What Is Wrong With 120 Moderate Ulema's 'Open Letter To 'Khalifa' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, And Why It Will Not Work? This Moderate Fatwa Does Not Leave Any Leg For Moderate Islam To Stand On
By Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam
1 September 2015
As many as 120 ulema from around the world belonging to most schools of thought have sent an Open Letter to Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, And To the Fighters and Followers of the Self-Declared ‘Islamic State.’
Written in over 14, 000 words, this is a valuable document. It shows what is wrong with self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi's rulings. But, more importantly, it also shows what is wrong with moderate Islam at the present juncture; why this refutation will not work, and other such refutations do not work; and why our children will keep running away to ISIS and other terror centres. In fact, read between the lines, this moderate fatwa does not leave any leg for moderate Islam to stand on.
No 16-year-old is going to read the whole 14,000-word document. But she/he will be mightily influenced by bits like this that will be seized upon by the apologists of violent Islamist ideologies:
"... everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired."
This is confirmation from moderate ulema that what terrorist ideologues have been telling their pupils is correct. This is precisely their argument. No difference between Quran and Hadees; they are both divinely inspired. One verse of the Quran is as good as the other. One Hadees narration supposedly from the Prophet (saw) is as good as the other. All immutable, universal, eternal guidance for all time to come. The fatwa does say in one place that "it is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed." But it is not this that will be emphasized by the terror ideologues. What will be stressed is the consensus among the ulema of all schools of thought, including those who consider themselves moderate, that both Quran and Hadees (even though collected scores and hundreds of years after the demise of the Prophet) are divinely inspired and all of it represents "truth." This will only reassure our 16/20-year-old kids that what they are learning in the terror manuals is correct and has universal acceptance of all ulema including the moderates.
Similarly in the chapter 13 - Coercion and Compulsion - of the Open Letter, the moderate fatwa says: "It is known that the verse: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated." Then the fatwa goes on to criticise Baghdadi for using coercion. But the important thing is that even the moderate fatwa has accepted the basic premise of Baghdadi and the like that peaceful Meccan verses revealed before the conquest of Mecca have been abrogated or, at least, may have been abrogated, and it is the militant verses relating to war that should now prevail.
In any case it is wrong that "the verse : ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca." It was actually revealed before the conquest and in Madina when some Muslims wanted to take back their children from the custody of Jews on their expulsion from Madina and convert them to Islam. So according to these moderate ulema, and for those who know the actual shaane nuzool (context), this verse too is abrogated. Does moderate Islam have any leg to stand on any more?
[Context of this verse from Quran Tafsir ibn-Kathir: "It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿ that before Islam ﴾"When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿ from Al-Madinah ﴾some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, ﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)'']
In point 16. Hudud (Punishment), the moderate fatwa in the form of Open Letter establishes a general rule: "Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law." Having accepted the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe it goes on to criticise its implementation in the so-called Islamic State. It says: "however, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner." And so on. But once you have accepted the basic premise of Hudud (Punishment) based on 7th century Bedouin tribal Arab mores being "unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law" what difference does actually remain between moderation and extremism.
In point 20, moderate ulema seem to be justifying the destruction of idols. Read the following from the Open Letter:
"Your former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of Muslim’s narration in his Sahih: on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet saw] sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.”’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet (saw) and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque."
The impression is unmistakable that the moderate ulema are only opposed to the destruction of "the graves of Prophets or Companions," and not quite to the supposed obligation to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry). This is not a very good sign of maintaining inter-faith relations in contemporary world where all civilised countries respect each other's right to practise their religion.
In point 22 of the Open Letter, titled, The Caliphate, the moderate ulema again concur with the basic proposition of the Baghdadi clique: "There is agreement (Ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE." Then it goes on to criticise Bghdadi for lack of consensus from Muslims, etc. and accusing him of sedition, fitna, etc in fairly strong language. But the problem is the same. Moderate ulema agree with Baghdadi on the basic premise of the so-called obligation of the umma to have a Caliphate. This is absurd in this day and age. Clearly both Baghdadi group and moderate ulema are equally outdated, seemingly continuing to live in the 7th century CE.
But on one issue, Baghdadi emerges as more humane and civilised than these moderate ulema, if that is possible. In point 23 - National affiliations, the Open Letter to Baghdadi says: "In one of your speeches you said: ‘Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis54.’ In the same speech, you called on Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. By doing so, you take the rights and resources of these countries and distribute them among people who are strangers to those lands, even though they are of the same religion. This is exactly what Israel did when it invited Jewish settlers abroad to immigrate to Palestine, evict the Palestinians and usurp their ancestral rights and lands. Where is the justice in this?"
Something doesn't become wrong just because Israel is doing it. In fact Israel is doing many things right and Muslims would do well to follow it. In this case, it is not only Israel but the entire civilised world, that shares "the rights and resources" of their countries and distributes them "among people who are strangers to those lands" but have immigrated either as economic migrants or political asylum seekers. Indeed, even students acquire permanent residence permits in some countries in less than two years, without having contributed anything to the economy. On the other hand, in the barbaric Arab countries, including the land of "puritan Islam," now called Saudi Arabia, even if you serve the country for half a century you cannot expect to get so much as a green card or permanent resident status, and then, of course, you will be thrown out once you have outlived their need. If Baghdadi is giving resident status, for whatever it is worth, to those he is calling to work or fight for him, he is being civilised, considering he is an Arab ruler, and no Arab ruler of any persuasion, whether Islamist, secular, leftist, or nationalist, is known for this kind of civilised behaviour. And here are moderate ulema criticising him for that. They apparently support Arab barbarism in this matter.
This is not to say the Open Letter is entirely useless or totally counter-productive. It is good as far as it goes. It does criticise Baghdadi and his clique, and quite vehemently, at least, for faulty implementation of Islamic principles, even if it agrees with him on the basics in several areas. But to expect the Open Letter to stem the tide of gathering support for the so-called Islamic State will be futile.
Extremism has been endemic in Islam, present almost from the beginning of Islamic history. Muslims fought among themselves and quite vehemently even before the creation of Hadees and Sharia, which they now consider divine. Muslims have still not found an antidote to militant verses in the Quran that are now available to anyone with access to internet. Calling all verses of the Quran as of eternal value is not going to solve the problem. Calling Hadees and Sharia divinely inspired is no answer to the questions of the day.
Muslims will just have to abandon the theology that leads to violence and supremacism and look for a new theology, a coherent theology of peace and pluralism, consistent in all respects with the teachings of Islam, and suitable for contemporary and future societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment