Exclusivist Systems: Fundamental Principles & Structure (Part 2)
In contrast to Dharma, there are the exclusivist systems, the fundamental principles of which are discussed below. While various denominations of the exclusivist systems (e.g. Christian or Islamic denominations) enunciate their basic principles in their own ways e.g. the kalima, the five pillars of Islam or the Nicene creed, the apostolic succession and so on as per their own concepts and standard practices, the following are fundamental principles common to such exclusivist systems rather than any one in particular. At the outset, observe that the basic truth claim of such systems is that in effect a particular set of people “own the exclusive truth”. Note the absurdity of a particular set of people, making a claim that they own infinite truths, without limitation, even beyond what is known or what can be known by human beings. More on this may be read in the article .
Fundamental Principles of the Exclusivist Systems:
1. Own The Exclusive Truth
The most fundamental principle and key of such systems is a (false) Truth Claim – that only this very system and its followers in particular, OWN the Truth, EXCLUSIVELY. They own ALL the Truths. They have all the Truths A – PRIORI and moreover no other Truth can ever belong to any OTHER entity at ANY point in TIME, past, present, or future. It is based on the presumption that there can be something called ‘THE EXCLUSIVE TRUTH’, available through whatever means and further that a PRE-ORDAINED/PRE-DECIDED SET of people have it EXCLUSIVELY. This is a logical, rational, moral, ethical, religious, legal and societal Truth for all those adherents of the system who accept this principle. Hence they assert that adherents of any and all other systems are FALSE in ALL these respects. Moreover, since the Truth is already there and owned, there is nothing more to be found and one’s conscience or discovery of other truths, or their existence is deemed irrelevant or a-priori HELD to be FALSE.
Hence this is a foreclosed and logically inverted system. More about this may be read in the study – “On the Structure of Certain Belief Systems and Its Implications” here. , 
Observe that this fundamental of ‘owning the exclusive truth’ is both conceptually and logically false and untenable, as well as historically and empirically been demonstrated to be false – the conflict with science, scientists, human rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, people in general, other systems, ongoing till date; which led to among others, the magna carta, the enlightenment, free will, choice, secularism, democracy, freedom of religion, etc.
Note that in spite of the above, this false fundamental has not been rejected as a principle from such systems, which is fundamentalism, and the seed of conflict.
This also affords a natural definition of the religious right – an attitude or claim that one is pre-determinedly, permanently and exclusively always in the right, by definition, (even if they are wrong or false).
An example in this regard, is what is known as the Hadith of Division in Islam (Hadith al iftiraq) compiled by the Imam at-Tirmidhi. They are supposedly the words of the prophet as narrated by Abu Hurairah to the effect that his ummah will split into 73 sects of which 72 will go to hellfire and only the right one following him will be saved. If this is true then the prophet himself is stating that ALL sects but one are false, and in case this hadith is not true, then it means that spurious items have entered and in either case one does not have the exclusive truth. Furthermore, there is another school of thought which does not accept the hadis at all, because that contradicts the assumption that the revelation, i.e. the koran, is the complete, exclusive truth.
In other words, apart from being logically untenable, this is an example of their own scripture and their own claims against the ownership of the exclusive truth.
The hadith of division in Islam is available here , Chapter 18 – “What has been related about the splitting that will occur in this ummah” – Annexure I. Also see  – Annexure II.
Furthermore, note the obvious – that the existence of MULTIPLE sects which do not accept/are not in communion with each other but every one of them ‘sends all the others to hell’, is a living contradiction of their claim that one can or does own ‘the exclusive truth’. While there may be minor or major differences in the beliefs and/or practices, the faithful are ready to eliminate (convert), or die and be killed in the service of eliminating the similar though unacceptable, untrue beliefs and systems, their ‘co-religionists’, or ‘people of the book’. Note that such sects do not have even the slightest doubt – that they may be wrong or they may not have it all, and that ALL the other sects are FALSE and going to hell and must necessarily be eliminated.
Thus, these systems contradict their own truth claim logically, scripturally, empirically and existentially by their very multiplicity, yet they persist with the fundamental of ‘owning the exclusive truth’. Thus such exclusivist systems are totalitarian, more so because they are a ‘Law’, mandatory for all. (see below)
The system is deemed to be a (‘divine’) LAW given to the followers, by a special entity and process. The systems have followers who OBEY the ORDER (‘aadesh’ or ‘hukum’) of the ‘TRUE GOD’, or they seek to implement the WILL of God or have a COVENANT with. Such systems have immediately a LEGAL, MANDATORY and ENFORCEABLE character with offences defined and punishments prescribed in this world (and the next) for deviations and infractions from the ‘divine’ LAW and ‘the exclusive truth’. Even the mere occurrence of a doubt, query or holding an opinion may be a cause for punishment, which apart from others, may be ex-communication or the death penalty, depending on the nature of the infraction.
Since the underlying is deemed to be ‘the exclusive truth’, there is a need to define what it is uniquely and clearly and also ensure that the standard interpretation and implementation is what the followers adhere to. Hence, there are injunctions against coming up with varying interpretations (‘ijtehad’) or innovations (‘bida’a ’) which may serve to circumvent or defeat the purpose, or be at variance with the ‘standard’ understanding or practice of ‘the exclusive truth’. Not following, doubting or going against ‘the exclusive truth’ or the Law may invite charges of ‘blasphemy’ or ‘heresy’.
Hence such systems are those where ALL MUST NECESSARILY FOLLOW,
WHAT – DEFINE, PRESCRIBE & PRACTICE IT UNIQUELY,
OR ELSE (punishment).
It is observed that such systems co-exist in a fundamental contradiction, where each such system/denomination claims to own the truth exclusively for itself and even neighbouring or varying interpretations or practice by other systems based on the same [‘people of the ( same / different ) book’] are deemed to be false (and going to hell).
Those persons who are not adherents to their particular system are a-priori, pre-determinedly and permanently deemed to be ‘outlaws’ or rebels against their system simply by virtue of their existence (kafir, heathen or infidel) as such. Hence a different set of laws, rights and obligations apply to them vis-à-vis the ‘faithful’ as laid down by the ‘divine’ law. Naturally, these have to necessarily be discriminatory and inferior to those available to the faithful who are by definition on the right side of the law. ‘Outlaws’ should be discriminated against, prosecuted and / or persecuted and they are, by such systems.
Another related issue is that of jurisdiction – as the system and the person is governed by a (‘divine’) LAW. This creates a problem where the governing dispensation, the state, is not that prescribed by or conforming/subsumed to the ‘divine’ law. A person cannot simultaneously be subject to two different sets of laws exercising jurisdiction – by ‘God’ and by the people. An attempt to mitigate this problem is by keeping the core of the power structures away – by effecting a separation of the church and state, called secularism. However, while this reduces the effects of the dual jurisdiction, it does not necessarily solve the problem, as long as the socio-psychological and conceptual structures are still a result of the ‘divine’ law and the ‘exclusive truth’, until these principles are fully repudiated and rejected at both the material/conscious and sub-conscious levels. Observe the situation in Islamic societies, which do not have a church, yet may face the contradictions between how people evolve and what they want, vis-à-vis what the ‘divine’ law requires them to believe, express or do.
Note that adherents to a system which does not have a ‘legal character’, naturally do not find themselves in a dual or simultaneous jurisdiction issue arising out of the system. Hence, the problems due to the dual jurisdictions do not exist in the first place and the mitigating device of ‘secularism’ is both irrelevant, not required at all, and furthermore, a misplaced and mistaken application of the concept. Observe that no native Indian language has a word for ‘secular/ism’ – it is an alien concept which never existed and is not required in the first place.
A note on what can be separated and cannot (secularism) is contained here 
Furthermore, most importantly, it must be noted that the “divine law” systems make not only the ‘believer’ but also the non-believer/other mandatorily subject to it irrespective of whether the other even knows about it or rejects it. Hence this makes the “divine law” systems inherently political and non-secular in nature.
3. Eliminate (The “Untruth”) & Deception
As ‘the exclusive truth’ is already given and owned by a particular set of people, and it is God given LAW or his WILL which must NECESSARILY be obeyed by ALL and implemented, it becomes necessary to bring everyone on the ‘right side of the law’ and ‘the exclusive truth’ and simultaneously eliminate all other systems which are deemed ‘false’ by virtue of their existence outside the only ‘true’ system. Bringing people on the right side of the ‘divine’ law is effected by CONVERSION, where the subject is in effect brought under the jurisdiction of the specific version/denomination of ‘the exclusive truth’. The system seeks to convert, in the exercise of the ‘divine’ law mandatorily to be implemented OVER OTHERS, the exact opposite of freedom which is available to the SELF, in the exercise of his/her choice. Observe that freedom and choice is not available to its own adherents – once inside, the person cannot query / doubt or move out of the system as a matter of PRINCIPLE; and furthermore be subject to penalty and punishment should the question of moving out of ‘the exclusive truth’ and violating ‘divine’ law even arise. Hence these systems do not provide freedom of thought, belief, speech, action or religion to their own adherents or to others and are ultra vires of the Constitution (of India) , Article 25 and the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) , Article 18 in particular. Note that their self-arrogated ‘right’ to convert OTHERS is a core principle in the system, which is obligatory and considered a most pious act – in the service of their false truth claim and ‘divine’ law. Elimination, i.e. conversion, is fundamental and most important in such systems because they begin from a premise that itself is false – that one can and does own an entity called the exclusive truth – so the moment it is questioned, the system falls. Hence, it is a necessary requirement of the system to eliminate other systems, thereby presenting a fait accompli. Also note that war is a continuation of Policy (of elimination, i.e. conversion) by other means, a la Clausewitz , (also see Annexure 3) –
“24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”
Also note that generally war is to disarm the enemy, Clausewitz  –
“4.—The aim is to disarm the enemy
… The worst position in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely disarmed. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of war, he must either be positively disarmed or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it according to probability.”
whereas for the exclusivist systems, it is not disarming but the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of all the other systems which is the goal.
Hence since conversion/elimination is fundamental, so is war, vis-a-vis the others who are false and going to hell. A basic feature of all such systems, this is more clearly developed in the islamic concepts of dar-al-islam, dar-al-harb and jihad to eliminate the kafir. 
(Jihad – the islamic doctrine of permanent war – Suhas Mazumdar)
In this context it may be noted that such systems have the “Great Mandate”, in Christianity, or its equivalent statements in islam, given by their god. This serves as the prime motivation in these systems to convert others, and is a prime duty for the believers. The believers get ‘heaven’, by carrying out this, which is the ultimate reward promised by this god.
Observe that since conversion activity (elimination) by the exclusivist systems into their own involves a destruction of the fundamental right to belief, speech and worship, they violate another article of the UDHR  explicitly, viz. Article 30 –
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
Note that such systems contradict a basic feature of democracy viz. “agree to disagree”, because such systems disagree to disagree, as a matter of principle. They disagree to disagree because they have an a priori, foreclosed position against all other systems, because they are ‘exclusively true’ and eliminating all the other systems is mandatory, so as a matter of PRINCIPLE, the disagreements must cease to exist, ONLY in their favour, PRE-DECIDEDLY. In other words, they disagree that disagreements itself should exist as a matter of principle. Also note that such systems are not interested in arguing the point because they have a foreclosed position of ‘owning the exclusive truth’ and their efforts are to eliminate the other system itself or the bearer of the other argument (conversion), rather than address the argument itself, as a matter of principle.
Deception is an adjunct fundamental feature of elimination/war and a requirement. It is a requirement also because the primitive and most fundamental feature of the system itself is false – that of owning the exclusive truth. Such systems are not interested as a matter of principle in finding out the truth, because they “have it all in the first place”, that too completely and exclusively and even doubting or thinking otherwise is proscribed and penalised. They are naturally practitioners of what Scopenhauer calls “The Art of Always being Right” or “The Art of Controversy” – “What is this but the art of being in the right, whether one has any reason for being so or not, in other words, the art of attaining the appearance of truth, regardless of its substance? “
“To form a clear picture of the province of Dialectic, we must pay NO attention to Objective Truth, which is an affair of Logic, we must regard it simply as the art of getting the best of it in a dispute…”. 
The art of deception and dissimulation is formally developed in islam as “al taquiyya” and “kitman”.
Belief is a most important feature of the system and considered by some to be the very basis of the entire system. Belief first of all implies that one does NOT KNOW. That is why belief may be required. The followers are called believers and are supposed to believe in a GIVEN and PRESCRIBED set of historical or other “facts”, principles or presumptions. Note that this belief is not any unfettered, personal or individual belief, coming from the conscience of the individual, but a given and prescribed set, not subject to question, rationality or even evidence to the contrary. As regards evidence, observe that the fact that various denominations of “the exclusive truth” which do not accept (or commune) with each other but rather state that all the other denominations are FALSE or wrong in various respects and going to hell, itself is a living contradiction by virtue of their own existence (in multiplicity), and by their own claims, to any particular denomination owning the “EXCLUSIVE TRUTH”. Note that there is no freedom of belief to the individual, where the person is free to believe anything s/he wants to, even if it is an alternate or rational system. Thus for example, the church had a belief that the sun goes around the earth, which led to the persecution, prosecution and murder of many individuals or scientists who thought otherwise, after the church had decreed so. Nonetheless, observe that the specific denominations/church still persists with the “fact” that it owns the exclusive truth. Furthermore, one is not allowed IN PRINCIPLE to query or doubt any of the core or other beliefs, which itself may invite charges of heresy or other such, and penalty in this world and the next, depending on the nature of the transgression. Note that all persons MUST NECESSARILY become believers (mandatory to convert others), of their specific set of “truth” claims. Simply stated, it is an offence to not “believe” what is given and prescribed. One dare not even doubt or question the belief, or else! Freedom of conscience is irrelevant, superseded and subsumed by the mandatory nature of the given and prescribed belief.
In brief, the “beliefs” are given, prescribed, mandatory for all, doubts and deviations penalised, believers cannot leave (penalty or death) and non-believers must compulsorily come inside the specific denomination, exclusively, with specific pre-conditions to enter, be a member and remain loyal to remain in the specific denomination.
This is a direct contradiction to the rights to Freedom of conscience and religion in Article 25 (https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf ) of the Indian Constitution  and Article 18 of the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)  (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ ).
In passing, it may be noted that in such systems, belief may exist without the availability of evidence or even contrary to evidence (e.g. virgin birth, the earth is flat, or the centre of the universe), which may even be in the realm of superstition. However, such beliefs are mandated, a dogma, and enforced by an authority, in this world (and the other world), with punishments in either world for a query, doubt, or deviation, even if it is in the face of evidence to the contrary.
A related point is that in such systems, beliefs and practices are prescribed, authorised and controlled by an authority, and the belief or faith of the lay person (Christian or Muslim) is not based on their interpretation of the book but rather that of the clergy. Contrast this with Dharmic systems where there is no such prescribing, controlling and penalising authority and the ordinary Hindu is not necessarily attached to any religious organisation or authority. In any case there is no church, dogma, decree, fatwa or punishment as a basic feature, irrespective of any belief or practice, or deviations from it. As a matter of fact, systems which disregard the “authority” of the Vedas or the “Gods” (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, ..), agnostics are very much part of the Dharmic system.
Related to belief is the concept of grace, often defined as the unmerited or undeserving favour of god to those who are under condemnation (i.e. all of humanity). In effect, it is the belief that pure belief, in itself, is sufficient to get the rewards or go to heaven, in spite of what you do, as long as one does not contradict the given beliefs. Thus, persons belonging to one denomination, while persecuting or eliminating by any means their co-religionists of other (“false”) denominations or the heathen/infidel, may be secure in the belief that god’s grace shall be bestowed on them IRRESPECTIVE of such actions. Ordinarily speaking, such actions may often be considered immoral, illegal or criminal but within such a belief system, it does not matter insofar as grace is concerned.
Though belief is important as seen above, it is only a partial and inadequate characterisation of the system. For suppose that some individual not within the system, comes across the set of beliefs and starts believing in them, would that make the person a true christian or muslim of a particular denomination? If so, which denomination in particular? Can s/he be automatically admitted to a particular church or sect? Which is the “exclusively true” denomination that would satisfy these conditions? The answer is in the negative.
6. Loyalty & Membership
A seen above, belief is an important but inadequate and partial characterisation nonetheless. To be a “true” Christian or Muslim, one is required to formally enter a particular denomination claiming “the exclusive truth” with a specific set of pre-conditions imposed by that particular denomination and an oath of loyalty to the effect. This may be for example a belief or a “confession of faith” in a particular “approved” version of the Nicene Creed and Apostolic succession for the christian denomination/church in question or the kalima stating that “Allah is the only (true) god and Muhammad is the last prophet” for a particular islamic denomination. Furthermore, if the oath is the same for another denomination/sect, then the particular one administering this oath or other requirements to the person in question is the one which s/he gains entry into.
This oath of accepting the prescribed set of beliefs of the denomination in question is what gains entry and membership and is also an oath of loyalty to the effect. This is sought to preclude any doubt, discussion or query on the prescribed set of beliefs or straying away from the particular denomination of “the exclusive truth” that one has joined as a member. As beliefs are purely inside the head, this oath or membership criteria makes it tangible and ties the individual to it. Also, since there is a “legal”, mandatory-to-implement nature of the system, the membership and loyalty/oath ties in with this aspect and makes the individual responsible for it, and to the specific denomination in particular. Furthermore, the oath or membership and loyalty to a particular denomination is essential because there are many such which claim to own the “exclusive truth” and may be very similar if not exactly the same in terms of their beliefs and/or practices, but are still deemed to be false and going to hell by this particular denomination, so it serves to prevent the member from jumping to any of the similar ones, or to prevent any confusion as regards membership of a particular sect. Additionally, there is the threat or reality of being poached by other denominations in pursuance of their elimination of “untruth”, or conversion. Membership also subjects a person to being governed by the church or particular denomination and s/he may be subject to rules as specified by the set of people who in effect govern, with penalties for various transgressions, e.g. ex-communication from the denomination or sect itself, in case of serious infractions. Certain transgressions may have a person declared a person “not in good standing” in the church or a person as a “munafiq” in that particular islamic sect and may be required to recant or take other corrective actions, and/or be subject to certain punishment.
Loyalty means that one follows the system/particular denomination in spite of and irrespective of any flaws it has or in spite of any reasoning or evidence which may ordinarily require one to act contrary to the requirements of the system. There is no need to repudiate the wrong principles, or even question them, or move into another system, no matter what. The oath taken, after meeting the given pre-conditions to gain entry into the system, serves to seal the membership and the loyalty of the person to that particular denomination / version of “the exclusive truth”. Furthermore, in case of conflict between the person’s conscience and the church for example, one is required to follow the church.
Note that exclusivist systems are dogmatic, where they retain the false fundamental principle of owning the exclusive truth, in spite of reasoning and evidence to the contrary. Naturally, the church i.e. the vatican, which is a persecuting religious state, has a DOGMATIC constitution imposed on the church  –
The above 6 principles form the basis of what may be properly called the Totalitarian-Exclusivist-Nihilist systems. Such systems are a loyalty and membership, (divine) law or will driven, pre-ordained, given and prescribed, mandatory to implement, belief system, predicated on the false fundamental that one can or does own “the exclusive truth”, in the service of which it presents a fait accompli by elimination – conversion and its contiguous property in continuation of the same policy, i.e. war, with god’s grace available to the person (believer) irrespective of the merits of the case.
While other principles may exist, the above are fundamental and overriding. For example, an oft quoted principle is to the effect that “to you, your religion, to me mine”. However, this is subject to and works within the framework provided by the above, which are fundamental and subsume or supersede other principles, especially in case of conflict.
The nature of the system as above has led to a clash with all other systems, beliefs or practices of humanity and with the unfettered free will and conscience of the person and humanity. This eventually led to among others, the discovery or creation of devices like free will, magna carta, rights of man (v/s the wrongs/sins of sheep), secularism, democracy, the right to free speech, belief, religion, etc and the dark ages which were followed by a period of enlightenment. This is the result of superposing a Totalitarian, Exclusivist, Nihilist-Expansionist, Restricted and Restrictive, False-principle-based structure on humanity, the evolution and history of which is a discovery and demonstration of the conflict with the freedoms of humanity, its trying to escape from the clutches and persecution by this structure and its followers.
Also note that the people, the followers are not the same as the system per se and invariably have different thoughts, queries, practices and so on. However, they are under regimentation and threat from their own system with the risk of being declared a heretic or munafiq, or being declared a person ‘not in good standing’ in the church, or under threat from another related sect, or one following a more pure or orthodox understanding or practice, which will seek to punish or eliminate them.
In contrast, the Dharmic systems are diametrically opposite and are predicated on the freedom and the unfettered conscience of the person, in order to seek the truth. They accommodate diverse and often contradictory viewpoints and systems without having any conflict or clash with them. To give an analogy, the fundamental principles of Newtonian Mechanics (absolute time, reversibility, determinism), Quantum Mechanics (indeterminism and observability), Statistical Physics (unidirectional time, entropy/irreversibility) , Relativity (time is relative, velocity of light is absolute), etc may be diametrically opposite to each other but science and scientists carry on regardless, without having any conflict, or having fallen foul of any obligation or mandate, and making more, often contradictory discoveries rather than being predicated on some system being “the exclusive truth”. Observe that there is no dichotomy or separation of scientific activity in Dharmic systems whereas the exclusivist systems have had and continue to have a conflict. Also observe that Dharmic systems accommodate both scientific method (observable and demonstrable) as well as those systems for example based on the concept of maya (“illusion”).
Furthermore, note that Dharmic systems are NOT “follow” systems, NOR “follow/obey the book or authority” systems even when the books may be the Shastras. The fundamental is the person’s conscience and freedom to seek the Truth. In this regard one may recall a story in the Panchatantra entitled “Chaar Murkha Brahman Katha”  i.e. “The Four Learned Fools”  –
Also note the basic nature of Dharma Shastras is discursive – e.g. the Bhagvad Gita is a set of dialogues which is an upadesha, not an aadesh, or hukum, unlike the books in the exclusivist systems, which have a normative and mandatory character. Thus the books in the two fundamentally distinct systems are NOT comparable at all.
The two diametrically opposite systems (Dharmic and totalitarian-exclusivist-nihilist) give rise to different socio-political, economic and cultural systems. More particularly they give rise to diametrically opposite world views and governing systems, not necessarily compatible with each other. This will be the subject of a future study.
Discussions between the author and Dr David Frawley are hereby acknowledged.
- Jihad – the islamic doctrine of permanent war, Suhas Mazumdar http://voiceofdharma.org/books/jihad/
(18) Chapter: What Has Been Related About The Splitting That Will Occur In This Ummah (18)
باب مَا جَاءَ فِي افْتِرَاقِ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, or seventy-two sects, and the Christians similarly, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects.”
حَدَّثَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ أَبُو عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ “ تَفَرَّقَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَى إِحْدَى وَسَبْعِينَ أَوِ اثْنَتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَالنَّصَارَى مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً ” . وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ سَعْدٍ وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو وَعَوْفِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى حَدِيثُ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ .
|: Hasan (Darussalam)
|: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2640
|: Book 40, Hadith 35
|: Vol. 5, Book 38, Hadith 2640
Report Error | Share
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “What befell the children of Isra’il will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that. Indeed the children of Isra’il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect.” He said: “And which is it O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “What I am upon and my Companions.”
حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الْحَفَرِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ زِيَادِ بْنِ أَنْعُمَ الإِفْرِيقِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ لَيَأْتِيَنَّ عَلَى أُمَّتِي مَا أَتَى عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ حَذْوَ النَّعْلِ بِالنَّعْلِ حَتَّى إِنْ كَانَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَتَى أُمَّهُ عَلاَنِيَةً لَكَانَ فِي أُمَّتِي مَنْ يَصْنَعُ ذَلِكَ وَإِنَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ تَفَرَّقَتْ عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ مِلَّةً وَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ مِلَّةً كُلُّهُمْ فِي النَّارِ إِلاَّ مِلَّةً وَاحِدَةً قَالُوا وَمَنْ هِيَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ مَا أَنَا عَلَيْهِ وَأَصْحَابِي ” . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُفَسَّرٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ لاَ نَعْرِفُهُ مِثْلَ هَذَا إِلاَّ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ .
|: Da’if (Darussalam)
|: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2641
|: Book 40, Hadith 36
|: Vol. 5, Book 38, Hadith 2641
Report Error | Share
Jami` at-Tirmidhi is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Abu `Isa Muhammad at-Tirmidhi (rahimahullah). His collection is unanimously considered to be one of the six canonical collections of hadith (Kutub as-Sittah) of the Sunnah of the Prophet (). It contains roughly 4400 hadith (with repetitions) in 46 books.
24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.