Another Unpardonable Silence of Indian Ulema: New Age Islam Refuting So-Called Islamic Resistance Council’s Ideology; IRC Reportedly Attempted to Attack a Hindu Temple and Called for Jihad against India
The Members
Affiliated With Islamic Resistance Council Must Stop Misleading Muslim Youth and
Turn Away From the Wrong Path
Main
Points
1. Mangaluru
Attack is not legal under Islamic Shariah
2. Unlawfulness
of Attacking a temple or any other places of worship in Islam
3. Jihadist
groups including those affiliated with so-called ‘Islamic Resistance Council’
have no authority to declare jihad against India
4. India is
currently a democratic nation that accords both Muslims and non-Muslims
religious liberties and rights; hence it is not a land of war [Darul Harb].
......
By
New Age Islam Staff Writer
10 December
2022
Islamic
Resistance Council
-------
One would
have thought that our Ulama-e-Karam would fall like a ton of bricks on
the so-called Islamic Resistance Council for misusing and misinterpreting
Verses of Quran to call for Jihad against India. But there is complete silence
on the part of Ulema as usual. I am reminded of a statement made by the
so-called Khalifa Baghdadi of Islamic State who had said that "Islam has
never been a religion of peace, not even for a day; it has always been a
religion of conflict of war." This statement had been repeated verbatim by
some Indian Muslim youth who had gone to Syria and joined the so-called Islamic
State. On both these occasions, though these statements had been widely
reported in the media, our Ulama had maintained complete and inexplicable
silence.
According
to reports, the Islamic Resistance Council (IRC) has claimed responsibility for
the Mangaluru explosion on November 19 by stating in a message shared on social
media that one of its ‘Mujahid brothers, Mohammed Shariq, attempted to attack a
“Hindutva Temple in Kadri (in Dakshina Kannada district), a bastion of the
Saffron terrorists in Mangaluru”.
"Although
this operation didn't meet its objectives, we still consider it a success from
a tradecraft and tactics point of view as the brother in spite of being wanted
and being pursued by the state and central intelligence agencies, was not only
able to successfully evade them but even prepared and mounted an attack,” the
message said.
It further
said, “We would like to answer those who ask “why have you attacked?” it is
because we have been forced into this war and the path of resistance by the
Fascists and we are only responding to the worst forms of state terrorism. We
are only retaliating because an open war has been declared upon us because Mob
Lynching has become a norm, because oppressive laws and legislations are passed
to suppress us and interfere in our Religion, because our innocents are
languishing in prisons, because public spaces today reverberate with calls of
our genocide, and because as Muslims we have been commanded to wage Jihad when
faced with mischief and oppression”.
To justify
its objective, IRC has quoted a verse of the Quran, “Permission to fight has
been granted to those against whom war is being waged wrongfully because they
were wronged” (Quran: 22:39)
After
evaluating the substance of the message submitted via IRC on social media,
there are a few questions that need to be answered, and I must do so. The first
question is whether this attack is legal under Islamic Shariah, as claimed by
the so-called IRC. Is attacking the temple legal in Islam? Is it allowed for
IRC members to declare jihad? Another concern is how Muslims in India should
seek justice when they are subjected to injustice and situations like mob
lynching, among other things. Should the Muslims join together to fight a war
in response to this circumstance, or should they continue to appeal to the
Indian police administration and courts for justice? Another question is
whether, in the present context, India is Darul Aman (the Land of Peace)
or Darul Harb (the Land of War).
The answers
to all of these questions can be found by replying to just one of the
interconnected questions. However, we will address each query to make things
easier for the general public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore,
it is true that a tiny number of people have engaged in mob lynching in recent
years in an effort to sabotage India's peace and togetherness, forward their
evil objectives, and damage the country as a whole. But patriotic Indians
condemned such events. Of course, in order to protect the country, we must
denounce such abuses. We should resolve these issues amicably because they are
our problems. This circumstance, however, cannot be utilized to support
"the Mangaluru Blast." India is our country, and its problems are our
problems. We know how to address our problems, and we are always aware that
using violence to solve problems is never the best course of action.
The
authority to "declare Jihad" against hostile combatants belongs alone
to the ruler of an Islamic state, according to Islamic legal texts. No other
person or group is permitted to do the same. Ordinary Muslims are not permitted
to declare jihad on their own. Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi, who is regarded
as the founder of militancy in the Indian subcontinent and a person who
influenced the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly Syed Qutb, is
also one of the proponents of this concept. Syed Maududi had refused to
describe Pakistani incursion in Jammu and Kashmir after Independence as Jihad.
He was sentenced to death for being a traitor to Islam and Pakistan. But he stuck to his view that Jihad cannot be
fought by stealth but it will have to be declared and can only be declared by a
State, that too after cutting all ties and revoking all treaties with the
country against which Jihad has to be declared.
The Grand
Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Dr. Shawki Ibrahim Allam, responds to the question of
"Who Has The Right To Call For Jihad and Declare War?”,
“According
to Islamic law, a Muslim ruler alone has the authority to declare and conduct
war...The Muslim ruler declares war only after consulting specialists in every
relevant field such as technical and military specialists and political
consultants who are indispensable to military strategy. The luminary al-Bahutī
said in Sharh Muntahā al-Iradāt: ―It is prohibited to [launch an] attack
without the ruler's permission because he is responsible for making the
decision of declaring war.”
This
assertion unequivocally rejects the jihadist mind set of IRC which has no ruler
accepted by Indian Muslims.
According
to Dr. Shawki Allam, Islamic states must uphold the agreements and treaties
they have voluntarily acknowledged and signed. They must also work steadfastly
with the rest of the world's nations to achieve international peace and
security, but [only] to the extent of the commitment of the signatory
countries. God says: “O you who believe, fulfil [all] contracts” [5:1]
In the
commentary of the above verse, Dr. Shawki Allam says, “the term 'contract'
refers to all commitments between two parties on a particular issue. In his
interpretation of the above verse, the erudite Tunisian scholar, ibn 'Ashur
says: “Contracts in this verse refers to one of a genus denoting the totality
[of contracts]. It includes covenants that Muslims made with their Lord such as
to follow the Shari’ah … pacts of allegiance between the believers and the
prophet [pbuh], not to associate partners with God, steal, or commit
fornication … agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims … and agreements
between one Muslim and another" [Al-Tahriir wa al-Tanwīr, 6/74].” (Dr.
Shawki Allam, The Ideological Battlefield, Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta Combats
Radicalization, Jihad: Concept, history, and Contemporary Application, p.7-24)
After
reading the aforementioned words, it is crucial to understand that Indian
Muslims have vowed to uphold the peace and integrity of their country and to
always be prepared for the protection and survival of their country under the
Indian Constitution. They are aware that, no matter how severely some wicked
elements in their country persecute them, the only way they can end the
oppression is by using the judicial system. When it comes to persecution, it's
crucial to understand that Muslims occasionally persecute other Muslims, sometimes
fabricate accusations against other Muslims, and occasionally even murder other
Muslims. Yes, in such scenarios, the victim is forced to turn to the legal
system, and occasionally he receives justice, but occasionally, because of
corruption, he is forced to struggle to obtain it. He must have patience if he
does not receive justice since it works to his advantage. This kind of
persecution is not unique to India; it happens everywhere in the world,
including Muslim-majority countries. In many Muslim countries, non-Muslims are
likewise oppressed and have their privileges taken away. These problems can
only be resolved through the judicial system. Anyone who claims to execute
justice on their own is a criminal and susceptible to punishment in the eyes of
Islamic law too.
After
considering all of these aspects, the IRC members should change their minds,
return to the right path, and stop further misleading the Muslim youth because
their acts may generate difficulty for the country, especially for the Muslims
in a wake of retaliation. The only group that will be harmed more than everyone
else in this situation is the Muslim community. In conclusion, the IRC approach
may lead to Muslims' own destruction. Therefore, they should stop misleading
the Muslim youth. Aside from that, I genuinely hope they won't succeed in
influencing Indian Muslims because Indian Muslims have rejected the ideologies
of well-known terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Is India
A Land of Peace [Darul Aman], A land where Islam is freely practiced [Darul
Islam], or a Land of War [Darul Harb]?
Both Darul
Islam and Darul Harb are jurisprudential terms (Fiqhi Istilahat)
which were originally coined by the jurists of the early period of Islam but to
deal with national transactions (Mua’amlaat) and relations (Ta’lluqaat)
required by the then circumstances of the world. However, the conditions
(Sharai’t) laid down by those jurists for land to become Darul Islam or Darul
Harb revolved around what we simply describe in modern times as ‘basic
religious rights, such as freedom of faith and rituals (‘Ibadat)’. The land
which granted such religious rights was declared ‘Darul Islam’, whereas
the land which banned the basic requirements of Islam was treated as Darul
Harb.
The most
common mistake of nearly all the radical groups is about the concept of Darul
Harb and Darul Islam. Ideologues of the jihadist movement contend that Islam
must predominate as a state religion and that Islamic law must be upheld on a
national scale in order for a nation to become Darul Islam. They believe that
Darul Harb is a land that does not recognize Islam as the state religion and
does not let Islam rule the land.
This
jihadist definition is completely wrong and vehemently conflicts with how both
terms are typically used among the mainstream Ulama and scholars. Traditionally
speaking, regardless of whether the land has a majority of Muslims or
non-Muslims, the term "Darul Islam" refers to a place that
grants fundamental religious rights to Islam. In other words, the term
describes a land where Islam is freely practiced. In this case, it is not
necessary for Islam to be practiced as the state religion. A land that banned
fundamental religious rights of Islam, such as freedom of worship and religious
rites was known as Darul Harb.
The
following quotes from the classical and traditional body of Islamic law
completely disagree with the jihadist definitions of Darul Islam and Darul
Harb, arguing that India is a land of peace and that no group has the right to
proclaim jihad against India.
In
accordance with traditional and classical scholarship, the countries that
provide 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
practiced].
For
example, Abul Hasan al-Mawardi, the Iraqi judge and scholar of Muslim polity
and law says:
"The
public acts of worship of Islam such as group prayers in mosques and calls for
prayers are the criteria by which the Prophet (peace be upon him)
differentiated between the Darul Islam [the Land of belief] and the Darul
Harb [the Land of Disbelief]."
Imam
Nawawi, a popular classical Syrian scholar supports al-Mawardi’s definition of
Darul Islam and writes in his great legal work ‘Rawda al-Talibin’:
“If a
Muslim is able to declare his Islam openly and living therein (non-Muslim
majority countries), it is better for him to do so, because this fulfils the
criteria for a country to be Darul Islam”
The corpus
of Hanafis, Shafiis, Malikis, and Hanbalis obviously suggests that the open
practice of Islamic acts such as ritual prayers, annual fast, call to prayers
[azan], etc. are sufficient for the land to be considered Darul Islam even if
it is a non-Muslim majority country. For example, the Shafi'i position is based
on a Sunna (as narrated in a hadith) that fighting or Jihad should not take
place in a region where the call to prayer (azan) is heard, as the free
practice of Islam indicates that the land, in general, was not hostile to
Muslims and Islam.
Imam
Bukhari and Imam Muslim report a hadith in this regard:
“Whenever
Allah’s Apostle attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was
dawn. If he heard the Azan [the call to prayer], he would delay the fight, and
if he did not hear the Azan, he would attack them immediately after dawn”
(Sahih Bukhari)
Imam Nawawi
interprets this hadith: This hadith is evidence that verily the call to prayer
[azan] forbids invading a people of that area and this is evidence of their
Islam.
We have
also checked the opinions of the influential Indian jurists and scholars who
are followed as pioneers by Indian Muslims including Sunni-Sufis or Barelvis,
Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadithis, and Salafis. Without going through their opinions in
detail, it is better and time-saving to see the conclusions of their detailed
discussions respectively as follows;
In 1881, a
person namely Mirza Ali Baig Badayuni sent a questionnaire consisting of three
questions to Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi, the first of which was: Is India
Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam?
In response
to this questionnaire, Imam Ahmad Raza wrote a pamphlet namely "E’laamul
A’alam Bianna Hindustan Dar-ul-Islam" which was first published by Hasani
Press Bareilly in form of a treatise in 1927 and later included in “Fatawa
Razviyya”, a collection of his Fatawa.
The fatwa
begins with the following words:
“India is Dar-ul-Islam, not Dar-ul-Harb at all. This is based on the
jurisprudential school (Mazhab) of our great Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah bless
him and grant him peace)” (Fatawa Razviyya, vol.14)
Maulana
Amjad Ali Azmi, a very trustworthy and close spiritual caliph (Sufi Khalifa) of
Imam Ahmad Raza also issued a similar fatwa in response to a question posed in
a later period as follows;
“India is
Darul Islam. It is a grave mistake to call it Dar-ul-Harb” (Fatawa Amjadiyya,
Vol. 3, published and printed by Dairatul Ma’arif al-Amjadiyya, Ghosi,
Maunathbhanjan, UP)
According
to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, a pioneer in the Deobandi School of Thought,
India is not Dar-ul-Harb but Dar-ul-Islam. He writes;
“Generally,
the meaning of Dar-ul-Harb is mistakenly understood that it is the place
where war is obligatory; then in this sense, India is not Dar-ul-Harb,
because war is not valid under the terms of the treaty” (Ashrafia, Ashrafia
Publishing House, Bhoon Police Station, Saharanpur District)
He further
writes: “And India is not Darul Harb also according to the Sahibayn (Imam Muhammad
and Imam Abu Yusuf, the two great students of Imam Abu Hanifa), because
although the rules of polytheism are practiced in it, the rules of Islam are
also practiced without fear and danger. That both types of rules and practices
freely exist in one land or one country does not make the country ‘Darul Harb’.
Similarly, India is not Darul Harb as per the criteria and words of Imam Abu
Hanifa” (Tahzeer al-Ikhwan, Maulana Thanwi, printed by Ashraf al-Matabi’,
Thaana Bhawan, Saharanpur, UP)
In the
biography of the Salafi Ghair-Muqallid cleric and Muhaddith (hadith scholar),
Maulana Nazeer Hussain Bihari (d. 1902), the biographer Maulana Fazle Hussain
Bihari (d. 1916) writes;
“He
(Maulana Nazeer Hussain Bihari) never called India Dar-ul-Harb” (Fazl-e-Hussain,
Al-Hayat Baad al-Maut, printed by Al-Kitab International Muradi Road, Batla
House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi)
The founder
of the Markazi Khilafat Committee (1919), Maulana Abdul Baari Firangi Mahali
Lakhnawi (d.1926) writes:
“We declare
India Darul Islam” (Maktoob Maulana Abdul Baari Firangi Mahali, printed by Akhbar-e-Mashriq,
Gorakhpur)
The
above-mentioned religious leaders and pioneers of Indian Muslims declared India
to be Darul Islam under the condition that Muslims were free to exercise their
religious rituals, including prayer (Namaz/Salah), the call to prayer (Azaan),
Eid prayers, and annual fasts.
These
Indian jurists and authorities did not stipulate that Islam must be a state
religion for a country to become Darul Islam, in adherence to the early Islamic
jurists. This means that if a country grants fundamental religious freedoms,
regardless of whether or not Islam serves as the official religion of that
country, that country is Darul Islam and not Darul Harb.
India is
currently a democratic nation that accords both Muslims and non-Muslims
religious liberties and rights. It is not a land of war [Darul Harb]. Thus, the
jihadist ideologues, especially those connected to the mysterious group known
as the "Islamic Resistance Council," have no authority to declare
their purported "Jihad" against India. It is time they must stop
misleading the Muslim youth and turn away from the disastrous path they have.
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