Common
Muslims between the Theology of Takfir (declaring others unbelievers) and the
Politics of Takhrib (destruction)
Introduction
Scores
of religious edicts and decrees are issued by Muslim theologians, muftis and
Ulema have been almost regularly denouncing fellow Muslims who do not accept their
version of Islam and hundreds of debates take place on these edicts in Muslim
gatherings at various levels on issues pertaining to these edicts. There are those who call others kafir, fajir,
fasiq or murtad and there are those who advocate violence against such people.
These decrees are not issued by common people. They are bystanders who only learn
about these edicts from those who describe themselves as learned people and scholars. Many
commoners, then, engage in conflicts and infighting against each other to live
the ideals of Islam with full sincerity as taught to them by their scholars or religious leaders
regardless of their level of scholarship and influence. Many are baffled by this situation. Can differences of understanding of a divine message that describes itself as a simple message lead to a level where people are unwilling to accommodate each other? Many ask. In their eyes, Islam has been turned into a conflicting
faith where no one knows who speaks the truth because everyone is suspect in
the eye of the other and everyone is claiming that his group is the only righteous group. This is confusing. No one has the time to read all the conflicting opinions among existing Muslim sects and factions and then decide which one to follow. People do not have to
choose between a theology of takfir and a politics of takhrib. They want to live Islam so that in the words
of the Quran: “And
there are men who say: "Our Lord! Give us good in this world and good in
the Hereafter, and defend us from the torment of the Fire!"
2:20
This article is the reflection of one such person who wants to
find good in this life and in the life of the here
after.
I grew up in a religious environment. As
a child, I used to regularly attend the neighborhood masjid where I would listen
to the sermons of Shaikh Yusuf who spent most of his time in reading and
teaching. He lived in a small room of the masjid known as Hauz Wali Masjid in
Old Delhi. On important religious occasions, he would teach us about
their significance and relevance.
I grew up and started visiting masajid
with Tablighi Jamat. I would travel to far distant places in India for months
learning about deen with the Jamat people. I spent several weeks in
Nizamuddin’s Bangle Wali Masjid and often heard Shaikh Yusuf and Shaikh Haqqani
Palanpuri on several occasions.
I grew older and started visiting the
tombs of religious scholars such as Shaikh Nizamuddin, Shaikh Moinuddin Chishti
and Shaikh Bakhtiar Kaki and Shaikh Sirhindi and many others, a practice that I still follow. In fact, when I
visited Lahore just for one day in 2008, I spent the whole night at Shaikh
Hajveris’s mausoleum reading his books and reading about his life and marveling how dedicated he was to his faith.
I also attended the meetings of Jamat
Islami, India regularly and I also listened to the talks given by leaders of Ahle
Hadith at their masjid near Jama Masjid in Delhi. I also attended several
majalis of Shias where I learned about the life of the grandsons of the Prophet
and their sacrifices. I also attended and participated in the activities of the Muslim League, Muslim Majlis, Muslim Majlis Mushwarat as well as Congress, and
Socialist Parties. During my time in prison, during the emergency imposed by
Mrs. Gandhi, I spent months with the leadership of the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak
Sangh (RSS)I must admit, I liked all of them, yes,
even the leaders of RSS, individually, with whom I spent the time. They were all sincere in
what they believed and practiced.
I especially liked all Muslim
organizations as they all appeared sincere and committed to what they believed in.
Whether I was memorizing the Quran at
the local madrasa or listening to the talks given by various scholars, I always
admired the beauty of scholarship and the dedication of scholars. I decided to
dedicate myself to the learning from all. But one day, someone asked me while I
was in a Tablighi Jamat round, “how come you're part of the Tablighi Jamat,
while, your father is from Jamat Islami.” Frankly speaking, I did not know how
to answer. The same question would be repeated by others in gatherings of
different organizations. Even in a gathering of the Jamat Islami, I heard
someone asking, “what was I doing with the Tablighi Jamat.”
I had no answer to any of these
questions. Often, I wondered, why would they ask such a question? Later,
however, I discovered something else when I embarked on the journey to learn
more about Muslims in South Asia and the world.
Theology of
Takfir
I found out that there were people who
had declared Tablighi Jamat a mushrik (polytheist) outfit, there were people
who had labeled scholars from Deoband ( a religious seminary in India) as the
deviants practicing a false religion, there were people who had issued religious
decrees declaring the Jamat Islami a fasiq (rebellious) organization, there
were people who had called Shias non-Muslims and there were people who had declared
all non-Shais kafir. There were those who had denounced Ahle Hadith as deviants
and there were those who had labeled the followers of Ahmed Raza Khan as
mushrik.
Those who made these statements were not
ordinary people, they were learned people who called themselves scholars and
ulema and who enjoyed the respect among their followers. They quoted the Quran and
the teachings of the Prophet to support their claims. Many of them called
himself righteous and the other deviant, fasiq, and kafir. It was a shocking
reality that I confronted. More shocking was the realization that even many of
the icons of Islamic history were also involved in this movement of declaring
others kafir or disbeliever. The prophet's saying that the one who declares a
fellow Muslim a kafir is himself a kafir appeared to be meaningless to such
great teachers and scholars and ulema of Islam.
Where is the Umma? I asked this question,
several times, to myself. Because some Muslim scholars declared the other kafir,
all appeared to be kafir. Where are Muslims? What about the time I spent
learning with the Tablighi Jamat, Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahle Hadith or Salafi
scholars or with the Jamat Islami. Was I learning kufr or practicing kufr? Will
I ever be able to free myself from kufr because I liked them all and I respected
them all, despite what many say and do to each other? I was baffled.
No
ordinary Muslim would dare declare other non-Muslims. He or she does not
have
enough knowledge to even define his own Islam, how can he define others. If he
does so, it is not that he reached this conclusion on his own, but someone
else taught him to say so.
I discovered
that
all the sects, whether Hanafis, Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the
Sufi orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas of heresy and apostasy
pronounced against them. And not only sects but the prominent scholars of
these sects have had fatwas
directed against them individually.
Tafsir of
Individuals
Shaikh Nazir
Husain of Delhi of
Ahl-i Hadith was called disputant, doubter, the follower of base passions, jealous,
dishonest and was accused as a falterer of the Quran.
Shaikh
Muhammad Husain Batalavi,
along with Shaikh Nazir, was called a devil, atheist, stupid, senseless,
faithless, etc. This fatwa had
the seals of 82 Ulama of Arabia
and elsewhere.
Shaikh
Sana-Ullah of Amritsar of Ahl-i Hadith had fatwas directed
against him which were obtained in Makka. It is written about his commentary of
the Quran: “It is the writing of a misguided person, one who has invented new
doctrines. In his commentary, he has collected beliefs such as re-incarnation
and the doctrines of the Mu`tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is neither
permissible to obtain knowledge from Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His
evidence cannot be accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt
regarding his heresy and apostasy. His commentary deserves to be cut to pieces.
In fact, it is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of refuting it.''
(Faisila Makka, pp. 15--20)
Shaik Husain Ahmad Madani of Deobandi was
also criticized for his beliefs in: Tarjuman Islam of Lahore that carried the
following extract in its issue for 10 November 1961:
“Husain Ahmad Madani, Deobandi, was a
first-rate scholar and servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no introduction.
But one was very shocked by a letter of his which contained the grotesque idea
of the denial of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu`tazila, and breaks the
records of the ideologies of Chakralvi and Pervez.'' All those whose records is
said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani have had fatwas of kufr
directed against them. This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is
considered a kafir.
Syed Abul Ala
Maudoodi and his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama
of nearly every sect. Mufti Muhzar-ullah, of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in
his fatwa: “On the very face of
it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi's party] exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis,
and lead to divisions among the believers, and is the basis of making a new
sect. But looking closely, these things take one to heresy. In this case, they
do not make a new sect, but result in one's entry into the group of
apostates.'' Shaikh Hafiz-ullah of Aligarh has written: “Whatever was the
position of the Zarar mosque,
similar is the position of this [i.e. Maudoodi's] party.'' (The Zarar mosque was a mosque built by
some hypocrite Muslims in Madina during the Holy Prophet's time for the purpose
of conspiring against Islam. The word kufr
is used about the Zarar mosque
in the Holy Quran.)
Shaikh Izaz Ali, Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa: “I consider this [i.e.
Maudoodi's] party to be even more harmful to the faith of the Muslims than are
the Ahmadis.'' Mufti Sayyid Mahdi Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological
school at Deoband, wrote in his fatwa:
“If an Imam of a mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a hateful
matter to pray behind him.''
Shaikh
Ahmad Madani, Deobandi wrote in a letter to Maudoodi: “Your `Islamic' movement
is against the righteous tradition in Islam. It is like the [extremist] sects
of old such as Mu`tazila, Khwarij, and Rafiz. It resembles modern sects such as
Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith], Naturi [rationalist], and Baha'i [i.e.
the Baha'i religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based on principles,
beliefs, and practices which are against the Sunnis and Islam.''
The Committee of Ulama of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against Maudoodi: “His
reasoning is devilry against the Quran.' May God save all Muslims from Maudoodi
and the evil and deceit of his so-called Islamic Party.''
In
Fatwa online at the site of Darul Uloom Deoband, one can glance through
several religious decrees against the Jamat Islami, Ahle Hadith, Barelvi sect
and others. The fatwas declare it unlawful to even join the Jamat Islamic as in
their views “it is haram.”
Sir Sayyid
Ahmad Khan, a prominent Muslim modernist leader and founder of the Aligarh University for
Muslims, (d. 1898) was not spared. In his biography Hayat-i Jawaid by Maulana
Hali, the storm of condemnation and takfir
against Sir Sayyid is fully detailed. Read some of these lines: “Sir Sayyid was
called an atheist, irreligious, Christian, nature-worshiper, anti-Christ, and
many other things. Fatwas that
he was a kafir were prepared,
and signatures of Maulavis of every town and city were obtained. Even those who
remained silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir, were called kafir.”
(p. 623) “All the Muslim sects in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or
non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are on
these fatwas.”(p. 627)
A
fatwa was obtained from Makka,
bearing the seals of Muftis of all the four schools, in which it was written: “This
man is a heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr) from Islamic law in some aspect…If he repents before he is
arrested, and turns away from his misguided views, and there are clear signs of
repentance from him, then he should not be killed. Otherwise, it is obligatory
to kill him for the sake of the faith.'' (p. 633)
Muhammad Ali Jinnah
and Muhammad Iqbal
were all described as the great kafir.
A fatwa of
three hundred Ulama against the Deobandis that read “The Deobandis, because of their
contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets,
and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are
definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is
of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even
slightly is himself a murtadd
and kafir. Muslims should be
very cautious of them and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them,
one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them
come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them
space in Muslim graveyards. To sum up, one must stay away from them
completely.'
In March 1953, a poster was put up on
walls in Karachi titled: “Demands:
Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority'' Among other things it
said: “Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and
Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the
Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The
representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman
Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.'' After this, it was demanded
that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 Ulama.
Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of
Deoband has, in his book, Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir tried to show
that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir,
Anti-Christ of this century, murtadd,
and excluded from Islam.
On the other hand, Ahmad Raza Khan
Barelvi has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi, founder of the school
at Deoband and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi of Deoband, and then added: “They are all murtad [apostate] according to the
unanimous view (ijma) of
Muslims.” This fatwa bears the
signatures and seals of Ulama
of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis
and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir:
1. They deny the finality of
prophethood;
2. They insult the Holy Prophet;
3. They believe that God can tell a
lie. They conclude that “He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.”
One
can quote from the writings of scholars where Imam Abu Hanifa is called a
Shaitan, Imam Shafai is called a murtad, Imam Malik was called a deviant, Imam
Hanbal was described as fajir, Jamaluddin Afghani is described as murtad,
Shaikh Abdu and Rashid rida described mulhad, Syed Salman NAdwai, Hameeduddin
Farahi denounced as kafir, Syed Maudoodi as dajjal or anti-Christi.
The Impact of
Takfir
If one looks at the takfir of ulama in
other parts of the world, one can write volumes on the subject. Why is this
takfir? If everyone is saying that they believe in one God and they accept
Prophet Muhammad as the final and last messenger and the Prophet and they
believe in the reality of the life after death, then why would one declare the
other as kafir or murtad or fasiq and fajir? Who can stop them? Or who has
given them the right to declare the other as deviant or kafir? Is there any
basis of their action?
One of the great scholars of the
previous century, Shaikh Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi summarized the whole theology of
takfir in the following words in a book called “the status and responsibilities
of ulama” “If the scholars of deen do not discipline them spiritually,
intellectually, morally and personally, then the entire deen and millat would
be in a state of decline.
He further wrote; If our country’s
religious circles do not produce people like Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Syed Hussain
Ahmed Madani, Syed Salman Nadwai, Syed Manazar Ahsan Gilani, Shaikh Ahmed
Usmani, Shaikhul Hadith Muhammad Zakariya, Mufti Kifayatullah, Shaikh Sajjad,
Abdul Kalam Azad, Shaikh Ilyas, Shaikh Yusuf Kandelvi, then the identity and the dignity of the ulema and Islam in India would be lost.”
Obviously, Shaikh Abul Hasan Nadawi was
speaking from his background. Among the scholars that Indian Muslim justifiably
claim to be great were Shah Waliullah, Shah Ahmed Sirhindi, Shaikh Nizamuddin,
Shaikh Makhdoom Mohiyuddin, Shaikh Hajaveri, Syed Ahmed Khan, Chiragh Ali,
Shaikh Muhibbul Haq, Aslam Jairajpuri and Shaikh Hifzur Rehman, All of them drew their inspiration from the
Quran and sunnah.
Fabricated
Ahadith extolling the Virtues of Scholars
They made a distinction between the
personal opinions of individuals and the essence of the faith. They rarely
questioned the other’s sincerity and integrity. They also identified false,
fabricated and false ahadith. For instance, they knew that the following ahadith
that glorify ulema were fabricated and false or weak.
“Ulama of my ummat are like the Prophets
of the Bani Israel.”
“After me the most generous is the one
who acquired knowledge and propagated that.”
“One who saw an alim saw me and the one
who shook hands with an alim shook hands with me.”
“An alim or a shaikh is like a prophet
among his people.”
“The
ink of an alim is better than the blood of a martyr.”
“Looking at the face of an alim is an
act of Ibadah.”
“The difference of my ummah is mercy.”
“Follow scholars as they are the light
of this world and the lantern of the world hereafter.”
The Spirit of
Islam Betrayed
Genuine scholars described all these
fabrication an act of fitna or dissension among Muslims and challenged those
who had indulged in this theology of takfir.
The
Quran and the Prophet are specific and very clear on the dissension among
Muslims with particular reference to groups, sects, scholars, or factions. The
Quran reminds all of us that the guidance comes from Allah only and that
guidance has to be lived in one's life. The one who introduced the world to the
ideas of one God taught his followers that if they did not find anything good to
talk about fellow Muslims, they should at least stay quiet rather than hurting
him by name.
It
was clear from the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet that those who were
declaring others deviant, false, fasiq, fajir or kafir or unbelievers were
violating the fundamental principles of Islam. They were causing dissensions in
the community and instigating the innocent, uneducated and simple-minded masses
against the other. It was clear that they had become the first violator of the
faith and they wanted others to follow or adhere them. Anyone who stayed
outside their pale was not considered worthy of having a faith.
In reality, they betrayed Islam. They
tried to rob Islam of its inherent Universalism and the beauty for all. Rather
than inspiring Muslims to live the Quran in their everyday life and explore the
world as commanded in the divine book to serve the humanity, they indulged and
involved their followers in petty theological debates and issued religious
edicts on them. They fought on every minute detail, dividing the community into
sects, sub-sects and sub-sub sects. The dominated the debate in Muslim circles
and families. Rather than discussing the message of the Quran and the character
and life of the prophet and the responsibilities of Muslims in the changing
world, the debate focused on petty differences without any end in sight.
The situation is more confusing to
non-Muslims. Whom should they accept as the genuine voice of Islam? Even if
they identify with the teachings of Islam, they would find it hard to identify
with any Muslim groups because each is a deviant in the eyes of the other. In this
age of information, when nothing is hidden from the eyes of readers, people
would soon discover such writings no matter when they were written and in what
language they were written.
Why it is that these learned people were
indulging in this sort of practice? Why were they declaring each other kafir or
fajir? Rather than engaging with others in a dialogue to seek further clarity
and accept the differences as an expression of one's comprehension and
understanding, why were they obsessed with the idea of total annihilation or
subjugation of the other?
Some of these groups crossed all lines.
They took it upon themselves to annihilate their opponents. They first declared
others as kafir, murtad, fajir and fasiq and then incited their followers to
decimate the opposition, kill them or silence them forever.
The Fitna
The common Muslim is bewildered. They do
not have the skills to define each other in the terms many scholars have defined.
They are baffled as they are given a choice, a choice that none of the average
Muslims would ever want to be. They are being forced to make a choice between
the theology of takfir (declaring others as kafir) and the politics of takhrib
(destruction). This is not what the Quran calls. In fact, the Quran describes
such a practice a Fitna.
The Quran, the book that is the
fundamental source of Muslim's identity uses a word fitna in its different
varieties. The Trilateral root fatanun occurs 60 times in six different forms,
34 as a noun and 25 in various verbal forms. “The Arabic word fitnah
includes meanings of testing and trial. The root is taken from the phrase
fatantu al-fiddah wa’l-dhahab , meaning I melted the metals to separate the bad
from the good. (Al-Azhari) Allah says in the Qur’an (interpretation of the
meaning): ‘(It will be) a Day when they will be tried [yuftanoona] (punished)
over the Fire!’ [al-Dhaariyaat 51:13], meaning, burning them with fire.”
(Tahdheeb al-Lughah, 14/196). “Fitnah means testing, trial, wealth, children,
kufr, differences of opinion among people, as well as burning with fire.”
(Lisaan al-‘Arab by Ibn Manzoor). The Quran uses differences among People and
lack of agreement as a meaning of the word fitna in one of the verses. “and
they would have hurried about in your midst (spreading corruption) and sowing
sedition among you [yabghoonakum al-fitnah]” [al-Tawbah 9:47] i.e., they would
have stirred up differences amongst you, as it says in al-Kashshaaf, (2/277).
It appeared that what was done by many
of these learned people was nothing but an exercise in fitna. They were sowing
sedition and stirring up difference between the believers. They were inciting
their followers against the other. However, shocking it may be but it is to be
acknowledged and accepted. Obviously, they were not the ulema described in the
Quran or defined by the Prophet as scholars. Obviously, they were not the ones
who showed any humility towards the other. In the words of the Quran “Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere)
Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!” (30:32)
The
Scholars and the Scholarship
As explained by the Quran, a person does
not become a scholar by reading books only. “(But only the
people who comprehend what they read and then act upon it can benefit from Allah's Book. The Book would be
of no use if it is carried around wrapped in beautiful covers. This is
what the Bani-Israel did to Allah’s book, and you can see their
condition.) The Torah was
given to them and they were told that it was their duty to act upon it.
However, they (carried the book with extreme reverence, but) did not undertake
the responsibilities it imposed on them. An apt parable would be that of
a donkey laden with books. (It is obvious that the books cannot benefit
the donkey in the least). This is an example of people who admit to the
truthfulness of Divine Laws, but belie it by their deeds. How wretched
their plight would be. The people who treat the Divine Book in this way
obviously cannot find the right path. (Can a donkey ever go on the right
path just because the books containing guidance, namely the distinction between
right and wrong, are laden on its back?) (62:5)
“(Such was the conduct of Bani-Israel.
They merely carried the Divine Book around instead of obtaining guidance from
it, and at the same time, they remained under the false impression that they
alone were the favorites of Allah.)
Tell them, “If you really are the only ones who are Allah’s closest friends and
favorites, then aspire to die in His cause. This would substantiate your
claim.” (62:6) and (2:94)
A true scholar is a teacher who instills
hope in the ability of an individual to relate to Allah and His messenger. A true
scholar is a teacher who helps an individual broaden his intellectual horizons.
A true scholar is a teacher who helps an individual develop a comprehensive
Islamic personality to the welfare and well being of all. A true scholar is a
person who rises above sectarian, factional and party lines and directly goes
to the Quran and Sunnah to develop his/ her rationale in assuming any position.
A true scholar is a person who goes outside the box to understand the divine
wisdom in the guidance given to human beings. A true scholar is a person who
ignores the individual weaknesses to ensure that the doors of divine mercy are never
closed.
A true scholar does not create intimidation
and fear. A true scholar is not the one who controls the mind of his students. A
true scholar is never afraid of any question his followers ask him even if it
questions the validity of the fundamentals of religion. In the words of the
Quran a true scholar is the one who shows humility, even after attaining the
highest laurels of knowledge.
“(Obedient and rational people wonder why such benevolent, clear and
eye-opening knowledge was opposed? And even now it continues to be
opposed. However, this is not all that strange. People’s mind-set
and attitudes are different from each other, and you will see this
everywhere. This can be eliminated by following Divine Guidance.)Don't
you see how water comes down from the clouds, following which different fruits
of varied colors are produced? (It does not happen that all fruits and
crops are the same.) And look at the mountains. Although you
observe streaks of white and various shades of red as well as others which are
jet black, these mountains are basically the same. The same applies to men,
animals, and cattle of various kinds. Such creations of nature are living
proof of the working of Divine Laws. However, only those who reflect over
them with intellect and reason bow in submission to Him. Only they
deserve to be called 'the scholars', and only they can comprehend how
over-powering and supreme Allah's
Law is. Whoever lives accordingly is provided with sufficient means of
protection. (35:27-28)
From the Quran and the prophet's teaching it is obvious that the theology of
takfir (declaring a believer a non-Muslim) is a reprehensible act with very
serious implications for those who indulge in it. Unfortunately, this takfir
has become a dominating factor in evaluating the integrity and sincerity of the
other. It is this theology that leads to takhrib (destruction) This is
disastrous for Islam, Muslims as well as the world.
Quran and Hadith against Takfir
People would always have differences of opinions on issues. The
differences are human and the Quran and the Prophet recognize them. According to the Quran, if a person says
assalamu alaikum to Muslims to
indicate that he is a Muslim, one cannot say to him “you are not a believer.''
(4:94) When such occurrences took place during the Holy Prophet's lifetime,
sometimes some Muslims suspected that such a person was not sincere. But the
Holy Prophet advised them: “Did you open his heart to see what was in it?'' In
our hadith literature we read that Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said:
“If a Muslim calls another kafir,
then if he is a kafir let it be
so; otherwise, he [the caller] is himself a kafir.''(Abu Dawud, Book of Sunna, vol. iii, p. 484)
“Abu
Zarr reported that the Prophet said: No man accuses another man of being a
sinner, or of being a kafir,
but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him.” (Sahih
Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44) The teaching contained in these
hadith is meant to stop Muslims from dubbing each other as kafir and Fajir or Fasiq..”Withhold [your
tongues] from those who say `there is no god but Allah' --- do not call them kafir. Whoever calls a reciter of
`There is no god but Allah' as a kafir,
is nearer to being a kafir himself.”
(Tabarani, reported from Ibn Umar) “Call not the people of your Qibla [i.e. Those who face the Ka`ba in Makka for prayer] as kafir.'' (Al-Nihaya of Ibn Athir,
vol. iv, p. 187) “Nothing expels a man from faith except the denial of that by
which he entered into it [i.e. the Kalima].''
(Majma` az-Zawa'id, vol. i, p. 43) “Three things are the basis of faith. [One
is] to withhold from one who says `there is no god but Allah' --- do not call
him kafir for any sin, nor
expel him from Islam for any misconduct.'' (Abu Dawud, Book of Jihad, 15:33) “Whoever
attributes kufr [unbelief] to a
believer, he is like his murderer.'' (Tirmizi, ch. Iman (Faith); see Arabic-Urdu edition cited earlier, vol. ii, p.
213. See also Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)
Scholars against Takfir
Takfir of Muslims is
also prohibited in the standard, classical works of Islamic law (fiqh) “And among the doctrines of the Ahl as-Sunna is that none of the
people of the Qibla can be
called kafir.” (Sharh `Aqa'id
Nasfi, p. 121)
Regarding Imam Abu Hanifa, who has more followers than any other system in
Islam, it is written: “He did not call as kafir anyone from among the people of the Qibla.'' (Sharh Mawaqif, fifth part) He
further said: “Nothing expels a man of faith except the denial of that which
made him enter it.'' (Rad al-Mukhtar, vol. iii, p. 310) “It is extremely serious
to expel a Muslim from the faith.'' (Sharh
Shifa, vol. ii, p. 500) “A ruling of takfir
against a Muslim should not be given if it is possible to interpret his words
in a favorable manner.'' (Rad al-Mukhtar, Book of Jihad, ch. on Apostasy) “As for the statements of takfir found in books of rulings (fatwa), these are not proof if the
authors are unknown and the arguments are missing, because in matters of faith,
beliefs depend on conclusive proof, and the takfir of a Muslim is attended with troubles of all sorts.'' (Sharh
Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari)
Shaikh Sayyid
Jalal-ud-Din
wrote: “The takfir of the people of
the Qibla is itself an act of
unbelief.'“(Dala'il al-Masa'il)
Ibn Abu Hamra, a saint,
wrote: “It has already been stated that the rule of the Ahl Sunna is that they do not call kafir, or consider as going to hell eternally, anyone who is of
the people of the Qibla.” “The
Imams have made it clear that if there is any ground for not issuing takfir, a ruling of takfir should not be made, even if
that ground is weak.” (Raf al-ishtiba `an `ibarat al-ishtiba, p. 4, published
in Egypt)
“Some prejudiced persons from the
Asharis call the Hanbalis as kafir,
and some Hanbalis call the Asharis as kafir.
But their calling each other kafir
is not right because the belief of the trustworthy Imams of the Hanafis,
Shafi`is, Hanbalis, and the Asharis, is that none of the people of the Qibla can be called a kafir.'' (Miftah Dar as-Sa`ada wa
Misbak as-Sayyida, vol i, p. 46)
“The generality of the theologians and
the jurists are agreed that none of the people of the Qibla can be called a kafir.''
(Al-Mawaqif, printed in Cairo, p. 600)
The
famous saint of Delhi, Khawaja Mir Dard
(d. 1785 C.E.), wrote: “We do not call kafir
anyone of the people of the Qibla,
even though he may be following falsehood or novel beliefs in most matters,
because the acceptance of the oneness of God, and the affirmation of the prophethood of Muhammad, and the turning to the Qibla, do not expel them from faith as such. So he would be of
those who follow later inventions and falsehood from among the Muslims. The
Holy Prophet said: `Withhold in the matter of the people of the Qibla, that you do not call them kafir'.'' (`Ilm al-Kitab, p. 75)
Mulla Ali Qari
in Sharh Fiqh Akbar
writes”“They say regarding the issue of kufr
that if there are ninety-nine reasons for considering someone as kafir, and only one reason against
it, the mufti and the judge is bound to act according to that one reason for
negating the kufr.'' (p. 146)
Sayyid
Muhammad Abidin writes: “If
there are many reasons in any matter for the application of kufr [considering someone as kafir], and one reason for its
negation, the judge must incline towards the reason which negates takfir, giving the Muslim the benefit
of the doubt.'' (Sil al-Hisan al-Hindi, p. 45)
Husain Ahmad
Madani,
the well-known Deobandi theologian of this century has written in his
autobiography Naqsh-i Hayat: “All great scholars are unanimous in holding that
if out of hundred ingredients of the belief of some Muslim, ninety-nine are
those of unbelief, and merely one of true Islamic faith, it is not allowed to
call him kafir, nor does his
life or property become violable. In fact, Hazrat Gangohi [a founder of Deoband
religious school] clearly states in his Anwar al-Qulub that the saying of the
jurists about ninety-nine grounds
does not set a limit, and that if 999 out of a thousand points in the belief of
a Muslim is unbelief (kufr)
and only one is true belief, even then he cannot be called kafir.'' (Naqsh-i Hayat, Bait-ut-Tauhid, Karachi, 1953, vol.
i. p. 126)
Sayyid Abul
Ala Maudoodi
(d.1979) wrote in his well-known journal Tarjuman al-Quran: “The aim of these
injunctions is that there should be as much caution in calling a Muslim kafir as there is in pronouncing a the death sentence against someone. In fact, this matter is even more serious
because by killing a person there is no risk of one becoming a kafir, but this risk does exist if
one calls a Muslim kafir if
that man is not really a kafir.
Should there even be an iota of Islamic belief in that man's heart, the slander
of kufr shall reflect back upon
the accuser. Hence, he who has fear of God in his heart, and has some
realization of the great danger of being involved in kufr, shall never dare call a Muslim kafir until he has carried out a thorough inquiry and fully
ascertained that such a person was a kafir.
There is so much caution in this regard that if there is a man whose conduct
clearly shows insincerity, and whose condition is openly showing that he is not
a Muslim at heart, if even he recites the Kalima with his tongue, it is not allowed to call him kafir and treat him as a kafir.'' (Tarjuman al-Quran, issue
for the month of Jumadi al-Awwal,
1355 A.H., circa 1936, vol. viii, p. 5)
What is to be
done?
In
order for Muslims to regain their dignity in their own eyes, this theology of
takfir must come to end. This theology is created by those who call them ulema
and they alone would be able to stop it. The simple way to do it is to stop it
without any ifs and buts. Otherwise, the Muslim community would never be able
to come out from the abyss in which it has found itself. What was said by
Shaikh Abul Hasan Nadwai is relevant
today more than ever before. He said that if ulema did not come to reinvigorate
with the true spirituality, morality, psychology and sociology of Islam, they
would heap upon them nothing but indignity and would bring down the Umma with
them.
We
are living in different times and situations. Knowledge is every increasing and
common people have access to it. Everyone can go to the books directly and everyone can now learn who is saying what and about whom. People do not want to live
in confusion and ambiguities. They want to have clarity. They want to relate to
an Islam that is described in the Quran and lived by the Prophet as
demonstrated in his teachings and statements compiled by people. They want to
see Islam a dynamic source for progress for the future of humanity. They want
to come out of the theology of takfir and politics of takhrib. They want to
live as Muslims serving humanity with their beliefs in their faith driven value
system.
If
the religious scholars and ulema failed to change their theology of takfir to a
theology of developing a better understanding of other viewpoints and accept
them as a genuine expression of one’s right to have an understanding, Muslim
masses would no longer trust them. A new breed of scholars would emerge not
from our traditional schools, but from those places where knowledge is respected
and differences are not used to denounce, humiliate and annihilate others. That
time is not far. In the words of the Quran: Soon will
We show them Our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their
own souls until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not
enough that thy Lord doth witness all things? 41:53
