\n
TERRORISM IS PROHIBITED IN ISLAM <\/b><\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The attack near the famous tourist spot in Pahalgam, Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which killed twenty six sightseers, is a stark reminder of the devastating impact of violence and extremism. Beyond this profound loss of life, it ignited panic among residents and deterred potential visitors.<\/p>\n
No motive\u2014real or imagined\u2014can ever justify targeting innocent civilians. The terrorist attack is not just a crime. It is a moral catastrophe that mocks the very essence of humanity. Twenty-six innocent lives, unarmed and unsuspecting, were extinguished in an act so barbaric that it is difficult to find words to articulate the horror.<\/p>\n
To invoke religion as a justification for such violence is to desecrate the sanctity of faith itself. This was not an expression of belief. It was a betrayal of it. Perpetrators, cloaked in cowardice, have wounded the conscience of an entire nation.<\/p>\n
Terrorism is the taking up of arms by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). It is, without doubt, a forbidden act. Whichever way you look at it, it is undoubtedly prohibited in Islam and deemed a crime from any humane perspective.<\/p>\n
To try and justify this form of terrorism is only to compound rebellion upon the original offence. It is a crime that simultaneously encompasses multiple grave violations: loss of precious lives, economic destruction, social upheaval, heightened societal tension, trampling of human rights, and so on.<\/p>\n
According to Islam, the ideal state is one of security and stability, even if provided by a ruler following any other faith. As the Prophet told his Companions while they were having a hard time in Makkah: \u201cYou can emigrate to the land of Abyssinia, there is a king there under whose rule people are safe.\u201d (Ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah, vol 1, p 321)<\/p>\n
This demonstrates that Islam rejects anything that destroys social peace, terrorises populace, or takes innocent lives\u2014regardless of whether the perpetrator is a Muslim\u2014and holds that establishing a peaceful society is praiseworthy, even if its guardian is a sovereign following another faith.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Terrorism is unequivocally condemned in Islam. We must promote peace, understanding, tolerance, and solidarity as effective ways to counter extremism and violence. Education, interfaith dialogue, and community engagement play a crucial role in dismantling terrorist ideologies and building resilient societies. Pahalgam attack is a tragic reminder of why we must reject every form of terrorism and work together toward a future in which violence is eradicated. The principles of peace and security in Islamic teachings provide a strong foundation for achieving this goal.<\/p>\n
Terrorism breaches\u202fHuquq al-Ibad, rights of human beings. In such a case, terrorists are obliged to surrender; otherwise, no matter how devoutly they may observe prayers and fasting, they will be considered unforgivable criminals in the sight of God.<\/p>\n
Terrorism brings nothing but loss, not only in this world, but also in the Hereafter. The victims were innocent civilians. They are gone now, and there\u2019s no way to make amends. If we fail to draw a clear line today, we risk becoming complicit in our downfall. Justice must be done without a moment\u2019s delay, no excuse, no postponement, and our message must be louder than their bullets: Never again.<\/p>\n
\nTerrorism is unequivocally condemned in Islam. We must promote peace, understanding, tolerance, and solidarity as effective ways to counter extremism and violence.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_accordion_item][et_pb_accordion_item title=”DECEPTION ON ALL SIDES ” _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” open=”off”]<\/p>\n
JOURNEY <\/b>TOWARDS <\/b>GOD-REALIZATION<\/b><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
Th<\/span>is is a world of deception and delusion. People are free to do one thing in reality, but claim that they are doing something quite different. They may be pursuing a policy of personal advancement and self-aggrandisement, but they use slogans which make it appear as though far from serving themselves they are only out to serve others. They say that what they are doing is for the good of their nation, whereas in fact they themselves are the only beneficiaries of their policies. Everyone twists words to his own advantage, making the cruelty and injustice that he inflicts on others appear like justice and humanism. Those who have the law on their side have a licence to act as they please. If the law sanctions their misdemeanours, then no one can say that what they are doing is wrong.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/span><\/p>\nThis is the way with people of the world. As for people who call themselves religious, the course that they follow is not very different. They have attached the label \u201creligion\u201d to a few lifeless dogmas; they have assigned the highest rewards to menial, mechanical rites and ceremonies; they make ritualistic religion appear like real religion; they give themselves credit for practising religion, whereas in fact what they are practising is religion made by man, not that revealed by God. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nThe \u201cGod\u201d that they have invented for themselves is one that they do not need to fear. They have appointed for themselves a prophet who will intercede for them and save them from damnation, no matter how they act on earth. The Afterlife that they claim to believe in is one where Heaven is for them and Hell for others. When they pray they are a picture of humility, but their prayer does not prevent them from being proud and malicious when they leave the house of worship. When they fast, they assiduously abstain from food and drink, but they do not bother to refrain from lying, deceit, and injustice. They have made religion a topic of argument and disputation, and have forgotten that religion is something to be practised, not just to be talked about. Then, to crown it all, they claim that they are performing \u201cmissionary activity,\u201d whereas in fact what they are doing is seeking to consolidate their own power and prestige. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nBut counterfeit gold is only considered gold until it has been put to the test of the touchstone. So it is with this deception that man practises in this world. It can only prevail until the Day of Reckoning comes to pass, when God\u2019s truth will eliminate all falsehood and His justice will put an end to all injustice. Man is free in this world because he is being put to the test. He can do as he pleases as long as his trial period lasts. When it comes to an end, he will find himself absolutely powerless. He will want to speak, but words will desert him. He will want to run away, but his legs will not be able to carry him. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nThat will be the day of Truth. On that day man will shed the camouflage which hides his real state in this world. Everyone will appear as he or she really is. What a revelation it will be when the pretences that people put on fade away, and reality comes to the fore. In this world only God knows a person\u2019s true state; in the next world it will be plain for all to see. Ones who appeared in a certain light in this world will be exposed in a completely different light there. They will be exposed for what they were, rather than what they pretended to be. <\/span><\/p>\n\nMan is free in this world because he is being put to the test. He can do as he pleases as long as his trial period lasts. When it comes to an end, he will find himself absolutely powerless.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_accordion_item][et_pb_accordion_item title=”THE GREATNESS OF HUMILITY ” _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” open=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES <\/strong><\/p>\nI <\/span>once happened to meet a gentleman who had neither a proper education nor a sound economic position. His greatest asset as he saw it, was the fact that his grandfather, who lived in a palatial house, had been one of the Nawab\u2019s close associates and had an honourable title bestowed upon him. He went on at some length, and with great pride, about his grandfather\u2019s exalted state.<\/p>\nI had the impression that the cause of his own destitution was his pride in his ancestry. The psychology which went with being one of a noble line had prevented him from either acquiring a good education or engaging himself in some profitable business. Out of sympathy for his down-at-heel condition, I tried to make him understand the importance of adopting a humble and realistic attitude, as opposed to that of continuing pride in his forefathers\u2019 achievements. To support my arguments, I narrated many telling incidents, but it was all to no avail. He was beyond understanding. It was as if I were conversing with him in a totally alien language. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nThe same is true of present-day Muslims who draw their emotional sustenance from the religion of pride. If this is happening on an ever-expanding scale, it is because they fail to understand the religion of humility. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nIslam, for the believers of the early stages, was just such a religion\u2014a religion of humility. This psychology of humility, which marked their thoughts and deeds, was produced by their keen awareness of the greatness of God. For them God\u2019s law became a reality, for God elevates all those who adopt the posture of humility. From there, by the grace of God, they went on to emblazon their deeds and their virtues on the pages of human history for all time to come. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nThe Muslims of the present day are the successors of the Muslims of those early stages. It is unfortunate, however, that they have inherited from them not their humility, but only the recollection of the great heights to which their remote ancestors rose. Devoid of humility and its resultant virtues, they are carried through life on a flood of grandiloquence. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\nThe need of the hour is to awaken in them the true spirit of their faith so that they may be brought closer to religion based on humility. God elevates the humble: the proud and the vain are cast by Him into oblivion.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\nThe Muslims of the present day are the successors of the Muslims of those early stages. It is unfortunate, however, that they have inherited from them not their humility, but only the recollection of the great heights to which their remote ancestors rose.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nThere is no greater source of strength in the world than unity, and no greater source of weakness than disunity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_accordion_item][et_pb_accordion_item title=”PEACE IN PLURAL SOCIETIES ” _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” open=”on” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
INDEPENDENCE DAY SPECIAL <\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
A<\/span>fter a long struggle, in August 1947 the Indian Subcontinent won independence from the British. This independence came along with the Partition, which was on the basis of the so-called \u2018two nation theory\u2019. It led to the partition, not just of territory, but of entire communities as well. Far from solving the problem of communal conflict between Hindus and Muslims, it only further exacerbated it. Prior to the Partition, the conflict was between two communities that lacked political power. With the Partition, it now became a conflict between two sovereign countries. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nMahatma Gandhi had, from the very first day, perceived how sensitive this situation was. And so, he stressed that Hindus and Muslims should learn to live together in peace and harmony. He said that he would give up his life in order that this should happen. However, shortly after India became independent, he was shot dead. This was undoubtedly a very big tragedy. Because of this, India lost its tallest leader who was committed to peace and unity. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Partition was accompanied by horrific communal violence on both sides of the newly-created border. This violence continued unabated for many years thereafter. In order to address the issue, the first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, called a national-level conference in New Delhi in October 1961. At this conference, it was unanimously decided to set up the National Integration Council to deal with matters related to communal harmony. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe second conference of this Council was held in June 1962. Speakers delivered their speeches on the occasion, suggesting various measures to promote communal harmony. Yet, no action was taken on their suggestions. Moreover, no more meetings of the Council were held during the rest of Jawaharlal Nehru\u2019s life. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe third meeting of the Council was called by Indira Gandhi in Srinagar in 1968. It called for promoting hatred on the grounds between communities to be made a cognizable offence. Some other steps were also mooted. A few laws and rules were also passed. But still, nothing practical came out of this. And so, even today, the situation in the country is about the same as it was in 1947 as far as the issue of communalism is concerned. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWhat was the reason for this failure? The basic reason is that this issue of communal conflict has been treated simply as a law and order problem. However, the nature of the issue is actually quite different. It is not essentially a law and order problem. Rather, it has essentially to do with the lack of intellectual development and social awareness. To solve the problem, what is basically required is to properly educate people and promote proper thinking and discernment. People should know what to do and what to abstain from. They should learn to think before acting. This sort of aware society is one where communal harmony can flourish.\u202f <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nReligious Differences <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSome basic issues that relate to the vital question of properly educating people about the issue of communalism need to be clarified. One of these relates to the issue of religious differences. There are, in fact, obvious and clear differences between the different religions. For instance, some religions believe in Monism, and others in Monotheism. Some religions preach the discovery of truth by oneself, while others believe that such truth is revealed by God through messengers. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSome people think that these religious differences are themselves the root cause for communal conflict. They believe that communal harmony can exist only when these differences are somehow destroyed. \u2018Bulldoze them all!\u2019 they demand, but of course this is so completely impractical that it is not even worth talking about. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nFaced with the reality of religious differences, some people seek to somehow or the other try to \u2018prove\u2019 that all religions are, actually, one and the same. One such person was the late Dr Bhagwan Das (1869-1958). After a detailed study of all the major religions, he wrote a book, running into almost 1000 pages, titled Essential Unity of All Religions. He claimed that all religions teach the same things and so are one and the same. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nBut to seek to prove that all religions are one by extracting portions from different scriptures is like culling out portions from the Constitutions of different countries and publishing them together in a single book and then claiming that all the Constitutions of the world are the same and have the same rules and clauses and provisions! This sort of imaginary universal Constitution may greatly please the author of such a compendium, but it will not be acceptable to even a single country. Books of this sort may give their compilers great pleasure, but they cannot be acceptable to the followers of the different religions. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nA detailed study of this issue will show that the claim that all religions are one does not correspond to reality. In fact, the different religions differ so greatly from each other that it is impossible to practically prove them to be one. For instance, one religion says that God is one. Another religion talks of two gods. A third religion says there are three gods. Some religions insist that the number of gods is simply beyond counting. In such circumstances, to consider the teachings of all the religions as one and the same is simply wishful thinking that has no basis in logic and reality. And then, even if, by some means or the other, it could be argued that the scriptures of the different religions are indeed the same, the problem of differences will still remain unresolved because there are multiple and conflicting interpretations of each of these scriptures, as a result of which each religion is further divided into numerous sects. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe fact is that such difference or diversity is not just a religious phenomenon. The entire world is based on the principle of difference and diversity. These differences are so pervasive that no two things or people are wholly identical, without some difference or the other. As someone has very rightly said, \u2018Nature abhors uniformity\u2019.\u202f <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWhen differences are themselves a law of Nature, how can religion be an exception to this rule? The fact is that just as there is diversity in everything else in the world, so also are there differences between one religion and another. We have not thought it necessary to do away with differences in other matters, but, instead, have agreed to disagree. We should adopt this very same practical approach and principle in matters of religion as well. Here, too, we should accept diversity and differences and seek to promote unity despite them, instead of searching for an imaginary unity by trying to do away with them. There is only one way to solve the issue of religious differences, and that is: \u2018Follow one, and respect all\u2019. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nCultural Differences <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe issue of cultural difference is also a vexed one. Social groups are characterized by cultural differences. Some people regard these differences as the root of conflict. They argue that to end conflict, these differences should be wiped off and a single, common culture should be imposed on everyone, so that \u2018cultural unity\u2019 can thereby be promoted.\u202f <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThis proposal, too, is impractical. Culture cannot be made or destroyed by individuals at will in this way. It cannot be prepared by someone sitting in an office. Rather, it is a product of a long, historical process. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn the wake of the Second World War, numerous ideologues in different parts of the world began calling for the establishment of a mono-cultural society in order to promote national unity. This mono-cultural approach was promoted, for instance, in Canada, but it proved impractical and was soon abandoned. Now, Canada has abandoned mono-culturalism and has officially adopted multiculturalism as its policy.\u202f <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe same happened in the USA as well. After the Second World War, a movement to promote what was called \u2018Americanization\u2019 emerged, which sought to impose a single culture on all Americans. But this failed, because people realized it was impractical. And so, it was abandoned, and now in America, too, multiculturalism is the recognized policy. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe fact is that cultural differences are not a matter of differences only between two communities. Such differences are to be found among, and between, different sub-groups in each and every community, too. It is impractical, indeed impossible, to do away with these differences. That is why it is not necessary to change religious teachings in order to promote unity and harmony between different religions. For this, the only necessary thing is to promote among the followers of different religions the understanding of \u2018Live and Let Live\u2019. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSome people still advocate an experiment that has already proven to be a failure: what they call \u2018Social Engineering\u2019. Through this, they seek to respond to the fact of cultural diversity among different communities by calling for the restructuring of the communities\u2019 cultures so that the wider society is free from cultural differences and all citizens of the state have one and the same culture.\u202f <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nNo matter what name it is called by, the result of the effort to manufacture and impose a single culture on people remains the same \u2014 utterly useless. It is tantamount to nothing less than what could be called \u2018cultural bulldozing\u2019. No matter what it is termed\u2014\u2018social engineering\u2019 or \u2018cultural nationalism\u2019 or whatever\u2014it remains thoroughly impractical and unrealistic. And to pursue anything impractical from the point of view of natural laws is simply a waste of time. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn this regard, my difference with the \u2018cultural nationalists\u2019 or \u2018social engineers\u2019 is not on an ideological, but, rather, practical basis. I do not say that their aim is wrong, but, rather, that what they want to bring about is simply impractical and impossible to achieve. Supposing it becomes possible for everyone in the country to start speaking one language, to follow one culture and to have the same traditions and way of life, I would say, \u2018Yes, it should certainly be so.\u2019 But the fact remains that in line with the laws of nature and history, this sort of uniformity is simply impossible. It has never been possible in the past, and nor will it be possible in the future. Cultures develop according to their own logic. It is simply not possible to sit in a cabin and invent a culture of your liking and then go about imposing it on every community in the country. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSo, in this regard, we should do exactly what we generally do with regard to all other divisive issues, that is, to solve the problem on the basis of the principle of tolerance. One should deal with the matter with methods that accord with reality, rather than through confrontation. Using confrontation and violence in this matter will only further exacerbate the problem, rather than solve it. <\/span><\/p>\nIn this context, there is an important issue that needs to be clarified. Some people claim that India belongs to the Hindus, and that their loyalty is to this country. They claim that this is different with the Muslims of the country, whose centres of devotion\u2014for instance, Makkah and Madinah\u2014are located outside India. That is why, they allege, Muslims cannot be loyal to India.\u202f <\/span><\/p>\nI see this issue differently, however. Suppose a Hindu is devoted to the temple of Somnath. This does not mean that he cannot be devoted to a temple located elsewhere, too. If a person loves his mother, it surely does not mean that he has no love for his father. Similarly, if an Indian Muslim has an emotional bonding with Makkah and Madinah, it does not mean that he has no such bonding with India. To think otherwise is to underestimate his innate humanity. Any person, be he or she Hindu or Muslim, is an expression of nature, and nature has made every human being with enough inner spaciousness to contain within him or her multiple loves and loyalties. This is such a basic fact of life that every person can testify to it personally. Every man and woman knows this from his or her own experience. As a Western thinker very aptly put it, \u2018I am large enough to contain all these contradictions\u2019. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nReligion and Politics <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nReligion is very often invoked in communal conflicts. Repeatedly, political and communal controversies are turned into so-called religious controversies. And then, people\u2019s passions are roused, leading to confrontation and violence between communities. Because of this, many people have turned against religion itself. They say that human beings have no need for religion at all, and hence, religion must be destroyed. Only then, they contend, is societal unity possible. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThis, however, is an extremist response to an extremist stance, a secular extremist reaction to religious extremism. It is neither possible nor useful. The fact is that religion in itself is not a problem. Religion is an important part of human life. It is the political exploitation of religion by some opportunist people that is the problem. Hence, it is the exploitation of religion, rather than religion itself, that needs to be eliminated. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nReligion has two dimensions: personal and collective. The personal dimension of religion denotes beliefs, worship, morality and spirituality. The collective dimension of religion includes its political and social rules. The right approach would, in general conditions, be to focus on the personal dimension of religion and on promoting the spirit of religion. As far as the political and social rules of religion are concerned, they should not be taken up until such time as the entire society is prepared for them. These rules can be established only through the voluntary and collective consent of the entire society. That is why no practical steps should be taken as far as these rules are concerned as long as the collective consent of the society is not in favour of this. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThis can be termed a practical division between religion and politics. That is to say, while considering, at the ideological level, politics to be part of religion, in the face of reality, the practical enforcement of the political rules of religion can be delayed or postponed. This is a wise approach. In this way, the demands both of religion and of politics can be met: those of religion, in the present, and of politics, in the future. On the other hand, if this pragmatic policy is not adopted and both aspects of religion are stressed, the result will be that the demands of both religion and politics will be left unfulfilled. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWith regard to communal harmony, there are some issues that need to be looked at. Here I will just briefly mention an important point. Ordinarily, if a Muslim does something wrong, Hindus speak and write against him. In the same way, if a Hindu does something wrong, Muslims speak and write against him. This method is, from the point of view of reform, completely useless. It only pleases one particular community, but it has no positive impact whatsoever on the other community. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nContrary to this, the beneficial approach is that if a Muslim does something wrong, Muslim scholars and intellectuals should speak and write against it. Likewise, if a Hindu does something wrong, Hindus should speak and write against it. It is just as when a child does something wrong, his parents are the first to scold him, if necessary. His parents do not wait for their neighbours to come to their house and scold their child. In any case, even if these people do come and scold their child, it will not reform him, though a parent\u2019s admonishment might. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIt is a psychological reality that one generally takes the critique or admonishment of people whom one considers one\u2019s own in a positive way, and, accordingly, reforms oneself. On the other hand, one generally takes the criticism of people one does not know or whom one considers as the \u2018other\u2019 as an insult to one\u2019s honour, and so it does not have a positive impact. With regard to the issue of communal harmony, it is very necessary to keep this bit of practical wisdom in mind. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\nWhat is required is to educate people and promote proper thinking and discernment. People should know what to do and what to abstain from. They should learn to think before acting. This sort of aware society is one where communal harmony can flourish.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nCultures develop according to their own logic. It is simply not possible to sit in a cabin and invent a culture of your liking and then go about imposing it on every community in the country.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nReligion has two dimensions: personal and collective. The personal dimension of religion denotes beliefs, worship, morality and spirituality. The collective dimension of religion includes its political and social rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_accordion_item][et_pb_accordion_item title=”THE WISDOM OF PATIENCE ” _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” open=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
DISCOVER THE LAW OF NATURE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
O<\/span>ne of the pearls about wisdom of life has been expressed by the Prophet of Islam in these words: \u201cThe best act of worship is to wait for relief.\u201d (Sunan al-Tirmidhi) That is, waiting for ease or relief is considered a highly virtuous form of worship.<\/span><\/p>\nWhen a person does something, only one percent of it is their own effort, while ninety-nine percent depends on the law of nature. The law of nature is set by the Creator, and it operates at its own pace. In such a situation, if a person does not act hastily and instead adopts a policy of waiting, it means they are essentially waiting for the completion of nature\u2019s process. On this basis, their waiting becomes a form of worship. This kind of worship reflects a high level of wisdom.<\/span><\/p>\nA priest once wanted to see a lush green tree in front of his house. He planned to bring a fully grown green tree and plant it there. With the help of some labourers, he did just that. But the next morning, when he woke up, the leaves of the tree had withered. A few days later, the tree had completely dried up. Around that time, a friend came to visit the priest and noticed he was deeply saddened. When the friend asked the reason, the priest replied: \u201cI am in a hurry, but God isn\u2019t.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWhat he meant was that, according to God\u2019s law, he would need to wait ten years to see a lush green tree in front of his house. Wanting a fully grown tree to appear in just one day is not possible within the framework of natural law<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nTherefore, when a person makes a plan, they should not base it solely on their desires. Instead, they should thoughtfully consider how long, according to the law of nature, it will take to complete that plan, and include that time frame as part of their programme. This is the principle of wisdom in this world. <\/span><\/p>\n\nWhen a person makes a plan, they should thoughtfully consider how long, according to the law of nature, it will take to complete that plan, and include that time frame as part of their programme.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_accordion_item][et_pb_accordion_item title=”PRECISION IN THE UNIVERSE ” _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” open=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n