What's new

Changing times: Ijtihad and other questions Muslims must revisit

Norwegian

BANNED
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
19,001
Reaction score
11
Country
Israel
Location
Norway
Is suicide bombing justified? Can women lead prayers? Is there a feminist interpretation of Islam?

These are some of the questions Muslims living in the West often face. They attempt to answer these questions as best as they can. And in the process, they are often forced to reinterpret their faith, a process called 'ijtihad', although they are no 'mujtahids'.

The concept of ijtihad allows Muslims to interpret their beliefs according to the time and place they live in. This concept, however, has not been used for centuries.

'Ijtihad' is an Islamic legal term that means "independent reasoning", which is used for defining an issue in a way that does not contradict the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.



Explore: Why are matters of faith beyond discussion?



In Sunni Islam, ijtihad is recognised as a process of legal decision-making through personal effort. It is also accepted as one of the four main sources of law.

The person making such a decision is required to have a thorough knowledge of theology, revealed texts, legal principles and the Arabic language. Other qualifications include sincerity, goodness and intellect.

A person qualified to do so is recognised as a mujtahid, one who can make ijtihad.

Both words are derived from a three-letter Arabic root, J-H-D, i.e. struggle. Thus ijtihad is a process of “struggling with oneself” to interpret an issue through independent reasoning in the light of the revealed text and the instructions of the Sunnah.

In the early periods of Islam, Muslims saw ijtihad as an acceptable form of interpreting legal and social issues that an individual or a group faced.

Among the Sunnis, ijtihad was often interpreted as a scholar’s personal judgment of an Islamic law.

Among the Shias, ijtihad evolved into a practice of applying careful reasoning to uncover the knowledge of what Imams would have done in particular legal situations.

Besides sharing some requirements with the Sunnis, the Shias also required a mujtahid to receive further training at a 'hawza' or a religious centre.

Since Shias do have religious schools entitled to produce mujtahids, this tradition has continued unabated among them.

But among the Sunnis, there has been no undisputed mujtahid since the mid-tenth century. Yet, calls for a revitalisation of ijtihad have always been made, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, when the Islamic world confronted Western thoughts. This confrontation made many Muslim scholars realise the need to reinterpret religious laws to cope with modern concepts entering their thoughts.



Also read: Alcohol consumption in Pakistan: Don't mix sin with crime



The scholarly debate over ijtihad has been going on for well over 200 years and has produced some prominent revivalist thinkers such as Jamaluddin Afghani, a 19th century Iranian scholar, Mohammed Abduh, his Egyptian friend and reformer, and Mohammed Iqbal, a poet philosopher from the Indian subcontinent. These scholars also included Hasan al-Banna, Syed Qutb and Maulana Maududi, founders of Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the Jamaat-i-Islami in the subcontinent.

Their works deal mainly with issues such as state and religion, individual and society, secularism and Islam. They had a major influence on Muslim thinkers, writers and political activists in the 20th century. Yet, they were generally accepted as scholars, not mujtahids.

But the need for a process to understand and interpret legal, social, economic and political issues of the modern world is felt at all levels.

This need is even greater in the West where Muslims live in a social setup very different from their own. Since 9/11, there has also been a steady increase in Islamophobia in the West.

This fear of Islam or Muslims, however, has not led to physical attacks on the lives and properties of the Muslims living in the West. But their beliefs and ideas are openly challenged in the media and are sometimes also questioned by their colleagues and neighbours.

The pressure is even greater in the social media where Muslims are often asked to explain:

Is using violence as a tool to defend a religious or political cause justified in Islam?

Were those who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001 right or wrong? Does Islam allow attacking civilians to avenge foreign occupation and political victimisation? Is suicide bombing allowed, particularly when Islam outlaws suicide?

What is the place of a woman in Islam? Can a woman lead prayers, be a priest or a mujtahid?

Can there be a feminist interpretation of Islamic religious texts? Can women interpret those texts?



Read through: Islam in America: When two women decided to pray with men



Muslims in the West, particularly women, are not waiting for answers to come from the Islamic world. There is a realisation here that they have to answer the questions they face, as those living in the Islamic world cannot appreciate the intensity of this issue.

So Muslims in the West have started answering these questions. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the West has seen a visible increase in the number of Muslim religious scholars, jurists, interpreters of the Holy Quran and the Hadith, social activists and educationists.

Attempts have also been made to present a feminist interpretation of Islam and its teachings. And some women have also challenged traditional interpreters, claiming that their interpretations show a clear male prejudice.

Muslim women led prayers, arranged rallies and held meetings to define their faith as they wanted to.

Not many among them qualify as jurists, interpreters of the Holy Quran or mujtahids but they are having an impact.

They are read and appreciated by the Muslims living in the West and their thoughts are also reaching the Islamic world.

It is still too early to say how successful they would be in reshaping the thoughts of Muslims, but they have started a debate.



Take a look: 'We are good Muslims, but Americans too'



The Muslim community, both in the West and in the Islamic world, has started discussing the issues raised by these scholars and activists.

Some of these issues — such as the justification for suicide bombing — stir heated debates. While some say that suicide bombing is 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam, others argue that it is permissible as a means of national resistance.

"Killing non-combatants and civilians is haram in Islam, no matter what means you use for this purpose," says Hamza Yusuf, the Californian Muslim scholar and a popular speaker at Islamic conventions.

But ordinary Muslims do not always view this violence as a religious issue. They do no consult their religious texts for arguments against or for an act like suicide bombing when discussing it. Instead, they almost always describe it as a political issue linked to disputes like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Chechnya or Kashmir.

Yusuf also describes it as a "modern political phenomenon" and insists that it's imperative to resolve the Palestinian dispute in order to fight extremism and violence in Muslim societies.

"Palestine is the issue, and until this issue is resolved, there can be no peace," he argues.

Yusuf also calls upon the Jewish people in the United States to "rise against the suppression they witness with their eyes", urging them to "reject this gross injustice as we reject the killing of innocent children".

Attempts to make peace with the Jewish community are not confined to the Palestinian issue alone. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Muslims across the world have been forced to reconsider their attitudes towards Jews.



Know more: Political Islam: Why militants now symbolise Muslims



Muslim leaders often acknowledge that the dispute with the Israel is encouraging violent tendencies within their community. In public meetings and private conversations, some Muslim leaders now also speak of the positive contribution the Jewish people have made to international civilisation.

Speakers at various Islamic conventions in North America often urge Muslims to learn from the Jews how to co-exist with other faiths.

At one of these conventions, the organisers screened a documentary showing the discrimination the Jews had to face when they first migrated to America. Some speakers also spoke of the Holocaust and the concentration camps in Germany and advised Muslims to integrate themselves with the followers of the two older Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Christianity.

"We must assert to the Abrahamic people that we are the last extension of the Abrahamic religion... There is no such thing as an Islamic tribe," said Yusuf.

"Knowledge, and not just religion, enables a nation to progress. And now the Jews are holding the torch of knowledge, we must learn from them," said another speaker.

Can these attempts lead to a lasting peace between Muslims and Jews? Only time will tell.
Changing times: Ijtihad and other questions Muslims must revisit - Blogs - DAWN.COM

@Archdemon
@Natan
@500
@MarkovChain
 
.
i think you should contact tahir ul qadri. he has given fatwa that if your are in uk or other non muslim country you can drink wine.
i am hoping a new fatwa of at least one girl friend form qadri sahab. finger crossed.:omghaha:
 
.
Is suicide bombing justified? Can women lead prayers? Is there a feminist interpretation of Islam?

These are some of the questions Muslims living in the West often face. They attempt to answer these questions as best as they can. And in the process, they are often forced to reinterpret their faith, a process called 'ijtihad', although they are no 'mujtahids'.

The concept of ijtihad allows Muslims to interpret their beliefs according to the time and place they live in. This concept, however, has not been used for centuries.

'Ijtihad' is an Islamic legal term that means "independent reasoning", which is used for defining an issue in a way that does not contradict the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.



Explore: Why are matters of faith beyond discussion?



In Sunni Islam, ijtihad is recognised as a process of legal decision-making through personal effort. It is also accepted as one of the four main sources of law.

The person making such a decision is required to have a thorough knowledge of theology, revealed texts, legal principles and the Arabic language. Other qualifications include sincerity, goodness and intellect.

A person qualified to do so is recognised as a mujtahid, one who can make ijtihad.

Both words are derived from a three-letter Arabic root, J-H-D, i.e. struggle. Thus ijtihad is a process of “struggling with oneself” to interpret an issue through independent reasoning in the light of the revealed text and the instructions of the Sunnah.

In the early periods of Islam, Muslims saw ijtihad as an acceptable form of interpreting legal and social issues that an individual or a group faced.

Among the Sunnis, ijtihad was often interpreted as a scholar’s personal judgment of an Islamic law.

Among the Shias, ijtihad evolved into a practice of applying careful reasoning to uncover the knowledge of what Imams would have done in particular legal situations.

Besides sharing some requirements with the Sunnis, the Shias also required a mujtahid to receive further training at a 'hawza' or a religious centre.

Since Shias do have religious schools entitled to produce mujtahids, this tradition has continued unabated among them.

But among the Sunnis, there has been no undisputed mujtahid since the mid-tenth century. Yet, calls for a revitalisation of ijtihad have always been made, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, when the Islamic world confronted Western thoughts. This confrontation made many Muslim scholars realise the need to reinterpret religious laws to cope with modern concepts entering their thoughts.



Also read: Alcohol consumption in Pakistan: Don't mix sin with crime



The scholarly debate over ijtihad has been going on for well over 200 years and has produced some prominent revivalist thinkers such as Jamaluddin Afghani, a 19th century Iranian scholar, Mohammed Abduh, his Egyptian friend and reformer, and Mohammed Iqbal, a poet philosopher from the Indian subcontinent. These scholars also included Hasan al-Banna, Syed Qutb and Maulana Maududi, founders of Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the Jamaat-i-Islami in the subcontinent.

Their works deal mainly with issues such as state and religion, individual and society, secularism and Islam. They had a major influence on Muslim thinkers, writers and political activists in the 20th century. Yet, they were generally accepted as scholars, not mujtahids.

But the need for a process to understand and interpret legal, social, economic and political issues of the modern world is felt at all levels.

This need is even greater in the West where Muslims live in a social setup very different from their own. Since 9/11, there has also been a steady increase in Islamophobia in the West.

This fear of Islam or Muslims, however, has not led to physical attacks on the lives and properties of the Muslims living in the West. But their beliefs and ideas are openly challenged in the media and are sometimes also questioned by their colleagues and neighbours.

The pressure is even greater in the social media where Muslims are often asked to explain:

Is using violence as a tool to defend a religious or political cause justified in Islam?

Were those who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001 right or wrong? Does Islam allow attacking civilians to avenge foreign occupation and political victimisation? Is suicide bombing allowed, particularly when Islam outlaws suicide?

What is the place of a woman in Islam? Can a woman lead prayers, be a priest or a mujtahid?

Can there be a feminist interpretation of Islamic religious texts? Can women interpret those texts?



Read through: Islam in America: When two women decided to pray with men



Muslims in the West, particularly women, are not waiting for answers to come from the Islamic world. There is a realisation here that they have to answer the questions they face, as those living in the Islamic world cannot appreciate the intensity of this issue.

So Muslims in the West have started answering these questions. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the West has seen a visible increase in the number of Muslim religious scholars, jurists, interpreters of the Holy Quran and the Hadith, social activists and educationists.

Attempts have also been made to present a feminist interpretation of Islam and its teachings. And some women have also challenged traditional interpreters, claiming that their interpretations show a clear male prejudice.

Muslim women led prayers, arranged rallies and held meetings to define their faith as they wanted to.

Not many among them qualify as jurists, interpreters of the Holy Quran or mujtahids but they are having an impact.

They are read and appreciated by the Muslims living in the West and their thoughts are also reaching the Islamic world.

It is still too early to say how successful they would be in reshaping the thoughts of Muslims, but they have started a debate.



Take a look: 'We are good Muslims, but Americans too'



The Muslim community, both in the West and in the Islamic world, has started discussing the issues raised by these scholars and activists.

Some of these issues — such as the justification for suicide bombing — stir heated debates. While some say that suicide bombing is 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam, others argue that it is permissible as a means of national resistance.

"Killing non-combatants and civilians is haram in Islam, no matter what means you use for this purpose," says Hamza Yusuf, the Californian Muslim scholar and a popular speaker at Islamic conventions.

But ordinary Muslims do not always view this violence as a religious issue. They do no consult their religious texts for arguments against or for an act like suicide bombing when discussing it. Instead, they almost always describe it as a political issue linked to disputes like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Chechnya or Kashmir.

Yusuf also describes it as a "modern political phenomenon" and insists that it's imperative to resolve the Palestinian dispute in order to fight extremism and violence in Muslim societies.

"Palestine is the issue, and until this issue is resolved, there can be no peace," he argues.

Yusuf also calls upon the Jewish people in the United States to "rise against the suppression they witness with their eyes", urging them to "reject this gross injustice as we reject the killing of innocent children".

Attempts to make peace with the Jewish community are not confined to the Palestinian issue alone. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Muslims across the world have been forced to reconsider their attitudes towards Jews.



Know more: Political Islam: Why militants now symbolise Muslims



Muslim leaders often acknowledge that the dispute with the Israel is encouraging violent tendencies within their community. In public meetings and private conversations, some Muslim leaders now also speak of the positive contribution the Jewish people have made to international civilisation.

Speakers at various Islamic conventions in North America often urge Muslims to learn from the Jews how to co-exist with other faiths.

At one of these conventions, the organisers screened a documentary showing the discrimination the Jews had to face when they first migrated to America. Some speakers also spoke of the Holocaust and the concentration camps in Germany and advised Muslims to integrate themselves with the followers of the two older Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Christianity.

"We must assert to the Abrahamic people that we are the last extension of the Abrahamic religion... There is no such thing as an Islamic tribe," said Yusuf.

"Knowledge, and not just religion, enables a nation to progress. And now the Jews are holding the torch of knowledge, we must learn from them," said another speaker.

Can these attempts lead to a lasting peace between Muslims and Jews? Only time will tell.
Changing times: Ijtihad and other questions Muslims must revisit - Blogs - DAWN.COM

@Archdemon
@Natan
@500
@MarkovChain
Those matters decided in Quran and Sunnah no ijtihad can be done on that @Horus close the thread
 
. . . .
This reply off your shows your level off ignorance and troll
I am tired of defending Islamic orthodoxy perpetuated by the Arabs. So what if Arabs received Islam first? Other Muslim nations have rightful duty to reform rigid aspects of their faith with ijtihad to accommodate with changing times. How come it was possible for the first few hundred years of Islam and later disbanded by the same orthodox ulema?

Is this related to the current topic?
It is. @Zarvan must understand that doors of ijtehad were always open in Islam. Nobody shut them off except our own traditional elders. Today, the biggest defenders of so-called unchangeable "pure" form of Islam is Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia. They do not want ijtehad, only blind mindless imitation as perpetrated by the salf, also called ISIS jihadists.
 
.
I am tired of defending Islamic orthodoxy perpetuated by the Arabs. So what if Arabs received Islam first? Other Muslim nations have rightful duty to reform rigid aspects of their faith with ijtihad to accommodate with changing times. How come it was possible for the first few hundred years of Islam and later disbanded by the same orthodox ulema?


It is. @Zarvan must understand that doors of ijtehad were always open in Islam. Nobody shut them off except our own traditional elders. Today, the biggest defenders of so-called unchangeable "pure" form of Islam is Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia. They do not want ijtehad, only blind mindless imitation as perpetrated by the salf, also called ISIS jihadists.
Stop defending matters decided in Quran and Sunnah no ijtihad is done on them they have to be followed Mr that is clear
 
.
I may have severe disagreements with JI but I have always considered Maulana Maudoodi an outstanding scholar of Islam. I was very impressed by his observation on ‘Islam & Malookiat’ and the fact the Khilafat became a hereditary institution rather than the elective one that it was during the Rashideen. I still firmly believe that honesty & personal integrity that existed during the early periods of Islam was primarily due to the purification of soul thru presence of our holy Prophet (PBUH) in their midst. Thus with the exception of Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz, none of the Omayyad or Abbasid Khalifas were worthy of the title of ‘Amirul Momineen’ in the true sense.

I found an interesting article by Ifitkhar Murshid in today’s News’ and the same is quoted for the perusal of honourable members.

S Iftikhar Murshed
Sunday, November 02, 2014
From Print Edition


10 3 2 1

84d85b86d1de30d10cecaad755fa9d64.jpg
The political ferment in Pakistan over the last few months has unexpectedly prompted excessive scrutiny and comment on my article, ‘The illusion of parliamentary democracy’ (October 26). There has been unmerited praise and also stern criticism. Those sympathetic to the religious right have rejected the assertion that there is no sanction in the Quran or the hadith for an Islamic state and neither has it existed in history.

They refuse to accept that this is what clearly emerges from a textual examination of the sacred scripture which, in turn, is the only basis for determining the authenticity of any of the reported traditions of the Holy Prophet who famously said: “My words do not abrogate the word of God, but the word of God can abrogate my sayings.”

I was sent some of the writings of the Jamaat-e-Islami founder, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi (1903-1979), and asked to study them as an antidote to my “preconceived and uneducated assumptions about an Islamic state.” I did as advised but the remedy has not worked. The medication was spurious.

For instance, in his book, The Islamic Law and Constitution, Maudoodi has relied on two arguments in support of an Islamic state. The first is the Quranic pronouncement that true Muslims are “those who, (even) if We firmly establish them on earth, remain constant in prayer, and give in charity, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong ” (22: 41).

In a somewhat contrived interpretation of this solitary passage, Maudoodi infers: “The verse states clearly (sic) the aims objects and duties of an Islamic state” (pp. 282-3). No other commentator of standing, whether classical or modern, has reached this farfetched conclusion on a verse which does not even vaguely allude to an Islamic state.

The second strand in his reasoning is the statement that “the Quran not only lays down principles of morality and ethics, but also gives guidance in the political, social and economic fields. It prescribes punishments for certain crimes and enunciates principles of monetary and fiscal policy. These cannot be translated into practice unless there is a state to enforce them. And herein lies the necessity of an Islamic state” (p. 175). This is the raison d’etre for such a state which he calls a “theo-democracy.”

The term is an innovation and has no parallel in political science which has ancient roots and originated 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle who described it as “the study of the state.” Maudoodi certainly cannot be faulted for lack of originality!

But nevertheless, he was one of the most influential Islamic clerics of the 20th century. Even the internationally renowned scholar Dr Fazlur Rahman (1919-1988), who was hounded out of the country after being declared an apostate, conceded in his book, Islam and Modernity that Maudoodi definitely represented an advance over the ulema of his times inasmuch as he was proficient in English and had read some of the works of western writers.

He then added: “But Maududi displays nowhere the larger and more profound vision of Islam’s role in the world. Being a journalist rather than a serious scholar, he wrote at great speed and with resultant superficiality...He founded no educational institution and never suggested any syllabus for a reformed Islamic education.”

Though rejected by his own country, Dr Fazlur Rahman had a towering presence in academic circles abroad. As a professor at the universities of Durham, McGill and Chicago as well as through his writings he came to be regarded as an authority on Islam. So profound was his impact that after his death, the Chicago University’s Centre for Middle East Studies named its common area after him.

His comment about Maudoodi’s failure to bring about any change in the syllabus for educational reform, which was made more than 30 years back, is particularly relevant to contemporary Pakistan. Imran Khan’s PTI-led government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, under pressure from its coalition partner, the Jamaat-e-Islami has agreed to radically alter school textbooks.

Under the changes, as reported in the media, all pictures of girls – even minors – will show them clad in the traditional apparel, images depicting Christmas cakes and the cross will be taken out, and around 18 Islamic verses have been inserted, oddly enough, in chemistry books. The JI’s demand that references to Raja Dahir and Ranjit Singh be removed from the history syllabus has been conceded.

Seldom has there been such wilful distortion of history accompanied with the massacre of rational thought on which the religion of Islam is founded. Yet Imran Khan, supported by a bevy of political lightweights, keeps babbling on about an ill-defined wave of the future that will sweep away corruption and establish a ‘new Pakistan’ as an ‘Islamic welfare state.’

This is a 20th century innovation which emerged after the Grand National Assembly of Turkey abolished the caliphate in 1924 with the support of not only the Kemalists but also scholars of Cairo’s Al-Azhar university. It was at this point in time that Rashid Rida (1865-1935), a controversial though important Islamist thinker, proceeded to develop the hitherto novel concept of an Islamic state.

The idea was initially hazy but acquired some clarity with the birth of Pakistan, and, in particular after the adoption of the Objectives Resolution by the constituent assembly in 1949. This triggered the anti-Ahmadi riots in Lahore in 1953, and, the subsequent report of the Court of Inquiry headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir administered a crippling blow to the concept: “The phantom of an Islamic state has haunted the Musalman throughout the ages and is the result of the memory of the glorious past when Islam rising from the least expected quarter of the world – the wilds of Arabia – instantly enveloped the world...”

Earlier, in a series of articles for Dawn in 1952 the celebrated jurist AK Brohi (1915-1987), who served briefly as Pakistan’s high commissioner to India from February 1960 to March 1961, observed: “Having regard to the accepted notion of what constitutional law is, it is not possible to derive from the text of the Quran a clear statement as to the actual content of the constitution of any state.”

This is further corroborated by Professor Olivier Roy in his 2007 work, Secularism Confronts Islam: “The entire history of the Muslim world shows that power was, in fact, secular and never sanctified...What then remains in power is no longer a religion but a political-clerical apparatus that uses the moral order to conserve its position of power.” The exploitation of Islam is what lies at the heart of the turmoil in Pakistan after the death of Jinnah.

In his authoritative study, Al-Mawardi’s Theory of State, Professor Qamaruddin Khan of the Karachi University has also affirmed that the Quran has not defined any clear principle of state. This, he feels, is a blessing as it enables the Muslim community “to march with the progress of time and adjust itself to new conditions and new environments.”

But unfortunately through the course of history, with perhaps the short-lived exception of the Islamic Republic from 632-661 AD, hereditary succession of rulers in Muslim societies has been the norm. In his masterpiece, The Muqaddimah, the outstanding Arab historiographer and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), rejected the concept of hereditary rule: “Islam does not consider preservation of the ruler’s inheritance for his children...Succession to the rule is something that comes from God who distinguishes by it whomsoever He wishes.”

This is in accord with the Quranic pronouncement: “And (remember this): when his Sustainer tried Abraham by (His) commandments and the latter fulfilled them, He said: ‘Behold, I shall make thee a leader of men.’ Abraham asked: ‘And (wilt Thou make leaders) of my offspring as well?’ (God) answered: ‘My covenant does not embrace the evildoers’” (2: 124).

What emerges is that the Quran is silent about an Islamic state, but it rejects dynastic rule. This is what the rulers of the oil-rich states of the Gulf region conveniently ignore. There is a need for Muslim leaders to stop misleading people. Their religion does not prescribe an Islamic state and neither does it countenance hereditary monarchies.

The writer is the publisher of Criterion Quarterly.

The quest for an Islamic state - S Iftikhar Murshed

Email: iftimurshed@gmail.com
 
.
I may have severe disagreements with JI but I have always considered Maulana Maudoodi an outstanding scholar of Islam. I was very impressed by his observation on ‘Islam & Malookiat’ and the fact the Khilafat became a hereditary institution rather than the elective one that it was during the Rashideen. I still firmly believe that honesty & personal integrity that existed during the early periods of Islam was primarily due to the purification of soul thru presence of our holy Prophet (PBUH) in their midst. Thus with the exception of Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz, none of the Omayyad or Abbasid Khalifas were worthy of the title of ‘Amirul Momineen’ in the true sense.

I found an interesting article by Ifitkhar Murshid in today’s News’ and the same is quoted for the perusal of honourable members.

S Iftikhar Murshed
Sunday, November 02, 2014
From Print Edition


10 3 2 1

View attachment 142063The political ferment in Pakistan over the last few months has unexpectedly prompted excessive scrutiny and comment on my article, ‘The illusion of parliamentary democracy’ (October 26). There has been unmerited praise and also stern criticism. Those sympathetic to the religious right have rejected the assertion that there is no sanction in the Quran or the hadith for an Islamic state and neither has it existed in history.

They refuse to accept that this is what clearly emerges from a textual examination of the sacred scripture which, in turn, is the only basis for determining the authenticity of any of the reported traditions of the Holy Prophet who famously said: “My words do not abrogate the word of God, but the word of God can abrogate my sayings.”

I was sent some of the writings of the Jamaat-e-Islami founder, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi (1903-1979), and asked to study them as an antidote to my “preconceived and uneducated assumptions about an Islamic state.” I did as advised but the remedy has not worked. The medication was spurious.

For instance, in his book, The Islamic Law and Constitution, Maudoodi has relied on two arguments in support of an Islamic state. The first is the Quranic pronouncement that true Muslims are “those who, (even) if We firmly establish them on earth, remain constant in prayer, and give in charity, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong ” (22: 41).

In a somewhat contrived interpretation of this solitary passage, Maudoodi infers: “The verse states clearly (sic) the aims objects and duties of an Islamic state” (pp. 282-3). No other commentator of standing, whether classical or modern, has reached this farfetched conclusion on a verse which does not even vaguely allude to an Islamic state.

The second strand in his reasoning is the statement that “the Quran not only lays down principles of morality and ethics, but also gives guidance in the political, social and economic fields. It prescribes punishments for certain crimes and enunciates principles of monetary and fiscal policy. These cannot be translated into practice unless there is a state to enforce them. And herein lies the necessity of an Islamic state” (p. 175). This is the raison d’etre for such a state which he calls a “theo-democracy.”

The term is an innovation and has no parallel in political science which has ancient roots and originated 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle who described it as “the study of the state.” Maudoodi certainly cannot be faulted for lack of originality!

But nevertheless, he was one of the most influential Islamic clerics of the 20th century. Even the internationally renowned scholar Dr Fazlur Rahman (1919-1988), who was hounded out of the country after being declared an apostate, conceded in his book, Islam and Modernity that Maudoodi definitely represented an advance over the ulema of his times inasmuch as he was proficient in English and had read some of the works of western writers.

He then added: “But Maududi displays nowhere the larger and more profound vision of Islam’s role in the world. Being a journalist rather than a serious scholar, he wrote at great speed and with resultant superficiality...He founded no educational institution and never suggested any syllabus for a reformed Islamic education.”

Though rejected by his own country, Dr Fazlur Rahman had a towering presence in academic circles abroad. As a professor at the universities of Durham, McGill and Chicago as well as through his writings he came to be regarded as an authority on Islam. So profound was his impact that after his death, the Chicago University’s Centre for Middle East Studies named its common area after him.

His comment about Maudoodi’s failure to bring about any change in the syllabus for educational reform, which was made more than 30 years back, is particularly relevant to contemporary Pakistan. Imran Khan’s PTI-led government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, under pressure from its coalition partner, the Jamaat-e-Islami has agreed to radically alter school textbooks.

Under the changes, as reported in the media, all pictures of girls – even minors – will show them clad in the traditional apparel, images depicting Christmas cakes and the cross will be taken out, and around 18 Islamic verses have been inserted, oddly enough, in chemistry books. The JI’s demand that references to Raja Dahir and Ranjit Singh be removed from the history syllabus has been conceded.

Seldom has there been such wilful distortion of history accompanied with the massacre of rational thought on which the religion of Islam is founded. Yet Imran Khan, supported by a bevy of political lightweights, keeps babbling on about an ill-defined wave of the future that will sweep away corruption and establish a ‘new Pakistan’ as an ‘Islamic welfare state.’

This is a 20th century innovation which emerged after the Grand National Assembly of Turkey abolished the caliphate in 1924 with the support of not only the Kemalists but also scholars of Cairo’s Al-Azhar university. It was at this point in time that Rashid Rida (1865-1935), a controversial though important Islamist thinker, proceeded to develop the hitherto novel concept of an Islamic state.

The idea was initially hazy but acquired some clarity with the birth of Pakistan, and, in particular after the adoption of the Objectives Resolution by the constituent assembly in 1949. This triggered the anti-Ahmadi riots in Lahore in 1953, and, the subsequent report of the Court of Inquiry headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir administered a crippling blow to the concept: “The phantom of an Islamic state has haunted the Musalman throughout the ages and is the result of the memory of the glorious past when Islam rising from the least expected quarter of the world – the wilds of Arabia – instantly enveloped the world...”

Earlier, in a series of articles for Dawn in 1952 the celebrated jurist AK Brohi (1915-1987), who served briefly as Pakistan’s high commissioner to India from February 1960 to March 1961, observed: “Having regard to the accepted notion of what constitutional law is, it is not possible to derive from the text of the Quran a clear statement as to the actual content of the constitution of any state.”

This is further corroborated by Professor Olivier Roy in his 2007 work, Secularism Confronts Islam: “The entire history of the Muslim world shows that power was, in fact, secular and never sanctified...What then remains in power is no longer a religion but a political-clerical apparatus that uses the moral order to conserve its position of power.” The exploitation of Islam is what lies at the heart of the turmoil in Pakistan after the death of Jinnah.

In his authoritative study, Al-Mawardi’s Theory of State, Professor Qamaruddin Khan of the Karachi University has also affirmed that the Quran has not defined any clear principle of state. This, he feels, is a blessing as it enables the Muslim community “to march with the progress of time and adjust itself to new conditions and new environments.”

But unfortunately through the course of history, with perhaps the short-lived exception of the Islamic Republic from 632-661 AD, hereditary succession of rulers in Muslim societies has been the norm. In his masterpiece, The Muqaddimah, the outstanding Arab historiographer and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), rejected the concept of hereditary rule: “Islam does not consider preservation of the ruler’s inheritance for his children...Succession to the rule is something that comes from God who distinguishes by it whomsoever He wishes.”

This is in accord with the Quranic pronouncement: “And (remember this): when his Sustainer tried Abraham by (His) commandments and the latter fulfilled them, He said: ‘Behold, I shall make thee a leader of men.’ Abraham asked: ‘And (wilt Thou make leaders) of my offspring as well?’ (God) answered: ‘My covenant does not embrace the evildoers’” (2: 124).

What emerges is that the Quran is silent about an Islamic state, but it rejects dynastic rule. This is what the rulers of the oil-rich states of the Gulf region conveniently ignore. There is a need for Muslim leaders to stop misleading people. Their religion does not prescribe an Islamic state and neither does it countenance hereditary monarchies.

The writer is the publisher of Criterion Quarterly.

The quest for an Islamic state - S Iftikhar Murshed

Email: iftimurshed@gmail.com
Every person has his own truth and that is what I am getting from Mr. Murshed's essay. Like you have said, I have serious differences with JI's philosophy but I am an admirer of Moulana Moudoodi, and I have also gone through almost all if not all of his work. I agree that Moulana has touched upon several topics superficially and has given the impression of a traditionalist who prefers to adhere to the interpretations/understanding of his predecessors rather than a scholar who would give a fresh look at certain things. In my opinion Moulana could have done much better had he had not made the fateful decision of entering into politics and wasted his intellect and energy in something for which he was never a suitable person. There was one more person who made the same mistake and met the same fate, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad. Moulana Azad would be Razi of his time had he had committed himself with scholarly studies of Islam and not entered in politics.
 
Last edited:
.
During my students days in the late 50’s /60’s there was one outstanding modernist thinker called Ghulam Ahmed Pervez. I came across some of his articles in the journal ‘Tulu-e-Islam’ and found most of his writings very rational. However his views went against many of the established Islamic scholars. His arguments reminded me of the Mu’tazalites of the Al-Mamun / Mutawakkal era who despite having sound rational arguments lost out to the traditional Ashaarites.

One of my close friend’s son who was only 46 years died of cancer recently. He has other sons and was worried that his grand children from the dead son will get nothing if he died without having arranged something for them in his life time. I suggested that he should follow allama Pervez ruling and give them what their father would have inherited if he was still alive. Another of our friends who was present accused me of being a ‘Pervezi’ and that I was going against the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa. I am nothing of the sort and follow no specific school of Islamic fiqah.

I was however surprised that many of my compatriots, despite being highly educated and otherwise modern thinkers, become extremely narrow minded when it comes to the rational arguments against the interpretation which were written more than 1000 years ago.

I find that so called ‘Thakedars’ of Islam ignore Taliban & Al-Qaida who violate clear Quranic verse which forbids Muslims to commit suicide and accepted thousand years of hereditary kings as Allah’s deputy on earth; insist that girls can be married at the tender age of 9 because that was allegedly age of Hazrat Ayesha (RA) even this fact is hotly disputed by many historians. I am therefore of the opinion that there is an urgent need for ‘Ijtehad’ if Muslims have to compete with other nations in today’s fast changing world.
 
Last edited:
.
Stop defending matters decided in Quran and Sunnah no ijtihad is done on them they have to be followed Mr that is clear
Stop ordering people around here what they SHOULD do regarding matters of their faith. There is no compulsion in religion and everyone is free to decide how they should interpret their faith. If ISIS, Taliban, Hamas are given free hand to interpret their Islamic religion as of barbaric throat cutters, then ijtihadis must also be allowed to interpret Islam in a more liberal and progressive way. If the interpretation of Islam by terrorist extremists is still Muslim, then same goes for those who interpret it more modernly.

I was however surprised that many of my compatriots, despite being highly educated and otherwise modern thinkers, become extremely narrow minded when it comes to the rational arguments against the interpretation which were written more than 1000 years ago.
Its called Maudidism. Rationalism in Islam ended with the advent of Ash'ari school of thought:
Ash'ari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find that so called ‘Thakedars’ of Islam ignore Taliban & Al-Qaida who violate clear Quranic verse which forbids Muslims to commit suicide and accepted thousand years of hereditary kings as Allah’s deputy on earth; insist that girls can be married at the tender age of 9 because that was allegedly age of Hazrat Ayesha (RA) even this fact is hotly disputed by many historians. I am therefore of the opinion that there is an urgent need for ‘Ijtehad’ if Muslims have to compete with other nations in today’s fast changing world.
When ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas or other terror organisations commit barbaric acts of murder in the name of jihad, there are no violent demonstrations against their unislamic actions in the Muslim world. But God forbid if some Kafir draws a picture of prophet Muhammad (SAW) or depicts him in a movie negatively. Only then there are mass riots in Islamic world. What a bunch of brainless hypocrites!

There was one more person who made the same mistake and met the same fate, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad. Moulana Azad would be Razi of his time had he had committed himself with scholarly studies of Islam and not entered in politics.
LOL. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad made several prophecies regarding Pakistan which all came true including dismemberment of Pakistan into Bangladesh and West Pakistan:
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation, Books and Documents, Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore, New Age Islam

He was first president of India and cannot be compared with irrational, narrow-minded bigot like Maudidi who envisioned and forced his followers into practicing near totalitarian view of Islam:

The modern conceptualization of the "Islamic state" is attributed to Maududi. In his book, The Islamic Law and Constitution, published in 1941 and subsequent writings, Maududi coined and popularized the term "Islamic state" itself. In addition, he coined and popularized the term "Islamic revolution" in the 1940s, even though this phrase is commonly associated with the 1979 Iranian Revolution that occurred 40 years later.

The state would be an "Islamic Democracy," and underlying it would be three principles: tawhid (oneness of God), risala (prophethood) and khilafa (caliphate). The "sphere of activity" covered by the Islamic statewould be "co-extensive with human life ... In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private.

Abul A'la Maududi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So there goes all your admiration for that lunatic who could not distinguish between the matters of state and religion. Jinnah's vision for Pakistan was a secular democracy based on Islamic principles, not on the totalitarian principles of Maududi. Furthermore, this Maududi was against the creation of Pakistan in the first place, and when it was formed anyway by the die hard contributions of Qaid-e-Azam, he moved to Pakistan in order to turn into his concept of 'Islamic State' which was no different than the one found in Iran or in Iraq (ISIS) today. He started his extremist movement with anti-Ahmadiyya agitation that led to riots in Lahore, forcing military to intervene in national politics for the first time:

He was against the creation of Pakistan. In the beginning of the struggle for the state of Pakistan, Maududi and his party criticized other leaders of the Muslim League for wanting Pakistan to be a state for Muslims and not as an Islamic state. After realizing that India was going to be partitioned and Pakistan created, he began the struggle to make Pakistan an Islamic state. Maududi moved to Pakistan in 1947 and worked to turn it into an Islamic state, resulting in frequent arrests and long periods of incarceration. In 1953, he and the JI led a campaign against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Pakistan resulting in the Lahore riots of 1953 and selective declaration of martial law. He was arrested by the military deployment headed by Lieutenant General Azam Khan, which also included Rahimuddin Khan, and sentenced to death on the charge of writing a propaganda pamphlet about the Ahmadiyya issue. He turned down the opportunity to file a petition for mercy, expressing a preference for death rather than seeking clemency. Strong public pressure from in and outside Pakistan, as well as, from the outside world, ultimately convinced the government to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Eventually, his sentence was annulled.
Abul A'la Maududi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you see military of Pakistan in 1953 was still secular as envisioned by Jinnah and did not distinguish between different interpretations of Islamic faith when it comes to the matters of state and security. Maududi was sentenced to death for causing religious riots in the provisional capital, yet he was pardoned by supposedly Saudi pressure. Had the sentence been carried out, our beloved Pakistan would not be in the extremist mess as it is today.

43 years later after the dismemberment of Pakistan into Bangladesh, courts sentenced leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami to death for their role in mass rape, killings and other war crimes during war of independence in 1971:

The head of Bangladesh's largest Islamist party has been sentenced to death for war crimes committed during the independence war against Pakistan in 1971.

Motiur Rahman Nizami, 71, faced 16 charges including genocide, murder, torture and rape.
BBC News - Bangladesh Islamist leader Motiur Rahman Nizami sentenced to death
 
Last edited:
.
Stop ordering people around here what they SHOULD do regarding matters of their faith. There is no compulsion in religion and everyone is free to decide how they should interpret their faith. If ISIS, Taliban, Hamas are given free hand to interpret their Islamic religion as of barbaric throat cutters, then ijtihadis must also be allowed to interpret Islam in a more liberal and progressive way. If the interpretation of Islam by terrorist extremists is still Muslim, then same goes for those who interpret it more modernly.


Its called Maudidism. Rationalism in Islam ended with the advent of Ash'ari school of thought:
Ash'ari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas or other terror organisations commit barbaric acts of murder in the name of jihad, there are no violent demonstrations against their unislamic actions in the Muslim world. But God forbid if some Kafir draws a picture of prophet Muhammad (SAW) or depicts him in a movie negatively. Only then there are mass riots in Islamic world. What a bunch of brainless hypocrites!


LOL. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad made several prophecies regarding Pakistan which all came true including dismemberment of Pakistan into Bangladesh and West Pakistan:
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation, Books and Documents, Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore, New Age Islam

He was first president of India and cannot be compared with irrational, narrow-minded bigot like Maudidi who envisioned and forced his followers into practicing near totalitarian view of Islam:

The modern conceptualization of the "Islamic state" is attributed to Maududi. In his book, The Islamic Law and Constitution, published in 1941 and subsequent writings, Maududi coined and popularized the term "Islamic state" itself. In addition, he coined and popularized the term "Islamic revolution" in the 1940s, even though this phrase is commonly associated with the 1979 Iranian Revolution that occurred 40 years later.[14]

The state would be an "Islamic Democracy," and underlying it would be three principles: tawhid (oneness of God), risala (prophethood) and khilafa (caliphate). The "sphere of activity" covered by the Islamic statewould be "co-extensive with human life ... In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private.
Abul A'la Maududi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So there goes all your admiration for that lunatic who could not distinguish between the matters of state and religion. Jinnah's vision for Pakistan was a secular democracy based on Islamic principles, not on the totalitarian principles of Maududi. Furthermore, this Maududi was against the creation of Pakistan in the first place, and when it was formed anyway by the die hard contributions of Qaid-e-Azam, he moved to Pakistan in order to turn into his concept of 'Islamic State' which was no different than the one found in Iran or in Iraq (ISIS) today. He started his extremist movement with anti-Ahmadiyya agitation that led to riots in Lahore, forcing military to intervene in national politics for the first time:

He was against the creation of Pakistan. In the beginning of the struggle for the state of Pakistan, Maududi and his party criticized other leaders of the Muslim League for wanting Pakistan to be a state for Muslims and not as an Islamic state. After realizing that India was going to be partitioned and Pakistan created, he began the struggle to make Pakistan an Islamic state. Maududi moved to Pakistan in 1947 and worked to turn it into an Islamic state, resulting in frequent arrests and long periods of incarceration. In 1953, he and the JI led a campaign against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Pakistan resulting in the Lahore riots of 1953 and selective declaration of martial law. He was arrested by the military deployment headed by Lieutenant General Azam Khan, which also included Rahimuddin Khan, and sentenced to death on the charge of writing a propaganda pamphlet about the Ahmadiyya issue. He turned down the opportunity to file a petition for mercy, expressing a preference for death rather than seeking clemency. Strong public pressure from in and outside Pakistan, as well as, from the outside world, ultimately convinced the government to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Eventually, his sentence was annulled.
Abul A'la Maududi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you see military of Pakistan in 1953 was still secular as envisioned by Jinnah and did not distinguish between different interpretations of Islamic faith when it comes to the matters of state and security. Maududi was sentenced to death for causing religious riots in the provisional capital, yet he was pardoned by supposedly Saudi pressure. Had the sentence been carried out, our beloved Pakistan would not be in the extremist mess as it is today.

No everyone is not free even Sahabas didn't did it those matters answered in Quran and Sunnah no ijtihad is done on them and on new matters they are decided in light off Quran and Sunnah
 
.
Stop ordering people around here what they SHOULD do regarding matters of their faith. There is no compulsion in religion and everyone is free to decide how they should interpret their faith. If ISIS, Taliban, Hamas are given free hand to interpret their Islamic religion as of barbaric throat cutters, then ijtihadis must also be allowed to interpret Islam in a more liberal and progressive way. If the interpretation of Islam by terrorist extremists is still Muslim, then same goes for those who interpret it more modernly.


Its called Maudidism. Rationalism in Islam ended with the advent of Ash'ari school of thought:
Ash'ari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas or other terror organisations commit barbaric acts of murder in the name of jihad, there are no violent demonstrations against their unislamic actions in the Muslim world. But God forbid if some Kafir draws a picture of prophet Muhammad (SAW) or depicts him in a movie negatively. Only then there are mass riots in Islamic world. What a bunch of brainless hypocrites!


LOL. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad made several prophecies regarding Pakistan which all came true including dismemberment of Pakistan into Bangladesh and West Pakistan:
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation, Books and Documents, Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore, New Age Islam

He was first president of India and cannot be compared with irrational, narrow-minded bigot like Maudidi who envisioned and forced his followers into practicing near totalitarian view of Islam:



Abul A'la Maududi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So there goes all your admiration for that lunatic who could not distinguish between the matters of state and religion. Jinnah's vision for Pakistan was a secular democracy based on Islamic principles, not on the totalitarian principles of Maududi. Furthermore, this Maududi was against the creation of Pakistan in the first place, and when it was formed anyway by the die hard contributions of Qaid-e-Azam, he moved to Pakistan in order to turn into his concept of 'Islamic State' which was no different than the one found in Iran or in Iraq (ISIS) today. He started his extremist movement with anti-Ahmadiyya agitation that led to riots in Lahore, forcing military to intervene in national politics for the first time:


Abul A'la Maududi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you see military of Pakistan in 1953 was still secular as envisioned by Jinnah and did not distinguish between different interpretations of Islamic faith when it comes to the matters of state and security. Maududi was sentenced to death for causing religious riots in the provisional capital, yet he was pardoned by supposedly Saudi pressure. Had the sentence been carried out, our beloved Pakistan would not be in the extremist mess as it is today.

43 years later after the dismemberment of Pakistan into Bangladesh, courts sentenced leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami to death for their role in mass rape, killings and other war crimes during war of independence in 1971:


BBC News - Bangladesh Islamist leader Motiur Rahman Nizami sentenced to death
Secularism is kufr those who consider Islam just a religion their knowledge off Islam is worse than Abu Juhal
 
.
No everyone is not free even Sahabas didn't did it those matters answered in Quran and Sunnah no ijtihad is done on them and on new matters they are decided in light off Quran and Sunnah
Sahabas did ijtihad on the matters of Islam as they happened during their lifetime. There was no concept of Dhimmi during the time of prophet Muhammad (SAW) as all of Arabia converted to Islam and those who didn't were expelled out of the peninsula. Later with Islamic conquests as more and more non-Muslims came under Caliphate rule, these legal concepts were DEVELOPED with ijtihad for those who were not Muslims:
Dhimmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom