Waseem Rizvi’s Challenge an Opportunity for Ulema To Proclaim the Inapplicability of These 26-War-Time Verses of Quran For Muslims Today
By Sultan Shahin,
Founder-Editor, New Age Islam
18 March 2021
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.
---
(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).
Allah said: “but transgress not
the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.”
This Ayah (verse) means, `Fight
for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing
prohibitions.
Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression
(indicated by the verse), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the
captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate
in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down
trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of
Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Jihad involves killing and
shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing
disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from
His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing.
(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are
committing is much worse than killing.
(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.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also
Read: Waseem Rizvi's Petition against the
Quran: Muslims Should Adopt Abdul Muttalib’s Attitude
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/sultan-shahin-waseem-rizvi-quran/d/124572
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women
in Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab
Women, Women
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism