Additional information
by Leslie Terebessy (Author)
Is Islam a religion of peace or a religion of war? For it is portrayed in both ways by different parties. Islam of the Book of Allah is a religion of peace but the Islam of tradition and hawkish ulama is a religion of war. The re-articulation of Islam as a religion of war took place at the time of the emergence of authoritarianism and the transition from consultative to dynastic rule. Reinterpreting Islam as a teaching of war required a recalibration of scholarship in the form of the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence. This entailed engaging like-minded scholars to participate in the realization of the political aspirations of hawkish rulers. For bellicose rulers craved a justification for waging wars of aggression, to enlarge the empire. But they wanted to do it under the banner of Islam. As wars of aggression are prohibited in revelation, the ulama turned to tradition. The turn from revelation to tradition was facilitated by the repression of reason, and reflected in the recording of traditions. Recourse to tradition was justified by treating tradition as "supplementary" revelation. According to this perception, Allah "revealed" a further sixty books of "revelation" to "explain" and "clarify" the Quran. The recording of traditions transpired in defiance of the prohibition of "adding" to revelation in the Book of Allah. It also transpired in defiance of the prohibition by the prophet of recording his traditions. The reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war entailed tampering with the teaching of revelation. This was accomplished by the alleged "abrogation" of all verses in the Book of Allah that restrict fighting to self-defence. The teaching of the "abrogation" of the verses of reconciliation reinforced by recourse to hawkish traditions transformed Islam into a religion of war. Underlying the justification of the propagation of Islam through compulsion was the narrative of the alleged clash between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb. There is no basis for this perception in revelation. The weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence came at a cost. It entailed a corruption of the knowledge of revelation. This plunged the umma into s series of wars. Apart from recourse to the teaching of abrogation, knowledge was further corrupted by the mischaracterization of revelation as "unclear," "insufficiently detailed," and "contradictory." These mischaracterizations were used to justify the turn to tradition. They were due in part to the reluctance to engage reason to understand revelation. The alleged "clarification" and "detailing" of revelation would be provided by tradition. Alleged contradictions would be resolved by recourse to the teaching of abrogation. However, the Book of Allah teaches that it is "clear," "fully detailed," and "free of contradictions." To characterize the Book of Allah as "unclear," "insufficiently detailed," and "contradictory" entails rejecting verses that teach the contrary. To reject a verse is to "disbelieve" in it. The characterization of revelation as "unclear," "insufficiently detailed" and "contradictory" is accordingly based on kufr. What is more, a "clear" and "fully detailed" Book should not require further "clarification" and "detailing" in the first place. Neither should a Book "free of contradictions" require recourse to the teaching of abrogation, to reconcile allegedly "contradictory" verses. The turn from revelation to tradition was assisted by the repression of reason or, as Fazlur Rahman put it, "intellectual suicide." The repression of reason inaugurated a "tradition of intellectual retardation." The "intellectual suicide" paved the way for "political suicide." For Islamism set the umma upon a collision course, a warpath against the rest of the world, triggering clashes, and exposing the umma to the risk of retaliation. The Islamist variant of "Manifest Destiny" requires establishing the sharia in the rest of the world by word or, if necessary, by the sword.
