-
Ahl Kitaab/mushrik
Why does Ghamidi sahab say God don’t call them mushrikeen? Wasn’t it just a simple way to distinguish between Quraysh and Jews/Christians?
-
13 Replies
-
Ahl Kitaab/mushrik
updated 4 years, 1 month ago
5 Members
·
13
Replies
-
Also once itmam e hujjat was done shouldn’t they have been called mushrikeen because they took it as a creed of their religion even after it was clear?
-
But even after itmam-e-hujjat, their punishment was kept different from that of other Mushriks of Arab, which clearly means that even after itmam-e-hujjat, due regard was given by God to their monotheistic beliefs, however distorted they were.
-
Due regard would make sense if they were simply making a mistake. But they knew full well after hujjah that what they were doing was shirk
-
Yes!
Isn’t itmam e hujjat to conclusively deliver the truth to the addressees? They were doing shirk and the hujjat on them was to make it clear and transparent their shirk. If not this, what else was the hujjat about?
And if the hujjat was about this, then why not treat them the same way as Mushriks?
-
-
Allah knows best and he didn’t call them Mushrikeen
-
Yes but we are criticising the view that it was for the specific reason of them ‘not taking shirk as a religion’. When the shirk was clear on them they knowingly did it. God knows what was in their hearts and did hujjah on them- a mushrik is someone who knowingly does shirk. So it seems rather that the differentiating in calling them another name was simply to differ in addresses when revealing the Quran or for us to have clarity of who is being referred to
-
-
The fact of the matter is that Mushriks of mecca had openly adopted polytheism as their religion while Jews and Christians hadn’t. Itmam-e-hujjah definitely means they denied the prophet after knowing He was the true Prophet along with the message of that Prophet. However, at the time of giving punishment, just like all other crimes, due regard was given to nature of crime, the condition of perpetrator and conditions under which crime was being committed. Sometimes we end up giving different punishments to the perpetrators of the same crime based on the very factors mentioned above. It is these factors that were being taken into account by God as well while pronouncing their respective punishments.
Therefore, we infer that God gave a lesser punishment to Ahl-e-Kitaab because of their lack of open polytheism in comparison to open polytheism by Mushriks. The crime is the same, but it is these factors (i.e. the condition of perpetrator and conditions under which crime is being committed) which can make the crime of similar nature sometimes eligible for extreme punishment and sometimes for a comparatively lesser punishment.
-
But then one could argue that the Ahl-e-Kitab also had a history of books and prophets which just made them all the more responsible or answerable in front of God as compared to the Mushriks of Arabia.
Or God chose to leave the Ahl e Kitab like the hypocrites of the time to deal with them in Akhirah?
-
The one who argues that “the Ahl-e-Kitab also had a history of books and prophets which just made them all the more responsible or answerable in front of God as compared to the Mushriks of Arabia“, should provide its basis from Quran along with its relationship with difference in punishments between Ahl-e-Kitaab and Mushriks.
Quran is very clear about Shirk, when done knowingly, is an unforgivable sin. Hence, this explains the difference in magnitude of punishments imposed on both parties.
Also, Quran is very clear about punishment imposed on Ahl-e-kitaab, therefore, there is no point in comparing them with Hypocrites of that time.
-
The Quran talks about ahl dhikr referring to ahl kitaab about prophets coming as men. They were acquainted with prophethood it seems.
That’s our point- by definition of itmaam e hujjah the Jews and Christians knew they were doing shirk.
-
I thought so because they both (Ahl e Kitab and the hypocrites) had in them the potential – to acknowledge reality and change accordingly because of their closeness to both Islam and Muslims. As compared to the Mushriks.
-
-
The same question can be posited in another way. Doesn’t the punishment after ‘Itmam-e-Hujjah’ imply that the Mushrikeens and the People of Book were punished for denying the truth per se and not for their previously held beliefs?
-
So it seems they were simply punished because of what they held as a belief rather than their arrogance
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
