http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/05-Oct-2006/view-pontiffs-on-the-offensive-salman-akram-raja
"Islamic thought in the modern era has several noteworthy exemplars. In the Pakistani context Abu al ala Maudoodi occupies a position of considerable prestige. His Tafhim-ul-Quran remains perhaps the most widely read commentary on the Holy Quran in the Urdu language. Several judgements of the superior courts have described him as a leading authority on Islam. Maudoodi's Jihad fil Islam (Jihad in Islam), an early work, remains key to his later thought and his political legacy. In that text Maudoodi put forward the idea of muslihana jihad or jihad for the purpose of correction of error. The Holy Quran, in several verses, makes of the faithful the following demand: aqim ud din. For Shah Abdul Qadir, Shah Waliullah's son and the first translator of the Holy Quran into Urdu in the early nineteenth century, the aqim ud din verses call upon the believers to stay steadfast in their faith. What is demanded is a private struggle and a personal resolve. Not so for Maudoodi. In Jihad fil Islam as well as his commentary Maudoodi was to translate aqim ud din as the command to establish the faith as a complete code of life on God's earth. This is what distinguishes Islam as a din from mere mazhab or religion in a narrow sense. The latter are meek temple affairs. For him, Islam craves a state and the might to enforce the sharia as the universal order. This, for Maudoodi, calls for armed jihad that the Islamic state must conduct not for the purpose of defence but for correcting the errors of the world. This is the Divine will and to participate in the struggle the obligation of all Muslims.
Maulana Taqi Usmani, son and intellectual heir to Mufti Shafi — hailed in his time as the Mufti-e-Hind, is considered by many to be the leading Deobandi authority of the day. He was embraced by the Pakistani state and remained a judge of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court for nearly twenty years till 2002. During the recent Hudood controversy he was especially invited by the ruling party to head the committee of ulema set up to examine the amendment proposals. Given his background Taqi Usmani can hardly be considered a minor maverick. His Islam and Modernism, published in 2001, devotes a chapter to the purpose of jihad in Islam. The text is in the form of replies by the great Maulana to questions posed by those seeking enlightenment. A correspondent arguing in favour of peaceful missionary work and against offensive jihad had suggested:
Subjugating them (non-Muslims) to a Muslim government cannot achieve this (change of heart and mind) because in such a condition the subject people will be conscious of their subjugation and they will hardly have the inclination to hear about Islam with an attentive ear.
The Maulana's response is chilling:
I understand from what you have written that jihad is not necessary when a non-Muslim country permits Muslim mission(ary) work to be conducted in it. If this is your opinion, I cannot agree with it. Obstacles in the way of mission(ary) work are not only legal ones. For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state is itself an obstacle. ... Therefore, to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad ... Another point to consider is whether during the time of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) or of the companions there is any instance of a mission being sent after awaiting permission for it. ... Was any missionary party sent to Rome before mounting an attack on that metropolis? ... As far as my knowledge goes there is not a single instance throughout the entire history of Islam where the intention was announced that warfare would be stopped if the enemy conceded to this condition (permission to carry out peaceful missionary work).
There are certainly other Muslim voices that counter Maudoodi and Taqi Usmani's call to incessant war till followers of all other faiths have been subjugated and forced into humiliation. At the same time intellectual support for aggression as a valid norm in Islam is by no means minuscule. It emerges, even if by inference, in writers that span a wide spectrum from Martin Lings to Ghulam Ahmad Parvez, otherwise Maudoodi's great nemesis. What is clear is that supposedly learned answers to the tangled question of violence and propagation of faith are more problematic than is often imagined by ordinary Muslims whose hearts remain unburdened by what the pontiffs have to teach."
"Islamic thought in the modern era has several noteworthy exemplars. In the Pakistani context Abu al ala Maudoodi occupies a position of considerable prestige. His Tafhim-ul-Quran remains perhaps the most widely read commentary on the Holy Quran in the Urdu language. Several judgements of the superior courts have described him as a leading authority on Islam. Maudoodi's Jihad fil Islam (Jihad in Islam), an early work, remains key to his later thought and his political legacy. In that text Maudoodi put forward the idea of muslihana jihad or jihad for the purpose of correction of error. The Holy Quran, in several verses, makes of the faithful the following demand: aqim ud din. For Shah Abdul Qadir, Shah Waliullah's son and the first translator of the Holy Quran into Urdu in the early nineteenth century, the aqim ud din verses call upon the believers to stay steadfast in their faith. What is demanded is a private struggle and a personal resolve. Not so for Maudoodi. In Jihad fil Islam as well as his commentary Maudoodi was to translate aqim ud din as the command to establish the faith as a complete code of life on God's earth. This is what distinguishes Islam as a din from mere mazhab or religion in a narrow sense. The latter are meek temple affairs. For him, Islam craves a state and the might to enforce the sharia as the universal order. This, for Maudoodi, calls for armed jihad that the Islamic state must conduct not for the purpose of defence but for correcting the errors of the world. This is the Divine will and to participate in the struggle the obligation of all Muslims.
Maulana Taqi Usmani, son and intellectual heir to Mufti Shafi — hailed in his time as the Mufti-e-Hind, is considered by many to be the leading Deobandi authority of the day. He was embraced by the Pakistani state and remained a judge of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court for nearly twenty years till 2002. During the recent Hudood controversy he was especially invited by the ruling party to head the committee of ulema set up to examine the amendment proposals. Given his background Taqi Usmani can hardly be considered a minor maverick. His Islam and Modernism, published in 2001, devotes a chapter to the purpose of jihad in Islam. The text is in the form of replies by the great Maulana to questions posed by those seeking enlightenment. A correspondent arguing in favour of peaceful missionary work and against offensive jihad had suggested:
Subjugating them (non-Muslims) to a Muslim government cannot achieve this (change of heart and mind) because in such a condition the subject people will be conscious of their subjugation and they will hardly have the inclination to hear about Islam with an attentive ear.
The Maulana's response is chilling:
I understand from what you have written that jihad is not necessary when a non-Muslim country permits Muslim mission(ary) work to be conducted in it. If this is your opinion, I cannot agree with it. Obstacles in the way of mission(ary) work are not only legal ones. For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state is itself an obstacle. ... Therefore, to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad ... Another point to consider is whether during the time of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) or of the companions there is any instance of a mission being sent after awaiting permission for it. ... Was any missionary party sent to Rome before mounting an attack on that metropolis? ... As far as my knowledge goes there is not a single instance throughout the entire history of Islam where the intention was announced that warfare would be stopped if the enemy conceded to this condition (permission to carry out peaceful missionary work).
There are certainly other Muslim voices that counter Maudoodi and Taqi Usmani's call to incessant war till followers of all other faiths have been subjugated and forced into humiliation. At the same time intellectual support for aggression as a valid norm in Islam is by no means minuscule. It emerges, even if by inference, in writers that span a wide spectrum from Martin Lings to Ghulam Ahmad Parvez, otherwise Maudoodi's great nemesis. What is clear is that supposedly learned answers to the tangled question of violence and propagation of faith are more problematic than is often imagined by ordinary Muslims whose hearts remain unburdened by what the pontiffs have to teach."
No comments:
Post a Comment