By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New
Age Islam
28 February 2017
Is this Islam? A woman in Peshawar had
asked this question, crying over the blood-spattered dead bodies of her
school-going children in December 2014. The proud killers of 132 innocent
children and scores of female teachers were the Pakistan Taliban. The Taliban
are student of Islamic madrasas, supposedly well-versed in the teachings of
Islam. They claim to kill in the name of Islam. They claim to glorify Islam.
They say they are trying to establish the sovereignty of Allah over the
world. So, the question is inevitable.
Is this Islam, indeed?
Now Pakistan is once again in shock. Today
the question is: Is this pure Islam or true Islam, as Salafis claim? Not for
the first, nor for the last time, to be sure, over hundred devotees of Sufi
saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sindh have been killed in the name of what
Salafi-Wahhabis consider true, pure Islam. Salafi-Wahhabis abhor Sufism because
they believe that Sufi practices resemble pre-Islamic polytheistic Hindu
traditions. Any Muslim who strays from the path of what Salafis consider true
Islam is an apostate and deserves to be killed. The murderer has been
brainwashed by ulema of his sect into believing that he can be assured of a
place in heaven if he kills apostates and kuffars.
Many Pakistanis claim the idea of Pakistan
is that of a secular, democratic Pakistan. The idea of Pakistan as outlined by
its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was flawed right from start. In an address to
the Constituent Assembly, delivered on 11 August 1947, he urged forgiveness of
bygone quarrels among Pakistanis, so all can be ". . . first, second and
last a citizen of this State with equal rights . . .". Pointing out that
England in past centuries had settled its fierce sectarian persecutions, he
expressed his wish for a Pakistan in which "in course of time Hindus would
cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious
sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the
political sense as citizens of the State."
But if that was the idea of Pakistan, what
was the need for a separate state, away from India? Where does the two-nation
theory fit into this idea of Pakistan? Clearly it was a hypocritical statement.
No wonder the ideology of exclusivism, separation, intolerance on which
Pakistan was created almost immediately won the battle. On the insistence of
Jamaat-e-Islami founder-ideologue Maulana Maududi, an Objectives Resolution was
adopted by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949. The
resolution proclaimed that the future constitution of Pakistan would be modelled
on the ideology and democratic faith of Islam. The very first article in the
resolution said: “Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah
Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of
Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed
by Him is a sacred trust.”
Maulana Maududi was a Salafist. With the
adoption of the Objectives Resolution, in accordance with his wishes, the
Pakistani state itself became a Salafist state for all practical purposes. But
the overwhelming majority of the people continued to be Sufi-oriented Bareilvis.
Deoband had little influence in Pakistan at that time.
This is what created the division that has
now led to a civil war-like situation. In Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that
Pakistani state adopted so early on, there was no room for a tolerant and
inclusive Sufism which would accord respect to all religions and follow the
policy of Sulh-e-Kul (Genera Accord). Salafis consider followers of Sufi saints
to be infidels at the same level as polytheists or idol-worshippers. In their
understanding of pure Islam, these people deserve to be killed. It is the
acceptance of Salafi-theology as Pakistan’s state ideology from the very
beginning that has created an environment in which such regular massacres at a
number of Sufi shrines across Pakistan have become possible. This is not the
first time and Pakistan is not the first country where Wahhabism is spreading
in this fashion. Indeed, the entire establishment and expansion of Wahhabism as
a force to reckon with has been based on mass murders and destruction of
shrines from early 19th century onwards.
Wahhabi vandalism started in 1802 when an
army of 12,000 Najdi Salafi warriors called Ikhwan attacked Shia holy sites in
the city of Karbala, slaying 4,000 of that city's inhabitants. In 1803 they
attacked Makkah but the Makkaans, having known the fate of Karbala, surrendered
to Saudi Wahhabi rule. The Wahhabi Ikhwan then smashed Sufi shrines and the
graves of even the closest companions of the Prophet. In Madina, they not only
destroyed common grave-sites, but even attacked the tomb of Prophet Mohammed
(pbuh). Since then the history of Islam has been a history of massacres of
non-Wahhabi Muslims and destruction of holy sites. Presently the banner of
forcible Wahhabi expansion is taken up by al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban,
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangawi, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc.
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792), the
founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed declared all rationalist and
mystic Muslims as mushrik or polytheists and thus “wajibul qatl”
(deserving death). In a long discourse in Kashaful Shubhat, he explained
why all Muslims despite their claim to believe in one God are polytheists whose
lives and property are halal (permitted) for Wahhabi Muslims. He concluded his
discourse: “… You now understand that these people's (non-Wahhabi Muslims’)
accepting tauheed (oneness of God) does not make them Muslim; the fact
that they expect intercession from others than God (Sufi saints) makes them
liable to be killed and their property to be looted." --- Kashaful
Shubhat, p.9, Maktaba al-salafia bil Madina Munawwara, 1969 CE)
Another Abdul Wahhab quote necessary to
understand the current conflict is the following: “Even if the Muslims abstain
from shirk (polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness of God),
their faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their
action and speech against non-Muslims (which for him includes all non-Wahhabi
Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).
While generally Indian ulema stay silent
when such atrocities are perpetrated, this time a few have come up with
denunciations. Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salafi, general secretary of
Ahl-e-Hadith, has, for instance, condemned this incident vigorously. But the
problem with Indian Salafi ulema who condemn such terrorist incidents is that
while they condemn specific terrorist incidents, they do not denounce the
Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that they actually follow. This is a self-contradictory
stance. No wonder it is also self-defeating. Denouncing terrorism means very
little, if the ideology from which it emanates continues to be followed. From
the time of the Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab - Muhammad bin Saud pact in 1744, Salafi-Wahhabis
have been following this murderous ideology which calls all non-Wahhabi Muslims
Mushrik (polytheist) and Wajibul Qatl (deserving death).
If Ahl-e-Hadith and other Salafi Muslims
are sincere in condemning sectarian terrorism they need to also denounce and
renounce the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that calls for murder, destruction and
looting of property. They only need to do what Abdul Wahhab’s father and
brother did. In fact, his brother Shaykh Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote a
book refuting his arguments. Abdul Wahhab was able to propagate his ideas
freely only when his father, a Qazi of the region, passed away.
Although Sufi-oriented Muslims,
rationalists, Shias, etc have been victims of Salafi-Wahhabi terrorism, it
would be wrong to conclude that extremism is limited to Wahhabis. There is a
consensus of ulema of all schools of thought on an extremist understanding of
Islam. Take any popular book of Tafsir (interpretation), of the holy Quran,
from Ibn-e-Kathir to Jalalain Shareef, or even later ones like that of Maulana
Maududi. Quran’s original teachings of peace and pluralism, patience and
perseverance, in early Meccan verses, are said to have been abrogated by the
later war-time verses that were revealed at Mecca in a time when Islam was indeed
facing an existential crisis and defensive war was unavoidable. Take Friday
sermons read out in mosques anywhere in the world. Muslims are forever praying
for victory over kuffar and mushrekin (non-believers and deviants, infidels and
idol-worshippers. Not only that You will even find us Muslims praying to God to
curse the non-Muslim and defeat them. In the case of Wahhabi-Salafi the curse
applies to even the Muslims who may have a mystical bent of mind, as for them
all non-Wahhabis are infidels and deviants, for whom the only punishment is
beheading, here and now.
Would a Muslim-majority country allow a
non-Muslim minority to keep cursing it all the time and praying for its defeat
at the hand of non-Muslims, that too in peace time, when no battles are being
fought. Muslim-majority countries indeed do not even allow worship places to be
built by other religious communities, in some cases, and where they do, they
put a variety of restrictions on them. The most bizarre, of course, is the
prohibition for Christians to use the word “Allah” to denote God in the most
technologically advanced Muslim country, Malaysia.
Many Muslims would be surprised to know all
this as they do not know what they are hearing in Arabic in Friday sermons.
Most have not read the Quran with meaning, much less it’s various tafsirs
taught in madrasas. Then there is also the case of tampering of these tafsirs
of Quran by Salafi-Wahhabis in recent decades. The translation of a very
popular book with religious-minded Muslims, particularly Tablighi Jamaat,
al-Nawawi's Riyadh al-Salehin, published in 1999 by Darussalam Publishing
House, Riyadh, is a case in point. As if Riyadh al-Salehin was not sufficient
in selecting extremist, xenophobic, intolerant material from Quran and Hadith,
in its Book of Jihad, commentaries have been inserted at various places to
give them an even more radical interpretation. The 11075-word Chapter on Jihad,
for instance, doesn’t have a word to say about what we moderates call
Jihad-e-Akbar (Greater Jihad), i.e., struggle against one’s own negative or
evil inclinations, citing a saying of the Prophet (pbuh). This saying has been
declared by most theologians as zaeef (weak), hence unreliable and inauthentic.
On the other hand, Ahadith saying that struggle against non-Muslims should go
on till eternity and that killing of even innocent civilians was allowed by the
Prophet himself are found in sihah-e-sitta, i.e., all the six volumes of
“authentic” Ahadith. The result is that the only basis for a Muslims’ relationship
with a non-Muslim is considered in theology to be war.
In the case of Wahhabi-Salafi theology,
even the basis of a Wahhabi’s relationship with a Sufi-oriented Muslim would be
conflict and strife. No wonder our ulema stay completely quiet, when Khalifa Baghdadi
and his followers from India declare in YouTube Videos telecast on world
television, as they did last year, that “Islam has never been a religion of
peace, not even for a day; it has always been a religion of war and strife.”
What can the ulema say, after all. This is what they have learnt and this is
what they teach.
Many a Muslims pins their hope on Sufis. It
would be nice to do so. We will have some basis for optimism left. But we
should not forget that in the last four decades, these petrodollar decades,
there has been a Wahhabisation of Sufism itself. The Wahhabi takfiri ideology
has penetrated all sections of the community. The 4 January 2011 murder of
Pakistani Punjab’s Governor Salman Taseer and the recent deification of his Barelvi-Sufi
murderer by millions of Muslims can be cited as strong evidence for this
phenomenon.
A bodyguard of Salman Taseer was told by
the Mullah he followed that Taseer had become an apostate by opposing
Pakistan’s (black) blasphemy laws and showing sympathy for a Christian lady
(falsely) accused of blasphemy. This man Mumtaz Qadri used his service weapon
to kill the Governor in cold blood. While the killer became a hero
instantaneously, most Ulema were not even prepared to lead the funeral prayers
of the slain Governor. Lawyers of Pakistan’s High court, supposedly educated
people working to uphold the law, threw rose petals on the killer when he was
brought to court. Courts found him guilty, as the killer was not contesting the
facts of the case, and awarded him death sentence. He has been executed. But
the government had to permit a shrine being built in his name. He has been
declared a saint. Millions throng his shrine and seek his intercession with God
to fulfil their own needs.
Is Jinnah’s idea of a secular and
democratic Pakistan then quite dead, if it ever had any resonance with the
Pakistani state which had accepted the Objectives Resolution with so much
alacrity so early? Perhaps not quite. These same lawyers who threw rose petals
on the killer were also in the forefront of fight against General Musharraf’s
dictatorship and did eventually manage to throw him out of power. But the idea
of Pakistan, or whatever is left of it, is scuttled by the ideology of Pakistan
again and again.
However, the issue of Salafi-Sufi civil war
does not concern Pakistan alone. Muslims are a global community. One can see
manifestations of the same struggle everywhere. India too is not immune. We
need to remain extremely vigilant Already there are signs of expanding
radicalism. Even a few score Muslim youth, all well-educated, well-off,
well-settled with good jobs, leaving everything to fight for the so-called
Islamic State, should be enough to cause disquiet. But the greater worry is
that most Indian Muslims are not worried. We are happy to wish these worrisome
thoughts away by putting the blame on Zionism, Islamophobia, etc, for
everything negative that happens in the community. If we do indeed wish to live
peacefully in this inter-connected world, we will have to change course and rather
urgently.
7:21 AM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment