The identification of Islam with Muslim history is a common failing of both Muslims and non_Muslims. In the case of Muslims it provides justification for treating all sorts of innovations (Bidat) and deviations from the true path of Islam as valid, while in the case of non Muslims it provides a firm handle to malign and misinterpret the teachings of Islam to their hearts content. To show how improper and unjustified this practice is, many facts and arguments can be cited, but in this brief article only two facts need to be mentioned.
The first is the well_known Ayat which is the last of the revelations to the Messenger of Allah, "this day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion". (Ayat 4 Surah Maida).
The second is a well known incident during the caliphate of Hazrat Umar. It is said the one day, during Ramazan, after opening the fast, Hazrat Umar was passing by a mosque where he noticed some people engaged in congregational prayers. On enquiring as to which prayer they were offering, he was told that they were engaged in Tarawih prayers, and in this matter they were following the Prophet’s practice of offering special prayers sometime after opening the fast. On hearing this Hazrat Umar expressed surprise and remarked that it was ‘Bidat_i_Hasna’ or pious innovation.
The important point to note is that while he conceded that the practice was pious, he nevertheless dubbed it as an innovation, as something which had been introduced from outside. These two illustrations should be sufficient to show conclusively that the religion of Islam was completed and perfected in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H) and any addition after his leaving this world cannot be considered to be a part of the religion of Islam.
Similarly any deviations from the clear path laid out by Islam, even if they were practised by a large number of Muslims during the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a part of the religion of Islam.
In the context of the fourteen hundred years history of Muslims, one of the charges levelled against them by non-Muslims, particularly the Westerners, that they are militant appears partially true. What is not true is the attempt of the non-Muslims to link this militancy with the basic tenets of the religion of Islam.
The literal dictionary meaning of the word militant is "one who seeks to advance a cause by violence." Justification for linking this tendency with Islam is sought by isolated, out of context references to such Ayat as the first part of Ayat 191 of sura Baqra which says And slay them wherever ye catch them". In doing so the Western critics of Islam completely ignore what has gone before and after this Ayat. Ayat 190 clearly states, "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors". Similarly the latter part of Ayat 191 referred to above says, "and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse then slaughter".
It is abundantly clear from the above and similar other Ayat of the Holy Quran that Islam sanctions resort to violence in a very limited defensive context. In the words of Abdur Rehman Azzam, the brilliant Secretary General of Arab League from 1945 to 1952, "in sanctioning war Islam defined its aims and purposes: to suppress tyranny, insure the right of a man to his home and freedom within his nation, prevent persecution in religion and guarantee freedom of belief to all people."
The charge of being militant as far as the religion of Islam is concerned is thus totally baseless, but to what extent is this charge justified against the Muslim Ummah over the course of history is another matter. To begin from the beginning of Muslim history, there is no denying that before the coming of Islam the only activity in which the Arabs of Makkah and surrounding areas were good at was militancy or a perpetual state of warfare on any petty excuse, and a certain amount of martial poetry. The message of Islam did cool their ardour to some extent but it seems that their traditional militancy was not subdued completely.
This militancy has continued to spatter the pages of Muslim history with blood, first in the assassination of three of the four Khulfa_e_Rashdeen, and then in the tragedy of Karbala and a lot of other less well-publicized acts of internecine warfare. Unfortunately, this tradition of militancy has been assimilated in their psyche by other ethnic groups converted to Islam, with the result that today militancy appears to be a dominant characteristic of Muslims in many parts of the world. It is also very clear that many of the military actions Muslims have undertaken in the course of history do not meet the criteria described in the above mentioned quotation from Abdur Rehman Azzam, and cannot therefore be considered to have had the sanction of Islam.
To give only one example, the many raids of Mahmood Ghaznavi on Somnath temple cannot be considered to be an Islamic jihad although some vague justification of the persecution of Muslim traders is offered by Mahmood Ghaznavi’s apologists.
The other glaring cleavage between the tenets of Islam and the actual behaviour of Muslims during the course of history right upto the present day, lies in Islam’s emphasis on religious tolerance and the intolerant behaviour of many Muslims over the years. Islam’s exhortation to Course practise religious tolerance at all times is contained in many verses of the Holy Quran, the most well known being Ayat number 25 of sura Baqara which states "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error". This idea is reinforced strongly through Ayat 164 and 107 of sura Al_Anam. The first Ayat reads : "Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself, no bearer of burden can bear Software the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards God. He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed". The second Ayat says "If it had been God’s plan they would not have taken false gods; but We made three not one to watch over their doings, nor art the set over them to dispose of their affairs".
Taken together these two ayats completely cut at the roots of religious intolerance, if only people will pay heed to them. The first Ayat points out that only God is Omniscient and for any human being to be so presumptuous as to think that his interpretation of he Holy Quran alone is correct is the height of folly. The second Ayat absolves the Prophet end of all responsibility for the conduct of the misguided people and that being the case how can an ordinary Muslim think that it is his responsibility to compel others to conform to his religious views. The tragedy of Muslim history is that ignoring the advice contained in these and many other similar verses. Muslims in history have persecuted other Muslims for their beliefs in a most vicious and blatant manner. A notable early example is the persecution of Imam Hambal by Caliph Mamun.
The record of religious tolerance by Muslims of non Muslims is much better. In fact Ommayyad Spain and Mughal India are two outstanding examples of religious tolerance in world history. The record of Muslims in regard to religious tolerance is thus mixed : fairly good generally with non-Muslims and Builder pretty deplorable when it comes to fellow Muslims. In this connection it may also be noted that it is this persecution of fellow Muslims which has led to the growth of sectarianism among Muslims.
The third major deviation of Muslim history from the tenets and teachings of Islam is with regard to the moral and spiritual health of individual Muslims. The main purpose of Islam’s message was to transform their character which was then to become the basis for the transformation of society. To show the way by precept and example God sent his Messenger about whom the the Quran says, "And thou standest on an exalted standard of character". (Ayat 4 sura Al_Qulam). The example which the Prophet presented to his Ummah was of truthfulness, beneficence, recognition and fulfilment of duties, forbearance, meekness, fortitude, courage, profundity and forgiveness.
How far the Muslims in the course of their history have followed this noble example is there for every one to see and ponder about. There is no doubt that a large number of the earliest converts to Islam and those who lived_ in the life time of the Prophet, conformed to his example to a considerable extent, and this was perhaps the secret of the meteoric rise of the Muslim Ummah in the first few centuries of Muslim history.
However, with the passage of time the memory of the Prophet’s example appears to have dimmed with the result that the deviation in the conduct and behaviour of Muslims at large from the true message of Islam has grown so wide that now it is difficult to identify a Muslim solely by his character and behaviour, or to find in him even one of the traits exemplified by the Prophet mentioned above. In fact, things have gone so bad that for non-Muslims today it appears difficult to understand the true message of Islam in the presence of the widespread immorality practised by those who claim to be the followers of that sublime message.
To conclude, it may be mentioned that there are also many other minor deviations of belief and Ravenfields behaviour among Muslims for which there is no sanction in Islam. Visiting and offering gifts at the tombs of religious men who have passed away, organising religious processions as if they were acts of great piety, reading and memorising the Holy Quran without understanding one word of its meaning, and practising hila to circumvent clear-cut Islamic injunctions such ad those on Zakat and inheritance are some of the few examples of this type of behaviour among the Muslims of today.
|