certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (18 Mar 2014 NewAgeIslam.Com)



The International Community Must Actively Address the Menace of Jihadism and Its Phony Interpretation of Islam, Urges Sultan Shahin in the UN Human Rights Council in Its 25th Session

 

 

 

By Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam

18 March, 2014

United Nations Human Rights Council

Twenty-fifth Regular Session ((3 - 28 March 2014)

Agenda item 4: Subjects of particular concern for the UN Human Rights Council

Full Text of the Oral Statement by Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam

Mr. President,

South and Central Asian nations are deeply worried about the shape of things to come after the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan and the return of Islamist terrorists from the Syrian theatre of Jihad back to North America, Europe and rest of the world. The upsurge of Taliban Jihadism in Afghanistan-Pakistan may also mean more terror in India and Bangladesh.

As experience has shown, Mr. President, the war on terror cannot be fought merely with military means. This war has an ideological dimension as much as military. The exclusivist, political, totalitarian, Jihadi narrative of Islam has to be contested and the mainstream narrative of Islam as an inclusive, spiritual path for salvation promoted vigorously. Among the Western governments, only Britain has shown an awareness of the ideological nature of this war and a resolve to help Muslims fight it ideologically. But the response of British Muslims has been disappointing.

Muslims across the world continue to be in denial. Not the slightest sign of introspection.

 British Muslims find the Report from the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism problematic. The subsequent actions too have caused consternation. But there is no indication that Muslims themselves plan to do something to fight this menace. We Muslims must understand and accept that this is primarily a war within Islam and it is for us to fight it.

Already, the Taliban have started flexing muscles. In Pakistan last month they forced the government to open talks. While demanding the implementation of Shariah they cut the throats of 23 captured soldiers of Pakistan Army. As Pakistan Information Minister pointed out, 90,000 Pak troops were taken prisoner in the 1971 war against India but not one of them lost their heads. He also wondered what sort of Shariah law Pakistan Taliban want imposed that allows cutting the throats of soldiers of their own country.

Clearly the international community must actively seek to address the menace of Jihadism and its phony interpretation of Islam.

Mr. President,

Let us now reflect on some of the issues mentioned above in some detail. First, I find it gratifying that at least one government in the West has discovered that this war cannot be fought just with bullets and bombs. The recent report by British Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism finds it “also necessary to define the ideology of Islamist extremism” and goes on to say in paragraph 1.4: 

“This is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice. It is an ideology which is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles, and draws on the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb. Islamist extremists deem Western intervention in Muslim-majority countries as a ‘war on Islam’, creating a narrative of ‘them’ and ‘us’. They seek to impose a global Islamic state governed by their interpretation of Shari’ah as state law, rejecting liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law and equality. Their ideology also includes the uncompromising belief that people cannot be Muslim and British, and insists that those who do not agree with them are not true Muslims.”

I hope they also come to the realisation that the fathers of modern extremism, Sayyid Qutub of Egypt and Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi of the Indian sub-continent, are products of and heavily influenced by an ideology that the British Empire had played an important role in imposing upon the Muslim community. It supported this radical Wahhabi ideology in its infancy and provided it with the wherewithal to cause the destruction it has, even betraying its formal alliance with the mystically inclined and peaceful Hashemite Khilafat of Sheriff of Mecca in the process. Then again the West, this time led by the US, supported and encouraged this ideology, indeed spent a lot of money in promoting it during the last years of cold war.

One would have thought that it would be difficult for Jihadists to survive in post 9/11 world. Instead, the post 9/11 world seems to have created more swamps for Jihadists to wreak havoc and plan and plot further devastation in different parts of the world. Having reflected upon past mistakes, the West better realise that the first thing to do in tackling Jihadism is for it to immediately stop supporting and protecting the fountainhead of radical Islamist ideology in Saudi Arabia or at the very least to curb the massive export of the Saudi version of radical Islam to far corners of the world. After all, 16 of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudis, nurtured through the Saudi school curriculum and the rest too schooled in Saudi version of Islam.

The UK Report considers challenging and tackling extremism a shared effort. It goes on in paragraph 1.5:

“We welcome the spontaneous and unequivocal condemnation from Muslim community organisations and other faith groups in response to the Woolwich attack. The government, as much as organisations and communities in the UK, must take responsibility. We have been too reticent about challenging extreme Islamist ideologies in the past, in part because of a misplaced concern that attacking Islamist extremism equates to an attack on Islam itself. This reticence, and the failure to confront extremists, has led to an environment conducive to radicalisation in some mosques and Islamic centres, universities and prisons. Many institutions do not have the capacity to play their full part in challenging extremists, even when they want to. The government has a role in leading this challenge, ensuring that communities where extremists operate, and the organisations working against extremists, have the capability to confront it themselves.” 

Talking about countering extremist narratives and ideology, the Report says:

“Extremist propaganda is too widely available, particularly online, and has a direct impact on radicalising individuals. The poisonous messages of extremists must not be allowed to drown out the voices of the moderate majority.”

After this making this unexceptionable generalisation it goes into specifics and says in paragraph 3.1:

“The Task Force has agreed to: 

1. build the capabilities of communities and civil society organisations so that they can campaign against the large volume of extremist material, including online, 

2. work with internet companies to restrict access to terrorist material online which is hosted overseas but illegal under UK law, 

3. work with the internet industry to help them in their continuing efforts to improve the process for public reporting of extremist content online.

One would have thought that the British Muslims would welcome the government`s determination to help them confront the defamers of Islam who present Islam as a religion of intolerance and xenophobia.  That they will take this opportunity to refute the Jihadi ideologies and present a moderate mainstream narrative of traditional Islam that has co-existed with other communities for centuries. While extremism and extremist interpretations of Islam have almost always been a part of Muslim history, the majority has pursued a moderate path and always defeated extremism in every era regardless of the form and nomenclature it may have taken.

But present-day Muslim tendency to stay largely silent on the issue, make no particular effort to confront extremism, and stay content with blaming extremism and Jihadism entirely on West's foreign policy failures merely reflects our victimhood mentality and betrays a wilful ignorance of Islamic history and ground realities. We must accept that a violent streak has always existed in Islamic history and it is for us to deal with it. Have we been able to understand even till today why Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib,  the son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad and the fourth rightly-guided caliph, and Hazrat Aisha, the revered wife of Prophet Muhammad (saw) fought the Battle of Jamal (Camel) on November 7, 656 AD, leading to the killing of at least 5, 000 Muslims. This was followed by the Battle of Siffin (A.D. 657) between Hazrat Ali and and Mu’waiya ibn Abi Sufyan which finally resulted in Banu Umayyad creating a brutal dictatorship in the name of a dynastic Khilafat. But not long after Battle of Siffin was the Battle of Nahrawan in AD 658 between Hazrat Ali and his former followers who had now become the Kharijites, near Nahrawan, twelve miles from Baghdad. More than a hundred thousand Muslims died in these wars at a time when and in a region where population was sparse. It would appear that Islam has been fighting a war within forever. But at the same time our tendency to stay in denial is phenomenal.

Mr. President,

We Muslims can criticise Western policies and request the international community not to pursue politics in a way that leads to creating more swamps for Muslim extremists and terrorists to take refuge in and create more trouble for world peace. But we have no control over these policies. So we must focus on things that we can ourselves do. The state of Muslim world today is such that wherever an interested, motivated group needs terrorists and even suicide bombers, an army becomes available. Soldiers of this army believe they are going to heaven by killing other innocent Muslims (mostly), even if in the process they commit the most heinous crime of committing suicide.

Persuading someone to commit suicide in order to kill his fellow worshippers in a mosque, fellow religionists in a Sufi shrine, or fellow citizens in a public place, should perhaps be the most difficult job in the world. How come it is the easiest when it comes to us Muslims? And why are we as a community not even concerned? How come we are mostly passive spectators?

Mr. President,

I would like to request the world Muslim community represented here, through you, that we must urgently start looking within. Rather than being satisfied with blaming others for a virtual civil war within Islam in different parts of the world, let us introspect and see where we are going wrong and what we can do to correct ourselves.

In my view, Mr. President, our focus most urgently should be on what precepts of Islam we are teaching our children in schools and religious seminaries called madrasas. For it is the products of these madrasas that go on to becoming fatwa-givers on issues of concern, prayers-leaders in our mosques, etc. and thus acquire considerable influence, particularly over the not so well-educated among Muslims.

 Many Muslims are not even aware of what is being taught in our schools and madrasas. I hope awareness on this score will open their eyes and also explain why we are where we are today. This will hopefully inspire some introspection. We must know that our children are being fed xenophobic literature in the name of Islam that makes it mandatory to hate and treat as enemy in word and action Muslims who do not believe in Ibn-e-Taimiya and Abdul Wahhab`s interpretation of Islam and, of course, all non-Muslims including the ahl-kitab. Would some of the Muslims who have been brainwashed into hatred and enmity for the proverbial “Other” at early stages of their life, not turn out to be easy prey to those who are looking to build a terrorist army? Is this any surprise then, we may start wondering, having studied these text books in even more detail than I can provide here, that an army of suicide bombers becomes available from the Muslim community whenever and wherever required.

 As books provided by Saudi Arabia are most widely available around the Muslim world, I would like to quote here some paragraphs from a study of Saudi school text books by Eleanor Abdella Doumato in a book edited by her titled “Teaching Islam.” I would consider this book as essential reading for anyone interested in the phenomenon of spreading Jihadism.

Professor Abdella Doumato comments: “At every grade level the books assert that there is one Islam, that all Muslims are united in one Umma (community of believers), that Saudi Arabia holds a special and sacred place in the Muslim world, and that its royal family fulfils the necessary requirements of legitimate Muslim rulers. Schoolbooks condition students to respect authority, to confuse opinion with fact, and to see ethical questions in black and white, as if Islam were a single, stagnant body of knowledge with obvious and immutable answers to all life's questions. At the same time, the kingdom, like the rest of the Muslim world, is ethnically diverse and divided by sectarian orientations. Although an estimated 10 per cent of its population is Shiite, Saudi Arabia is also home to Sunni Muslims whose religious practices, such as Sufi mysticism, shrine visitation, and veneration of saints, are condemned as polytheism in the schoolbooks…. Although the texts claim authenticity in ancient roots, they espouse an Islam that is a modern amalgamation of home-grown Wahhabism, the Salafism of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a pan-Islamic agenda that inhabits the texts along with the Saudis' own state-building agenda.”

Professor Abdella Doumato has reached her conclusions by reviewing ‘the books of Fiqh (jurisprudence), Hadith (authoritative anecdotes from the life of the Prophet), and Tawhid (Islamic monotheism) for grades nine through twelve, which were used in the school years 2001/2002 and 2003/2004, and the Tawhid texts for elementary grades three, five, and six and intermediate grades seven, eight, and nine, used in the 2003/2004 school year. In addition, the 2003/2004 texts for courses that incorporate religion into the subject matter have been reviewed: Civics for grades four through Six and eight through twelve and The Life of the Prophet and the History of the Islamic State for the tenth grade. The high school religion textbooks include versions produced by both the Ministry of Education and the General Presidency for Girls.'

After proclaiming that there is only one Islam for all and there is no room for other interpretations, the schoolbooks lead to the message that philosophy and logic lead to schism, and are therefore especially to be avoided. Professor Abdella Doumato quotes the following paragraph from the text of (10b: 14):

[W]hen some people built their creed . . . from metaphysical speculation [Iilmal Al-Kilam] and systematic logic [Quwaa 'Ad Al-Mantiq) inherited from Greek and Roman philosophy, they produced deviations and divisions in the creed, and there resulted arguments and divisions in the community and cleavages in building Islamic society.

"Deviation from the correct creed," indeed, spells "disaster [Mahlikah] and perdition [dayaa'1" (10b: 15).5

Abdella Doumato comments:

“The message is that intellectual debate and individual reasoning must be sacrificed on the altar of communal harmony and political unity. The lesson is literally a textbook illustration of what Khaled Abou El Fadl describes as the anti-intellectualism of contemporary Saudi Islam's "supremacist, puritanical orientation," which retreats to the "secure haven of the text," where it can safely dissociate itself from critical historical inquiry (El Fadl 2003). The name he gives to this supremacist, puritanical orientation is "Salafabism," a combination of the words "Salafi" and "Wahhabism," the home-grown Najdi version of Islam that the schoolbook employs to locate the one Islam in Saudi Arabia and legitimize its present rulers.

“One chapter, in the tenth-grade Tawhid textbook (the unrevised edition), titled the "Call [Da’wah] of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab," describes the progenitor of Najdi Islam as the historical rectifier of deviations in the peninsula, drawing a parallel between al-Shaikh, as he is known in Saudi Arabia, and the Prophet Muhammad. The lesson explains that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (hereafter MIAW) came as a mercy from God to renew the religion of this Umma, his call for renewal fitting an established pattern: the Prophet Muhammad was sent by God to renew for mankind the creed that had been altered by deviations and innovations over time. Although Muhammad is the final prophet, God produces from time to time individuals from the Ulema to renew the struggle against innovation, to rectify the creed and protect the Sharia from change, and to "bring the light of God to people of blindness" (10b: 19). Such a person appeared in the twelfth century of the Hijra (the eighteenth century of the Common Era); he was al-Shaikh al-Islam, al-Imam the Renewer (Al-Mujaddid) Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and he appeared in Arabia when it was steeped in ignorance and practicing greater and lesser kinds of polytheistic practices (shirk).”

But what did Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab teach and what is being taught to our children today across the Islamic world and indeed, even in the West? One of the most important lessons in these text books is expressed through the concept of Al-Walaa' Wa Al-Bara (which essentially means showing loyalty towards Wahhabi Muslims and bearing enmity towards everybody else).

Let me again quote from this chapter of Teaching Islam; “The hostility toward the outsider expressed through Al-Walaa' Wa Al-Bara has a history, and the recipients of Wahhabi enmity shift over time. For example, David Commins (2002) shows that the duty to bear enmity was used to rally resentment against the Ottoman Turks in the 1880s. In contemporary Saudi Tawhid schoolbooks, the objects of enmity range from Jews, non-Wahhabi Muslims to Western civilization in general. In the 'eight grade Tawhid text, for example, the concept is presented as showing love and friendship to right-thinking Muslims and enmity toward (or breaking off relations with) those who disagree with correct faith. The tenth-grade (Tawhid textbook uses its chapter on "showing loyalty and bearing enmity to name the outsiders, delineating the thoughts and actions that separate the believers from their enemies. …

“The textbook used in 2002 explains that anyone who practices non-conformist thought or action among Muslims should not only be corrected but also despised. Non-Muslims are not to be befriended or tolerated; nor can they be simply ignored. They are to be hated. "It is a law of Tawhid that one should show loyalty to the Unitarian (Muwahhid, Wahhabi) Muslim and bear enmity toward his polytheist (Sufi, Non-Muslim) enemies," says the text.

Only God is your Wali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow. And whoever takes God and His Apostle and those who believe for a guardian, then surely they are the party of God and shall triumph. (Quran 5:55-56)

You shall not find a people who believe in God and the last day befriending those who act in opposition to God and his Messenger, even though they were their own fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk. (Quran 58:22).

“Additional proof texts (evidence from Quranic verse or Hadith to prove a point) refer to specific events during the Mecca wars but are presented without historical context to show that disassociation between Muslims and non-Muslims is a universal and eternal condition set forth by God (10b: 109-110).10 "The place of Al-Walaa` Wa Al-Baraa` has great standing in Islam," the lesson says, "as the Prophet said: 'The strongest bond of belief is loving what God loves and hating what God hates,' and with these two one gains the loyalty [Wilaayya] of God" (10b: 110). The lesson elevates enmity for the sake of God above the pillars of Islam: "[T]he Prophet said: 'Whoever loves for the sake of God and hates for the sake of God and shows loyalty for the sake of God and enmity for the sake of God, he will achieve the loyalty of God by that, and unless he does so, no worshipper will ever find the taste of faith even if he is excessive in prayer or fasting — (10b: 110).

“Who are the polytheist enemies against whom the monotheist Muslim must bear enmity? To MIAW (Abdul Wahhab), polytheist enemies were other Muslims, especially the Ottoman Turks, Shi`a, Sufis, and anyone who wore amulets or practiced magic. The school text specifies new ways to become an enemy, explaining why Muslims must be alert to show hostility toward the offender. Student should recognize hypocrisy (al-Mudaahana) when they see it. If a person socializes with moral deviants but thinks himself immune to their 'deviancy, he's being hypocritical, and by not breaking off relations with them and showing them hatred he is showing disloyalty to God (10b: 111). The poof text is the story of Abraham, who broke off from those who did, not believe in the one God but instead worshipped idols."11

“In the Fiqh and Hadith texts, imitating the Kuffar (unbelievers) is presented as morally corrupting. Women who dress like foreigners, for example, invite temptation and corruption, so the fabric of Muslim women's dress must be thick enough not to show any skin and wide enough to conceal the contours of the body, and the face must be covered to protect her personality. Imitating the Kuffar is an insult to God because Muslims are supposed to love what God loves and hate what God hates. If a Muslim joins in holiday celebrations with the Kuffar or shares with them their joys and sorrows, he is showing them loyalty (10b: 118). To say Id Mubarak happy holiday) to the Kuffar is as bad as worshipping the cross; it's a worse sin against God than offering a toast with liquor; it's worse than suicide and) worse than having forbidden sex (Artikab Al-Farj Al-Haram); and many people do it without realizing what they have done (10b: 118).

“Imitating the Kuffar by using the calendrical designation "A.D." instead of the Hijra year is another problem, because A.D. evokes the date of Jesus' birth and shows an affinity with unbelievers. At Christmas time, Muslims are not to dress like the Kuffar or exchange gifts or attend a feast or display ornaments. The holidays of the Kuffar should be like any other day for Muslim. As Ibn Taimiyya said, "Agreeing with the Ahl al-kitab (People of the Book) on things that are not in our religion and that are not the customs of our ancestors is corruption. By avoiding these things, you cease supporting them." Some even say, the lesson warns, that if you perform a ritual slaughter on their day, it's as if you slaughtered a pig.

“The textbooks evoke the past as a warning for the present. A section of the chapter called "Judgment About Making Use of the Kuffar in Employment and Fighting and Things Like That" quotes Ibn Taimiyya  as saying, "Knowledgeable people know that the protected people among the Jews and Christians (ahl dhimma min Yahood wa Nasara) wrote to people of their own religion giving secret information about the Muslims" (10b: 119). The principle is to not to cooperate with or trust the Kuffar:

 "O you who believe! Do not take for intimate friends those other than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still" (Quran 3:118).

“One should not employ an unbeliever if there is a Muslim who can do the job, and if they're not needed, one should never hire them because the Kuffar can never be trusted (10b: 121). Nor should a Muslim accept employment from an unbeliever, for a Muslim should never be in a position of subservience to the Kuffar, who would surely show him disrespect. Nor should he be put in a position requiring him to deny his religion.

“A Muslim should not live permanently among Kuffar because his faith will be compromised and that is why God required Muslims to migrate from a land of unbelief (Bilad al-Kufr) to a land of belief (Bilad Al-Islam). As for those who would rather work for the Kuffar and live among them, this is - the same as showing loyalty to them and agreeing with them. This is apostasy from Islam. And whether one were there out of greed or for comfort, even were he to hate their religion and protect his own, it is not allowed. Beware of the worst punishment. (10b: 121)

“The chapter warns against music, laughter, and singing, the proscription of which, under the Al Sa`ud-led nineteenth-century commentators to liken the Wahhabis to Calvinists. Proscriptions on joyous behaviours, according to the text, are meant to encourage Muslims to invest all their being in thoughts of God and not expend energy in frivolous activities. However, the significance of such proscriptions shifts to contemporary concerns about the new enemy, the cultural invasion from the West. The "worst kind of imitating the Kuffar" is becoming so preoccupied with the unimportant things the Kuffar have promoted in their own societies that Muslims neglect to remember God and to do good works, for God says: "Oh you who believe! Let not your wealth, or your children, diverts you from the remembrance of God" (Quran 63:9; 10b: 124). The lesson explains that the Kuffar assign value to unimportant things because, absent religious faith, their lives are empty.

“What are these unimportant things? First, there are the performing arts, such as singing and playing instruments, dancing, and theatre and cinema, which are visited-by people who are lost from the truth. Then, there are the fine arts (Al-Funun Al-Jamila), such as painting, drawing, and sculpture. (Despite the prohibition on art, some schools in the kingdom do offer art classes.) Then there are sports, which are sometimes more important to youth than remembering God and obeying him; sports cause youth to miss prayers and ignore school and household obligations. Whether such behaviours are permitted or not, the Muslim nation today should save its energy for dealing with challenges from its enemies: "Muslims have no time to waste on insignificant activities" (10b: 124-125).

“Forbidding celebrations of birthdays, especially the birthday of the Prophet, and prohibitions against fine and performing arts are all part of the modern fabric and the historical legacy of Wahhabi culture.”It’s hostility to any human practice that would excite the imagination or bolster creativity," says (Dr. Khaled Abou) El Fadl (2003), is "perhaps the most stultifying, and even deadly, characteristic of Wahhabism." Anything that suggests a step toward creativity," he says, "constitutes a step toward Kufr [infidelity]."

URL: http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/sultan-shahin,-editor,-new-age-islam/the-international-community-must-actively-address-the-menace-of-jihadism-and-its-phony-interpretation-of-islam,-urges-sultan-shahin-in-the-un-human-rights-council-in-its-25th-session/d/56177

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   236


  • you can find answers to many of the issues that are being debated on 'new age islam' on answering-islam.org/
    By think - 5/30/2014 2:26:20 AM



  • "If India has to improve it should be ruled by a dictator as honest and upright as Hadrat Umar"  Mahatma Gandhi


    By Mahatma Gandhi - 5/7/2014 1:26:45 AM



  • America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

    Barack Obama


    By Barack Obama - 5/7/2014 12:37:51 AM



  • jab ke tujh bin nahi koi maujood
    phir achha ya bura kiya hai
    jab ki har shai men hai tu maijood
    phir shaitan or khuda kiya hai

    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/29/2014 2:56:59 AM



  • Jab ke tujh bin nahin koi maujood
    Phir yeh hungama aih Khuda kya hai

    Haan bhala kar tera bhala hoga
    Aur darwesh ki sada kya hai

    By Observer - 4/28/2014 9:06:06 AM



  • http://strayreflections.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/ghamidi-sahib-and-tasawwuf/
    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/27/2014 11:07:00 PM



  • A comment from www.yanabi.com
    "Ghamidi is a two bit conniving super Jahil tareen secularised wahabised zionised 'enlightened moderatised' uber munafiq blaspheming boot licking clown of a ghayr muqallid who must be given 'Super Mubtadi of the Year' award for his incredible innovations against Islam. Its good to see that these pseudo Sunday night TV scholars like ghamidi and dr israr getting exposed one after the other.

    Any idea of the TV show where he made such comments - I remember hearing about one of his early 'lectures' where he shamelessly attacked the prime Scholars of the Umma including great individuals such as Maulana Rumi, Imam Ghazali and even Mujaddid Alif Thani !!!!!!!

    I can't believe I used to be a fan of this clown a few years waaaaay back when I was in search of answers. It was only when I came across his views against Greats such as Imam Ghazali(ra) and Maylana Rum(ra) that I dropped the blaggart like a piece of a hot dung biscuit and never looked back since."


    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/27/2014 11:03:33 PM



  • I hope this book review will contribute to the ongoing debate:

     

    Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Sunni Series in Islam) 

     

    Alexander D. Knysh (Author)

     

    Review By Rumi Fan - Published on Amazon.com

    This is an incredible piece of scholarship. Professor Knysh, a Russian scholar of Islam, demonstrates his mastery of the vast literature of Islam in various languages including Arabic, Turkish, German, French, and Russian. This is the first major account of the intellectual battles raging on in the Middle East between two opposing giants: the school of Ibn Arabi and the school of Ibn Taymiyya. However, to be fair, it is mostly concerned with the scholarly attacks led by Ibn Taymiyya against the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud of Ibn Arabi. What makes this account so fascinating is the survey of the political and intellectual environment of Medieval Damascus, and Egypt.

    It is clear from Professor Knysh's analysis how important the ulama and Islamic religious institutions were for Muslim Sultans, rulers, and princes. In particular, it highlights the intricate, and complex relationship between the Mamluk state and the religious scholars of Islam. The 13th century was a watershed moment in Islamic political history with the Mongol devastation in the central Muslim lands and the continuous Christian Crusades into the Levant. While it seemed that Muslim civilization was on the brink of collapse from these two assaults, along come the Mamluks of Damascus and Egypt who boldly stopped the Mongol advance in Palestine in the famous battle of Ayn Jalut, near present day Galilea. The role of the stalwart Mamluks is well known to people of the Middle East. However, what is often overlooked in the patronage and funding that the Mamluks provided to Islamic learning and to Islamic scholars. This is witnessed by the huge number of Sufi lodges and madrasas supported and funded by Mamluk princes and rulers. Scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Arabi, al-Dhahabi, and Ibn Atallah were some of the major scholars who owed their support to the Mamluk rulers of that time, though the relationship with Ibn Taymiyya is complicated by the persecution he faced by his opponents.

    Knyshs' contribution to this important time period is to lay out a narrative which demonstrates the critique of some of the theological views of Ibn Arabi by Ibn Taymiyya and his ideological supporters. He traces how the critique developed and who the central partisans were. It is clear from Professor Knysh's analysis that Ibn Taymiyya was not anti-tasawwuf or Sufism. Many opponents of tasawwuf today use Ibn Taymiyya as a sword in discrediting Sufism and undermining its legitimacy in Islam. However, this view is misplaced given that Ibn Taymiyya commended many aspects of Sufi practice and also praised many Sufi leaders and thinkers. Ibn Taymiyya's main problem was the central cosmological worldview of Ibn Arabi's wahdat al-wujud which is often referred to as Islamic "monism." This view essentially argues that God is the only true reality while everything thing else he creates is temporary and unreal.

    By Qurban Ali - 4/25/2014 9:45:56 AM



  • Sufism "exposed" by an ex Sufi, Javed Ghamidi. Please do not skip. Comment after listening.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1WuajwNIKw 
    By Mubashir - 4/25/2014 8:07:58 AM



  • Dear readers
    i have posted a page from:
    To call ALLAH Omnipresent and Omniscient is against faith (Na’uzubillah). [Jila-ul-A’yoon, Vol#2, Pg#85 – Published Lahore]



    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/25/2014 3:42:31 AM



  • 20:5
    Nobody has given the alternative commentary on this verse. Forget about the literal meaning of the verse. what is the context and where it is?
    why Imam Sarhindi Mujtahid who was considered Sufi by Devbandis and Brailvis alike rejected the wahdat ul wujood?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/25/2014 2:58:15 AM



  • mr Zahid Hussein - 4/24/2014 7:43:46 AM
    No, I am not. i am waiting for the response of mr Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi.
    My questions to you and Shameem Raza  what makes a man Mushrik? Why the Shirk is zulmun Azeem. How does it harm the God? Why the Allah determined not to forgive mushriks but rapists, murders, fasadis etc?
    From the same Quran accompanied with ahadith some Muslims derive wahdat ul wajood and others wahdat us shahood. they made their own Madahibs and followers of them fought with each other.
    Sufis talk about hulool in divinity others about ittehad in divinity hence were called gumrah because there is no hulool or ittehad in the Quran.
    Neither i am wahabi in my approach to this or that world nor Sufi. In my view both sections are committing Ghulu in beliefs and practices. One being literalistic and other liberal to take any meaning even contradicting to the Quran.
    When the God is everywhere and in everyone where is the question of hulool or ittehad?
    forget about wahabism let us concentrate on Sufism. Do Sufis have some secret knowledge handed down by the Allah and his prophet in their dreams?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/24/2014 10:36:18 PM



  • Shameem Raza saheb - 4/24/2014 6:38:22 AM
    which wahabi was behind the fatwa of kufr against the Mansoor Hallaj? didn't your imam sarhindi show the same characteristic of wahabism?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 4/24/2014 10:35:39 PM



  • Rational, what is ur take on Shamim's comment? Are now speechless?
    By Zahid Hussein - 4/24/2014 7:43:46 AM



  • @Rational yunus

    For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California. Here are excerpts from FRONTLINE's interviews with Mai Yamani, an anthropologist who studies Saudi society; Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism; Maher Hathout, spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California; and Ahmed Ali, a Shi'a Muslim from Saudi Arabia. (Also see the Links and Readings section of this site for more analyses of Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia.)

    Ahmed Ali

    a Shi'a Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia

    If you go to school in Saudi Arabia, what do you learn about people who are not followers of Wahhabi, of the prophet?

    The religious curriculum in Saudi Arabia teaches you that people are basically two sides: Salafis [Wahhabis], who are the winners, the chosen ones, who will go to heaven, and the rest. The rest are Muslims and Christians and Jews and others.

    studentsThey are either kafirs, who are deniers of God, or mushrak, putting gods next to God, or enervators, that's the lightest one. The enervators of religion who are they call the Sunni Muslims who ... for instance, celebrate Prophet Mohammed's birthday, and do some stuff that is not accepted by Salafis.

    And all of these people are not accepted by Salafi as Muslims. As I said, "claimant to Islam." And all of these people are supposed to be hated, to be persecuted, even killed. And we have several clergy -- not one Salafi clergy -- who have said that against the Shi'a and against the other Muslims. And they have done it in Algeria, in Afghanistan. This is the same ideology. They just have the same opportunity. They did it in Algeria and Afghanistan, and now New York. ...

    What do you mean, it reached New York?

    Well, when it was a local problem, the American media did not really care much about it. But until September 11, you saw how this faith of hate, I call it, did to all of us, to New Yorkers and to the rest of the world, honestly. ...

    But the Saudi government has condemned what happened on September 11....

    ... Yes, Prince Nayif condemned bin Laden, and other princes... Prince Turki condemned bin Laden. They did not condemn that message. They condemned bin Laden. ... Bin Laden learned this in Saudi Arabia. He didn't learn it in the moon. That message that Bin Laden received, it still is taught in Saudi Arabia. And if bin Laden dies, and this policy or curriculum stays, we will have other bin Ladens. ...

    Can you show me an example of what the [religious teaching is in the schools?

    Well, here, this is a book, hadif, for ninth grade. Hadif is a statement of Prophet Mohammed. This is a book that start for ninth graders. This is talking about the victory of Muslims over Jews. This is a hadif that I truly believe it's not true, as a Muslim:

    "The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that." This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.

    In middle schools...

    In middle schools, yes. Official middle schools. This is a book printed by Saudi government Ministry of Education. (Ed. Note:read some excerpts from these textbooks.)

    Mai Yamani

    an anthropologist specializing in Saudi society

    ... When the Saudi government came to power in 1932, it tried to get rid of these various different groups, or ethnic groups or beliefs, and unify it all into one?

    Actually, yes. ... [into] the Wahhabi Islamic thought... They regarded it as much purer because it's more fundamentalist, much more conservative than the people who are like in the south, the people in Mecca, who had more mystical religious trends, such as the Sufi trend, which is very mystical.

    So the state religion in Saudi Arabia is this pure, stricter form of Islam

    Yes. ...

    And we're told by people we've interviewed that it's the nature of this thought, its fundamentalist nature, that can be easily manipulated, so that people would, for example, become violent or extremist.

    I think that the new mood, the new trend, especially after the Gulf War, has become for all these neo-Wahhabis ... [is to use] Islam ... as a platform for political ideas and activities, using Islam to legitimize political, economic, social behavior. These people have been brought up in a country where Islam legitimizes everything. And they have used the teachings from the religious establishment, but became more political in expressing dissent and criticism of the regime.

    And it's been exported. To Pakistan, through systems of madrassas and throughout the Islamic world.

    And it has been exported, yes, indeed.

    We are told that it's this form of fundamentalist religion represented by this Wahhabi-influenced Islamic, if you will, ideology, or view, that has created, if you will, a seedbed for people to become violent, to become anti-American, and to do the kinds of things that we call "extremism" now. Is that true?

    I don't think it has to do with Islam. I don't think it has to do with any form of this ... Islamic interpretation. ... Of course there is a problem with dogma. But I think the problem lies with the political systems that use religion. ...

    There's been a politicization of Islam. You've said it. But bin Laden, and his, if you will, similar people, are using Islam to promote political goals.

    Yes.

    They base this on a dogmatic interpretation of the religion itself, black and white. Is the base of support that they are gaining a result of this proliferation of this view of Islam? ... Wahhabism is what I am talking about. ... Is there a relationship between that and this development that we see of bin Laden and his movement?

    Probably there would be a relation between an interpretation of Islam that lacks tolerance, and is a more narrow vision of the world. But particularly the problem is about the political systems that promote this type of interpretation of religion. This gives people the excuse, the platform, to go ahead and express themselves in Islamic language to suit their purpose of political ends

     

    vali nasr

    an authority on Islamic fundamentalism

    ... Saudi Arabia has its own particular interpretation of Islam which is very legalistic, is very austere, it's very black-and-white.

    [Wahhabism is] sort of an extreme orthodoxy that historically has not been shared by a majority of Muslims, particularly nobody outside of the Arabian Peninsula.

    Is there a connection between the fundamentalism of the Taliban and the fundamentalism of the Wahhabi?

    The connection has been growing very, very strong in the past 20 years, and particularly in the past ten years. The dominant school of Islam with which the Taliban associate -- which is known as the Deobandi school -- is very prominent in Afghanistan and also in wide areas of Pakistan. Northern India has increasingly gravitated toward Wahhabi teaching, and has very, very strong organizational ties with various Wahhabi religious leaders.

    When we saw the Taliban destroy the Buddhist statues and other artifacts in Afghanistan, is that similar to a Wahhabi view?

    Yes, yes. Because Wahhabis don't believe in tombstones, don't believe in images being acceptable, don't believe in statues. They believe all of these are forms of polytheism. A majority of Muslims don't share that degree of literal reading of religious texts or banning of these kinds of reflections. ...

    And the Wahhabis dominate in Saudi Arabia?

    The Wahhabis dominate in Saudi Arabia, with also significant influence and presence in United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait. ..

    The nature of these Islamic beliefs, you're saying, foster fundamentalist extremism?

    The teachings are fundamentalist in the definition you have in mind. The question is who's going to cross the line and engage in violent acts or not. So you see, recruitment into terrorist movements is small generally.

    There's a big swamp out there of people.

    Right, yes. And what we're confronting is not just flushing out Al Qaeda. The bigger headache for the U.S. government is dealing with the Muslim world as a whole, with the political ramifications of our counterattack. That's the bigger problem. ...

    Maher Hathout

    a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California

    But what is the creed of Islam that is preached in Saudi Arabia? What is it called?

    Well, the word "creed" is important because the creed of Islam is the same: the belief in one God, the belief in the oneness of his message, the oneness of the human family. And the devotion to God should be expressed in human rights, good manners, and mercy, peace, justice, and freedom. No two Muslims will argue about this creed. It is documented in the Koran as the highest authority, modeled by the authentic teaching of the prophet, and the authenticity has always been subject of study and debate.

    studentsSo the creed is crystal clear. But the interpretation or the way you approach life, which should be a dynamic thing, should change from time to time. When you freeze it at a certain period or at a certain interpretation, problems happen. I know that people called it Wahhabism; I don't subscribe to the term. [Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab] at his time was considered a progressive person.

    If you freeze things at his time -- which was the eighteenth century, or the late part of the seventeenth century, I don't remember the dates exactly -- it becomes very stagnant and very literalist. And a very straitjacketed puritan approach that does not cater to the changeables and the dynamics of life. People call this Wahhabism.

    Saudis, by the way, never say, "We are Wahhabis." They say, "We are just Muslims." But they follow the teachings, and the major booklets taught in all schools are the books of Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab. Anyone who's subscribing to someone else is not very much welcomed.

    So there's a quote in the [New York Times] article that we were looking at before that basically says that Saudi Arabians believe that their form of Islam ... is the real true form of Islam, and that pretty much any other kind of way of practicing Islam is wrong.

    Yes. This is probably some of the Saudi scholars. ... They are playing the role of clergy; there should be no church in Islam. There should be no theological hierarchy. But they acquired that position and, of course, them and the ruling family are very close. After all, Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab is the one who paved the road for Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the patriarch of the family, to conquer the rest of the [Arabian] Peninsula and to rule. So there is very great cohesiveness between the two.

    And so they believe that that's it, this is the truth. And not only that that is it, it does not change, which is very problematic. Because we know that even at the early history of Islam, as new issues emerged, new jurisprudence was created to suit the change of the time and age. That's early on, at probably 25 years after the death of the prophet, peace be upon him.

    So they, that group of people, believe that this is the only form and it does not change. This of course creates major problems, and it creates some kind of schizophrenic situation. ... I don't think that Wahhabism ... will condone or accept lots of things that are done by some of the elite of Saudi Arabia who come to Las Vegas and have fun and do this and do that. And we don't hear a very strong voice exposing this or condemning them for that. But if they see a woman driving a car, they consider this a major sin. There is confusion here.

    We wanted to actually protect Islam from that very narrow tunnel-visioned look that will make it irrelevant, will marginalize Islam as one of the shaping factors of human civilization, as it has always been. Once you are irrelevant to the civilization of the time and age, you can have your own cocoon and say whatever you want. But who cares?

    home · introduction · interviews · analyses · haroun fazul · chronology

    discussion · links & readings · reporting from the new york times

    tapes & transcripts · credits · privacy policy · FRONTLINE · pbs online · wgbh

    photo copyright © afp/corbis

    web site copyright 1995-2014 WGBH educational foundation


    By Shameem Raza - 4/24/2014 6:38:22 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content