The Difficulties of Recognition
Al-Risala (English), January-February 1992, p. 22
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is named as the default author of the periodical; a piece that carries another writer’s byline is credited to that writer.
The Difficulties of Recognition
1992 1-2 January-February 22 The Difficulties of Recognition (297) Towards the end of the Meccan period in the Prophet’s life, an incident took place which is of considerable relevance even today. It concerned the acceptance or the rejection of the Prophet by the chiefs of the Quraysh. Having gathered together in Mecca, they decided after consulting amongst themselves that Muhammad should be called before them and that certain demands should be made of him. If he fulfilled these demands, he would be accepted as a prophet, but if he failed to oblige, this could be used as a pretext for rejecting him. Muhammad, may peace be upon him, was duly summoned. One of “the demands that was made was (Ask your Lord) to resurrect our forefathers. And among the resurrected should be Qussayy ibn Kalab, because he was pious and honest. We will ask him about what you tell us – whether it is true or false.”
Here the question arises as to why it was that when the Messenger of God was most pious and most honest, people were loth to concede that he possessed these virtues, preferring to give the benefit of the doubt to Qussayy ibn Kalab. The reason for this was that with the passage of time, the reputation of the long-dead Qusayy ibn Kalab had become established. The Prophet, on the other hand, was a contemporary personality whose piety, honesty and nobility had yet to be historically popularized and acknowledged. For many, his qualities were but a latent potential.
The non-believers could accept what history told them, but they were not, on their own, capable of recognizing a prophet. The believers, however, recognising his inner qualities, acknowledged him as their Prophet.
Those who can recognise a prophet only after history has certified him to be so are little better than blind men.

‹ Previous page Next page › About this issue Open in the reader