Nation for PeaceReligion for PeaceSpirituality for Peace

Modern Urdu writings on Jihad in the Subcontinent offer new perspectives

Muslim Ulema, scholars and writers from subcontinent such as Inayatullah Subhani, Ammar Khan Nasir, Yahya Numani, Sultan Ahmad Islahi and of course Javed Ahmad Ghamdi wrote on Jihad and tried their best to remove many misgivings and misunderstandings around Jihad and the related issues.

Dr. Mohammad Ghitreef, WordForPeace.com Modern Urdu writings on Jihad in the Subcontinent offer new perspectives

Muslim Ulema, scholars and writers from subcontinent such as Inayatullah Subhani, Ammar Khan Nasir, Yahya Numani, Sultan Ahmad Islahi and of course Javed Ahmad Ghamdi wrote on Jihad and tried their best to remove many misgivings and misunderstandings around Jihad and the related issues. But some rigid scholars and ulema confront them with heated objections.

Therefore, a close reading of classical Muslim stand on this issue is a must, so that one understands and thereby can give a satisfactory answer to the objections.

One thing, in principle, should be clear here. And that is: one thing is the text of the Qur’an and Sunnah, which is ever-lasting, and the other is its interpretation which is totally different. An interpretation is a human understanding only, and it cannot be given a divine status, and it could be changed time to time.

While the divine text always remains the same. We must clearly distinguish between the two. And scholars have always distinguished between them. But unfortunately, most of the time we are not able to keep this difference in mind. Obviously, the text is always the same, but it is not necessary that there be the same uniformity in its understanding, nor is it required from us to do so. For, this undermines the universality of religion.

The understanding of a religion is not an indispensable part of religion but a part of the religious tradition and religious thought which is used to continue the journey of knowledge. Understanding text is always evolving, there is always a possibility of new research and fresh interpretation. It is a pity in our traditional circles that the principle of inquiry is not freely practiced and the understanding of religious text is not being encouraged. For example, there is a well-known and popular belief among Muslims about jihad that disbelief كفر will not be tolerated and jihad has been started only for the eradication of disbelief from the surface or the earth. In his book, by studying the relevant verses and researching the hadiths, Subhani has argued that this theory is wrong. The Qur’an proves the legitimacy of jihad for the eradication of sedition, persecution and oppression only. The author has invited scholars and readers for a scholarly discussion. (see his two books جہاد اور روح جہاد ،جہاداورآیات جہاد:

Yahya Numani also has similar views on Jihad but he defended the jurist’s views and criticized Modudi’s idea of not tolerating the dominance of kufr on its own territory. He observes that a close and fresh reading of the text reveals that the legitimacy of jihad depends on persisting persecution and tyranny of a ruler or a nation and not a religion or any creed, as well as Islam allows for infidels to have a political system of their choice  (see what is Jihad by Numani)

Sultan Ahmad Islahi in his book ہندوستان اورمسلم اقلیت کا کردار observed that aggressive war was justified in the case of righteous caliphate (Khilafate rashdia) era, as it was according to the Urf and custom of  those times, in modern times the custom has changed so we have to have new opinion on Jihad too.

Moulana Wahiduddin Khan in his book zuhore Islam opines that Muslim invasions in Rashidun’s era on Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria etc were triggered firstly in defence of Arabian territories, then eventually this war drive became offensive. It was to him, a part of historical Islam, and it doesn’t belong to core issue of Dawah, which should be done peacefully.

This is of course a new study and new understanding of the verses related to jihad on which the learned authors have invited scholars and readers to ponder upon.

The above referred new books correct some misconceptions, for example, Muslims under the influence of certain traditions have the notion that there is a compulsion in religion. Muslim jurists and scholars generally justify this view saying that there are a number of prophetic traditions that prove this to be true, for example, that a child should be commended to pray at the age of seven and be punished at the age of ten for praying. It is also argued that the punishment for apostasy is murder, that also proves coercion. Shah Waliullah has also written in Hujjatullah al-Balighah that there is compulsion in religion. We should talk briefly on his points also.

Shah Waliullah justified اكراه coercion likening it to a ‘’master compelling his sick slaves to have a bitter but curing drug forcefully, be the sick slave willing to drink it or not. Because his lord has the power to give him that medicine and cannot be blamed for that.
فمثله في دلك كمثل سيد مرض عبيده فأمربعض خواصه أن يكلفهم شرب دواء شاواام ابوافلو انه اكرهم على دلك كان حقا(حجة الله البالغة الجزء الاول،القسم الاول مبحث السياسات الملية 157 دار الجيل)

(The same applies to the master of the diseased slaves, who ordered some of his friends to compel them drinking a medicine they like it or not, for that was really his right Hujjat Allah Al-balighah, Part 1, Section One, discussion on Political Policy Studies, p. 157)

To me, this orientation and justification may sound good in his times when slavery was not abolished, but in today’s times it is safely may be said that the example may not be true and plausible for our times. Secondly our universe is governed by some divine rules and laws, among them there is the law of testing and examining people based on the principle that “in the sphere of belief human being is given full freedom of choice”, after showing him both the way; good and bad, to see and judge which way he goes. He has been given reason and intellect supported with the divine revelation, thus the convincing argument is completed for him by every standard. So now one has no excuse to present in his case on the day of judgement. Thirdly, there are so many verses in the Quran that fix the right of freedom of choice. Shah’s reasoning negates these verses which are in abundance in the holy book is tantamount to negate it.

Ammar Khan Nasir also has the same critical observation on Shah’s view.

Now the question is, can we satisfy the modern mind with these arguments? And the bigger question is what is achieved by these methods? Does beating a child or a student make him more observant and enthusiastic about prayers? The question that has always been in our minds is whether this unwise method can be attributed to the holy Prophet? (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Subhani’s research shows all these traditions have come from weak sources, therefore it is not correct to make the Qur’anic command of لا اكراه في الدين suppressed by such weak hadith. The right way instead of beating children or students for prayers etc., is to give them loving advice, benevolent treatment and compassionate counselling and training. The effects will be positive and lasting.

The raison d’être of Jihad to the jurist’s is ending the disbelief كفر.

In our opinion, this notion of jurists needs to be examined in detail. Their argument is that because of disbelief, the people of disbelief become rebellious against God, so their lives, wealth and reputation are not Protected. If they have received these things, then they have obtained them thanks to existence of people of Islam.

Therefore, the jurists generally believe that the real relationship between the disbelievers and the followers of Islam is war and not reconciliation. It could be for a limited time period no more than 10 year, and they should continue to attack the infidel government from time to time as it is the position adopted by the Shafie school of thought. The Hanafis have a different opinion and in their view peace and war are based on the interests of the Muslim state. The question is whether this classical jurisprudential position needs to be reconsidered or not?

Maulana Maududi disagreed a little with this position and said that disbelief is not an issue and no war will be fought only because of disbelief but the glory of disbelief is not tolerable in the eyes of Islam. (See الجہادفی الاسلام )

Scholars of Farahi school of thought, such as Javed Ahmad Ghamdi, argue that the law of completing the convincing argument (اتمام حجت ) is at play here.(See his book قانون جہاد: میزان جاوید احمد غامدی)

Ammar Khan Nasir, a distinguished scholar, also furthered this view and added new meaning to the basic ideas of Farahi school of thought, as his book brilliantly shows (See جہاد: ایک مطالعہ)

In any case, the position of Subhani is different from these two positions and he considers only the persecution and mischief of the disbelievers as the cause of jihad. Similarly, he did not consider the law of completing the convincing argument as a proof for waging a jihad against disbelievers.

*Research Associate with Centre for Promotion of Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims of India, AMU Aligarh.

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA ImageChange Image

Back to top button
Translate »