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