Another Unpardonable Silence of Indian Ulema: New Age Islam Refuting So-Called Islamic Resistance Council’s Ideology; IRC Reportedly Attempted to Attack a Hindu Temple and Called for Jihad against India

The Members Affiliated With Islamic Resistance Council Must Stop Misleading Muslim Youth and Turn Away From the Wrong Path Main Points 1. Mangaluru Attack is not legal under Islamic Shariah 2. Unlawfulness of Attacking a temple or any other places of worship in Islam 3. Jihadist groups including those affiliated with so-called ‘Islamic Resistance Council’ have no authority to declare jihad against India 4. India is currently a democratic nation that accords both Muslims and non-Muslims religious liberties and rights; hence it is not a land of war [Darul Harb]. ...... By New Age Islam Staff Writer 10 December 2022 Islamic Resistance Council ------- One would have thought that our Ulama-e-Karam would fall like a ton of bricks on the so-called Islamic Resistance Council for misusing and misinterpreting Verses of Quran to call for Jihad against India. But there is complete silence on the part of Ulema as usual. I am reminded of a statement made by the so-called Khalifa Baghdadi of Islamic State who had said that "Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day; it has always been a religion of conflict of war." This statement had been repeated verbatim by some Indian Muslim youth who had gone to Syria and joined the so-called Islamic State. On both these occasions, though these statements had been widely reported in the media, our Ulama had maintained complete and inexplicable silence. According to reports, the Islamic Resistance Council (IRC) has claimed responsibility for the Mangaluru explosion on November 19 by stating in a message shared on social media that one of its ‘Mujahid brothers, Mohammed Shariq, attempted to attack a “Hindutva Temple in Kadri (in Dakshina Kannada district), a bastion of the Saffron terrorists in Mangaluru”. "Although this operation didn't meet its objectives, we still consider it a success from a tradecraft and tactics point of view as the brother in spite of being wanted and being pursued by the state and central intelligence agencies, was not only able to successfully evade them but even prepared and mounted an attack,” the message said. It further said, “We would like to answer those who ask “why have you attacked?” it is because we have been forced into this war and the path of resistance by the Fascists and we are only responding to the worst forms of state terrorism. We are only retaliating because an open war has been declared upon us because Mob Lynching has become a norm, because oppressive laws and legislations are passed to suppress us and interfere in our Religion, because our innocents are languishing in prisons, because public spaces today reverberate with calls of our genocide, and because as Muslims we have been commanded to wage Jihad when faced with mischief and oppression”. To justify its objective, IRC has quoted a verse of the Quran, “Permission to fight has been granted to those against whom war is being waged wrongfully because they were wronged” (Quran: 22:39) After evaluating the substance of the message submitted via IRC on social media, there are a few questions that need to be answered, and I must do so. The first question is whether this attack is legal under Islamic Shariah, as claimed by the so-called IRC. Is attacking the temple legal in Islam? Is it allowed for IRC members to declare jihad? Another concern is how Muslims in India should seek justice when they are subjected to injustice and situations like mob lynching, among other things. Should the Muslims join together to fight a war in response to this circumstance, or should they continue to appeal to the Indian police administration and courts for justice? Another question is whether, in the present context, India is Darul Aman (the Land of Peace) or Darul Harb (the Land of War). The answers to all of these questions can be found by replying to just one of the interconnected questions. However, we will address each query to make things easier for the general public. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also Read: Unpardonable Silence of Ulema as Bomb blasts and Suicide Bombings continue to torment Islamic Countries, trashing the image of Islam and Muslims ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, it is true that a tiny number of people have engaged in mob lynching in recent years in an effort to sabotage India's peace and togetherness, forward their evil objectives, and damage the country as a whole. But patriotic Indians condemned such events. Of course, in order to protect the country, we must denounce such abuses. We should resolve these issues amicably because they are our problems. This circumstance, however, cannot be utilized to support "the Mangaluru Blast." India is our country, and its problems are our problems. We know how to address our problems, and we are always aware that using violence to solve problems is never the best course of action. The authority to "declare Jihad" against hostile combatants belongs alone to the ruler of an Islamic state, according to Islamic legal texts. No other person or group is permitted to do the same. Ordinary Muslims are not permitted to declare jihad on their own. Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi, who is regarded as the founder of militancy in the Indian subcontinent and a person who influenced the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly Syed Qutb, is also one of the proponents of this concept. Syed Maududi had refused to describe Pakistani incursion in Jammu and Kashmir after Independence as Jihad. He was sentenced to death for being a traitor to Islam and Pakistan. But he stuck to his view that Jihad cannot be fought by stealth but it will have to be declared and can only be declared by a State, that too after cutting all ties and revoking all treaties with the country against which Jihad has to be declared. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Dr. Shawki Ibrahim Allam, responds to the question of "Who Has The Right To Call For Jihad and Declare War?”, “According to Islamic law, a Muslim ruler alone has the authority to declare and conduct war...The Muslim ruler declares war only after consulting specialists in every relevant field such as technical and military specialists and political consultants who are indispensable to military strategy. The luminary al-Bahutī said in Sharh Muntahā al-Iradāt: ―It is prohibited to [launch an] attack without the ruler's permission because he is responsible for making the decision of declaring war.” This assertion unequivocally rejects the jihadist mind set of IRC which has no ruler accepted by Indian Muslims. According to Dr. Shawki Allam, Islamic states must uphold the agreements and treaties they have voluntarily acknowledged and signed. They must also work steadfastly with the rest of the world's nations to achieve international peace and security, but [only] to the extent of the commitment of the signatory countries. God says: “O you who believe, fulfil [all] contracts” [5:1] In the commentary of the above verse, Dr. Shawki Allam says, “the term 'contract' refers to all commitments between two parties on a particular issue. In his interpretation of the above verse, the erudite Tunisian scholar, ibn 'Ashur says: “Contracts in this verse refers to one of a genus denoting the totality [of contracts]. It includes covenants that Muslims made with their Lord such as to follow the Shari’ah … pacts of allegiance between the believers and the prophet [pbuh], not to associate partners with God, steal, or commit fornication … agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims … and agreements between one Muslim and another" [Al-Tahriir wa al-Tanwīr, 6/74].” (Dr. Shawki Allam, The Ideological Battlefield, Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta Combats Radicalization, Jihad: Concept, history, and Contemporary Application, p.7-24) After reading the aforementioned words, it is crucial to understand that Indian Muslims have vowed to uphold the peace and integrity of their country and to always be prepared for the protection and survival of their country under the Indian Constitution. They are aware that, no matter how severely some wicked elements in their country persecute them, the only way they can end the oppression is by using the judicial system. When it comes to persecution, it's crucial to understand that Muslims occasionally persecute other Muslims, sometimes fabricate accusations against other Muslims, and occasionally even murder other Muslims. Yes, in such scenarios, the victim is forced to turn to the legal system, and occasionally he receives justice, but occasionally, because of corruption, he is forced to struggle to obtain it. He must have patience if he does not receive justice since it works to his advantage. This kind of persecution is not unique to India; it happens everywhere in the world, including Muslim-majority countries. In many Muslim countries, non-Muslims are likewise oppressed and have their privileges taken away. These problems can only be resolved through the judicial system. Anyone who claims to execute justice on their own is a criminal and susceptible to punishment in the eyes of Islamic law too. After considering all of these aspects, the IRC members should change their minds, return to the right path, and stop further misleading the Muslim youth because their acts may generate difficulty for the country, especially for the Muslims in a wake of retaliation. The only group that will be harmed more than everyone else in this situation is the Muslim community. In conclusion, the IRC approach may lead to Muslims' own destruction. Therefore, they should stop misleading the Muslim youth. Aside from that, I genuinely hope they won't succeed in influencing Indian Muslims because Indian Muslims have rejected the ideologies of well-known terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Is India A Land of Peace [Darul Aman], A land where Islam is freely practiced [Darul Islam], or a Land of War [Darul Harb]? Both Darul Islam and Darul Harb are jurisprudential terms (Fiqhi Istilahat) which were originally coined by the jurists of the early period of Islam but to deal with national transactions (Mua’amlaat) and relations (Ta’lluqaat) required by the then circumstances of the world. However, the conditions (Sharai’t) laid down by those jurists for land to become Darul Islam or Darul Harb revolved around what we simply describe in modern times as ‘basic religious rights, such as freedom of faith and rituals (‘Ibadat)’. The land which granted such religious rights was declared ‘Darul Islam’, whereas the land which banned the basic requirements of Islam was treated as Darul Harb. The most common mistake of nearly all the radical groups is about the concept of Darul Harb and Darul Islam. Ideologues of the jihadist movement contend that Islam must predominate as a state religion and that Islamic law must be upheld on a national scale in order for a nation to become Darul Islam. They believe that Darul Harb is a land that does not recognize Islam as the state religion and does not let Islam rule the land. This jihadist definition is completely wrong and vehemently conflicts with how both terms are typically used among the mainstream Ulama and scholars. Traditionally speaking, regardless of whether the land has a majority of Muslims or non-Muslims, the term "Darul Islam" refers to a place that grants fundamental religious rights to Islam. In other words, the term describes a land where Islam is freely practiced. In this case, it is not necessary for Islam to be practiced as the state religion. A land that banned fundamental religious rights of Islam, such as freedom of worship and religious rites was known as Darul Harb. The following quotes from the classical and traditional body of Islamic law completely disagree with the jihadist definitions of Darul Islam and Darul Harb, arguing that India is a land of peace and that no group has the right to proclaim jihad against India. In accordance with traditional and classical scholarship, the countries that provide the right to practice ritual prayers [Salah/prayer], the annual fast of Ramazan [Roza/Siyam], the building of mosques, the call to prayer [Azan], and the right to exhibit the wearing of Islamic dress and the performance of Muslim marriage cannot be declared ‘Darul Harb’. These countries, according to some contemporary jurists, are Darul Aman [the abode of peace], and to some, are Darul Islam [the abode where Islam is freely practiced]. For example, Abul Hasan al-Mawardi, the Iraqi judge and scholar of Muslim polity and law says: "The public acts of worship of Islam such as group prayers in mosques and calls for prayers are the criteria by which the Prophet (peace be upon him) differentiated between the Darul Islam [the Land of belief] and the Darul Harb [the Land of Disbelief]." Imam Nawawi, a popular classical Syrian scholar supports al-Mawardi’s definition of Darul Islam and writes in his great legal work ‘Rawda al-Talibin’: “If a Muslim is able to declare his Islam openly and living therein (non-Muslim majority countries), it is better for him to do so, because this fulfils the criteria for a country to be Darul Islam” The corpus of Hanafis, Shafiis, Malikis, and Hanbalis obviously suggests that the open practice of Islamic acts such as ritual prayers, annual fast, call to prayers [azan], etc. are sufficient for the land to be considered Darul Islam even if it is a non-Muslim majority country. For example, the Shafi'i position is based on a Sunna (as narrated in a hadith) that fighting or Jihad should not take place in a region where the call to prayer (azan) is heard, as the free practice of Islam indicates that the land, in general, was not hostile to Muslims and Islam. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim report a hadith in this regard: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Azan [the call to prayer], he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Azan, he would attack them immediately after dawn” (Sahih Bukhari) Imam Nawawi interprets this hadith: This hadith is evidence that verily the call to prayer [azan] forbids invading a people of that area and this is evidence of their Islam. We have also checked the opinions of the influential Indian jurists and scholars who are followed as pioneers by Indian Muslims including Sunni-Sufis or Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadithis, and Salafis. Without going through their opinions in detail, it is better and time-saving to see the conclusions of their detailed discussions respectively as follows; In 1881, a person namely Mirza Ali Baig Badayuni sent a questionnaire consisting of three questions to Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi, the first of which was: Is India Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam? In response to this questionnaire, Imam Ahmad Raza wrote a pamphlet namely "E’laamul A’alam Bianna Hindustan Dar-ul-Islam" which was first published by Hasani Press Bareilly in form of a treatise in 1927 and later included in “Fatawa Razviyya”, a collection of his Fatawa. The fatwa begins with the following words: “India is Dar-ul-Islam, not Dar-ul-Harb at all. This is based on the jurisprudential school (Mazhab) of our great Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah bless him and grant him peace)” (Fatawa Razviyya, vol.14) Maulana Amjad Ali Azmi, a very trustworthy and close spiritual caliph (Sufi Khalifa) of Imam Ahmad Raza also issued a similar fatwa in response to a question posed in a later period as follows; “India is Darul Islam. It is a grave mistake to call it Dar-ul-Harb” (Fatawa Amjadiyya, Vol. 3, published and printed by Dairatul Ma’arif al-Amjadiyya, Ghosi, Maunathbhanjan, UP) According to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, a pioneer in the Deobandi School of Thought, India is not Dar-ul-Harb but Dar-ul-Islam. He writes; “Generally, the meaning of Dar-ul-Harb is mistakenly understood that it is the place where war is obligatory; then in this sense, India is not Dar-ul-Harb, because war is not valid under the terms of the treaty” (Ashrafia, Ashrafia Publishing House, Bhoon Police Station, Saharanpur District) He further writes: “And India is not Darul Harb also according to the Sahibayn (Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yusuf, the two great students of Imam Abu Hanifa), because although the rules of polytheism are practiced in it, the rules of Islam are also practiced without fear and danger. That both types of rules and practices freely exist in one land or one country does not make the country ‘Darul Harb’. Similarly, India is not Darul Harb as per the criteria and words of Imam Abu Hanifa” (Tahzeer al-Ikhwan, Maulana Thanwi, printed by Ashraf al-Matabi’, Thaana Bhawan, Saharanpur, UP) In the biography of the Salafi Ghair-Muqallid cleric and Muhaddith (hadith scholar), Maulana Nazeer Hussain Bihari (d. 1902), the biographer Maulana Fazle Hussain Bihari (d. 1916) writes; “He (Maulana Nazeer Hussain Bihari) never called India Dar-ul-Harb” (Fazl-e-Hussain, Al-Hayat Baad al-Maut, printed by Al-Kitab International Muradi Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi) The founder of the Markazi Khilafat Committee (1919), Maulana Abdul Baari Firangi Mahali Lakhnawi (d.1926) writes: “We declare India Darul Islam” (Maktoob Maulana Abdul Baari Firangi Mahali, printed by Akhbar-e-Mashriq, Gorakhpur) The above-mentioned religious leaders and pioneers of Indian Muslims declared India to be Darul Islam under the condition that Muslims were free to exercise their religious rituals, including prayer (Namaz/Salah), the call to prayer (Azaan), Eid prayers, and annual fasts. These Indian jurists and authorities did not stipulate that Islam must be a state religion for a country to become Darul Islam, in adherence to the early Islamic jurists. This means that if a country grants fundamental religious freedoms, regardless of whether or not Islam serves as the official religion of that country, that country is Darul Islam and not Darul Harb. India is currently a democratic nation that accords both Muslims and non-Muslims religious liberties and rights. It is not a land of war [Darul Harb]. Thus, the jihadist ideologues, especially those connected to the mysterious group known as the "Islamic Resistance Council," have no authority to declare their purported "Jihad" against India. It is time they must stop misleading the Muslim youth and turn away from the disastrous path they have. URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/indian-ulema-refuting-islamic-resistance-ideology-temple/d/128605 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