Arabic verses, Urdu and English translations with tafseer in English footnotes and links of Urdu tafseer.
belief in the Hereafter is more than a doctrine about the future. It is the only secure foundation for moral life in the present, and the moral collapse that follows its loss is itself evidence of its truth.
اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ لَا یَرۡجُوۡنَ لِقَآءَنَا وَ رَضُوۡا بِالۡحَیٰوۃِ الدُّنۡیَا وَ اطۡمَاَنُّوۡا بِہَا وَ الَّذِیۡنَ ہُمۡ عَنۡ اٰیٰتِنَا غٰفِلُوۡنَ ۙ﴿۷﴾ اُولٰٓئِکَ مَاۡوٰىہُمُ النَّارُ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَکۡسِبُوۡنَ ﴿۸﴾
حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جو لوگ ہم سے ملنے کی توقع نہیں رکھتے اور دُنیا کی زندگی ہی پر راضی اور مطمئن ہو گئے ہیں ، اور جو لوگ ہماری نشانیوں سے غافل ہیں، اُن کا آخری ٹھکانہ جہنم ہو گااُن برائیوں کی پاداش میں جن کا اکتساب وہ ﴿اپنے اُس غلط عقیدے اور غلط طرزِ عمل کی وجہ سے ﴾ کرتے رہے۔12
سُوْرَةُ یُوْنُس حاشیہ نمبر :12
یہاں سے پھر دعوے کے ساتھ ساتھ اس کی دلیل بھی اشارۃً بیان کر دی گئی ہے ۔ دعویٰ یہ ہے کہ عقیدۂ آخرت کے انکار کا لازمی اورقطعی نتیجہ جہنم ہے، اور دلیل ہے کہ اس عقیدے سے منکر یا خالی الذہن ہو کر انسان اُ ن برائیوں کا اکتساب کرتا ہے جن کی سزا جہنم کے سوا اور کچھ نہیں ہو سکتی۔ یہ ایک حقیقت ہے کہ اور ہزارہا سا ل کے انسانی رویّے کا تجربہ اس پر شاہد ہے ۔ جو لوگ خدا کے سامنے اپنےآپ کو ذمہ دار اور جواب دہ نہیں سمجھتے ، جو اس بات کا کوئی اندیشہ نہیں رکھتے کہ انہیں آخر کار خدا کو اپنے پورے کارنامۂ حیات کا حساب دینا ہے ، جو اس مفروضے پر کام کرتے ہیں کہ زندگی بس یہی دنیا کی زندگی ہے ، جن کے نزدیک کامیابی و ناکامی کا معیار صرف یہ ہے کہ اس دنیا میںّ آدمی نے کس قدر خوشحالی ، آسائش ، شہرت اور طاقت حاصل کی، اور جو اپنے انہی مادّہ پرستانہ تخیلات کی بنا پر آیات الہٰی کو ناقابل توجہ سمجھتے ہیں ، ان کی پوری زندگی غلط ہو کر رہ جاتی ہے۔ وہ دنیا میں شتر بے مہار بن کر رہتے ہیں ، نہات برے اخلاق و اوصاف کا اکتساب کرنے میں ، خدا کی زمین کو ظلم و فساد اور فسق و فجور سے بھر دیتے ہیں، اور اس بنا پر جہنم کے مستحق بن جاتے ہیں۔
یہ عقیدہ ٔ آخرت پر ایک اور نوعیت کی دلیل ہے ۔ پہلی تین دلیلیں عقلی استدلال کے قبیل سے تھیں، اور یہ تجربی استدلال کے قبیل سے ہے۔ یہاں اسے صرف اشارۃ بیان کیا گیا ہے، مگر قرآن میں مختلف مواقع پر ہمیں اس کی تفصیل ملتی ہے۔ اس استدلال کا خلاصہ یہ ہے کہ انسان کا انفرادی رویّہ اور انسانی گروہوں کا اجتماعی رویّہ کبھی اس وقت تک درست نہیں ہوتا جب تک یہ شعور اور یہ یقین انسانی سیرت کی بنیاد میں پیوست نہ ہو کہ ہم کو خدا کے سامنے اپنے اعمال کا جواب دینا ہے۔ اب غور طلب یہ ہے کہ آخر ایسا کیوں ہے؟ کیا وجہ ہے کہ اس شعور و یقین کے غائب یا کمزور ہوتے ہی انسانی سیرت و کردار کی گاڑی برائی کی راہ پر چل پڑتی ہے۔ اگر عقیدۂ آخرت حقیقتِ نفس الامری کے مطابق نہ ہوا اور اُ س کا انکار حقیقت کے خلاف نہ ہوتا تو ممکن نہ تھا کہ اس اقرار و انکار کے نتائج ایک لزومی شان کے ساتھ مسلسل ہمارے تجربے میں آتے۔ ایک ہی چیز سے پیہم صحیح نتائج کا برآمد ہونا اور اس کے عدم سے نتائج کا ہمیشہ غلط ہو جانا اس بات کا قطعی ثبوت ہے کہ وہ چیز بجائے خود صحیح ہے۔
اس کے جواب میں بسا اوقات یہ دلیل پیش کی جاتی ہے کہ بہت سے منکرین ِ آخرت ایسے ہیں جن کا فلسفہ ٔ اخلاق اور دستورِ عمل سراسر دہریت و مادّہ پرستی پر مبنی ہے پھر بھی وہ اچھی خاصی پاک سیرت رکھتے ہیں اور ان سے ظلم و فساد اور فسق و فجور کا ظہور نہیں ہوتا۔ بلکہ وہ اپنے معاملات میں نیک اور خلق خدا کے خدمت گزار ہوتے ہیں۔ لیکن اس استدلال کی کمزوری بادنیٰ تامل واضح ہو جاتی ہے۔ تمام مادّہ پرستانہ لادینی فلسفوں اور نظامات فکر کی جانچ پڑتال کر کے دیکھ لیا جائے۔ کہیں اُن اخلاقی خوبیوں اور عملی نیکیوں کے لیے کوئی بنیاد نہ ملے گی جن کا خراج تحسین اِن”نیکوکار“ دہریوں کو دیا جاتا ہے۔ کسی منطق سے یہ ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکتا کہ ان لادینی فلسفوں میں راست بازی ، امانت، دیانت ، وفائے عہد ، عدل ، رہم، فیاضی ، ایثار، ہمدردی ، ضبط نفس، عفت ، حق شناسی، اور ادائے حقوق کے لیے محرکات موجود ہیں ۔ خدا اور آخرت کو نظر انداز کر دینے کے بعد اخلاق کے لیے اگر کوئی قابل عمل نظام بن سکتا ہے تو وہ صرف افادیت(Utilitarianism ) کی بنیادوں پر بن سکتا ہے ۔ باقی تمام اخلاقی فلسفے محض فرضی اور کتابی ہیں نہ کہ عملی۔ اور افادیت جو اخلاق پیدا کرتی ہے اسے خواہ کتنی ہی وسعت دی جائے ، بہرحال وہ اس سے آگے نہیں جاتا کہ آدمی وہ کام کرے جس کا کوئی فائدہ اِس دنیا میں اُس کی ذات کی طرف ، یا اُس معاشرے کی طرف جس سے وہ تعلق رکھتا ہے ، پلٹ کر آنے کی توقع ہو۔ یہ وہ چیز ہے جو فائدے کی امید اور نقصان کے اندیشے کی بنا پر انسان سے سچ اور جھوٹ ، امانت اور خیانت، ایمانداری اور بے ایمانی ، وفا اور غدر، انصاف اور ظلم، غرض ہر نیکی اور اس کی ضد کا حسبِ موقع ارتکاب کرا سکتی ہے۔ اِن اخلاقیات کا بہترین نمونہ موجودہ زمانہ کی انگریز قوم ہے جس کواکثر اس امر کی مثال میں پیش کیا جاتا ہے کہ مادّہ پرستانہ نظریۂ حیات رکھنے اور آخرت کے بہترین تصور سے خالی ہونے کے باوجود اس قوم کے افراد بالعموم دوسروں سےزیادہ سچے، کھرے، دیانت دار، عہد کے پابند، انصاف پسنداور معاملات میں قابل اعتماد ہیں۔ لیکن حقیقت یہ ہے کہ افادی اخلاقیات کی ناپائیداری کا سب سے زیادہ نمایاں عملی ثبوت ہم کو اسی قوم کے کردار میں ملتا ہے۔ اگر فی الواقع انگریزوں کی سچائی، انصاف پسندی، راستبازی اور عہد کی پابندی اس یقین و اذعان پر مبنی ہوتی کہ یہ صفات بجائے خود مستقل اخلاقی خوبیاں ہیں تو آخر یہ کس طرح ممکن تھا کہ ایک ایک انگریز تو اپنے شخصی کردار میں ان کا حامل ہوتا مگر ساری قوم مل کر جن لوگوں کو اپنا نمائندہ اور اپنے اجتماعی امور کا سربراہ کار بناتی ہے وہ بڑے پیمانے پر اس کی سلطنت اور اس کے بین الاقوامی معاملات کے چلانے میں علانیہ جھوٹ، بدعہدی، ظلم ، بے انصافی اور بددیانتی سے کام لیتے اور پوری قوم کا اعتماد ان کو حاصل رہتا ؟ کیا یہاس بات کا صریح ثبوت نہیں ہے کہ یہ لوگ مستقل اخلاقی قدروں کے قائل نہیں ہیں بلکہ دنیوی فائدے اور نقصان کے لحاظ سے بیک وقت دو متجاد اخلاقی رویّے اختیار کرتے ہیں اور کر سکتے ہیں؟
تاہم اگر کوئی منکر خدا و آخرت فی الواقع دنیا میں ایسا موجود ہے جو مسقل طور پر بعض نیکیوں کا پابند اور بعض بدیوں سے مجتنب ہے تو درحقیقت اس کی یہ نیکی اور پرہیز گاری اس کے مادّہ پرستانہ نظریۂ حیات کا نتیجہ نہیں ہے بلکہ اُن مذہبی اثرات کا نتیجہ ہے جو غیر شعور ی طور پر اس کے نفس میں متمکن ہیں۔ اس کا اخلاقی سرمایۂ مذہب سے چُرایا ہوا ہے اور اس کو وہ ناروا طریقے سے لامذہبی میں استعمال کر رہا ہے ۔ کیونکہ وہ اپنی لامذہبی و مادّہ پرستی کے خزانے میں اِس سرمائے کے ماخذ کی نشان دہی ہرگز نہیں کر سکتا۔
Summary of the discussion:
Introductory summary: Note 12
In brief: Maududi argues that belief in the Hereafter is the only secure foundation for moral life. Wherever accountability to God is denied, character and society decline. That consistent pattern in human experience is itself evidence that the belief is true.
The previous notes gave three rational arguments for the Hereafter: a second life is possible, it is necessary, and God’s wisdom guarantees it will happen. In Note 12, Maududi adds a fourth argument of a different kind. It is based on experience and observation of how people actually behave.
He starts with verse 7, which says that those who do not expect to meet God and are content with this world will end up in Hell “for what they used to earn.” From this he draws a claim and its proof. The claim is that denying the Hereafter leads inevitably to Hell. The proof is that denying accountability to God corrupts a person’s character and conduct. Someone who believes this life is all there is, and who measures success only by wealth, comfort, fame and power, lives like an “unbridled camel.” Such a person fills the earth with oppression and wickedness, and so deserves the punishment that follows.
He then turns this into a general argument. Wherever the conviction that we must answer to God is present, individual and collective conduct is sound. Wherever it weakens or disappears, conduct declines. A belief that consistently produces good results, while its absence consistently produces bad ones, must correspond to reality. So human moral history itself testifies to the truth of the Hereafter.
He also addresses an obvious objection: some atheists are clearly decent, honest and helpful people. He gives two answers.
- Philosophically, materialism offers no real foundation for virtue. Without God and the Hereafter, the only workable ethic is utilitarianism, and that judges every act by worldly gain or loss. Truth and lies, loyalty and betrayal all become permissible depending on what pays. Writing in the colonial era, he took the English of his day as a case study. In his view they were honest in personal dealings, yet their national leaders practised deceit and injustice in running the empire, and the public still backed them. He saw this double standard as evidence that their morality rested on expediency, not fixed values.
- Historically, wherever a genuinely principled atheist does exist, his goodness comes from religious influences that have quietly shaped him, not from his materialist worldview. In Maududi’s phrase, his “moral capital has been stolen from religion,” because his own philosophy cannot account for where that capital came from.
The core point: belief in the Hereafter is more than a doctrine about the future. It is the only secure foundation for moral life in the present, and the moral collapse that follows its loss is itself evidence of its truth.
12This passage also contains both a statement and its proof. The statement is that those who reject the doctrine of the Hereafter shall inevitably go to Hell and its proof is that those who reject or pay no heed to this, commit such evil deeds as deserve nothing less than the fire of Hell. The fact which is supported by the experience of thousands of years, is that those who do not consider themselves responsible and accountable to God in the Hereafter, go astray into wrong ways for lack of any control over themselves, and commit immoralities and fill God’s earth with tyranny, chaos and filth and thus merit Hell. This is inevitable. If a man leads his life on the presumption that there is no other life, he will have no fear that he shall have to render a full account of all his deeds in this world. Therefore his sole aim in this life will be to win, by hook or by crook, prosperity, happiness, fame and power in this world. Naturally these materialistic attitudes make people heedless of the Signs of Allah and mislead them into wrong ways that lead to Hell.
The above argument for the doctrine of the Hereafter is in its nature different from the previous three arguments. This is based on the knowledge gained by human experience while the former were based on rational reasoning. Though here only a hint has been given about it, the same has been stated in detail in other places in the Qur’an. This is the argument in brief. Human beings cannot adopt individually or collectively the right attitude towards life unless the doctrine of accountability to God is deeply embedded in their hearts. The fact that human beings begin to behave erroneously, if and when their belief in this doctrine disappears or becomes weak, is borne out by a long experience. Had not the creed of the Hereafter been real, its acceptance or rejection would not have produced the results inevitably and continuously for centuries. The fact that the acceptance of a doctrine should have continuously produced right sort of results, and its denial wrong results, is a clear proof that it is real. Though the premises of the above argument and the conclusion drawn from these arc clear and closely connected, there arc some people who do not agree with this proposition. They argue their point like this. There are many instances of people who deny the Hereafter and base their moral philosophy and their rule of conduct on atheism and materialism: still they possess high moral characters and abstain from every sort of evil; in short, they are virtuous in their affairs and render great services to the people. But a little thinking will show that this is a weak argument. If we probe into the materialistic philosophies and systems, we shall find that all these lack solid foundations for the moral excellence and practical virtuous deeds; therefore they cannot produce those qualities with which the atheists and the materialists are credited. Indeed no such motivating factors exist in those philosophies as may produce the qualities of righteousness, honesty, trust-worthiness, justice, compassion, generosity, sacrifice, sympathy, self-control, purity, the fulfillment of duties, obligations and pledges and the like. The only alternative to the doctrines of Tauhid and the Hereafter is “utilitarianism” which might become the basis for a practical moral system, for all the other philosophies are merely hypothetical and impracticable. It is quite obvious that the motivating power of utilitarianism is very limited because it is incapable of carrying a person farther than “utility” itself. Therefore the one who believes in this doctrine will consider a virtue a “virtue” only as long as it is useful to his own person, family, society etc., and will direct all his efforts towards promoting their welfare and happiness and will adhere to moral qualities only as long as they are conducive to his own good or to that of his own people. But he will discard these “virtues”, when he is convinced that these will be harmful. That is why a utilitarian does not believe in absolute morality but adopts truth or falsehood, honesty or dishonesty, faithfulness or treachery, justice or injustice, in short, any virtue or vice that may suit the occasion and be useful for his own interests. The English people are the most appropriate example of utilitarian morality. Their example will serve our purpose as they are cited by its supporters to prove their proposition that one may possess a high moral character even though one were to deny the existence of God and the Hereafter for, they say, the English people in general are more truthful, more honest, more just and more trust-worthy than others though they arc materialists; whereas the fact is that the English people provide the most appropriate practical proof of the instability of utilitarian character. Is it not a fact that the representatives of the English nation make a very poor show of their morality in regard to international affairs? They tell brazen-faced lies and are guilty of treachery, tyranny, injustice and dishonesty, and the whole nation backs them up as its champions. Had their morality been founded on sound basis, it could not have been possible that as individuals they should be truthful, honest, just, righteous and observe pledges, but as a nation they would discard all these moral values. This is a clear proof that these people do not believe in moral values as such but only if these are useful for their self-interest: otherwise they could not have adopted two contradictory positions as individuals and as a nation. Morality is morality only if it is absolute, otherwise it is a policy and expediency.
Nevertheless, if there be any up-holders of absolute morality from among the disbelievers of Allah and the Hereafter, they could not have got these virtues from the doctrine of utilitarianism but from those latent religious influences that might have remained embedded in their hearts without their conscious knowledge. Such a person is, in fact, indebted to religion for his moral excellences, though he be attributing these to secularism and materialism, for he cannot point out anything, whatsoever, in them that might have motivated those virtues.
Claud translation:
Surah Yunus, Note 12
Here again, a claim is made and its proof is indicated alongside it. The claim is that the necessary and certain result of denying the Hereafter is Hell. The proof is that a person who denies this belief, or is simply indifferent to it, goes on earning evils whose punishment can be nothing other than Hell.
This is a fact, and thousands of years of human experience bear witness to it. Consider people who do not see themselves as responsible and answerable before God, who have no fear that they must eventually account to God for the full record of their lives, and who act on the assumption that this worldly life is the only life. For them the only measure of success and failure is how much prosperity, comfort, fame and power a person gains in this world, and because of these materialist notions they regard God’s signs as unworthy of attention. The whole of their lives goes wrong. They live in the world like unbridled camels, acquire the worst morals and qualities, fill God’s earth with oppression, corruption, sin and immorality, and so become deserving of Hell.
This is a different kind of argument for belief in the Hereafter. The first three arguments were rational ones, while this one is empirical. It is only alluded to here, but the Quran gives it in detail in various places.
In short, the argument is this: neither an individual’s conduct nor the collective conduct of human groups is ever set right unless the awareness and conviction that we must answer to God for our deeds is embedded at the foundation of human character.
The question to consider is why this should be so. Why does human character and conduct head down the path of evil as soon as this awareness and conviction disappear or weaken? If belief in the Hereafter did not correspond to objective reality, and denying it did not go against reality, the results of affirming or denying it could not keep appearing in our experience with such inevitable consistency. When one thing consistently produces right results, and its absence always produces wrong ones, that is conclusive proof that the thing itself is right.
In response, people sometimes argue that many who deny the Hereafter base their moral philosophy and way of life entirely on atheism and materialism. They say such people still have fairly upright characters, do not commit oppression, corruption, sin or immorality, and are good in their dealings and devoted to serving others.
The weakness of this argument becomes clear with a moment’s thought. Examine every materialist, irreligious philosophy and system of thought. You will find no foundation anywhere for the moral excellences and good deeds for which these “virtuous” atheists are praised. No logic can show that these irreligious philosophies provide any motive for truthfulness, trustworthiness, honesty, keeping one’s word, justice, compassion, generosity, self-sacrifice, sympathy, self-control, chastity, recognition of what is right, and fulfilling the rights of others.
Once God and the Hereafter are set aside, the only workable system of morality that can be built rests on utilitarianism. All other moral philosophies are merely hypothetical and bookish, not practical. However far the morality produced by utilitarianism is extended, it never goes beyond one thing: a person does whatever is expected to bring some benefit in this world to himself or to the society he belongs to. Driven by hope of gain and fear of loss, such a morality can lead a person to commit truth or falsehood, trustworthiness or betrayal, honesty or dishonesty, loyalty or treachery, justice or oppression, as the occasion demands. In short, it can lead him to any virtue or its opposite.
The best example of this morality is the modern English nation. It is often cited to show that, despite holding a materialist view of life and lacking any concept of the Hereafter, its individuals are generally more truthful, straightforward, honest, faithful to their commitments, just-minded and reliable in their dealings than others. In reality, however, the character of this very nation gives us the most striking practical proof of how unstable utilitarian morality is.
If the truthfulness, fairness, uprightness and fidelity to agreements of the English really rested on a firm conviction that these qualities are permanent moral virtues in themselves, how could the following be possible? Each individual Englishman carries these qualities in his personal character. Yet the people the whole nation chooses as its representatives and the heads of its collective affairs openly use lies, broken promises, oppression, injustice and dishonesty on a vast scale in running its empire and its international affairs, and they keep the trust of the entire nation. Is this not clear proof that these people do not believe in permanent moral values? It shows that, according to worldly gain and loss, they adopt, and are able to adopt, two contradictory moral attitudes at the same time.
Still, suppose there really is someone in the world who denies God and the Hereafter and yet consistently practises certain virtues and avoids certain vices. His virtue and restraint are not the result of his materialist view of life. They result from religious influences that have unconsciously settled in his soul. His moral capital has been stolen from religion, and he is using it improperly in irreligion, because he can never point to the source of this capital anywhere in the treasury of his irreligion and materialism.
