بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله
وعلى آلك واصحابك يا خاتم النبيين
In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful
ہُوَ اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۚ اَلۡمَلِکُ الۡقُدُّوۡسُ السَّلٰمُ الۡمُؤۡمِنُ الۡمُہَیۡمِنُ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡجَبَّارُ الۡمُتَکَبِّرُ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَ اللّٰہِ عَمَّا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ
Huwa, Allah, the One Whom there is no god but He. The King, the Holy, the Peace, the Giver of safety, the Guardian, the Almighty, the Compeller, the Supreme. Holy is Allah above that which they associate (with Him)
(Surah 59:23)
سُبْحَانَكَ الْمَلِكِ الْقُدُّوسِ
Holy are You, the Holy King
As I have been quite critical and condemning of extremism and violent heresy that appeared in our history (the Kharijites, Azariqah, Qaramitah, Nizaris of Alamut, Ibn Tumart, Ibn Abd ul-Wahhab and modern-day Takfiri terrorism) it is also necessary to address and criticize the polar opposite phenomenon of pacifism. One of the manifestations of the latter are the teachings attributed to one Salim Suwari. He was a medieval, some say 13th century CE, scholar and religious leader from the Soninke people of West Africa. There is scarcely any authentic biographical information about Salim Suwari. Virtually everything we know about him and his teachings are passed down by oral transmission which hasn’t been rigorously verified. Researchers aren’t even agreed as to which period of time he was from. Therefore, much of my criticism of Suwarian thought shouldn’t necessarily be considered a criticism of Salim Suwari the person, for we can’t be certain he sanctioned everything taught in his name. According to Ivor Wilks, “Salim Suwari formulated and propagated ideas directly contrary to those of al-Maghili and his followers. These view constituted what I call the ‘Wangara Learning’. Most significant among these was his rejection of jihad as an instrument of social and political change. He thus became a focus for opposition to the jihad movements that were to reshape the human geography of much of West Africa.” (Al-Hajj Salim Suwari and the Suwarians: A Search for Sources. Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, 2011, New Series, No.13 (2011), p.6)
In his time there was the phenomenon of Muslims living under the rule of non-Muslims in some parts of Africa, so he taught, “Muslims living under the protection of non-Muslim rulers should respect their authority on secular matters, but maintain their own religious identity under Muslim Law administered by their own scholars. This he predicated upon a view that non-Muslims and Muslims were fellow travellers on a planet that God had created and had established a time for the conversion to Islam of all and singular. Paganism was, in other words, a matter of ignorance not of sin. Salim Suwari clearly devoted much time to establishing justification for this view in the writings of earlier and much respected scholars.” (ibid, p.46)
I absolutely agree that Muslim minorities must strive to establish our own parallel legal system and defer even more to our Ulama for leadership and management of our affairs. Likewise, it is not necessary for Muslim minorities ruled by a non-Muslim state to be in a state of rebellion or violent insurrection against it. That would bring about more harm than good, causing needless bloodshed and potential destruction for the community. I believe the Mujaddid of the 14th century after Hijrah, namely, Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan of Bareli, may Allah have mercy on him, best exemplified the attitude and practical method Muslims ought to emulate in a situation where they are a minority or governed by a non-Muslim government. Ala Hadrat in his time neither participated in or sanctioned any challenge to the writ of the state—the British Crown—nor did he even approve of any peaceful and lawful political struggle for self-rule. It was only when the British made their intention clear to eventually—sooner rather than later—leave India altogether that the Muslims launched a mass movement to ensure the establishment of a separate Muslim state, Pakistan. As for Ala Hadrat, he remained aloof from and disapproved of Muslim involvement in the Indian nationalist movement for self-rule spearheaded by Gandhi and the Congress. But here let me say that Muslim minorities should never have any feeling of loyalty toward a non-Muslim government that governs them. Merely tolerate it as a reality but don’t respect it in your heart. Hence, in the event of a war between the non-Muslim state in which a Muslim minority resides and a Muslim state, the Muslim minority should at the very least be sympathetic to the Muslim state. If possible and feasible they should even actively support the Muslim state that is at war with the non-Muslim state they reside in and not be perturbed by the inevitable accusation of treachery. If and when Pakistan and India go to war again, the Muslims of India must not participate in the defense of India and certainly not any aggression by India against Pakistan. It is therefore totally evil for Muslims to be recruited into the armed forces of any non-Muslim country. Consider also the attitude and deeds of some of our great Saints and Reformers. Gharib Nawaz, Muin-ud-Din Hasan Chishti, may Allah have mercy on him, appeared in a vision to Sultan Muhammad Ghuri telling him to invade India and blessing his war against the Hindu Chauhans. Likewise, Shah Waliullah of Delhi wrote a letter appealing to the great Afghan king, Ahmad Shah Abdali, to invade India and rescue the Muslims from the tyranny of the Hindu Marathas. Till this day the Hindu nationalists condemn both for being treacherous, “anti-national”. But in our paradigm real treachery is that which harms the worldwide Ummah, not a non-Muslim polity.
What particularly disturbs me about Suwarian thought is its conciliatory stance toward non-Muslims, including pagans. The lack of a hostile mindset is contrary to the teaching of the Holy Quran
مُحَمَّدٌ رَّسُوۡلُ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَالَّذِیۡنَ مَعَہٗۤ اَشِدَّآءُ عَلَی الۡکُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَیۡنَہُمۡ
Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who are with him are severe against the Unbelievers, tender among themselves
(Surah 48:29)
Suwarian thought teaches that “Jihad, in other words, was not to be regarded as a means of extending the faith to unbelievers...The Suwarian teaching is that non-belief is no more than a temporary state of ignorance, and to attempt to change this timetable was to interfere with God’s will. Muslims should therefore live and cooperate socially, politically, and economically with the Muslims-to-be.” (Al-Hajj Salim Suwari and the Suwarians: A Search for Sources. Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, 2011, New Series, No.13 (2011), pp.40-41)
It seems a particular heresy at the center of Suwarian thought, namely, that every unbeliever is destined to become a Believer as per Allah’s decree, and that making an attempt to bring about conversion through Jihad or other means is to interfere with Allah’s plan! Such a belief is shocking, especially if it has been accurately transmitted by the researchers.
It does appear that one of the likely teachings of Salim Suwari was that Jihad was only allowed as a means of defense, “Salim Suwari teaching that Muslims had no right to employ jihad other than when the security of their communities was threatened. Thus they could not make a call for jihad as a justification for making war upon unbelievers.” (ibid, p.47)
In our time this notion about Jihad being merely defensive and not valid otherwise has been somewhat popularized among ordinary Muslims, in part due to the actions of modern “Jihadist” and Takfiri terrorists who have sullied it. The Suwarian teaching is mirrored in the doctrine of the Ahmadiyyah of Qadiani cult which is that all holy war in the name of God has been abolished by the “Promised Messiah”. Like the Suwarians, the Qadianis teach that Jihad is purely defensive against an aggressor and claim every war fought by the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his four rightly-guided Caliphs were either defensive or preemptive. But we orthodox Sunni Muslims believe an Islamic state is justified in making war on polities of the unbelievers and conquering them as a Jihad in the path of Allah. The Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, said
أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ
I have been commanded to fight the people till they say, There is none worthy of worship except Allah (Sahih al-Bukhari)
While this divine commandment was specifically for the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, in his time, where and how does the Shariah forbid an offensive Jihad? At most it can be said that an Islamic government is not obligated to carry out an offensive Jihad against the unbelievers. Yet the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
إِذَا تَبَايَعْتُمْ بِالْعِينَةِ وَأَخَذْتُمْ أَذْنَابَ الْبَقَرِ وَرَضِيتُمْ بِالزَّرْعِ وَتَرَكْتُمُ الْجِهَادَ سَلَّطَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ ذُلًّا لَا يَنْزِعُهُ حَتَّى تَرْجِعُوا إِلَى دِينِكُمْ
If you engage in Inah transactions, take hold of the tails of cattle, are content with cultivation, and abandon Jihad, Allah will impose upon you humiliation that He will not remove until you return to your Religion (Sunan Abi Dawud)
Apparently, one of the causes of the present humiliation of the Muslim Ummah is its abandonment of Jihad. Indeed, I do not know when was the last time a Jihad for the cause of Allah was declared by an Islamic state against the unbelievers which was not defensive. Perhaps it was the campaign of Emir Abd ur-Rahman Khan of Afghanistan against Kafirstan in 1895, which resulted in its conquest, conversion of its pagan locals to Islam, whereby its name was changed to Nuristan. But can those who reject offensive Jihad say that the wars through which the early Muslims conquered the lands of Khorasan, Transoxiana, Sind, Egypt, North Africa and Spain were either defensive wars or the only other option, unjustified and illegal? Did not the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, prophesy that the Muslims would one day conquer Constantinople, motivating the early Muslims to make numerous such attempts, though this prophecy was finally fulfilled at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1453? If that was not an instance of offensive Jihad then what was it?
لَتُفْتَحَنَّ الْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ فَلَنِعْمَ الْأَمِيرُ أَمِيرُهَا وَلَنِعْمَ الْجَيْشُ ذَلِكَ الْجَيْشُ
Constantinople will be conquered. What an excellent commander is its commander and what an excellent army is that army (Musnad Ahmad, v.31, p.287, #18957)
According to this Hadith, the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, praised a future offensive Jihad. He, peace be upon him, said
ثُمَّ تَغْزُونَ الرُّومَ فَيَفْتَحُهَا اللهُ
Then you will attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it (Sahih Muslim)
It may be that here Rome refers to the Eastern Roman Empire, in which case the prophecy has already been fulfilled, or to the actual city of Rome in modern-day Italy in which case we should expect this to occur some time in the future. In either case it is a condoning of an offensive Jihad.
Now the Suwarian tendency may have risen partly in reaction to the excesses of certain ignorant Muslims, who believed it was necessary to exterminate all unbelievers, including Jews and Christians, or to coerce them into converting to Islam. The Dajjal Ibn Tumart infamously set this dangerous precedent that was apparently followed by some ignorant Muslims in parts of Africa. Allah forbids coerced conversion,
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
There is no compulsion in Religion
(Surah 2:256)
No comments:
Post a Comment