Ideological Disputes between Jihadists and Traditional Scholars of Islam
Main points discussed in the concluding Part:
· A clear conflict between traditional and Jihadist Ideologies on the concept of Hakimiyyah
· ideological dispute between the traditional scholars and the Jihadists on the concept of ‘Reclaiming Muslim Land’
· Treachery towards One’s Country Permissible for Jihadists and impermissible for the Traditional scholars
· a significant disagreement between the Jihadists and the traditional Islamic scholars on the concept of suicide bombings as a war tactic
· Dispute between Jihadists and the traditional scholars on “The Concept of Darul Islam and Darul Harb
· Understanding how the Jihadists justify “the Killing of Mushrikin and Kuffar” and how the traditional interpretations of Islam forbid the killing of these people in the present world
· Disclosing the agenda behind Violent Takfiri narratives of the Jihadists in complete contrast to the traditional approach to Takfirism
· Discussing the Quranic verse 9:5 in detail and presenting the classical jurisprudential rules of interpretation to refute the Jihadist narrative related to verse 9:5
· Muslims and Non-Muslims must be equally beware of the narratives of Islamophobes and Jihadists
…………………………………
New Age Islam Special Correspondent
26 July 2021
The synergy between Islamophobes and Jihadist terrorists are too obvious to be missed. Both have the same goal: encourage mainstream Muslims to take to the path of violent extremism. It is easier to destroy a violent person or community than a peaceful one. Muslims have to be equally beware of Islamophobes and Jihadists. They are both our enemies. They both look for justifications of violence in Islamic theology. Now after the study of this series consisting of eight parts, it has been clear, no such justification exists. Here are the main points of each part to substantiate the fact that Islamophobic claim associating Islam and traditional theology with Jihadism is not correct. Such claims are simply mischievous or based on ignorance of Islamic theology.
Part 1 discusses a clear conflict between traditional and Jihadist Ideologies on the concept of Hakimiyyah (Sovereignty). We have known that in the so-called Islamic State’s training camp textbook “Muqarrar fi al-Tawhid”, the Jihadist ideologues declare as apostates all those who do not implement God’s laws. In their writings, be it ‘Dabiq’, ‘Rumiya’, or India-specific propaganda magazine ‘Voice of Hind’, they repeatedly quote the two Quranic verses 5:44 and 4:65 in a bid to strengthen their claim that those who follow laws other than what Allah has revealed are Kaafir or disbelievers, infidels. On the contrary, the classical and traditional interpretations of the Quranic verses (5:44 and 4:65) is that ‘whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, denying its divinity, faith and truthfulness is indeed a Kafir. As for the Muslim who believes that this verse is true as a divine revelation and divine command but fails to implement its message under compulsion, changing circumstances or otherwise is not a Kafir.
Part 2 shows another ideological dispute between the traditional scholars and the Jihadists on the concept of ‘Reclaiming Muslim Land’. According to Jihadists, it is Muslims’ duty to reclaim the previously conquered Muslim land and return it to Islamic land and any treaty of peace at the cost of relinquishing even a hand span of Muslim land to the Kuffar is completely null and void. In contrast to the Jihadists, the traditional and classical Islamic jurists have long accepted the idea of treaties as a legitimate form of recognizing the validity of others’ sovereignty and of their own polity to others. According to the traditional version of Islam, making treaties with non-Muslims is permitted as per the divine statement (The Holy Quran -9:7) and the Sunnah of the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) who made a variety of treaties, such as the conciliation treaty between the Aws and Khazraj tribes, to which the Jews of Madina adhered and which constituted a charter for that city, and the Treaty of Hudaybiya that established a temporary peace between the Muslims and the Polytheists of Makka. Once the treaty is concluded, all the classical Muslim jurists are strict in regard to the necessity of fulfilling its terms and provisions, because the Quran commands Muslims “not to break their oaths after making them”.
Part 3 quotes some Jihadist ideologies that incite ‘Treachery towards One’s Country. In response to the Jihadist quotes, it presents some verses of the Quran, the Ahadith and the traditional interpretations to uphold the point that the Jihadists are clearly violating Islam. For instance, Allah Almighty says, “Allah does not forbid you to be good to them and treat them with equity and justice who did not fight against you on (the question of) Din (Religion), nor did they drive you out of your homes (i.e., homeland). Surely, Allah likes those who conduct themselves with equity and justice.” (60:8). There is a consensus of the majority of the scholars that this verse 60:8 is Muhkam and not abrogated (Mansukh). The apparent meaning of this verse is that the Muslims should be good to non-Muslims including Mushrikin and Kafirin who do not fight Muslims in matters of religion and live with peaceful coexistence.
Part 4 highlights a significant disagreement between the Jihadists and the traditional Islamic scholars on the concept of suicide bombings as a war tactic. The contemporary Jihadists including Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and Boko Haram justify suicide bombings, self-sacrifice, or ‘martyrdom operations’ as a means of warfare and indiscriminate violence. This narrative is based on the misappropriating of the Quranic verses, Ahadith and of the classical corpus of Islam. Yusuf al-Uyayri, an influential former leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia (1973-2003) issued a pamphlet titled “The Islamic Ruling on the Permissibility of Martyrdom Operations”. He asserts that “martyrdom operations” through suicide attacks are legitimate not only because they are a necessary response to superior military forces, but also because of the perceived benefit they bring to Muslims and Islam. On the contrary to the Jihadists, the traditional interpretations of the Quranic verses and Ahadith prove that it is forbidden to commit suicidal attacks under all circumstances, even during Jihad and as a war tactic. The Quranic verses [“Do not kill yourself” (4:29)…“And do not cast yourselves into destruction with your own hands, and adopt righteousness. Verily, Allah loves the righteous” (2:195)] and numerous Ahadith quoted in part 4 of the article refute the Jihadist ideology of suicidal attacks, for instance, it is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “The one who commits suicide will go to Hell, and will keep falling into it and will abide there forever” (Sahih Bukhari)
Part 5 presents clear evidence of a dispute between the Jihadists and the traditional scholars on “The Concept of Darul Islam and Darul Harb”. According to the Jihadist ideologues, Darul Islam is a land governed by the Islamic state, that is, the land where Islam should be the state religion and the laws of that land or country must be enforced in accordance with Islam, and Darul Harb is a land not governed by the Islamic state. As per Maqdisi an influential Jihadist ideologue, no state currently meets the criteria for Darul Islam. The Jihadist narrative as such vehemently conflicts with the traditional version of Darul Islam and Darul Harb. The traditional scholars of Islam maintain that Darul Islam is a term applied to the land which grants basic religious rights, no matter whether or not the state religion of that land is Islam and Darul Harb is a term that refers to the land which bans the basic religious rights such as freedom of faith and rituals. In accordance with the traditional and classical scholarship, the countries that provide with the right to practice ritual prayers [Salah/prayer], the annual fast of Ramazan [Roza/Siyam], the building of mosques, the call to prayer [Azan], and the right to exhibit the wearing of Islamic dress and the performance of Muslim marriage cannot be declared ‘Darul Harb’. These countries, according to some contemporary jurists, are Darul Aman [the abode of peace], and to some, are Darul Islam [the abode where Islam is freely practised].
Part 6 is very crucial in terms of understanding how the Jihadists justify “the Killing of Mushrikin and Kuffar” by quoting a number of Quranic verses, especially verse 9:5 known to some as “the sword verse”. The Jihadist narrative as such is based on the misunderstanding of the Quran and Ahadith. The command of “killing Mushrikin” in verse 9:5, in accordance with the traditional rules of jurisprudence, was specifically meant for the Mushrikin of Makka only in the state of war, which was not to be implemented in the state of peace. Commenting on verse 9:5, the notable classical Islamic scholars Imam Baydawi, Allama Alusi, Imam Suyuti, Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas and many others state that the command of killing Kuffar and Mushrikin was particular to the Mushrikin of Arabs who were Nakithin (violators of peace-treaty) and does not apply to anyone else.
Part 7 discloses the agenda behind Takfiri narratives of the Jihadists in complete contrast to the traditional approach to Takfirism. According to the Jihadists, every perpetrator of a major sin (Gunah-e-Kabirah) is a disbeliever (Kaafir) and that the Ulama and scholars are Kaafir because they don’t declare the perpetrator of major sins (Kabair) and the non-practising rulers to be Kaafir. They think it is their duty to wage Jihad against and kill such “infidels”. Doing takfir (ex-communication) of a Muslim individual has also been the practice of the classical and traditional scholars from among the mainstream Muslims. However, unlike the Jihadists, the classical Muslim scholars took extreme caution in the matter of Takfir. They do Takfir only when an individual publicly rejects the basic and essential beliefs (zaruriyat-e-deen), otherwise, they hold the general view that the people of Qibla are not be excommunicated. The general view of the standard and classical scholars of Islamic law (Fiqh) is that it is prohibited to do Takfir of any believer unless he himself rejects any basic beliefs essential for a person to remain a Muslim.
Part 8 discusses the Quranic verse 9:5 in detail and presents some classical jurisprudential rules of interpretation to refute the Jihadist narrative related to verse 9:5. This highlights the difference between the creeds and acts of Mushrikin of Makkah and those of today’s Mushrikin, presents the cause of revelation (Shane Nuzul) and linguistic analysis of the word Mushrikin mentioned in verse 9:5 and utilizes the principles of Zahir, Nass, context and structure (Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam) to prove that this verse was specifically meant for the religious persecutors and Nakithin of Makkah who violated the peace treaty. This part adopts the classical interpretive rules of jurisprudence to substantiate and reinforce that the Jihadist use of the Quranic Verse 9:5 to justify the killing of Mushrikin of the present world is a violation of the Quran and rejection of the traditional interpretation of Islam.
Refuting Islamophobic Claims That Jihadists Represent Traditional and Mainstream Interpretations of Islam: Part 8 On Killing Mushrikin and Kuffar
The objective of this series is to inculcate an inevitable sense into the minds of gullible Muslims and Non-Muslims that they must be equally beware of the narratives of Islamophobes and Jihadists.
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism
4:44 AM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment