Legislation and Affirmative/ ‘eejabi’ Obligations in Islam

  

Affirmative/ positive/ ‘eejaabi’ obligations are those acts which people are directed to perform e.g. Namaz’ rooza’ zakat, hajj etc. are affirmative/positive obligations. This term affirmative/positive obligations is used as opposite to negative obligations which are acts  people are forbidden to undertake e.g. all bad deeds/evils including  all crimes are relating to  negative obligations.

Every obligation (positive or negative) has two phases- individual phase and collective phase. The difference between individual and collective deed is that individual deed is compensated individually whereas a collective deed is compensated collectively. The first stage of every collective obligation/phase is always individual obligation/phase but contribution of every individual is not required in collective deeds.    The rise and fall of nations is based on collective deeds of nations; it is not based on individual deeds (for details pls see http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2016/02/individual-reformation-vs-collective.html#links ). That is why every nation is allowed by Allah to reform its collective deeds so that the nation may rise in the comity of nations. For the purpose, Muslims have been assigned collective obligations and such obligations may be got complied with through legislation. Because first phase of every collective deed/obligation is individual deed/obligation (though not all individuals’ deeds/obligations) so Muslims are allowed to reform individuals’ deeds/obligations as well through legislation. In other words, Islamic state may make legislation to enforce collective and individual obligations whether such obligations are positive/ eejabi or negative ones; whether such obligations are relating to crimes or relating to eejabi/positive or negative ones other than crimes.

Regarding crimes, Islam establishes social justice through ‘Qist’ under which social justice is established essentially through laws. Regarding obligations (positive or negative which are not crimes) social justice is established through ‘adl’ under which social justice is established through legal as well as non-legal means. ‘Qist’ involves crimes and penalty whereas ‘adl’ does not involve crimes and penalty (for details pls see  http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2012/12/differentiation-between-amr-bil-maroof.html    http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2012/12/concept-of-meezan-and-essentiality-of.html ).

It means ‘Qist’ is legal dispensation of justice in cases of crimes; whereas ‘adl’ is dispensation of justice through legal and non-legal means in cases of positive/ eejabi or negative obligations other than crimes.

It is quality of the Quran that Quran does not specifically mention punishment for each and every crime; Quran only describes principle through some examples that crimes are to be punished (through laws). Similarly, in cases of eejabi/positive or negative obligations other than crimes, Quran only describes principle through an example that eejabi/positive and negative obligations other than crimes may be enforced through laws; this example has been given as follows:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (al-taubah-5).

This verse is stating that polytheists of Arabia are to be killed wherever they are found but if they repent (means they accept Islam), establish prayer, and give ‘zakah’, they should not be held liable to be killed. We know prayer and zakah both are eejabi/positive obligations. This verse is stating a law specifically about the polytheists of Arabia but this verse does describe the principle that state may make legislation for enforcement of positive/eejabi obligations (which are not Arabia's polytheists specific e.g. prayer and zakah) in certain situations. Though the element of penalty in this law is specific to polytheists of Arabia, it does not mean state cannot make legislation for enforcement of eejabi/positive obligations without element of penalty.  It is true Quran does not make it mandatory to make legislation for enforcement of eejabi/positive obligations or negative obligations other than crimes; if people are motivated enough to fulfill their eejabi/ positive or negative obligations other than crimes, it is not mandatory for state to go for legislation for that purpose. But if people start avoiding implementation of such obligations, taubah-5 does provide the state with option to enforce such obligations through legislation without element of penalty. In other words, legislation under process of establishment of ‘adl’ is not mandatory in all situations; ‘adl’ is to be established through legislation only when it is required to do so.

 Actually role of establishment of ‘adl’ is much more important than the role of ‘qist’ in building a reformed, just, pious and strong society. Qist is related to only some numbered human activities; but ‘adl’ is related to countless human activities. The scope of ‘adl’ includes all human activities like human thoughts, emotions, desires, customs, traditions, moral values, professional ethics, business ethics, legal system, economic system, political system, social system etc. If system of ‘adl’ is left unattended and people start ignoring their eejabi/positive and negative obligations other than crimes, society becomes bound to go for downfall, even if system of ‘qist’ is fully developed and enforced in the society.

In the early period of rise of Islam, people were motivated enough to fulfill their eejabi/positive and negative obligations other than crimes. There was no need to make legislation for the purpose. Only ‘Qist’ related legislation was in place. But with the passage of time, people start shunning more and more their eejabi/positive and negative obligations other than crimes. The result was downfall of Muslims’ society. That downfall might be stopped through making ‘adl’ related legislation but no heed was paid to it. ‘Qist’ related legislation (crimes related legislation) was there but could not stop Muslims’ downfall. Now that we have reached almost the abyss of downfall, we are still ignoring ‘adl’ related legislation. Because we are not fulfilling, on our  own, our eejabi/positive and negative obligations other than crimes, there is no chance of our rising again without adopting ‘adl’ related legislation.

Legislation regarding eejabi/positive obligations and negative obligations other than crimes may prove to be panacea of many social evils we are facing with. Legislation may be made to bind children to pay a certain portion of their income to their unemployed parents; an industrialist may be made bound to clean the environment where he has established his factory; husband may be made bound to pay a certain portion of his pay to his wife and children; the owner of factory establishing his factory availing special concessions given by the government (e.g. in special industrial estates)  may be made bound to give away a certain portion of income to the workers; the rich may be made bound not to display their riches unnecessary; the rich may be made bound to invest their wealth in productive sectors; the poor may be made bound not to sit idle and  get some kind of employment; the media may be made bound to promote decency and avoid indecency; the educational system may be bound to impart Islamic values and way of life; the economic system may be made bound to serve the poor and reduce disparity between the poor and the rich through economic policies; the political system may be made bound to promote and strengthen Islamic Ideology and Islamic institutions. In short, legislation regarding eejabi/positive obligations and negative obligations other than crimes is relevant and required for each field of social life. There is so much room for such legislation in a Muslim society.  It need not be reiterated that fulfillment of all these obligations would be ensured through administrative/judicial intervention  without awarding any penalty (physical or monetary(fine)). One way of enforcing positive/eejabi obligations (and this method may be applicable in many cases though not in all cases) may be that the defaulter may be prohibited from  undertaking the activity, if he fails in fulfilling the obligations attached with such activity. For instance, if an industrialist defaults, the operation of his industry may be stopped ( it should not be taken as monetary penalty; monetary penalty is effectuated by receiving certain amount from the defaulter); similarly if any governmental functionary defaults, he may be removed from his post; if media defaults, its license may be suspended.

We may conclude that adoption of legislation related to eejabi/positive and negative obligations other than crimes is a crying need of the time; of course crime related legislation is also required. Without ‘adl’ related legislation, qist related (crimes related ) legislation cannot put Muslim society back on the track of rising among the comity of nations.

Fundamentalism of Sunnah (hadith) and Mr. Ghamdi’s Views (3)

Mr. Ghamdi says Quran and Sunnah are only sources of Deen; the rational given by him is Deen has to be widely known to the people. The Quran and Sunnah (which are, in his view, practices/traditions coming from the previous prophets) being widely known to the people are Deen whereas ‘ahadith’ being ‘akhbar e ehad’ are not widely known to the people and as such cannot be termed as Deen. 

Before analyzing this above mentioned view of Ghamdi, we need to understand that all provisions of Deen are not required to be implemented all the time; it is the situation and a problem faced in that situation which determines which provision of Deen is to be implemented in that situation. When we are student we do not need to implement provisions which are related to a teacher; when we are disable, we do not need to implement provisions which are related to an able body; when we are faced with war, we do not need to implement provisions which are related to peace. What I mean to say is a person needs to implement a provision of Deen when he is facing a situation relating to that provision.

Even if hadith is ‘khabr e wahid’, it was not meant to remain ‘khabr e wahid’ forever. It is our common observation  whenever a person is faced with a situation regarding which he does not know what was provision of Deen, another person knowing that provision could come forward to guide the ignorant person. In this way many solutions and legislations were made by the Muslims during period of four caliphs and after them on the basis of such ‘ahadith’ which were ‘akhabr e ehad’ in the beginning but did not remain ‘akhbar e ehad’, when such ‘ahadith’ were adopted for required solutions and legislations. In this way ‘khabr e wahid’ which is a  ‘hadith’ stated by our Nabi (ﷺ) to one or a few companions became widely known to the people, with the arising of situations in which  implementation of such hadith was required. Therefore we can safely say that ‘khabr e wahid’  was not meant to be remained as ‘khabr e wahid’ for ever; rather our Nabi (ﷺ) could imagine very well that ‘khabr e wahid’ will be widely known to the people when  implementation of such ‘khabr e wahid’ would be required.

Furthermore, if original narrator of a hadith is one or a few persons, it does not mean that only those few persons were knowing that hadith; it only means that secondary narrator(s) has/have taken that hadith from those few persons but  that hadith may be known to a large number of people. Therefore Ghamdi's view that 'akhbar e ehad' were not widely known enough to be declared as Deen cannot be taken as true.

Mr. Ghamdi’s views about time specific and person specific hadith have been already dealt with in part (1).

From the foregoing we can conclude that Mr. Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is not valid/authentic form of Deen. Now we would see Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is not comprehensive as well.

We have already seen in the article  http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2012/12/concept-of-meezan-and-essentiality-of.html that Sunnah (which includes Hadith) and Quran both provide for whole system of justice in Islam through ‘qist’ and ‘adl’. ‘Qist’ is dispensation of justice essentially through legal means; whereas ‘adl’ is dispensation of justice through legal as well as non-legal means. Another difference between ‘qist’ and ‘adl’ is that ‘qist’ involves crimes and penalty; whereas ‘adl’ does not involve crimes and penalty. In other words, Sunnah including ‘hadith’ provide for social justice in all spheres of social life (legal and non-legal ones). In this way Sunnah (hadith) along-with Quran provide comprehensive guidance for human beings in all spheres of social life. If hadith is not to be treated as a part of Deen, as Mr. Ghamdi views, Deen does not remain comprehensive guidance for humanity. In other words, Ghamdi’s concept of Deen provides for only a few traditions/beliefs/  practices which are negligible as compared to whole life span in which a person is free to live his life without any divine guidance. 
  The correct understanding of Quran is not possible without taking guidance from Hadith. Since 1400 years back so many understandings of Quran have come on the surface; no one is complete to provide guidance for all ages to come. Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz's and Ghamdi's (so called) understanding of Quran has not come on the surface before them , and are different from previous understandings; similarly latter understandings would be different from that of Pervaiz's and Ghamdi's. We are forced to believe that complete understanding of Quran is not possible through a single person or through a single generation. Actually Quran keeps on divulging its meanings in each generation/period according to problems to be faced by human beings in that period. Hadith provides us a framework to seek solutions of every period's problems through the Quran, as Quran provides us a framework to understand 'Hadith'. No 'Hadith' is to be accepted, if it contradicts Quran; similarly out of many possible interpretations of Quranic verse, only such interpretations would be accepted which are in line with 'Hadith'- if relevant sahih hadith is available.

Therefore we can conclude that Mr. Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is neither valid/authentic nor comprehensive enough to provide guidance to people in all fields of life.

Fundamentalism of Sunnah (Hadith) and Mr. Ghamdi’s Views(2)

Now we discuss Ghamdi’s views about ‘Sunnah’ and ‘Hadith’ which have been described briefly in part (1).

 Mr. Ghamdi’s says  Quran and Sunnah (not hadith) are basic and sole sources of Deen. Hadith is not source of Deen; it is only interpretation of principles contained in sole sources i.e. Quran and Sunnah. If a hadith describes/explains (in the reader’s view) any principle contained in Quran and Sunnah, it will be accepted as correct hadith and correct interpretation of Quran and Sunnah; but if a hadith does not describe/ explain (in the reader’s view) any principle contained in Quran and Sunnah, it will be incorrect hadith and incorrect interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. Let us analyze this view.

It is true that Quran is embodiment of whole Deen but this Deen contained in the Quran (Quranic principles) cannot be explored without the guiding principles contained in our Nabi’s (ﷺ) sayings.  ‘Hadith’ is itself a part of Deen not only because it provides guiding principles of exploration of Deen but also because these principles have been provided by our Nabi (ﷺ) under wahi. Hadith performs this role of exploration of Quranic principles in two ways:

Firstly, hadith gives guiding principles to interpret Quranic principles. Because hadith is also result of ‘wahi’- as we have seen in part (1)- we have to interpret Quranic principles keeping in view the guiding principles contained in hadith. But of course, if any hadith contradicts the principle(s) contained in the Quran, such hadith would not be accepted as correct hadith. But any hadith would not be rejected simply on the ground that principle contained in that hadith is not found in the Quran. It may be appreciated that exploration of all Quranic principles is not an easy job. Some Quranic principles are worded- described in apparent words of Quran; but many principles are un-worded- which are adduced through analogical deduction based on worded principles. Our Nabi (ﷺ)  has discovered these un-worded Quranic principles under ‘wahi’ and described them in ‘Hadith’; so no Muslim is supposed to challenge the validity of these un-worded Quranic principles on the ground that in his wisdom (in the reader’s wisdom)  the principle described in the hadith is not found in the Quran. That is why though ‘Hadith’ is interpretation of Quranic principles but without guiding principles contained in ‘Hadith’-which have been discovered by our Nabi (ﷺ) under ‘wahi’- we cannot discover the principles contained in the Quran; that is why Hadith is Deen in itself.

But of course, as said earlier, if any ‘hadith’ contradicts Quranic principle(s), such hadith would not be accepted as correct hadith. The definition of contradictory views/things has already been given in many previous articles on this blog.  ‘Different views are something different from ‘Contradictory views. Two views are different views, if any one of the two may be adopted without negating or accepting the other one. Two views are contradictory views, if any one  of the two may NOT be   adopted without negating the other. For instance, A says Z is dead; and B says Z is alive; these two views are contradictory because a person may not adopt any one of the two without negating the other view. Similarly, suppose, A says Z is sick; B says Z is on leave; these two views are different views because a person may adopt any one of the two views without negating the other one. 

If a principle described in a hadith is contradictory to that one described in Quran, such a hadith may not be accepted as correct hadith; but if principle contained in hadith is only different from that one contained in the Quran in the sense that hadith principle may be adopted without rejecting the principle contained in the Quran, such a hadith may not be rejected as incorrect hadith.  

Secondly, ‘Hadith’ gives guiding principles of interpretation of Quranic provisions not only in authentic form but also in comprehensive manner. The interpretations of Quranic principles put forth by our Nabi (ﷺ) are not only authentic because such interpretations have been made by our Nabi (ﷺ) under wahi but also are comprehensive enough to guide people in all fields of life. In other words, if hadith is not accepted as Deen, Deen (Quran) does not remain something authentic because, in such case, Quran would be understood by each two persons differently (and contradictorily as well) according to their own wisdom, and because no body’s wisdom is enough- without assistance of hadith- to explore all Quranic provisions/principles –worded and un-worded- properly, no comprehensive/authentic form of Deen would be available for people guidance in all fields of life.  

We see that Mr. Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is neither valid/authentic nor comprehensive enough to cover all fields of life. He says Quran and Sunnah are sole source of Deen; hadith is not Deen. Hadith is only interpretation of Quran; by this he means only such hadith is to be accepted as correct hadith which is in line with Quranic principles. It would be readers (ulema) who would decide whether subject-matter of a hadith is in line with Quranic principles or not. In other words, he relies on the reader’s wisdom to decide whether subject matter of hadith is found in Quranic principles or not; he does not rely on hadith (our Nabi’s (ﷺ) wisdom) to decide that subject matter of hadith is interpretation of Quranic principles. Ghamdi’s view is not tenable because reader’s wisdom is not enough-without assistance of hadith- to understand all worded and un-worded principles of Quran and because readers’ interpretation of Quran and Hadith is not guarded by ‘wahi’, it cannot be taken as a valid/authentic interpretation of Quranic principles. On the other hand, our Nabi’s (ﷺ)   interpretation (hadith) is made under wahi and as such is authentic interpretation of Quran. Therefore, instead of reader’s wisdom, Hadith should be accepted as valid/authentic interpretation of Quranic principles, provided hadith fulfils the criterions devised by the authentic ‘mahaddaseen’; any hadith should not be rejected on the ground that its subject-matter is not related to any Quranic principle in view of  readers (ulemas). In view of foregoing, we can see that Hadith is itself a part of Deen.

Mr. Ghamdi differentiates between Sunnah and hadith; he says Sunnah are such traditions/practices which have been transferred to our Nabi (ﷺ) from the previous prophets (ﷺ), and such traditions were widely known to the people.  He says ahadith are ‘akhbar e ehad’ which were not widely known to the people; a hadith was used to be addressed to a solitary person or a few persons only. As such, hadith cannot be a basic source of Deen which should be widely known to the people. 

He believes that Sunnah is part of Deen but he does not find roots of these practices (which he calls as Sunnah) from Quran and Hadith; rather he finds roots of such practices from History and previous Divine Books which have been corrupted according to Quran.  In this way Mr. Ghamdi’s Deen is based on History and corrupted Divine Books; his concept of Deen is not an authentic form of Deen (continued).

Fundamentalism of Sunnah (hadith) and Mr. Ghamdi’s Views (1)

Mr. Ghamdi views that Quran and Sunnah (not hadith) are basic and sole sources of Deen. Hadith is not source of Deen; it is only interpretation of principles contained in sole sources i.e. Quran and Sunnah. If a hadith describes/explains (in the reader’s view) any principle contained in Quran and Sunnah, it will be accepted as correct hadith and correct interpretation of Quran and Sunnah; but if a hadith does not describe/ explain (in the reader’s view) any principle contained in Quran and Sunnah, it will be incorrect hadith and incorrect interpretation of Quran and Sunnah.

He differentiates between Sunnah and hadith; he says Sunnah are such traditions/practices which have been transferred to our Nabi (ﷺ) from the previous prophets (ﷺ), and such traditions were widely known to the people.  He says hadith are ‘akhbar e ehad’ which were not widely known to the people; a hadith was used to be addressed to a solitary person or a few persons only. As such, hadith cannot be a basic source of Deen which should be widely known to the people. 

He further says even if hadith are accepted as correct hadith (being correct interpretation of principle contained in the Quran and Sunnah), they are not to be accepted as Deen; rather they are to be accepted only as interpretations of principles contained in the Quran and Sunnah. 

He further says even if hadith are accepted as correct hadith (being correct interpretation of principle contained in the Quran and Sunnah), they are not essentially applicable to present age Muslims; many of them are time specific and people specific, and as such are applicable only to those people who were living in the age of our Nabi (ﷺ).

There is one contradiction in Mr. Ghamdi’s views. On the one hand he says hadith are only interpretations of Deen i.e. Quran and Sunnah (by it he means hadith are not Deen - they are not ‘mustakil bil zaat commandments), but on the other hand, he says violation of a correct (sahih) hadith is violation of Deen/ ‘eman’. He is declaring violation of hadith as violation of Deen without taking hadith as a part of Deen.

These views of Mr. Ghamdi may be learned through the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1h02crqTg.  Let us analyze these views of Mr. Ghamdi in the following lines.

Before analyzing Mr. Ghamdi’s views stated above, it would be pertinent to describe briefly what is Deen according to the Quran and Sunnah (hadith). According to the Quran, Deen is what has been revealed to our Nabi (ﷺ) in the form of ‘wahi’. This ‘wahi’ has been revealed in two forms. The first form is the Quran.

“Surely We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, therefore serve Allah, being sincere to Him in Deen” (al-zumar-2).

The second form of ‘wahi’ is words of our Nabi (ﷺ) and words of Gabriel (a.s).

“Indeed, that (wahi) is the word of a noble Messenger/ rasool (ﷺ)” (al-haqah-40).

“Indeed, that (wahi) is a word of a noble ‘rasool’ (Gabriel)” (al-takveer-19).

In other words, ‘wahi’ was revealed to our Nabi (ﷺ) in two forms; i. the Quran, and ii. Sunnah which includes  ‘Hadith e Rasool’ and ‘Hadith e Qudsi’- Hadith e Rasool is the words of our Nabi (ﷺ) and Hadith e Qudsi is originally words of Gabriel (a.s) but presented to people through our Nabi (ﷺ). (for details pls see http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2014/03/hujjiat-e-sunnahessentiality-of-sunnah-2.html and http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2014/03/hujjiat-e-sunnah-essentiality-of-sunnah_26.html and http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2011/09/wahi-and-intuition.html ).

 In the Quran, there are other verses also which show that Sunnah (Hadith) is a form of ‘wahi’.

In short, Deen is the wahi which has been revealed in the form of Quran and Sunnah which includes Hadith. It means we cannot add anything into the ‘Deen’, if that thing is not wahi. Similarly we cannot exclude anything from the ‘Deen’, if that thing is a ‘wahi’. There is only one exception to this rule i.e. time specific and people specific ‘wahi’ is not part of Deen. Time specific and people specific wahi is actually relating to methodology/ policy of implementing the Deen; we will explain it later in this article.

This fact that Deen is ‘wahi’ has been mentioned in the Quran in following manner as well:

And whatever the Messenger (ﷺ) has given you - take; and what he (ﷺ) has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. (al-hashr-7).

Because our Nabi (ﷺ) does not speak/act but under ‘wahi’ (al-najm-3,4), and because ‘wahi’ is the Deen, this above mentioned verse (al-hashr-7) is stating that whatever has been given/recommended by our Nabi (ﷺ) is the Deen; similarly whatever has been forbidden by our Nabi (ﷺ) is also part of Deen as a forbidden thing. If Muslims are to accept what has been given to them and what has been forbidden to them by our Nabi (ﷺ), it means this verse (al-hashr-7) is stating about the Deen; because, obviously outside the Deen, Muslims are not under obligation to accept/follow anything.

 Because our Nabi (ﷺ) does not speak/act but according to ‘wahi’, and because ‘wahi’ is the Deen, this verse is stating that following our Nabi (ﷺ) is the Deen. Following is different from obedience in the sense that obedience is relating to orders/commandments only whereas following is related to everything- whether commanded or not. In other words, what words came out of mouth of our Nabi (ﷺ); what actions or omissions were committed or recommended by our Nabi (ﷺ); what gestures were made by our Nabi (ﷺ) what advices were tendered by our Nabi (ﷺ); what explanations and knowledge was imparted by our Nabi (ﷺ) - all are Deen and as such need to be  followed by the Muslims. A person’s statements or actions may be of three types; they may be affirmative (apparently or impliedly); they may be negative (apparently or impliedly); or they may be neutral. All three types of statements and actions adopted by our Nabi (ﷺ) are part of Deen, and as such are to be accepted and followed by the Muslims. 

There is only one exception to what details of Deen have been described above; this exception is relating to time specific and people specific ‘wahi’. If our Nabi (ﷺ) acted in Contradictory manner in two different situations pertaining to the same subject-matter, such deeds will be called as time specific or people specific Deen. There is difference between Contradictory and Different deeds/views. Two views/deeds are different views/deeds, if any one of the two may be adopted without negating or accepting the other one. Two views/deeds are contradictory views/deeds, if any one  of the two may NOT be   adopted without negating the other. For instance, A says Z is dead; and B says Z is alive; these two views are contradictory because a person may not adopt any one of the two without negating the other view. Similarly, suppose, A says Z is sick; B says Z is on leave; these two views are different views because a person may adopt any one of the two views without negating the other one. 

For instance, during ‘Ghazw e badr’ our Nabi (ﷺ) opted to fight the enemy in the open field; whereas during ‘Ghazw e Khandaq’ fighting was done keeping within the city which was surrounded by ‘khandaq/tunnel’. These two policies are contradictory to each other, and as such may be called as situation/time specific. Similarly, if two different companions were appointed as commander in chief in different situations, such an act will be called as contradictory deed, and as such would be labeled as situation specific.

In cases of Contradictory deeds in two different situations but relating to the same subject-matter, Muslims are allowed to adopt actions suited to their given situation. Though such deeds were done by our Nabi (ﷺ) under ‘wahi’ but are not part of permanent Deen; more appropriately such deeds may be called as time specific and people specific Deen OR methodology/policy to implement what has been contained in the Deen. (for details plz see http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2015/12/enforcement-of-islam-through-muslims.html).

But it may be appreciated that merely Different deeds/views in two different situation but relating to the same subject-matter cannot be  called as situation specific or people specific.  For instance if  each one of any two companions asks separately our Nabi (ﷺ) about the best deed for a Muslim, and our Nabi (ﷺ) replies each one of them by naming  different deed as the best deed for a Muslim,  these would be only Different deeds, if both may be adopted by the Muslims collectively-one Muslim adopting one deed and another Muslim adopting the other deed simultaneously; such deeds cannot be labeled as situation specific or people specific. Situation specific and person specific deeds/views are only contradictory views/deeds which cannot be adopted simultaneously by the Muslims collectively.

In the light of features of Deen and Sunnah (Hadith) described above, we would analyze Mr. Ghamdi’s views given above (continued).