In
the Name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful
Continuing
from my last entry regarding Iqbal’s Islam and Ahmadism, we now
move on to another example of the author’s woeful ignorance. Iqbal
says:
“The
history of Muslim Theology shows that mutual accusation of heresy on
minor points of difference has, far from working as a disruptive
force, actually given an impetus to synthetic theological thought.”
(pp. 18-19)
Keep
in mind that Iqbal has made the above claim on the basis of history.
The reason is because just a few lines after this claim, Iqbal will
once again shift gears and claim that it is in fact the “synthetic
spirit of Islam” which is the remedy to the sectarian mischief of
the mullas.
We
see that Iqbal is forced to emphasize his fantastic notion of Islam’s
synthetic spirit because his earlier claim of the history of Muslim
theology giving impetus to synthetic theological thought is simply
untrue. On the contrary, the history of Muslim theology is a history
of bitter divisiveness, sectarianism and even violence. In our
previous entry we already mentioned the first inquisition in the
history of Islam known as the Mihnah. But in fact, the theological
disputes that arose throughout the early, middle, and modern history
of Islam even managed to create political division within the Ummah,
not to mention appalling bloodshed and violence. Many Muslim
theologians were executed by the government of their day for heresy.
Others suffered persecution, imprisonment, and exile. Apart from
Islamic theologians, jurists, and imams, Sufi mystics have also
suffered persecution. The mystic Mansur al-Hallaj was executed for
heresy. While it is true that many of those executed or imprisoned by
the rulers of the time were often implicated in political intrigue or
revolt against the State, nevertheless, the State did invoke heresy
as the prima facie for their persecution of various theologians,
jurists and mystics. The historical Islamic governments and dynasties
also executed on charge of heresy many individuals for making
heretical claims of being prophets, angels, a reappearance of a
prophet, or possessing some kind of divinity. In modern times this
phenomenon continues. Take for example the execution of Sayyid Qutb
in Egypt, Mahmud Taha in Sudan, just to name a few in an ocean of
such examples of outright religious persecution of Islamic
theologians, reformers, mystics and claimants to prophethood or
divinity.
The
Sunni – Shi’ite controversy is the elephant in the room. But if
Iqbal or anyone else were to insist that the horrendous history of
bloodshed, persecution and violence among the Muslims as a result of
this particular controversy is essentially political and not
theological, there are still a host of other examples of purely
theological controversies that have acted as forces of disintegration
for the Muslim Ummah. The sectarian riots in medieval Baghdad and
Nishapur should not be forgotten. Various theological camps like the
Hanbalis, Asharis, Mu’tazila, Karramiyya, Najjariyya, Mushabbiha,
etc., arranged themselves into divided sections of urban centers.
There was frequent rioting, with one sect engaging in mischief
against the other, by setting fire to the quarters of their rivals.
They also engaged in political intrigue against the other, each
faction attempting to win control over an academy or secure for one
of its scholars the office of Qadi (adjudicator). These sectarian
squabbles did not restrict themselves to street violence and
agitations, they also manifested themselves into real political and
national divisions among the Muslims. The Fatimid dynasty championed
its particular brand of Ismailiyya. The Safavids transformed Iran
into a Twelver Shi’ite state. The Ayyubids defeated the Fatimids
and made Egypt a Sunni Ashari state. The Ottomans promoted the Hanafi
school of jurisprudence. The Mughals in India also championed the
Hanafi rite. The Saud dynasty enforced its conservative brand of
Hanbalism over Arabia. Oman remains to this day the surviving
Kharijite state. How absolutely incorrect was Iqbal then when he
claimed that the theological variation among the Muslims has acted as
a synthetic force for the Muslims. On the contrary, it has led to
unimaginable fracture and irreconcilable political division within
the Ummah.
Now
coming to an allegation that Iqbal levels specifically against the
Ahmadiyya movement: “I believe, for reasons to be explained
presently, that the idea of a full prophet whose denial entails the
denier’s excommunication from Islam is essential to Ahmadism” (p.
20), Iqbal has failed to cite any evidence in his paper that the
Ahmadiyya movement expelled anyone from Islam on account of denial of
the “prophethood” of its founder Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. On
the contrary, the latter himself stated:
ابتدا
سے میرا یہی مذہب ہے کہ میرے دعوے کے انکار
کی وجہ سے کوئی شخص کافر یا دجّال نہیں
ہوسکتا۔
“From
the beginning, my belief has always been that denial of my claims
does not render any person a Kafir or a Dajjal.”
Reference:
Ruhani Khaza’in; v.15, p.432
No comments:
Post a Comment