Roots of Militant Jihadism: Politics and Tradition in Islam (A)

The books of the “people of the book” were tampered with. A few persons wanted to alter their teaching. Accordingly, the inherited records of revelation are less than accurate. The Book of Allah, however, is free of the vagaries of tampering. But has the knowledge of the Book escaped tampering? Is the knowledge of the Mushaf preserved and uncorrupted? While the Mushaf escaped tampering, the knowledge of the Book of Allah did not. It changed after being “clarified” by exegesis, the science of “interpretation.” Knowledge of the Book of Allah was corrupted by recourse to a corrupt method of interpretation. Exegesis was corrupted by reading the Book of Allah through the prism of tradition rather than reason. The result is an irrational reading of the text. Exegetes treated using reason to understand revelation as a form of kufr, despite the Book of Allah emphasizing the use of reason. In rejecting reason, exegetes departed from the teaching of revelation. The subordination of the Book of Allah to traditions rested upon the assumption that persons explain “better” than Allah. Exegesis was also corrupted by recourse to the teaching of abrogation, the alleged the abrogation of the verses that teach peace by the verses of the sword. The abrogation of the verses of reconciliation transformed the religion of peace into a religion of war. Recourse to the teaching of abrogation rested upon the assumption that Allah “changed” His words. But revelation teaches that Allah never “changes” His words. In different words, recourse to the teaching of abrogation rested upon a lapse into anthropomorphism. Further assumptions contrary to the teaching of revelation encompass the perception that the Book of Allah is in parts “unclear,” “less than fully detailed,” and “incoherent.” Problematic assumptions further encompass the perception that tradition is “revelation,” that tradition “judges” revelation, and that tradition trumps reason. The tradition in which the prophet allegedly said that “the blood of the kafir is halal (permissible) for the believer” was used to justify aggression, as well as unprovoked wars of aggression, against non-Muslims. The belligerence of the Islamists produced catastrophic results. This included the destruction of the Abbasid empire by the Mongols after the Abbasid rulers slaughtered a caravan of Mongol traders and ambassadors in cold blood, in defiance of the teaching of the Book of Allah. Politicized exegesis furthered the expansionary agenda of rulers, in defiance of the teaching of revelation. The teaching of abrogation enabled politicized ulama to tamper with the knowledge of revelation to furnish a religious justification for waging unlawful wars of aggression. The tampering transpired to justify the propagation of religion by the sword, a Muslim version of an epic “clash of civilizations,” the abode of peace (dar al-Islam) and the abode of unbelief (dar al-kufr). Resorting to the sword in the propagation of the religion of peace defies the prohibition of the use of force in religion. Recourse to the teaching of abrogation enabled militant ulama to transform the religion of reconciliation into Islamism, a religion of war. Rehabilitation of the knowledge of revelation requires the re-engagement of reason and the re-affirmation of the Book of Allah as the exclusive root of religious laws in Islam. The rehabilitation of knowledge requires a rehabilitation of epistemology, the rejection of the teaching of abrogation, as well as of the perception that it is lawful and even required to fight non-Muslims solely because of “disbelief.” Methodology requires being grounded in the Book of Allah. It is incumbent on the umma and its ulama to recover the teaching of the Book of Allah. This requires the rehabilitation of exegesis and jurisprudence, to bring them in agreement with the teaching of revelation. Traditional exegesis and jurisprudence were to render the Book of Allah accessible. Regrettably, they produced the reverse effects. They rendered the Book of Allah less transparent. This resulted from the failure to use reason in the comprehension of revelation. The misrepresentation of the teaching of revelation resulted from recourse to flawed methodology of exegesis, through reading the Book through media alien to it, the lenses of tradition and politics. Reading the Book of Allah through the lens of tradition produced traditional Islam. Reading the Book of Allah through the lens of politics, produced political Islam or Islamism. Both variants are of the teaching of the Book of Allah. This is what traditional ulama bequeathed to the umma. The problems of the umma arose to an extent from the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Book of Allah by “traditional” and “politicized” exegesis and jurisprudence. The war-like articulations of Islam resulted in waging unprovoked wars of aggression When the pushback transpired, Muslims suffered reprisals. More than anything else, traditional scholarship rests upon the rejection of reason as a tool for the understanding of revelation. Traditional ulama taught that the use of reason could render a Muslim into an unbeliever. But with the rejection of reason the ulama prevented themselves and those who believed them from understanding and following revelation. In desperation, they turned to tradition. Problematic methodology of exegesis, in the form of recourse to traditions and the teaching of abrogation, based upon a rejection of reason, resulted in misunderstanding of the Book of Allah. Prominent among the errors in traditional methodology of exegesis was the turn from revelation to tradition. This was the result of an enchantment with tradition, enabled by a related error, the rejection of reason. Which person in his or her right mind would treat the guidance of persons recorded in the traditions as in any way comparable to the guidance of Allah? The turn from revelation to tradition was justified by a further error, the perception that tradition, too, is revelation. This was expressed explicitly in the teaching of “dual revelation.” A related error was the subordination of revelation to tradition. This was made explicit in the perception that “tradition judges revelation.” A related error was the subordination of reason to tradition. Tradition had to be followed even of it defied reason. Naql (tradition) trumped ‘aql (reason). The treatment of tradition as “revelation” not just as “inspiration” (wahy) but as something “sent down” by Allah (tanzil), took matters to an unprecedented low.For verses 44, 45 and 47 of chapter five make it clear that those who fail to judge by what Allah “sent down” are disbelievers, rebels, and wrongdoers. Judging by traditions resulted in miscarriages of justice and the corruption of the sharia. Rulings based upon manmade reports effectively “abrogated” and “replaced” revealed rulings. This was a fall into shirk. The words of persons were treated as possessing the power to “abrogate” and even “replace” the rulings of God. This was catastrophic. Matters went from bad to worse. Based upon the teaching of abrogation, militant ulama asserted that Allah “changed His mind” and wanted the religion of peace to become a religion of war. They acquired the boldness to make this assertion despite verses in revelation that state that we will “never find a change in the words of Allah.” This was worse than merely cavalier scholarship. Based on the teaching of the alleged abrogation of the peace verses, jurists developed the teaching of jihad al-talab, or the propagation of religion through the sword, which is forbidden in the Book of Allah. The teaching of jihad al-talab did not merely render unlawful wars of aggression lawful; it also treated jihad al-talab as a religious requirement, a sixth pillar of Islam. It was used to justify unlawful unprovoked wars of aggression and territorial expansion, all under the alleged propagation of Islam by the sword. The reinvention of Islam as a religion of war is perhaps the worst corruption of the teaching of revelation, as it rests upon the denial of the sovereignty of God. These issues require rethinking and a return to the methodology of interpretation that affirms the preeminence of revelation in relation to all tradition. These distortions of the knowledge of revelation were enabled by the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence, placing them at the behest of the powers that be and transforming scholarship to the rank of political propaganda. This amounted to “selling the signs of Allah for a miserable price.” It amounted to scholarship serving the political aspirations of rulers. This is why traditional scholarship may hardly be trusted to tell the truth. Traditional scholarship rendered itself untrustworthy not merely because of its rejection of reason. It also rendered itself unreliable by placing itself at the service of rulers through its alliance with political power.

Traditional Muslims are struggling to “fit in” the “contemporary” world. Why is that? Is there is a tension between “tradition” and “modernity”? Are Muslims trapped between the past and the present? Tradition teaches that all non-Muslims are kuffar. Traditional Muslims receive sectarian education. They adhere to tradition rather than revelation. But traditions change; principles do not. Traditions does not possess the timelessness and universality of revelation. Traditions were relevant in the past; revelation is relevant at present, too. Traditionists treat tradition as “revelation,” they treat past practices by the predecessors as binding. They treat tradition as a “judge” of revelation. To treat tradition as a “judge” of revelation is to reverse the relationship between revelation and tradition, to place the rulings of persons above the rulings of God. It is to fall into shirk. This is what transpired in Islam. It transpired as a result of the reticence to engage reason. The reticence to engage reason to know revelation corrupted knowledge. The corruption of knowledge in turn plunged the umma into a string of trials and tribulations. The umma is experiencing a crisis after crisis. The misunderstanding of the teaching of revelation resulted from the reluctance to use reason to know revelation. The corruption of the knowledge of revelation was exacerbated by the politicization of exegesis. The politicization of exegesis resulted in a misrepresentation of the teaching of revelation. The political rendering of Islam was triggered by the effort to “reinterpret” the teaching of revelation to endorse the expansionary aspirations of feudal regimes. Exegesis was corrupted by assumptions that flout key teachings of revelation. These encompass the assumption that the Book of Allah is in parts “unclear,” “incomplete” and even “incoherent.” These assumptions provided the “justification” for the turn from revelation to tradition. Reading revelation “in light of tradition” tainted the knowledge of revelation. The corruption of knowledge was exacerbated by the reticence to use reason in the reading of revelation. Problematic presuppositions in exegesis caused exegetes to reach perceptions that differ from what revelations teaches. As a result of the corruption of knowledge, Islam is a faint reflection of its former self. Propelled by rage, radicalized persons fall into error and perpetrate terror. They were encouraged by “scholars” who treat terror as “martyrdom operations.” What could explain misguidance on this scale? The religion of reconciliation was reinterpreted as a religion of war. This required turning from revelation and a rejection of reason. The fall into the abyss of “intellectual retardation” was enabled by the rejection of reason as a way to understand revelation. But it is asserted that Islam is not responsible for terrorism. That is true for the Islam of the Book of Allah, which permits fighting in self-defense, or against persecution. But the Islam of the militant ulama is not the Islam of the Book of Allah. It is the Islam of traditions, and the Islam of all the good, bad and the ugly in that tradition. It is the Islam of jihad al-talab, or the propagation of Islam by the sword. It is the Islam of the clash between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb, the realm of peace vs the realm of war. It is the Islam of extremists. It is time to tell the emperor that he has no clothes on. Present-day Islam is a result of a millennium of “interpretation.” This did not transpire without its politicization. Islam was politicized to render it amenable to the political or empire-building agendas of the ruling elites. Politicized ulama, benefiting from the patronage of the rulers, stepped up to the task of providing what the rulers wanted: an Islam divested of troublesome teachings on ethics, rationality and justice.

Religion provides powerful motivation. When people think they are “right,” that Allah is on their side, they could go to many lengths to “realize” their aspirations. In the Muslim world, this is true of Islamists. They feel “holier” that the rest, and believe this bestows on them the right to force their versions of religion upon the rest of the umma or even the whole world, by word or sword, if necessary. But this perception is problematic because it is against the teaching of revelation. For revelation which teaches that “there is no compulsion on religion.” To force a person in religion is to trample on the freedom of religion. To enforce religiosity is tyranny. Tyranny is prohibited in the Quran. Persons that practice tyranny defy the teaching of the Quran. Enforcing religion is tantamount to a violation of dignity. It is a characteristic of zealots. Forcing people in religion is against reason, too. However, Islamists are contemptuous of reasoning. Islam transformed entire societies. It altered the course of history. Whoever enforces religion wields political power. Regrettably, Islam was mis-interpreted to further political aspirations. Two stands of Islam emerged from the confrontations between the rationalists and the traditionists: traditional and political Islam or Islamism. Traditional Islam aims to establish and perpetuate political unity, to keep the umma sedated. Political Islam, on the other hand, justifies wars of aggression upon the rest of the world because of their un-belief, with the exception of parties with treaties of non-aggression with Muslims. Islamists aim to propagate Islam and expand the realm of peace (dar al-Islam) at the expense of the realm of war (dar al-harb). We could think of traditional Islam as a pacifier, while political Islam is an agitator. Both renditions of Islam represent departures from the pristine Islam derived from revelation. They are distortions of primal Islam. They result from faulty exegesis and a struggle for power. We encounter evidence of this power struggle in the wars between the sahaba after the death of the prophet. The repression of reason facilitated the emergence of traditional Islam. Would any reasonable person embrace the perception that tradition is revelation? Traditional Islam embraced even the teaching of predestination, which follows from the rejection of reason, particularly from the rejection of causation. By comparison, political Islam emerged as a response to the political aspirations of the rulers. The realization of these aspirations was furthered by hawkish ulema, who provided the caliphs with an “interpretation” of Islam that did not just render aggression permissible but even transformed it into a religious requirement. This spectacular juristic faux pas was enabled by recourse to the problematic teaching of abrogation. But the teaching of abrogation is an aberration; it is at variance with the teaching of revelation. In the process of this transmutation, Islam was stripped of its teachings on justice, rationality, ethics and liberty. Because of these distortions, the power of Islam to reform and transform was eroded. With the defeats of political Islam in history, what remains of traditionalism was reduced chiefly to ritual.

"The association of Muslims with terrorism was in part a result of the re-articulation of Islam as a religion of war. The adulteration of the knowledge of revelation resulted from a series of methodological errors. These encompass but are not restricted to the repression of reason by tradition, the treatment of tradition as revelation, the repression of revelation by tradition, and the replacement of the religion of peace – Islam – by a religion of war – Islamism, in the alleged clash between belief and unbelief. Aggression is prohibited in the Book of Allah. However, hawkish jurists justified wars of aggression, known as jihad al-talab, for the purpose of spreading Islam by the sword. How were wars of aggression, jihad al-talab, rendered permissible, and even raised to a religious requirement, in Islamic jurisprudence? Islam is not what it used to be. The umma is in dire condition. Poverty, illiteracy, backwardness and alienation are endemic. The reason for the decline of the umma was problematic exegesis and a fall into scriptural shirk. Non-revealed books of tradition were treated as “revelation,” equal to the Book of Allah and even superseding it at times. This encompassed the replacement of the Book of Allah by books of traditions. The treatment of manmade narrations as equal to the Book of Allah ensured the fall of the umma. The reason for the fall was the marginalisation of revelation and its replacement by, and subordination to tradition. Jurists agreed that aggressive jihad was a religious requirement. The reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war was based on flawed exegesis, in particular the teaching of abrogation. Reason is essential. It is a gift from Allah. Those who do not use their reason are reproached in the Book of Allah. Unfortunately, reason was repressed. This emerged in the struggles between the rationalists and the traditionists, also known as the ahl al-ray and the ahl al-hadith. They vied with each other on the best way to understand the Quran. The ahl al-ray preferred to use reason while the ahl al-hadith preferred to rely on tradition. This resulted in the marginalisation of the Book of Allah by the ahl al-hadith. The reluctance to use reason resulted in a corruption of exegesis or tafsir. Exegesis was impaired by problematic assumption and unwarranted practices. The assault on reasoning was part of a wider assault. This was the assault on freedom which facilitated the emergence of authoritarian rule. The Umayyad caliphs felt threatened by the teaching of the freedom of the will, because it treats people as responsible for their actions. The Umayyads perpetrated crimes, and they did not wish to be held responsible for them. Hence they declared these crimes were the “will of God.” Rationalists were also assaulted. This transpired with the assault on philosophers by Musa al-Hadi in 786 during the Inquisition, when 5,000 philosophers were slaughtered. The assault on reason and thinkers accelerated the breakdown of Muslim scholarship. Reason was assaulted again by Mutawakkil when he reversed the policies of the rationalists and resumed persecution of the rationalists. The next assault upon reason transpired in the form of the closure of the gates to ijtihad. The closure of the gates to ijtihad triggered taqlid, which was a disaster for the ummah. Taqlid hampered the growth of the umma. A further assault on rationality was delivered by al-Ghazali. As a result of the shutting of the gates to ijtihad and the emergence of taqlid, scholarship declined precipitously. A series of errors followed. These were due to the reluctance by the ulema to use reason in understanding revelation. The first error was the retreat from reason based upon the unfounded belief, that use reason in understanding of revelation is a form of kufr and therefore not permitted. This problematic perception was based on a tradition attributed to the prophet.

Traditional Muslims are struggling to “fit in” the “contemporary” world. Why is that? Is there is a tension between “tradition” and “modernity”? Are Muslims trapped between the past and the present? Tradition teaches that all non-Muslims are kuffar. Traditional Muslims receive sectarian education. They adhere to tradition rather than revelation. But traditions change; principles do not. Traditions does not possess the timelessness and universality of revelation. Traditions were relevant in the past; revelation is relevant at present, too. Traditionists treat tradition as “revelation,” they treat past practices by the predecessors as binding. They treat tradition as a “judge” of revelation. To treat tradition as a “judge” of revelation is to reverse the relationship between revelation and tradition, to place the rulings of persons above the rulings of God. It is to fall into shirk. This is what transpired in Islam. It transpired as a result of the reticence to engage reason. The reticence to engage reason to know revelation corrupted knowledge. The corruption of knowledge in turn plunged the umma into a string of trials and tribulations. The umma is experiencing a crisis after crisis. The misunderstanding of the teaching of revelation resulted from the reluctance to use reason to know revelation. The corruption of the knowledge of revelation was exacerbated by the politicization of exegesis. The politicization of exegesis resulted in a misrepresentation of the teaching of revelation. The political rendering of Islam was triggered by the effort to “reinterpret” the teaching of revelation to endorse the expansionary aspirations of feudal regimes. Exegesis was corrupted by assumptions that flout key teachings of revelation. These encompass the assumption that the Book of Allah is in parts “unclear,” “incomplete” and even “incoherent.” These assumptions provided the “justification” for the turn from revelation to tradition. Reading revelation “in light of tradition” tainted the knowledge of revelation. The corruption of knowledge was exacerbated by the reticence to use reason in the reading of revelation. Problematic presuppositions in exegesis caused exegetes to reach perceptions that differ from what revelations teaches. As a result of the corruption of knowledge, Islam is a faint reflection of its former self. Propelled by rage, radicalized persons fall into error and perpetrate terror. They were encouraged by “scholars” who treat terror as “martyrdom operations.” What could explain misguidance on this scale? The religion of reconciliation was reinterpreted as a religion of war. This required turning from revelation and a rejection of reason. The fall into the abyss of “intellectual retardation” was enabled by the rejection of reason as a way to understand revelation. But it is asserted that Islam is not responsible for terrorism. That is true for the Islam of the Book of Allah, which permits fighting in self-defense, or against persecution. But the Islam of the militant ulama is not the Islam of the Book of Allah. It is the Islam of traditions, and the Islam of all the good, bad and the ugly in that tradition. It is the Islam of jihad al-talab, or the propagation of Islam by the sword. It is the Islam of the clash between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb, the realm of peace vs the realm of war. It is the Islam of extremists. It is time to tell the emperor that he has no clothes on. Present-day Islam is a result of a millennium of “interpretation.” This did not transpire without its politicization. Islam was politicized to render it amenable to the political or empire-building agendas of the ruling elites. Politicized ulama, benefiting from the patronage of the rulers, stepped up to the task of providing what the rulers wanted: an Islam divested of troublesome teachings on ethics, rationality and justice.

The fall of the umma resulted from misguidance produced by militant exegesis of revelation by hawkish ulema. The knowledge of Islam was corrupted by the need to provide an interpretation of revelation that would provide the rulers with justification to wage wars of expansion. The corruption began with the perception of reason as an “enemy” of faith by ulema with an aversion to reason. The resulting repression of reason prevented Muslims from comprehending and following revelation. Refraining from reason generated the perception that parts of revelation are “unclear,” “incomplete,” and even "contradictory". But the Book of Allah presents itself as clear, complete and coherent. In response to the alleged "flaws" in the Book of Allah, traditionists turned to manmade books of traditions. These were treated as a “furqan” to “judge,” “abrogate,” and even “replace” parts of the Book of Allah. These expectations rested on the false assumption that tradition, too, is revelation. Unfortunately, in treating tradition as revelation, traditionists fell into "textual shirk." Unwarranted accretions encompass the teachings of predestination and abrogation. The former eliminated individual responsibility and attributes all acts to Allah. The latter assumes that Allah did not protect His Book as He promised. The teaching of abrogation suggests – in defiance of revelation – that Allah “changed His mind.” This is anthropomorphism, as it attributes a personal trait to Allah, that of indecision. Recourse to the teaching of the abrogation of the peace verses by the verse of the sword enabled militant ulema to re-articulate Islam – the religion of peace – as a political agenda for war, endorsing wars of aggression and propagating Islam “by the sword,” in defiance of the teaching of revelation. Policies based the perception that the Book of Allah expects war rather than peace, produced by militant exegesis, provoked retaliation by aggrieved parties. The repression of reason by tradition was sealed with the political triumph of the traditionists in their conflicts with the rationalists. This was a reverse of what transpired in Europe a millennium afterwards, when the "rationalists" of the Age of Reason (Enlightenment) triumphed in their struggles against the adherents of tradition (monarchy). The ruling “worldview” was established by brutal repression both in Islam and the West: a “reign of terror.” This consisted of he slaughter of five thousand philosophers by Musa al-Hadi in 786 and the slaughter of sixteen thousand adherents of tradition by Maximilien Robespierre in 1792, during the Reign of Terror. As a result of its emphasis on freedom and reason, Europe prospered. However, on account of its repression of reason and freedom, the umma regressed. Muslim empires fell under the weight of the backlash triggered by acts of aggression, including the mass murder of the Mongol traders and ambassadors by the Abbasids and the twin attacks on Vienna by the Turks. For "Allah does not love aggressors.” The chief reason for these disasters was that Muslims drifted from the Book of Allah to militant hadiths and hawkish ulema for "guidance." They embarked on wars of aggression or jihad al-talab. This requires Muslims to wage wars on non-Muslims on a yearly basis, even when non-Muslims refrain from assaulting Muslims. But aggression is prohibited in the Book of Allah. In this way, hawkish ulema rendered lawful what Allah made unlawful. They treated wars of aggression to "spread Islam by the sword" as a religious requirement, a "sixth pillar of Islam." As a result of aggression, militant regimes brought catastrophes on themselves and their populations. The backlashes against aggression brought defeats. To renew the Islamic community, it is necessary to return to the Book of Allah, uncontaminated by the weight of unwarranted accretions and distortions. This requires the rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason.

Amazon, 2022

Muslims are in the spotlight, not always for the right reasons. There is Islamophobia, a result of linking Islam with terrorism. Preachers that treat bombings as “martyrdom operations” bear no small responsibility for furnishing “religious” justification for the perpetration of crime. Is Islam a “religion of peace”? According to revelation, it is. However, Muslims possess the right of self-defence and to fight persecution. According to tradition, by comparison, Muslims are required to fight non-Muslims without a peace treaty, even if they do not fight Muslims. This is known as jihad al-talab, the sixth pillar of Islam. Jihad al-talab requires waging wars of aggression against non-Muslims as a religious requirement. Surprisingly, even al-Ghazali endorsed jihad al-talab. But “pre-emptive” wars are unlawful according to the Book of Allah. We receive “conflicting messages” from revelation and tradition. This is not surprising, as tradition is manmade while revelation is divine. In treating the propagation Islam through force as lawful, hawkish ulama defied the Book of Allah. They permitted what Allah prohibited. Treating unlawful wars as permissible was assisted by the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence, engaged to further the political aspirations of authoritarian rulers. Wars known as jihad al-talab, became a part of the alleged clash between the realm of peace (dar al-Islam) and the realm of war (dar al-harb). Muslims are required to “propagate” Islam not just with words (preaching) but also by the sword (fighting). But according to the Book of Allah, Islam is a way of reconciliation. In the books of traditions, Islam is “a religion of war." How to explain the gulf between the teaching of Islam and its history? Prodded by power-hungry rulers, hawkish ulema re-articulated Islam, the way of reconciliation, as a manifesto of territorial enlargement. They transformed the teaching of reconciliation into an agenda to establish the rule of the sharia everywhere. The re-articulation of the teaching of revelation was enabled by recourse to an alien teaching, the teaching of abrogation. The ulema assert that the verses of reconciliation were abrogated. The “abrogation” of the verses that teach reconciliation provided justification for waging wars of aggression. But the teaching of abrogation runs against the teaching of revelation. In fact, in so far as it requires ceasing to believe in verses of the Book of Allah, embracing the teaching of abrogation is tantamount to kufr. The corruption of the knowledge of revelation was exacerbated by the reluctance to use reason in the understanding of revelation. Because they refrained from using reason, exegetes began to misunderstand the Book of Allah. They alleged that revelation is “unclear,” “incomplete,” and “self-contradictory.” But revelation presents itself as “complete,” “clear,” and “coherent.” Muslims are the heirs of an uncorrupted mushaf (text of revelation). Is the knowledge of revelation free of corruption? Re-inventing the religion of peace as a religion of war and empire transformed Islam into Islamism, a political manifesto. This perception of Islam is extreme. It should be treated accordingly. In teaching jihad al-talab, Muslims veered from revelation to tradition. Muhammad ‘Abduh as well as Muhammad Asad argued that the teaching of jihad al-talab is a corruption of the teaching of revelation and therefore is to be rejected. Thus, better knowledge requires a rejection of the teaching of abrogation. It requires reforming the methodologies used in Islam. This presupposes the re-engagement of reason in the exegesis of revelation and treating revelation as it presents itself: clear, complete and coherent.

The globe is fragmented. There is turmoil. Muslims migrate to the West to escape injustice. This is a hijra. But they experience difficulties in integrating in the host nations. For not a few immigrants bring cultural baggage with them. The war on terror cannot be won by force of arms alone. It requires to be accompanied by a war on error. There are plenty of errors in inherited exegesis and jurisprudence. To guarantee peace requires defeating the weltanschauung driving terror: Islamism. Political Islam rests on warlike traditions and the alleged “abrogation” of the verses of revelation that teach reconciliation. Islamism is a corruption of Islam. That terrorism is perceived as “martyrdom” by not a few persons reveals the extent to which jurisprudence deteriorated. It is urgent to rehabilitate exegesis and jurisprudence. For the politicization of exegesis and jurisprudence transformed Islam into a manifesto of war. The knowledge of revelation was corrupted by anti-rationalism. Politicized exegesis treats recourse to reason as kufr. Traditional exegesis treats reason as subservient to tradition. The knowledge of revelation was corrupted by the “abrogation” of the verses that teach reconciliation by the verses of the sword. Has the world ever witnessed corruption of religion of this magnitude? The corruption of the knowledge of revelation, assisted by the repression of reason, had political roots. Hawkish rulers requested the recording of the prophetic traditions to enable them to by-pass the prohibition of wars of aggression in the Book of Allah. The rulers enlisted the aid of ulama willing to reinterpret the religion of reconciliation as a religion of war. Buttressed by hawkish traditions, Islamism dragged the umma into endless wars with the rest of the world. The knowledge of revelation was corrupted by weaponized exegesis, endeavouring to establish the propagation of Islam through jihad al-talab as a sixth pillar of Islam. The corruption of knowledge was expedited by recourse to hawkish traditions that teach, in defiance of revelation, that blasphemy, adultery and apostasy all merit the death penalty. The Book of Allah prescribes no capital punishment for blasphemy, abandoning Islam or adultery. These punishments transgress the boundaries (hudud) of Allah. Hence, they require being expunged from the law. By endorsing capital punishment for apostasy, jurists defied the prohibition of compulsion in religion. Legislation, except in areas not relating to religion, is the exclusive prerogative of Allah. The alleged “abrogation” of the verses that teach reconciliation, was buttressed by hawkish traditions. These traditions encompass the tradition in which the prophet purportedly said that “the blood of the kafir is halal for the believer.” They also encompass the tradition in which the prophet allegedly said that he was “sent with the sword as a mercy to the worlds.” Hawkish traditions also encompass the tradition in which the prophet allegedly asserted that he would “fight people until they all say that there is no god but Allah.” In addition to the harm and grief they caused at the time, these “traditions” also paved the way for the perpetration of terror. By clinging on to militant traditions and warlike renditions of Islam hawkish preachers expose the umma to the risk of retaliation for the acts of wayward persons acting upon these tragic misperceptions. They also provide reasons for peaceful Muslims to disassociate themselves from what is being perceived as a religion of violence. Simultaneously, holding on to militant traditions and warlike perceptions prevents potential reverts from embracing Islam.

The teachings of the previous revelations were tainted by tampering. Unwarranted accretions crept in. Is it reasonable to expect that the knowledge of the Book of Allah would be “protected” when the knowledge of the books of the earlier revelations, and even the books themselves were not? Allah promised to “protect” the Reminder. But does that encompass protecting the knowledge of the Reminder? While the Reminder was protected, the knowledge of the Reminder was corrupted. This is plain in criminal law, where traditions were permitted to “abrogate” and “replace” parts of the Book of Allah, in a defiance of the teaching of the Book of Allah. Further evidence of corruption is encountered in the embedding of extreme punishments in the law, for which no basis is found in the Book of Allah. These include the death penalties for adultery, blasphemy and apostasy. By permitting tradition to “abrogate” and “replace” revelation, jurists fell into shirk. For they treated the transmitters of tradition rather than Allah as “lawgivers.” Embedding harsh punishments in the law resulted from the politicization of religion assisted by the repression of reason. Extreme punishments tarnish people’s perception of Islam, which is perceived as violent. Thereby they prevent potential reverts from entering Islam and encourage Muslims to dissociate themselves from Islam, in some cases by abandoning what they perceive as a religion of violence rather than mercy and compassion. In this way, the harshness of the law also contributes to Islamophobia. Antirationalism resulted in a corruption of knowledge. What were among the reasons for the tampering with the knowledge of revelation? The chief “suspect” is politics. For hawkish rulers endeavoured to sponsor renditions of revelation that would increase their power, harm enemies, and justify their expansionary agenda. These renditions were supplied by: "opportunist fuqaha who unashamedly wanted to please their masters by providing them with a legal cover for their despotic rule that required an ideology of political quietism and absolute obedience to a ruling tyrant." (M. Shahrur, The Qur’an, Morality and Critical Reason, Brill, 2009, p. 472) The rulers required a “religious” justification of waging unlawful wars of aggression to enlarge their empires. But such wars are prohibited in the Book of Allah, which permits fighting only in self-defence or against persecution. Circumventing the prohibition of aggression required rendering what is haram into what is halal. The ulama did it by recourse to the teaching of abrogation. The teaching of abrogation requires doubting the perfection of revelation, by asserting that it features many “contradictions.” These are the verses that teach about reconciliation and fighting. The alleged “contradictions” would be resolved by “abrogating” verses revealed earlier, especially verses that teach reconciliation, by particular verses revealed afterwards, which refer to fighting. In this way, militant ulama re-invented Islam as a religion of war and thereby justified the enlargement of the empire by force. The alleged “clash” between the realm of peace and the realm of unbelief, the dar al-Islam and the dar al kufr was used to bolster the stance of militant rulers. The ulama and hawkish rulers plunged into a plethora of wars endorsed by their version of the “clash of civilizations” thesis, endeavouring to realize their vision of Manifest Destiny, bringing all persons to Islam by word and, if necessary, by the sword. Neglected in this grandiose project was the fact that the Book of Allah prohibits recourse to force in the propagation of religion. By endorsing the use of force in the propagation of religion, the ulama and the rulers they worked for transgressed the boundaries (hudud) of Allah. They justified absolutism. They endeavoured to do “something praiseworthy” through unlawful means, a truly Machiavellian approach.

Islam is a monotheistic religion, part of the Abrahamic faiths. However, its teaching was altered by militant exegesis. With the replacement of the peace verses by the verse of the sword by militant exegetes, the religion of reconciliation, as Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, the chief of the defunct ISIS put it, became a “religion of war.” How could this happen? Traditional Islam is defined by “tradition.” Tradition is defined by the ulema, at times acting under political pressure. Believers are expected by traditionists to perceive revelation through tradition. We are expected to follow the ways of the forefathers. But did the forefathers always follow the Book of Allah faithfully? Or did they depart from it from time to time? Does tradition always faithfully reflect and follow revelation? Moreover, the Book of Allah advises against following the forefathers. They might not have gotten everything right. They may have gotten a few things wrong. If we follow their errors, we could also fall into error. Who guides better than Allah? Traditional Islam encompasses revelation, the prophetic traditions and the work of the ulema. A few acknowledge a role for reason. It is wise to differentiate between the four, traditionally the four chief “roots” of the sharia, as failing to differentiate them could result in “conflating” them. Establishing and retaining key differences is an integral part of reliable analysis. However, there are irregularities in the traditional paradigm of analysis. For the traditional exegesis produced a flawed rendition of Islam. The treatment of tradition as revelation, for example, is problematic. Chief aberrations encompass the disparagement of reason, the treatment of tradition as revelation, the subordination of revelation to tradition and the teaching of abrogation. The disparagement of reason encouraged refraining from using of reason. This transpired the Book of Allah endorsing the use of reason, notwithstanding. Refraining from the use of reason reduced the knowledge of revelation. The misunderstanding of revelation rendered revelation harder to follow. In desperation, Muslims turned from revelation – which they could not understand due to the prohibition of the use of reason – to tradition, in the expectation of finding better guidance therein. The treatment of tradition as revelation triggered a re-orientation from revelation and its partial replacement by tradition. Recourse to abrogation enabled re-inventing Islam – the religion of reconciliation par excellence – as a religion of war.