Islam and Politics 10 Mar 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com
The Evils of Jadeed (modern) Kharijiat
The Evils of Jadeed (modern) Kharijiat 
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A Comparative study by Zeeshan Ahmed Misbahi
Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs are akin to their predecessors in many respects. They believe in violent protests, are intolerant towards people having different opinion and divided in various groups on conceptual basis, yet agreeing on certain issues such as Takfeer-e-Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) and Muawiah (May Allah be pleased with him). Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs are extremely religious-minded, and orthodox.
Abdul Kareem Shahrastani has described them as “the people about whom the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had stated – you would feel yourselves inferior to them observing their prayers”. The followers of Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs are highly impressed by the ancient Khawarijs and follow the beliefs and policies of their prededessors.
A Comparative study by Zeeshan Ahmed Misbahi
Who are the Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs
How, when and where did they come into existence?
These are complex questions very difficult to answer. No doubt, the Khawarijs were a group during the caliphate vehemently opposed to the concept and practice of democracy.
Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) suppressed the movement saving the Ummah from a brutal evil.
Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs are akin to their predecessors in many respects. They believe in violent protests, are intolerant towards people having different opinion and divided in various groups on conceptual basis, yet agreeing on certain issues such as Takfeer-e-Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) and Muawiah (May Allah be pleased with him). Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs are extremely religious-minded, and orthodox.
Abdul Kareem Shahrastani has described them as “the people about whom the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had stated – you would feel yourselves inferior to them observing their prayers”. The followers of Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs are highly impressed by the ancient Khawarijs and follow the beliefs and policies of their predecessors.
I don’t say religion has nothing to do with politics and should not have any ties with politics. In democratic societies, the Muslims have differences with the Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs on two grounds.
First, the democrats consider politics the part of religion, but Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs consider religion the part of politics, they may not accept it verbally.
Second, the democrats do not approve of “Deen” and “Ahl-e-Deen” acceptable along with politics and government; so they are performing the duty of sacrificing Muslims, defaming Islam for the sake of politics and government in the name of “Jihad” and “Ahqaq”.
The ancient Khawarij group was formed after the incident of “Tahkeem” in 37H. It has taken a new form in present time all over the world – that is called the “parliament”. In the Muslim or non-Muslim countries where democracy is being practiced, people elect the members of Parliament to represent their constituency and participate in the process of law-making. In Muslim countries, either there is kingship that is not preferred in Islam, or democracy. It is being practiced in many non-Muslims countries. It is better than imperialism in which an individual’s opinion is not considered and is different from Islamic Shoorai system .
Now the question is: what should the Muslims do in absence of Islamic Shoorai system? Should they try to establish Islamic Shoorai system of rule in the Muslim countries or abstain from the democratic process. Practically, it is not possible to form a Shoorai cabinet in the present atmosphere of hostility and sectarianism where one sect pronounces all the others infidels (kafirs).
Even if supposedly, a Shoorai cabinet is anyhow formed, the members would be killed the next day by a differing faction. The sectarian conflict in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a perfect example. The ruling section starts bombing the mosques and graveyards just after coming to power. To avoid such a frustrating situation, the democratic system of electing the members of Parliament looks practical if not an ideal one.
The Muslim minority living in non-Muslim countries have some options to choose from.
(a) They can accept the democratic system and try to elect the candidates favourable to them.
(b) They can live in democracy without participating in the electoral process. But it will yield two unfavourable results:
First, the Parliament will be deprived of genuine members.
Second, their patriotism will be called in question. Several facilities will be taken away and ultimately, they will be forced to either migrate or suffer in their own country.
(c) They can revolt in non-Muslim countries like in India or Nepal, or in U.S or European countries and try to establish an Islamic government. But, it seems to be very impractical as such an attempt will be suicidal and counterproductive..
Shaikh Md Alauddin Nadvi, a teacher in Darul Uloom, Lucknow writes on this issue in the guest column of monthly “Allah ki Pukar” Delhi, in May 2009 edition:
“Should the fate of Islam be linked with secular democracy? Will the Islamic spirit of Oneness not be affected?
Is this democratic system not a sign of slavery? The Prophets have been sent to rescue the Muslims from this humiliating slavery” (Page-7)
It is surprising that the expression of Islamic spirit in the light of “Kitab” and “Sunnah” or the decision of segregation from the mainstream politics in the prevalent system of democratic rule and boycott of elections are always considered suicidal attempts by Ummat-e-Muslimah. People think that Indian Muslims should support the democratic system of the governance that is in favour of Muslims and Islam, but the particular situations and the religious compulsions are never defined. The support for the philosophy of “Aahoonul Yalesheen” is taken but, “Aahoonul Mushrekeen” is practiced. For this reference, the Aayat-e-Kareemah is explained in such a way that denial of Quran-e-Kareem is apprehended. (Page 8)
The people who consider elections a religious and “Shoorai” duty will appear along with the losers and beside transgressors. The participation in elections and politics from Islamic point of view is purely a matter of faith on Oneness of Allah-e-Kareem; it is not a child’s play. (Page 9)
The detailed quotations have been given to prove that Jadeed (modern) Kharjiat is an undeniable reality. The reasons presented in the quotations are so weak that it can be denied and refuted by any ordinary Muslim. Its perfect similarity with ancient Kharjiat is being given below in short:
1. The ancient Khawarijs considered “Tahkeem” an act of transgression “Shirk” against Oneness of Allah-e-Kareem; similarly, modern Khawarijs consider “Parliament” against Oneness of Allah-e-Kareem.
2. According to ancient Khwarijs “Tahkeem” made human beings rulers in place of Allah-e-Kareem; modern Khawarijs too, possess the same opinion about the parliament. The reality in the matter of “Tahkeem” is different as it had happened to establish a compromise between Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Muawiah (May Allah be pleased with him) in the light of “Quran” and “Sunnah”. As there had to be someone to dictate the orders of Shariat, that is why two persons were nominated by the fighting factions. They were made responsible to deliver verdict according to the Islamic law. It was not the approval of the governance of someone against the rule of Allah-e-Kareem “Tahkeem-e-Tauheed”. The ancient Khawarijs considered it transgression “Shirk”. Likewise, all human beings including Muslims get religious freedom in modern day democracy. In regard of other matters of government, various representatives from all castes and regions of the country are elected in the parliament. The followers of a particular religion and their book cannot be authorized to solve all problems and matters. No religious group, majority or minority, will accept any common doctrine as the supreme authority. Democracy creates a middle path to solve this problem. If Muslims accept this system, their actions can be called “rebellion” and they are labelled “Mushriks” by the Khawarijs resulting in great destruction and disturbance.
3. The ancient Khawarijs used to dispose of the Caliph if he slightly deviated from the rules of Shariat. Likewise, modern Khawarijs too, seem eager to kill rulers throughout the world, at a time even Islamic scholars find it difficult to fully abide by the Shariat laws. They have to tolerate the vehement anger and the suicide attacks by the modern Khawarijs.
4. They used to consider all the people “Kafir” who did not follow Shariat laws; modern Khawarijs too, are following the same destructive path. Someone, Masood Ahmed of Jama’tul Muslemin has tried to prove in his book “Tark-e-Sunnah Gunah Hai” – that non-practice of Sunnat is a deviation and, therefore, a sin..
5. Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) had argued on the logic of Khawarijs “ordains are from Allah-e-Kareem only” saying it is a poor explanation of a good reason. Similarly, modern Khawarijs too, talk about “Khilafat”, “Rule of Allah” and “Tauheed”. Ultimately they label the whole Ummat “Kafir” and intend to revolt against all the governments.
6. They considered “Sword” as the only solution against “transgressions” or “rebellions”. The prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) has stated, “Demolish evil by hands; if unable, try to stop verbally, if unable to do even that – at least denounce it in your heart”. Practically, he (Peace be upon him) opposed it. Modern Khawarijs too, believe in the solution by killing and destruction, irrespective of favourable or unfavourable conditions and its results.
The Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs, spread throughout the world, have a large support among the educated, the uneducated, the college students and Mullahs. A common Muslim wants to achieve Islamic, educational and financial stability utilizing democratic facilities, and purify Muslims by Islamic reformation. The Kharjiat-minded people are creating problems for peace loving Muslims by conspiring to kill non-Muslims, attacking the rulers, opposing the administration and judiciary and boycotting elections. By their thoughts and actions, they are projecting Muslims and Islam as a destructive force.
It is mentioned about Khawarijs in “Kutub Tareekh” that they used to kill anyone who did not approve of their opinion ,irrespective of whether he was a “Sahabi” or a general Muslim, a man or a woman. Their successors too, behave in the same manner. Various examples of their violent attitude can be cited from Karachi to Peshawar, Kabul to Mazare Shareef or Qandhar. They do not spare even mosques and tombs, scholars or Mullahs of opposite thought. Recent Islamic world needs a pious and powerful leader like “Sher-e-Khuda” Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) to suppress the rising evil forces among Muslims. Modern Kharjiat has widespread presence and publicized due to the revolutionary rise of the electronic media making it difficult to stop its advance.. These people are very rigid, without any good sense to understand the sensible talk of Islamic scholars; they are creating an explosive atmosphere which can kill thousands of Muslims. Likewise, ancient Khawarijs had been the cause for killing of many Muslims at the time of Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him). Few Khawarijs, who had remained alive in Nahrawan War, kept causing disturbances till the Ummavi and Abbasi period. It has to be seen how long the Jadeed (modern) Khawarijs create differences among Ummat-e-Muslimah and spread.
Yet I am quite hopeful the way people are being attracted towards Islam and trying to resolve their issues through peaceful means. It will yield good results and strengthen the process of reforms opposing terrorism and extremism establishing good relations even with the non-Muslim countries and begin the end of modern Kharjiat.
An Arab writer Abdul Qadir Saleh has written, “The initiation of Khawarijs has taken place in the form of a group of “Qura” (Huffaz-e-Quran, Aebad wa Zohd). Before the advent of Islamic civilization,; the members of “Qura” were considered to be scholars of Ummat-e-Muslimah,having the knowledge of Fiqqah, Hadees, and culture. Due to low standards of their knowledge, they could not understand the political situation created by the differences between Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Muawiah (May Allah be pleased with him) and the nature of war between them”. (Al-Aqaed wa Al-Adyan, Page 124)
This comment on Khawarijs is quite convincing and exposes the very nature of modern Khawarijs also. These people too, are very religious and gentle like their predecessors. They are ever ready to kill or to be killed in the name of Quran-e-Kareem or Islam without understanding its content and the future consequences. In present time, they feel that Muslims have refuted Islamic governance and rule of Tauheed, so they are zealous to kill all the disobeying Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
As the Khilafat is a thing of the past, they think that Muslims have lost the status of “Tauheed” by living in the parliamentary system of democracy without anticipating the religious freedom and advantages Muslims and other minorities have been getting throughout the world. They fail to realize the benefits of democracy and remain always ready to fight to the extreme.
The sensible and intellectual academicians should realize their responsibility of educating the Muslims. Living in parliamentary system of democracy is not a refusal of Islam and Tauheed. In this system, we can fight against any mal-practice or ill-treatment against Islam by raising our voice in any part of the world.
No Muslim considers parliament equivalent to the rule of Shariat and binding.. It gives a chance to improve the standard of living and invent better chances of practicing all the tenets of Islam with full freedom.
It is surprising that Shaikh Alauddin Nadvi, a teacher of Nadwatul Ulemah, is unable to realize that boycott of elections is similar to suicide and will be considered a revolt the state.
Is he ready for it? The Muslims’ patriotism is based on their predecessors’ sacrifice and achievements. So Muslims should not do anything which negates their achievements.
I am sorry to say Janab Khalid Hammadi, editor of Mujallah “Allah ki Pukar” is regularly publishing non-sensical and anti-Muslim articles having provoking opinion in his magazine. Perhaps, he too, considers participation in elections and voting for the representatives as “Shirk fil Hukm”. I want to ask the gentleman.
How is it justified and Islamic to accept the decisions of government and get a hefty amount as salary or grants if the acceptance of the Houses of Parliament is “Shirk fil Hukm”?
The Parliament is responsible and involved in all the matters related to education, holidays and traffic rules etc. if the honourable writer accepts it and follows; it is feasible in Islam. But if a common man votes for a leader to send a better representative in the parliament, he is guilty of “Shirk”.
The people with destructive mentality, should abstain from violence and destruction, otherwise they will have to face the music as the Ummat-e-Muslimah is now an enlightened lot.
2:31 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment