VIEW: Jihadism and the military in Pakistan

[Abu Zolfiqar]

This is a very important, even if misguided, question you have posed.

As Muslims, we must recognize an important truth, and that is that those who "misuse" such concepts describe themselves as "Muslims" - you will agree that there are no Hindus, Jews, and Christians "misusing" the concept of jihad - RIGHT??? So what ideology is allowing this misuse? What is the foundation of this ideology? Who is furthering this ideology? Who is funding this ideology??


So we as Muslims, now have a internal problems - who amongst us will clearly identify who those who misuse jihad are? as who you say are "Criminals, murderers, hatred-inciters"?? Even you could not muster the courage to condemn those who lie about what the "farz" in Islam are - so yes, it seems we are "confused"

I'm at peace with myself and my beliefs and convictions.

those religious groups you mentioned don't explicitly have a concept called 'jihad' but I assume that adherents with strong enough beliefs do struggle to adhere to whatever beliefs they may have, to please whatever Gods/Lords/etc. they believe in.

that's why they observe their rituals, or go to their holy places....some of them also have a concept of heaven vs. hell. And they sure as hell have their fair share of 'whackos' --suffice to say

so therefore, I fail to see how my simple question is 'misguided'

 

[muse]

I'm at peace with myself and my beliefs and convictions.

So are the people you describe as "Criminals, murderers, hate-inciters"

That's still leaves us with a problem of "misinforming" Muslims through pamphlet Islam - that little book about how Jihad is a "farz", even though by your own admission it is not a pillar of Islam, has by now been used to kill thousands upon thousands of Muslims by others who also claim to be "Muslims" -- but so long as you are at peace, then all is good and right.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

So are the people you describe as "Criminals, murderers, hate-inciters"

no, those people just lack recognition and are the byproducts of a poor education system

i dont have the technology to hack into their brains, so therefore neither can I argue that they are 'not at peace' nor can you argue that they are 'at peace'

That's still leaves us with a problem of "misinforming" Muslims through pamphlet Islam - that little book about how Jihad is a "farz", even though by your own admission it is not a pillar of Islam, has by now been used to kill thousands upon thousands of Muslims by others who also claim to be "Muslims" -- but so long as you are at peace, then all is good and right.

by my own 'admission' ??

im just stating the facts as they are....just because an element of the religion is not a central tenet does not mean that it is not 'farz'

while i do agree that some (man-made) laws and misguided zeal has led Muslims to kill other Muslims (or non-Muslims) I think you are really taking things to an extreme. You are making the mistake of taking the actions of a small minority and labelling all Muslims as one and the same kind!

You are Muse. You aren't Bill O'Reilly! I sure hope you aren't Nadeem Paracha.


behind closed doors and in public, i'm very critical about the society's in which we live in.......but there's no need to be downright cynical of everything and everyone. That's what the fundos do.

 

[foxhound]

interesting points raised......

What is the decree of Jihad?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jihad as armed warfare against the enemy is farz-i kifaya (not obligatory on every Muslim) under usual conditions. It is farz-i ayn (obligatory on every Muslim) under a state of emergency. That is to say, this duty is provided within the community by some capable people, because it is hard to do that for some people. Of course, if it is not a state of emergency.

This below quoted verse announces why Jihad is farz:

Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is disliked by you. It may well be that you dislike a thing but it is good for you, and it may well be that you like a thing but it is bad for you. God knows and you do not know. (Al-Baqarah Surah, 2:216)

War is an inevitable reality, even though it is not desirable. (2) There is demolishing, shedding blood, wounding, and killing in the nature of war, -which are actually disliked by the true nature of humans.

The expression, even though you dislike takes our attentions. War is not favorable as an act, but can be favorable with its consequences. Though, there are many favorable consequences of fighting in the way of God such as expelling the misdeeds of an enemy, and providing the rise of Islam. (3)

War is not being favorable as an act, but being favorable with its consequences is just like, one is taking bitter medicine in order to heal, or enduring to the difficulties of journeys for accomplishments. (4) One cannot regain his/her health without taking the bitter medicine.

One who does not endure difficulties cannot succeed. And the one who does not fight in the cause of God, cannot reach happiness either in this world or in the Hereafter; suffers defeat and is punished of opposing to the divine order.

When the strength of the army is adequate for war, Jihad is not farz for the rest of the community. However, in the face of an inadequacy, it is declared a state of emergency, and everyone from seven-year-old to seventy-year-old is mobilized; and protects his/her religion, land, and chastity.

This below given verse is actually signifies of Jihads being farz-i kifaya: (5)

And the believers should not go forth to war all together. But why should not a party from every community of them mobilize to acquire profound, correct knowledge and understanding of religion and warn their people when they return to them so that they may beware (of wrongful attitudes)? (At-Taubah Surah, 9:122)
According to narrations, this above quoted verse was revealed after when all believers wanted to go to war because of the Quranic verses that condemn the people failed to go to war. It is a historical reality that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) sometimes left some people behind (at their homes) and even he himself did not participate to some minor campaigns.

In addition, the following verse is accepted, as the proof of Jihads not being farz-i ayn: Not equal are those of the believers who (when not all believers are required to mobilize for Gods cause) sit still without justifiable excuse (and without doing any harm to Gods cause) and those who strive (and fight) in Gods cause with their wealth and their persons. God has exalted in rank those who strive with their wealth and their persons over those who sit still. To each God has promised the best reward (Paradise), and yet God has exalted those who strive over those who sit still by a tremendous reward. (An-Nisa Surah, 4:95) Promising paradise to those who sit at home is a sign for it is not being farz. (7)

Needless to say that, laziness is not an appropriate action just because Jihads not being farz. As the verse takes our attentions, those who strive with their wealth and their persons are exalted in rank and higher than those who do not. And showing laziness for a holy duty as jihad cannot be accepted as pious while those whose selves do not desire for less in their terrestrial interest.

Moreover, Jihads being farz-i kifaya is only valid when it is adequately provided by some people within the community. If that certain amount of people would fail to do that, everyone in the community should responsible to take the necessity action.

Sources:
1- Abdullah b. Mahmud Mevsılî, İhtiyar li Ta'lîli'l-Muhtar, Çağrı Yay. İst., 1980, IV, 117; Muhammed b. İbnu Rüşd,, Bidayetü'l-Müctehid Nihayetü'l Muktesid, Daru'l-Marife, Beyrut, 1988, 1, 380-381; Kurtubî, III, 27; Ebu'l-Fadl Àlûsî, Ruhu'l-Meanî, Daru İhyai't- Türasi'l-Arabî, Beyrut, 1985, II, 106; W. Madelung, Dictionary of the Middle Ages, "Cihad" md. VII, 110
2- İbnu Haldun, Mukaddime, El-Mektebetu't-Ticariyye, Mısır, s. 270-271; Reşid Rıza, Tefsîru'l-Menar, Mektebetu'l-Kahire, Mısır, X, 364; Muhammed Hamîdullah, Hz.Peygamberin Savaşları, Ter. Salih Tuğ, Yağmur Yay., İst., 1981, s. 14
3- Halim Sabit Şibay, M.E.B. İslam Ans. "Cihad" md. III, 169; Ömer Nasuhî Bilmen, Hukuk-u İslamiyye ve Istılahat-ı Fıkhıye Kamusu, Bilmen Yay. İst. III, 356; Abdülhafız Abdürabbih, Felsefetü'l-Cihad fi'l-İslam, Mektebetul-Medrese, Beyrut, 1982, s. 42; Özel, İslam Hukukunda Milletlerarası Münasebetler, s.48
4- Razi, VI, 27; Muhammed Ali Sabunî, Revaiu'l-Beyan, Dersaadet Yay. İst., 1, 245; Kurtubî, III, 27-28; Àlûsî, II, 106
5- Razî, XVI, 225-226; İbnu Rüşd, I, 380-381; Kurtubî, VIII, 186; Bilmen, III, 358-359; Ahmed Kadiri, El-Cihadu fî Sebilillah, Daru'l-Menare, Cidde, 1992, I, 59-60
6- Razi, XVI, 225-226
7- Age. XI, 9; Kadiri, I,60
Author:
Şadi Eren (Prof.Dr.)
What is the decree of Jihad? | Questions on Islam

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

that is only one aspect of jihad......people think jihad and automatically they assume its "armed jihad"

the biggest jihad comes from inside.....between man and God.


but i'm no preacher........so best for people to find out on their own...discover, for yourselves

 

[muse]

i dont have the technology to hack into their brains, so therefore neither can I argue that they are 'not at peace' nor can you argue that they are 'at peace'

What's this hacking business about -- we can't take them at their word?

just because an element of the religion is not a central tenet does not mean that it is not 'farz'

but this is a problematic statement, see if someone comes back with saying you are playing semantics or even more seriously that you are taking "meaning" out of words or even more seriously that you are suggesting that Quran is flawed and claims actions and behaviors as Farz in one place and does not in other - fact of the matter is that there are 5 pillars or Farz - not 6 or 7 and one half - there are 5. and if someone disagrees with this then they are changing some thing basic -- which exactly what we are saying these islamists do.

You are making the mistake of taking the actions of a small minority and labelling all Muslims as one and the same kind!
You are Muse. You aren't Bill O'Reilly!

Actions of a minority or not, we cannot escape the fact that they call themselves "Muslims" and they are a significant minority - we just can't escape this.And I think we have a unfortunate tendency, like anybody else really, when confronted with things that are uncomfortable for us, to try and down play what which is embarrassing, or making us uneasy.

I think we are entirely too "unthinking" about important things - such as the motto of the army and it's IMPLICATIONS - but more on that later

 

[foxhound]

furthermore........



What are the parts of Jihad?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are four major, and those are:

1. Jihad against Ignorance: This Jihad is to teach humans the justice, the truth, and the favorable. God states in Quran addressing Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and argue with them in the best way possible. Your Lord surely knows best who has gone astray from His way, and He knows best who are the rightly guided. (An-Nahl Surah, 16:125) In another verse, There must be among you a community calling to good, and enjoining and actively promoting what is right and forbidding and trying to prevent evil (in appropriate ways). They are those who are the prosperous. (Al-Imran Surah, 3:104)

Quran is a divine antidote, not only to a particular community, but also to all humanity, which will ever come until the Judgment Day, and it is an ample cure for all of their material and spiritual, personal, and social wounds. The duty of promoting this antidote is given to the Muslims.

2. Jihad against Evil-self: In a verse, believers are warned about the intrigues of evil-self, so judge among people with the truth and do not follow personal inclination, lest it leads you astray from the path of God (Saad Surah, 38:26)

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) states that, To fight against your evil-self is the greatest Jihad (Aclûnî, Keşfül-Hafa, Beyrut, I, 143, Hadith No: 413). He draws our attentions to the importance of the Jihad in his Hadiths. As a matter of fact, when he once turned back from a battlefield by stating, To fight against the infidels is Jihad; but to fight against your evil self is greater Jihad (Kanzul-Ummal, IV, 430, Hadith No: 11260) he remarkably signified the importance of fighting against evil-self

3. Jihad against Satan: In Quran by stating that, Surely Satan is an enemy to you, so treat him as an enemy (do not follow him, and be alert against him) (Fatir Surah, 35:6) humankinds greatest enemy shown to be Satan.

4. Jihad as armed warfare against infidels: As it is not permanent, it is not farz (obligatory religious duty) for all Muslims either. Therefore, it is farz-i kifaya- where the obligation is to be provided within the community by some when the Islamic state has adequate power to engage in a war.
Author:
Şadi Eren (Prof.Dr.)



Secularism vs. Islamby Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
From 'Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Jaat `alaa Ummatina'
("How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah"), pp 113-4

Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with "religious regimes" - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better than Allah?" (2:140).

For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality. Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs? This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who "…takes account of every single thing) (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr, aggression, and transgression."

 

[muse]

Foxhound -- Research "Rradd" (see Al Ahram) by Gadd Ali Al haq - former rector of Al-Azhar - it is the refutation of Al Faraj - -anyway, in the piece you have put up, it too has a serious problem, namely that of context -- Quran is a "Historical" text to the fundamentalist, Quran exists out of History, History itself does not exist - and therefore they quote verses of Ayat, out of their historical context - lets avoid that.

And lets be grateful that Qadrawi does not sell among Muslims in Pakistan. Islam is intrinsically pluralistic, Dogmatism rejects this proposition - In Islam there are as many ways to get to God as there are adherents, but for the Dogmatic, there is but one way, their way (readers may be interested in exploring this idea as highlighted by Retired Brigadier Mehboob on the Poision spitting spiders thread) -


While Religion is perfect, any who claim that religious knowledge is perfect are by definition liars, no man can have "perfect knowledge for then such a man would no longer be man but in rebellion against the oneness of God.

If Religious Knowledge can never be perfect, how then can Shariah, which is based on religious knowledge be perfect? In fcat it i is man made law, and it has evolved through time and space - for instance there are multiple shariah.

 

[foxhound]

Pakistan needs to adhere to its islamic ideology. It will provide Pakistan solutions to the ills of its society if properly implemented. It needs to be strongly implemented in its constitution and the public services such as the armed forces and the average joe needs to understand it and live by the teachings of Islam. It will provide security for all whether muslim or non-muslim as shown historically (when properly implemented). ...


as reiterated....

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better than Allah?" (2:140).

For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality. Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs? This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who "…takes account of every single thing) (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr, aggression, and transgression."

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Muse, i think you just need a nice cool glass of Lipton iced tea.

I understand your intentions are good, but you also need to realize that compartmentalizing everything and making broad generalizations is not helpful for you.


as for Muslims who think "Secularism" means "Atheism" -- well, that is ridiculous. They dont need a bop on the head, they just need a dictionary. And, perhaps, an iced tea as well

 

[foxhound]

Foxhound -- Research "Rradd" (see Al Ahram) by Gadd Ali Al haq - former rector of Al-Azhar - it is the refutation of Al Faraj - -anyway, in the piece you have put up, it too has a serious problem, namely that of context -- Quran is a "Historical" text to the fundamentalist, Quran exists out of History, History itself does not exist - and therefore they quote verses of Ayat, out of their historical context - lets avoid that.

Muse as long as you have a basic understanding of the concepts of islam and abide by the Quran and Sunnah you will never go astray. The Quran and Sunnah provide provide us will all the solutions needed for any issues given (if properly followed). The various contents from the Quran and Sunnah provide us the precedents in dealing with issues. When the muslims followed and abided by the Quran and Sunnah - they had succeeded in all aspects. The historical contexts have provided us with the precedent of finding solutions to any issue based on the Quran and Sunnah.

 

[sohail.ishaque]

a must watch... i don't know if this is the right place for this link.. anyway here it is..

Videos Posted by WAR Against Corruption: US planning Civil War in Pakistan to Destroy its Nuclear Assets | Facebook

 

[foxhound]

interesting points......Secularism in Islam - Islamweb.net -English

Question

I would like to submit a question to you to clear my doubt about secularism in Islam. What is the stand of secularism in Islam? I heard from a global channel that one Muslim guy speaks officially that secularism is very important in Islam and Islam should follow that. Kindly answer me about the view of secularism in Islam.
AnswerPraise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

Answer

Secularism means a system of social organization which keeps out all forms of religion; a doctrine that rejects religion; the attitude that religion should have no place in life affairs.

So, whoever believes that the Shari'a of Islam is not fit for worldly affairs at the present time or Islam does not quite fit in with civilization or it promotes underdevelopment, such a person should be educated and informed if he is ignorant, if he repents, returns to the fact and believes that Islam is right and suitable for every time and place and that it promotes advancement, then that is will be good. Otherwise, it is proved that he is a disbeliever and apostate even if he performs prayers, observes fast and alleges Islam.

Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): {O you who believe! Enter perfectly in Islâm (by obeying all the rules and regulations of the Islâmic religion) and follow not the footsteps of Shaitân (Satan). ….} [2: 208]. He Says: {He (Allâh) has ordained for you the same religion (Islâm) which He ordained for Nûh (Noah), and that which We have inspired in you (O Muhammad SAW), and that which We ordained for Ibrahîm (Abraham), Mûsa (Moses?) and 'Iesa (Jesus) saying you should establish religion (i.e. to do what it orders you to do practically), and make no divisions in it (religion) (i.e. various sects in religion). …} [42: 13]. He also Says: {And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.} [3: 85].

The word Deen means a system of life that comprises all forms of worship, behavior and conduct, transactions and beliefs.
Thus, whoever knows that he is a slave and Allah is His Lord, has to know that The Lord Orders and Forbids and the slave should obey, since The Creator is more Merciful to us than ourselves and knows what makes us better and sets right our affairs.
Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): {Should not He Who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves) All-Aware (of everything).} [67: 14].
Allah knows best.

 

[bandit]

The uprising of 1857, popularly known as Ghadar, was the third in the series of anti-British wars waged by the Muslims. The mainspring of the 1857 episode too was Islamic jihad. As the mutineers rode roughshod from Meerut to Delhi, their war cry was “deen, deen” (religion, religion). Gathering under the ramparts of the Qila-e-Mu’alla (Grand Fort) they called the aged King Bahadur Shah Zafar and begged him to assume their supreme command.

Funny to term 1857 as Jihad, started by a Brahman hindu and finished off by fellow muslims. Or maybe quran also directs brahmans to perform jihad....does it?

That aside, I am intrigued, is this version of events commonly believed in Pakistan that 1857 was a Jihad, and although the Army Brigadier is supposed to be educated, he just writes what sells more. In fact the mutinous regiments at delhi were by and large Hindu.

Although the great majority of rebellious sepoys in Delhi were Hindus, a significant proportion of the insurgents were Muslims. The proportion of ghazis grew to be about a quarter of the local fighting force by the end of the siege, and included a regiment of suicide ghazis from Gwalior who had vowed never to eat again and to fight until they met certain death at the hands of British troops.
In Thana Bhawan, the Sunnis declared Haji Imdadullah their Ameer. In May 1857 the Battle of Shamli took place between the forces of Haji Imdadullah and the British.

The Sikhs and Pathans of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province supported the British and helped in the recapture of Delhi. Some historians have suggested that the Sikhs wanted to avenge the annexation of Punjab eight years earlier by the Company with the help of Purabias ('Easterners') - Biharis and those from the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh - who had formed the East India Company's armies in the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars. It has also been suggested that the Sikhs felt insulted by the attitude of sepoys who (in their view) had only beaten the Khalsa with British help, they resented and despised them far more than the British.
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/

In fact Delhi was taken back by troops consisting of Sikh and Muslim Pathan Sepoys, who obviously did'nt give much about the Brigadiers 'Jihad'.

 

[muse]

Foxhound

You have done some research - don't be cowed now, do more - please don't imagine that everybody is simple minded and simple solutions from simple minds such as Qadrawi will suffice - This same Qadrawi sits in Qatar in the media supported by a king, and finds himself unable to utter a single word against the king and regime

a basic understanding of the concepts of islam and abide by the Quran and Sunnah you will never go astray. The Quran and Sunnah provide provide us will all the solutions needed for any issues given

No greater misconception or misinformation afflicts Islamists than this statement - Whereas Muslims look to the Quran as a guide to developing and maintaining FAITH in God, Islamists seek to use the Quran as a "little Red book" - a book for answers to all TEMPORAL problems - not only is this a methodological mistake but is in fact a blasphemy, it is the equivalent of planting corn and imaging that you will harvest wheat.

The nature of knowledge, all knowledge is that it is evolving, it can grow, or if one does not have access to education, it can recede, like a ocean wave - If this is the nature of knowledge, can we not say the same about religious knowledge, that it can grow and recede??

And if we can say the same about religious knowledge, that it can grow and recede, then of course Shar'iah, which is based on Religious knowledge has the exact same strength and weakness.

But of course the most important thing we have to be conscious of is that the knowledge of men is temporal, not divine, after all why would the Divine need knowledge??

Below is a piece I invite all interested persons to consider - just think about it - If we are all Muslims, How can we come to some common ground, how do we do that without understanding the intellectual position or the intellectual foundations of our positions - -


The Intellectual foundations of religious fundamentalism
Ahmad Ali Khalid



What is ‘fundamentalism’ and why is it so widespread? ‘Fundamentalism’ is different from violent extremism and there is no necessary connection between the two, hence it is critical to treat fundamentalism on its own merits without confusing it with violence.

Religious fundamentalism has been described in various terms and jargon; however, the most compelling description of fundamentalism when we consider the topics of knowledge production and social practice is “the virtual absence of historical scholarship, liberty and rationality”. In the fundamentalist worldview, history ceases to exist.

Fundamentalists are by no means inclined towards force but they do deny the call for reform and change (instead arguing for a revival or restoration of the ‘Golden Age’), arguing that religion is unchangeable hence any interference by human beings through manipulative means of interpretation is an adulteration of the purity of faith. In one clear move human reason is subordinated under an imagined social reality, which disregards historicity and is trapped by rigidity.

Fundamentalism has a worldview of perpetual dystopia, that the ‘Golden Age’ of faith is gone and we must strive backwards to recreate the conditions of that time.

But with the passage of time and throughout history, great shifts in our thinking occur such as the emergence of modern science, the social sciences and the emphasis on empirical, naturalistic explanations of the world, all of which are readily ignored by the fundamentalist. “Islam is for all time,” hence why the need for human interference in interpretation? But this notion is precisely undermined by new and critical Muslim intellectuals. Hassan Hanafi, an Egyptian philosopher, throughout his work argues that there is not, cannot be and has never been a uniform interpretation of religious scripture. Human interpretation is essentially a pluralistic endeavour. As AbdolKarim Soroush points out:

“All understanding assumes suppositions and entails ‘categorisation’ that is subsuming the particular under universal categories and concepts. Understanding religion is no exception. It is preceded by certain assumptions and principles, which are necessary conditions for its intelligibility and interpretation.”

Soroush, a prominent Iranian philosopher, undermined Iran’s clerical authority over religious interpretation by suggesting his theory of ‘Contraction and Expansion of Religious Knowledge’.

The basic premise of the theory is that religion is divine and perfect, but religious knowledge is by no means perfect or divine; the interpreter is always fallible, and interpretation by its very nature, due to human fallibility, always pluralistic. In this theory, Soroush realises there are several crucial points to establish, such as the fact that human reason is capable of being trusted and should be used (hence his claims of initiating a neo-Mu’tazilite project), all knowledge is historicised (influenced by historical conditions) and never ahistorical, and human beings have always engaged actively with religious texts, at times impressing their own preconceptions onto these texts.

Assigning mere human beings infallibility just because of the antiquated value of their views is dangerous. This does not by any means devalue great pieces of literature, art or philosophy, but enhances and humanises our experience vis-à-vis the piece in question. It provides a three-dimensional portrait, giving us insight into the genesis of the creation, and can open new avenues for understanding.

Religion is eternal but no single religious interpretation is final; the last religion is here but the last understanding of religion has not arrived. Religious knowledge is in continuous flux. We can have general moral values and principles, which can stay constant, but how we apply them in terms of politics, means that institutions must continually change to keep pace with social developments.

Indeed, we must remember the distinction (from the Islamic legal tradition) between the two main categories of legal rulings (ahkam): ibadat (ritual/spiritual acts) and mu’amalat (social/contractual acts).

When we speak of change and reform in the religious context, it has nothing to do with beliefs and the main pillars of Islam but the social, political, legal and ethical applications of the faith. Legal and political fundamentalists will constantly speak of a ‘shariah’ system and Caliphate, ignoring the conflicting opinions and diversity within Islam. They completely ignore the distinction between religion and religious knowledge, and do not even think of the historical contexts in which Islamic law has operated.

By imposing narrow limits and constructs over the interpretation of religion, we ignore the other precious dimensions. Religion is not only legal; it is ethical, moral, spiritual and experiential as well. The divine in Pakistan is stripped of ethics, spirituality, philosophy, and culture and only fixated on doctrine and law. Ziauddin Sardar captures this eloquently, when he said in a recent interview:

“Islam in Pakistan, I am afraid, has ceased to be a religion and a worldview; it has become an obsession, a pathology. It has been drained of all ethics and has become a mechanism for oppression and injustice.”

Fundamentalists not only manipulate our literary heritage but our wider culture and dupe us into believing that without accepting their narrow moralisms and religious teaching, we as a society are hopelessly devoid of any serious civilisation

Fundamentalists instead of living with uncertainty, suck the life out of intellectual pursuit by hammering out formulaic and sterile pamphlets about ‘Science in the Quran’ and other such erroneous attempts. These are reductive attempts aimed at propaganda, simultaneously discrediting the Islamic traditions and reinforcing the stereotype that Muslims cannot rationally engage in philosophical debate.

This activity also stretches the philosophical and linguistic content of the Muslim traditions to the breaking point and such endeavours are ‘feel-good confidence boosting’ exercises for those insecure in their faith and threatened by outside intellectual influences. Reading the ‘big bang theory’ into the Quran, like some of these pamphlets do, is a trivialisation of faith.

It is this ‘pamphlet Islam’ that Omid Safi describes as being fostered by fundamentalist thinking: “I think Muslims are in imminent danger — if we are not there already — of succumbing to ‘pamphlet Islam’, the fallacy of thinking that complex issues can be handled in four or six glossy pages.”

Fundamentalism perhaps rests on a single assumption — that God is on their side and they have complete and ‘pure’ access to religious knowledge.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He tweets at Ahmad Ali Khalid (@AhmadAliKhalid) on Twitter and can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com

---------- Post added at 12:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------

Indian Friends


Please contribute as it relates to Pakistan - it's the Pakistan military thread - please do respect that