The slain militant in Kashmir who was reportedly working for the ISIS, Eisa Fazili castigated all anti-terror Fatwas issuers. In a video which he probably recorded just before the Kashmir encounter, castigated the Indian Ulema who issued several anti-terror Fatwas.

Fazili asked as to why the Ulema refused to issue a fatwa for jihad against ‘non-Muslim oppressors’. After several anti-terror Fatwas have recently been launched in various large Islamic conclaves in Delhi, extremists like Eisa Fazili are critical of those Ulema who participated in them. Accusing them of ‘siding with the government’, Fazili warned:

“One day these Ulema have to show their faces to Allah who will punish them for failing in their duties to give a call for Jihad fi Sabilillah (armed struggle in the path of Allah)”.

Notably, maximum Fatwas against terrorism were issued by the Indian Ulema. Nearly all established schools and sects of Islam in India have denounced the violent offshoot of the neo-Kharijism—the ideology of Daesh (ISIS).

Indian Muslim community’s resilience against the radical narratives has been stronger than that of Muslims in other parts of the world. Remarkably, India’s strength in fighting off the terror ideology lies in the fact that not only did the Sunni Sufis and Shias decreed against the extremist thoughts. Even the Salafi strain of Islam in India—Ahl-e-Hadith—which is seen as the ideological underpinning behind the violent Jihadism in several Muslim countries, has reportedly issued the first fatwa against terrorism in this country. Their recent counter-terror conference in Delhi’s Ramlila ground sought to awaken the Salafi followers about the ‘terror tactics’ of the ISIS and similar extremist outfits that are working to disrupt the national security and communal harmony. Tellingly, a collective anti-terror fatwa endorsed by 40 senior clerics associated with the New Delhi-based Markazi Jamiat Ahle-Hadees Hind has been reiterated at his conference. However, this came to many as an utter surprise. They wonder how come the Ulema of Ahle Hadith who adhere to the ultra-orthodox Salafist theology, outcry against the “terror tactics” of the Daesh (ISIS).

While the significance of these conferences as collective community resilience against extremism cannot be undermined, most of the counter-terror Fatwas were not sharp rebuttals to the radical narratives in unequivocal terms.

In India, radical narratives are largely based on promoting the victimhood mentality. Aggressive social media campaigns are underfoot to promote a mindset of victimhood among Muslims to pave the way for a defensive jihad (Jihad Al-Difa’a). This sometimes influences the gullible and immature minds of even the educated youth with little religious literacy.

The hidden extremist ideologues on social media keep dictating to the Indian Muslim youth the ‘pathetic plight’ of Muslims in several parts of the world, particularly in Palestine, Kashmir, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Consequently, they influence one’s position with an indoctrination to peddle hatred for the leaders and other people of these territories as ‘oppressors’ of Muslims. These social media campaigns not show the rulers and regimes of those territories as ‘unjust’ to the believers. They also term them as lands of manifest error (Fisq o Fujur), prevailing oppression (Zulm) and dominating disbelief (Kufr al-Ashad) as prerequisites for the legitimacy of the Jihad al-Dif’a (defensive armed struggle).

An antidote to this extremist victimhood narrative is highly required which is missing from most of the counter-terror Fatwas and clerical statements recently issued in different parts of India. However, they unanimously agreed upon the illegitimacy of the combatant Jihad, non-state actors’ use of force and all forms of militancy against the state. The strong consensus (Ijma’a) of the Ulema and Muftis in India is that only state can declare jihad as defensive war. Delegitimizing every act of violence carried out in the name of Islamic expedition—Qital or jihad—the Indian Ulema of all hues have declared the war-time verses of the Qur’an as contextual and inapplicable today. 

But the extremists bred by the home-grown fanatics and foreign radical ideologies feed the sword verses of the Qur’an as immutable commandments of the continuing combat against the perceived ‘disbelievers’ and ‘oppressors’. Brazenly misquoting the war-time texts of the Qur’an and Hadith, most particularly the verses of (1:191), (1:193) and (9:29), they justify the rebellious fringes’ calls for the combat against the state as ‘Jihad al-Talab’ (Jihad of demand).

Before we refute this pernicious concept of combat, it should be kept in view that the Islamic jurists (Fuqaha) of all schools of thought categorized the combatant jihad into two types:
(1)      Jihad al-Talab (jihad of demand): This becomes legal when the state itself declares it in defense of the national interests.
(2)      Jihad al-Difa’a (Jihad of defense): This acquired legitimacy when a Muslim country was attacked by the foreign forces in the medieval period. At that time, the Ulema decreed that people of such a country were permitted to defend themselves and fight back the attackers under the banner of the state.

Thus, both types of the combatant jihad were legalized by the rationale (Illa’t) of defending the country, its sovereignty and the national interests. But now, the reason or rationale (Illa’t) for both the Jihad al-Talab and Jihad al-Difa’a has vanished in the nation states, clearly because the international law and constitution are supported by the consensus (Ijm’a) of the authoritative Islamic scholars across the world. They have endorsed that it is the prerogative of the state to declare war in defense of the nation. No no-state actor has any role or right to fight or wage a war against the perceived ‘enemies’.

As for the above war-time verses of the Qur’an and their citations by the extremists today, they stand untenable and self-contradictory. For instance, take this verse:
“Expel them from wherever they have expelled you” (2:191).

Clearly, it was a commandment to ward off attacks, not to initiate such attacks. This position is substantiated by the end of the very verse:
“And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is the most forgiving and merciful” (2:192).

The context of all such war-time verses in Surah Taubah (9th chapter) or any other chapter of the Qur’an is self-explanatory that they do not constitute a general case. Rather, they were revealed concerning the pagans of Mecca who initiated enmity and consequent attacks against the Muslims living in the state of Madina under a peace treaty. But it was only when the peace treaty was broken that the jihad al-Difa’a was allowed. Not only the pagans, even many self-styled Muslims who were later known as ‘Munafiqun’ (hypocrites and rebels) were fought in the Jihad al-Talab explicitly declared by the state of Madina.

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Here’s Why the Ulema Refuse to Issue a Fatwa for Jihad against ‘Oppressors’ Of Muslims! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On this occasion, the Imam of Madina Mosque led the Friday prayer. In his Khutba (sermon) of Juma’a, he prayed: “May Allah make the land of India a sanctuary of peace and tranquillity and protect its citizens from all catastrophes and tabulations!” In his sermon, he also stated: “Islam spread in India like other countries with its force of ethics and morality, rather than sword. It not only propagates the safety of mankind, but also guarantees the safety of all the creatures”, as the Urdu daily Inquilab reports today.

The chief organizer of this conference and the Jamiat Ahle Hadith president, Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mahdi Salafi said: “Conflict and hatred against each other in the name of religion have become a matter of great concern for mankind. The greatest challenge of the present time is propagation of world peace and safety of mankind. The youth should work as messengers of peace and should not be enticed by the anti-social elements”, he said.

Tellingly, the Jamiat Ahle Hadith has organized the two-day annual conference, as Maulana Salafi avers, with an aim to combat the menace of terrorism and to promote national integrity, solidarity, brotherhood and stability. While referring to Jamiat Ahle Hadees fatwa against “terrorism”, he said that Jamiat was the first one to issue the fatwa against terrorism and this conference will be helpful to convey the message of peace and “enlighten the people about the deep-rooted conspiracy of the ISIS and similar organizations that are working to disrupt the social harmony and brotherhood”.

But for many, this development is utterly surprising. They wonder as to how the Ahle Hadith in India, who emulate the ultra-orthodox Salafist brand of Islam, have come up with an outcry against the “terror tactics” of the Daesh (ISIS). Notably, a collective anti-terror fatwa endorsed by 40 senior clerics associated with the New Delhi-based Markazi Jamiat Ahle-Hadees Hind has been reiterated at his conference. In fact, the anti-terror fatwa of Ahle Hadith answers this question:

“Is it correct, as per Shariah, for Daish and others of its ilk in the name of the so-called caliphate to try to take into (their) own hands the peace and law and order, to explode bombs on main streets and other places, to destroy public and private properties and military installations, to hijack planes, to kill tourists, media-persons and foreign employees, to make nurses hostages or kill them, to attack upon non-abiding hijab women, educational institutions, offices of the newspapers and news channels and embassies, to provoke the people against the government and disturb the peace and harmony of the country?”

A collective reply to the above question was prepared by the top Muftis and Ulema of Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith Hindi, as detailed in its official website.

http://ahlehadees.org/headquarter-activities/item/248-the-collective-fatwa-against-daish-and-those-of-its-ilk-issued-by-markazi-jamiat-ahle-hadees-hind.html

I reproduce below the summative points of this fatwa in a slightly edited style for language clarity:
“There is no provision under the Islamic system of justice that revenge for the mistake of a person is taken from the other person.” (Al Quran Surah AI lnam: 164). It is the responsibility of the government and Muslims to provide security and protection to the non-Muslims residing under the Islamic government. Those killing them can’t go to Heaven.” (Hadees Sahih Bukhari). Similarly, no harm can be inflicted even on disbelievers living in a situation out of war. Imam lbn Qadama says: “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars of Islam that killing of an innocent person is Haraam (Not permitted).”. Imam lbn Taimiyya and Imam Nauvi say: “Kufr (Disbelief) and Shirk (Polytheism) are the greatest sins, and afterwards comes the killing of the innocent. Hafiz lbn Hajar says: “When the uncalled for killing of animals is not allowed, how can the killing of innocent persons be allowed.” (Fatahul Bari). Abdullah Bin Umar says: “The sheer (act of) of killing wherefrom coming out (surviving) is not possible, is, unquestionably, blood-letting.”…… “Therefore, certain organizations’ effort to take the law and order of the country into (their) own hands, to bombard and explode (bombs) at the main streets and other places, to destroy governments and individuals as well as military weapons, to hijack planes, to make foreign employees and nurses hostage, to attack women not wearing hijab and (to attack) offices of the newspapers and news channels and embassies, to provoke the people against the government and strive to disturb peace and harmony, is not allowed by Shariah.”

Highlighting the stance of the Ahl-e-Hadith on the present-day Islamic caliphate, the collective anti-terror Fatwa underpins: “Islamic caliphate has got some principles and conditions, without adhering to which nobody can become a caliph and nobody is authorized to use the prestigious title of Ameer ul Momeneen for such a terrible and cruel person.” The fatwa buttresses its position on the self-imposed caliphate of the ISIS quoting the rulings of a few progressive Saudi Salafist jurists like the Grand Mufti of Mecca and chief of the Saudi Supreme Ulema Council Shaikh Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah, Sheikh Abdul Mohsin Bin Hammad Al lbaad, Sheikh Mohammed Al Munjad and other authoritative Salafi Ulema who categorically state that the ISIS supporters have seceded from Islam and therefore are the Kharijites of the new age. It says: “In the past also, they [Kharijites) have defamed Islam by their violent thoughts and actions. What they are terming Jihad today, is actually a Fasad (mischief) and terrorism. Because Jihad has got some principles and conditions which they neither follow, nor are authorized (to perform).”

Shedding light on the disturbing ground realities, the anti-terror fatwa of the Indian Salafi Ulema goes on to state that “the acts ISIS and similar organizations are committing are so terrible that hearing their news and seeing their photographs entire humanity gets scared….These acts are being committed wearing the dress of the caliphate and in the name of Islam….“It is a matter of concern that some simple persons justify it as a reaction to the atrocities and excesses upon Muslims and others which is, no doubt, (out of) lack of knowledge and understanding…..In Islam to take revenge for (some) one’s sin by killing and damaging other innocent persons is not allowed….Therefore, such organizations are terrorists and condemnable and to support and co-operate (with) them is not allowed by Shariah. It is the religious and moral duty of the conscious persons of the Muslim Ummah that they should inform the world of its threats and strive to prevent the Muslim youth, if any, from supporting Daish and those of its ilk, in any form.”

Apparently, these points in the fatwa sound good and indicate that even the Salafi Ulema and muftis in India are now joining the chorus of moderation and inclusiveness when expounding on Islam. But unfortunately, it fails to challenge the theological underpinnings of the global Jihadism which is an offshoot of the al-Salafiyah al-Jihadiyah.

While the Salafi fatwa against the ISIS does declare the present-day Islamic caliphate as ‘illegitimate’, ‘self-imposed’ and ‘un-Islamic’, it fails to question the legitimacy of this medieval notion of Islamic caliphate which is irrelevant and antithetical to the 21st century Muslims living in the pluralistic societies. It must have stated in unequivocal terms that any demand for establishing or ‘re-establishing’ the caliphate anywhere is not acceptable at any coast.

But worryingly, the medieval notion of Islamic state challenges the nation sates even today. It continues to radicalize a section of the gullible Muslims across the world.  Radical Islamist outfits still thrive on the utopian concepts like ‘Ummah state’, ‘Sharia zones’ and ‘Khilafah rule’ even in the lands where Muslims are minorities, underprivileged and less educated. Inevitably, some of them fall prey to such religious rhetoric castigating nation states, democracy, pluralism, gender rights and rights for other religious communities, while at the same time being themselves minorities and taking advantage of all freedom and opportunities.

Let’s not forget that India is seen as a ‘lost Islamic space’ by the ISIS ideologues who have written in their mouthpieces ‘Dabiq’ and ‘Rumiyah’ on how to regain the ‘lost glory of Islam’ in India in general and particularly in Kashmir. At this critical juncture, Indian Ulema must protect Muslim youths from getting trapped into this rhetoric of the Islamic caliphate’s dream merchants. But sadly, their anti-terror Fatwas have become merely a trend in India now. They are frequently launched with a repeated cliché that “Islam is a religion of peace”, but remain ineffective in the absence of a sharp rebuttal to the extremist, exclusivist and supremacist theology on the basis of which terrorism is pursued.

Ironically, the above fatwa has quoted Sheikh Mohammed Saalih Al Munjad and several other ‘authentic’ Salafi clerics who are known for their sermons preaching the dichotomous worldview of ‘Al-Wala’ Wa-L-Bara’ (loyalty with Muslims and disavowal with others) which causing mayhem throughout the world. According to an Al Jazeera study ‘Arab World Journalism in a Post-Beheading Era’, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Munajjid is considered one of the Salafist scholars, whose teachings inspired radical movements in the Arab world, including al-Qaeda and al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wal Sham (Daesh).
Inevitably, the anti-terror fatwa of Indian Salafis will be counted run of the mill if it does not question the above-quoted Saudi-Salafi theological masters who inculcated extremism in the Saudi Islamic textbooks. For instance, the seventh graders in Saudi Arabia are still being taught that “fighting the infidels to elevate the words of Allah” is among the deeds Allah loves the most. Tenth graders learn that Muslims who abandoned Islam should be jailed for three days and, if they do not change their minds, “they should be killed for walking away from their true religion.” Fourth graders read that non-Muslims have been “shown the truth but abandoned it, like the Jews,” and have replaced truth with “ignorance and delusion, like the Christians.”

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Why the anti-terror fatwa of the Ahl-e-Hadith is not enough appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, a considerable number of Zakir Naik’s fans on social media, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, have declared all those Muslims who are against  Naik as kafir (infidel) and munafiq (hypocrite). “Those who oppose Zakir Naik are kafir (one who hides the truth)”, writes a follower of his, Saeed Ibn George on his Twitter account.

Personally, I have also received such an insolent accusation, apart from many gruesome threats from the diehard supporters of Naik. Of late, an enthusiast female adherent of his, seemingly from the UK, has posed these questions to me:  

"[You are] criticizing Zakir Naik who has helped thousands of people to revert. I personally have 2,000 revert friends in UK and each one of them has been influenced by Mr. Naik".

“I don’t know if there is any word worse than kafir that I would have used for you. People like you are destroying Islam… Most of the Dehlvi women I know from Delhi are married to idol worshippers. Why don’t you guide them first???” [you are] criticizing Zakir Naik who has helped thousands of people to revert. I personally have 2,000 revert friends in UK and each one of them has been influenced by Mr. Naik. What have you done in helping people revert?”

Without any knee-jerk reactions to the lady, I simply expressed my amazement at her naivety. I wondered how many new-age young Muslims like her are consciously or unconsciously being indoctrinated into a dangerous radical doctrine called takfirism (declaring each other kafir). At the moment, I was reminded of the Prophet’s hadith (tradition) delivered in his last sermon of the pilgrimage (Hujjatul Wida) in which he warned Muslims:  “Do not revert to takfir after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another,” is a part of the long discourse delivered by the Prophet on the occasion of Hujjatul Wida.

As a matter of fact, takfirism is specific to a particular stream of thought in Islam and is not common to all Muslims. This ideological extremism has blatantly abolished all the essential principles of tolerance and plurality enshrined in Islam. While the holy Qur'an repeatedly exhorts that “there should be no compulsion in religion” and that “all people are free to practice any religion they like”, the hardcore takfirists are hell-bent on imposing their beliefs upon everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, declaring those who don’t follow them kafir or at least munafiq (hypocrite). In their crazy bid to accord it an Islamic justification, they selectively apply verses of the Holy Qur'an and, thus, further their nefarious ends.

Now the question arises: should this takfirist understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked? Obviously, it threatens not only individuals but the entire social stability at the local, national, and regional levels creating serious geopolitical dangers to the world at large.

But the most regrettable is the inability or unwillingness of world governments to stem the tide of growing takfirism. Particularly, the Western leaders are still oblivious of takfirism, which originated in the state religion of Saudi Arabia — Wahhabism — which has also given rise to the takfiri terrorists of ISIS. Similarly, Muslim governments have not yet curbed takfirism even after the takfirists’ attack on Madina, the holiest site of Islam. The USA, France, Germany, Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have already been reeling from a series of brutal takfirist terror attacks, but they are not yet calling spade a spade.

The national and international media outlets often portray the radical Islamist extremists or terrorists as jihadists. Of course, jihadism is not Islam. But the term ‘jihadists’ makes the matter further complicated for the common Muslims unable to differentiate between mujahid (inner-struggler) and jihadist (Islamist fighter). Thus, they develop a wrong impression about the media portrayal of the global terrorists who falsely claim to be fighting for the sake of Islam or Muslims.

It can be recalled that the term ‘takfirism’ or ‘takfirist’ first appeared in the Western media when the BBC investigative journalist Peter Taylor television produced his series, 'The New Al Qaeda' in 2005. But it is still not common in the vast majority of media outlets. However, some sagacious Islamic scholars have referred to all the Islamist terrorists as takfirists. They have identified the fighters and supporters of the Daesh or ISIS as takfirists, as they emerged in June 2014 claiming to be the members of an “Islamic” State of Iraq and Syria.

The first Islamic scholar who contextualised the religious extremism of ISIS as Takfirism is Shaikh Habib Ali al-Jifri one of the progressive Islamic scholars in the UAE, who also runs Tabah Foundation to confront the extremist ideologies in the region.

In his interview with Sky News Arabia in July 2016, he explains how he seeks to confront the extremist discourse of the ISIS using the references from the Quran and Hadith. Al-Jifri says:

“In order to diagnose and describe the ISIS properly, one part of the problem is that it relies on [referencing] scriptural texts and sources. Some of these texts are inviolable. Some are based on independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) that is open to reconsideration. And some are based on legal judgments that are wrong and were not recognised [by legal authorities]. This part of the problem is related to religious discourse and it is our (religious leadership’s) responsibility to confront ISIS and pay the price of that even if it be with our lives. But we also have to confront those followers and students [of these religious leaders] who do not like to talk about ‘religious renewal’ (tajdid fil deen) which they think leads to ‘dilution of the religion’.”

Al-Jifri also expounds in his sermons, very popular among the liberal Arab Muslims, that, “the root-cause of the Islamist extremism is the lack of love and connection with the Prophet Muhammad”.

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOHfImXuO5k)

Given the recent terror strike on Madina, where the Prophet himself is buried, al-Jifri’s argument makes sense. Those who cannot harbour love and veneration for their own Prophet can go to any extent in their religious hate, xenophobia and takfirist terrorism. This is precisely what the latest fatwa issued by the Indian Islamic seminary Jamia Manzar-e-Islam has also pointed out.    
Perhaps, Mufti Mohammed Salim Noori, the spokesperson of the seminary has referred to the same hateful ideology in his anti-terrorism fatwa, saying that the terrorists like “Hafiz Saeed promotes people who have written disparaging remarks against the Prophet Mohammed”.

The 18th century takfirist ideologue Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi wrote in his book, 'Majm’u al-Fatawa al-Aamma': “One cannot be a perfect believer (Muslim) until he/she shows hatred in his/her words and actions against the non-Muslims”.

Undeniably, the takfirists are antagonistic to all the Muslims who love and venerate Prophet Muhammad and other holy saints of Islam calling them idol-worshippers and hence kafir. They show equal abhorrence to the pluralistic Muslims who befriend people of other faiths. This results from the hardcore belief in the takfirist doctrine of “al-Wala wal-Bara” (loyalty with Muslims and disavowal to the non-Muslims). The 18th century takfirist ideologue Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi wrote in his book, 'Majm’u al-Fatawa al-Aamma': “One cannot be a perfect believer (Muslim) until he/she shows hatred in his/her words and actions against the non-Muslims”.

The Indian Express has quoted Mufti Saleemt Noori to have said in his fatwa that, “followers of Islam have been asked not to listen to such people or follow them”. This  fatwa was issued in a reply to a jurisprudential query (called istifta) posed by one Mohd Moinuddin of Jaipur who had mentioned that Hafiz Saeed believed in objectionable writings against Prophet Mohammad.

Jamia Razvia Manzar-e-Islam has launched a course on de-radicalisation titled “Islam and Terrorism”. According to the madrasa rector, it is aimed to teach students a tolerant Islam to curb radicalism and extremism in their respective localities. But regrettably, the takfirist writings and thoughts that actually mobiliset the potential terrorists are not being rebutted in any so-called anti-terrorism Islamic curriculum.

In his fatwa, Mufti Saleem Noori replied that “having any type of connection with persons working against the dignity of Allah and the Prophet was haraam (forbidden in Islam)”. “Therefore, it is compulsory for every Muslim not to follow him and keep away from his ideology,” it stated. The fatwa also declared Hafiz Saeed, “a man with terrorist ideology”, and the one “whose acts have brought infamy to Islam and Muslims across the world”. Besides, Mufti Saleem Noori hinted at the un-Islamic ideology and points of view that provoked people to create terror. It is also worth mentioning that Jamia Razvia Manzar-e-Islam has launched a course on de-radicalisation titled “Islam and Terrorism”. According to the madrasa rector, it is aimed to teach students a tolerant Islam to curb radicalism and extremism in their respective localities.

But regrettably, the takfirist writings and thoughts that actually mobilise the potential terrorists are not being rebutted in any so-called anti-terrorism Islamic curriculum. They are promoted in India today as freely as in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. This rhetoric is the easiest tool for the ISIS and the ilk to catch the imagination of the gullible Muslim youths. The self-proclaimed Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has long said: "a generation of Muslim youths has been trained based on the forgotten doctrine of al-Wala wal Bara (loyalty with Muslims and disavowal to the non-Muslims)".

Of course, Mufti Saleem Noori is well-intentioned in his fatwa against Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan-based Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief and his "terrorist ideology" that has "brought defamation to Islam". But the caution is warranted on giving the 'fatwa al-takfir’ (the religious edict declaring anyone kafir). 

True, the terrorists cannot be considered Muslim in the true sense, as the Prophet clearly defined Muslim as “the one from whose hand and tongue people are safe”.  But the Islamic jurists (muftis) must take cognizance of their approach towards countering terrorism. By declaring the terrorists “kafirs” (infidels), they are also, unintentionally, going their way. The Kharjites of ISIS also declare all those who don’t believe in their vile ideology as kafir and mushrik (infidel and polytheist) and hence slaughter them.

The fatwa against radicalisation and extremism is certainly a welcome move. However, the anti-extremism ulema cannot stem the tide of the global Kharijite terrorism — which stems from Takfirism — by just issuing fatwas of kufr against the terrorists.

The Barelwi fatwa against Hafiz Saeed and his cult of violent extremism and jihadism is certainly a welcome move. However, the anti-extremism muftis cannot stem the tide of the global Kharijite terrorism— which stems from takfirism — by just issuing fatwas of takfir against the terrorists. They must engage in a brainstorming on how they can genuinely counter the extremist jihadist narratives. And it is only possible with a well-considered approach to the refutation and rebuttals of the takfirist theological underpinnings which, unchallenged by the ulema, are impacting on the Muslim religious zealots. To begin with it, Indian ulema will have to evolve a robust and progressive interpretation of the Islamic scriptures and a well-reasoned and rational understanding of the Islamic doctrines such as jihad, hakimiyah (God’s rule over the earth), khilafah (Islamic caliphate) and ishtishhad (seeking martyrdom) and al-wala wal-bara (love and hatred for the sake of God). These are some of the theological terminologies and references from the Quran and hadith that the violent Jihadists misconstrue to justify their atrocities.

Indian muftis need to articulate a complete and coherent Islam-based refutation of the takfirist theology itself, rather than resorting to the takfirism against the terrorists. Only then they can help to rescue the new-age gullible Muslim youths from the creeping extremist indoctrination.

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a scholar of Comparative Religion, Classical Arabic and Islamic sciences, cultural analyst and researcher in Media and Communication Studies.

This article was first published on New Age Islam.
 

The post Issuing Fatwas of Little Use in Fighting Terrorism in Islam’s Name appeared first on SabrangIndia.