Talk about Islam in Afghanistan, they say it is not Islam but Talibanism.
When we talk about Islam in Saudi Arabia ( or Iran ), they say it is not Islam but Wahabism or Salafism.
Then, the Islam of ISIS or Al-Qaeda or Boko Haram or Jamaat e Islami or Indian Mujahideen? They say it is Radical Islam or Islamism or Militant Islam.
Intrinsic to all these claims is their underlying assumption of existence of some form of Islam which is ‘true’ Islam. ( 1 ) With the infields, the problem is not of their love towards Islam but their hatred towards their own culture that makes them blind to what faces them.
The more relevant question is where do the beliefs of those Islamic outfits come from ? Of course, they get them from Koran and the life of Prophet Mohammad. But is it legal doctrinally and traditionally ?
Just 6 months back, Heena Khan, a Muslim woman, in the wake of Paris attacks, writes in The Hindustan Times, ‘ Why its time to go back to Islam’s holy book’, purely an apologist piece and incredibly stupid.
Now, she really thinks ISIS hasn’t read Koran or doesn’t know the basics of Islam ? The chief and the founder of ISIS, Baghdadi, has a doctorate in Islamic theology from a very reputed Islamic college. Similarly, the movement of Talibanism, born in madrassas which teach Deobandi theology, proud contribution of Indian Muslims, is ignorant of basics of Islam ? Deobandi seminary school, the largest in India, doesn’t know Koran and Islam, Heena Khan wants us to believe !
Tufail Ahmad writes a more honest piece in The New Indian Express, ‘How to Combat Global Islamism’ . For him, the radicalization of Muslims is the real problem. And he quotes, ‘Islam does not allow Muslims to fully integrate with local communities; as a system of ideas, Islam is designed to essentially separate Muslims from the practices of non-Muslims.’ Partially true. More appropriate observation is, ‘Islam makes an obligation on all Muslims to impose their beliefs on all others.’
If those beliefs come from Radical Islam or constitute Radical Islam, and radicalization poses a danger, then the Radical Islam merits a simple analysis, starting from ‘what is it?’.
To understand and analyze this, we can group the prevailing opinions in the world about Islam like this:
1. Radical Islam is a new phenomenon, born in 1920 s, as a reaction to Western Imperialism.
2. Islam is always like this i.e. from the time it was born.
Erudite scholars ( ‘apologists’ is the better word to describe them ) keep writing that Radical Islam was born when Abul Ala Maududi found Jamaat e Islami in India and Hassan al Banna found Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Both the events took place in 1920 s. For these scholars, the concept of Islam of Jamaat e Islami and Muslim Brotherhood is ‘RADICAL ISLAM’ and it means ‘reading the Koran and following Prophet Mohammad’. In broader terms, it involves reading the Koran literally and interpreting it in the light of teachings and deeds of Prophet Mohammad.
According to modern day English dictionaries, the word ‘RADICAL’ has these meanings :
1. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic
2. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic
vocabulary.com says ‘If something is considered extremist or very different from anything that has come before it, call it radical.’
So, in the views of these scholars, although Radical Islam is based on Koran and Prophet Mohammad, it is a new phenomenon and a departure from main stream Islam; Islam was never understood like that before. If we take radical’s meaning as root, Radical Islam means Islam going to its root i.e. Koran and Prophet Mohammad.
Some better informed ‘scholars’ trace the origins of this ‘Radical Islam’ to the 18nth century i.e. to the time when Wahabbism appeared in Saudi Arabia. These ‘scholars’ too suggest that wahabbis were reading the Koran literally and interpreting it using the life of Prophet Mohammad.
Few apologists for Islamic Supremacism from Britain say that Maududi’s Jamaat e Islami is rooted in the philosophy of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ that began at the time of the collapse of the Mughal empire. This movement of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ is attributed to Shah Wali-Allah ( d. 1762 ), who also defined Islam as reading Koran and following Prophet Mohammad. Though he was born in India (Patna), he travelled to Mecca and Medina where he must have been exposed to teachings of Radical Islam (? ). These scholars say that his followers waged jihad against British in India and hence its influence on Maududi. You see, implicit message in their statement is ‘British Imperialism is responsible for creation of Jamaat e Islami or Radical Islam in India.’ ( 2 ) Is it a crime or communalism to ask what should be said about Shah Wali-Allah’s calls for Jihad against Hindus and Sikhs ?
Few of these scholars even suggest that wahabbism can be traced to the influence of 14 nth century Islamic scholar Ibn Thimmayya who formalized that to be a good Muslim, one should read Koran and to understand and follow it one should find a model and that model is Prophet Mohammad. So, these were the teachings Shah Wali-Allah must have been exposed to when he was in Medina or Mecca.
So, this is when Radical Islam was born.
Now, we have to ask if this claim is in conformity with other Islamic materials. We ask this simple question : So, is the concept of Jihad was born in 1300s with Ibn Thimmayya ? No. All jusrists and scholars before Ibn Thimmayya have defined Jihad just as Ibn Thimmayya did e.g. Abu Yusuf and Averroes.
More over, Sharia was codified before the 9 nth century itself and all 4 schools of Islamic thought were unanimous on Jihad and defined it just like Ibn Thimmayya did.
It is not simple coincidence that opinions of all Islamic jurists and Islamic scholars converge on the topics like Jihad, jizya and Dhimmah and apostasy. Their outlook with regard to other faiths remains the same : rejection and oppression i.e. Islam should dominate all.
And the methodology applied in reaching their opinions also was always the same : Interpreting Koran using the life of Prophet Mohammad.
All this only shows Radical Islam is a myth. There is nothing radical about beliefs of those Islamic outfits. The phrases like Radical Islam or Militant Islam or the -ism s like Wahabbism and Islamism are modern day inventions to keep the non-Muslims in ignorance to faciliate the advance of Jihad.
1. Then, we see some people, in defence of Islam, saying, ‘ they ( i.e. Islamic terrorists ) misinterpreted Koran and Hadith ‘ or ‘there are diff. interpretations of Koran’ ! This is pure BS because there is only one interpretation of Islam i.e. Koran and that was done by Prophet Mohammad himself. Regarding misinterpreting Koran, Muslims are forgetting what they claim i.e. Koran is the word from none other than ONLY TRUE GOD who proclaims Koran is easy to read and understand, and is simple and unambigous. The TRUE MASTER I.E. ALLAH unambigously tells his slaves i.e. Muslims to follow and obey Prophet Mohammad in not less than 90 verses and EVEN ANNOUNCES THE LIFE OF MOHAMMAD iS AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL MUSLIMS TO FOLLOW. This interpretation is clear and those suggesting otherewise are either pure liars or ignorant.
2. Shah Wali-Allah is hailed as a sufi saint and as a reformer by all Muslim scholars in India and there are about 100 books written in his praise by modern Muslim scholars. They all say that he was the inaugurator of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ and hail him as one of the half a dozen topmost interpreters of true Islam. One such ardent admirer of Shah Wali-Allah is Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Prof. Aziz Ahmad says, ‘Shah Wali-Allah forms a bridge between medieval and modern Islam in India.’
Revivalism is a misnomer to describe the philosophy or the efforts of Shah Wali-Allah. He called upon all the Muslims for all-out Jihad against Hindus for reducing them to a state of humiliation. The objective of that Jihad was to restore Islamic authority over India again. Towards this, he wrote letters to Muslim nobles and Muslim generals for warfare against Hindus and Sikhs. Muslim scholars who published these letters in their books conveniently deleted Shah Wali-Allah’s statements on Hindus and Hinduism. These modern Muslim scholars, who are regarded as secular in our MSM and polity, having clamied that Islam teaches peace and harmony, never repudiate Shah Wali-Allah on Jihad and what he wrote. Shah Wali-Allah writes, ‘It has become clear to my mind that the kingdom of heaven has pre-destined that kafirs ( Hindus here ) should be reduced to a state of humiliation and treated with utter contempt.’
SAA Rizvi summarizes Shah Wali’s doctrine of Jihad ( as written in his arabic work ‘Hujjat-Allah al-Baligha’ ) : “According to Shah Wali-Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Sharia was the performance of jihad. There were people, said the Shah, who indulged in their lower nature by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Mohammed. If one chose to explain Islam to people like this it was to do them a disservice. Force, said the Shah, was the better course – Islam should be forced down their throats like bitter medicine to a child. This, however, was possible only if the leaders of the non-Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed, the strength of the community was reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam. Another means of ensuring conversions was to prevent other religious communities from worshipping their own gods. Moreover, unfavourable discriminating laws should be imposed on non-Muslims in matters of rule of retaliation, compensation for manslaughter, and marriage and political matters. However, the proselytization programme of Shah Wali-Allah only included the leaders of the Hindu community. The low class of the infidels, according to him, were to be left alone to work in the fields and for paying jiziya. They like beasts of burden and agricultural livestock were to be kept in abject misery and despair.”
(Francis Robinson, Separatism Among Indian Muslims, Delhi, 1975, p. 346.)
Hardly any revivalism that can be said as secular or plural, and when Muslim scholars hold him in high esteem that betrays their mind set, isn’t it ? Yet, they are held as champions of secularism or pluralism by our intellectuals ! Much worse to follow. Shah Wali-Allah and his ( late to come ) Jihadist followers are portrayed as revolutionaries by our ’eminent’ historians i.e. Marxists. That is the true face of Indian Secularism.