By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New
Age Islam
11 March 2019
Oral Statement At United Nations Human
Rights Council, Geneva, 40th Regular Session 25 Feb to 22 March 2019
General Debate on Agenda item 3: “Promotion
and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development.”
Delivered on behalf of Asian-Eurasian
Human Rights Forum
Mr. President,
The US is withdrawing from Afghanistan as
well as from Iraq and Syria. Inspired by the Taliban declaration of victory, a
radicalised terrorist in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, backed by a
Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organisation, attacked an Indian military
convoy, killing 40 soldiers. Similar suicide attack killed 27 elite
revolutionary guards in Sistan, Iran. Emboldened Jihadists will surely carry
out more such attacks in future. The gloating in Islamist circles for having
“defeated” both the superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, has
reached its peak.
Mr. President,
Still fresh in our minds is what happened
when the international community abandoned Afghanistan in 1989. Taliban ruled
and Al-Qaeda got a safe haven. A series of atrocities including 9/11 and
horrors of Islamic State followed.
In
this backdrop, the complacency of the world community in allowing Taliban to
govern Afghanistan is inexplicable. Jihadist strength does not come from their
soldiers and territories. It comes from an ideology and ideologies cannot be
defeated militarily.
Mr. President,
The Jihadist ideology is based on very
solid foundations in Islamic history, scriptures and theology. Moderate Muslims
have not yet succeeded in evolving a satisfactory alternative theology of peace
and pluralism to challenge the current theology of violence and exclusion. Even
when such a theology evolves, it will take time and effort for it to be
established. Mainstream Muslims should be allowed the time and space to work
out and propagate a counternarrative. I would, therefore, urge the
international community not to repeat the mistakes of 1989 and invite further
disasters.
Mr. President,
It will be wrong for the world community to
think that Islamism has been defeated because the so-called Islamic State has
lost most of its territories. Several security experts have reported that out
of approximately 30,000 foreign fighters ISIS continues to have around 10,000,
hiding in different parts of Iraq and Syria, 10,000 have returned to their
homelands and only 10,000 killed in wars. There are no figures available for
the local Arab soldiers, but there are apparently quite a few and with
sufficient local support to sustain them in their hiding places. It is
well-known that many thousands of Sunnis from Saddam Hussain’s former army had
joined the so-called Islamic State. On top of all that, ISIS continues to have
the support of tens of thousands of sympathisers around the globe who include
hackers and online recruiters. Most importantly, Jihadist presence on social
media and their ability to propagate their narrative is intact.
As for the Taliban, several security
experts feel that they may eventually come back to rule from Kabul again
following the US withdrawal, regardless of the arrangement that is worked out
now. The promises of following democratic system of governance that the Taliban
are making now on the negotiating table are not worth the paper they will be
written on. Their publications like Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad have been arguing for
decades that democracy goes against the Islamic injunction of sovereignty
belonging to God alone.
Justifying the 9/11 Attacks, Taliban scholar
Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri had given a long Fatwa that appeared in Taliban monthly
magazine Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad in eight parts in 2012--2013, month after month,
supporting indiscriminate killing of Innocent civilians under special
circumstances. In his concluding part, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri had focused
entirely on the Islamic permissibility of “brutal and mass killing of the
enemy.” Starting from the “lawfulness of
burning the enemy” and “opening the dams of rivers and lakes” to drown the
inmates of a fort or besieged town, launching mortar attack, the fatwa goes on
to justify “releasing snakes and scorpions on the enemy even if non-combatant
women and children are also present.” Then it argues, “the lawfulness of these
measures including ‘demolishing their buildings, spreading poison and smoke,”
if it is not possible to capture or dominate them without resorting to these
practices”. Having thus “established” the justification of a terror attack
against civilians, the Taliban scholar then goes on to justify the destruction
of American cities and questions the sanity of any Muslim who declares “killing
the Americans in New York and Washington as unlawful.”
These arguments are made quoting several
reputed medieval jurists of the stature of Imam Nawawi, Allama Ibn Qudāmah
al-Maqdīsī, Imām al-Bayhaqi and Al-Sahihain. (Al-Sahihain refers to Sahih
al-Bukhari and Shahih al-Muslim, the two books of Ahadith, considered the most
authentic sources of Islamic faith after the holy Qur'an).
Taliban scholar Al-Abeeri concludes:
“Therefore, given the arguments from Shariah, it can be said that whoever said
that killing the Americans in New York and Washington is unlawful actually
shoots in the dark. He is saying this in ignorance. Killing the enemy by
burning or drowning, destroying or damaging buildings to capture them or
terrifying the enemy are the points on which the majority of scholars of Islam
agree. This practice was followed by the holy companions of the Prophet. How
can then someone who is blind in the love of the Americans question something
which is authenticated by the Quran and the Hadith.” (Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad, January 2013)
I
doubt that the American and Russian diplomats who are negotiating with the
Taliban are asking them to renounce their radical interpretation of Islam. Even
if the Taliban claim to have renounced these views, it would be folly to
believe them, as they can justify in their minds making any false promises
under the juristic principles of maslaha and taqaiyya. Allowing Taliban to come
back to rule Afghanistan or even to share power initially is the portent of a
disaster in the making. Doing that simply because the international community
has lost interest in the region as it had following the withdrawal of Soviet
forces from Afghanistan in 1989 is beyond comprehension.
Mr. President,
It must be understood that whatever the
ISIS and Taliban or other Islamist terrorist groups do, they are able to justify
on the basis of medieval juristic opinion which has resonance with the Muslim
masses, certainly with ulema (scholars of Islam) who have read and teach the
same books in their seminaries. Moderate Muslim scholars are challenging these
views but are far from convincing the Muslim community of the soundness of
their views from a theological standpoint.
Why is this proving so difficult? Even in
the brief quotes from a Taliban scholar above we have seen that Jihadists are
deriving their arguments from a consensus of medieval Islamic jurists (ijmaa)
and Hadith. They also quote wartime verses of Quran. Above all they quote
events from established history.
While one can reinterpret scriptures and
seek to change the ijma, it’s difficult to question established history. As
this Taliban scholar said, “this is what the Prophet and his companions did.”
This sets an example to be followed by Muslims for all time to come. This is
what they claim to be doing and achieving similar successes too. For instance,
they are comparing what they consider their success in defeating both
superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, to the success of
ill-equipped Arab Bedouins of early Islam in defeating both the Byzantine and
Sassanian empires, the two superpowers of the seventh century CE.
This doesn’t mean that the Jihadist
arguments cannot be questioned and countered. They can be and are. The problem
is that in order to challenge them successfully, moderate scholars need to
bring about a revolutionary change in their own outlook first. This they are
not yet prepared to do. While taking a critical view, they seek to stay within
the theoretical framework of the Shariat established by Aimma Arba, the four
recognised authorities on fiqh or jurisprudence, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Maalik,
Imam Shafai, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The result is that moderates too are
often arguing on the basis of the same ideas on which the jihadi edifice is
built.
Let me cite an example. The self-styled
Khalifa al-Baghdadi’s millenarian thesis that attracted thousands of youths
from around the world, and has now proved to be wrong, was based on Ahadith,
the so-called sayings of the Prophet, that had been collected decades and
centuries after his demise. But when a moderate Sufi scholar Maulana Tahirul
Qadri, who wrote a 600-page fatwa against terrorism, set out to counter
Baghdadi’s eschatological thesis, he too based his arguments entirely on
Ahadith, though a different set of Ahadith, rather than questioning the
credibility of sayings gathered centuries after the Prophet’s death. Out of
600,000 Ahadith that had been collected, all but around 10,000 have been found
to be either outright fabrications or of very doubtful credibility. Even in the
surviving 10,000, called authentic, many have different levels of authenticity.
Only the Mutawatir Ahadith, those collected from multiple sources, carrying the
same statements of the Prophet, are credited with maximum authenticity. But
most of the clerics, including the 126 leading religious scholars and academics
from across the Muslim world who wrote a 14,000-word Open Letter to the
self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi, critiquing his so-called Islamic State, stated:
"... everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired.” This goes
completely against common sense. The Hadith was written down and compiled
decades and centuries after the demise of the Prophet. How could it have been
“divinely inspired,” or “akin to revelation,” as claimed by them? But clearly,
even well-regarded scholars in the West, Pakistan’s Maulana Tahirul Qadri and
academics from Egyptian Al-Azhar University base their arguments on the same
traditional narrative.
Mr. President,
Moderate scholars cannot come up with a
credible counter-narrative to the traditional Jihadist narrative whilst
conceding the very ground on which the Islamist thesis is formulated. For
instance, in 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
other Islamists 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, ordering killing of Mushriks and Kafirs, that
should now prevail.
Another similar issue is the “uncreatedness”
of Quran to which all schools of thought including today’s moderates subscribe.
This implies that all instructions of the holy Quran, regardless of the context
in which they were revealed, are applicable to Muslims for all time to come.
Holy Quran gave a number of instructions during the wars that were imposed on
the Prophet in early seventh century. Warriors are to fight, to lay down their
lives and to kill adversaries. These are no easy tasks. Rewards are announced
for following the orders and punishments threatened for not following them. But
once the war is over, those orders are no longer applicable. However, even 1400
years after those wars, those instructions are considered applicable to Muslims
even today. This is the position of all Islamic scholars. Modern, moderate scholars
do not question this proposition. Their Open Letter says: “everything in the
Qur’an is the Truth.”
Mr. President,
The
current Islamic theology of consensus of all schools of thought, called ijma,
has evolved over one and a half millennium. It’s heavily influenced by the
progression of history. So, much of the current theology does not justify
itself on the basis of Islam’s primary scripture, the Quran. No punishment is prescribed in the Quran, for
instance, for blasphemy and apostasy. But there are anti-blasphemy laws,
prescribing compulsory death sentences in several Muslim countries. Several
other Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are currently
facing similar demands. The classical Muslim jurisprudence of all schools of
thought agrees that blasphemy by a Muslim is a form of apostasy which has to be
punished with death, although they differ slightly on how and when to reach
this judgement. This punishment, however, has to be awarded by the state after
proper judicial scrutiny. But radical ulema now argue that since the Muslim
states have become beholden to modern imperial powers or taghut (Satan) and are
not awarding and executing this punishment, Muslim individuals have the right,
if not the duty, to administer the punishment of death to the offender
themselves. How would they determine if someone has actually committed
blasphemy or apostasy? Only some scholar or a group of scholars has to issue a
fatwa. The alleged blasphemer or apostate may keep claiming that he has not
blasphemed or left Islam, but if a scholar says the allegations are correct,
then that is usually the final word in an atmosphere of lawlessness that
prevails in several Muslim countries.
This atrocity is based on Islamic Shariat’s
Hudood laws which are supported by even our moderate ulema. The 126 moderate
ulema, fielded by the global Muslim community to counter the Islamic State,
take up the issue in their Open Letter and say: "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, the Letter
goes on to criticise its implementation in the so-called Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria. 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 the
moderates have accepted the basic premise of Hudud (Punishment) largely based
on 7th century Bedouin Arab tribal mores being "unquestionably obligatory
in Islamic Law," what difference does actually remain between moderation
and extremism?
While Muslims concede that non-Muslims
living as protected minorities in Muslim-majority lands can have a measure of
religious freedom, except in the Arabian Peninsula, which is reserved for
Islam, those born in Muslim families or those who have embraced Islam do not
have the freedom to leave the religion. As Islam is now generally considered
synonymous with a State blasphemy and apostasy by a Muslim are accepted as high
treason and will be punished as such.
Twentieth century Indian Islamic scholar
Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi described Islam as a State, justifying this
proposition, but Muslims have believed in the concept, without describing it as
such for centuries. Muhammad ibn Abd
al-Wahhab and Shah Waliullah Dehlavi in the 18th century, or Mujaddid
alf-e-Saani Sheikh Sirhindi in the 17th century or Imam Taqī ad-Dīn Ahmad ibn
Taymiyyah, in 13th-14th centuries or even the Sufi master Imam Abū Ḥāmid
Muḥammad al-Ghazali in 11th-12th century, all had similar views on this
subject.
In the matter of a Muslim’s relationship
with non-Muslims similar consensus prevails. Scholars of all hues are united in
believing that the only possible relationship between the two can be of that of
the conqueror and the conquered. The world is divided into Dar-ul-Islam (the
land of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (the land of conflict). Under the force of
circumstances, a third category has evolved, Dar-ul-Sulh or Dar-ul-Amn (the
land of truce or peace). But this is necessarily a temporary arrangement. Those
Muslims, who are living in the Dar-ul-Sulh, have to keep trying to change it
into Dar-ul-Islam in the same way as those living in Dar-ul-Harb are supposed
to do so.
Mr. President,
While
sectarian differences among Muslims can be bitter and lead to each sect
declaring another sect apostate, there is complete unanimity on the Muslim
dream that, as Maulana Dr Israr Ahmad of Pakistan put it, “the past glory and
grandeur of the Muslim Ummah should be realised.” His mentor Maulana Abul Al’a
Maududi had shown the way, in the following words that present a summary of his
arguments: “while non-Muslims can be allowed to live as second-class citizens
and follow their ungodly beliefs, they cannot be allowed to rule any part of
the world. Non-Muslims have to be dislodged from power everywhere. Islam
demands sovereignty of God to be established the world over, not in any one
small part.”
“Iqamat e Deen,” (establishing the religion
of Islam in the world), Maulana Maududi said was a Muslim’s primary duty. So,
when an opportunity arises to dislodge Soviet Union from Afghanistan and
replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic state, many Muslims from around the
world listen to the call. Similarly, when an opportunity arises to remove
United States from regions in Iraq and Syria, and Afghanistan, many listen to
the call. These are considered golden opportunities to perform Jihad and do
one’s religious duty.
So now, when the US has decided to leave
both areas, a wave of joy engulfs the Islamist world, filling it with new
energy to continue with its dream of eradicating non-Islam, particularly the
main enemy, Shirk (polytheism, but mainly idol-worship) from the world. For a
deeply religious Muslim, a graduate of a madrasa, in particular, Muslims are
one nation (al-Islam millat-e-waheda) and all non-Muslims are another separate
nation (al-kufr millat-e-waheda). For most Muslims there is no difference
between a Christian, a Jew, or an Atheist, a Deist or an ex-Muslim or those
deemed apostates. And their job is to eradicate kufr (disbelief), shirk
(polytheism, idol-worship) and irtidad (apostasy) from the face of the earth
and establish Islam’s dominion in the world.
Mr. President,
What do the moderate ulema say on this
issue? Surprising, but they actually seem to justify the destruction of idols.
Read the following from the Open Letter:"Your (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s)
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 (a great Muhaddith, an authority on Hadith)
Imam Muslim’s narration in his Sahih (book of authentic Hadith): 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
pbuh] 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 (pbuh) 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 to the supposed obligation to destroy and
remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry). So, the implication is that,
according to these moderate scholars, the Taliban were justified in destroying
Bamian Buddhas. This is not conducive to maintaining inter-faith relations in
contemporary world where all civilised peoples respect each other's right to
practise their religion, where Islam itself is protected and defended despite
the terror activities in its name.
On the issue of the need for a global
Caliphate the moderate ulema again concur with the basic proposition of the
Baghdadi clique. They say: "There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars
that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah (global Muslim
community) has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE." Then it goes on to
criticise Baghdadi for lack of consensus from Muslims, etc. and accusing him of
sedition, fitna, etc in fairly strong language. But the problem remains the same.
Moderate ulema agree with Baghdadi on the basic premise of the so-called
“obligation of the umma to have a global caliphate.” This is absurd in this day
and age. And coming from moderate Islamic scholars from around the world, it is
absolutely ridiculous. It is important to realise that the holy Quran also does
not call for a global Khilafat.
Clearly both the Baghdadi group (ISIS) and
moderate ulema are equally outdated, seemingly continuing to live in the 7th
century CE. Neither the extremists nor the moderates accept modern,
multi-cultural, sovereign nation-states in which all citizens have equal rights
to freely express themselves and practise their religion and whose borders
cannot be altered through conquest. The only way a global caliphate on the
medieval lines can be established if the so-called Islamic State was able to
conquer the whole world and declare its leader as a Caliph of global Muslims
community. It is this aspect that the moderate scholars are questioning. How
can Baghdadi be a caliph for the global Muslim community without conquering
large chunks of land even in the Middle East, they are asking. They are not
questioning the medieval system of expanding territories by conquest.
Islamists certainly and it would appear even
moderates, still live in the world in which the greatest Sufi scholar Imam
al-Ghazali (1058-1111) had asked them to go to Jihad at least once a year so as
to extend the boundaries of Islam. A realistic appraisal of any situation is
beyond them. If you knew their history you would understand their
irrationality. Indian ulema had, for instance, gone to 14th century Muslim
ruler Mohammad bin Tughlaq (the Sultan of Delhi from 1325 to 1351) and told him
that all the Mushrikeen (idol-worshippers) of India, i.e., 80 per cent of the
Indian population, should be declared Mushrik and killed as punishment for
Shirk, the biggest crime in Islam. Tughlaq, of course, did not listen to them.
Mr. President,
This fanaticism and psychological distance
from reality among ulema is not merely an Indian phenomenon. The Turkish ulema
did not allow the Khilafat-e-Usmania (Ottomans), one of the largest empires in
history, to import printing press from Europe for close to four centuries,
claiming this was an invention of the devil. The Muslim backwardness of today
started from that fatwa. In 1940s and 1950s, the major debate in the Muslim
community around the world was if religion permits the use of loud speakers and
radio. Later when television became available the same debate consumed a lot of
our attention for years. Even today Deoband ulema, whose madrasas produced the
Taliban, have allowed the use of internet only for propagation of Islam. But
the most unfortunate part is that the Muslim community as a whole continues to
remain under the stranglehold of ulema even today.
Until genuinely moderate Muslim scholars
are able to question these theological notions about Islam and State
successfully, and establish a new modern, pluralist and peaceful theology of
Islam, it would be a folly to leave these elements to fester and multiply. They
have and can cause much more damage to world peace. The world should unite in
providing, as I said before, the moderate Muslims time and space to introspect,
contest this theology of violence and exclusion and replace it with a theology
of peace and pluralism.
