By Shaykh Sayyid Abul Hasan Aboo Nadwi
Sincere Muslims invariably act upon Qur’aanic injunctions like the following:

“0 you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or (your) parents or (your) kin…” (surah 4;verse 35)

“And let not the hatred of any people make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice; be just, that is next to piety; and fear Allah…” (surah 5; verse 8 )

And when you judge between By Shaykh Sayyid Abul Hasan Aboo Nadwi
Sincere Muslims invariably act upon Qur’aanic injunctions like the following:

“0 you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or (your) parents or (your) kin…” (surah 4;verse 35)

“And let not the hatred of any people make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice; be just, that is next to piety; and fear Allah…” (surah 5; verse 8 )

And when you judge between mankind (Allah does command), that you judge with justice. ” (surah 4;verse 58)

“Whatever you say, speak justly, even if near relative is concerned…” (surah 6;verse 152)

Once, during the early days of the British administration, in India, there arose in Kandhla, in the Muzaffarnagar District (ie. in the State of Uttar Pradesh), a dispute between the Hindus and the Muslims over a plot of land which both of them claimed as their place of worship. The English Collector of the district privately inquired from the Muslims if they could name a Hindu in whose honesty they had full confidence, so that that the case might be decided on the basis of his evidence. The Muslims said that they knew of no such Hindu.

The collector then asked the Hindus whether there was a Muslim upon whose word they would be willing to let the decision of the dispute be made. The Hindus said that, grave as the matter was, there was a Muslim divine who had never uttered a falsehood and it could be hoped that he would not compromise his integrity over the issue in hand. The Divine came from the family of Mufti Ilahi Bakhsh, who was a pupil of Shah Abdul Aziz and a Khalifah of Sayyid Ahmed Shahid.

The Collector, thereupon, summoned him to his court, but he declined, saying that he had sworn never to look at the face of an Englishman. The Collector said that he need not look at his face if he did not want to, but come he must, because the matter in dispute was serious and its settlement hinged on whether he came or not. At last, the Moulana agreed. He came with his face covered with a mask and stood in the court, his back turned towards the Collector so that there could be no possibility of his vow being broken. The case was explained to him, and he was asked to state whether he knew anything about the ownership of the plot. The Moulana declared that the plot in dispute belonged to the Hindus; the Muslims had nothing to do with it. The Collector decided accordingly. The Muslims lost the case, but ‘truth’ scored a magnificent victory. A number of Hindus embraced Islam on that very day at the hand of the Moulana.

Learning and wisdom were held sacrosanct in those days. Those who occupied a high place in the field of learning were not disposed to sell their intellectual wealth at any price, because it was regarded by them as a precious gift and a sacred trust of Allah. To lend one’s ability or knowledge, directly or indirectly, to serve the cause of injustice and unbelief was in their view tantamount to an open betrayal of religion.

Source: Riyadul Jannah Magazine

(Allah does command), that you judge with justice. ” (surah 4;verse 58)

“Whatever you say, speak justly, even if near relative is concerned…” (surah 6;verse 152)

Once, during the early days of the British administration, in India, there arose in Kandhla, in the Muzaffarnagar District (ie. in the State of Uttar Pradesh), a dispute between the Hindus and the Muslims over a plot of land which both of them claimed as their place of worship. The English Collector of the district privately inquired from the Muslims if they could name a Hindu in whose honesty they had full confidence, so that that the case might be decided on the basis of his evidence. The Muslims said that they knew of no such Hindu.

The collector then asked the Hindus whether there was a Muslim upon whose word they would be willing to let the decision of the dispute be made. The Hindus said that, grave as the matter was, there was a Muslim divine who had never uttered a falsehood and it could be hoped that he would not compromise his integrity over the issue in hand. The Divine came from the family of Mufti Ilahi Bakhsh, who was a pupil of Shah Abdul Aziz and a Khalifah of Sayyid Ahmed Shahid.

The Collector, thereupon, summoned him to his court, but he declined, saying that he had sworn never to look at the face of an Englishman. The Collector said that he need not look at his face if he did not want to, but come he must, because the matter in dispute was serious and its settlement hinged on whether he came or not. At last, the Moulana agreed. He came with his face covered with a mask and stood in the court, his back turned towards the Collector so that there could be no possibility of his vow being broken. The case was explained to him, and he was asked to state whether he knew anything about the ownership of the plot. The Moulana declared that the plot in dispute belonged to the Hindus; the Muslims had nothing to do with it. The Collector decided accordingly. The Muslims lost the case, but ‘truth’ scored a magnificent victory. A number of Hindus embraced Islam on that very day at the hand of the Moulana.

Learning and wisdom were held sacrosanct in those days. Those who occupied a high place in the field of learning were not disposed to sell their intellectual wealth at any price, because it was regarded by them as a precious gift and a sacred trust of Allah. To lend one’s ability or knowledge, directly or indirectly, to serve the cause of injustice and unbelief was in their view tantamount to an open betrayal of religion.

Source: Riyadul Jannah Magazine

» Posted by sweetmuslimahk1 on 22nd January 2011

0 Comments