GGS,T Thisis what the article says:
“O clerics of JeM! Come out of the
intoxication of Mr. Maududi’s narratives of ‘Jihad’ and try to understand Islam
in its spirit. Your Maulana Maududi’s writings are full of blasphemous writings
and you should do more home work to understand Islam. So come out of such
blasphemous writings and seek tauba for what you have been so far, and stop
brainwashing the Kashmiri or any other Indian Muslims.”
Is it not better and more effective If
you replace it with:
O clerics of JeM! Heed your own Maulana Maududi
who refused to issue the fatwa of Jihad for the wars your country fought over
Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965 and called these unIslamic and deceptive because
these were not preceded by talks, giving a time bound ultimatum and then
declaring war. He also went to jail for his principled stand on the charge of “sedition”
and did not budge even when the death sentence was pronounced on him. He also
said that it is not for Maulanas to declare Jihad but only for the ruler. Do
not trap idealistic youth into your dirty agenda of carrying out treacherous,
cowardly and deceptive acts of terrorism and falsely describing them as Jihad. You
do not have Islam’s mandate to declare Jihad. You are a criminal who is defaming Islam by your
cowardly and dastardly acts and punishable as per verse 5:33 .
sb insisted that “Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only
a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world” (Quoted in
insisted that “the objective of the Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of a
non-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam
does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few
countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution” (Quoted
in Laqueur, 398)
Islam's Relationship With The Rest Of The Word - The
Current Problem Of Extremism In A False Ideology And The Antidote From An
Authentic Understanding Of The Truly Humanistic Message Of The Quran
Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology
Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting
to Fight the Growing Trend of Young People Succumbing To the Lure of “Jihad”?
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan On Jihad VersusTerrorism - Part
1: The Four Principle Of ‘Jihad As War’
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan on Jihad versus Terrorism - Part
2: Refutation of the Excuses or Justifications Offered By the Terrorist Groups
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan on Jihad versus Terrorism - Part
3: The Purpose of Jihad
Excellent work – tables a compelling refutation of JeM’s fatwa on the strength of the Qur’an – and also
cites relevant ahadith to support its arguments. It traces the progress of the
Qur’anic revelation to demonstrate two vital points: The Qur’an authorized armed
struggle (under jihad) only towards its concluding phase when all peaceful
gestures, covenants and peace treaty failed to stop hostilities and 2. that any
individual or group of individual, are not authorized to mount an armed struggle
under the banner of jihad which can only be authorized by a head of state (such
as through a declaration of war or an ultimatum to use force to defend against) .
I fully endorse the
author’s remark: “terror ideologues are using Islamic titles and
appearances to misguide the youth in the name of the religion. As religious
guides it becomes their regular primary duty to ideologically defeat the terror
narratives. They should consistently engage in ideological struggle against
terrorism through their sermons, lectures in Madrasas, mosques and all other
Also agreed that “Indian Ulama should issue fatwas
against terror narratives, refuting them point by point.”
The article is weak because it has
several serious errors such as:
1. It says:“fighting
even in self-defence was forbidden in Makkah and initially in Madina too”.
There is no verse that says “do not fight” or “fighting is forbidden”. It is therefore
factually incorrect to say that fighting was forbidden.
2. It says:
“The Quranic verses which directly or indirectly debarred Muslims, in the
initial period, from waging Jihad by fighting even in self-defence are 23:96,
5:13, 73:10, 16:82, 88:21-22, 50:45.”
question then arises ‘why didn’t the verses continue to debar Muslims from
fighting later’? Were they abrogated? If they were abrogated, then they remain abrogated.
If it is our choice to ignore those verses and heed the verses on war, then
that is exactly what the extremists are doing. The correct position is that
these verses continued to apply to the Muslims who remained in Mecca and did
not migrate. It is the war verses that did not apply to them. These verses also
were applicable to the Mushrikin with whom there was no war for example those in
Medina. The command to fight was to fight those who fight you and not every
3. The article says: “The objective for fighting
was Muslims in Makkah were subjected to all sorts of indignities and
objective for fighting is clearly enunciated by the Quran as:
who fight you for no other reason except that you follow your religion
b) Those who have driven you out of your houses
and the Sacred Mosque in defiance of right. The sacred mosque was a sanctuary
for every worshiper and violence within its precincts was considered the
greatest wrong by the Pagan Arabs themselves and yet they killed Muslims with
justification in the Quran does not extend beyond the stated reasons. To extend
the justification to every wrong and every indignity suffered, is to strengthen
the argument of the extremists who also believe that such wrongs and
indignities are suffered by the people at the hands of the security forces.
4. When Maulana Maududi enjoyed great popularity and was for all
practical purposes the “Maulana of the State of Pakistan”, and when what he
said can be used against them, why spoil
the argument by criticising him? Why not use what he said instead? Where we
disagree with him is not the issue here. By attacking their most popular
Maulana, the article unnecessarily becomes a sectarian attack and can be
dismissed as such. Always avoid a strong argument turning into a sectarian
argument. The fact is that even if you consider all the “Wahhabi” writings of
Abdul Wahhab, Maulana Maududi, Dr Israr Ahmed etc., none of them support war by
non-state actors. Where is the need then to turn this into a sectarian debate? The
fact is that Maulana Maududi would never have approved Pakistan becoming a
party to aiding the “Mujahideen” fighting against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, which marks the beginning of using non-state actors as a political
tool. While he was vocal and went to jail on charges of “sedition” and even the
death sentence was pronounced on him for refusing the fatwa of Jihad for the undeclared
war that Pakistan fought with India in 1965, the rest of the Ulema in Pakistan chose
to remain silent. In the fight against terrorism, what Maududi said is useful,
and not the silence of the remaining Ulema of Pakistan.
we differ with Maududi is on his position that Islam should become politically
dominant and every person must either be a Muslim or come under Muslim rule.
For them to achieve that, he advocates war, but only preceded by negotiations
failing which declaring intent to wage war and time-frame of ultimatum,
followed by declaration of war. If they
are foolish enough to try any such thing, it will give us the legal right to annex
Pakistan and make it part of India.
Watanparasti means worship of country and
watanmuhabbat means love to the country.
There is huge difference between worship and love.
In Islam you can love the Prophets, Aulia of Allah but you cannot worship them.
Worship is alone for One God Almighty.
To be honest to deal with your question, Islam, in
many ways, demands its followers to love the country and if necessary die for
the country but it does not allow them to worship the country.
The term ittehad (unity) is misunderstood even
among some modern scholars. If you go back just one or two hundred years ago,
the situation of India was completely different. This term was used to create
or mean ittehad or unity, sometimes in different fundamental beliefs and
sometimes in different derivative religious issues.
To understand this concept, please take an example.
Halal (permitted acts) and haram (forbidden acts) of Islam can’t make unity as
both are completely different from each other. As per the secular norms, the
people of doing permitted acts and the people of doing forbidden acts can
coexist with one another but these secular norms too can’t force anyone to make
bort Halal and Haram acts as a single unit to render that both are permitted in
Now the term ittehad is broadly required to be used
at various levels; social, cultural, national, secular, etc.
For example, in India people of different religions
live peacefully, it does not mean they have unity (ittehad) in their religious
beliefs. Christians are following their own doctrines. Muslims are with their
own beliefs and doctrines. Hindus are with their own beliefs. Limited to their
respective religions and beliefs, all these Indians live peacefully. Living
peacefully falls within national interest and it is in this sense they all are and
should be united and this sort of unity or ittehad is not forbidden in Islam.
Hope you understand
The Principles of War from the Quran