By Maulvi Yahya Nomani
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)
Islam insists that Muslims should abide by the pacts and treaties that they have entered into with others. The Quran repeatedly insists on this. In one place, it says, ‘[A] nd keep the covenant. Lo! of the covenant it will be asked’(17:34). A hadith report claims that the Prophet once remarked, ‘A person lacks faith if he is not trustworthy and he who breaks his agreements has no religion.’
From the Quran and the Sunnah it emerges that for the Prophet the treaty that deserved the highest respect and the strictest compliance was the political pact between two states or between an individual and a state to ensure peace and security of life and property. The insistence on abiding by pacts entered into with others is a central Islamic teaching, and those who break their treaties are warned of punishment in Hell. The Islamic doctrine of jihad in the path of God must be understood in this light. The Prophet Muhammad is said to have remarked:
‘On the Day of Judgment, when all of humankind shall assemble before God, every oath-breaker shall be given in his hand a flag announcing that he is a traitor, on which shall be written that he, son of his father, is a traitor.’
Muslims have no need to adopt any apologetic or defensive stance on the issue of jihad. The doctrine of jihad is one of the clear proofs of the truth of Islam. It is a necessary means for fulfilling the higher purposes of humanity, if and when the need so arises. It is also a means to secure God’s blessings. A true jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with strife and conflict that is a central aspect of the Western-inspired present international system, under which states continue to maintain elations with each other and formally abide by their treaties but surreptitiously engage in proxy wars to destabilize each other.
Lamentably, today, some elements are exhorting impressionable Muslim youth with to renege on their commitments and pacts in the name of jihad. In this way they are seeking to instigate them to violate the commandments of the shariah and the limits set by God, while also causing grave damage to the cause of Islam and its followers. These stupid people are not friends of Islam. Many of them, in fact, have been nurtured and are being used by the enemies of Islam. In this regard I can cite two notable instances—Abu Hamza al-Misri and Omar al-Bakri—both of who are based in England and are engaged in provoking young Muslims to take to violence while themselves enjoying the protection of the British Government.
With regard to such foolish people, let me say that the moment a Muslim applies for a visa to visit or stay in a non-Muslim country he enters into what, in effect, is an agreement with the government of that state, promising it that he will not pose any threat to the lives and property of the people of that country and that he will abide by the country’s laws. He reiterates this promise numerous times while travelling to that country and also when he enters it. Even if that country is vociferously anti-Muslim and anti-Islam, it is incumbent on that person to abide by this agreement and respect the lives and properties of that country’s inhabitants. This is because he has consciously entered into an agreement with that country’s government and has assured it that he will respect its laws and the lives and properties of its citizens. Therefore, he has absolutely no excuse for misusing the name of Islam to revolt against that state or to violate the agreement that he has entered into with it. If he violates this agreement and commits an act of aggression in that country, even with a good intention, he commits a crime in the eyes both of the law and of Islam. For, as a hadith report claims the Prophet once declared, ‘If a person assures someone else of protection from his side but then slays him, he will be made to hold the flag of treason in his hand’ (Masnad Ahmad: 21441). The same hadith is mentioned, along with a correct chain of transmitters, in the Sahih Ibn Haban (5982), with the addition of the phrase ‘even if the slain person is a non-Muslim’.
Another form of treaty or agreement is that relating to citizenship. Muslim citizens of a modern non-Muslim state have, in effect, entered into an agreement with that state and its other citizens. This agreement is more important than other ordinary agreements in that other agreements are generally valid only for a specified time period, while the agreement related to one’s citizenship lasts as long as a person retains citizenship of a given country. Citizenship has always been understood as an agreement between an individual citizen and the state of a country whose citizen he is. The state and its citizens have clearly specified responsibilities vis-à-vis each other, as do the citizens of the country among themselves. They all agree to protect, and not to harm, the lives and properties of the citizens of the country. If someone declares that he does not regard it his duty to respect the life of his fellow citizens and that he is free to take their lives and property, the state of which he is a citizen will, naturally, at once declare him to be guilty of treason.
In today’s world, citizenship has assumed the form of an agreement that is very wide in scope. Both the duties and responsibilities of the state as well as the commitments of its citizens have greatly expanded. In this regard, it is clear that it is not permissible for a Muslim citizen of a state wherein Muslims might even be badly oppressed and have numerous complaints of mistreatment and discrimination to engage in any sort of violence against that country or its ordinary citizens as long as he remains a citizen of that country. At the most, he can retaliate against a particular oppressor if he is being oppressed. Of course, it is a different matter if he renounces citizenship of that country and shifts to another country, where the duties binding on a citizen of his former country do not apply to him.
As long as the Prophet and his companions remained in Mecca, they remained as citizens, to use a modern term, of the Meccan state. Despite the cruel oppression that they were subjected to, they lived in such a way that ordinary Meccans felt no threat from them at all. Although there were a few minor conflicts between some Muslims and some Meccan polytheists at this time, these were individual disputes, such as those that can take place in any country between fellow citizens. These were, in any case, disputes between polytheists and Muslim individuals whom they persecuted, and to take steps in the face of oppression is not a crime. But, then, when the Prophet left Mecca his agreement with the Meccan polytheists effectively ended. The Meccan polytheists now longer enjoyed legal protection from the Muhajirs or Muslims who had shifted to Medina, and vice versa.
Lamentably, we rarely, if ever, consider these limits, rules and principles regarding citizenship as laid down in the shariah, which are specified in the Quran and expressed in the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet. This is why we have been unable to apply them to our contemporary context. In this regard, many Muslims hold extremist views that are tantamount to a gross violation of the shariah. It would not have been a matter of great surprise if these were restricted only to some Muslim youths, reacting in this manner in the face of the oppression. But, when what are thought of as serious intellectual Muslim journals and magazines also begin to toe this line, it is not just surprising and shocking, but grossly lamentable and troubling.
Let me clarify this issue by citing the response of some Muslim magazines in the wake of a recent controversy over the publishing of some cartoons derogatory of the Prophet in Denmark. These Muslim magazines referred to numerous instances in the past when inflamed and emotionally-driven Muslims had killed people who had mocked the Prophet. They presented them as heroic examples that Muslims must emulate whenever the image of the Prophet is derided. They argued that this is precisely what was commanded by the shariah.
It is true that those who deride the Prophet should deserve to be punished by law. But, it is also true that it is only for the courts and the state to decide the punishment and inflict it in such cases, and not for individual Muslims. If a Muslim takes the law in his hand and kills a person for mocking the Prophet, he has committed a criminal offence. This is because, in the Islamic shariah, the imposition or execution of such a punishment can only be done by an established legal authority. This prerogative has not been given to any individual person. The emotionally-driven rhetoric of some Muslim magazines exhorting Muslims to murder traducers of the Prophet reflected faulty knowledge of Islam and proved to be gravely damaging to Islam and its adherents. In the early years of Islam, no mufti ever gave a fatwa sanctioning this sort of punishment without the consent of the state and the courts.
A similar incident involved the murder some years ago by a Moroccan Muslim youth of a Dutch artiste, who painted verses of the Quran on the naked body of a female model. From the point of view of the shariah, the act committed by the youth was wholly wrong. Yet, many Muslims unconditionally welcomed and praised it. It is true that the youth may have been motivated simply by the love for Islam, but, still, the shariah did not permit him to kill a citizen of a country with which his own country, Morocco, had a peace agreement. Furthermore, this Moroccan youth had come to Holland on a Dutch visa, which, in effect, meant that he had undertaken, or entered into an agreement, not to harm the lives and property of Dutch citizens in any way and to abide by Dutch laws. The shariah did not give him permission to violate these two agreements. Hence, he was guilty of treason (ghadr) and violating agreements, which the shariah considers as grave crimes.
Wild emotionalism is often the enemy of reason. Besides this being a crime according to the shariah, did not the perpetrator of this crime and those Muslims who lauded him and his action realize how damaging and counter-productive, from the Muslim point of view, it was for Muslims to react to such provocations with such violence? Through such violence we have not been able to stop enemies of Islam from engaging in sacrilegious acts. Instead, by staging violent demonstrations against them, Muslims have become the bullets and batons of policemen even in their own countries. They have become the laughing stock of the entire world. Every now and then, some one or the other engages in such provocative acts simply to see us get enraged and turn violent so that we thereby earn a bad name.
Instead of reacting in this way, wisdom demands that we should turn our opponents’ stratagem upon themselves, rather than helping to sharpen their own swords which they wield against us. The intention of those evil-minded people is to spread hatred against Muslims throughout the world, particularly in the West. If we react to their provocation through violence we will only be playing into their hands.
Maulvi Yahya Nomani is a leading Islamic scholar, based in Lucknow, and associated with the Urdu Islamic magazine al-Furqan. He can be contacted on yahyanomani@yahoo.com
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)
Islam insists that Muslims should abide by the pacts and treaties that they have entered into with others. The Quran repeatedly insists on this. In one place, it says, ‘[A] nd keep the covenant. Lo! of the covenant it will be asked’(17:34). A hadith report claims that the Prophet once remarked, ‘A person lacks faith if he is not trustworthy and he who breaks his agreements has no religion.’
From the Quran and the Sunnah it emerges that for the Prophet the treaty that deserved the highest respect and the strictest compliance was the political pact between two states or between an individual and a state to ensure peace and security of life and property. The insistence on abiding by pacts entered into with others is a central Islamic teaching, and those who break their treaties are warned of punishment in Hell. The Islamic doctrine of jihad in the path of God must be understood in this light. The Prophet Muhammad is said to have remarked:
‘On the Day of Judgment, when all of humankind shall assemble before God, every oath-breaker shall be given in his hand a flag announcing that he is a traitor, on which shall be written that he, son of his father, is a traitor.’
Muslims have no need to adopt any apologetic or defensive stance on the issue of jihad. The doctrine of jihad is one of the clear proofs of the truth of Islam. It is a necessary means for fulfilling the higher purposes of humanity, if and when the need so arises. It is also a means to secure God’s blessings. A true jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with strife and conflict that is a central aspect of the Western-inspired present international system, under which states continue to maintain elations with each other and formally abide by their treaties but surreptitiously engage in proxy wars to destabilize each other.
Lamentably, today, some elements are exhorting impressionable Muslim youth with to renege on their commitments and pacts in the name of jihad. In this way they are seeking to instigate them to violate the commandments of the shariah and the limits set by God, while also causing grave damage to the cause of Islam and its followers. These stupid people are not friends of Islam. Many of them, in fact, have been nurtured and are being used by the enemies of Islam. In this regard I can cite two notable instances—Abu Hamza al-Misri and Omar al-Bakri—both of who are based in England and are engaged in provoking young Muslims to take to violence while themselves enjoying the protection of the British Government.
With regard to such foolish people, let me say that the moment a Muslim applies for a visa to visit or stay in a non-Muslim country he enters into what, in effect, is an agreement with the government of that state, promising it that he will not pose any threat to the lives and property of the people of that country and that he will abide by the country’s laws. He reiterates this promise numerous times while travelling to that country and also when he enters it. Even if that country is vociferously anti-Muslim and anti-Islam, it is incumbent on that person to abide by this agreement and respect the lives and properties of that country’s inhabitants. This is because he has consciously entered into an agreement with that country’s government and has assured it that he will respect its laws and the lives and properties of its citizens. Therefore, he has absolutely no excuse for misusing the name of Islam to revolt against that state or to violate the agreement that he has entered into with it. If he violates this agreement and commits an act of aggression in that country, even with a good intention, he commits a crime in the eyes both of the law and of Islam. For, as a hadith report claims the Prophet once declared, ‘If a person assures someone else of protection from his side but then slays him, he will be made to hold the flag of treason in his hand’ (Masnad Ahmad: 21441). The same hadith is mentioned, along with a correct chain of transmitters, in the Sahih Ibn Haban (5982), with the addition of the phrase ‘even if the slain person is a non-Muslim’.
Another form of treaty or agreement is that relating to citizenship. Muslim citizens of a modern non-Muslim state have, in effect, entered into an agreement with that state and its other citizens. This agreement is more important than other ordinary agreements in that other agreements are generally valid only for a specified time period, while the agreement related to one’s citizenship lasts as long as a person retains citizenship of a given country. Citizenship has always been understood as an agreement between an individual citizen and the state of a country whose citizen he is. The state and its citizens have clearly specified responsibilities vis-à-vis each other, as do the citizens of the country among themselves. They all agree to protect, and not to harm, the lives and properties of the citizens of the country. If someone declares that he does not regard it his duty to respect the life of his fellow citizens and that he is free to take their lives and property, the state of which he is a citizen will, naturally, at once declare him to be guilty of treason.
In today’s world, citizenship has assumed the form of an agreement that is very wide in scope. Both the duties and responsibilities of the state as well as the commitments of its citizens have greatly expanded. In this regard, it is clear that it is not permissible for a Muslim citizen of a state wherein Muslims might even be badly oppressed and have numerous complaints of mistreatment and discrimination to engage in any sort of violence against that country or its ordinary citizens as long as he remains a citizen of that country. At the most, he can retaliate against a particular oppressor if he is being oppressed. Of course, it is a different matter if he renounces citizenship of that country and shifts to another country, where the duties binding on a citizen of his former country do not apply to him.
As long as the Prophet and his companions remained in Mecca, they remained as citizens, to use a modern term, of the Meccan state. Despite the cruel oppression that they were subjected to, they lived in such a way that ordinary Meccans felt no threat from them at all. Although there were a few minor conflicts between some Muslims and some Meccan polytheists at this time, these were individual disputes, such as those that can take place in any country between fellow citizens. These were, in any case, disputes between polytheists and Muslim individuals whom they persecuted, and to take steps in the face of oppression is not a crime. But, then, when the Prophet left Mecca his agreement with the Meccan polytheists effectively ended. The Meccan polytheists now longer enjoyed legal protection from the Muhajirs or Muslims who had shifted to Medina, and vice versa.
Lamentably, we rarely, if ever, consider these limits, rules and principles regarding citizenship as laid down in the shariah, which are specified in the Quran and expressed in the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet. This is why we have been unable to apply them to our contemporary context. In this regard, many Muslims hold extremist views that are tantamount to a gross violation of the shariah. It would not have been a matter of great surprise if these were restricted only to some Muslim youths, reacting in this manner in the face of the oppression. But, when what are thought of as serious intellectual Muslim journals and magazines also begin to toe this line, it is not just surprising and shocking, but grossly lamentable and troubling.
Let me clarify this issue by citing the response of some Muslim magazines in the wake of a recent controversy over the publishing of some cartoons derogatory of the Prophet in Denmark. These Muslim magazines referred to numerous instances in the past when inflamed and emotionally-driven Muslims had killed people who had mocked the Prophet. They presented them as heroic examples that Muslims must emulate whenever the image of the Prophet is derided. They argued that this is precisely what was commanded by the shariah.
It is true that those who deride the Prophet should deserve to be punished by law. But, it is also true that it is only for the courts and the state to decide the punishment and inflict it in such cases, and not for individual Muslims. If a Muslim takes the law in his hand and kills a person for mocking the Prophet, he has committed a criminal offence. This is because, in the Islamic shariah, the imposition or execution of such a punishment can only be done by an established legal authority. This prerogative has not been given to any individual person. The emotionally-driven rhetoric of some Muslim magazines exhorting Muslims to murder traducers of the Prophet reflected faulty knowledge of Islam and proved to be gravely damaging to Islam and its adherents. In the early years of Islam, no mufti ever gave a fatwa sanctioning this sort of punishment without the consent of the state and the courts.
A similar incident involved the murder some years ago by a Moroccan Muslim youth of a Dutch artiste, who painted verses of the Quran on the naked body of a female model. From the point of view of the shariah, the act committed by the youth was wholly wrong. Yet, many Muslims unconditionally welcomed and praised it. It is true that the youth may have been motivated simply by the love for Islam, but, still, the shariah did not permit him to kill a citizen of a country with which his own country, Morocco, had a peace agreement. Furthermore, this Moroccan youth had come to Holland on a Dutch visa, which, in effect, meant that he had undertaken, or entered into an agreement, not to harm the lives and property of Dutch citizens in any way and to abide by Dutch laws. The shariah did not give him permission to violate these two agreements. Hence, he was guilty of treason (ghadr) and violating agreements, which the shariah considers as grave crimes.
Wild emotionalism is often the enemy of reason. Besides this being a crime according to the shariah, did not the perpetrator of this crime and those Muslims who lauded him and his action realize how damaging and counter-productive, from the Muslim point of view, it was for Muslims to react to such provocations with such violence? Through such violence we have not been able to stop enemies of Islam from engaging in sacrilegious acts. Instead, by staging violent demonstrations against them, Muslims have become the bullets and batons of policemen even in their own countries. They have become the laughing stock of the entire world. Every now and then, some one or the other engages in such provocative acts simply to see us get enraged and turn violent so that we thereby earn a bad name.
Instead of reacting in this way, wisdom demands that we should turn our opponents’ stratagem upon themselves, rather than helping to sharpen their own swords which they wield against us. The intention of those evil-minded people is to spread hatred against Muslims throughout the world, particularly in the West. If we react to their provocation through violence we will only be playing into their hands.
Maulvi Yahya Nomani is a leading Islamic scholar, based in Lucknow, and associated with the Urdu Islamic magazine al-Furqan. He can be contacted on yahyanomani@yahoo.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment