The media coverage of the terrorist atrocities of Friday November 13 in Paris would seem to promote an almost mythical image of the Islamic State (ISIS). What humanity needs, however, is to demystify ISIS as a criminal organization. And that need is particularly important in my community – the Muslim community.
The vast majority of Muslims almost certainly (we do not have exact figures) feel moral revulsion and outrage about the violence perpetrated by ISIS. Indeed, Egypt’s top Sunni cleric, to name just one example, was quick to denounce the perpetrators of Friday’s “hideous and hateful” attacks.
However, the truth of the matter is that ISIS leaders and supporters can and do draw on a wealth of scriptural and historical sources to justify their actions.
Traditional interpretations of Sharia, or Islamic law, approved aggressive jihad to propagate Islam. They permitted the killing of captive enemy men. They allowed jihadis to enslave enemy women and children, as ISIS did with the Yazidi women in Syria.
I am a Muslim scholar of Sharia. It is my contention that ISIS' claim of Islamic legitimacy can be countered only by a viable alternative interpretation of Islamic law.
Consensus leading to deadlock
The key to understanding the role of Islam in politics is that there is no one authoritative entity that can establish or change Sharia doctrine for Muslims on any subject.
There is no equivalent of the Vatican and papal infallibility. How Sharia is interpreted by the many different communities of Muslims (from Sunni and Shia to Sufi and Salafi) is, at base, the product of an intergenerational consensus of the scholars and leaders of each community.
Islamic belief and practice is fundamentally individual and voluntary in its nature. A Muslim cannot be accountable for the views and actions of others.
One positive consequence of this absence of any one religious authority is the fact that it is possible to contest and reinterpret Sharia principles.
On the negative side, however, any Muslim can make any claim about Sharia if he or she can persuade a critical mass of Muslims to accept it.
One example of this is how Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini used the doctrine of “wilayat al-faqih” (or guardianship of the jurist) to claim the authority to launch the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979.
This was controversial because in doing so, he went against the consensus that authority for such a decision resided in the person of the 12th and last “living” Shia Imam, who disappeared (but did not die) in 874 and, it is believed, will reappear at the end of time as al-Mahdi.
A more recent example is the creation of ISIS by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his self-appointment as Caliph or successor of the Prophet Muhammed, divinely charged with resurrecting a state that ended 1,400 years ago.
Things changed in the 10th century
For the first 300 years of its existence, Islamic thought can be characterized as dynamic and creative, with differing interpretations of the scriptures being discussed and debated among communities and generations. Ijtihad, or independent juridical reasoning, was explicitly endorsed by the Prophet Muhammed.
Some modern Muslims, like the Sisters in Islam organization in Malaysia, are exercising ijtihad today to promote the human rights of women from an Islamic perspective. To those, then, who accept the Sisters' interpretation, women are accorded equal rights according to Sharia.
But the Sisters and others like them are in a minority.
By the 10th century, a highly sophisticated body of Sharia principles, methodologies and schools of thought had taken shape and put down roots among Muslim communities across the ancient world, from West Africa to Southeast Asia. This phenomenon came to be known as “closing the Gate of Ijtihad,” to indicate that there is no theological space for new creative juridical thinking.
There was, of course, no “Gate of Ijtihad” to be closed, and nobody had the authority to close the gate even if one had existed. The metaphor, however, highlighted the contrast between the cultivation of diversity in the first three centuries of Sharia and the stalemate and rigidity of the study of Islamic law since then.
The “silver lining” of ISIS is that it is forcing Muslims to confront the consequences of archaic interpretations of aggressive jihad.
Moving from Mecca to Medina
The Prophet Muhammad was born and raised in Mecca, a town in western Arabia, where he proclaimed Islam in AD 610. In AD 622 he had to move with a small group of his early followers to Medina, another town in Western Arabia, in order to escape persecution and threats to his life.
This migration not only affected where the revelations were made to the prophet – a fact that is noted in the Quran. It also marked a shift in the content of the Quran.
ISIS' harsh and regressive interpretation of Sharia draws on the Quran of Medina, which repeatedly instructed Muslims to support each other and to separate themselves from non-Muslims.
For example, in verse 3:28 (and 4:144, 8:72-73, 9:23, 71 and 60:1M), Muslims are prohibited from taking unbelievers (pagan or polytheist) as friends and supporters. Instead, they are instructed to look to other Muslims for friendship and support.
The whole of Chapter 9 – which is among the last revelations – categorically sanctions and authorizes aggressive jihad against all non-Muslims, including People of the Book or Christians and Jews (verse 9:29).
Yes, the term jihad is used in the Quran to mean nonviolent efforts to propagate Islam (see verses 29:8, 31:15 and 47:31). But that does not change the fact that the same term was also used to mean aggressive war to propagate Islam.
This latter interpretation was, in fact, sanctioned by the actions and explicit instructions of the prophet himself, and by his most senior followers, who subsequently became his first four successors and the rulers or Caliphs of Medina.
Legitimate or illegitimate?
A related difficulty in this whole discussion is that according to Sharia, jihad can only be launched by a legitimate state authority.
ISIS claims to have Islamic legitimacy, but what is the basis of that secretive claim? Who nominated them, and why and how should the Caliph of ISIS have authority over the global Muslim community?
Since this authority is based on an entirely open and free process of individual choice, ISIS’ claim may succeed to the extent it is supported by a critical mass of Muslims.
The danger is that passive acquiescence can be used by ISIS leaders as evidence of positive support.
After all, only a handful of Muslim majority states – and then only under Western leadership – have shown willingness to resist the military expansion of ISIS.
Meanwhile, the masses of Muslims and their community leaders are not – tellingly – turning to Sharia to justify their opposition to ISIS claims. Many Muslims have condemned ISIS for moral or political reasons, but this, likely, is discredited among ISIS supporters as “Western” reasoning.
An alternative view
What then is needed is an alternative view of Sharia, one that argues that the scriptural sources that ISIS relies on must be seen in their wider historical context.
These principles, in other words, may have been relevant and applicable 1,400 years ago, when war – wherever it was being waged in the world – was much more harsh than it is now. Exclusive Muslim solidarity (wala’) then was essential for the survival of the community and success of their mission.
But today, the opposite is true.
Modern international law as stated in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 (a universally binding treaty) affirms equal sovereignty of all states regardless of religious belief, and prohibits the acquisition of territory through aggressive war.
While these principles have been violated by the major powers – recent examples include the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine in 2014 – it is impossible for any state, including those with a Muslim majority, to accept being forced into a self-proclaimed Islamic state, as ISIS claims to have an Islamic mandate to do.
But for an alternative view of Sharia to emerge and take root through modern consensus, Muslims must first acknowledge and confront the problem of having acquiesced to a traditional interpretation of Sharia and ignored alternatives that would condemn ISIS as un-Islamic.
One place to start is with the writing of the Sudanese religious thinker Ustadh Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, who proposed repudiating the specific principles of Sharia authorizing aggressive jihad, slavery and subordination of women and non-Muslims by relying on the earlier revelations from Mecca. For example, verse 16:125 says: “Propagate the path of your Lord in wisdom and peaceable advice, and argue with them in a kind manner” (see also verses 17:70,49:13 and 88:21-22).
As Taha explained in his book The Second Message of Islam, the Sharia principles based on the Medina revelations came about in response to the historical conditions of seventh-century Arabia.
Taha argued that today it is the earlier message of Islam based on the Mecca revelations that is applicable because humanity is ready to live up to those standards.
Despite – or perhaps because of – the desperate need for alternatives to traditional Sharia interpretations, Taha was executed for apostasy in Sudan in 1985, and his books in Arabic continue to be banned in most Arab countries.
And ISIS continues to recruit.
The self-proclaimed Islamic State can survive only by fighting a permanent war. It is my contention that it will either implode or collapse in a total civil war because it has no viable political system for peaceful administration or transfer of power.
But whenever it collapses and for whatever cause, the world can only expect a new ISIS to emerge every time one disappears until we Muslims are able to discuss openly the deadlock in reforming Sharia.>
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Rate and Review
Rate this article
Review this article
Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.
Article reviews
I was hoping to find a contact email for you however I was unable to locate one on your profile.
I read over the article, ma sha Allaah it was an easy read, and didn't seem to swing too much one way or the other like most things I've read over recently. And even though I agree with most, there are parts I'm slightly confused as to why you've used certain terms, such as "reform" or "Alternative view", and I was hoping you could clarify what you mean as so I can have a better understanding in what message you're trying to put across.
Not only that, the scholars of today, such as Sheikh al-Fawzaan have unequivocally refuted ISIS and its followers, and declared them khawaarij (If you're not familiar with the term they are one of the deviant sects, and a hadith regarding them states: Ibn Maajah (173) narrated that Ibn Abi Awfa said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Khawaarij are the dogs of Hell.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah) and has made crystal clear that we do not follow them, Islam is free from them, they are not educated in the religion, and that they should be fought against -(source: http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/sghkb-shaikh-al-fawzaan-terrorists-did-not-learn-their-ideologies-from-schools-or-from-scholars.cfm)
Another scholar Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee has also refuted them, expressing how they are driven by deviant books of Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) the man who made Takfeer of the entire nation of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as is mentioned in his Quranic explanation, Fi Dhilaal il-Qur'aan (In the Shade of the Quran) vol. 4, pg. 2122, when he says, There is not on the face of the earth today a Muslim country or even a Muslim community with social principles based on Allah's legislation or on Islamic understanding -(source: http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/cfnml-shaykh-ahmad-an-najmee-jihadi-extremists-have-taken-their-ideologies-of-takfir-and-destruction-from-the-muslim-brotherhood.cfm).
What I fail to see is the media coverage of such responses from our scholars, from those who have the knowledge of Islam through and through, instead they give platforms to people such as Anjem Choudhury, the leader of the kharji group in the UK Al-Muhajiroon, to this day I I'm bewildered as to why he is still allowed to walk on the streets of the UK, if he had been locked up a long time ago, the mass majority of Muslim’s would have been happier and probably safer from attacks in retaliation now occurring from 9/11 up until the recent Paris attacks in which they have increased two fold, 100's of percent in certain areas according to TellMAMA statistics. The people that carry out these attacks in the name of Allah/Islam are disgusting and vile creatures, misled and ill-informed of Islam and its teachings. We are supposed to gain knowledge of our Deen, learn from scholars and the students of knowledge, not from deviants and Mr "al-mujahid" at a secret location or online in private rooms, through email, etc.
The missing part of the puzzle is 'ilm (knowledge), and education in all senses seems to be a dying breed, whether that's in Islam or academically. People want quick wins, lots of money with little effort. From personal experience when it comes to learning, it's seen as "boring", but if there is someone telling jokes, doing tricks, running around, or a "celebrity" doing poetry or nasheeds, the entire community wants in.
My point is that the Sharia, as little as I know about it, and I don't doubt you have educated yourself well in it, doesn't need a reform so to speak, it needs to be taught correctly and listened to by the Muslim’s and the non-Muslim's, here and abroad, wherever they are Insha’Allah. Our emotions are being driven by political agendas, on both the western side and the extremists side, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Taliban, whatever name they put themselves under are not interested in propagating Islam, their agenda is far from that, and this is 100% clear for those who are educated in the religion. It's being spread amongst the population, especially in my community and those I know and listen to, yet the media and the ignorant seem to ignore these calls to truth and order, and instead dwell on propaganda from the extremists and give them exposure more and more by publishing their crimes and locations across the globe.
With the increase in this ignorance, people are unable to educate the non-Muslim’s on what Islam is. All they shout is "Islam is peace", "Islam is love", but it’s a lot of other things too. Yes there is war, but there is politics, there is business, there is marriage, there is manners and character, treatment of neighbours Muslim and non-Muslim, rights of others over you. It's a way of life, not just a religion, many seem to forget that and are suffering by not understanding it. We have come under more discrimination and it will increase unless people start educating themselves on Islam properly, and implementing what they have learnt, this is imperative to bringing back the name of Islam and removing ourselves from the label of terrorism or extremism, Islam is the middle path/ We should be taking from the scholars, those who are established in many countries, not just Saudi Arabia alhamdulillah.
If we are going to combat this threat, which needs to be understood that it’s not just a threat to non-Muslim’s but to everyone, as they don’t just kill non-Muslim’s, they are killing everyone that opposes them or doesn’t follow suit, then we need to work together and have the right information spread across the communities. It’s worrying that the media are still allowed to incite hatred towards Muslim’s and Islam even though it’s clear the majority of the circa 1.7 billion Muslim’s in the world do not agree with ISIS or their ilk, regardless of what the trash newspapers print such as Rupert Murdoch news that recently hit our streets. The government has a role to play in educating the masses of what the mainstream Muslim’s are saying against ISIS, and how we do not agree and are working against them with education and awareness, we aren’t supporting or sitting around watching from afar, we all have families that are going to be effected, I have non-Muslim family all around the world, and so do my friends, not only that extremist groups are being allowed to run riot here in the UK both Muslim and non-Muslim, that should be addressed, now opportunists are attacking female Muslim’s in there streets, some are even attempting to murder them as seen recently with the old Caucasian male pushing the Muslim lady on to an oncoming train in the underground.
Anyway, I hope to hear back to clarify what it is you mean around the words "reform" and "alternative view", as some of it reads as though we need to educate the masses on what the sharia actually says, rather than what ISIS say is the sharia. What I do want to make clear is that changing the Quraan or the Sunnah is not from the religion, and is not required, the religion is for all time, those skilled and educated to do so derive rulings (fatawaa) from the sources, and these are in relation to today not 1435 years ago, the sharia doesn’t need to change to be “modern” or “up to date”, people just need to stop making it up on their own, going to the knowledgeable people and being educated in it, the religion was made easy, and we cannot use a minority of people claiming to be following it as the example of our religion, they tarnish and destroy the name of Islam for their own gain and uneducated understanding, if any at all.
(O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Lord (i.e. the Qur'an, enjoining all that is good and forbidding all that is evil), and a healing for that (disease of ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy and differences) which is in your breasts, ـ a guidance and a mercy (explaining lawful and unlawful things) for the believers) (Qur’an 10:57) - source: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=454&Itemid=36)
Hi Ashley,
You can contact the author directly via this site and link - https://theconversation.com/profiles/abdullahi-ahmed-an-naim-202564
Hope this helps.
Best wishes
OpenLearn Moderator