http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\14\story_14-10-2010_pg3_2
Thursday, October 14, 2010
COMMENT: Takfir: the ideology of hate -Dr Mohammad Taqi
An ordinary Salafi may believe in the non-violent call to convert to
their version of Islam but the Salafi jihadists are proponents of violent
jihad. The doctrinal differences that set the jihadist group apart include
practising takfir, i.e. labelling other Muslims as infidels or apostates
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop
him from lynching me, and I think that is pretty important" - Dr Martin Luther
King Jr.
While some in the Pakistani media seem to have bought into Pervez
Musharraf's Facebook flight of fantasy and were focused on his 'Desperate
Housewives'-style, primetime soap performances, the peddlers of the ideology of
hate struck again.
There were two major attacks: one against yet another symbol of South
Asian religious diversity - the Abdullah Shah Ghazi shrine in Karachi - and the
other before that, which killed the Islamic scholar and practising
psychiatrist, Dr Farooq Khan. The assassination of Dr Khan is, by far, the more
significant and more ominous of the two because he was a person who had
dedicated his life to preserve and promote pluralist thought, which shrines
like Shah Ghazi's have epitomised for centuries.
However, the news media, especially the television networks, covered
these two stories for just about 24 hours and after that moved on with the
preferred national pastime of Zardari-bashing and betting on his exit date.
But, given the open jihadist tirades of certain anchors, anti-Ahmediyya vitriol
of a particular televangelist and outlets that air the interviews of Gulbuddin
Hekmatyar, this is hardly a surprise.
Last week, Ms Gulmina Bilal Ahmad, in her article 'Historical
distortions' (Daily Times, October 8, 2010), has written eloquently about Dr
Farooq, his thoughts and work and has alluded to those who are out to counter
this thought. I did not know Dr Farooq except from a conversation we had at the
humble yet dignified guest room of the late Professor Saeedullah Qazi, the then
Dean of Sheikh Zayed Islamic Centre, Peshawar. His words are rather vague in my
mind, but it is hard to forget his soft-spoken mannerism. What Farooq has done
in his death - and Ms Ahmad has taken up in her column - is to open the debate
about a virulent ideology hell-bent on eliminating anyone who does not conform
to it.
In recent times, the biggest manifestation of this ideology has been the
suicide bombings or the so-called 'martyrdom missions'. While we focus on
suicide bombings as the dastardly acts that have killed thousands, we have been
somewhat remiss in assessing the role of the doctrine providing the
religious-political and psycho-social 'rationale' of this foremost tactic in
the global Salafi jihad.
The Salafi jihadists form an extreme fringe, even of the
Wahhabiist-Salafist spectrum itself. An ordinary Salafi may believe in the
non-violent call to convert to their version of Islam, but the Salafi jihadists
are proponents of violent jihad. The doctrinal differences that set the
jihadist group apart include practising takfir, i.e. labelling other Muslims as
infidels or apostates (kafir) and concluding, therefore, that violence against
the latter is permissible (halal or mubaah), condoning acts of violence against
civilians and the use of suicide missions. Violent jihad is held at par with
the basic tenets of Islam by the Salafi jihadists. The most explicit
endorsement of killing Muslim civilians came from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who
said in a 2005 audiotape message: "The killing of a number of Muslims whom it
is forbidden to kill is a grave evil. However, it is permissible to commit this
evil - indeed, it is even required - in order to ward off a greater evil, the
evil of suspending jihad."
Dr Farooq was not the first Islamic scholar to have differed with the
hateful ideology of takfir and to have paid with his life for this dissent.
Ironically, the grandfather of al Qaeda, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, was killed on
November 24, 1989 in Peshawar, in a bomb attack by his own cohorts, for
opposing takfir.
The late chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Syed Maududi, had also written
against invoking takfir in religio-political polemics. I was told that one
cannot find his books in Saudi Arabia and I did find this to be true, as far as
the shops around the Holy Ka'aba and the Masjid-e-Nabvi go. This, perhaps, has
something to do with his very favourable opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah in
doctrinal matters, a tolerant view of the Shiite and a general condemnation of
takfir.
Indeed, the key pan-Islamists such as Muhammad Abduhu and Rashid Rida -
like Maududi - had tried a selective application of takfir against the
relatively newer sects in Islam. They feared that indiscriminate use of the
label would lead to endless strife (fitna) within the larger Muslim community
and advised their followers that wrongly accusing another Muslim of being an
infidel is a major sin in Islam.
However, even this self-serving and rather meek condemnation of takfir is
not acceptable to the ardent takfiris who are quick to condemn even Maududi as
a kafir. The jihadists and their apologists remain blind to the fact that these
attacks, ostensibly against foreign occupiers, have killed more Muslims than
any other group, have divided the country deeply and have reinforced the belief
that the jihadists consider common Muslims as expendable. Moreover, suicide
attacks - though not as common - did take place in Egypt, Algeria and
Afghanistan even when there was no foreign occupier.
This suggests that, while challenging the appeal of the takfiri ideology
is a crucial component of the counter-terrorism strategy, a scholarly discourse
by itself is an insufficient antidote. What is needed is a holistic,
multi-pronged approach to stymie the takfiri groups. Civilian law-enforcement
officers have made great strides in understanding takfiri terrorism in Pakistan
and have apprehended many of its leaders. However, no high profile leader has
ever been put on trial or any madrassah shut down - let alone levelled -
limiting the deterrence value of counter-terrorism operations.
The trial of the far-right extremist, anti-Islam Dutch parliamentarian,
Geert Wilders, resumed yesterday in Amsterdam. He is facing charges of inciting
hatred against Muslims. This has some of his friends on the US side of the
pond, up in arms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali went on bewailing in a Wall Street Journal
op-ed that the Netherlands, a 21st century democracy, has put free speech on
trial. What has actually been put on trial, however, is hate speech.
The Dutch law may not make Geert Wilders love Muslims, but chances are
that it will prevent him from inciting hate and potential hate crimes. One may
woefully concede that for something like this to happen in Pakistan, many Dr
Farooq Khans may be lynched first.
The writer teaches and practices medicine at the University of Florida
and contributes to the think-tanks www.politact.com and Aryana Institute. He
can be contacted at [email protected]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
