By Ahmad Kareem
Consensus [Ijma] is the last institution in the history of Islam and when the nation of Islam is in some local situation, in some domestic milieu or at national level encounters a big crisis or if a big question rises and savants of religion and savants of time are unable to solve it then it is transferred to community for some solution but how strange it is that the problem after taking back from savants is been given to common man.
Isn’t it astonishing that you’re present, savants of time are present, savants of administration are present and some complication of community is presented to the vulgar in lieu of specialists and intellectuals? Now there is something important.
What is the reason that many efforts are made before consensus [Ijma]? Even in democracy, [the so much praised system] no democratic institutions are being called on any technical moral issue and if the issue is being mulled then it is referred to assemblies or may be the next step which you say ‘referendum.’
More from this author: A Complicated Relationship
But in Ijma none of these three aforementioned things exist, it’s simply a kind of an institution that when the nation of Islam encounters some big crises within religion, when the understanding of religion is suspicious on some issue or when some complication reaches a certain verge where it’s solution is essential, then it is referred to common men and their opinion is taken. What could be the reason of it?
This is transferring knowledge from lofty station to abased/natural station. Whenever a moral/ethical issue in the world is referred to common men then they rejected the morality/issue. This is a law that common men are not moralists. They’re more near to nature.
During the time of sub-continent’s partition, the problem was, many savants of Islam were nationalists. Free nation [Ahrar Millat] was nationalist. Deoband’s were nationalists. People of the tradition [Ahl-e-Hadith] were nationalists. Abu-al-Kalam Azad and Ata-al-Haq Shah Bukhari were also nationalists except a few religious savants, whose individual opinion cannot be seen as an institutional opinion and they in their individual opinion stood against their institution like Asharaf Ali Thanvi did or like Molana Ansari. They in their individual opinion took part in Pakistan movement but a good number of clerics were nationalists and they stood by the concept of united Hindustan except some Barhelvi clerics including Muhammad Naeem Allabadi, who supported Pakistan.
Read also:Islamic reformation
The problem was that those clerics thought against Pakistan and opined against a making of new state on the basis of religion. There comes a time on the nation of Islam that their esteemed and venerable savants too avoid the rules of religion and opines against the concepts of Islam. The Muhammad Ali Jinnah presented his case to the community. The common men were being asked of their opinion and then those common men made the making of Pakistan possible.
What is the reason that religious savants, intellectuals and the progressive best brains of Islam were against the idea of Islam? They’d reasons and the reasons are still same today. They believe that Ijma has faulty verdict. If Ijma had made Pakistan possible then we’ve to see why and how?
The creator and Muhammad [PBUH] trusted on sentiment not intellect. When the minds get confuse, when nous baffles, when mind paralyzes and the decisions of religious scientists and intellectuals get suspicious then the Islamic verdict enters in the hearts of Muslims/common men. And this is the best quality of Ijma that the decision is taken out of the hands of intellectuals, but why?
Read more:Richard Dawkins and Islam
According to the apostle [PBUH]: “If you’re suspicious about something that it is right or wrong, then put it on your heart. If the heart doesn’t get chaotic, not deny accepting it and that there is no ambiguity then rule it but if heart gets ambiguous and is not ready to accept it, then leave it.” In modern temper the thinking of a heart is considered as non-scientific. How a heart should be taken when there is an understanding that mind thinks and mind gets ideas?
The creator says: “People’s hearts are in my hands like a feather on open big surface and whose position changes by air.” In fact in Ijma, the decision is from the Creator.
Let me say a few words about terrorism. Terrorism is not Islam but what terrorism is? Terrorism is contraction of heart. That heart which is sensitive. One brother says we must endure. One brother says today or tomorrow we’ll endure. One brother says we shall co-operate. One says I can’t tolerate this injustice and then he forms a reaction. He gives responses.
Terrorism is not a new thing if you go through the history of this world. In every age when the injustice is at its peak or there develop some culture which is tyrant and despotic, the revolt against it is primordial. Didn’t the Mughal Empire face such movements? Wasn’t the movement of Robin Hood in United Kingdom a result of despotism? The rising of an individual against the tyranny is not a normal course. But why we call it a terrorist activity?
One thing is for sure that the western foolish contrivity and attitude that they have had towards Islamic community, terrorism has grown from individual feelings to national feelings. Perhaps this psychological pattern is not known to the western world. The idea that they can get rid of this menace by exterminating some individuals is a wild goose chase. There is not a single Muslim [talking of its essence] who would like terrorism but also there is no Muslim who doesn’t want to give answer to the oppression by western giants. So despite of its absolute negativity, slowly, it is convincing a collective response from Islamic community.
Read more:Dr. D. Latifa – Normative Islam
New identities have been evolved. For the first time these three movements tried for a foundation for the revival of Islam; Muslim Brotherhood [Akwan-al-Muslamoon] in Arab; Movement of Muhammadia in Indonesia; and Jamaat-e-Islami in British India [now Pakistan].They all worked and the purpose of these movements was to establish an Islamic system but unfortunately all these organizations were confined to only exoteric aspect and never paid any attention to the esoteric aspect of Islam, say it mysticism or faith or morality, and the whole community thrived to establish prayers [Ibadaat]and forgot that religion is not only practical.
Religion is a philosophy. It’s a myth. It’s an idea and the religion has only one priority and that is Allah [God].
Quran says: “We raise in degrees whom We will, but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing.” So to Allah the degrees are not acquired by prayers but the degrees are acquired by knowledge.
The desire of Mehdi is a desire of Ijma but why? Why to desire of Mehdi? The reason is that the nation of Islam is hopeless of their rulers. They’re in general feeling that Muslims all over the world are simply not satisfied with their rulers.
History has seen such incidents before too but the irony is no oppressor has learnt from it. History is full of tragedies by incompetent ruler’s gumptions.
Ijma is in process but it has not given its verdict yet. If the issue is being presented to the community and they have done mulling on it, the apathy and sluggishness will be over. Priorities will be reverted and when the single priority be apprehended and when Muslims declare that Allah [God] is the top most priority then all western prevalence will be Satan’s deceit.
People say they’ve gigantic resources and are higher in power. But was there any time when resources were equal? In the history of Islam there was never a war with equal resources. Jihad means that despite few resources a Muslim equals it with faith in God. And he knows the victory is in Lord’s hand.
When some ground realities people think of numbers, facts and figures, they intentionally depress the Muslim temper. But you know how one war was being fought? Mahdist Sudan’s war? Qat-al-Ammara’s war? The huge army of General Gorden with cannons support was ready for a war on ground and they were very confident that when Mahdist Sudan will come they will annihilate his army. And then the historian writes that Mahdi’s army descended from the mountains and the British were waiting that they come near and we exterminate everyone, Mahdi’s army put out their swords and placed them in front of the Sun. Then the valley in which the British forces were present experienced a flood of light and the troops that were in the valley all of them got blind. And the Mahdist Sudan exterminated the gigantic British army.
This is a crisis of leadership. Muslims till now unable to solve this Ijma question. But once the Muslim community decides, I’m very sure the west will be very shy.