Islam, Traditional Islam, and Islamism: Re-inventing Jihad as a War of Aggression

Islam experienced tensions in different ways. There were political differences, as well as differences regarding revelation. The ahl al-kalam struggled against the ahl al-hadith. Trends are perceptible regarding rationality, revelation, tradition, and tawhid. At first, reason was used to understand revelation. People exercised their freedom of the will. But tradition eventually eclipsed both reason and revelation. With the rise of despotism, freedom was repressed. Bellicose rulers craved totalitarianism. But this is prohibited in revelation. Accordingly, the justification of totalitarianism required bypassing its prohibition in revelation. Thus, hawkish rulers enlisted willing ulama to reinterpret revelation to justify repression and wars of aggression. Wars of aggression were justified by jurists who endorsed the "abrogation" of the verses of reconciliation by the verse of the sword. Jihad al-talab requires the umma to wage a war against non-Muslims as a requirement or sixth pillar of the faith, in the endless war between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb. A war of aggression or jihad al-talab is against the teaching of revelation. The reinterpretation of Islam as a teaching of war required recourse to presuppositions that defy the teaching of revelation. The reinterpretation of Islam as a teaching of war resulted in a "jurisprudence of terror," which justifies the perpetration of crime. Islamist exegesis and jurisprudence are riddled with kufr and shirk. Kufr is evident in the rejection of all verses that teach that the Book of Allah is "clear," "fully detailed," and "consistent." Kufr is also apparent in the rejection of the allegedly "abrogated" verses. Shirk is palpable in the treatment of tradition as a "part of" revelation, the treatment of tradition as a "judge" of revelation, and in permitting persons to "abrogate" and "replace" revealed rulings. These examples of kufr and shirk reveal the extent to which traditionalist exegesis and jurisprudence drifted from its roots in revelation. It furnishes examples of what Fazlur Rahman referred to as "intellectual suicide," which in turn engendered "a tradition of intellectual retardation." Recourse to autocracy was justified by the turn to tradition and its treatment as "revelation." The turn was expedited by the repression of reason. The reorientation from revelation to tradition corrupted every aspect of Islam. But this was detrimental to the umma. For the Book of Allah says: "For each person there are universal forces surrounding him. They record his actions according to God's command. Most certainly, God does not change the condition of a nation until they first change themselves. When God intends a nation to suffer punishment (as a consequence of their misdeeds), there is none who can repel it and they have no defender besides Him." (Quran 13:11). In turning from revelation to tradition, the umma exchanged the Book of Allah for books of traditions. There are in excess of ninety traditions in Bukhari on where to put hands during prayer. But there are no books in Bukhari on reason, justice, freedom, or good governance. Bukhari divested the Book of Allah of its teaching on ethics. The traditions were recorded in defiance of the prohibition of "adding" to revelation in the Book of Allah (69:44-46), and in defiance of the prophet's prohibition of recording his traditions. The turn from revelation to tradition produced troubling results. These encompass the repression of reason, the treatment of tradition as "revelation," the subordination of revelation to tradition, recourse to the teaching of abrogation, the proliferation of the teaching of predestination, an estrangement from revelation, and an erosion of the tawhidic foundation of the faith. This is reflected in the teaching of the duality of revelation. For is it possible to postulate a duality of revelation possible without affirming, even if surreptitiously, a duality of divinity?