India’s Muslim community is outraged. A Shia politician Wasim Rizvi has filed a Public interest litigation (PIL) in Supreme Court seeking removal of 26 militant, exclusivist, war-time contextual verses from the Quran. He has claimed that these militant verses were added in Quran during the rule of first three caliphs, implying that these Sunni Caliphs manipulated the Quran and Shias, who follow the fourth rightly guided Caliph Hazrat Ali, are not responsible for it.  For Sunnis these first three caliphs Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Omar and Hazrat Osman were “rightly guided’ caliphs, who had the loyalty of and benefited constantly from the valuable advice of Hazrat Ali.

There was no Shia-Sunni rift in the times of these four caliphs, though certainly there was political competition and there may have been some subterranean discord.  This discordance came out in the open during the time of Hazrat Ali and led to war. But, to my knowledge, Shias have never claimed that the first three caliphs added these 26 verses of war to the Holy Quran. Shias too have the same Quran and, to the best of my knowledge, they have never demanded deletion of any verses, as this politician is now doing.

As a response from the entire Muslim community of India, both Shia and Sunni, Rizvi has been ex-communicated; he claims that even his family and friends have deserted him. His obvious attempt to provoke a Shia-Sunni rift in India has already failed. A price has been fixed for his head, exposing the violent mindset of some Muslims. He is being called a dog, and if you can believe it, a yahoodi, a Jew, thus a section of Muslims providing proof, if any was needed, of their anti-Semitism. His motives have been questioned and perhaps rightly so, as he has never been known to be a reformer. He was happy being chairman of the Shia Central Waqf Board in the state of Uttar Pradesh and would perhaps be happy if he were to regain that position or get some similar position. But his hopes of getting rewarded for provoking Muslims may be fading now as he has started talking of eventually committing suicide, a clearly un-Islamic act.

But, while Rizvi may fail in his career move, perhaps inadvertently, he has succeeded in exposing the duplicity and hypocrisy of our ulema, the Islamic scholars who influence many in the Muslim community. The ulema should realise that calling Rizvi a dog or a Yahoodi, does not resolve the issue he has raised. No matter what happens to Rizvi, the issue he has raised is not going to go away. He is not the first to raise this issue either. Islamophobes have been demanding this for ages, and more particularly since Islamist terrorists’ attack on twin towers in New York on September 11, 2001.

The demand for removing any part of a scripture is absurd. Many scriptures have violent passages, reflecting the culture of the times in which they came. The important question is the relevance and applicability of these verses and the instructions given in Quran to Muslims today.

People belonging to other religions are not asked to edit their scriptures because they do not quote any violent passages to justify their present actions. Muslims do and with great gusto and profound belief in the universality of every word of Quran, which is considered uncreated, that is like God Himself and hence beyond question and debate.

We are living in the 21st century world, not in a 7th century desert village. Are we bound today by the orders given to Muslims of that era 1400 years ago to fight and kill the pagans in a specific context? We obviously cannot judge today the situation in which these orders were given. We live today in an age of global and instant communication. But this is also an age of fake news. So, if today, in the age of instant global communication, we are not certain what is really going on in our world, how can we be certain about what happened 1400 hundred years ago in an Arabian desert village.

There would thus be no point in sitting in judgement over these instructions in Quran to kill the pagans or stay away for Jews and Christians or to not consider any one but Muslims as our friends etc. Let us not forget that in the Prophet’s time, when these instructions were given, Islam was still in its infancy, and was fighting an existential battle to survive in the face of a determined opposition from the powers that be. However, the real question before us Muslims is: are these war-time instructions of seventh century Arabia still applicable to us today.

In their attempt to counter Rizvi ulema have spoken about Quranic verses having a context and the inability of a person to understand these verses without being aware of the context in which they were revealed. Very true, but the implication of this reference to context is that these instructions are no longer valid if that context is no longer present. As the seventh century war context is no longer present today, and is not likely to come in the present times, should we assume that these instructions are no longer applicable to us today. Obviously. Clear as day. But will any individual or group of ulema accept this? No. Not one. Will any aalim (singular of ulema) say that these war-time verses of Quran are no longer applicable to Muslims? No one is willing to do that.

The belief of our ulema is that Quran is uncreated, meaning it is an attribute of God, so there is no question of debating the applicability or non-applicability of its verses. Even the thought of their inapplicability at any time is anathema to them. As in the seventh century, our ulema continue to believe that Islam must dominate the world, the Sharia laws should prevail in all societies, sovereignty of God has to be established all over the world, and it is the duty of all Muslims to help in the process. They may not be actively promoting a Jihad for achieving this goal, but that is without doubt the objective.

Why else would our ulema be telling our 12-year-old kids in a pluralist, multi-religious society like India, to take care when they go out to kill the pagans. In teaching Islamic good manners and ethics, in a book called Islami Ekhlaq o Aadab, they assume that a Muslim kid would naturally go out to kill the mushriks (polytheists or pagans) and so he has to be cautioned against the perils on the way and the religious significance of what he is doing. This is done in just a paragraph in this book but is explained in detail in Bahar-e-Shariat for those who are doing an Aalimiat course at the age of 17. This is the training all our aalims (ulema) have received. How can we expect them to abandon this training when faced with the challenge to Rizvii?

However, I still believe that Rizvi and his likes not only pose a challenge, but also give our ulema an opportunity. Our ulema now have an opportunity to clarify their stand on the applicability or inapplicability of these verses today. As militants use these verses to justify terrorism and extremist violence, they would also be clarifying their stand on Islamist extremist violence presently going on in different parts of the world. Skirting the issue by quoting peaceful, universalistic verses of Quran and rhetoric of Islam being a religion of peace is not helping.

The issue, however, is not just of these 26 verses. The real issue is that of the understanding of Muslims about the nature of their religion through the last 14 centuries and even today. What understanding of Islamic belief system have Quranic verses created. Also important is Hadith (narrations of purported sayings of the Prophet, peace be upon him) as these Ahadith (plural of Hadith) are supposed to provide the context with which Quran’s verses are understood. Most Ulema consider Hadith as akin to revelation, meaning that there is not much difference in Quran and Hadith.

The relevant question at this point is: do Muslims consider Islam a political, totalitarian ideology that aims at conquering the world or do they consider it as a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many. I am going to give below some quotations from universally revered ulema and exegetes of Quran, past and present, about their understanding of the Islamic mission and the question of offensive Jihad, arising from these 26 verses of Quran and several others as well.  According to the Doctrine of Abrogation most ulema believe that sword verses like those quoted by Rizvi have abrogated many of the peaceful Meccan verses of Quran that teach co-existence. This is what is taught in our madrasas too.

The present-day Ulema have an opportunity to state that they do not agree with the traditional and prevailing understanding of the Islamic mission as explained by the authors I am quoting below and many more who have written throughout the last 1200 years. I will begin with quotations from a couple of modern ulema who present an apologia, so readers can judge if these apologias work in the face of strong views expressed by universally acclaimed jurists and theologians whose books are taught in all our madrasas, regardless of their sectarian identity.

(These quotations have been taken from several articles published on this website from time to time including my own, but most are from a compilation by Abdur Rahman Hamza in this article.)

Syed Hamid Mohsin’s book has been published by Salam Centre, Bengaluru with the title, “Islam: facts vs fictions”. In this book the learned author, under the sub-title, “Misquoted Quranic verses” writes:

“Islam has its own fair share of critics as well as enemies. A popular sport for them is to accuse Islam of advocating violence against non-Muslims…. To paint Islam in the darkest colours, their media is ever engaged in distorting the Quranic verses to make them appear preaching violence….In understanding the verses of the Quran, it is essential that each of them is related to its context. The critics of the Quran precisely err on this account and tear them out of context to support their prejudices against Islam…. There has been an attempt in India and other parts of the world to create confusion about a few verses of Quran…. Writers with ill intentions misquote the verses out of context and write the commentary with their own perceptions. Quran should be read in context. If anyone just chooses a verse and ignores the perspective, he will many a time go astray…… Here we are presenting such verses of Quran which are used by some writers whose intention is to create confusion and mislead the people.”

 Thereafter, he quotes some verses to prove his point.  I would like to focus on: 2: 191-193 and 9:5, which is called the verse of sword and which is said to have abrogated all the previous peace verses and cancelled all the peace treaties the prophet had made with the polytheists of Mecca.”

2:191: “Slay them wherever you may come upon them, and expel them from where they had expelled you; for oppression (persecution) is worse than slaughter; but fight them not near the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you therein; but if they fight you therein, slay them. Such is the reward of unbelievers.”

2:192: “But if they desist, then God is All-forgiving, Compassionate to each.”

 2:193: “Fight them until persecution is no more; and religion is for God. But if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, except against those who wilfully do wrong.”

“The author, while translating the word, ‘fitna’ in the verse 2:193 as persecution, says: Here, the verse “until persecution is no more and religion is for God” (Quran 2:193) has nothing to do with the domination of Islam and the subjugation and suppression of non-believers.

Abdur Rahman Hamza writes: “Keeping the above claim in mind, it seems worthwhile to discuss these verses in detail and have a look at the authentic tafaaseer written over the last many centuries and see what the reputed Islamic scholars, as well as Sahaba (companions of the Prophet), Taabieen (second generation of Muslims) and Taba Taabieen (third generation of Muslims) have understood by the word ‘fitna’ and also find out whether, as claimed by the author, they too have committed the crime of misleading the people and defaming Islam.”

We will do just this a while later.

Maulana Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi, leading Sunni-Sufi Islamic scholar and renowned Urdu writer gives his reflections on the verses of Jihad in the Quran:

“Although there are certain verses of the Qur’an which mention killing and murder, there is a specific reason and context behind these verses. However, a group of people have taken these verses out of context and have not tried to understand the story behind them and raised objections against these verses and against the Holy Qur’an. It has become the habit of these people to portray Islam as a religion of murder and mayhem and especially in this era of sectarianism all over the world. They are using these verses to turn people against Islam and its teachings. It is the effort of these narrow-minded people to portray Islam as a violent and dangerous religion and Muslims as aggressive mischief-makers.” (Aayat-e-Jihad Ka Qur’ani Mafhoom, Foreword) 

The Orwellian World of Islamic Scholars: ‘According To Quran, Peace In Non-Islamic Societies Is War And War To Destroy These Societies Is Peace’

Aman aur Fasad fil arz Quran ki istallah main!! Dr. Israr Ahmad posted on 28 Apr 2012

Peace (Aman) and Mischief or Violent Rebellion (Fasad) in Quranic terminology

By Dr Israr Ahmad, Tr. New Age Islam Edit Desk

“What is Mischief or violent Rebellion (fasad) according to the Qur’an? What is Mischief or Violent Rebellion in the land (fasad fil arz)? This would mean that this land belongs to Allah. Allah is the real sovereign. Humans should live here only according to the will of Allah. In fact, this is the truth. This is the real peace. Any rebellion against it is fasad. (In Quranic terminology) Fasad is any kind of rebellion (baghawat) against God’s order.

… “ So, what is the real peace in terms of the Quran? The answer is that the world order should be established according to the will of Allah, at both individual and collective levels. Any attitude against it; no matter how peaceful the society may seem to be, that is the real Fasad.

… “So, understand the reality of mischief (Fasad) and peace (Aman). Now, if there is Fasad anywhere in the world, that is, if the world order is not being maintained as per the will of Allah, it will be declared rebellion against Allah.

… “The next stage of this was what happened later in the Madani period where war and strife broke out. Then the Quran said, “Fight those who fight you” (Surah Baqara- 2:190)

“So, war was waged to eliminate this fasad. There was bloodshed. But this was peace in reality. Some people say, “No, don’t fight. Live in peace. Let’s accept falsehood too. Let us believe in some part of their falsehood and get some of our terms accepted by them.  By way of struggles, you are harming yourself. You are sacrificing everything. This way you are creating problems for yourself as well as for others. This is resulting into bloodshed. Leave all such things. Let it be gone. Adopt the path of peace, instead.” Holding such an attitude or this concept (of peace) is actually fasad.

“Sabotaging any struggles (to establish Allah’s order), seeking to eliminate rebellion on behalf of God is an act of rebellion against God Almighty. Instead, a group of obedient and faithful slaves of Allah Almighty must stand up in the form of Jama’at or Jam’iat (an organization) in order to fight against falsehood and corruption. So, if a person creates an obstacle in such struggles (to establish God’s order), whether in the name of reconciliation, Sulh-e-Kul (peace for all), brotherhood, and tolerance or with similar beautiful titles, this will actually be an act of real Fasad.

“Imagine the roles of Hypocrites (Munafiqin in the time of the Prophet pbuh) here. Life and property were dearest to them. They were not ready to join the battlefield. Relationships too were very dear for them. They were not ready to separate from their relatives (for the sake of Islam). And the sword of Truth that came was cutting relationships. A son was separating from his father. A brother was separating from his brother.

“So, when the Hypocrites came in opposition against this struggle, the righteous believers said to them, “when it was said to them, ‘do not make mischief (fasad) on the earth,’ they say: ‘Why, we only want to make Peace!” (2:11-12). Consider what kind of fasad this was. What does the ayat “do not make mischief” mean? This would mean that the hypocrites should stop sabotaging the ongoing reforms because this is an act of Fasad. Instead, they should support this (violent) struggle in just the same way as the righteous believers supported the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“You too say, “We believe in monotheism (tauheed) and the hereafter (aakhirat).” So why don’t you believe in the Quran which confirms the Torah. Believe in the Quran too and support the mission of reformation. Remember the call of the Prophet when he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah?” The disciples said, “We are supporters for Allah.” (3:52). Therefore, you too should come to support the same mission so that the rebellion against Allah in the land be removed and the sovereignty of Allah be established. Only then there will be real peace.  But the hypocrites and Jews made all efforts to sabotage the mission of the Prophet peace be upon him. This was described as an act of Fasad, as the Quran says, “They say, “We are but reformers.” Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters (mufsidun), but they perceive it not.” (2:11).   

As I have suggested earlier (before this speech), this was the role of Walid bin Mughira in the Makki period. Similarly, the Jews and Hypocrites under their influence played the same role. And here when the Hypocrites and Jews were asked not to spread mischief (Fasad) in the land (2:11), that is, not to oppose the prophet and his companions but support them instead, they used to say emphatically “We are nothing but reformers”. Their reply would mean that they were nothing but reformers, the people of peace and brotherhood, the people who were trying to establish peace and stop bloodshed. Commenting on their reply, the Quran said, “Beware, it is, in fact, they who are the corrupters (mufsidoon)” (2:11)

Now take into consideration what I have explained in the definition of Fasad and Aman (peace), everything will be clear to you. “Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters (mufsidun), but they perceive it not.” (2:11). They do not know. They are watching it all, but are short-sighted. They fear harm, trouble, quarrel, cutting off relations from one another and therefore they are suggesting peace and tolerance in society. In fact, this is Fasad, because they are against the struggle for eradication of the real Fasad. But they are not aware of it.

https://www.newageislam.com/multimedia/dr-israr-ahmad/the-orwellian-world-of-islamic-scholars-according-to-quran-peace-in-non-islamic-societies-is-war-and-war-to-destroy-these-societies-is-peace/d/118783

(Maulana Maududi, Haqiqat-e-Jihad, Pg 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)

To promote his politicized interpretation of Islamic doctrines and practices Maulana Maududi even challenged the collective consensus of Muslims on the Islamic prayers, which they offer to seek pleasure of and closeness to God, declaring them “means and tools to prepare for Jihad”. He writes:

“Salaat (Namaz) is a training exercise for Jihad. Zakat (Islamic charity) is a military fund for Jihad. Fasting is aimed to train people like soldiers who have to stay without food at times for long periods during the Jihad. Hajj is a huge conference in nature for plotting larger scale military operations. Thus, Salaah, Fasting, Zakat, and Hajj are actually meant for this very preparation and training” (Fundamental of Islam by Maulana Maududi – Page: 250).

Maulana Maududi advocated establishing an Islamic state where the so-called “Islamic Jihad” should be incumbent upon every Muslim until the authority of God is established on the entire earth, where the rights of non-Muslims would be limited and they would not be permitted to practice the faith, rituals of worship or social customs, where “Islamic Jihad” would not recognize their right to administer state affairs, because, as laid out in the writings of Maulana.

Maulana wrote nearly 120 books in which he extended intellectual and theological support to the radical Islamism and exclusivistic ideology of faith.  In his book Haqiqat-e-Jihad (literally meaning “the truth of Jihad”), he elaborates his point:

“A ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.

(Maulana Maududi, Haqiqat-e-Jihad, Pg 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)

In another book “al-Jihad fil-Islam” (Jihad in Islam), he explains his radical understanding and militant interpretation of Jihad:

“It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a handful of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution”.

(Jihad Fi Sabillilah: Jihad in Islam by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Chapter 3, Pg 10)

In his writings, Maulana exhorted Muslims to fight “evil forces” physically and go to the extent of laying down their life, possessions, powers, wealth and health in the fight against “evil forces of the world”. He writes in his book “Jihad in Islam”: “But the most important – indeed the most basic – ideal of the revolutionary doctrines of that “Revolutionary Party” known as Muslims is to expand all the powers of the body and soul, life and possessions, in the fight against the evil forces of the world; not so that, having annihilated them, we should step into their shoes, but so that evil and contumacy may be eradicated and Allah’s Law enforced on earth. This is the significance of jihad fi Sabillilah, Jihad for the cause of Allah.”

He further writes: “the terms “offensive” and “defensive”, which are usually applied to definitions of warfare, are not at all applicable in the case of Islamic Jihad. These terms are relevant only in the context of wars between nations and countries, for technically speaking, the terms “attack” and “defence” can only be used with reference to a country or a nation.” He further elaborates his point: “The division of Islamic Jihad into “offensive” and “defensive” is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces.” (Maulana Maududi: Jihad in Islam)

Ibn Kathir writes in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:

 2:191- 193. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.  But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin (the polytheists and wrongdoers).

(And “Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.”) “Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.”

Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:

(…until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah’s statement: (…and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.’

Maulana Maududi writes in his tafseer Tafheemul Quran

(2:191) Fight against them wherever they confront you in combat and drive them out from where they drove you out. Though killing is bad. persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Masjid Haram unless they attack you there.

Note 202: Here the word fitnah is used in the sense of ‘persecution’. It refers to a situation whereby either a person or a group is subjected to harassment and intimidation for having accepted, as true, a set of ideas contrary to those currently held, and for striving to effect reforms in the existing order of society by preaching what is good and condemning what is wrong. Such a situation must be changed, if need be, by the force of arms.

Bloodshed is bad, but when one group of people imposes its ideology and forcibly prevents others from accepting the truth, then it becomes guilty of an even more serious crime. In such circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to remove that oppressive group by the force of arms.

(2:193) Go on fighting with them till there is no more a state of tribulation and Allah’s way is established instead. *204 Then if they desist from it, there should be no more hostility except against those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality. *205

Note 204: Here the term fitnah is used in a different sense from the one in which it was used above (see verse 191). It is evident from the context that fitnah refers here to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is someone other than God. Hence the purpose of a believer’s fighting is that this fitnah should cease and obedience should be consecrated to God alone.

An investigation of the usages of the word deen (which occurs in this verse) reveals that the core of its meaning is obedience. In its technical usage, the word refers to that system of life which arises as a result of a person recognizing someone as his Lord and Sovereign and committing himself to following his commands and ordinances. This explanation of the word deen makes it quite clear that when some human beings establish their godhead and absolute dominance over others, this state of affairs is one of fitnah. Islam seeks to put an end to this and replace it by a state of affairs in which people live in obedience to the laws of God alone.

Note 205: What is meant here by ‘desisting’ is not the abandonment of unbelief and polytheism on the part of the unbelievers but rather their desistance from active hostility to the religion enjoined by God. The unbeliever, the polytheist, the atheist, has each been, empowered to hold on to his beliefs and to worship who and whatever he wishes. In order to deliver these people from their error, Muslims are required to counsel them and tell them where their good lies. But Muslims ought not to try to achieve this purpose by resorting to force. At the same time, these misguided people have no right to either enforce the false laws of their own contriving instead of the laws of God or to drive the people of God to bondage of others than God. In order to put an end to this fitnah, both persuasion and force be used, whenever and to the extent to which each of the two is needed, and a true believer will not rest until the unbelievers give up this fitnah.

Mufti Shafi Usmani writes in his Maariful Quran:

Note on 2:191: Since Muslims, during their entire Makkan period, were made to stay away from fighting against the disbelievers and were repeatedly asked to forego and forgive, so much so, that the noble Companions were, before the revelation of this verse, under the impression that killing disbelievers was bad, and prohibited. It was to remove this misconception that it was said: “And Fitnah is more severe than to kill,” that is, it is true that to kill someone is a terribly evil act, but more terrible and severe is what the disbelievers of Makkah have done by insisting on their kufr and shirk (infidelity and the associating of others with Allah) and by stopping Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligations, and from performing Hajj and ‘Umrah. It is to avoid this greater evil that killing them has been permitted. The word, Fitnah in the verse (not translated for want of a perfect equivalent in English) inescapably means kufr and shirk and to prevent Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligations of ‘ibadah. —- Jassas (Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ali Al-Razi Al-Jassas (d. 370 AH/980 CE), Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (1214 – 1273 CE) and others.

Since the generality of the words ‘kill them wherever you find them’ might lead to the misconception that killing the disbelievers is allowed even in the precincts of Haram (Kaaba), this generality has been particularized in the next sentence of the verse by saying: And do not fight them near Al-Masjid al-Haram unless they fight you there. That is, ‘you should not fight them close to AL-Masjid aL-Haram, which includes all its environs in Makkah, unless they themselves start fighting you there.’

It also comes out from this verse that the prohibition of initiating Jihad is restricted to Al-Masjid al-Haram and its environs to which the sacred precincts extend in Makkah. At other places, just as the defensive Jihad is necessary, the initiating of Jihad and Qital is also valid.

Tafseer Surah Tauba (Q. 9:1-5) by Prominent Salafi A’lim Maulana Muhammad Junagarhi and Maulana Salahuddin Yusuf

Tafseer-e-Quran Urdu published and distributed by the Saudi government which has been translated by the prominent Salafi A’lim Maulana Muhammad Saheb Junagarhi and explained by Maulana Salahuddin Yusuf says in its footnote on 9:1-5, “Allah said, 9:1 “Freedom from obligations from Allah and His Messenger”, is a declaration of freedom from all obligations from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikin (polytheists), with whom Muslims made a treaty.

“This Ayah refers to idolaters who had indefinite treaties and those, whose treaties with Muslims ended in less than four months. The terms of these treaties were restricted to four months only. As for those whose term of peace ended at a specific date later (than the four months), then their treaties would end when their terms ended, no matter how long afterwards (probably nine months). So, whoever had a covenant with Allah’s Messenger then it would last until its period expired. During this period, the idolaters were permitted to live in Mecca and its surrounding areas so that they can decide, before the expiry of this period, either to accept Islam or leave the Arab peninsula or face death.

“But there was an exception from the four month’s warning for those of the idolaters (they were two tribes) with whom Muslims had made a peace treaty, and they had not subsequently violated the treaty, nor had they supported anyone against the Muslims. So, Muslims were asked to fulfil their treaty obligations with them until the end of their term. This is the type of idolaters whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. But after the expiry of this period Muslims were ordered to fight and kill all the idolaters without exception (those who had violated the peace treaty as well as those who had not) unless, and until, they embrace Islam or leave the Arab peninsula.”

Tafseer Noorul Irfan – The famous Barailvi tafseer (interpretation).  

Note on 2:193 “From this verse we learn that the purpose of Jihad is not the total annihilation of the infidels, but to destroy the power of infidelity so that they do not become an obstacle in the propagation of Islam. The might of infidels should be destroyed so that the institution of worship of one true God can be established without any obstacle.”

Khazai-nul-Irfan by well-known Barailvi A’lim Maulana Naeemuddin Muradabadi.

Interestingly, another famous Barailvi A’lim Maulana Naeemuddin Muradabadi, in ‘Khazainul Irfan’, his urdu tafseer of Kanzul I’man, has also explained the word ‘fitnah’ in 2:193 as KUFR and SHIRK. He says, while explaining the verse 2:191, (Aur kafiron ko jahan pao maro…………………. And kill them wherever you find them), “Jo jang ke qabil naheen hain unse jang na karo, ya jin se tum ne ahed (agreement) kiya ho unse bghair dawat (inviting to Islam) ke jang na karo kyonki tareeqa-e-shara (Islamic way) yeh hai ki pahle kuffar ko Islam ki dawat dee jaye, agar who inkaar Karen to jizyah talab kiya jaye, ab agar is se bhi inkaar Karen to to unse jang ki jaye. Is mana par is aayat ka hukm baqi hai, mansookh nahin huwa hai. It further says, explaining the word ‘fitnah’ that “fitnah (Fasa’d) se shirk’ (polytheism) murad hai ya musalmanon ko makkah mukarramah mein dakhil hone se rokna”. Moreover, commenting on the next verse 2:193 (phir agar who baaz aa jayen …

But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin) “yani Agar kufr aur shirk se baaz aa jayen (that is, if they desist from kufr (disbelief) and shirk, idol-worship) …

Minhaj-ul-Quran by Dr Tahirul Qadri:

2:193. “Aur unse jang karte raho hatta ki koi fitna baqi na rahe aur deen yani zindagi aur bandgi ka nizam amalan Allah hi ke tabe ho jaye, phir agar who baaz Aa jayen to sewai zaalimon ke kisi par zyadti rawa nahin.”

In his note on the above verse 2:193 Dr Tahirul Qadri says, “Jihad aur inqilabi jadd-o-jahad deeni fareeza hain. Aur fitna-e-batil ke mukammal khatma aur qiyam-e-amn tak inqilabi jang jari rahni chaahiye. Ghalba aur nifaz-e-deen (Islam’s domination and the implementation of the Islamic Sharia- emphasis mine) Jihad aur inqilabi jang ki aakhri manzil hai. Haan agar mukhalif quwwaten fitna parwari se baaz aajayen to unpar sakhti na ki jaye.

Abdur Rahman Hamza comments: “Any person having sufficient knowledge of Islam and jihad can easily understand what Dr Tahirul Qadri actually understands by the word ‘fitna’ in verse 2:193, though he has used carefully selected and sugar-quoted words and phrases to hide the real purpose of offensive Jihad which, according to his own statement is “the ultimate domination of Islam and implementation of its Sharia all over the world.”

 “I am really shocked! I see no difference whatsoever between what these Ulema, both Deobandi and Barelvi are saying and what Maulana Maududi has written. They all agree that the purpose of Jihad is to establish the Islamic domination all over the world after destroying the powers of Kufr and Shirk where ever and whenever Muslims have the power to do it. So, we should not be surprised at what ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar -e-Taiba and Taliban are doing in their lands under the guidance of their Ulema to carry out this DEENI FAREEZAH (Religious duty).

“Now let us come to the claim of Syed Hamid Mohsin sb regarding the Quranic verse, 9:5 “So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah (prayer), and give the Zakah (Islamic Tax), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

“Hamid Mohsin Saheb says about this verse, that it cannot be seen as a command for all times. Once again, it is a specific instruction to those who violated the peace treaty. The verse speaks of the sacred months when a truce of sorts was supposed to be in operation. But actually, with the exception of the tribes of the Bani Damrah and the Bani Kananah, (who respected the treaties they made with Muslims) all other tribes in, and around Madinah frequently violated the agreement and continued to kill and persecute the Muslims. Indeed, such violations were a common characteristic of the Arabian tribes. These are the specific people to whom this verse refers, not the polytheists who respected the peace treaties.

Ibn Kathir says, Allah said: 9:1-2 “Freedom from obligations from Allah and His Messenger, (to those of the Mushrikin (idol-worshippers, polytheists), with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (Mushrikin) for four months (as you will) throughout the land“

 This Ayah refers to idolaters who had indefinite treaties and those, whose treaties with Muslims ended in less than four months. The terms of these treaties were restricted to four months only. As for those whose term of peace ended at a specific date later (than the four months), then their treaties would end when their terms ended, no matter how long afterwards, for Allah said,

9:4. “Except those of the Mushrikin with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty for them until the end of their term. Surely, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.”

The exceptional pagan tribes who remained true to their word were the Banu Hamza and Banu Kina’na who swore their treaty near the sacred mosque and faithfully observed it. Regarding them Allah said, “So fulfil their treaty for them until the end of their term 9:4. One source says the remaining period was 9 months.

9:5. So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

“All agree that this condition (submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration or leaving the Arab peninsula or getting ready to die) equally applied to all the polytheists without exception: those who frequently broke the peace treaty as well as those who remained true to their word and faithfully observed it, after the terms of their treaty ended. So, it is quite clear that the fight was not against treacherous enemy but against Kufr and Shirk.”

Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi on Jihad

Ghamidi believes that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed.

Ref: Mizan, The Islamic Law of Jihad.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Efforts on the part of the prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (shirk).

(So) It was God’s decree that he be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.

      This same mission of leading men from darkness to light had been entrusted to all the prophets in turn. The sense, however, in which the Prophet of Islam was distinct from the others was that, in his case, God had decreed – since no Prophet was to come after him – that he should not just communicate the divine message to humanity and leave it at that, but that he should also take practical steps to change the entire existing state of affairs.

      The prerequisites for putting this plan into action were all provided by God. Moreover, God also guaranteed that any shortcoming in worldly resources would be amply compensated for by special help from the angels.”

“This Point Has Been Made in The Hadith in Different Ways. One Hadith in Particular Is Quite Direct in its wording: “I Am The Eradicator Through Whom God Will Obliterate Unbelief.” Thus, The Prophet Was Not Just a Da’i (Missionary) But Also a Mahi (Eradicator).  He Was The Caller To The Faith, But He Had Also To Compel People To Answer His Call. The Qur’an clearly states that besides human beings, God’s angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission.

“This commandment of God was, indeed, realized through the Prophet, so that a whole new era could be ushered in.”

“But Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, on many occasions, seems contradicting himself. For example, he writes, in his book, “,The True Jihad: The Concept of Peace, Tolerance and Non Violence in Islam “There are certain verses in the Quran which convey injunctions similar to the following: ‘Kill them wherever you find them.’ (2:191)
Referring to such verses, there are some who attempt to give the impression that Islam is a religion of war and violence. This is totally untrue. Such verses relate in a restricted sense, to those who have unilaterally attacked the Muslims. The above verse does not convey the general command of Islam. (pp. 42-43)” 

“Contrary to the above, the same Maulana Wahiduddin Khan says in his Urdu tafseer, “Tazkeer-Ul- Quran”, while commenting on the same verse, “Momin ko deen ka aamil banne ke sath deen ka mujahid bhi banna hai.Yahan jis jihad ka zikr hai wo jihad wo hai jo rasooluullah ke zamane mein pesh a’ya. Arab ke mushrikeen itma’me hujjat ke bawajud risalat se inkar karke apne liye zindagi ka haq kho chuke the. Neez unhon ne jarihiyyat ka izhar kar ke apne khilaf fauji iqdaam ko durust sabit kar diya tha. Is bina par unke khelaf talwar uthane ka hukm hua…. “Aur unse lado yahan tak ki fitna baqi na rahe aur deen Allah ka ho jaye” ka matlab yeh hai ki sarzameen-e-Arab se shirk ka khatma ho jaye aur deen-e-Tauheed ke sewa koi deen wahan baqi na rahe. Is hukm ke zariae Allah Ta’la ne Arab ko Tauheed ka daimee markaz bana diya.

“However, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan also believes that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times. After the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam because it is not possible in our time.”

Abdul Rahman Hamza concludes: “Clearly, Ulema need to go beyond making pious declarations of Islam having nothing to do with the offensive Jihad going on in several parts of the world today. They must take a stand and clarify why Islamic theologians over the centuries including reputed Indian ulema have interpreted war-time Quranic verses as calling for offensive jihad. These verses are being used both by Jihadis and Islamophobes to justify their respective viewpoints. It is the religious duty of Ulema to come clean and clear the air, both for the sake of Muslim youth who are joining the Islamic State in growing numbers and non-Muslims who have come to fear Islam for obvious reasons.”

Sultan Shahin is founder editor, New Age Islam

This article was first published in New Age Islam and may be read here

The post Waseem Rizvi’s Challenge an Opportunity for Ulema To Proclaim the Inapplicability of These 26-War-Time Verses of Quran For Muslims Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, every challenge is also an opportunity. The demolition of Babri masjid on 6 December 1992 presented Muslims with an opportunity. Now that the masjid was no more and Muslims do not worship bricks and mortar or plots of land, they could have forgiven the miscreants who demolished the mosque and moved on, gifting the land for building a temple. I made this point in an article entitled “Opportunity for Muslims,” published by The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on 13 Jan 1995. This was reproduced on NewAgeIslam.com on July 1, 2009.

Let me give you here some relevant excerpts from this article written almost 25 years ago.

“… This brings me to my main plea—forgiveness. Forgiveness is the essence of both the Muslim and Hindu spiritual traditions. It is the only way out of the vicious and very debilitating grip of bad karma. It is our belief that one has to always pay individual or collective karmic debts in this or any subsequent incarnations or on the Day of Judgement. Both Hindu and Muslim spiritual traditions consider God as the greatest teacher, this world a great school, the events that involve us in this mayajaal (illusionary world) as messages.
 “What could this Great Teacher be teaching us in this section of the school through the great Babri Masjid-Ram Janam-bhoomi drama? Perhaps the all-important lesson of forgiveness. It may take us years, decades, centuries or millennia to learn this lesson. But learn we will. There is no escaping. God is a very determined teacher. We have the option to learn the lesson now. Let us exercise it.”

Then I had gone on to conclude: “…. If this mutual forgiveness and reconciliation does not take place — and if present Hindu and Muslim leaders are considered representatives of their respective communities, it is not likely to happen — ordinary people of both communities must make their presence felt and come out openly for peace at all costs. If that too does not happen, we Muslims should thank God for providing us with this unique opportunity to exercise our option of forgiveness and making a gift of a piece of God’s land on the specific condition that it be used for nothing but building a place of worship, so that its sanctity is maintained.

 I know this is not going to be easy. Forgiveness is never easy, except for the spiritually evolved. But I don’t think we have any other option. We have many things, important things to do. We cannot afford to remain embroiled in inconsequential disputes. The renowned Islamic scholar, Maulana Ali Mian Nadwi had reacted to the opening of Babri Masjid locks (for all Hindu worshippers by Rajiv Gandhi government on 1 February 1986) the following day in these very sensible words: “Many mosques are in the possession of other people.” And indeed, they are.
 “There were many mosques in East Punjab of the pre-Partition days? But very few are left as mosques today? A Punjabi Hindu friend of mine complained of so many mosques having been converted into gurudwaras and temples. His Muslim friend (not me, some great soul) reacted: “But they are still places of worship. There is only one God, after all. No matter what you believe in, you cannot but worship the same God.” Amen.”

However, guided by short-sighted, self-styled leaders as they are, Muslims did not take that opportunity. Now another opportunity beckons. The highest court in the land is about to give its final judgement. First of all, Muslims should make it clear that they would abide by the judgement and accept it willingly no matter what the verdict is. This is what out leaders have already done. But this bears repetition, particularly in view of the divisive, almost Rwandan nature of most of the media, print, electronic and social that has taken control of nearly all means of communication in north India. Unfortunately, some ignorant, greedy Mullahs too participate in the cockfights at prime time that go in the name of television debates, giving legitimacy to the palpable efforts to divide the society. The very least Muslims could have done to combat this national security threat was to socially boycott those treacherous Juhalawho are respectfully called Ulama by our media. But this is a subject for another day. The silver lining in these darkening clouds is that the secular, pluralistic foundations of Indian society are too deep to be shaken by these charlatans who are projected by the media as representatives of the Muslim community. The credit for pluralism in our society, I must add, goes largely to the broadmindedness of Hinduism that is willing to accommodate all religions.

Another reason Muslims should reiterate their faith in the Supreme Court now is that they have already committed once the cardinal mistake of pressurising a government to overturn a Supreme Court judgement delivered on 23 April 1985,based on the compassionate nature of Islam as the judges understood our religion. The Supreme Court invoked Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to everyone regardless of caste, creed, or religion to rule that a divorced Muslim lady with no means of sustenance, 70-year-old Shah Bano, be given maintenance money, similar to alimony. Supreme Court concluded that “there is no conflict between the provisions of section 125 and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself.”

Considering the Holy Quran as the greatest authority on the subject, the court held that there was no doubt that the Quran imposes an obligation on the Muslim husband to make provision for or to provide maintenance to the divorced wife. But the Muslim leadership, both Mullah and non-Mullah, refused to accept it.
With this background, it is imperative that Muslims reiterate repeatedly their faith in the Supreme Court and declare that they will accept the judgement even if it goes against them, as this is the highest court in the land.

This also accords well with the exhortations in Quran and Hadith.  All schools of Islamic thought accept that Islam requires Muslims to be loyal to their country’s institutions, regardless of the ruler’s faith. The Holy Quran states, “O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and obey those in authority from among you” (4:60). Prophet Muhammad declared, “Whoso obeys the ruler obeys me, and whoso disobeys the ruler disobeys me” (Muslim); “Listen to and obey your ruler, even if you [despise him]” (Bukhari).

Prophet Muhammad and his few followers endured bitter persecution for about 12 years in Mecca. But they did not defy the Meccan Establishment. They peacefully left Mecca, following the Quranic ruling, “Create not disorder in the earth” (2:13). Indeed, Islam not only requires Muslims to obey their government, but also to love their country. In a well-known Hadith, Prophet Muhammad instructed, “Love of one’s country is a part of faith” (Sakhavi; Safinat al-Bihar, vol. 8, pg. 525; Mizan al-Hikmah, Hadith # 21928).

Secondly, it is time Muslims use the next few days to introspect and consider what they would do if the judgement comes in their favour. It’s not just that they will find it impossible to build a mosque on that plot of land in the present atmosphere of heightened tensions and shrill Hindu demands and preparations to build a temple on that plot of land where the masjid stood for nearly five centuries. The important question is: is it even necessary for Muslims to do so. Babri mosque was a heritage building. Like the Bamiyan Budhas in Afghanistan, it is now lost for ever. It simply cannot be rebuilt. So common sense dictates that Muslims donate this piece of land for the building of the temple that our Hindu brothers and sisters want so badly. The argument that the faith in Lord Rama having been born exactly on that spot is a manufactured faith does not hold water. It doesn’t matter how a faith has taken hold. Now it is the Faith, and as Muslims themselves demand that their Faith, even the irrational parts of it, is given due deference, they too should respect the Faith of others regardless of its historical validity.

Courtesy: http://www.newageislam.com/

The post Babri case: Another opportunity for Muslims to earn goodwill of Hindus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

General Debate, Item 3, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

Delivered by Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor New Age Islam,
On behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum
 
Mr. President,
A War on Terror has been raging for 17 years now but we are no closer to defeating Islamist terror. Jihadism continues to attract Muslim youth. This is because the world has not paid enough attention to the ideology of Islamism and Jihadism.

Mainstream Muslims have considered Islam a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many. Islam aims at reforming society for a peaceful, harmonious, pluralist existence. However, due to certain historical factors, the theology and jurisprudence of Islam that evolved in the 8th and 9th centuries (CE), present Islam as a political, totalitarian ideology of supremacism, xenophobia, intolerance and gender discrimination. It is this theology of violence, exclusivism and world-domination that is taught in madrasas and sustains Islamism. But despite the Islamist violence against peaceful Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the community is still not focussed on the need for evolving a counternarrative of Islam.

 It is imperative that Muslim countries that have signed the UN Charter look into the issue urgently and work towards developing a new theology of peace, pluralism and gender justice. While several countries like Morocco and now Saudi Arabia appear to be moving in this direction, the one country that has made a solid contribution is Turkey. In a decade-long exercise 100 Turkish scholars have managed to limit the number of authentic ahadith to just 1600, out of over 10,000, and provide each hadith with context and suitable interpretation. This book of authentic Hadith has been provided to all mosques in Turkey but I hope it is made available to the global Muslim community in their own languages as soon as possible.

The present theology is simply not compatible with the requirements of living in complex, plural societies of the 21st century. Allama Iqbal, a poet-philosopher of the South Asian sub-continent had called for the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam almost a hundred years ago. Let us at least start working on it now.

But first, it’s important for us to understand what has led to the present state of affairs. Why have the Muslims ulema (religious scholars) become so tolerant, if not actually supportive, of the militant Jihadis in our midst, despite the horrendous toll, in which tens of thousands of Muslims have themselves been killed, not to speak of events like 9/11, and repeated terrorist violence in a number of cities in Europe and North America.

The so-called Islamic state which is known for broadcasting its brutalities in chilling detail has been ousted from its control of territories in Iraq and Syria, but its ideology appears to be gaining ground in Africa and South Asia. Al-Qaeda may be down but is not out; it continues to exert ideological influence on sections of Muslim youth. The Taliban which harboured al-Qaeda in Afghanistan are resurgent and the world community appears to be gradually coming round to the view that they should be allowed to share power in the Kabul administration from which they were ousted soon after 9/11 in 2001.

Islamist terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan, Boko Haram and Al-Shabab in Africa and Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia, indeed all across the world, are continuing to gain strength.

Mr. President,
While the world community may have gotten involved in issues related to Islamist extremism since 9/11, this is essentially a war of ideas within Islam which has been going on for centuries. Both God and His Prophet wanted Muslims to be a moderate, justly balanced community. An ummat-e-wasta, Holy Quran 2:143, said. Numerous verses in the Quran and narrations of Hadith, exhorted Muslims never to take to extremes, not even in matters of fulfilling religious obligations like prayers and fasting. The Prophet actually expressed his anger specifically against a group of people who wanted to pray all day and night, fast continuously for weeks, abstain from marriage, give up eating meat in order to control their lust and to renounce sleeping in beds, etc.

And yet, not long after the demise of the Prophet in 632 (CE), extremists started emerging and taking it upon themselves to decide who is a Muslim and who a Murtad (apostate), Mushrik (polytheist) or kafir (infidel) and also taking it upon themselves to punish and kill people for perceived apostasy or blasphemy. The first group to do so were called the Khwarij (the excluded). They killed thousands of Muslims including Hazrat Ali (RA), the fourth rightly guided caliph. Today our religious books, belonging to all sects in Islam, give scores of grounds on which a Muslim can be declared an apostate (Murtad), Mushrik (polytheist), or infidel (Kafir) and punished with death.

These theological views empower even individual Muslims to start delivering justice to Muslims who, they think, have committed acts of apostasy or blasphemy. The divine justice that was to be delivered by God on the Day of Judgement is dispensed here by individuals who have been brainwashed with extreme ideas of the scope and authority of divine commands like Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi ‘anil Munkar (Enjoining good and forbidding wrong).

Quran, Hadith, and classical Fiqh (jurisprudence) all agree that while there is no concept of an Islamic state in Islam, only the rulers of a legitimate Muslim state can take decisions for perpetrating any kind of violence, either in a war against another state or against individuals in order to impart justice. In classical fiqh (jurisprudence) no individual or group is empowered to take any violent action on its own. But today, violence in various forms is tolerated by the community in the name of Islam. A terrorist has only to quote something from scriptures in justification, without even a reference to context, and his vile acts are forgiven. After all, Osama bin Laden never faced a fatwa of apostasy or blasphemy, while religious reformers like the famous educationist Sir Syed Ahmad (1817—1898) of India were issued scores of fatwas of apostasy by Indian Deobandi ulema as well as the Mutawalli of Khana Ka’aba in Makkah. Indeed, dissenters and reformers in various parts of the Muslim world continue to be killed by individuals and groups. So-called Islamic State chief Khalifa Baghdadi’s statement that “Islam was never a religion of peace, not even for a day,” was greeted with complete and resounding silence from Muslim ulema around the world.

Mr. President,
This apathy to growing Islamist extremism is so great that even some highly educated Muslims ask: “What if 30,000 Muslims from 86 countries joined the Islamic State in just one year? What is their percentage in a community of 1.7 billion people? How can you cite this miniscule percentage as evidence of growing extremism?”  One doesn’t know how to respond to such “intellectuals.” The fact is that even if one Muslim thinks that going to a mosque in the form of a human bomb and blowing oneself up to kill fellow Muslims during prayers will bring one divine reward, the community should have been wondering what is it in our religion that lends itself to such dastardly crimes in the hope for reaching Heaven. Radicalisation has grown exponentially, but even after thousands of terrorist crimes having been perpetrated, one or two being reported practically everyday from some part of the world, we remain unconcerned.

Indeed, the man who killed Governor Salman Taseer of Pakistani state of Punjab for showing kindness to a Christian lady accused of blasphemy, is glorified as a saint. After his judicial execution, the Sufism-oriented Barailvis of Pakistan have built a shrine in his name and hundreds of thousands visit it, seeking this vile murderer’s intercession with God for ending their woes in this life and beyond.

What is the source of this glorification of crimes committed in the name of religion? What lies behind this indifference, this unthinking, unquestioning acceptance of any crime that is perpetrated in the name of Islam? It seems Muslims actually stopped thinking and questioning with the defeat of Mutazillah, the rationalists, in the middle of ninth century (CE), i.e., a little over two centuries after the demise of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). They were told by the ulema to close the doors of Ijtihad, the Islamic principle of creative rethinking and they did. Ijtihad had been used from the time of Hazrat Umar (RA) the second rightly guided caliph who assumed office merely two years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Mr. President,
Even after the closure of doors, ijtihad has continued to be used by individuals but without sanction from the larger community. It’s only when ulema themselves accept some innovation that it becomes acceptable to the community. Take for instance, the use of photos for a passport to go to Hajj, loud speakers or radio to recite Quran or that of internet for purposes of Dawah (inviting others to the religion of Islam). These have become acceptable to our religious divines after long debates. So, it would appear some measure of rationality does dawn upon our ulema after long, excruciating debates. It seems the time it takes for their minds to get illuminated is also getting shorter. It took ulema of Khilafat-e-Osmania (Ottoman Caliphate) almost four centuries to give religious sanction to the import of printing presses from Europe, but only a few decades to accept passport-size photographs, loud speakers, radio, television and internet.

It is not difficult to see why the world of Islam is mired in deep darkness of ignorance while the world is making progress by leaps and bounds. Syrian poet Ali Ahmad Said Adonis (b. 1930) called it “a phase of extinction, in the sense that we have no creative presence in the world.” Tunisian thinker Abdelwahab Meddeb (1946 –2014) prophesied “Arab (civilisation), constrained by the framework of Islamic faith, will join the great dead civilisations.” What constraints of Islamic faith is Meddeb talking about? Can you imagine Khilafat-e-Osmania (1517–1924), the rulers of one-third of humanity for centuries, not importing a printing press, not even to propagate holy scriptures, because religious scholars thought all new inventions were works of the Shaitan (Satan). Probably, our religious scholars thought that God had lost His creativity after revealing the religion of Islam and now only Devil could invent new things. In fact, in the view of our ulema even Quran is not created by God but is uncreated and co-eternal with Him, lying in the divine vaults for aeons; He merely revealed a pre-existing Quran to humanity through Prophet Mohammad in the seventh century (C. E).

It was largely on the question of createdness or uncreatedness of Quran (khalq al-Quran) that a major conflict took place among the ulema of 8th and 9th centuries (CE), leading to the defeat of rationalist theologians. The rationalists (Motazallah) said that Quran was created by God in a particular time in history; it was a compilation of verses that came from time to time to guide the Prophet and Muslims in the evolving situation in early seventh century Arabia following the appointment of the Prophet as a messenger of God. So, many verses are contextual in nature and cannot be applied to other contexts. But the orthodox literalist ulema would not accept this. They said that Quran was unique like God and co-eternal with Him; God merely revealed the Quran and did not create its verses as the unfolding events demanded, the implication being that all verses are of eternal applicability.

Even Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari, a Motazallah rationalist till the age of 40, joined the orthodox camp, though continued to use Motazallah methodology of logical arguments to support his case. But logic and reasoning were not allowed in the literalist Hanbali creed even to support their own cause. So bitter opponents of Motazallah, the Hanbalis and Ash’aris also went their own separate ways.

The uncreatedness of Quran meant that all the events that led to revelations in the Quran guiding the Prophet and his companions through the struggle and strife of the early seventh century Arabia were pre-ordained and choreographed to create opportunities for Quran’s verses to be revealed. It also meant that all those who supported the Prophet were simply meant to do so and all those who opposed the Prophet tooth and nail, including making attempts at his life, were just doing God’s bidding. How else could a pre-existing Quran be revealed?

This understanding of Islam also means that everything happening in the world, good or bad, is pre-ordained. Where is the question of reward and punishment then, the rationalist (Motazallah) ulema asked? How can God be considered Just, Kind and Merciful, if He punishes people for doing things he Himself chose for them to do? All those opposed to the use of reasoning in matters of religion, the Hanbalies, Ash’aris, Maturidis, Zahiries, Mujassimites and Muhaddithin, said God is all-powerful; He simply does things that he wills to do. In their view, imposing canons of justice and morality on God would amount to limiting his power and this cannot be done. God is not rational or just; He is the embodiment of power and will, he does what He pleases. God is the First Cause in a universe which does not have any secondary causes. No cause and effect for the orthodox ulema, only God’s will and power to do as He pleases.

In the raging theological debates in the 8th and 9th centuries (CE), both groups cited verses of Quran. The group opposed to reason also quoted numerous ahadith (believed to be sayings of the Prophet, even though collected up to three centuries after his demise). [Some verses of Quran used in this debate can be seen below in an annex attached to this oral statement.]

A century and a half after the rationalist group had been defeated and their books burnt, Imam Ghazali (1058 –1111) summed up the Islamic theology of consensus (Hanbali, Ashari, Maturidi, etc. minus Motazallah) in this way. He put the following words in the mouth of God:
 
“These to Bliss, and I care not; And these to the Fire, and I care not.”
 
It’s this supposed indifference and arbitrariness of God that Ibn-e-Rushd (1126 –1198), known as Averroes in Europe, countered in his famous book “Incoherence of the Incoherence.” This was a point-by-point refutation of Imam Ghazali’s book “Incoherence of the Philosophers.” But all of Ibn-e-Rushd’s books were burnt down in supposedly liberal Muslim Spain (1195) and he had to go into exile. Some of his books survived only because they had already been translated in European languages and gained a lot of supporters, even though his ideas were condemned by the Catholic Church in 1270 and 1277. What gained him most following in Christian Europe, despite opposition from Church, was his ‘unity of the intellect’ thesis, claiming that all humans share the same intellect. As a result, Europe got its renaissance and Muslim world pushed itself into a darkness from which it is still to emerge.
 
Mr. President,
Under this literalist theology, violence, xenophobia, intolerance and gender injustice become acceptable due to an interpretation of Quran and Hadith which deliberately avoided using reason and logic. Early 20th century radical ideologues like Hassan al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Syed Abul Ala Maududi and numerous later ideologues of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc have gone further than the classical jurists and come up with interpretations that even justify horrors of terrorism in the name of Muslims’ religious duty to make Islam victorious in the world. In many mosques even in the non-Muslim majority West today prayer-leaders curse non-Muslims and pray for their defeat and victory for Islam in their Friday sermons. The seventh-century war-time Arabian mindset persists.

 In classical jurisprudence Jihad or Qital ordered by the state was considered farz-e-kefaya, a communal duty which some people in the community would perform voluntarily absolving others of this duty. To defend one’s country in the event of an external attack was considered farz-e-ain, every capable individual Muslim’s religious duty. But even this was subject to the guidance and instructions and requirements of the State.  But modern ideologues have made even offensive Jihad (in other words terrorism) a farz-e-ain for all individual Muslims, and even done away with the need for a legitimate Muslim state to order such fighting.

Islamic scriptures and books of fiqh (jurisprudence) and aqaid (beliefs), can always be made to yield some sort of support for almost any position, even positions that are diametrically opposed to each other, as we have seen above in the debate between Motazallah and the Hanbalis and Ash’aris. And these become acceptable to a populace that has been told for a millennium that merely thinking a thought is unbelief or infidelity (al-fikr kufr).

We have seen in the above quotations from Quran cited by the Motazallah that God asks Muslims again and again to think, observe, learn and so on. Occasionally, He gets angry and asks Muslims, why won’t you think? See, for instance, the following verse from Quran: “Truly, the worst of all creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf, the dumb, those who do not use their reason/think.” Qur’an 8:22

And here we are, a community that has accepted for a millennium that merely thinking a thought amounts to denying God’s divinity. We are where we are today largely because we have accepted our dominant theology of al-fikr kufr, leading to violence and exclusivism. Blind, unthinking adherence to the dogma (taqlid) has been our practice since the 9th century. Even the Salafi/Wahhabi who call themselves ghair muqallid (those who do not follow any school of thought) actually follow equally blindly the Hanbali jurisprudence and Ibn-e-Taimiya and Mohammad Abdul Wahhab’s theology.

Mr. President, I hope Muslims states that are signatories to the UN Charter take the issue of terrorism seriously, understand its link with our current taqlidi theology of consensus, make serious efforts to evolve a new ijtihadi theology of peace, pluralism and gender justice, and revise our madrasa text books accordingly. The new theology should be more rational, coherent and internally consistent, over which a consensus of the global Muslim community can be gradually evolved.
Thank you, Mr. President.

—-
Annex 1
Motazallah view of God’s rationality and justice and encouragement to reasoning emanate from the following and similar verses in the Holy Quran:
 
Surely the worst of beasts in God’s sight are those that are deaf and dumb and do not reason. (8:22)
Qur’an explains its verses to a “tribe, nation or community (qawm) who thinks” and chastises “those who do not use their reason” (see for instance, al-Baqara 2:164; al-Ma’idah 5:58; al-Ra’d 13:4; al-Nahl 16:12; Maryam 19: 93-95.
And He lays abomination upon those who do not reason. (10:100)
(2:164) (To guide) those who use their reason (to this Truth) there are many Signs in the structure of the heavens and the earth, in the constant alternation of night and day, in the vessels which speed across the sea carrying goods that are of profit to people, in the water which Allah sends down from the sky and thereby quickens the earth after it was dead, and disperse over it all manner of animals, and in the changing courses of the winds and the clouds pressed into service between heaven and earth.162
 “A book We have sent down to thee, blessed, that men possessed of mind may ponder its signs and so remember.” (38:29)
“That thou mayest bring forth your people from the darkness into the light … “(14:5)
 
Justice:
 
“And We sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men might uphold justice … “(57:25)
“We have not sent thee, save as a mercy unto all beings. “(21:107)
“A Book We have sent down to thee that thou mayest bring forth mankind from the darkness into the light... “(14:1)
It is incumbent upon Allah to show you the right way. (16:9)
 —
 
Annex 2
 
Hanbali-Ashari-Maturidi view of God as omnipotent, whimsical, arbitrary, wilful, despotic, not limited by canons of justice and rationality emanate from the following and similar verses of the Holy Quran (as well as many Ahadith, specially mutawatir ahadith, considered totally authentic and akin to revelation by most Muslims). I am not quoting Hadith here but apart from Quran, it was a large number of Hadith narrations that solidified their view:
 
“Allah does what he wills.” (14:27)
(Allah is) the Doer of what He wills.7 (85:16)
“He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, He punishes whom He pleaseth.” (2: 284)
“He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominions of the heavens and the earth and whatever is in between them and to Him is the final destination,” (5: 18)
“He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.” (5: 40)
—
 “In their hearts is a sickness, and God has increased that sickness …” (2:10)
“God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering … “(2:7)
“We lay veils upon their hearts lest they understand it …”. (6:25)
“So, does God seal the hearts of the unbelievers.” (7:101)
“God is the Protector of the believers; He brings them forth from the darkness into the light. And the unbelievers –their protectors are taghut (satanic forces), that bring them forth from the light into the darkness …” (2:257)
—
 “So, whosoever Allah wants to Guide, He expands his breast to Islam and whoever He wants to misguide, He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky.” (Quran 6: 125).
 Also, “If Allah so willed, he could make you all one people. But he leaves straying whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases and you shall certainly be called to account for all your actions.” Quran (16: 93). 

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Evolve a New Theology of Peace, Pluralism and Gender justice: Sultan Shahin asks Muslim States at UNHRC in Geneva appeared first on SabrangIndia.