By Maulana Waris
Mazhari
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder
Sikand)
Both the
Quran and the Hadith expressly condemn extremism and aggression in the name of
religion. They also exhort Muslims to be one, and to relate to each other with
love and goodwill. Despite these Islamic teachings, intra-Muslim conflict,
particularly on sectarian lines, remains rife and shows no sign of diminishing.
In some places, such conflict has assumed the form of a major menace. It has now
become common place for ulema of different sects to hurl fatwas against
fellow Muslims of other sects, branding them as
kafirs.
Condemning
others as kafirs is known in the terminology of the
shariah as takfir. Misuse of takfir is both an indication
as well as a major cause for internal strife and intolerance within Muslim
communities. In some places, it has led to much bloodshed, in which thousands of
innocent people—all Muslims—have lost their precious
lives.
The
phenomenon of takfir is, really, a form of religious sadism. It has
become a deadly weapon for supposedly religious people to wield against their
alleged opponents, even simply to take revenge for real or alleged personal
slights.
Takfir was unknown in the earliest Islamic period,
the time of the companions of the Prophet, which Muslims consider the model era.
was
despite the fact that the companions often differed from each other in their
understanding of various religious issues. Sometimes, these differences would be
extreme. Thus, for instance, Abuzar Ghiffari believed, in contrast to many other
companions, that one must not save or hoard any money at all, and that whatever
money one had in excess of what was needed for a single day should be given to
the poor.
Likewise, Abdullah Ibn Masud differed from the
other companions in that he did not regard the last two chapters found in the
Quran as having actually been part of the Quranic text. Another companion,
Qudama Ibn Mazlun, drank alcohol and argued, against the insistence of the other
companions that this was not forbidden by the Quran. The Caliph Umar punished
him for drinking but, yet, did not declare him a kafir. Nor were the other
companions mentioned above declared as kafirs by their fellow Muslims. Likewise,
Muwaiya and Imam Ali were at complete loggerheads on political matters, but yet
this did not lead to them engaging in takfir against each other.
The
Kharijites declared Ali, Usman, and the majority of the Prophet’s companions as
kafirs and even as worthy of being slain. Yet, Imam Ali never responded by
engaging in takfir against them.
Given the
horrific misuse of the lethal weapon of takfir today, it is crucial to be
clear about this concept and the terms and conditions of its legitimate
practice. These have been discussed at length by the classical Islamic
scholars.
Unfortunately, the generation that came soon
after that of the Prophet’s companions was afflicted by enormous strife and
conflict. This began during the later period of Usman’s Caliphate. A group of
rebels engaged in takfir against Usman and then slew him. The Kharijites,
who emerged at this time, considered all Muslims other than themselves as
kafirs, who deserved to be killed. They branded a massive number of companions
of the Prophet and their companions as infidels. They regarded it their duty to
wage war against other Muslims, and considered their lives, properties and women
as objects that could be seized in war as booty (mal-e ghanimah).
They were
ready to provide refuge to polytheists so that they could hear the Quran from
them, but had absolutely no tolerance for fellow Muslims, whom they considered
apostates. Following the dialogue that Abdullah Ibn Abbas entered into them at
the urging of Imam Ali, a few of them appeared to water down their radicalism
somewhat. However, the vast majority of the Kharijites refused to give up their
extremist approach to takfir and the killing of their fellow Muslim
opponents whom they branded as kafirs.
After the
Kharijites, the phenomenon of takfir witnessed a fresh impetus at the
time of the emergence of various theological schools among Muslims. Groups that
developed at this time, such as the Mutazilites, the Jahmites, the Qadrites and
so on, developed novel interpretations of faith and kufr (infidelity),
and, on the basis of these, engaged in takfir against rival schools. The
Asharites developed in response to the Mutazilites, and the two groups indulged
in takfir against each other.
In
contrast to this, the Muslim jurists or fuqaha practiced considerable
restraint on the issue of takfir. They considered sectarian hairsplitting
to be a cause of grave strife. They sought to apply shariah rules on
individuals according to their external conditions and acts, considering their
internal or batini state as God’s domain to judge. Accordingly, they
regarded as Muslims all those who believed in the basic principles of Islam and
who considered themselves to be Muslims. This is why they did not engage
in takfir against groups like the Mutazilites, Jahmites, and Qadrites,
despite the fact that the deviation of these groups was
apparent.
However,
things began to change later, when the doctrine of taqlid or rigid
adherence to one or the other school of jurisprudence was propounded and
acquired general acceptance. This phase of Muslim history marked the beginning
of a marked stagnation in Muslim thought. At this time, a section of the
fuqaha became closely allied to the rulers, attracted by the worldly
benefits of such an alliance. They were appointed to high posts with hefty
salaries, a development that the noted Islamic scholar Imam Ghazali, among
others, vociferously denounced. This development rapidly led to the emergence of
groupism among the fuqaha and to fierce contestations and confusion
between the different schools of fiqh. In this climate of conflict
takfir began being wielded by rival groups to silence their
opponents.
In the
modern period, the phenomenon of takfir emerged in new forms. Fringe
radical groups emerged in some countries, like the Jama‘at al -Takfir wa
al-Hijrah in Egypt, that considered themselves alone as true Muslims and branded
all other Muslims as apostates. In their fierce exclusivism and their free use
of takfir they bore a striking resemblance to the Kharijites. Numerous
other groups similar in their approach emerged in Pakistan.
They
engaged in armed conflict with their Muslim opponents and with all those who
were part of the Pakistani state machinery, considering them to be apostates fit
to be killed. This has now developed into a very worrisome menace, causing the
deaths of literally thousands of people. The bomb of takfir continues to
take a massive toll in that country.
Numerous
factors were responsible for the re-emergence of takfiri tendencies among
certain self-styled Islamic groups in recent times. These include a rapid
escalation of conflicts based on sectarian and party politics among
the ulema, and a growing lack of confidence on the part of Muslim publics
with regard to their governments, leading to widespread disaffection.
It is true
that there have always been differences between various groups of ulema.
This is but to be expected, and is not unusual. However, these differences took
on a monstrous form in the twentieth century. This was a result of new social
and political developments and ideologies and the rapid changes that these
wrought in Muslim societies. Traditional Muslim communities, rooted in cultures
characterized by decline and stagnation, simply did not possess the tolerance
required to accept or creatively respond to these changes. This led to chaos and
conflict in many such communities, which gave birth to new ideological
tendencies championed by various new groups and movements.
In the
late colonial period, the common struggle against Western colonial rulers
managed to hold these groups together or at least to force them to tolerate each
other. However, as the grip of Western colonialism on Muslim countries began to
loosen, this illusory sense of unity began to weaken. With the end of formal
colonial rule and the departure of their common enemy, these groups began
fighting among themselves. In this internecine conflict, takfir was
wielded as a deadly weapon by rival groups to silence their ideological and
political opponents, declaring them as apostates who deserved to
die.
The class
of Muslims who, as rulers, administrators and intellectuals, stepped into the
shoes of the Western imperialists who had departed from Muslim lands with the
formal end of colonialism were, by and large, thoroughly Westernised in their
thought and manners. They were more loyal to the West than to Islam and the
Muslims. That is why they failed to generate the support of the general Muslim
public. This led to an enormous and ever-widening gulf between the ruling class
and the Muslim masses in almost all Muslim countries.
It was in
this context that ideologues, activists and movements emerged, fired by
romanticized images and emotionally-driven slogans calling for the revival of
the lost ‘Golden Age’ of the Muslims. Several of these ideologues and movements
wielded the sword of takfir against the rulers of Muslim countries. It is
striking to note that most of the leaders and activists of these groups were not
traditional ulema but, rather, people who had been educated in ‘modern’
institutions, and who had been heavily influenced by anti-colonial Islamic
movements.
The rise
of extremist, including takfiri, tendencies in many Muslim countries was
also a response to the powerful hold of ultra-secularist elements who were not
just irreligious, but who also strongly believed that mocking religion and
aiming to destroy it was indispensable to prove their proclaimed credentials as
‘enlightened’ and ‘modern’. They might have considered themselves simply
‘cultural Muslims’ or Muslims by birth, but they simply refused to follow or
respect any tenet of Islam. One extreme thus gave birth to another. Responding
to popular resentment against such elements, the ulema and other Islamic
forces began to speak out against them, and, gradually, some of them turned
to takfir in order to ostracise them and render them
ineffective.
Yet
another factor for the rise of takfiri tendencies in recent years is the
fact that experts in religious knowledge (rasikhin fi‘l ‘ilm) rapidly
declined in most Muslim societies with the marginalization of religious
madrasas, which were now replaced by ‘modern’ schools. This decline was, in
fact, predicted in hadith reports attributed to the Prophet. Their place was
soon occupied by public preachers (khutaba), many of who began to stoke
the fires of conflict, and even to engage in takfir, in the misplaced
belief that they were thereby serving the cause of
Islam.
In this
way, then, the gross misuse of takfir has emerged as a major menace in
many Muslim societies today, leading to extremist thinking and taking a heavy
toll of human lives. It is time level-headed Islamic scholars and activists put
their heads together to combat this hydra-headed monster.
Maulana
Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar
ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband
madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder
Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National
Law School, Bangalore.
9:45 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment