others) reasons of evil eyes cast upon their naked face. Given the human instinct, no human society can exists where an evil eye may not be cast upon a woman with naked face and resultantly may not expose such woman to mental torture. Therefore Muslim women have to observe ‘hijab’ (including of face) in all societies. 

Thirdly,  Quran has not mentioned that commandment contained in verse 59 is conditional to situation described in verse 58. It is totally self-assumption to seek any conditionality between verse 58 and verse 59. If the Quran subordinates any verse to any other verse, such fact is made clear through grammatical construction of the relevant verses (it is like we subordinate a subordinate clause to a principal clause in English language); whereas grammatical construction of verse 58 & 59 does not create any such subordination.  On the other hand, exclusiveness of commandments contained in these verses is obvious. In fact, verse 59 starts with a new "raku"; it also implies that main theme of the two verses is different. It is true that scholars differ on many points of interpretation of the Quran; but such difference of opinion has to be based on some principle of grammer or principle of  interpretation. Nobody should  differ due to his whims based  on NO grammer rules or NO valid principle of interpretation of the Quran.The issue of principal and subordinate clause has to be seen through principles of grammer; no verse can be declared as subordinate clause against the principles of Arabic grammer.
In the light of foregoing, we may conclude that commandment of ‘hijab’ (including of face) for Muslim women is not conditional to the likelihood of exposing to mental torture in case of keeing their face naked. The commandment of hijab (including of face) is a permanent direction which aims at providing the Muslim women with a distinct identity and as such Muslim women have to observe hijab (including of face) whether or not there is likelihood of incurring mental torture due to naked face.   

‘Kharji’ Phenomenon and its Application

            

In the backdrop of prevalent political and social scenario, ‘Kharji’ phenomenon has become the most misapplied phenomenon; certain sections of both Shiite and Sunni communities apply this phenomenon to each other, and frequently declare each other as ‘kharjis’. In the succeeding lines we would see how far label of kharjis is being correctly applied and to which people/persons, this phenomenon may be rightly applied. 

The importance of thrashing out true characteristics of kharji phenomenon cannot be undermined due to the fact that the people who are declared as kharjis are considered to be no longer Muslims; in other words kharjis are declared as ‘kafirs’.

We have already seen in the article “Root Cause of ‘Takfeeri’ Tradition and its Remedy in Islam” a ‘kafir’ is that who does not believe in the righteousness of sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w); in other words whoever believes  in the righteousness of sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) is a Muslim.

Now let us examine what were the basic characteristics of faith/ ‘Eman’ of those people who were declared as kharjis in the age of companions of our Nabi (s.a.w.w).

According to various versions of ‘hadith’ stated in the ‘sahih’ Book of Imam Muslim (r.a), a young person named ‘Harqous’ came to see our Nabi (s.a.w.w). that time our Nabi (s.a.w.w) was distributing some bounty among the people. That person (Harqous) objected that our Nabi (s.a.w.w) was not distributing the bounty fairly (nauzubillah); Harqous (maloon) asked our Nabi (s.a.w.w) to fear from Allah. Our Nabi (s.a.w.w) stated about that person that such people would emerge soon; they would be religious (apparently "they would recite the Qur'an glibly, but it would not go beyond their throats" ), but (actually) they would have nothing to do with Islam [ "they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) religion just as the arrow passes through the prey"]. . Our Nabi (s.a.w.w) also stated that (if those people staged a rebellion in our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) age), our Nabi (s.a.w.w) would destroy them as nations of ‘Aad or Samoud’ were destroyed.

This person (Harqous) along-with his companions staged a revolt against Hazrat Ali (r.a), as per prediction of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) and were defeated. These rebels have been called ‘kharjis’ in the Muslim history.  

From  'hadith' quoted above, a few basic characteristics of faith of these kharjis are reflected. The first characteristic is that they believe only in obedience to Allah; from Harqous’s statement that “our Nabi (s.a.w.w) should fear from Allah”, it is clear that khajis believed only in obedience to Allah. The second characteristic of kharjis’ faith which emerges out of above quoted hadith is that they do not believe in following our Nabi (s.a.w.w); that is why Harqous objected to our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) deed of distributing bounty. The third characteristic of kharjis’ faith is that they are not Muslims but they would consider themselves as Muslims. From the fact that ‘they would be religious’, it implies that they would call themselves Muslims. History also endorses this fact that kharjis called themselves true Muslims. (It may be appreciated that kharjis adopted many other ideologies as well with passage of time; but such ideologies are not the basic characteristics of their faith; the basic characteristics are those which are shared by all kharjis).

From the above given analysis of kharjis’ faith, it becomes clear that they are the people who believe only in obedience to Allah; who do not believe in following our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) Sunnah; and as such they are non-Muslims though they would call themselves as Muslims. It needs not emphasize that sections of Sunni and Shiite communities, which  label each other as ‘kharjis’ do not fulfill these mentioned conditions of kharjis’ faith. Neither do the Shiite sections which label ISIS and Taliban as kharjis, nor ISIS and Taliban which label sections of Shiite as kharjis, are kharjis in reality. Both these sections of Shiite and Sunni communities believe in righteousness of Sunnah and following Sunnah, and both these sections do not believe only in obedience to Allah, ignoring our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) Sunnah; and as such they cannot be declared as ‘kharjis’. Kharjis are those who do not believe in Sunnah. According to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) these kharjis would go on emerging till qiyamah and would be destroyed each time they emerge. Our Nabi (s.a.w.w) also stated these kharjis would align themselves with ‘Dajjal’. In present age too, we can find many groups which question essentiality of Sunnah and do not believe in following our Nabi (s.a.w.w), and surprisingly all these groups call themselves Muslims and are promoted and pampered by western powers which are Dajjali in their nature.   One such kharji group called Qadyanis have been rightly declared as non-Muslims.    

 In the light of the foregoing, we may conclude that certain sections of Sunni and Shiite communities, which call each other ‘kharjis’ are not right in their approach. Though these sections of Shiite and Sunni communities can be rightly called as ‘takfeeri’, and as such may be called sinner (for details pls see “Root Cause of ‘Takfeeri’ Tradition and its Remedy in Islam; but they cannot be called as kharjis. Kharjis are kafir but sinners are not. When any group of Muslim Ummah is called ‘kafir’,  division in the Ummah becomes permanent. When a group of ‘Ummah’ is called sinner, there are chances that both groups (sinner and non-sinners) are re-united sometimes in future; in this way division in Ummah does not remain permanent. We take example from companions of our Nabi (s.a.w.w). There were bloody wars between hazrat Ali (r.a.) and Amir Muawiya; but no group labeled the other one as ‘kafir’; resultantly we see that both groups were re-united in the age of Imam Hassan (r.a.).  

We may conclude that, as explained above,  certain sections of Sunni and Shiite communities, which label each other as kharjis are NOT kharjis in reality. Therefore such sections of Shiite and Sunni communities should avoid calling each other as kharjis; because such practice of calling each other 'kharjis' is neither factual in the light of hadith nor such practice can contribute positively to the unity of Ummah.

    

Root Cause of ‘Takfeeri’ Tradition and its Remedy in Islam

Takfeeri tradition in Islam is a tradition which is usually traced back to period of Imam Ibn Tammiyah (r.a) who declared newly converted Mongols as apostate because, even after converting to Islam, Mongols insisted on establishing Yasa Law instead of Islamic Shariah. In this way, a tradition was set in Islam through which fellow Muslim people, society or leaders might be declared as ‘kafir’, if practices of such Muslim people, society and leaders are found to be inconsistent or repugnant to what are considered to be Islamic ones. This ‘takfeeri’ tradition was carried forward in 18^th century by Abdul Wahhab in Arab lands to fight against ‘sufis’ who were considered as practicing un-Islamic practices. The same ‘takfeeri’ tradition has been adopted practically by one section of Sunnis e.g. ISIS and al-Qaida, among others, and one section of Shiite community e.g. Iraqi Shiite community, among others. The hostility prevailing between these two sections of Sunni and Shiite communities are rooted in adoption of ‘takfeeri’ tradition practically though Shiite section would not like to own any tradition coming from Imam Ibn e Tammiyah. 

The root cause of this takfeeri tradition lies in NOT distinguishing between what is disbelief/ ‘kufr’ and what is violation of our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) sayings and commandments. Disbelief/ ‘kufr’ is NOT to believe in righteousness of sayings and deeds (both intellectual and physical) of our Nabi (s.a.w.w); a Muslim is that who believes in righteousness of sayings and deeds (both intellectual and physical) of our Nabi (s.a.w.w). Apart from believing in righteousness of sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w), a Muslim is also under obligation NOT to violate the sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w). But there is a difference between disbelieving in righteousness of sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) and violating (not acting upon) the sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w).  Disbelieving in righteousness of sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) is ‘kufr’ and a person engaged in ‘kufr’ is ‘kafir’; but a person engaged in violating (not acting upon) the sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) is not a ‘kafir’ though such a person can be called a sinner (for details plz see http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2011/08/islam-emaan-and-qadyaniat.html).  Quran says:

 “O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy” (al-baqra-208).  

This verse addresses Muslims and says that Muslims should enter in Islam completely. It means the Muslims who do not act upon Islamic instructions completely are also Muslims. In other words, the Muslims whose practices are not in line with Islamic instructions are NOT ‘kafir’; rather they are Muslims though they are sinner Muslims.

The tendency of NOT distinguishing between ‘kufr’ and violation of religious instructions has led above mentioned two sections from Sunni and Shiite communities to adopt ‘takfeeri’ tradition to label their fellow Muslims as apostate/ ‘kafir’. These two sections from Sunni and Shiite communities have not flinched in applying this ‘takfeeri’ notion retrospectively to the period of companions of our Nabi (s.a.w.w). The specified Sunni section declares specified Shiite section as apostate/ kafir due to violation of our Nabi's (s.a.w.w) instructions, committed  by such Shiite section, regarding our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) companions; similarly specified Shiite section declares specified Sunni section as apostate due to the violations of our Nabi's (s.a.w.w) instructions, committed by  such Sunni section, regarding our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) some other companions. It may be appreciated that such violations committed by either section are not based on disbelief in the sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w). Rather most of such alleged violations are due to the fact that  the violated instructions are not considered as rightly attributed to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) by either respective section (because both sections-Shiite and Sunni- follow different criterions for ascertainment of our Nabi's (s.a.w.w) sayings. It is not so in case of Qadyanis/Ahmadiyas; for better appreciation of Qadyani views, pls see http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2011/08/islam-emaan-and- qadyaniat. html);  similarly in other cases such alleged violations are  violations of religious instructions passed by our Nabi (s.a.w.w). In this way each of mentioned sections from Sunni and Shiite communities declares the other section as ‘kafir’, NOT on the basis of condition of disbelief in righteousness of sayings and deeds of our Nabi (s.a.w.w);

The remedy of this ‘fasad’ originating from the Sunni-Shiite hostility may be sought in applying the distinction between Disbelief/ ‘kufr’ and violation of religious instructions, as explained above.

     

Rebuttal of Qadyani Concept of Imamate

        

This article is in response to a video clip issued by a Qadyani khalifa, in which he states about his concept of second coming of hazrat Isa (a.s) and about his concept of Imamate and Imam Mahdi.

In the succeeding lines we would thrash out how far the arguments given by the Qadyani khalifa are wrong and how far the texts quoted by him in favor of his arguments are mis-interpreted and mis-understood.

First we would analyze his concept of second coming of Hazrat Isa (a.s).

He says that second coming of Hazrat Isa (a.s) would be as a prophet. In support of his argument, he says that our Nabi (s.a.w.w) has mentioned Hazrat Isa (a.s) as a prophet in his (s.a.w.w) saying, while stating about hazrat Isa’s (a.s) second coming. 

Regarding our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) sayings about second coming of Hazrat Isa (a.s), it should be kept in mind nowhere our Nabi (s.a.w.w) has stated that Hazrat Isa (a.s) would come second time on earth as a Nabi. While stating about his second coming, if Isa (a.s) has been mentioned as Nabi, it has been mentioned as Nabi to specify as to which personality is to come again on earth so that people may know with certainty that the personality which has to stage his second coming is the same personality who has come on the earth first time as a prophet. If our Nabi (s.a.w.w) stated only that Hazrat Isa (a.s) would come, people might not be sure which Isa (a.s) our Nabi (s.a.w.w) is talking about- whether he is the same Isa (a.s) who was a prophet or he is some different personality. Therefore in order to remove the ambiguity and make the people certain that the personality whose name is Isa ibn e Maryam and who was a prophet in his first coming will come on earth for the second time, our Nabi (s.a.w.w) has mentioned Hazrat Isa (a.s) as prophet but has never stated that he [Isa (a.s)] will be a prophet after his second coming.  

Rather Quran and sayings of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) clearly rebut the view that Hazrat Isa (a.s) would come for the second time as a prophet. Quran says:

“And We did not send any messenger/rasool except to be obeyed by permission of Allah”(al-nisa-64).

This above quoted verse clearly states a rasool is he who must be obeyed by the  people; a rasool is NOT a personality who should obey someone else (after the Rasool is sent (not born) means after resalat is exposed to the rasool, he is not to obey someone else). But according to our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) sayings Hazrat Isa (a.s) will obey our Nabi’s (s.a.w.w) shariah. Qadyanis also believe Isa (a.s) will obey our Nabi (s.a.w.w) after his second coming. It clearly leads us believe that Hazrat Isa (a.s) will not be a prophet/ rasool after his second coming. 
He (a.s) will also not be a Nabi after his second coming. We have seen in the article http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2013/02/types-of-wahi-and-sunnah.html#links a prophet who is rasool and nabi combined like hazrat Isa (a.s), receives Book from Allah as a 'rasool', and, as a nabi, receives from Allah interpretation of that Book; such interpretation of the Book is called that prophet's Sunnah. Sunnah is always based on the Book. If hazrat Isa (a.s) is not to come as a rasool, it means he (a.s) is not to come along with his Book i.e. Injil. If hazrat Isa (a.s) is not to come as a nabi, it means he (a.s) is not to come along with his Sunnah which is based on his Book i.e. Injiil. In other words, if hazrat Isa (a.s) is not to come as a rasool, he (a.s) is not to come as a nabi as well; nabuwwat of a prophet who  is rasool and nabi combined is based on his resalat; if resalat is not there, nabuwwat will also not be there. It leads us to conclude that hazrat Isa (a.s) will come neither as a rasool nor as a nabi.

From the foregoing we may conclude that hazrat Isa (a.s) will NOT be a prophet after his second coming.

Now we discuss the concept of Imamate as propounded by the Qadyanis.

The Qadyani khalifah says that Imam Mahdi has two such attributes which are attributes of a prophet; these two attributes are: he (Imam Mahdi) will be appointed by Allah as Imam; the second is that obedience to Imam Mahdi will be essential for the Muslims. In support of his argument, Qadyani Khalifa gives reference to al-anbiya-73, and one of the sayings of our Nabi (s.a.w.w) about essentiality of ‘bayah’ to Imam Mahdi. Therefore he concludes that Imam Mahdi is an ummati nabi. Qadyani concept of Imamate may be rebutted on the following grounds.

Quoting reference of al-anbiya-73, he states that this verse shows that all Imams are prophets. Before analyzing qadyani interpretation of this verse, we need to appreciate the concept of Imam as reflected out of Quran. Imam means a leader who has a following; without followers, there is no Imam. If a person claims to be Imam without following of the Muslims, such a claim is just like a claim of a ‘khalifah’ without a throne/ state. Prophets are appointed by Allah; but it is not necessary that every prophet should have a group of followers; many prophets have passed who could not convert even a single person to Islam. But there are also many prophets who had sizeable following; such prophets were made Imams as well.

Verse al-anbiya-73 (and other similar verses) quoted by Qadyani leader as reference in support of his argument state about those prophets who had sizeable following. Al-anbiya 73 states about hazrat Isaac; hazrat Yaqoob as below:

  “And We made them leaders/Imams guiding by Our command. And We inspired to them the doing of good deeds, establishment of prayer, and giving of zakah; and they were worshippers of Us” (al-anbiya-73).

This verse states that it were prophets like Isaac and Yaqoob who were made Imams; this verse does not state that Imams were made prophets. It does not mean that all Imams are made prophets. On the contrary, it is reflected out of Quran that all Imams are not prophets.   Quran says about bani-Israel:

“And We wanted to confer favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders/imams and make them inheritors” (al-qasas-5).

This verse states that Allah wanted to make Imams the nation of bane-Israel; obviously whole bane-Israeli nation was not to be appointed as prophets.  Similarly Quran says about the righteous people:
 "And those who say, "Our Lord, grant us from among our wives and offspring comfort to our eyes and make us 'Imam' for the righteous" (al-furqan-74)."
This verse states the prayer of righteous persons (other than prophets) who pray for becoming 'Imam' of righteous people ( Imamate of righteous people only means spiritual Imamate). This verse shows that common pious persons (other than prophets) may also become Imam. 
The above quoted two verses (i.e. al-qasas-5 and al-furqan-74) show that, for every field of social life, there may be an Imam; some may be Imam in social fields; some in scientific fields; some in political field;  some in the field of Shariah; and some in spiritual field etc. The Imamate may be individual as well as collective; it was in collective sense that  Bani Israeli persons were wanted to be Imams of other nations in various fields, as mentioned in al-qasas-5.
From the foregoing, it becomes clear that qadyani argument that all Imams including Imam Mahdi are prophets is wrong. 

Now the question arises if all Imams are not prophets, how Imams are appointed by Allah. From the foregoing, it may be appreciated that no Imam is appointed prophet by virtue of his Imamate; but a prophet may be appointed Imam by virtue of his nabuwwat.  It means Imamate is not something superior to ‘nabuwwat’; rather nabuwwat is superior to Imamate. Imamate is just having sizeable following; it does not determine the spiritual status of an Imam; the spiritual status is determined by ‘muqamat’ attached with salehiat, shahadat, and siddiqiat (plz see my article http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2012/02/patterns-of-spiritual-elevations.html#links).  

From the foregoing it may be appreciated that Imamate is of two types i.e prophetic Imamate which is granted to prophets and non-prophetic Imamate which is granted to non-prophets. As far as mode of appointment of Imamate is concerned, it is the same in cases of both prophetic and non-prophetic Imamate. This mode has been described in Quran as below:

“And [mention, Muhammad (s.a.w.w)], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [Allah] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers” (al-baqra-124).

This verse states that first hazrat Ibrahim (a.s) was given certain commandments from Allah, and when Ibrahim (a.s) fulfilled those commands, he (a.s) was granted with Imamate of people. It means  Imamate is not ‘wahbi’ like prophet-hood. A prophet is always by birth a prophet; prophet-hood is not cultivable. But Imamate is not wahbi; it is cultivable. Hazrat Ibrahim (a.s) was first tried by Allah to ascertain whether he (a.s) could shoulder the responsibilities given by Allah or not; when he (a.s) succeeded in dispensing with those responsibilities, he (a.s) was declared as Imam of the people. It means no person (even a prophet) can claim Imamate without shouldering the responsibilities given by Allah.  It means responsibilities attached with Imamate are quite different from those attached with a prophet; a prophet’s job is to receive and understand ‘wahi’ received from Allah and to communicate the commandments contained in the ‘wahi’ to the people; an Imam is to execute the commandments received from a prophet. A prophet is superior to Imam; Imam is always follower of prophet. In case of prophetic Imamate, the prophet receives wahi from Allah as a prophet, and executes, as an Imam,  the commandments contained in the wahi. In case of non-prophetic Imamate, the Imam executes what commandments he has received from his prophet.

Now the question arises, if Imamate is not ‘wahbi’, why Allah has attributed grant of Imamate to Himself (al-baqra-124; al-qasas-5; al-anbiya-73).  Before replying to this question, we need to appreciate the difference between Amr-e- Ilahi and Sunnat e Ilahi. Amr- e-Ilahi are those Allah’s deeds which are performed by Allah without involvement of people; for instance all physical laws are Amr e Ilahi. Sunnat Ilahi are those Allah’s deeds which are performed by Allah through the people. Nabuwwat is Amr e Ilahi which is granted by Allah without involving the people; whereas Imamate is Sunnat e Ilahi which is granted by Allah through the people. All Muslims have been granted with Allah’s commandments; those who most seriously take these commandments are blessed with divine guidance to execute those commandments. Out of these blessed persons, the most successful in executing Allah’s commandments is declared as Imam. It may be noted the person who is declared as Imam is the person most followed by the people; in this way Allah declares someone as Imam through the people. Similarly all what happens to the people through the people is attributed by Allah to   Himself; for instance Quran says about the refuge given to our Nabi (s.a.w.w) as follows:

“Did He not find you an orphan and give [you] refuge”? (al-duha-6).

We know that the refuge was actually given by Hazrat Abdul Muttalib and then by Abu Talib. Similarly Allah says He saved bane Israel from the Pharoah:

“And [recall] when We saved your forefathers from the people of Pharaoh, who afflicted you with the worst torment, slaughtering your [newborn] sons and keeping your females alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord” (al-baqra-49).

But we know actually bane Israel were saved through hazrat Musa. Similarly Allah has attributed grant of Imamate to Himself; though Imamate is always granted to an Imam through the people. Wahbi are only those matters which happen without involvement of people; the matters like Imamate which happen with involvement of people cannot be called ‘wahbi’; such matters are Sunnat e Ilahi and as such are attributed by Allah to him-self.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that qadyani leader’s argument that Imams are prophets is wrong; that Imamate like nubuwwat is wahbi is  wrong and baseless. Imamate is not granted like nubuwwat is granted; Imamate is granted through the people whereas Nubuwwat is NOT granted through the people; Imamate is Sunnat e Ilahi whereas nubuwwat is amr e Ilahi. A prophet is he who receives wahi from Allah and communicates to the people the commandments contained in the wahi; whereas an Imam is he who executes the commandments contained in the wahi received from the prophet. It may be appreciated there is NOT a single hadith in which  our Nabi (s.a.w.w) has  mentioned  Imam Mahdi as a Nabi.

Now we deal with the Qadyani leader’s second point that it is essential for the Muslims to have ‘bayat’ to Imam Mahdi; from it he infers that  having ‘eman’ in Mahdi is essential like having ‘eman’ in prophets is essential. He is unable to differentiate between having ‘bayat’ to someone and having ‘eman’ in someone. 'Eman' is relating to prophets only (Eman is to believe in deeds and sayings of prophets); whereas 'bayah' may be relating to non-prophets also. We have ‘eman’ in our nabi (s.a.w.w) but if Muslims, after Nabi (s.a.w.w) took ‘bayat’ to his (s.a.w.w) successors, it does not mean the Muslims thought the successors were also Nabis. The hadith he states in support of his argument states about the ‘bayat’  of Imam Mahdi; it does not state about having ‘eman’ in Imam Mahdi. Of course it is essential for the Muslims to have ‘bayat’ to Imam Mahdi; but it does not mean if any Muslim does not have ‘bayat’ to Imam Mahdi, he would become a ‘kafir’. Having bayat to Imam Mahdi is just like many other commandments given by our Nabi (s.a.w.w); like commandments given relating to theft, corruption, moral turpitude, zakat, fasting, hajj etc. If any Muslim violates any of such commandments and does not act upon any of such commandments, he does not become a ‘kafir’; similarly if any Muslim does not take ‘bayat’ to Imam Mahdi, he would commit a sin-a capital sin- but he would not become a kafir due to not taking ‘bayat’ to Imam Mahdi. But having ‘eman’ in a prophet is not like having allegiance/ bayat to an Imam; if someone does not have ‘eman’ in the prophet, he becomes a kafir.

From the foregoing we may conclude that qadyani leader’s arguments are not viable in the light of Quran and Sunnah. Actually the attributes of Imamate are different from the attributes of a prophet; therefore qadyani claim that Mirza Ghulam Qadyani is a prophet by virtue of (his so called) Imamate is a wrong concept; similarly qadyani concept that Mirza Ghulam Qadyani is a prophet by virtue of being (so called) 'Masih Maood' is also wrong.