By Sultan Shahin, New Age Islam
October 10, 2016
Fifteen years after 9/11, the scourge of
violent Islamist extremism has become even more complex and deadly. The
alacrity with which 30,000 Muslims from around the world joined the so-called
Islamic State’s war against humanity has puzzled many. How could a peaceful,
pluralistic religion be subverted so easily to create inhuman monsters?
Among many factors, social, economic,
political, psychological, the one common feature is a brainwashing of
vulnerable people on the basis of a supremacist, xenophobic, intolerant,
exclusivist and totalitarian Jihadi theology. This is a blatant misuse of
Islam, a spiritual path to salvation, that 1.6 billion Muslims believe, teaches
peace, pluralism, co-existence and good neighbourliness.
there has to be a reason why jihadi ideology has gained acceptance so quickly;
why fatwas issued by reputed moderate scholars prove so ineffective? How are
Jihadis able to create a 100 percent certainty in the minds of some Muslims
that violence against innocent people, including Muslims, whom they consider infidel,
will please God and lead them to heaven?
Clearly we Muslims need to rethink some basic
features of our theology. Success of jihadism lies in the fact that, at its
core, the jihadi theology is not very different from the consensus theology of
all other schools of Islamic thought. For instance, jihadists are able to
misuse the intolerant, xenophobic, war-time verses of the holy Quran, as
Muslims believe that all verses, regardless of the context, are of universal
applicability. Indeed, the Islamic theology of consensus, taught in all madrasas,
says that Quran is uncreated, meaning that it is just an aspect of God; and so,
divine like God Himself.
The corollary is that no verse of the Quran
can be questioned in terms of its universality and applicability. Indeed, that
any Muslim who tries to do so is committing blasphemy and deserves no less than
death. Quran on earth is said to be just a copy of the one lying safe in a
divine vault in Heaven called Lauh-e-Mahfooz.
This is completely irrational. Suppose
Meccan elite had not responded to Islam’s message of equality with violence and
persecution, leading to Prophet Mohammad fleeing to Madina. There would have
been no battles in Prophet’s lifetime and no war-time verses would have been
required. How can these verses then acquire universal applicability and eternal
Not only that. There is also a
near-consensus in Islamic theology around the so-called Doctrine of Abrogation
whereby all peaceful, pluralistic Meccan verses, at least 124, are considered
abrogated by the later confrontational Medinan verses. This is most damaging
for Islam and useful for jihadism.
How do Islamic theologians reconcile the
uncreatedness of Quran, its total, unquestionable divinity, with the Doctrine
of Abrogation is beyond a rational person’s understanding. This is a belief
with hardly any basis in Quran. It evolved hundreds of years after the demise
of the Prophet.
same is true of the divinity and universal applicability attached to Hadith,
the so-called sayings of the Prophet, and Sharia laws. Narrations of Hadith
were recorded decades and centuries after the Prophet passed away. Almost the
last verse of the Quran (5:3) says that God has now completed the religion of
Islam. How can we write books centuries after that and give them the status of
revealed literature? Yet, all ulema are agreed that Hadith is akin to
revelation. This is clearly the height of irrationality.
Similarly Sharia was first codified 120 years
after the demise of the Prophet, based on some verses of the Quran and Arab
practices of that era. This has been changing from country to country and age
to age. How can we Muslims be told, as
we are by a multitude of scholars, that it is a Muslim’s prime religious duty
to see that this Sharia is established in the world?
Wherever a Muslim turns, from al-Ghazali,
Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Abdul Wahhab, Sheikh Sarhindi, Shah Waliullah to Syed Qutb and
Maulana Maududi, he or she gets the same Islam-supremacist message.
us see what some of these learned ulema of yore, most revered by all schools of
thought, tell us:
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111): Considered the greatest of all Sufi theologians, and by many as
next only to Prophet Mohammad in his understanding of Islam:
“… one must go on
jihad at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims]
when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may
set fire to them and/or drown them… One must destroy their useless books.
Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide... Christians and Jews must
pay... on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the
official takes hold of his beard and hits on the protuberant bone beneath his
ear... they are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church
bells... their houses may not be higher than a Muslim’s, no matter how low that
is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only
if the saddle is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They
have to wear an identifying patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in
the baths ... dhimmis must hold their
tongue...” (Kitab Al-Wagiz FI Figh Madhad Al-Imam Al-Safi’i pp. 186, 190,
Imam Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328): Most revered Hanbali jurist and scholar among Wahhabi-Salafi
Muslims whose influence has recently grown immensely with the propagation of
his creed by the Saudi monarchy:
warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's
entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those
who stand in the way of this aim must be fought... As for the People of the
Book and the Zoroastrians, they are to be fought until they become Muslims or
pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the
others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tribute from them.
Most of them regard it as unlawful...”
(Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam
(Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1996), pp. 44-54).
Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): Indian Islamic scholar, Hanafi jurist, considered Mujaddid
alf-e-Saani, the renewer of Islam of the second millennium:
in India is the noblest of Islamic practices.”
“Kufr and Islam
are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense
of the other and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is
of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One, who respects kafirs,
dishonours the Muslims.”
purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that,
on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in
grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling".
Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.”
(Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi,
Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965),
pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His
Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec:
McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.)
Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762):
Highly revered Indian scholar, theologian, Muhaddis (Hadith expert) and jurist:
“It is the duty of
the prophet to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and
not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or
after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three categories. Lowly
kafir (unbelievers), have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting,
threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God
also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes
jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them…. He does not treat them
equal to Muslims in the matters of Qisas (Retaliation), Diyat (blood money),
marriage and government administration so that these restrictions should
ultimately force them to embrace Islam.” (Hujjatullahu al-Balighah, volume – 1,
Chapter- 69, Page No 289)
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792): Founder
of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed:
“Even if the
Muslims abstain from shirk (polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness
of God), their faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in
their action and speech against non-Muslims (which for him actually includes
all non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah
Abul A'la Maududi (1903–1979): Indian
ideologue, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami:
“Islam wishes to destroy all states and
governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology
and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it.
The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and
programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer
of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the
establishment of an ideological Islamic State. …
requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the
entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of
Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces
which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all
these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to
eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an
Islamic system of state rule.” (Jihad fil Islam).
Abdul Aleem Islahi, a Hyderabad-based scholar, justifies indiscriminate
violence in his fatwa on the concept of power in Islam. Let me quote a few
lines from the writings of this maulana who runs a girls’ madrasa in Hyderabad
and is known to have been an inspiration behind Indian Mujahedin:
“Let it be known that, according to Islamic
jurisprudence, fighting the infidels (kuffar) in their countries is a duty
(farz-e-kifayah) according to the consensus of ulema …
“… I can say with
full conviction that qital (killing, violence, armed struggle) to uphold the
kalimah (declaration of faith) has neither been called atrocity or
transgression nor has it been prohibited. Rather, qital has not only been
ordained for the purpose of upholding the kalimah but also stressed and
encouraged in the Book (Quran) and the Sunnah (Hadith). Muslims have indeed
been encouraged and motivated to engage in qital and they have been given good
tidings of rewards for this.”
“It is the duty (of Muslims) to struggle for
the domination of Islam over false religions and subdue and subjugate
ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk (infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it is the duty
of the Muslims to proselytise and invite people to Islam. The responsibility to
testify to the Truth and pronounce the Deen God has entrusted with the Muslims
cannot be fulfilled merely by preaching and proselytising. If it were so there
would be no need for the battles that were fought.
“Jihad has been made obligatory to make the
Deen (religion) dominate and to stop the centres of evil. Keeping in view the
importance of this task, the significance of jihad in the name of God has been
stressed in the Quran and Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have been
revealed to Muslims about fighting all the kuffar (infidels): “Unite and fight
the polytheists (mushriks) just as they put up a united front against you”
(Surah Tauba: 9:36)”.
[Excerpted and translated from Maulana Abdul
Aleem Islahi’s Urdu booklet "Taqat ka Istemal Quran ki Raoshni Main,"
‘The use of violence, in the light of the Qur’an’]
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (Born 1925), otherwise
a promoter of peace and pluralism, says the following:
"Efforts on the part of 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, kufr). (So) it was God’s decree that he
(Prophet Mohammad) 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 (shirk, kufr) were based on falsehood, but also of
resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for
[From Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book “Islam –
Creator of the Modern World,” re- printed in 2003].
It is ironic that even an indefatigable
promoter of peace and pluralism among Muslims has to concede on the basis of
commonly accepted Islamic jurisprudence that the Prophet’s job was to eradicate
unbelief from the world, even using military means. And if this is so, what
would stop Bin Ladens and Baghdadis of this world claiming that they are simply
carrying forward the Prophet’s unfinished mission?
The message from all these sermons is
clear. Islam must dominate the world and it is the duty of every Muslim to help
the process. Wherever a Muslim turns to he gets the same Islam-supremacist
message. The latest among the most authoritative books on Islamic theology is a
45-volume comprehensive Encyclopaedia of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). It was
prepared by scholars from all schools of thought, engaged by Ministry of Awqaf
& Islamic Affairs, Kuwait, over a period of half a century. Its Urdu
translation was released in Delhi by Vice-president Hamid Ansari on 23 October
This most influential book of Islamic
jurisprudence has a 23,000-word chapter on jihad. We moderate Muslims and Sufis
keep talking ad nauseum about struggle against one’s own nafs (lower self,
negative ego) being the real and greater jihad and qital (warfare) being rather
insignificant, lesser jihad. But except one sentence in the beginning, the
entire chapter talks entirely about the issues related with combating and
killing enemies, i.e. infidels,
polytheists or apostates, starting with the stark declaration: “Jihad means to
fight against the enemy.” There is no mention of real or greater jihad.
Then Ibn-e-Taimiyya is quoted to say: “… So
jihad is wajib (incumbent) as much as one’s capacity”. Then comes the final,
definitive definition: “Terminologically, jihad means to fight against a
non-zimmi unbeliever (kafir) after he rejects the call towards Islam, in order
to establish or raise high the words of Allah.” (Translated from original
It is not difficult for an intelligent,
educated Muslim to discover our hypocrisy. Clearly what is censured by us
moderates as radical Islamist theology is not substantially different from the
current Islamic theology accepted through a consensus by ulema of all schools
Late Osama bin Laden or his ideological
mentor Abdu’llāh Yūsuf ‘Azzām, now called father of global jihad, and his
present-day successor Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not invent a new theology. Their
use of consensual theology is what lies behind their great success in
attracting thousands of Muslim youth in such a short while. They will continue
to attract more and more youths until we mainstream Muslims realise our
hypocrisy and change course.
What are the ingredients of this
consensus theology that is leading to radicalisation of our educated youth? A
1. Following a literal reading of some
allegorical verses in Quran, far too many Muslims now regard God as an
implacable, anthropomorphic figure permanently at war with those who do not
believe in His uniqueness. This is a negation of the Sufi or Vedantic concept
of God as universal consciousness or universal intelligence radiating His grace
from every atom in the universe. Unfortunately, Sufi madrasas themselves have
abandoned, at least in the Indian sub-continent, the concept of wahdatul wajud
(unity of being) for fear that this would be considered too close to the
Vedantic and thus Hindu concept of God.
Instead they teach Sheikh Sirhindi’s
wahdatul shuhood (Apparentism, unity of appearances) in the name of wahdatul
wajud. Sheikh Sirhindi had invented this concept to counter the growing
influence of Sufi masters like Mohiyiddin Ibn-e-Arabi and Mansour al-Hallaj
during the reign of Emperor Akbar.
Most Sufi madrasas have thrown out from
their curriculum mystical books like Kashful Mahjub by Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh
Hijweri, Awarif-ul-Ma’arif by Shaykh Umar Shahabuddin Suhrawardi, Fawaidul
Fu’aad by Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia, Masnawi of Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi, Gulistan
and Bostan by Shaikh Sa’adi Shirazi, Si Asl by Mulla Sadra Shirazi, Fususul
Hikam by Shaikh Ibn ul Arabi, Life and teachings of great Sufis like Ghareeb
Nawaz Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti Ajmeri, Baba Fareed, Ameer Khusro etc.
Radical ideologues quote militant, xenophobic verses of Quran to support
offensive jihad. We moderates from Sufi stream of thought counter that by
saying: look at the context. These verses came during war and had to inevitably
order fighting, killings, offer rewards for martyrs and show intolerance
towards the manifest enemy. It’s not unusual in wars to make binary arguments.
the Muslim-Kafir binary inevitably emerged during wars. After all, most of the
war-time verses of Quran revealed in Medina, first permitting and then guiding
Muslims in the course of various wars were a response to the evolving
situation. But we do not take the argument of these war-time verses being
contextual in nature to its logical conclusion, which is, that these verses
have now become obsolete; they are no longer applicable to us today when that
context does not exist.
Not only that we do not call contextual verses of Quran obsolete, but we also
agree with the radicals that Quran is an uncreated attribute of God, with all
its verses, universally and eternally applicable to Muslims, without reference
to context. Every madrasa teaches that Quran is uncreated, divine, direct
speech of God, as if God were an anthropomorphic being. This totally defeats
our earlier argument that when dealing with Quranic exhortations, we should
look at the context. What context?
Quran is an uncreated attribute of God, immutable, eternal, merely a copy of
the original Quran lying in the ‘Heavenly Vault’ (Lauh-e-Mahfouz), then where
is the question of context? This makes it possible for militant ideologues to
tell our youth that even the militant, xenophobic, intolerant exhortations of
Quran that were revealed in the context of war, must be followed and
implemented, as there is no controversy about their applicability today in any
school of thought.
There is consensus in Islamic theology that Hadith, the so-called
sayings of Prophet Mohammad, are akin to revelation. These were collected up to
300 years after the demise of the Prophet. Rational Muslims doubt their
credibility and authenticity, but even ulema opposed to ISIS, cannot bring
themselves to question the Hadith-based millenarian thesis that is the primary
cause of ISIS’ great success in comparison to al-Qaeda which did not stress
couple of allegorical verses of Quran and predictions attributed to the Prophet
have been interpreted to mean that the world is about to end, and Islam is
about to be victorious following the end-time war being waged by ISIS, then
what is the point of working for corporates run by infidels? Why not join the
battle and become a martyr or ghazi just before the world ends? So goes the
of the permanent bestsellers in Delhi’s Urdu Bazaar is a booklet called
“Qeyamat ki peshingoiyan” (End-time Predictions). I imagine a similar booklet
selling on streets of Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Istanbul, wherever. Why should
ISIS not make good use of this belief, when it has the unquestioning support of
theologians of all schools of thought, including self-proclaimed moderates, who
call Hadith akin to revelation?
Ahadith are also used to justify the killing
of innocent civilians in a war, although there are repeated and clear
instructions in the Quran against that. But the moment you say Hadith is akin
to revelation, you are nullifying the impact of your Quranically justified
claim that in Islam killing of one innocent person amounts to killing of
Nearly all Muslims consider Sharia as divine and immutable, even though
it was first codified on the basis of some Quranic verses and pre-Islamic Arab
Bedouin customs 120 years after the demise of the Prophet and completion of the
religion of Islam as declared by God in Quran (5:3).
result is that even Muslims living in non-Muslim majority multicultural Europe
demand Sharia-compliant laws. No wonder that those who want to practice what
they believe in would want to migrate to the so-called Islamic State, sometimes
even with their families. Radicalised youth cannot be blamed for feeling that
the moderate Muslims, in India, for instance, are hypocrites. They want to use
their purported belief in the divinity of Sharia only for male-supremacist
privileges like instant divorce and multiple marriages, whereas the radicals
migrating to the so-called Islamic State are willing to accept all the rigours
of Sharia’s criminal justice system, namely, cutting off hands for theft,
lashes and stoning for adultery and murder, etc.
There is consensus in Islamic theology that helping establish and
supporting a caliphate is the religious duty of Muslims, even though there is
absolutely no such direction in the Quran. But those who believe in the Hadith
being akin to revelation are unable to dispute ISIS’ claim to legitimacy on the
basis of this Hadith: “Hazrat Huzaifa narrated that the Messenger of Allah
said: “Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate
(Khilafah) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as
Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain
as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will
remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once
again based on the precept of Prophethood." (Musnad Ahmed inb Hanbali).
Hijrat (migration) to the land of Islamic Sharia from Darul Harb where
Sharia is not enforced is a religious duty for Muslims. This may appear
grotesque at a time when millions of Muslims are marching to the so-called
European ‘Darul Harb’ almost barefoot in a desperate effort to escape from
so-called Darul Islam of Khalifa al-Baghdadi. The ‘Darul Islam’ of Saudi Arabia
has refused to give refuge to a single soul, while the European ‘Darul Harb’ is
accommodating millions of Muslims. But the ulema will not allow any part of
their theology to be questioned.
Theologians of all school believe that some early verses of Quran have
been abrogated and replaced by better and more appropriate later verses. This
consensual Doctrine of Abrogation is used by radical ideologues to claim all
124 foundational, constitutive, Meccan verses of peace, pluralism, co-existence
with other religious communities, compassion, kindness to neighbours, etc. have
been abrogated and replaced by later Medinan verses of war, xenophobia and
intolerance. As long as Sufi theologians do not contest this Doctrine of Abrogation,
their quoting verses from Meccan Quran has no meaning.
There is consensus among theologians of all schools of thought that
there is no freedom of religion for Muslims in Islam. Apostasy (irtidad or
riddah) has to be punished by death. The only dispute is whether the apostate
should be given the opportunity to seek forgiveness and revert to his earlier
position. With this core aspect of theology, how can Muslims confront terrorist
ideologues who order death for vast numbers of Muslims on ground of their
having turned apostate? In their eyes all those Muslims who are not with ISIS
and other such groups are apostates, particularly all Shia, Ahmadis, Yezidis,
etc. How can we prevent radicalisation of our youth unless we confront this
The problem is there is no consensus among Muslims as to who is a Muslim?
Justice Munir of the Commission of enquiry set up in Pakistan following
anti-Ahmadia riots in 1954 reported that no two ulema agreed on the definition
of a Muslim. Ideally, Quran should be our guide, according to which even Hazrat
Moosa or Moses, who surrendered to God, much before the advent of Prophet
Mohammad, was also a Muslim (Quran 10.90).
Allah informs us of Muslims who have converted
but ‘faith has not yet entered their hearts’ (Quran 49:14). And yet, Allah does
not prescribe any punishment for them, nor are they turned out of the fold of
Islam. This means that anyone who claims to believe in or surrender to God is a
Muslim. The least Muslims can do is to accept irja, the position of the murjias
(postponers), who said let us postpone judgement in matters of faith for the
Day of Judgement. Let us allow God to judge people on matters of faith. When we
humans do not know what lies in someone’s heart, who are we to punish someone for
what he believes in or not? A very rational position, but Muslims will need to
embrace rationality or Quran first.
The same is true of blasphemy. Consensual Islamic theology prescribes death for
the blasphemer, even on the flimsiest of accusations. Many Muslim countries
have anti-blasphemy laws, though the one that misuses them most is Pakistan.
Unfortunately, Sufi-minded Muslims are in the forefront of those who advocate
killing for blasphemy and some are even among the killers for blasphemy. How can
we fight ISIS ideology, if our own ideology is the same?
Clearly Islamic theology will have to be
rethought, and not just to defeat jihadism, but also to deal with many other
pressing issues including human rights of women, children, homosexuals, religious
minorities, atheists, etc.
(Sultan Shahin is founding editor
of a progressive Islamic website NewAgeIslam.com. This article is based on his
address to the UNHRC on September 26, 2016)
This article was first published on
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism
“For instance, jihadists are able to misuse the
intolerant, xenophobic, war-time verses of the holy Quran, as Muslims believe
that all verses, regardless of the context, are of universal applicability”
This is the paragraph that most caught my attention in
your article and caused my need to respond to you! What you said here is best
described by the American colloquialism, “Throwing the Baby out with the bath
Remember that the Ayats you are referring to come from
the Qur’an which is, if you are Muslim, the direct speech of Allah to
humankind. As Muslims we see Allah(swt) as omnipotent, all seeing and all wise.
In short Allah is infallible, thus his speech must be also be infallible. To describe the speech of Allah as intolerant
and xenophobic is to become like Al-Ghazali and others you describe that you
refer to below.
The Ayats you are describing are clear and to the
point. They urge us to fight those who have fought us, to drive them out of the
homes they have driven us out of; but if they offer us peace then leave them
alone. I do not see the intolerance or
xenophobia you proscribe to these Ayats.
The Qur’an is the furqan, the basis of all justification. What I think
you are missing here is the reality that the intolerance and xenophobia you
mention is the result of men mixing the words of men with the words of Allah
that causes Muslims to act out in ways that are unjustifiable. What has happened, in my opinion, is that we,
as Muslims, have done what the Yahudi and Nazara have done, we have displaced
the Word of Allah with the words of men.
You, yourself, will acknowledge this fact below!
“Indeed, the Islamic theology of consensus, taught
in all madrasas, says that Quran is uncreated, meaning that it is just an
aspect of God; and so, divine like God Himself “
One of the most tragic and absolutely insane episodes
among Muslims was the argument over whether the Qur’an was revealed or
created. What nonsense to spill blood
over! The Qur’an was delivered to us through the Messenger and is the direct
speech of Allah. In this Qur’an, in Surat Al Maida, Allah warns us not to
question the matters of religion too deeply or we will run into the same
complications and craziness the Yahudi did. Guess what we did, we created a
body of works and scholarship that surpasses anything the Children of Isra’il
did and it is destroying us!
“This is completely irrational. Suppose Meccan elite
had not responded to Islam’s message of equality with violence and persecution,
leading to Prophet Mohammad fleeing to Madina. There would have been no battles
in Prophet’s lifetime and no war-time verses would have been required. How can
these verses then acquire universal applicability and eternal value? “
Because we, as humankind, are universally the same
people that we were then. Just as brutal, just as murderous and just as unjust
as our ancestors. Nothing has changed except our technology, which by the way,
has enabled us to murder, pillage and destroy our neighbors much more
efficiently than before. And while the
Western Civilizations of Europe and America have in the last 150 years murdered
more of humankind than in all previous history (some 10k years) we as Muslims
appear to have gladly joined in with the orgy of mayhem and murder more so
among ourselves than against those outside our ranks.
“Not only that. There is also a near-consensus in
Islamic theology around the so-called Doctrine of Abrogation whereby all
peaceful, pluralistic Meccan verses, at least 124, are considered abrogated by
the later confrontational Medinan verses. This is most damaging for Islam and
useful for jihadism”
Now you are finally approaching rationality!! In the
first paragraph that I quoted from you, you where providing the ammunition from
which these scholars came up with this theory of Abrogation. Your classifying
verses from the Qur’an as intolerant and xenophobic provide the intellectual
fuel for fostering this “Doctrine of Abrogation”
fire of ignorance. Think about it, the only way that abrogation could work is
to establish the fallibility of Allah, thus the need to abrogate and correct
our God. Are you getting this? If Allah
is fallible, then the whole book comes into question as does our religion. I do not know about you, but I am not willing
to sacrifice my being to a god that can’t keep it straight in a book that is
supposed to be our “guidance without doubt”.
Do you realize what is wrong here? Allah said he perfected our religion
in this book. If my god cannot keep it straight in his book, then that god is
in doubt as well. So as a Muslim who
believes in Allah and his Messenger I cannot even dare to approach such a
dichotomy of faith. Allah is infallible and so is his speech, the Qur’an. If you disagree with that then just stop
reading here because we no longer have a basis for discussion. And may Allah give all of us guidance.
“How do Islamic theologians reconcile the
uncreatedness of Quran, its total, unquestionable divinity, with the Doctrine
of Abrogation is beyond a rational person’s understanding. This is a belief
with hardly any basis in Quran. It evolved hundreds of years after the demise
of the Prophet”
Yes, you are shining the light brother, Allahu
Akbar! This “Doctrine
of Abrogation” is the work of those who would displace
the words of Allah with their own words.
“The same is true of the divinity and universal
applicability attached to Hadith, the so-called sayings of the Prophet, and
Sharia laws. Narrations of Hadith were recorded decades and centuries after the
Prophet passed away. Almost the last verse of the Quran (5:3) says that God has
now completed the religion of Islam. How can we write books centuries after that
and give them the status of revealed literature? Yet, all ulema are agreed that
Hadith is akin to revelation. This is clearly the height of irrationality”
You are scaring me Brother, you are talking like you
know what has happened to us. Allah is clear on this point as well, where he
says “What? Do they need a book other than the word of Allah?) Allah points us
to the people of the book and points out that they threw their book behand
there back and acted like they didn’t know what Allah was talking about. He then warns those destined for the
punishment that the writing of their own book is the selling of their souls for
a miserable price.
Do you understand that neither of the people of the
book have their book? They threw it away or had it taken from them. In the case of Ban’ai Isra’il, they had their
book taken away from them for worshiping false gods. Allah ordered Nebuchadnezzar to take their Arc of the Covenant
containing their book away never to be seen again. What is called the Torah today is the
conglomeration of oral traditions put together by two opposing groups of scholars. The Nazara were split between two opposing
groups as well. The Trinitarians led by Athanasius and the Monotheists led by Arius.
Constantine sided with Athanasius and the Trinitarians and the Monotheists
Nazara where hunted down like dogs, crucified and otherwise murdered. All of the books of the Monotheist Nazara
where burned when found. Both the Nazara
and the Yahud rely on oral traditions provided by men and have gone through
many revisions. Why do I ramble on about this you ask? Because we have done the very same thing, we
have thrown the Book of Allah behind our backs like we do not know what it is
and instead follow our own set of Oral Tradtions. And in some circles those
Oral Traditions overrule the speech of Allah. Do you wonder why we have this
Jihadist philosophy? It is because we
place the words of ignorant men above the speech of Allah.
“Similarly Sharia was first codified 120 years after
the demise of the Prophet, based on some verses of the Quran and Arab practices
of that era. This has been changing from country to country and age to
age. How can we Muslims be told, as we are by a multitude of scholars,
that it is a Muslim’s prime religious duty to see that this Sharia is
established in the world”
Are you talking about ‘Imam al Shafi’i” or of the
Mutazilites? Both represent a sad misleading of us off the path. But alas, we
followed then and are responsible as well.
“ Wherever a Muslim turns, from al-Ghazali, Ibn-e-Taimiyya,
Abdul Wahhab, Sheikh Sarhindi, Shah Waliullah to Syed Qutb and Maulana Maududi,
he or she gets the same Islam-supremacist message. “
Islam is the supreme way of life for humankind. There
is no getting around that if you believe what Allah, through his Messenger, has
delivered to us the Qur’an. But being the correct and supreme way of life
(religion) does not give us the right to impose our faith on anyone else. Allah is clear on this point in many places.
I suggest you read Fatiha, then read Al-Baqarah. They are tightly tied to each other. As the Muslims, we are supposed to be the
light that illuminates the path to success.
We should hope and desire to lead the Nazara, Yahud, Hindi and all those
others that are astray onto the correct path by our example. If we attempt to force others onto the path
we can only do so by leaving the path and becoming gatekeepers driving them
away with our arrogance.
What I say here is from myself with my understanding
of the Speech of Allah. If I misspeak here it is only because of my error and
not that of Allah.
delayed is justice denied” This statement is true in the case of Naseer, who
was recently freed by court after 23 years. Do you remember his words after
getting out of under-trial prison? He told that he was a living corpse. You can
imagine his mental agony and torture he tolerated and his trust upon judiciary
Indian police who had framed him to get accolades from RSS minded people.
Anyway, my point was that the Bhopal jail under-trials even could not get that
chance as they too might have come out of charges after 23 years, but they were
killed brutally in an apparent fake encounter.
asked, “Does this court delay is happening to Muslims only?”
not! This delay is not caused to the Muslims only, but there is a large chunk
of poor Indians who are the victims of delayed justice. However, who cares? Our
previous CJI had wept in a judicial programme while discussing the matter of
shortage of judges in Supreme Court, but who listens?
right. The committed Muslims are trying to play a constructive role, but on the
other hand, the uncommitted Muslims are busy in garnering financial, social
support for their political gain by using the illiterate, innocent Muslims.
These are the petty Muslim politician or the majority leaders who have made the
Muslim population a vote bank, and they are playing victim-game or blame-game
whatsoever suits to them. Even our PM projects himself as the great savior of
Muslim women from the oppressive clutches of triple talaq under whose
government, Muslim women were killed brutally, wombs torn apart and the
undelivered human kids were hung upon the spears.
You can imagine
which way Indian society is heading under BJP rule, what good the police, court
or bureaucrats can deliver to the Indian Muslim community.
suggestion: “Write some good done by Hindus to Muslim rather than constantly
focus on Muslim victim”. I whole-heartedly, appreciate and feel obliged to my
Hindu brothers, sisters, teachers and students above all. What I am today, and
there are Billions like me, is due to my Indian proud society and composite
culture, which has attributed fully to our growth, no doubt.
I dislike and write against is purely because
of selfish, corrupt, heartless and money-minded people only, I never mean those
peaceful people who are very close to my heart even more than our community people
support Sharia law in some cases and think that the instant capital punishment is
a must for the rapist and killers in any country.
Aayina: Thanks for giving the perfect examples of lawlessness, political vendetta prevailing in the country under RSS rule. My point is the judicial system that has some logic behind it. What is wrong if the affected family accepts the blood money? It will help them in future, if they don't agree, even a royal prince is killed for Islamic justice, it is Shariya Law.
I gave example of fresh fake encounters that is happening in the greatest democracy. Is it justice? Have you asked a question any time to yourself?
Why the Muslim under-trials only escape from the jail?
Later on, they are killed and some weapons are planted, proofs are destroyed before the forensic team reaches.
This type of law and order you appreciate where Babri Masjid detainee is released innocent after 23 years.
The present government has ruined the Indian judicial system and they are using it to their political gain.
That's my point whether you like it or not. Thanks!