|
Miraculous Healing in the Holy Quran
By:Jafar Ali Asil
Rubbing of Garments / Earth as a Healer in the Holy Quran
Alas! The Lovers of the Progeny of Muhammad (pbuh) are grieved that their crying does not result in the loss of their sight! And by Allah! If we cry so much that the light of the eyes disappears, then Allah would restore sight to those eyes, for He promises thus in the Quran; Take this, my shirt, and cast it over the face of my father; he will be able to see. And bring me your family, all together. (Surah 12, Yusuf verse 93).
It is noteworthy that the association of a shirt, indeed any fabric, with the body, is temporary – a month, two months, a year, two years – after that it deteriorates and eventually loses all association with the person. The temporary garment of a prophet, and the shirt that had a short-lived association with the body of a prophet, was of such importance that blind eyes had sight restored to them when rubbed by the shirt.
Indeed the sole cause of blindness in the first instance was crying in the separation of a (still) living son. Restoration of sight was only because of the garment that had albeit a temporary association with the body of a prophet.
Now it is important to ponder very calmly and rationally, that when the touching of a temporal garment of a prophet to the eyes of a blind man can restore sight, then what wonders can those things bestow which bear an eternal association with chosen people? Just ponder over the blessed burial places, the dust and earth of the Prophet and the Infallible Imams and martyrs in Allah’s path (pbut): by their eternal association with those places, does the earth from there not become a healing dust, antimony for the eyes, or medicine for the ill? Indeed it does!
The rubbing of Yusuf (pbuh)’s past, temporary garment – a shirt –on the prophet Yaqub (pbuh)’s face is not considered an innovation, harmful or wrong in any way, therefore it is considered a sunnah (recommended practice) of the prophet. Then how can taking the earth from the Prophet (pbuh) and his progeny’s (pbut) graves and rubbing it on the face and head be considered an innovation and unlawful?
Can anyone answer this question of ours effectively? Or shall we answer it, that when the prophet Yusuf (pbuh) said, ‘take this shirt of mine and put it on my father’s face so that he may see’, and indeed this did happen, then this was the act of two prophets. Could it be possible that both Yusuf (pbuh) and Yaqub (pbuh) were not aware of what an ‘innovation’ would be? May I ask today’s so called strict Muslims, that Allah forbid, was there a weakness in the faith of these two prophets?
If there were no weakness – and indeed there was not –then will those who scream ‘innovation’ review their own faith? Perhaps, as a poet stated, they question people’s faith as they themselves lack faith. Perhaps it is for this reason that they are in fact going against the actions of previous prophets and the words of the Quran.
Again, let us ponder further on the temporary association of a garment with the body of a prophet: by virtue of having touched him, it becomes so special and distinctive that it even restores the sight of one who has become blind! In fact the garment even emanates a special fragrance. This fragrance was apparent thousands of miles away to Yusuf (pbuh)’s father but not to his brothers. Why was that? Rather than arguing personal points of view, it is incumbent that we take proof from the Quran in order to answer this question.
Let us examine the following verses; And when the caravan departed [from Egypt], their father said, "Indeed, I find the smell of Yusuf [and would say that he was alive] if you did not think me deluded / weakened in mind." They said, "By Allah, indeed you are in your [same] old error." And when the bearer of good tidings arrived, he cast it over his face, and he returned [once again] seeing. He said, "Did I not tell you that I know from Allah that which you do not know?" (Surah 12, Yusuf verses 94 - 96)
Is it not a clear and evident meaning of these verses that the only one who will smell such a fragrance is the one whose love is true and sincere? Otherwise how else would it be possible that despite the fragrance being a reality, others could not smell it?
These proofs that we have presented from the Quran can only be negated if we consider the prophet Yaqub (pbuh), Allah forbid, to have been deluded. And yet even the brothers of Yusuf (pbuh) did not consider him deluded or weak of mind, but instead stated that, ‘because you love Yusuf (pbuh) to the furthest limit as you did before, therefore you can smell him’.
It is a shame on today’s Muslims that instead of repeating these lines of the brothers of the prophet Yusuf (pbuh) on the lovers of the progeny of Muhammad (pbut), they rather accuse them of disbelief and idolatry. How aptly Iqbal stated about such ‘custodians of knowledge’; They change not themselves, rather alter the Quran. How senseless the Custodians of Knowledge have become!
We must also mention here that it becomes compulsory on us to respect things that are associated with revered personalities: the prophet Yusuf’s shirt became important because of its association with his body, otherwise on its own merit, what was the significance of this mere shirt? If the same shirt were on the body of another, neither would it be respected nor would it be of any importance.
Kissing Objects / Places Associated with Revered Persons
Now let us imagine for one moment: when prophet Yusuf (pbuh)’s shirt was placed on the face of prophet Yaqub (pbuh), then what must have been the reaction of Yaqub? How must a father’s love have been kindled and awakened!
Indeed he must have clung to the shirt with great longing: he must have kissed it, held it against his chest, rubbed it on his eyes. Do all these actions not fall within the definition of love and respect? If they do, then why do people argue that loving and respecting things associated with revered holy personalities is tantamount to idolatry and innovation?
If the shrines of the Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (pbuh) and his progeny, the martyrs of Karbala and indeed other martyrs in Allah’s path, are kissed then we are told this is polytheism, unlawful, innovation. What kind of an outcry is this? How can kissing someone or something ever be considered idolatrous or innovation? It is difficult to comprehend this thought both intellectually and logically.
Who does not kiss his/her child? Do those who cry ‘idolatry, innovation!’ never kiss their children? As far as a lustful kiss is concerned, would they be the first to cry that that is also an innovation? They can then judge for themselves whether all kissing is the same. Kissing a child carries a particular kind of parental feeling, whereas kissing a wife invokes a totally different emotion. Anyone could kiss a child affectionately, but if anyone kisses a man’s wife then the matter may even go as far as murder: the former kiss is lawful, the latter unlawful.
The same emotional difference can be applied to our discussion in hand: to kiss someone or something by thinking it is worthy of worship is one thing, but to kiss it with love, conviction and devotion is another. To kiss with the thought that this object of desire is the Creator is indeed idolatrous. But to kiss it on the basis of devotion, intoxicated with love, is neither idolatry nor innovation, but indeed it is a commendable act, worthy of spiritual reward.
Another point springs to attention here: and that is that one can only kiss a person or thing physically before one. As Allah is free from body or materiality, then the question of ‘kissing’ His ‘blessed feet’ or ‘blessed hands’ cannot even arise. So we have to accept that kissing is not an act that can be associated with Allah: it is only for a non-divine entity. And thus how could it ever possibly be idolatrous?
Respecting ‘Associated’ Objects / Places
As far as respecting things associated with someone or a place of importance is concerned, we find that Allah the Generous Lord has made the respecting of many such ‘associations’ compulsory upon us. Indeed Allah has named such associations as ‘The Signs of Allah’. Even according to the Quran such associations become His Signs. The Quran elucidates this matter in the following terms; O you who believe! Do not violate the signs appointed by Allah nor the sacred month, nor (interfere with) the offerings, nor the sacrificial animals with garlands / collars. (Surah 5, al-Maidah verse 2)
Respecting the sacrificial animal is evident: it is obvious that it is about to be sacrificed in Allah’s path therefore Allah has designated it as one of His Signs. Because of this fact, it is compulsory to treat it with respect. But why would Allah designate the garland / collar that is put around that animal’s neck also as one of His Signs? (Bear in mind that the collar was put around the animal’s neck by us.)
Furthermore, the garland / collar is only temporary, that is, it is only around the animal’s neck for a few days. And yet it is so dear to Allah that He designates it as one of His Signs and makes its respect incumbent upon us!
It is noteworthy here that this animal is not going to sacrifice itself in Allah’s path, but is going to be offered as a sacrifice. Furthermore, the animal does not have any knowledge of this impending sacrifice. And yet one who is not offering himself as sacrifice, his collar is to be revered so much! And yet one who actively sacrifices himself, along with his sons, brothers, nephews and friends, in order to save Allah’s religion, whilst in the grips of thirst and hunger, how is it that things which have been rubbed against their blessed bodies cannot be considered Signs of Allah?
Rather they are considered idolatrous and innovation? How strange! Bravo oh faithful Muslim! Is this the extent of your faith in the Quran? The collar around the animal’s neck is but a temporary association, and yet still designated a Sign of Allah: and yet the places where the pure bodies of those martyred in Allah’s path are buried are permanently associated with them. If a temporary association is so honourable, then how honourable and highly ranked must a permanent association be?
To honour and give respect to something or someone is neither idolatry nor innovation nor unlawful, because the difference between respect and worship is immense. Nothing but God could possibly be worshipped, and yet respect can be offered to one other than Allah: for example we respect and honour parents, scholars, the elderly, etc, all on the basis of laws of respect dictated by Allah.
|
