Wrong Interpretation of the Doctrines of Khilafat, Jihad and Dawah the Root Cause of Extremism and Terrorism
By New Age Islam Staff Writer
17 July 2023
Ibn Taimiyyah, Hasan Al Banna And Syed Qutb Are The
Exponents Of Islamism
Main Points:
1.
They declared
Khilafat the only mode of government for Islam.
1.
2.Rigid explanation
of Dawah gave way to intolerance.
2.
Jihad was made
mandatory against non-Muslims.
3.
Militant groups were
supported by some modern Islamic exegetes and jurists.
-----
The rise of Islamism and Jihadism in the 20th century was
the result of the modern interpretation of Quranic verses by some modern
Islamic exegetes and jurists. They interpreted the verses of the Quran in the
light of modern political developments and adopted an intolerant and
exclusivist approach towards non-Muslims. Their exclusivist approach considered
even the People of the Book Kafirs (non-believers) on the basis of political
and historical confrontation not on the basis of the verses of the Quran.
Since Muslims had faced confrontation with the People of the
Book in some periods of history, they were considered the enemies of the
Muslims for all times to come. They ignored the verses that say that a section
of the Jews and Christians are on the right path and are not hostile to the
Muslims. In the present global political set up, Christian majority countries
protest against the persecution of Muslims in China, Palestine, Afghanistan and
Iran along with Islamic nations whereas some Islamic nations defend and support
China, Israel and other non-Muslim countries against persecuted Muslims.
This aspect of the global political scenario is ignored the
extremist Islamic jurists and exegetes. They promoted and preached jihadism and
thus supported and glorified terrorist and militant organisations that attack
civilians and non-combatant Muslims and non-Muslims including children. To
justify their terrorist attacks, they quote famous Islamic scholars and muftis
of the 10th or twelfth century. They ignore the fact that the modern world has
its own problems and circumstances which need to be seen and understood in a
different way.
The 10th or 12th century society, especially the Muslim
society of Arab was a tribal society. Today's global society is a civilised and
urbanised society where one religious and cultural community is compelled to
live in harmony to survive as a community. They cannot live in isolation with
their exclusivist and supremacist ideas. But ironically, some Islamic exegetes
and jurists have promoted the tribal approach of the tenth century Arab to
solving the problems of 20th or 21st century world.
During the life of the prophet of Islam, jihad meant a war under
the prophet against the political or religious opponents. Under the four
caliphs, jihad meant a war against the political or religious opponents under
the leadership or command of the caliph. The Kharijites were considered rebels
against Islam and the fourth caliph fought a decisive battle against them but
today, the Kharijites are defended and glorified as the holy warriors and their
violence is considered as jihad by some respected and popular Islamic scholars.
Today, modern scholars like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan are of
the opinion that jihad can only be fought under the command of the authorised
head of a state, not by a disgruntled group active in mountains and jungles.
But the modern exegetes legitimised such disgruntled groups active in mountains
and forests attacking civilians blindly on the basis of some incidents from the
life of the prophet.
One such incident was related to Abu Busair who had fled
from Makkah to Madina after the Hudaibiya Pact. One of the conditions of the
pact was that if a Muslim from Makkah escapes to Madina, he will be sent back
to Makkah but if a polytheist of Madina escapes to Makkah, he will not be sent
back to Madina.
Therefore, two men from Makkah came to the prophet and
reminded him of the pact. The prophet pbuh asked Abu Busair to go back to
Makkah. Abu Busair went back with the two men of Makkah but killed one of them
on the way and came back to Madina. The man of Makkah came back to the prophet
pbuh and told him of Abu Busair's act and again asked him to return Abu Busair.
The prophet pbuh again told him to go to Makkah. But Abu Busair left Madina and
started living in the jungle on the way through which traders of Makkah went to
Syria or other countries for trade. When other Muslims heard about Abu Busair's
revolt, they also left Makkah and joined Abu Busair. Their number increased and
they formed a militant group. They attacked caravans of Makkans and looted
their belongings or killed them in vengeance. This group and their actions have
been defended by some Islamic scholars and became the basis of the
justification of similar militant groups active in the 20th and 21st century.
Abu Busair's group and his activities were not approved by the prophet pbuh.
Similarly, the militant groups active in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir,
Nigeria, Sudan, Philippines, Syria and Afghanistan are like Abu Busair's group
not approved by the Quran and the prophet pbuh still the modern Islamists
defend and glorify such groups.
Khilafat is another concept that has been misinterpreted by
Islamic exegetes like Shah Waliullah and some modern exegetes. Shah Waliullah
belonged to the early 18th century India. He had received his Islamic education
in Makkah and Madina which was then parts of Hijaz. Democracy as a theory of
governance had not developed much. Kingdoms or caliphates were the popular
forms of government. Shah Waliullah ,therefore, took the word Khalifa in the
Quran in literal sense and presented the doctrine that only Khilafat was the
prescribed form of government in Islam. That the early government of Islam was
called Khilafat and the early rulers were called Khalifas strengthened
that belief. This belief was propagated so widely and so vehemently that the
Muslims all over the world started to believe that only Khilafat is the
prescribed form of government. It was also believed that once a Khilafat is
established, God's blessings will descend on the country and all the problems
of the Muslims will be solved. But this belief of the Muslims was proved wrong
in 2014 when ISIS established its so called caliphate under Abu Bakr al
Baghdadi. The caliphate had its downfall within a year and was completely wiped
out in two years.
These scholars who consider democracy, an idea of the West
are unaware of the fact that democracy is in fact an idea of Greece and that
even the spirit of Islam is democratic. Amruhum Shura Baynahum is the
principle of democracy presented by the Quran. The early caliphates of Islam
observed democratic principles later adopted by the West and developed as a
political theory. The early caliphate of Madina was a theocratic democracy. The
terrorist organisations like ISIS and Taliban operate on this wrong concept of
caliphate and wage war against democratic Islamic governments. Unfortunately, a
section of Islamic scholars defend and justify the violence and bloodshed
committed by such organisations.
The idea of Dawah has also been misinterpreted by extremist
scholars. The Quran prescribes Amr Bil Maruf Wa Nahi An Al Munkar (Advising
good and forbidding evil) as a social duty of the Muslims. The social
responsibility of the Muslims is to spread the word of God and fight against
evil, injustice, corruption, persecution, inequality, untouchability in a
peaceful manner. The Quran on a number of occasions advises Muslims not to
speak ill of others or get into confrontation on religious or social issues
until provoked or compelled. The Quran asks Muslims to observe restraint in the
face of provocation and not to behave as the policemen. God says on a number of
occasions in the Quran that the Muslims should not adopt violent means to
proselytise others. But on the contrary, some exegetes and scholars have spread
the idea of forceful conversion in the name of Dawah. This idea is the cause of
unrest, anxiety and violence in the society. The Quran 's prescription of
interfaith dialogue has been ignored and violence in the name of Islam has been
institutionalised.
-------
Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on
Terror
By Mary Habeck
February 15, 2006
I'm not going to talk about Islam generally. Instead I'll
talk about Islamism and Jihadism today.
The Islamic world initially tried to adopt Western ideas to
achieve modernization, but a small minority wanted a native solution; these are
the Islamists. The wars of 1967 and 1973 provided impetus for Islamism. Today
it has the support of 15-20% of Muslims, as opposed to 2-4% decades ago.
Islamism is not waning. A minority of Islamists believe that Islam and
democracy are compatible. The majority believe, however, that political power must
be based solely on Islam.
Jihadism is an extreme version of Islamism. Less than one
percent of Islamists are jihadists. The jihadist ideology holds that they are
the only true believers. The rest of world is made up of hostile unbelievers
whose sole purpose is the destruction of Islam. These people are thus worthy of
attack.
The jihadists agree with fact that Islam requires political
power and should run the state, but they believe that the faithful cannot wait
for ideological change, but must use violence to create the Caliphate, which
will maintain the struggle against unbelievers.
It is important to understand how jihadists subvert the
tenets of Islam, specifically Tawhid, jihad, Da’wa, and ideas about
governance.
In traditional Islam, Tawhid is the three main tenets
of Islam: There is only one God; he has no partners; anyone who worships
another god is sinning and will be judged by God.
Jihadists take the idea that God has no partners to mean
that any secular ruler is taking God's role by making laws and is therefore an
idolater who must be killed. This idea makes liberalism a false religion.
In traditional Islam, jihad generally refers to fighting,
both internal and external. It is similar to the Western concept of just war.
Jihad is both an individual and communal duty, and in the latter sense, a
matter of state. The idea originally was that at least once a year Muslims had
to serve communally to spread just laws around the world. But by the 19 th
century, the idea of jihad as war was lost, and the idea of jihad as fighting
survived only in the sense of self-defense.
Jihadists define jihad as an individual duty for all
Muslims. Because Islam is under attack, all must respond. Jihad cannot be a
communal duty, a matter of state, until a legitimate Islamist state exists.
First, believers must fight off attackers and then they can switch to offense.
Traditional Islam allows many correct forms of governance,
but holds that laws in a Muslim country should be inspired by Islam. This can
be loosely interpreted, however, to mean that laws are moral. Private and
family law should be inspired by Islam, but modern Islam sees private life and
government as separate matters. Most Muslims do not want a return of the
Caliphate.
Jihadists claim that the only correct form of governance is
the Caliphate, led by a Caliph. No one is clear on who the caliph should be or
how one gains the title. The Caliphate is ruled by Shari’a law, in both public
and private life, with no popular elections or legislature. The land governed
by this Caliphate includes any area that has ever been subjected Islamic law,
which includes all of Russia, China, parts of France, Spain, plus all of the
Middle East. The Caliphate's foreign policy is eternal jihad.
In traditional Islam, Da’wa means the original call to Islam
from Muhammad. Today, it means to engage in missionary work to convert unbelievers
or simply to lead a pious life and hope that this attracts converts.
Jihadists believe that Da’wa must be given anew to convince
other Muslims to become jihadists against the apostate rulers, the occupiers,
and the unbelieving world. If you do not answer the call, you can be justly
killed.
Jihadism's main war is with other Muslims. Ideologically, it
says that Da’wa is used to convert other Muslims. Politically, it aims to
create a Caliphate and implement Islamic law. This requires overthrowing apostate
regimes. Militarily, it says that true believers must fight Muslims who
actively oppose jihadism or support the unbelievers. This means attacking
liberal and secular Muslims, Sufis, Shi'a and others.
There is then a war being fought over what is authentic
Islam. The moderates are losing. The Jihadists proselytize and moderates do
not, so they are being shouted and intimidated off the stage.
The problem jihadists have is how to prioritize enemies.
There is an argument over whether to focus on the near or far enemy, and who
the near enemy is. Most jihadist groups focus on the near enemy. Al-Qaeda was
unique in its idea that one should target the “greater unbelief” first, meaning
the far enemy and particularly the United States and Britain, the centres of liberalism.
They take this idea from Ibn Tamiyya and Sayyid Qutb.
Most jihadists do not buy into this and continue to focus on
their near enemy. Their war plans mirror the Sira, the life of Muhammad. First
is Mecca: the creation of a vanguard of true believers. Second is Hijra:
migration to safety and securing the land. Third is Medina: creating an Islamic
state, jihad in the form of both defence and offense, conquest, and winning
allies.
Jihadism has three major ideologues, Muhammad ibn Abd
al-Wahhab, Hassan al-Banna, and Sayyid Qutb.
Al-Wahhab lived during eighteenth century in what is now
Saudi Arabia and Iraq. A theologian, he blamed the fraying of the Ottoman
Empire on retreat from true Islam. He redefined Tawhid, saying it allowed
Muslims to kill non-believers – holding that judgment of nonbelievers need not
be left to God.
Al-Banna, an Egyptian, founded the Muslim Brotherhood in
1928 as an ideological party to struggle against the British occupation. He
preached jihad as violent struggle against the occupiers, but targeted the new
apostate Egyptian regime once the British left.
Qutb became the Brotherhood's main ideologue after Banna's
assassination in 1949. He was radicalized by a trip to the United States, which
he found revolting. He merged the teaching of Wahhab and Banna and identified
the United States and Britain as the main enemies.
Today the progeny of these beliefs focus on various enemies.
Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine, like the jihadists in Chechnya ,
attacks the occupiers. Egyptian Islamic Jihad killed the apostate leader Sadat,
but little changed. This failure affected tactics. Egypt's Jamaat al Islamiya
targets tourists, as does Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia . Al Qaeda focused on
the United States, at least until September 11.
Why the United States? Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's
leadership thought that landing a stunning blow against the United States would
cause it to retreat from Muslim lands. The original goal, despite what some
terrorists say today, was not to suck United States into a war of attrition.
Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has struggled to come up with a new grand strategy.
The loss of Afghanistan was unexpected. Nor was the invasion
of Iraq expected, except perhaps by Zarqawi. Iraq is seen as danger if
democracy succeeds, but also an opportunity if it fails.
If Al Qaeda could hit the United States today, they would.
They are not waiting.
Mary Habeck is Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at
the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University . A historian,
Habeck has written on Soviet and German armour doctrine after World War I, the
Spanish Civil War, and Islamic ideology. This talk is drawn from her book:
Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror.
-----
Mary Habeck is Associate Professor of Strategic Studies,
Johns Hopkins University
Rapporteur: Benjamin Friedman
Source: Knowing
the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror
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