Featured Post

Terrorism and solution? دہشت گردی اور اس کا حل جوابی بیانیہ ؟

اِس وقت جو صورت حال بعض انتہا پسند تنظیموں نے اپنے اقدامات سے اسلام اور مسلمانوں کے لیے پوری دنیا میں پیدا کر دی ہے، یہ اُسی فکر کا...

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

ظالم فاسق فاجر حکمران - علماء اور مسلمانوں کا رویہ Rebellion against Oppressor, Sinner Muslim rulers


فاسق مسلمان حکمران کے خلاف خروج فتنہ و فساد جائز نہیں:
فاسق مسلمان حکمران کے خلاف تو خروج جائز نہیں ہے لیکن ظالم یا بے نماز مسلمان حکمران کے خلاف خروج کا جواز چند شرائط کے ساتھ مشروط ہے لیکن فی زمانہ ان شرائط کا حصول مفقود ہونے کی وجہ سے ظالم اور بے نماز مسلمان حکمران کے خلاف خروج بھی جائز نہیں ہے۔

ایسے حکمرانوں کو وعظ و نصیحت اور امر بالمعروف و نہی عن المنکر واجب ہے لیکن ا للہ کے رسول ۖ کے فرامین کے مطابق کسی فاسق و فاجرمسلمان حکمران کے خلاف خروج حرام ہے کیونکہ اس میں مسلمانوں کا اجتماعی ضرر اور فتنہ و فساد ہے۔ ہاں اگر کسی پر امن طریقے مثلاً احتجاجی سیاست وغیرہ سے ان حکمرانوں کی معزولی اوران کی جگہ اہل عدل کی تقرری ممکن ہو تو پھر ان کی معزولی اور امامت کے اہل افراد کی اس منصب پر تقرری بھی اُمت مسلمہ کا ایک فریضہ ہو گی-فاسق و فاجرحکمرانوں کے خلاف خروج کی حرمت کے دلائل درج ذیل ہیں۔ آپ کا ارشاد ہے:١) ''ألا من ولی علیہ وال فرآہ یأتی شیئاً من معصیة اللہ فلیکرہ ما یأتی من معصیة اللہ ولا ینزعن یدا من طاعة.'' (صحیح مسلم' کتاب الامارة' باب خیار الأئمة و شرارھم)
''خبردار! جس پر بھی کوئی امیر مقررہوا اور وہ اس امیر میں اللہ کی معصیت پر مبنی کوئی کام دیکھے تو وہ امیر کے گناہ کو تو ناپسند کرے لیکن اس کی اطاعت سے ہاتھ نہ کھینچے۔''٢) ''من کرہ من أمیرہ شیئا فلیصبر علیہ فنہ لیس من أحد من الناس یخرج من السلطان شبرا فمات علیہ لا مات میتة جاھلیة.''(صحیح مسلم' کتاب الامارة' وجوب ملازمة جماعة المسلمین عند ظھور الفتن ؛ صحیح بخاری' کتاب الفتن' قول النبی سترون بعدی أمورا تنکرونھا)

جسے اپنے امیر میں کوئی برائی نظر آئے تو وہ اس پر صبر کرے کیونکہ کوئی بھی شخص جب حکمران کی اطاعت سے ایک بالشت برابر بھی نکل جاتا ہے اور اسی عدم اطاعت پر اس کی موت واقع ہو جاتی ہے تو وہ جاہلیت کی موت مرتا ہے۔٣) '' ومن خرج علی أمتی یضرب برھا وفاجرھا ولا یتحاش عن مؤمنھا و لا یفی لذی عھد عھدہ فلیس منی ولست منہ.'' (صحیح مسلم' کتاب الامارة' وجوب ملازمة جماعة المسلمین عند ظھور الفتن)

''اور جو شخص بھی میری امت پر خروج کرے اور اس کے نیک و بدکار دونوں کو مارے اور امت کے مومن سے کو بھی اذیت دینے سے نہیں بچتا (جیسا کہ آج کل کے خود کش حملوں میں معصوم اور دیندار شہریوں کی بھی ہلاکت ہو جاتی ہے)۔ اور نہ ہی کسی ذمی کے عہد کا لحاظ کرتا ہے تو نہ ایسے شخص کا مجھ سے کوئی تعلق نہیں اور نہ میرا اس سے کوئی تعلق ہے۔ ''٤) 

''مَنْ حَمَلَ عَلَیْنَا السَّلَاحَ فَلَیْسَ مِنَّا.''(صحیح بخاری' کتاب الفتن' باب قول النبی من حمل علینا السلاح فلیس منا)
''جس نے ہم پر(یعنی مسلمانوں پر) ہتھیار اٹھائے تو وہ ہم میں سے نہیں ہے۔''٥) ''سباب المسلم فسوق وقتالہ کفر.''(صحیح بخاری' کتاب الایمان' باب خوف المؤمن من أن یحبط عملہ)''کسی مسلمان کو گالی دینا فسق و فجور ہے اور اس کا قتل کفریہ فعل ہے۔''٦) '' اذا التقی المسلمان بسیفیھما فالقاتل والمقتول فی النار.''(صحیح بخاری' کتاب الایمان' باب قولہ تعالی وان طائفتان من المؤمنین اقتتلوا)

''جب دو مسلمان آپس میں اپنی تلواروں(یعنی ہتھیاروں) سے آمنے سامنے ہوں تو قاتل ومقتول دونوں آگ میں ہوں گے۔''٧) ''لا ترجعوا بعدی کفارا یضرب بعضکم رقاب بعض.''(صحیح بخاری' کتاب الفتن' باب قول النبیۖ لا ترجعوا بعدی کفارا)

تم میرے بعد کافر مت بن جانا کہ ایک دوسرے کی گردنیں مارنے لگ جانا۔٨) عن عدیسة بنت ھبان بن صیفی الغفاری قالت: جاء علی بن أبی طالب لی أبی فدعاہ للخروج معہ' فقال لہ أبی: ان خلیلی و ابن عمک عھد لی اذا اختلف الناس أن اتخذ سیفا من خشب فقد اتخذتہ فن شئت خرجت بہ معک قالت: فترکہ.''(سنن الترمذی' کتاب الفتن عن رسول اللہ' باب جاء فی اتخاذ سیف من خشب فی الفتنة)

'' عدیسہ بنت ھبان فرماتی ہیں کہ حضرت علی میرے والد صاحب کے پاس آئے اور انہیں اپنے ساتھ (حضرت معاویہ کے خلاف جنگ میں) نکلنے کی دعوت دی۔ تو میرے والد نے حضرت علی سے کہا : بے شک میرے دوست اور آپ کے چچازاد(یعنی محمد ۖ) نے مجھ سے یہ عہد لیا تھا کہ جب مسلمانوں میں باہمی اختلاف ہو جائے تو تم لکڑی کی ایک تلوار بنا لینا۔ پس میں نے لکڑی کی ایک تلوار بنا لی ہے۔ اگر آپ چاہتے ہیں تو میں اس تلوار کے ساتھ آپ کے ساتھ جانے کو تیارہوں۔ عدیسہ بنت ھبان فرماتی ہیں: اس بات پر حضرت علی نے میرے والد کو ان کی حالت پر چھوڑدیا۔''علامہ ألبانی نے اس روایت کو 'حسن صحیح ' کہا ہے۔(صحیح ابن ماجة :٣٢١٤)٩)

 کسروا فیھا قسیکم و قطعوا أو تارکم و اضربوا بسیوفکم الحجارة فان دخل علی أحدکم فلیکن کخیر ابنی آدم۔(سنن أبی داؤد' کتاب الفتن و الملاحم' باب فی النھی عن السعی فی الفتنة)

فتنوں کے زمانے میں اپنی کمانیں توڑ دو۔ اور ان کی تانت ٹکڑے ٹکڑے کر دو۔ اور اپنی تلواریں پتھروں پر دے مارو۔ پس اگر تم میں کسی ایک پر کوئی چڑھائی کرے تو وہ آدم کے دو بیٹوں میں سے بہترین کی مانند ہو جائے۔ علامہ ألبانی نے اس روایت کو 'صحیح' کہا ہے۔ (صحیح ابن ماجة:٣٢١٥)

حدیث کا مفہوم یہ ہے کہ اس بھائی کی مانند ہو جانا کہ جس نے قتل ہونا تو پسند کر لیا تھا لیکن اپنے بھائی کو قتل کرنے سے انکار کر دیا تھا جیسا کہ سورۃ المائدۃ میں ارشاد باری تعالیٰ ہے:

لَئِن بَسَطتَ إِلَيَّ يَدَكَ لِتَقْتُلَنِي مَا أَنَا بِبَاسِطٍ يَدِيَ إِلَيْكَ لِأَقْتُلَكَ ۖ إِنِّي أَخَافُ اللَّـهَ رَ‌بَّ الْعَالَمِينَ ﴿٢٨﴾
'' البتہ اگر تو نے میری طرف اپنا ہاتھ بڑھایا تاکہ تو مجھے قتل کرے تو میں اپنا ہاتھ تیری طرف بڑھانے والا نہیں ہوں تاکہ تجھے قتل کروں۔ بے شک میں تمام جہانوں کے رب سے ڈرنے والا ہوں۔ بے شک میں یہ چاہتا ہوں کہ تم (یعنی قاتل) میرے اور اپنے گناہوں کے ساتھ لوٹ جاؤ اور اس کے سبب سے جہنم والوں میں سے ہوجاؤ۔''١٠)
''وان اللہ لیؤید ھذاالدین بالرجل الفاجر.''(صحیح بخاری' کتاب الجھاد والسیر' باب ن اللہ یؤید الدین بالرجل الفاجر)'
'بے شک اللہ سبحانہ و تعالی اس دین اسلام کی تائیدو نصرت فاسق و فاجر آدمی کے ذریعے کرتا ہے۔''

پڑھتے جائیں >>>>>>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّـهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
مومنو! خدا اور اس کے رسول کی فرمانبرداری کرو اور جو تم میں سے صاحب حکومت ہیں ان کی بھی اور اگر کسی بات میں تم میں اختلاف واقع ہو تو اگر خدا اور روز آخرت پر ایمان رکھتے ہو تو اس میں خدا اور اس کے رسول (کے حکم) کی طرف رجوع کرو یہ بہت اچھی بات ہے اور اس کا مآل بھی اچھا ہے
“O ye who believe! obey ALLAH, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything refer it to ALLAH and His Messenger, if you are believers in ALLAH and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end.”(Quran; 4:59)
Waging war against Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) and creating disorder on land is very serious sin & crime with capital punishment:
إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
جو اللہ تعالیٰ سے اور اس کے رسول سے لڑیں اور زمین میں فساد کرتے پھریں ان کی سزا یہی ہے کہ وه قتل کر دیئے جائیں یا سولی چڑھا دیئے جائیں یا مخالف جانب سے ان کے ہاتھ پاوں کاٹ دیئے جائیں، یا انہیں جلاوطن کر دیا جائے، یہ تو ہوئی ان کی دنیوی ذلت اور خواری، اور آخرت میں ان کے لئے بڑا بھاری عذاب ہے
“The only reward of those, who wage war against ALLAH and HIS Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on account of their enmity, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment”(Quran; 5:33)

















Rebellion against Oppressor, Sinner Muslim rulers is not allowed:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّـهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
مومنو! خدا اور اس کے رسول کی فرمانبرداری کرو اور جو تم میں سے صاحب حکومت ہیں ان کی بھی اور اگر کسی بات میں تم میں اختلاف واقع ہو تو اگر خدا اور روز آخرت پر ایمان رکھتے ہو تو اس میں خدا اور اس کے رسول (کے حکم) کی طرف رجوع کرو یہ بہت اچھی بات ہے اور اس کا مآل بھی اچھا ہے
“O ye who believe! obey ALLAH, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything refer it to ALLAH and His Messenger, if you are believers in ALLAH and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end.”(Quran; 4:59)
Waging war against Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) and creating disorder on land is very serious sin & crime with capital punishment:
إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
جو اللہ تعالیٰ سے اور اس کے رسول سے لڑیں اور زمین میں فساد کرتے پھریں ان کی سزا یہی ہے کہ وه قتل کر دیئے جائیں یا سولی چڑھا دیئے جائیں یا مخالف جانب سے ان کے ہاتھ پاوں کاٹ دیئے جائیں، یا انہیں جلاوطن کر دیا جائے، یہ تو ہوئی ان کی دنیوی ذلت اور خواری، اور آخرت میں ان کے لئے بڑا بھاری عذاب ہے
“The only reward of those, who wage war against ALLAH and HIS Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on account of their enmity, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment”(Quran; 5:33)
This verse [4:59] is the cornerstone of the entire religious, social and political structure of Islam, and the very first clause of the constitution of an Islamic state. It lays down the following principles as permanent guidelines:
(1)    In the Islamic order of life, God alone is the focus of loyalty and obedience. A Muslim is the servant of God before anything else, and obedience and loyalty to Allah constitute the centre and axis of both the individual and collective life of a Muslim. Other claims to loyalty and obedience are acceptable only insofar as they remain secondary and subservient, and do not compete with those owed to God. All loyalties which may tend to challenge the primacy of man's loyalty to God must be rejected. This has been expressed by the Prophet ((صلي الله عليه وسلم)  in the following words: 'There may be no obedience to any creature in disobedience to the Creator.' (Muslim, 'Iman', 37; Ahmad bin Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 472 - Ed.)
(2)    Another basic principle of the Islamic order of life is obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him). No Prophet, of course, is entitled to obedience in his own right. Obedience to Prophets, however, is the only practical way of obeying Allah, since they are the only authentic means by which God communicates His injunctions and ordinances to men. Hence, we can obey God only if we obey a Prophet. Independent obedience to God is not acceptable, and to turn one's back on the Prophets amounts to rebellion against God. The following tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him) explains this: 'Whoever obeyed me, indeed obeyed God; and whoever disobeyed me, indeed disobeyed God.' (Bukhari, 'Jihad', 109; 'I'tisam', 2; Muslim, 'Amarah', 32, 33; Nasa'i, 'Bay'ah', 27; etc. - Ed.) This has been explained in more detail as we  further study the Qur'an.
(3)    In the Islamic order of life Muslims are further required to obey fellow Muslims in authority. This obedience follows, and is subordinate to, obedience to God and the Prophet (peace be on him). Those invested with authority (ulu al-amr) include all those entrusted with directing Muslims in matters of common concern. Hence, persons 'invested with authority' include the intellectual and political leaders of the community, as well as administrative officials, judges of the courts, tribal chiefs and regional representatives. In all these capacities, those 'invested with authority' are entitled to obedience, and it is improper for Muslims to cause dislocation in their collective life by engaging in strife and conflict with them. This obedience is contingent, however, on two conditions: first, that these men should be believers; and second, that they should themselves be obedient to God and the Prophet (peace be on him). These two conditions are not only clearly mentioned in this verse they have also been elucidated at length by the Prophet (peace be on him) and can be found in the Hadith. Consider, for example, the following traditions: A Muslim is obliged to heed and to obey an order whether he likes it or not, as long as he is not ordered to carry out an act of disobedience to God (ma'siyah). When ordered to carry out an act of disobedience-to God he need neither heed nor obey.
There is no obedience in sin; obedience is only in what is good (ma'ruf). (For these traditions see Bukhari, 'Ahkam', 4; 'Jihad', 108; Muslim, 'Amarah', 39; Tirmidhi, 'Jihad', 29; Ibn Majah, 'Jihad', 40; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 17 and 142 - Ed.)
Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: “There will be rulers over you, some of whose actions you will consider good and others abominable. Who even disapproves of their abominable acts will be acquitted of all blame, and whoever resents them he too will remain secure (from all blame); not so one who approves and follows them in their abominable acts. They (i.e. the Companions) asked: 'Should we not fight against them?' The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'No, not as long as they continue to pray.” (See Bukhari, 'Jihad', 108 - Ed.) This means that their abandonment of Prayer will be a clear sign of their having forsaken obedience to God and the Prophet (peace be on him). Thereafter it becomes proper to fight against them. In another tradition the Prophet (peace be on him) says: “Your worst leaders are those whom you hate and who hate you; whom you curse and who curse you. We asked: 'O Messenger of God! Should we not rise against them?' The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'No, not as long as they establish Prayer among you: not as long as they establish Prayer among you.” (See Muslim, 'Amarah', 65, 66; Tirmidhi, 'Fitan', 77; Darimi, 'Riqaq, 78; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 6, pp. 24, 28 - Ed.) In this tradition the position is further clarified. The earlier tradition could have created the impression that it was not permissible to revolt against rulers as long as they observed their Prayers privately. But the latter tradition makes it clear that what is really meant by 'praying' is the establishment of the system of congregational Prayers in the collective life of Muslims. This means that it is by no means sufficient that the rulers merely continue observing their Prayers: it is also necessary that the system run by them should at least be concerned with the establishment of Prayer. This concern with Prayer is a definite indication that a government is essentially an Islamic one. But if no concern for establishing Prayer is noticed, it shows that the government has drifted far away from Islam making it permissible to overthrow it. The same principle is also enunciated by the Prophet (peace be on him) in another tradition, in which the narrator says: 'The Prophet (peace be on him) also made us pledge not to rise against our rulers unless we see them involved in open disbelief, so that we have definite evidence against them to lay before God' (Bukhari and Muslim).
(4)    In an Islamic order the injunctions of God and the way of the Prophet (peace be on him) constitute the basic law and paramount authority in all matters. Whenever there is any dispute among Muslims or between the rulers and the ruled the matter should be referred to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and all concerned should accept with sincerity whatever judgement results. In fact, willingness to take the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger as the common point of reference, and to treat the judgement of the Qur'an and the Sunnah as the last word on all matters, is a central characteristic which distinguishes an Islamic system from un-Islamic ones. Some people question the principle that we should refer everything to the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be on him). They wonder how we can possibly do so when there are numerous practical questions involved, for example, rules and regulations relating to municipal administration, the management of railways and postal services and so on which are not treated at all in these sources. This doubt arises, however, from a misapprehension about Islam. The basic difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that whereas the latter feels free to do as he wishes, the basic characteristic of a Muslim is that he always looks to God and to His Prophet for guidance, and where such guidance is available, a Muslim is bound by it. On the other hand, it is also quite important to remember that when no specific guidance is available, a Muslim feels free to exercise his discretion because the silence of the Law indicates that God Himself has deliberately granted man the freedom to make his decision.
Since the Qur'an is not merely a legal code, but also seeks to instruct, educate, admonish and exhort, the earlier sentence which enunciates a legal principle is followed by another which explains its underlying purpose and wisdom. Two things are laid down. First, that faithful adherence to the above four principles is a necessary requirement of faith. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim and yet disregards the principles of Islam involves himself in gross self-contradiction. Second, the well-being of Muslims lies in basing their lives on those principles. This alone can keep them on the straight path in this life, and will lead to their salvation in the Next. It is significant that this admonition follows immediately after the section which embodies comments about the moral and religious condition of the Jews. Thus the Muslims were subtly directed to draw a lesson from the depths to which the Jews had sunk, as a result of their deviation from the fundamental principles of true faith just mentioned. Any community that turns its back upon the Book of God and the guidance of His Prophets, that willingly follows rulers and leaders who are heedless of God and His Prophets, and that obeys its religious and political authorities blindly without seeking authority for their actions either in the Book of God or in the practice of the Prophets, will inevitably fall into the same evil and corruption as the Israelites.
Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abdullah ibn al-Abbas, “if someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a hand span and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah) and sin.” Adherence to above principles create stability avoid anarchy [fisad-fil-ardh] and establish peace and justice so vital for development and progress of Muslims.
In reality, the corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes necessary that we repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness coupled with good actions, as Allah Most High says: “Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought” (Quran;42:30)…….. And He says: “Thus do we make the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn” (Quran;6:129). Therefore, if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of their leader, they must refrain themselves from oppressing others.
So what else Muslims should do? Prophet Muhammad  صلي الله عليه وسلم  said: "The best Jihad is to speak the truth before a tyrant ruler" (Bukhari). If this  act is performed at large scale in present time, it may be termed as a strong protest. People of Pakistan and other Islamic countries can reject the corrupt, tyrant and inefficient rulers through elections and elect good, pious Muslims who can establish justice and implement  Shari’ah. People of Egypt kicked out Husni Mubark through protests and elected a pious Muslim as their president.
Which religion the Takfiri Taliban are following? Definitely their religious practice is not based on Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم .  They follow the religion based upon desires of their own delf [Nafas Ammarah] and interpretations of semi literate Mullahs of village mosques, which contradict Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم . They can be called Khawarij of this era.
Any sane person with common sense can read following verses from Quran with translation to understand and distinguish truth from falsehood:
مَّنِ اهْتَدَىٰ فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ ۖ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا ۚ وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَىٰ
جو کوئی راہ راست اختیار کرے اس کی راست روی اس کے اپنے ہی لیے مفید ہے، اور جو گمراہ ہو اس کی گمراہی کا وبا ل اُسی پر ہے کوئی بوجھ اٹھانے والا دوسرے کا بوجھ نہ اٹھائے گا
Whoever is guided, is guided for his own good, and whoever goes astray does so to his own detriment. No sinner will bear the sins of anyone else.(Quran;17:15)
مَّن يَشْفَعْ شَفَاعَةً حَسَنَةً يَكُن لَّهُ نَصِيبٌ مِّنْهَا ۖ وَمَن يَشْفَعْ شَفَاعَةً سَيِّئَةً يَكُن لَّهُ كِفْلٌ مِّنْهَا ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّـهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُّقِيتًا
جو بھلائی کی سفارش کریگا وہ اس میں سے حصہ پائے گا اور جو برائی کی سفارش کرے گا وہ اس میں سے حصہ پائے گا، اور اللہ ہر چیز پر نظر رکھنے والا ہ
Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein: And whoever recommends and helps an evil cause, shares in its burden: And Allah hath power over all things.(Quran;4:85)
More: http://takfiritaliban.blogspot.com/2012/08/illogical-logic-of-takfiri-taliban-to.html











مزید پڑھیں:
  1. مسلما نوں اور علماء کے نام کھلا خط : آج کے حالات میں مسلم معاشرہ نظریاتی  ابتری اور انحطاط کا شکار ہے. مادہ پرستی، دہشت گردی، عدم برداشت، اور جہالت انسانیت، امن اور مذھب کے لیے خطرہ بن چکے ہیں- ان حالات میں صاحب علم و ذی فہم حضرات سے ممکنہ حل کی توقع کی جا سکتی ہے. ہمارا مقصد ہے کہ آپ کی توجہ ضروری حل پذیر مسائل کی طرف مبذول کرنا ہے تاکہ جلد حل تلاش کیا جا سکے- آپ کی توجہ اور مدد سے ہم کوشش کر سکتے ہیں کہ معاشرہ کو اس  گہری دلدل سے نکال سکیں. مکمل خط اس لنک پر پڑھیں : http://goo.gl/y2VWNE
  2. نظریاتی اور فکری کنفیوژن اور ممکنہ حل



Sunday, June 18, 2017

Conquering minds


FREED from Al Qaeda in 2001, the Tora Bora caves and the tunnels in Afghanistan have now fallen to violent extremists linked to the militant Islamic State (IS) group. This strategic ‘victory’ for the terrorist group came after the US dropped the so-called mother of all bombs in April on its hideouts, a network of tunnels in Afghanistan.

The IS march in Afghanistan has once again proved that finding new physical spaces is not a major issue for the terrorists; many conflict-ridden, ungoverned, and poorly administered territories are available — from the sub-Saharan region to the tribal areas in the Arabian Peninsula, from the bordering region between Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Philippines.

As the terrorists continue to mount threats to physical security, the response is also expected to remain focused on employing greater force. This is also making it more challenging for Muslim power elites to take on the terrorists in their ideological and intellectual spaces. The Trump administration’s renewed focus on hard approaches to countering terrorism could provide these elites with more excuses to continue living in their mental comfort zones.

Ironically, the claimants of Muslims’ religious leadership, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are accusing each other of supporting terrorism. However, the Saudi and Iranian counterterrorism mantras and alliances are nothing more than efforts to secure their own petty political and strategic interests — at the cost of the lives of those these two countries claim to lead.

The IS is a manifestation of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Muslim ruling elites.

Their actions are not only bringing trouble to themselves but are also fuelling sectarian tensions in Muslim societies and polarising Muslim-majority nations by forcing them to choose sides. This is an appalling situation, mainly for many Muslim states including Pakistan, which are struggling to adjust to the strategic and economic meltdown in the Middle East.

The IS is a manifestation of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Muslim ruling elites. The real challenge thus is not the expansion of the group in physical spaces, but the mindset of the ruling elites and their partners, ie the clergy, which is scared of new ideas. They don’t realise that their traditionalism and orthodoxy are eroding their own foundations.

The need to evolve intellectual responses for countering extremism notwithstanding, a review of collective wisdom and its expressions is also important, mainly to measure a nation’s level of resilience and maturity. Parliament is the true representative of the collective wisdom of Pakistanis. It has recently suggested a neutral role for Pakistan in the Middle East crisis. Similar parliamentary advice came on the Yemen crisis. The policymakers and media of both Saudi Arabia and UAE criticised this stance.

A statement circulating on social media, attributed to a top Saudi official, that criticised Pakistani neutrality and parliament, should not be surprising because many believe that our Arab brothers are not interested in Pakistan’s democratic credentials, but in the country’s military power.

Let’s not forget that when parliament took a neutral position on Yemen, the UAE tried to punish Pakistan through developing a strategic partnership with India, although it knew that India could not support their misadventure in Yemen.

Many opinion makers in Arab countries also accused Pakistan for ‘using’ parliament as an excuse to not send its troops for military adventures. Though in that case parliament proved a blessing for the establishment, the maturity it has shown over the issue is commendable. However, the actual challenge for parliament is to build intellectual and policy capital.

One can debate the capacity of parliamentarians and the government’s somewhat indifferent attitude towards parliament, but this is still the institution which is keeping the country cohesive. This is the institution which should address the issue of extremism and the IS in our minds.

Parliament can take the lead in nurturing the process of inclusive nation-building, by initiating debates on the extent to which diversity has been dissipated by policies of the past and incorporating the voices of different groups in the country. Parliament can draw an outline of a fresh national narrative. It can engage with all departments or institutions of the government, informing them of the consequences of their actions on social diversity.

An active and effective parliament can fill the spaces which exist in our thoughts and that are exploited by multiple ideological players including the IS. It is recognised that terrorist groups are more afraid of non-violent, soft measures than hard measures. They exploit hard measures by pushing the narrative of the ‘victimhood of Islamic forces’ to justify both their existence and their violent acts. Their reaction is stronger if someone challenges their narrative; be it religious scholars, the media or opinion makers. There are plenty of examples available that they hit hard those who challenge their arguments.

The content analysis of any militant publication would be helpful to understand the ideological paraphernalia of a terrorist group. For example, an old issue of Ahya-i-Khilafat (Revival of the Caliphate), a mouthpiece of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, consisted of 15 articles including an interview with its leader and profile of a leading commander. Four articles were dedicated to their operations and so-called successes, two were against secularism, two detailed articles were meant to elaborate and glorify the caliphate system; but four articles were allocated to build their case against democracy and parliament. One article titled ‘I am a constitutional man’ was a satire on religious political leaders, ie what did it mean (for the militants) in religious terms when these leaders said they believed in a constitutional democracy.

Parliament is a target of non-state actors and our Arab friends are also not happy with the institution on different grounds. One is not sure whether or not our parliamentarians know their importance and the role they have to play in developing a moderate and inclusive Pakistan. If parliament fails, it will fail the nation.

Conquering minds: by Muhammad Amir Rana, The writer is a security analyst.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1340229/conquering-minds
..........................................
Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (terror or fear) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime. In modern times, terrorism is considered a major threat to society and therefore illegal under anti-terrorism laws in most jurisdictions[citation needed]. It is also considered a war crime under the laws of war when used to target non-combatants, such as civilians, neutral military personnel, or enemy prisoners of war. Keep reading >>>.

This recent tirade of radical 'Islamist violence' (which I define as a hybrid between theological and political aggression by Islamic entities) against a predominantly Muslim target pool, as opposed to 'culturally diametric' Western societies, has baffled many. As always, the counter-narrative on social media has been fierce and relentless, and quite diversified in the least. The last week saw Facebook and Twitter feeds turn into sordid carousels of tummy-tickling memes about fused-out politicians and gut wrenching images of bloodied bodies at the same time.
Unsurprisingly, the dramatic show of violence against innocents has regurgitated two interlinked pop-culture narratives (or perhaps 'counter-narratives') that have found strong currency in the past as 'valid counters to Islamophobia' – "terrorism has no religion”; and "these are not Muslims, they are psychopaths/criminals”. While they serve to immediately offset wholesale, irrational hatred against the global Muslim community after attacks by Islamist aggressors, the arguments are massively untenable in their own right.
Islamophobic monologues are generally premised upon a superficial understanding of terrorism, but what worries me is that the above counter-narrative too is a rabbit in rhino's skin. Is this 'pop culture' discourse against Islamist terrorism (and the resultant cultural hatred) a propagation of the same old reductive public discourse that is devoid of nuance and heavy on emotions? >>>>
http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2016/07/understanding-terrorism-religion-socio.html


Counter-terrorism (also spelled counterterrorism) (also called anti-terrorism) incorporates the practice, military tactics, techniques, and strategy that government, military, law enforcement, business, and intelligence agencies use to combat or prevent terrorism. Counter-terrorism strategies include attempts to counter financing of terrorism.

If terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may employ counter-insurgency measures. The United States Armed Forces use the term foreign internal defense for programs that support other countries in attempts to suppress insurgency, lawlessness, or subversion or to reduce the conditions under which these threats to security may develop >>>.

“THIS is a war of narratives ... there is a dire need to come up with counter-narratives ... the menace of terrorism cannot be dealt with without countering the extremist, militant ideologies.”  >>>>>

Related :

    Sunday, June 11, 2017

    Death Cults

    Image result for death cults religion

    The term cult usually refers to a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. The term itself is controversial and it has divergent definitions in both popular culture and academia and it also has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices  although this is often unclear. Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults on the basis that cults arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices. The word "cult" has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices. Groups said to be cults range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions. 

    An ageing man in Karachi who had travelled to Egypt to fight against the Israeli military during the 1967 Egypt-Israel war. After the war (which had lasted just six days and saw the Israelis wiping out the Soviet-backed Egyptian forces), the man had travelled to Jordan where he joined Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). He was soon sent to a village on the Lebanon-Israel border to mount guerrilla attacks against Israeli border guards. 
    Illustration by Abro
    During the planning of one such attack, the PLO squad he was part of split when there arose a possibility that the attack might cause civilian casualties. He told me that the majority of the men in his squad were against killing civilians and refused to take part in the attack which was eventually aborted. The man returned to Pakistan and set up a tea stall on Karachi’s I.I. Chundrigar Road. 

    Disturbed, confused and angry youth are easy recruits for militant groups promising them an identity in return for total obedience to a charismatic leader

    The reason I have briefly repeated this story here is to contextualise the mutation of the idea of modern Muslim militancy and/or how drastically it has changed in the last four decades or so.

    Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, James Lutz, in his 2005 book Terrorism: Origins & Evolution, wrote that most European left-wing and Palestinian guerrilla groups, between the 1960s and late 1970s, largely avoided inflicting civilian casualties because they wanted the media and the people to sympathise with them. 

    This is not to suggest that civilian deaths were always entirely avoided; it is however true that many militant groups often suffered splits within their ranks on this issue. The most well-known split in this context (and regarding Muslim militancy) was the one between Yasir Arafat and Abu Nidal in the PLO in 1974. Arafat had decided to abandon armed militancy and chart a more political course. Nidal on the other hand not only wanted to continue pursuing militancy but wanted to intensify it even further. He formed the violent Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO) which, by the 1980s, had become a notorious mercenary outfit for various radical Arab regimes in Libya, Iraq and Syria. 

    Even the anti-Soviet ‘mujahideen’ in Afghanistan — the forerunners of devastating ‘Islamist’ outfits such as Al-Qaeda — were conscious of receiving good press and public sympathy by avoiding civilian casualties. In spite of being heavily indoctrinated by CIA and Saudi-funded clerics in Afghanistan and Pakistan to embrace death as a religious duty, the mujahideen did not use suicide bombings, not even against Soviet forces. 

    The first-ever suicide bombing involving Muslim militants took place in Beirut in 1983 when a member of the Hezbollah drove a truck laden with explosives into a compound full of US military personnel. Yet, it was not until the 1990s, when so-called Islamic militants, many of who had never used violence against civilians during the Afghan insurgency, began to attack soft civilian targets in various Muslim-majority countries. 


    In his excellent 2004 BBC documentary, Power of Nightmares, film-maker Adam Curtis noted that those who fought in Afghanistan were made to believe (by their facilitators in the US and Saudi Arabia) that it was their ‘religious war’ which downed a superpower in Kabul — many such fighters returned to their home countries and tried to overthrow the existing governments there. 

    Since this time they were trying to uproot Muslim regimes (and not atheist communists), Curtis suggests that they believed that they could trigger uprisings among the people against ‘corrupt Muslim regimes’ by creating revolutionary chaos in the society. Thus, car bombs began to explode in public places and, as Curtis then notes, once these failed to generate the desired uprisings, suicide bombings became common when the militants became desperate. 

    It is also vital to note that suicide bombings, despite the fact that suicide is explicitly forbidden in Islam because it challenges God’s authority over life and death, was hardly ever condemned even by the supposedly apolitical and non-militant religious figures. This was especially true between the 1990s and the mid-2000s and largely because most Muslims were still stuck in the quagmire of the glorified narratives of divinely-charged bravado diffused by Muslim and US propagandists during the anti-Soviet insurgency. 

    For example, in Pakistan, suicide bombings were not condemned till 2014. Even as 50,000 people lost their lives to terror attacks between 2004 and 2014, many non-militant religious figures, reactionary media personalities and so-called experts were continuing to see sheer nihilist violence (in the name of faith) as reactions to state oppression, poverty, corruption, drone attacks, anything other than total nihilist madness. 

    Nihilism. That’s exactly what it really is. Famous French academic, author and a long-time expert on Islamic militancy, Oliver Roy, recently wrote in The Guardian [April 13, 2017], that the nihilist dimension is central to understanding the unprecedented brutality of outfits such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and especially the militant Islamic state (IS) group. To them violence is not a means. It is an end in itself. Such nihilism that wants to wipe out existing social, cultural and political modes and structures of civilisation through ‘apocalyptic violence’ has been used before in varied forms and in the name of varied ideologies. Nazis in Germany did it in the name of Aryan supremacy; Mao Tse Tung in China did it in the name of ‘permanent (communist) revolution’; and the Khmer Rouge did it in Cambodia, by wiping out thousands of Cambodians and announcing communism’s ‘Year Zero.’ 

    But since Islamic nihilists are still in the shape of insurgents (and not part of any state), Roy sees them more as large apocalyptic death cults who this time just happen to be using Islam as a war cry, mainly because this gives them immediate media coverage. 

    Roy writes that just as disturbed teens and confused angry youth become easy recruits for cults promising them an identity (in return for total obedience to a charismatic leader), contemporary nihilists and death cults posing as ‘Islamic outfits’ attract exactly the same kind of following. 

    What’s more, after painstakingly going through the profiles of known young men and women who decided to join such cults and willed themselves to carry out the murder of civilians and of themselves, Roy found that only a tiny number of them were ever actually involved in any political movements before their entry into the outfit. Roy noted that most were ‘born again Muslims’ who had suddenly become very vocal about their beliefs and then were rapidly drawn in by the many recruitment tactics of nihilist cults operating as Islamic outfits around the world.

    Most telling is the fact that religious figures in Muslim countries had continued to see the nihilists as a radical expression and extension of the glories of the Afghan insurgency—only to now realise that to the nihilists they too are as much infidels as the Soviets were, or the Westerners are.

    SMOKERS’ CORNER: DEATH CULTS....  ByNadeem F. Paracha
    Published in Dawn, EOS, June 11th, 2017
    https://www.dawn.com/news/1338695/smokers-corner-death-cults

    Related :

    Jihad, Extremism

      Sunday, June 4, 2017

      Combat Ideology of Terror: Going beyond Fatwas ( edicts)

      Image result for quran quotes against terrorism

      Image result for edicts against terrorism
      NOT all interpret or acknowledge a fatwa, or religious decree, in a similar way. In a country like Pakistan, where religious and social behaviours work in an almost identical way, individuals and groups tend to accept only those parts of a command or judgement that best suit their ideologies or interests. This fact has been further vindicated by the emergence of varying responses to a recent fatwa against terrorism, issued by prominent religious scholars of the country.

      The government and moderate forces welcomed the decree for they believe it is an effective tool in countering religious extremism. It is not difficult to anticipate the response of militant and extremist groups. However, even the religious community appeared divided. Those at the helm of affairs at the Darul Uloom Akora Khattak — a seminary well known for its jihadist credentials as well as a beneficiary of state incentives, including a recent Rs300 million ‘counter-extremism’ award by the KP government — expressed some serious concerns.

      The head of the seminary, Maulana Samiul Haq, declared Muslim rulers puppets of the West who were unable to announce jihad against their masters. Leaders of radical religious groups expressed similar views, based on a notion that the Islamist militants are indeed waging jihad against the West. This is a notable fallacy.

      This is not the first fatwa against terrorism, but it is comparatively clear in its tone and expression, and unanimously declares suicide attacks and rebellion against the government legally forbidden (haram). Previous fatwas were ambiguous, their scope deliberately confined to Pakistan. Perhaps what irritates Maulana Samiul Haq is that this fatwa does not specifically exclude Afghanistan, where the Afghan Taliban are killing fellow Muslims.

      The ideological challenge posed by extremists is far too complex to be dealt with through fatwas alone.

      The fatwa will send a signal to militants that sections of the clergy are ready to discredit their violent agenda. It may also improve the immunity of those sitting on the fence vis-à-vis violent extremist ideologies. However, the ideological challenge posed by the Islamists and violent radicals is far too complex to be dealt with through fatwas alone.

      The Islamists’ purported agendas construct the mindset of violent radicals. Local socio-political issues act as a catalyst. These violent radicals are a product of our society, where Islamist forces shape our worldview.

      The idea of a model Islamic state and system nurtured by Islamist scholars including Hassan al-Banna, Syed Qutab, Taqi al-Din al Nabhani and Maulana Abul A’la Maududi is still shaping the consciousness of urban Muslim middle classes. Islamist parties are struggling to make the notion of an Islamic state viable in challenging environments. The Tunisian Ennahda is the only Islamist party that completely separated the religious agenda from politics and transformed itself into a democratic Muslim party. This is a model of success for Islamist parties across the world.

      The takfiri jihadists borrow the conceptual framework of an Islamic state and blend it with the restoration of the Islamic caliphate. They build their ideological, political and even operational paraphernalia on the notion of khurooj (going out or rebellion) against Muslim rulers. They bring their justification from the concept of takfir, ie declaring Muslims rulers transgressors, disbelievers and the companions of infidels. This is contrary to Maulana Samiul Haq’s belief that Islamist militants are fighting against foreign oppressors.

      The Islamist militants’ intellectual paradigm moves around the notion of rebellion against the state and the rejection of those who disagree with them. Here are a few questions that they often put forth:

      Citizens of a Muslim state are bound by their social contract, or constitution, to not take up arms against their government. Are there any exceptions?

      Should armed resistance against a government be an indispensible last option or is it a standard and required way of change? In the former case, what is the scope of the ‘need’ that makes the armed revolt indispensible? Is it limited to self-defence only or can it also include other objectives such as the enforcement of Sharia?

      Most religious scholars in Pakistan generally believe that it is almost impossible to establish an Islamic system of governance through the democratic system. In this situation, what is the hukm, or legal ruling, in Islam regarding a resort to armed struggle to establish an Islamic system?

      If the government of a Muslim country helps non-believers and infidels in acts of aggression against another Muslim country, what is the legal responsibility (for Muslims) in Islam?

      If some citizens of a Muslim state consider armed revolt in certain circumstances justified as khurooj, is it necessary for them to declare their support for the group or can they support and help it secretly, without revoking their allegiance to the state? What was the nature of support from Imam Abu Hanifa for those who participated in khurooj during his life?

      Deeper in the ideological discourse of Islamist radicals, we encounter ultra-radical thoughts and a range of ideologues who have structured their strategies around these notions. Abu Bakr al Najji’s book, The Management of Savagery, serves as a training manual for the militant Islamic State group. Abu Abdullah Muhajjer, another IS and Al Qaeda ideologue, in his manual Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Jihad, opposes the consensus among jurisprudents developed over the centuries and asserts that “killing kuffar [infidels] and fighting them in their homeland is a necessity even if they do not harm Muslims”. Mustafa al-Suri, in his lengthy account The Call to a Global Islamic Resistance, advocates for leaderless jihad, which nurtured a generation of lone wolfs. Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s criticism of Pakistan’s Constitution, Dawn and a Flickering Lamp, argues that Muslim countries’ social contracts are against the basic principles of Islam.

      Few attempts have been made by Muslim scholars to respond to the challenge. A fatwa would be effective only if it emerged from an intellectual exercise, providing answers to the questions posed by extremists and militants in their ideological discourse.

      Muhammad Amir Rana is a security analyst. He is the Director of Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), Islamabad, Pakistan.
      https://www.dawn.com/news/1337286/going-beyond-edicts

      Related :

      Jihad, Extremism