By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi
Eisa Fazili, the slain ISIS sympathizer in Kashmir-young gullible student of the B Tech (IT) who joined militant ranks-warned the Ulema:
“One day they have to show their faces to Allah who will punish them for failing in their duties to give a call for Jihad fi Sabilillah (armed struggle in the path of Allah)”.
But what Fazili and his likes of the radicalized Kashmiri youths fail to do is reason with themselves: when the Ulema— of any sect (Maslak) or any school of jurisprudence (Mazhab)—have not issued any decree or fatwa for jihad in Kashmir, why these half-educated youths are hell-bent on calling for the self-declared ‘jihad-e-Kashmir’? Have they become self-imposed Ulema or muftis (Islamic jurists) by themselves to declare Jihad or Qital, something that, according to the established Islamic scholars, only state can declare? Don’t they look up to the authoritative Ulema and authentic Islamic scholars as their religious mentors anymore? When Ulema and Islamic clergy don’t ask them to participate in any kind of jihad, then who are forcing them to go berserk and play havoc across the valley in the name of jihad and Khilafah? Clearly, the present-day extremist jihadists in Kashmir are deceiving themselves and are working on the behest of the foreign interests. They are simply puppets of the foreign political ambitions and are, knowingly or unconsciously, serving the ulterior motives and designs of the anti-India elements. Therefore, it is indispensable to rescue the misguided Muslim youths in Kashmir from the false Islamic jihad bred by the outside interests. Eisa Fazili argued with the Ulema that one day they have to show their faces to Allah who will punish them for ‘failing in their duties to call for Jihad’. But he could not reason with himself as to how he would show his own face to Allah while he has failed to spend his God-gifted precious life in the righteous path of Allah (fi sabeel lilah). Will Allah not ask him why he wasted his sacred life in the so-called jihad which was neither commanded by God nor declared by state, nor endorsed by even a single authentic Islamic scholar?
Let alone the established Islamic scholars in India, even the Pakistani ulema have refuted the legitimacy of any such self-declared jihad. This came in a recent Anti-terror Fatwa popularly known as “Paigham-e-Pakistan” signed by 1,800 Ulama of almost every Islamic school of thought. It has categorically stated two important things: (1) that ‘only the state can announce a jihad’ and (2) that any decree (fatwa) or move to enforce the Sharia’h law cannot be legitimized without the legal statutes. It reads:
“According to Islamic jurists, no activity leading to war can be initiated without the consent of the state ruler or his appointed commanders. A soldier cannot attack the enemy in his personal capacity without the permission of his commander….Islamic jurists also pronounce that war cannot be waged without the permission of the government. Moreover, it cannot be started just to overcome the enemy. It is right of the government to allow fighting or waging war which is further subject to the vulnerable security situation of the state. The Holy Qur’an states: “And if they (the enemy, combatant or hostile people) incline towards peace and reconciliation, you also incline to it and put your trust in Allah. Surely, He alone is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”(Surah Anfal: 8:61, Holy Qur’an)
Based on several verses of the Qur’an like the above, authoritative ulema and muftis (Islamic jurists)—both in India and Pakistan—have delegitimized any kind of self-declared jihad or armed struggle. They have specifically decreed against waging war against the state. Thus, what the militants in Kashmir are doing is Fasad (mischief), not Jihad. Their untenable theological justifications and farfetched religious arguments cannot be the Islamic basis of support for their acts of terror and violence.
According to the reports, the slain Kashmiri militant also made a plea for the armed struggle or jihad against what he called the reign of Kufr (Dar al-Kufr). In his war-cry, his argument was that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to fight against the Darul Kufr and Kafirs. Thus, he sought to legitimize the terror attacks not just against the Indian government but also against those in power within Kashmir.
However, the extremists’ theological justification for combat against the non-Muslim majority countries calling them ‘Darul Kufr’ (land of disbelief) is completely erroneous and untenable. They are twisting the early Islamic terms and concepts which the ulema have mentioned in a historical background. But the present-day fanatics misperceive them and consider every country where the Islamic Shariah is not enforced as Darul Kufr or Darul Harb (land of war). Thus, jihadist extremists believe that the people of these countries may be fought by an Islamic expedition (Ghazwa) in order to conquer their territories.
But this jihadist argument has been refuted by the fact that the classification of territories made by early Islamic jurists was not intended to justify a wanton war against the non-Muslim lands. Rather, it served as a basis upon which certain jurisprudential (fiqhi) rulings were implemented on Muslims. It was just like the classification of the globe into political territories today.
The collective consensus (Ijma’a) of the mainstream Ulema today is on the authentic Islamic position that if Muslims peacefully coexist with other people enjoying safety of life and security of the religious freedom anywhere in the world, any such territory or country can be termed as Darul Mua’ahda (abode of peace treaty) or Darul Sulah (abode of reconciliation) in the purely Islamic jurisprudential (Fiqhi) terms. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, an established Islamic cleric who popularized the concept of Darul Mua’ahda in India, motivated Muslims towards the territorial nationalism rather than creating a nation based on religious considerations. In 1937, Maulana addressed a political meeting in Delhi and made this clear: “Today a nation is made on the basis of the country. If there are different religions in the country, the nation does not become different”.
As for the medieval Islamic terms like Dar ul-Islam, Dar ul-Kufr and Dar ul-Harb, they are null and void today; abrogated by the new world order, constitution, international covenants, peace treaties and international relations. They might have been relevant during the third and fourth Islamic centuries. Even then, they did not serve as the basis for wanton killing of the non-Muslims or Muslims. Imam al-Kasani (r.a)—the 6th century renowned Islamic jurist who authored one of the most colossal reference works on the Hanafi law “al-Bada’e al-Sana’e”, wrote in his classical work:
“What is meant by designating the word “Dar” (abode) with Islam and Kufr (disbelief) is not Islam and disbelief per se, but the state of security or insecurity. Moreover, the relative juristic rulings are not based on Islam itself or Kufr (in this case), but on the security or insecurity.”
This position was reinforced by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah revered as an important Imam in the Sunni Islamic tradition. He clearly stated in support of the above traditional Islamic position: “This is the opinion held by the majority of scholars [Ulema]. It is crystal clear that Muslims jurists made their opinions according to Fiqh al-Ma’alat (the Islamic law which takes into consideration the outcomes of actions).” [Ibn Qayyem Al-Jawziyyah, Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimmah 2/873].
As an eminent medieval Islamic jurist of the Hanbali School of jurisprudence, the decrees on the religious rights of non-Muslims in the writings of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim compiled in “Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah” are noteworthy. They indicate that the early Islamic jurists applied Maslahah (public interest) as the basis of the Shariah rulings on the contemporary issues. As a result, the religious rights of non-Muslims were guaranteed in the authoritative views based on the rightly guided Islamic principles, rather than the misguiding opinions of the political theologians who served the ulterior motives and imperialist designs of the different Muslim dynasties.
Since the security and peace treaty are fully guaranteed in the constitution of the nation states, the rulings of Darul Islam or Darul Kufr are no longer of any Islamic application today. Zakir Musa’s open threat to behead ‘those who talk in terms of nation state’ is only a symptomatic of his sheer lack of knowledge about the Qur’anic law and canonical Islamic texts. Of course, his war cry of ‘Ghazwatul Hind’ threatens the status quo of the security paradigm in the valley, but he has no substantial support from the established Islamic scholarship in India.
In fact, the entire extremist jihadist rhetoric in Kashmir which is underfoot to agitate Muslims on social media and YouTube videos is run of the mill and has no substance or support from any of the four established Islamic thought resources—Qur’an, Hadith, Ijm’a (consensus) or Qiyas (analogy). Those who are critical of the Indian Alims and Fazils accusing them of ‘siding with the government’ and refusing to issue the ‘jihad decree on Kashmir’ should worry as to how they would show their faces to Allah in the hereafter (Akhirah). In fact, Allah will punish them for failing in their duties to pay heed to this clear commandment of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
“Whosoever kills a person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of Paradise”. (Reported by Sahih Muslim)
The non-Muslims, not only Muslims, enjoyed the protective status, safety of life and security of faith in the Madina state where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) announced:
“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment”. (Reported by Abu Dawud)