Posted by ABID ULLAH JAN on 17/10/2004, 16:31:56 Some of the "enlightened Moderate" Muslims are questioning the need of Muslim organisation or Islamic State. They argue that the "plain fact is that prescriptions in the Quran do not by any means legislate in detail for the actual organization of the social life." It is interesting to note that in the same write up in which they take support of the Qur'an to support their argument, they turn to say: "the Quranic prescriptions are in antagonistic to the normative procedures of a modern society (e.g., prescription of Riba, etc.)." It means you either take the Qur'an and prove or disprove the need of social and political organisation of Muslims, or you reject the Qur'anic principle as "antagonistic to the normative procedures of a modern society." You cannot both accept and reject parts of the Qur'an at the same time to prove a point of view. When you follow the projectionist course, you can no longer support your argument from the same source that you consider as "antagonistic to the norms of modern times." This kind of discourse does not confuse Muslims as much as it develops negative impressions about the Muslims labeled as "fundamentalists" in the Western mind. To clear the confusion about the myth and reality of Islamic State we need to go back to the source: the Qur'an. The clear message of the Quran a book believed by all Muslims, regardless of any classification by the neo-mods and neo-cons puts three distinct responsibilities on the shoulders of Muslims: individual responsibilities, responsibility to bind the Ummah, and collective responsibilities as an Ummah. Muslims find answers to all the above-mentioned questions in verses 102 to 104 of Chapter 3 of the Quran.[1] Individual responsibilities and limitations Allah begins His address to humanity with reminding it of individual responsibilities. The first demand from humankind is, Fear Allah as He should be feared.[2] The Quran uses the word Al-Taqwa for fearing Allah, which according to Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi means, fear, clinging to obedience to Allah and abandoning disobedience to Him. It is the sum of all good." It is the careful attitude for protecting oneself from acts of disobedience and forbidden things and turning to repentance (tawbah) and doubtful matters in utmost carefulness (wara). This verse further explains the responsibility of Muslims to fear Allah. Let us consider what the real meaning of Iman (belief) is. It is a belief in oneness of Allah, Muhammad (PBUH) as His last messenger, and the Day of Judgement. This thalath (a set of three beliefs) requires that one should unconditionally and totally obey Allah and His Prophet, and believe in the Day of Judgement.[3] Binding substance for Ummah Verse 3:103 of the Quran is a lesson for those who reject the concept and need of Muslim organisation or Ummah.[4] Those who are fulfilling the requirement of verse 3:102 are told to come together and become Bunyan Marsus (solid cemented structure). Teaming up and organising is quite logical for achieving objectives that are beyond individual capacity. Even for achieving morally negative objectives, people on the same wavelength need to bind together and find allies. Organisation on mass scale is definitely needed to spread the word of Allah a basic obligation of Muslims. To erect a Bunyan Marsus, each individual, like bricks in a wall, needs to harness perfectly his potentials. Therefore, instructions for consolidating both individual components and the organisation the Ummah follow each other in a logical sequence in verse 3:102 and 103 respectively. There is a reference to the Quran in the instruction to Hold fast to the rope of Allah.[5] Asmat means protection in Arabic and Aetisam (3:103) mean to embrace something for self-protection imagine the way a baby embraces her mother out of fear. Therefore, the order is Watasimu, to completely embrace the Quran not portions of it; jamian all together, and warns, Wa la tafar-raqu and be not divided amongst yourselves. According to Dr. Israr Ahmad this is a reference to the Quran as to not divide among yourself over the Quran. The concept of Ummah was an entirely new concept that superceded previous tribal and family allegiances, although these tendencies kept coming back, particularly in the case of the Ridda, or Revolt, which followed the death of Prophet (PBUH). The Qur'an says, "You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their (own) fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk."[6] Acceptance of and allegiance to the Ummah, based on obeying Allah and following His Prophet, became one's primary allegiance. This means that the Ummah is not a nation-state based on ethnicity or language. It is not surprising, then, that it left the Arabs of the time somewhat bemused. Like the revelation with its uncompromising statement of tawhid (Divine Oneness), the idea of a community, based on the same principle providing core of political cohesion, was entirely alien to them. In fact, it was probably alien to just about everyone of the time. Indeed, many ignored it in favour of 'asabiyya, or tribal solidarity. The Ummah is further delineated in the Qur'an where Allah says, "You are the best Ummah brought forth to mankind - enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and believing in Allah" (3:110), and "The believers, men and women, are protector-friends of each other, enjoining the correct and forbidding the incorrect" (9:71). The Covenant of Madina stipulated that the Muslims "Constitute one Ummah" and "All believers shall rise as one man against whomsoever rebels or seeks to commit injustice, aggression, wrong action or spread mutual enmity between the believers, even though he be one of their sons. ... All believers are banded together to the exclusion of other men."[7] This, then, is the policy of the Muslims, and it is clearly a political as well as a spiritual collective, the one being a logical consequence of the other. Being a Muslim necessarily entails certain political consequences. The neo-mods limit Islam to individuals and reject the idea of a collective Muslim identity, such as the concept of Ummah. They call it one of the most important consequences of the enlightened tendency. Since Islam is not considered a complete code of life, freeing it up of its identity is considered as a step towards all cultures and nations to lay the foundation of collective identity[8] and to the acceptance of a convergence with other religious traditions. The neo-mods believe that only such an amalgamation of Islam with other religions will enable Muslims to co-exist as equal citizens with non-Muslims.[9] It does not seem to be an easy proposition for the survival of Islam and its believers. Although Muslims were never a single entity after the decline of the Umayyads, they remained thoroughly connected and unified because of their common beliefs and life-style. In the beginning of 20th century, seeds of racial prejudice and nationalistic chauvinism were planted to weaken that sense of brotherhood and winding up Khilafah. At the end of 20th century, rancid notions of fundamentalist, and many other kinds of Muslims replaced these seeds. Growing disharmony is a direct benefit of planting such seeds. The insanity of fratricide that we witnessed in Afghanistan and the Arab support to US in turning Iraq upside down are examples of one of the manifestations of Divine punishment that clearly warned Muslims of divisions and limiting Islam to a few rituals[10] and kept on classifying Muslims into different groups. The Quran (6:159) has warned Muslims against dividing their religion into different factions i.e.: (a) making a distinction between one part of it and another, take the part which suits them and reject the rest; or (b) having religion one day of the week and the world the rest of the six days; or (c) keeping "religion in its right place," as if it did not claim to govern the whole life; make a sharp distinction between the secular and the religious; or (d) showing a sectarian bias, seek differences in views, to break up the unity of Islam. [11] Chapter 30 of the Quran clearly condemns splitting into groups and inventing disagreements.[12] Celebrated analysts, such as Daniel Pipes and Thomas Friedman, chant words that the ears accept willingly and find pleasing: freedom, democracy, liberation and so on, but all they want from groups within Muslims is disunity of the Ummah and worsening of its differences with repeated calls for a war within Islam. Collective responsibilities and strategy for the Ummah After reading verses 3:102-104 from the Quran,[13] the question arises: what is the purpose behind all these instructions for organisation, unity and the concept of Ummah? The next verse provides three clear objectives for the Ummah: invite to good, enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong. It is a masterstroke of description in three clauses. Invite to good and enjoin what is right apparently looks the same, but other verses of the Quran indicate that invitation to good is actually invitation to the Quran.[14] Another difference is that attitude and ways to invitation[15] are very different from enjoining, which come in the sense of prescribing authoritatively or enforcing one step ahead of simple invitation to Islam (Dawah).[16]
The Myth and Reality of Islamic State
by Abid Ullah Jan
Message Thread:
« Back to thread