Dars e Imam-Sinless

“Bismillahir Rahmannir Raheem””Al-Hamdu Lillaahi Rabbil ‘Aalameen was Salaatu was- Salaamu ‘Alaa Sayidinaa Muhammadin wa Aalihi wa Asabihi Ajma ‘een (tauheed- risalat- ahkirat and islam-iman-ihsan)

Hadrat Adam (as) is pure from fault. Many Mufassireen state that the subject of ‘Ja’alaa’ is Qusai and his wife, because the meaning of the ayat “خلقکم من نفس واحدۃ و جعل منھا زوجھا” is, “O Quraish! Allah(swt) gave you birth from one life {i.e. Qusai) and He made his wife from his own class.” Qusai was wrong for asking his Rubb for a son and naming him ‘Abul-Haarith’. – Tafseer Khazaainul-lrjaan, etc. In this case, there is no objection at all. Some also say that a governing word (muzaaf) is hidden in ‘Ja’alaa’ and its subject is the children of Hadrat Adam (as), i.e some children of Hadrat Adam (as) and Sayyidah Hawa (ra)ا began to make shirk. – Roohul-Bayaan, Madaarik, etc. This is why the plural from was used later on, “فتعالی اللہ عما یشرکون”-7/190 Here, ‘Esyaan’ has been used to figuratively mean ‘mistake’. The meaning of ‘Gawaa’ is not deviance, but not attaining the aim. In other words, he ate the wheat to attain eternal life but didn’t. Rather, eating the wheat caused harm instead of benefit {i.e. he didn’t find a way to his objective). –Tafseer Roohul-Bayaan under this ayat .When Allah(swt) has proclaimed several times that Hadrat Adam (as) forgot, to try and establish sin through ‘asaa’ in the ayat is to create contradiction in the Holy Quran.

Hadrat Ibrahim (as) said this as a question to his people (“Is this my Lord?”). Thereafter, he himself answered the question with proof, “لا احب الافلین”-7/76 .This ayat was mentioned first, “و کذلک نری ابراھم ملکوت السموت و الارض و لیکون من الموقنین” and thereafter was the verse concerning the stars. It was later said after these two, “و تلک حجتنا اتینھا ابراھیم علی قومہ” From this setting of verses, it is apparent that the incident of the stars was after seeing the sovereignty of the worlds. Allah(swt) also praised his utterance. If what he said was polytheism (shirk), why was it praised? Allah(swt) should have severely reproached him for it.

There are a few replies to this, Firstly, under compulsion (majboor) and when there is a foreclosing one’s life, speaking lies is not a sin. In fact, even speaking kufr is permitted at this time, “من اکرہ و قلبہ مطمئن بالایمان” 16/106

At the instances when Hadrat Ibrahim (as) said these things, he had a fear of losing his life based on virtue. The tyrannical king of the time wanted to forcefully snatch Sayyidah Saarah (ra) away from him. This is why he said that she was his sister. On the other occasions, he feared losing his life. Thus, he spoke these things. – Roohul-Bayaan under Surah Nahl, Ver16/63 So, these would not cause any sin. Secondly, these utterances are not lies because the distant meanings are intended by them. This form of speech is known as Touriya (equivocation) and, in circumstances of need, it is permissible. Once, the Holy Prophet(saws) said to an old woman, “No old woman will enter Jannah.” At another instance, when someone once asked him for a camel, he replied, “I shall give you the offspring of a female came1.” He also once placed his hand on the eyes of a Sahaabi and said, “Who buys this slave?” – Mishkaat, Baabul-Mazaah .

Historians have exaggerated the incident of Hadrat Dawood (as) and whatever is present in single narrations of Hadith is unacceptable. This is why Hadrat Ali (ra) said, “To anyone who narrates the story of Hadrat Dawood (as) in the manner which storytellers do, I shall give him 160 lashes!” This was twice as many for the punishment of accusation. – Roohul-Bayaan, Surah Su’aad, The incident of Hadrat Dawood (as). The following is merely what happened: Both a person named Auriya and Hadrat Dawood (as) proposed to a woman simultaneously. She accepted Hadrat Dawood’s (as) proposal and made Nikah with him, therefore leaving Auriya unable to wed her. Thus, under the ayat, “لا ینال عھدی الظلمین” Mulla Jeewan (ra) states, “و عن داود بکونہ اقداما علی الفعل المشروع و ھو نکاح المخطوبۃ لا ور بالا نظرہ منکوحۃ” -Tafseeraat-e-Ahmadia

Forget about intending sin, Hadrat Yusuf (as) was protected from even thinking such thoughts! He who says that he intended adultery with Zulaikha is a Kaafir. Cornmentating on this ayat, Allama Ismail Haqqi (ra) states, “فمن نسوب الی الانبیاء الفواحش کالعزم علی الزنا و نحوہ الذی یقولہ الحشویۃ کفر لانہ شتم لھم کذا فی القنیۃ” -­Tafseer Roohul-Bayaan The answer to your objection is that there are two commentaries to this ayat: Firstly, stopping (waqf) should be made at the end of ‘Wa laqad hamat bihi’ and begin the ayat, separate from the above, with ‘Hamma bihaa’. The meaning will now be, “Verily Zulaikha intended Yusuf (as) and he too would have intended had he not seen the proof of his Lord.” There is no place for objection through this interpretation. This meaning is correct according to transmitted proof (naql) and is also rational. Tafseer Khaazin states, “ولو لا ان را برھان ربہ لھم بھا” Imam Nasafi writes, “The reciter (qaari) should stop (waqf) at ‘bihi’ and commence the ayat from ‘hamma bihi’.” 26.49 – Tafseer Madaarikut- Tanzeel

This is also related to Deduction (Qareen-e-Qiyaas) because the Quran speaks about the actions of Zulaikha at this juncture, “و علقت الابواب و قالت ھیت لک”-­12/24 .Zulaikha tried to use every method to tempt Hadrat Yusuf (as) towards her. She summoned him and even closed the door. However, only the hatred of Hadrat Yusuf (as) for this action, as well as his disgust and infallibility for it, was spoken of, “Allah’s(swt) protection! He is my Protector and there are many blessings of His upon me. Such an action is oppression and an oppressor is not successfu1.” –12/23 It was then said, “کذلک لنصرف عنہ السوء و الفحشاء” .By ‘fahshaa’ and ‘soo’ adultery and the intention to commit it are intended respectively, proving that Allah(swt) safeguarded him from even intending to commit this act. Even Zulaikha said, “I tried to make him interested in me but he was truthful.”– 12/51 .In fact, testimony to his innocence and Zulaikha’s faltering was additionally made through a milk-drinking infant, “و شھد شاھد من الھلما” and the Ruler of Egypt said, “O Zulaikha! Repent from your sin. You are wrong.”

A milk-drinking infant, the Ruler of Egypt, Zulaikha and even Allah(swt) testified to Hadrat Yusuf’s (as) innocence! If, like Zulaikha, Hadrat Yusuf (as) also intended to commit sin, he would have been a criminal and these testimonies would have been incorrect. The ayat would have then stated that Zulaikha began the sin and Hadrat Yusuf (as) completed it afterwards. Also, if Hadrat Yusuf (as) did intend committing Zina, his repentance and istighfaar would have definitely been spoken about. Imam Nasafi (ra) states, “و لانہ لو وجد منہ ذلک لذکرت توبتہ و استغفارہ”- Tafseer Madaarik In short, taking the ayat to mean, “He too would have intended it if he didn’t see the proof of the Rubb,” is free of ills. Under the ayat, “Wa laqad hamat bihi”, Imam Raazi (ra) states that the reply to ‘Ioulaa’ can also precede it, similar to the ayat, “ان کانت لتبدی بہ لو ان ربطنا علی قلبھا” – Tafseer-e-Kabeer. The other explanation (commentary) is that one should stop {waqf) at ‘bihaa’ and accept it to be one sentence. Thus, the ayat will mean, “Indeed Zulaikha had ‘harnrna’ for Yusuf (as) and he for her.” In ‘Hammat bihi’, hamma means the resolve to commit adultery, and in ‘hamma bihaa’, it refers to the defenseless inclination of the heart that is without intention. In other words, Zulaikha was resolved for Hadrat Yusuf (as) and in turn defenseless inclination without intention was created in his heart. This is neither a sin nor an offence. An example of this can be found in the condition of fasting. When a person sees cold water, his heart becomes helplessly inclined

towards it. However, let alone the act of drinking it, not even the thought ‘crosses his mind. It’s simply water deemed good to him. If both of these ‘hammas’ had the same meaning, they wouldn’t have been used in two places. Using its dual form would have been sufficient and the effective meaning it would give is that they both intended sin. This is supported by this ayat, “مکروا و مکراللہ” In this ayat, the meaning of the first ‘makr’ is one thing and the meaning of the second is another. Tafseer Khaazin states. “Bare in mind that when Zulaikha saw the Ruler of Egypt at the door, she accused Hadrat Yusuf (as) of intending to make Zina, not of committing the act itself, “What besides jail is the punishment of he who intends to do wrong with your wife?”– 12/25 Refuting this. Hadrat Yusuf (as) said, “She intended to do sin.” Her statement was also disproved by the milk-drinking infant’s testimony and the Ruler of Egypt, who said after seeing Hadrat Yusufs (as) shirt torn, “انہ من کیدکن” 12/28 .In the end, the Egyptian women and even Zulaikha herself (accepting her crime) refuted that Hadrat Yusuf (as) intended to commit adultery with her. Now, if ‘hamrna bihaa’ was accepted to mean that Hadrat Yusuf (as) did intend it, it would necessitate that Allah(swt) corroborated with Zulaikha’s saying that Hadrat Yusuf (as) was going to commit Zina with her and refuted the testimony of the others. This is contrary to the object of the Quran’s utterances.

Salaah is amal and concentration/contemplation(tasawur) is haal /state of heart.

Face towards kaaba (amal) and heart towards rab e kaaba haal /state of heart.

Completion of quran is amal/deed and understanding/meditating/contemplating with quran is haal /state of heart.

When I want to talk to allah I say prayers and when I want that he talk to me I recite quran- Hazrath Ali(ra)

Make sure you forward this to others .