By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan,
(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)
Muslims today suffer from a bizarre sense of loss. Perhaps no other community faces this sort of predicament to the same extent. They have failed to make use of the myriad opportunities provided by modernity. One of these valuable opportunities is freedom.
The ideologues of the French Revolution claimed that man is born free but everywhere is in chains. This became the slogan of the modern world, and now freedom has been accepted as the basic right of every human being. Everyone has the right to adopt what he or she thinks is right and to act accordingly. There is only one limit to this unfettered freedom: in the exercise of one’s right one should not harm someone else, and in the pursuance of one’s objectives one should seek to use peaceful, not violent, means.
300 years ago, when America won freedom from England, an American man, so the story goes, rushed out into the street to celebrate. He swung his arms up in the air in glee and as he brought them down he hit the nose of a passerby. The latter was, naturally, enraged, and demanded an apology. The first man said to him, ‘Now America is free and so I can do what I want’. The passerby retorted, ‘Undoubtedly you are free, but your freedom ends where my nose begins’.
This story very succinctly expresses the modern concept of democracy. Modernity provides us with freedom but on the condition that the exercise of this freedom does not entail violence against others. Gandhi was aware of this principle and used it in the course of the Indian freedom movement. In 1857, Muslim leaders launched a violent movement to oust the British from India, and Muslim-led militant anti-British uprisings continued thereafter for sixty years. However, these efforts all failed. Then, in 1919, Gandhi took over the leadership of the anti-colonial movement and changed its tactics to that of non-violent struggle, and, finally, India became independent in 1947.
What was the cause of the different fates that these violent and non-violent movements met? One major reason was that the Muslim leaders referred to above were conditioned by a taqlidi mindset, blindly adhering to the prescriptions of the established corpus of fiqh, and so they knew of only one method of struggle—that of armed jihad. The books of medieval fiqh have no conception of peaceful struggle. They speak of just one method—that of violent struggle, because they were written in a period when the only form of power that people knew of was that of the sword. This is reflected in the Arabic saying, ‘War can be stopped by war’, and in the Persian phrase, ‘Coins are struck in the name of he who wields the sword’.
This militant mindset remains deeply ingrained among most Muslims even today. Hardly any Muslims are free of it. This belief is expressed in different forms. The mental framework which is based on medieval fiqh is so deeply entrenched that even many so-called modern Muslim thinkers were and are influenced by it. For instance, Syed Jamaluddin Afghani, Syed Qutb, Muhammad Iqbal, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, and so on. This is the single major cause for the sacrifices of our leaders all going to waste.
The efficacy of non-violent, as opposed to violent, methods in today’s world can be understood from an instance from Gandhi’s life. Gandhi joined the Indian freedom struggle in 1919. Prior to this, the movement was characterized by violent mobilization, and the British responded to this by counter-violence to quash it. Then, when Gandhi announced that the movement would abide by non-violence, the British were confounded, because they had no moral argument that they could use to suppress a non-violent freedom movement. It is said that in the wake of Gandhi’s announcement a British collector sent a telegram to his superior officials, saying, ‘Kindly wire instructions as to how to kill a tiger non-violently’.
An Anachronistic Approach
Because of their taqlidi mindset, present-day Muslim leaders and intellectuals display what can be called an anachronistic approach. The ulema of the past who they strictly follow, because of being wedded to the notion of taqlid, had no conception of peaceful methods or peaceful struggle. This conception was clearly evident in the Quran and Hadith, but to directly derive rules from the Quran and Hadith ijtihad was needed, but the medieval Muslims had already firmly closed the doors of ijtihad.
The Quran describes an eternal law in the following words: ‘such settlement is best’ (Surah al-Nisa, 128). This means that the method of adjustment, reconciliation and making peace is better than the confrontational approach. This clearly indicates the importance of non-violence as compared to violence. Likewise, according to a Hadith report, the Prophet is said to have declared that God gives softness that which he does not give to harshness. This clearly means that peaceful methods are more efficacious than violent ones. Thus, although the Quran and Hadith contain such explicit teachings in support of peaceful methods, modern-day Muslim leaders and intellectuals, owing to their taqlidi approach, failed to discern these teachings. Instead, they uselessly engaged in conflict and thought to themselves that they were, in this way, setting great examples of sacrifice and martyrdom.
This taqlidi mindset has caused considerable harm and destruction for Muslims themselves, without bringing them any gain whatsoever. If the Palestinians knew this they would not have unleashed a destructive and violent movement after 1948. Instead, using peaceful methods, they would have made use of the opportunities that were available to them. In that way, they could have gained that position of strength in Palestine that the Jews acquired in America by using peaceful means and taking advantage of the opportunities opened up by modernity. Likewise, if the Muslims of Kashmir had realized this they would not have resorted to violent struggle. Using peaceful means, they could have gained such an influential position in India that would have been a hundred times better for them than what the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir presently enjoy. In the same way, if Muslim leaders in various countries who are engaged in violent movements in order to capture political power had adopted peaceful means they could have transformed their countries in the direction of truly Islamic societies. But this they could not do, and by resorting to violence instead they caused massive destruction.
The way to win other people’s hearts is through promotion of close peaceful social interaction with them. In this way, one can influence others through their morals and personal example. It was this that drew the Qureish towards Islam in the wake of the treaty of Hudaibiyah. On the other hand, promoting conflict with others can only further reinforce their hatred and opposition. But only those with an ijtihadi mindset can truly appreciate this fact.
Criticism and ijtihad
Criticism and taqlid are opposites of each other. Where taqlid reigns, there can be no criticism. Contrarily, where criticism is allowed, taqlid cannot reign. The matter with ijtihad is the opposite of this. Ijtihad requires criticism. Where criticism is not allowed, ijtihad cannot happen.
Criticism is not a bad thing per se. Rather, it is a means for intellectual development. Without criticism intellectual advancement is not possible. The choice before us is not one between criticism and the lack of it, but, rather, that between criticism and intellectual stagnation. If criticism is stopped our intellectual progress shall cease.
Ijtihad proceeds through discussion and exchange of views. Ijtihad is a process of moving from what is known to what is as yet unknown. When we are faced with some problems or issues that need to be answered and if we are free to express our views on it, naturally out of this exchange new aspects or dimensions of the issue will emerge before us. This leads to the clearing of doubt, and then to the emergence of a well-researched opinion or position on the issue, which is the objective of our intellectual quest. This intellectual activity is known as ijtihad.
Ijtihad appears, from both the ideological as well as practical points of view, to be an indispensible necessity of life. It is the means for the progress of human communities. A community that does not allow for ijtihad will cease to progress. Proper ijtihad, as mentioned earlier, cannot happen in the absence of the freedom to criticize. Only those can benefit from ijtihad who are able to take or accept criticism. Those who are unwilling or unable to accept criticism cannot benefit from it.
Let me cite two examples to illustrate my point. The battle of Badr took place in the second year of the Islamic century. The Prophet was then in Madinah, and he heard that the army of the Qureish was advancing on the town. Accordingly, he gathered his forces and moved in the direction from where the Qureish were coming. He and his companions halted at a place before Badr. Had they stayed on there they would have confronted the Qureish army at that spot. A companion of the Prophet, Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar, approached the Prophet and asked him if he had chosen to halt at that place because God had instructed him to do so or was it because he had decided this on his own. The Prophet replied that this was his own opinion. In response, Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar said that the place was not appropriate.
Now, this response might appear as a sort of criticism. However, the Prophet did not take this amiss, but simply asked Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar why he did not feel that the place was an appropriate one to halt at. In reply, this companion of the Prophet noted that there were several wells located between the Muslims and the Qureish army. If the Muslims halted at that spot, it would allow the Qureish to capture all these wells. He, therefore, suggested that they should move ahead till they had gone beyond all the wells and then make a halt. This would have cut off the water supply to the enemy army. Hearing this, the Prophet said that Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar’s advice was indeed good.
Now, this entire conversation between the Prophet and Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar was conducted in a very balanced way. In the end, the Prophet accepted Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar’s opinion and acted accordingly. And the Muslims won a decisive victory in the battle.
This example clearly indicates how important is the freedom of expression for arriving at a proper position or stance. It shows how, through exchanging different, even contradictory, views, new aspects and dimensions of problems can be highlighted, and how this is necessary to come to a proper decision on a particular matter. In fact, this is so invaluable that even if conflict of opinions becomes heated and aggressive it must be cheerfully accepted.
The harm of not accepting criticism
In 1831 Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi gathered an army of Muslims and launched a jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sikh ruler of Punjab. The two armies met at a place called Balakot, and in this battle Syed Ahmad and most of his companions were slain. And so this zealous jihad ended in complete failure.
Most of the men in Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi’s army were those who had taken bai’at or the oath of spiritual allegiance to him. One of these men was Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali of Delhi, who was considered to be an accomplished Islamic scholar. He was part of the army of Syed Ahmad Shahid that was advancing to meet the forces of Ranjit Singh. When this army reached a place called Charsadda he asked Syed Ahmad on what basis he had declared jihad against the Sikhs. Syed Ahmad replied that he had done so on the basis of divine illumination (kashf) and dreams that he claimed to have seen. Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali responded that jihad could not be declared on these bases. He cited the Quran as mentioning about the need for conducting affairs by mutual consultation (al-Shura 38). He also added that the Prophet engaged in jihad on the basis of consulting his followers. Hence, he argued, Syed Ahmad should do the same, and that, before launching a jihad, must properly study the then prevailing conditions.
However, Syed Ahmad Shahid did not accept his advice. Instead, he accused him of creating hurdles in his path with his criticism. He told him that his role, as his follower, was to silently accept what he was told—to be, in fact, as silent as the mountain ahead of them. Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali then left Syed Ahmad’s army and returned to Delhi.
This incident is presented in some books [of Syed Ahmad Shahid’s supporters] as a case of Mir Mahbub Ali allegedly ‘going astray’. Maulana Syed Abdul Haye, former rector of the Nadwat ul-Ulema, Lucknow, wrote that Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali was a great Islamic scholar of his times, but that ‘the devil had put an evil suggestion in his heart’ and so he abandoned Syed Ahmad Shahid and returned to India.
However, the fact of the matter is that Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi did not consult others about the step that he was taking. He did not even investigate how far the reports that he had heard about the disrespect of the shariah [at the hands of the Sikhs] in Punjab were true. He did not even try to gauge the strength of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army and to find out how his untrained forces could battle it. Instead, he simply entered Ranjit Singh’s territory without even proper knowledge of its geographical conditions. Naturally, then, he and most of his companions were easily killed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army. And so his movement ended with a one-sided orgy of destruction that the Muslims had to face.
From this example one can discern how important it is for different, including conflicting, viewpoints to be able to be freely expressed in order to arrive at a proper position on collective affairs. People’s criticism should be heartily listened to, and only after free intellectual debate and discussion can efforts to reach a proper decision succeed. This, in turn, is related to the need for reviving ijtihad at the same time as it points to the hazards of remaining wedded to taqlid.
——————————————————————————————–
This is a translation of a portion of a chapter titled Taqlid Aur Ijtihad in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book Din-o-Shariat: Din-e Islam Ka Ek Fikri Muta’ala [Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2003, pp.228-240].
For more writings in English by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, see www.cpsglobal.org. See also www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com