What is this concept of "Atmam e Hujjat" (clear, consice, convincing proof ??)
Some scholars including Javed Ghamdi believe that once a Messenger delivers Allah's message to an erring nation through a peaceful dialogue and discussion, the audience have two choices, accept or reject. Those who accept become submitters those who reject are put on notice. When a Messenger and his followers are in a minority with no power, Allah's punishment comes in the form of natural disaster. When a Messenger has enough power and forces, Allah punishes the rejectors through them.
Mr Ghamdi also says, after the Messenger, no one has a right to judge and prosecute people on account of their faiths. That punishment period applied to the Messengers era only.
Two points may be relevant here. Are the rejectors being punished for refusing to believe in One God and His Messenger and a law that needs to be established for the benefit of society or whether they are being punished for all the above plus their evil ways (exploiting the weak, moral sins, creating disorder in the land, etc)?
If they are being punished for their evil ways (because of a distorted ideology of life) we understand the reform aspect.
If they are only being punished for refusing to believe in One God, His Messenger, His message, His angels and a day of accountablity then what happens to "There is no compulsion" in deen and numerous other Qur'anic concepts that show tolerance, plurality, freedom of conscience, "To you our deen, to us ours", judgment is upto Allah alone verses?
Some say the Messenger Muhammad (S) acting was applying Atmam e Hujjat when he send letters inviting some neigbouring rulers to accept Islam (with an "or else" clause). Is that possible? That was the only reason, we are explained, the early Muslims attacked and invaded some countries.
Any comments on the above to clear the confusion will be appreciated..
Mr Ghamdi's comments can be viewed here: