Source: http://www.thenational.ae/
Takfir, the act of accusing a Muslim of apostasy, has become an
ideology embraced by extremist movements to justify the killing of
anyone who does not fulfill their criteria of “true” belief.
There are two main reasons for the cancerous spread of takfirist ideology in parts of the Muslim world.
The first one is the rejection of the diversity of opinions. This
diversity is often a result of the application of scholars’ independent
legal judgement (ijtihad) to religious textual evidence that is
non-definitive in its meaning. This leads to two things: an increased
inability for the representatives of religion to embrace changes in the
world from one perspective, and an expansion of the spheres of war in
the Muslim world from another.
The second reason is the association of “non-belief” with killing and
deviancy. Such tendency fails to recognize the Sharia’s legal
distinction between a combatant disbeliever and a civilian disbeliever.
A combatant disbeliever can be legitimately fought by the state,
while the civilian cannot be prevented from his or her rights despite
their non-belief, as is declared in the Quranic verses: “For you your
religion and for me mine” and “Whomsoever wills may choose faith, and
whomsoever wills may choose non-faith”.
Throughout history, people have suffered from the bloodshed and
oppression that ensued from religious zealotry emanating from political
battle grounds.
A number of religious scholars have expended efforts in creating
initiatives that deal with the threat of takfirism. Among them is Sheikh
Abdullah bin Bayyah, a renowned jurist and scholar from Mauritania.
He convened the Mardin Conference in 2010 in Turkey, which had two
primary purposes: to carefully examine and review Islamic law’s
traditional classification of the world into “domains” (diyar) and how
this pertains to the concepts of jihad, loyalty and enmity (al-wala wa
al-bara), citizenship and emigration.
The second purpose of the conference was to discuss the “Mardin
Fatwa” of the 13th century scholar Ibn Taymiyya, in which he deduced a
new ruling based on the Islamic jurisprudential classification of the
world into domains of “non-belief”, “Islam”, and “covenant”. Ibn
Taymiyya considered the city of Mardin to belong to both a domain of
non-belief and domain of Islam at the same time – non-belief due to its
being ruled by the non-Muslim Tartars, and Islam due to its residents
being Muslim.
During the conference Sheikh Bin Bayyah proposed a re-evaluation of
this classification. International relations of that time were primarily
determined by warfare and conflict with cordial relations being the
exception.
Today, however, with peace being the norm and war and conflict the exception, the classification no longer applies.
He also brought attention to methodological flaws in how sacred texts
are meant to be understood and interpreted and how the various
independent legal judgements of jurists are meant to be adopted. For
example, he mentioned how takfirists used the Mardin Fatwa to justify
their own agendas.
When printed editions of this edict were compared with its only
available manuscript, a printing mistake was discovered which changed a
word from “shall be treated” (yu’amal) to “shall be fought” (yuqatal).
The text in question as found in the printed editions of the fatwa
reads: “(Mardin is of a third category) in which the Muslim shall be
treated as he merits, and in which the one who departs from the sacred
law (sharia) shall be fought as he merits.”
Whereas the text in the manuscript read: “(Mardin is of a third
category) in which the Muslim shall be treated as he merits, and in
which the one who departs from the sacred law (Sharia) shall be treated
as he merits.”
This distortion has been printed for over 100 years and been the cause for much unlawful bloodshed.Despite these efforts and others, institutions and organizations – faith-based or not – as well as Sharia bodies and councils and the media are completely oblivious to them and their valuable outcomes.
The most pressing question today is whether there is a serious desire to confront takfirist ideology.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar