Religious denunciations
and Takfir :
Isn't there enough to go around?
Dr.
Mohammad Omar Farooq
November 2005
On October 3,
2005, a highly circulated Bangla Daily
(with religious orientation) published an article containing a scathing attack
against Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (generally
known as Maulana Maududi) and the movement/organization he founded, Jamaate
Islami. The title is: "The pronouncement of the distinguished
and venerable Ulama (religious scholars) of the subcontinent: The Maududi
Aqeedah of Jamaat is more dangerous than Qadianism." [1]
I don't know if
any of the listed names is a "world-renowned" (bishsho borennyo)
alim, as claimed in that article. But it is true that the
line up of the Ulama, who have said negative things about Maududi,
his alleged aqeedah and JI, is something to reckon with in South
Asia. According to them, Maududi had creeds that are contrary to
the Qur'an and Sunnah and of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. He abandoned the
established lines of Islamic Fiqh (laws/codes), and had his own self-concocted
Fiqh. Any interaction with the movement of Maududi is Islamically
impermissible. To pray with any adherent with JI or behind any imam
(prayer leader) of JI background is Makruh Tahrimi (most
unacceptable). Marital relationship with anyone of JI background is to be
shunned. The litany of their pronouncement goes on. At least, in that essay,
there was no Takfir (pronouncement that some individual or group are
kafir or disbelievers) against Maududi and JI, even though they are
declared as worse and more pernicious than Qadianism and its adherents.
The fact of the
matter is that politically there can be a lot of criticism about the
contribution and role of Maududi and JI, but from the religious perspective, any
closer
scrutiny
might find big holes in much of the polemics
against Maududi and JI. This kind
of religious
denunciation
against Maududi and JI in an already
ideologically fragmented and conflict-prone society is not just unwise, but
uncalled for. Of course, devotees of Maulana Maududi and JI are
infuriated at this scathing and vicious attack. JI's Publicity Department issued
an official statement, repudiating the attack as calumnious.
There are reasons
for JI to take the matter seriously. Historically, Maududi and JI have rarely
enjoyed any favorable rapport with the Ulama. Notwithstanding the fact that the
Ulama have worked together with Maududi and JI in Pakistan on many vital
Islamic issues of national importance in Pakistan, rejection and repudiation
of Maududi's movement and its organization JI by the greater body of the Ulama,
representing the institutionalized network of religious orthodoxy, has been
persistent. In Bangladesh, JI is more vulnerable, due to its colossal mistake
in siding and collaborating with a genocidal army. Politically being
pro-Pakistan and defending the country's national integrity was one
thing, but armed collaboration with a genocidal army was utterly
wrong, Islamically and humanistically. JI to date has never taken proper
responsibility for its action. Thus, both the secular front and the
orthodox religious front - for completely different reasons - are often at
loggerhead with JI.
There is an
interesting irony in this anti-JI attacks and JI's piqued response. In the
aftermath of the Revolution in Iran in 1979, when the revolutionary zeal
of the newly victorious Shiites was about to overwhelm the imagination
and passion of the Muslims around the world, in cahoots with the anti-Iran
axis, led by Saudi Arabia, JI undertook a sectarian campaign against the
Shiites, portraying them in ways similar to the kind of attack they
themselves are complaining about. Yes, there were and still are plenty on
the part of the Sunnis to disagree with the Shiites (and vice versa), if they
are prone to seeking disagreement. But, the JI
sponsored and promoted anti-Shiite
pamphlet or books, had the same
kind of contents: the pronouncements of various Sunni ulama against the
Shiites, dubbing them as heretics and innovators. There was
no formal fatwa of Kufr, but innuendos or
circumlocutions that would point out to the readers various types of
kufr and what might be common among the Shiites. That kind
of sectarian literature, which was distributed by JI primarily
internally, gradually disappeared, but it remained as a shameful chapter in
the deplorable attempts of various groups and institutions in the
name of Islam at various times to aggravate the ever widening schisms in
the Muslim world. Lest it is
misunderstood, Shiites themselves were promoting and disseminating sectarian
anti-Sunni literature rather consistently.
Anyway,
there is even a bigger irony. It seems that our orthodox religious
establishment is in a race to push each other out of the fold of Islam. Most
of the distinguished names, whose names and fatwas (opinions) are
being invoked in attacking Maulana Maududi and JI, are of Deobandi
background, and the ironical reality is that there are others among
the Ulama, who have declared the Deobandi Ulama, not just heretics and
innovators, but also Kafirs (infidels).
Maulana Ahmed
Riza Khan (or Barelwi) is also a well known alim, a central figure to the
Barelwi movement. Interestingly, this movement also lays claim to the same Ahl
al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. His fulminations against the other Ulama, whether
Deobandis or Ahle Hadis, were most vitriolic. Referring to Kafirs
(infidels) and placing Deobandiyat in the continuum of infidelity (kufr),
he pronounced: "Among these Kafirs too there are gradations. One hard
kind of basic kufr is Christianity; worse than it is Magianism; worse
than that is idolatry; worse than that is Wahabiyat; and worse
than all these and more wicked is Deobandiyat." [Fatawa-i-Rizvia,
Vol. VI., pp. 3-4?]
If such a
position was from an isolated religious figure, it would have been different.
However, the reach of the arm of Maulana Riza Khan was quite long. To
get the Deobandiyat repudiated, condemned and denounced, he took his
case to the Ulama of the heartland of Islam, Makkah and Madinah. Upon studying
the presentation of Maulana Riza Khan, there was an astounding Fatwa
of, not merely heresy or innovation, but KUFR on the Deobandi "maulavis" from
these Ulama of Makkah and Madinah. This fatwa was issues in 1900 AD by 20
Ulama from Makkah and 13 from Madinah. By specifically naming Maulana Ashraf
Ali Thanwi, Maulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, Maulana Qasim Nantowi, and others,
this edict branded these Deobandi Ulama as "Kafirs." The entire
pronouncement was published as part of a booklet "Husamul
Harmain Ala Manhar Al-Kufr Wal Main". The actual fatwa was
publicly pronounced during a hajj season.
Empowered with
the fatwa of Takfir from Ulama of Makkah and Madinah, Maulana Riza
pushed further. He dubbed the Deobandis as badtar-az-badtar-se-badtar
(worse than the worse of the worse). He was a man of unrestrained
language. How animated a person can be due to religious zealotry can be
understood, when one takes into account how he lumped all the others, the Ahle
Hadis, the Wahhabis, the Shias (and don't forget the Deobandis) as the Jahannam
ke kutte (dogs of the hell). [Fatawa-i-Rizvia, Volume VI, pp. 35, 70]
One wonders what
these denouncers of Maulana Maududi and JI have to say about the fatwa of
kufr that hangs over themselves. The reality is that Maulana
Riza Khan really did not have the foundation to make such pronouncement. But
when a zealous mind harbors prejudice and wants to condemn others and have
others join too in the condemnation, practically there are enough fatwa-wielding
Ulama to push each other out from the fold of Islam. Many of the
statements of Deobandis were misrepresented by the Barelwi scholar before
the condemning Ulama of the Haramain, and there it was: the garland
of fatwa over the neck of the Deobandis. Deobandi Ulama cried foul, but
history still records that fatwa, as an example of the discordant minds,
lacking an iota of care for the unity of the Muslims or mutual decency Islam
enjoins and demands.
What JI and
others tried to do against the Shiites in the early 80s and what these
Deobandi Ulama have tried to do against Maududi and JI are macabres
similar to what Maulana Riza Khan tried to accomplish through the Ulama of the
Haramain against the Deobandis, Ahle Hadis, Wahhabis and so on.
An unfortunate
reality is that this disease of crossing all borders in condemnation of rival
groups among Muslims has a long history. Even eminent personalities, such as
Imam Abu Hanifah for example, was called a Kafir. His alleged fault
was that he categorized the witr prayer as wajib.
Yusuf b. Khalid
al-Simti told Abu Hanifah that he was a kafir for saying witr
(a supererogatory night prayer) was wajib, thinking he (i.e. Abu
Hanifah) meant it was the same as fard. Abu Hanifah said, 'You
can't scare me with your ikfar, since I know that the difference
between fard and wajib is like the difference between
heaven and earth (al-farq bayn al-wajib wa-l-fard ka-farq ma bayn
al-sama wa-l-ard." [in Kasani, Abu Bakr b. Masud. (587/1191), Bada'i
al-Sana'i fi tartib al-shara'i (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi,
1402/1982, 1:271. [Quoted in A. Kevin Reinhart. "Like the Difference
between Heaven and Earth: Hanafi and Shafi'i Discussions of Fard and Wajib
in Theology and Usul" in Bernard Weiss (ed). Studies in Islamic Legal
Theory, Brill, 2002, p. 205.
Such religious
condemnation by one group against another is common in most religions, and
Muslims are no exceptions. However, in two respects, Muslims are showing
probably worse examples, because they ought to know that the Prophet
categorically informed the unacceptability of such judgmental religious
denunciations.
It is reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar
that the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Any
person who called his brother an unbeliever (has in fact done an act by which
this unbelief) would return to one of them. If it were so, as he asserted
(then the unbelief of man was confirmed but if it was not true), then it
returned to him (to the man who labeled it on his brother Muslim). [Sahih
Muslim, #117]
Maulana Riza
Khan and his patron Ulama from the Haramain did not respect this Prophetic
command, which has really serious implications. The Ulama of Deoband, Ahle Hadis,
or Najdi/Wahhabiyat may have many aspects, about the interpretation of which
there can be religious differences. However, it was crossing the Islamic limit
to resort to Takfir against them or denouncing them as Jahannam ke
kutte. One group of Ulama may find shortcomings in others, but
collectively they also have a vital and venerable place in our lives. In a
similar way, there might be plenty of criticisms against Maududi and JI, and
there can and should be serious
discourse - in an Islamic manner, consistent with the parameters as taught by
the Prophet - to deal with things about which one may differ. However, this kind
of religious denunciations and Takfir are inconsistent with the
noble teachings of Islam.
The ulama and the
revivalist Islamic forces, who are held in high regard in varying degree by
Muslims, need to realize that by stooping low in such religious denunciations,
they actually undermine their own credibility and aggravate the already
fragile and fragmented conditions of Muslims. I can't imagine of any Ahl
al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah that does not either understand or genuinely uphold
the sunnah of the Prophet (s). When the Prophet's sunnah is based on a
bridge-building tradition, as exemplified in his historic initiative in
achieving the first constitutional polity of Muslims, Jews and Christians
in Madinah, it seems that our understanding and actions in the name
sunnah is more in bridge-destroying mode. Let alone being a beacon and
guiding light for uniting people of diverse (and even conflicting) backgrounds,
as the Prophet did in establishing a pluralistic polity in Madinah, we seem to
be neither caring nor able to forge or foster unity even among Muslims.
That seems to
be the unfortunate reality, not just in Bangladesh or South Asia, but in the
entire Islamic world. However, it does not have to be
that way. If we can learn to express, convey and register our differences with
others as part of a constructive Islamic discourse, the tide can be turned
around. The Qur'an is categorical in its teachings and emphasis. Islam is based
on the pristine creed of Tauhid (oneness of the Creator, Sustainer and Evolver of
the universe), which affirms oneness of the humanity and oneness of the
community of the believers.
And hold
fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be
not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on
you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His
Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He
saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be
guided. [3/Ale Imran/103]
The society
in Arabia during the period before the Prophet Muhammad was full of violence,
discord and bloodshed. As the Qur'an mentions: they "...were enemies"
of each other and "...on the brink of the pit of Fire." Allah, by His
Grace, joined their hearts in love and these people were saved. Once the energy
of people was not against each other, but their hearts were reconciled in
harmony, the community became a powerhouse of energy to elevate the human
civilization to a new and unprecedented height. Reminding the community of
believers this critical background, Allah commands "hold fast, all
together, by the rope of Allah and BE NOT DIVIDED AMONG YOURSELVES."
Our noble
Ulama have played pivotal, valiant and
visionary role throughout the Islamic history. Excepting some ulama of the
courts, who sold their iman at the altar of the contemporary corridors
of power, most of our noble ulama have served as a beacon of light and voice of
conscience for Muslims and the society
in general. People still look forward to that kind of exemplary role from them,
even though for quite long, they are not providing as
such. Instead, they are consumed by
divisive rhetoric and tendencies that reinforce the already splintered
community and society.
Let's hope
that inspired and led by a genuinely visionary, proactive and unifying Islamic
role of our scholars, Muslims can
rise above sectarianism, which is also important to overcome communalism,
to forge greater unity and cooperation to serve the humanity ["... you
are created for the humanity, al-Qur'an:3/Ale Imran/110] in the path of
God.
HOME
Index of my
writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi
Nazrul Islam?
Genocide
1971 Page?
Hadith
Humor Page?