‘Infidel’ Keyword to Understanding Risks of Islamic Radicalization
View of Scholars (Ulema)
(Flickr/ Creative Commons / Özgür Mülazımoğlu)
The overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars (ulema) hold that the punishment for those who are kafir is, for individuals, the death penalty. But there is not consensus as to whether it is applicable to entire groups. In other words, one individual who leaves Islam for another religion, or becomes an atheist, would be subject to the death penalty, but if an entire group in a previous generation left Islam for another religious belief, such as the Bahais or the Ahmediyas, they as an entire group are no longer subject to be killed en masse.
This is nonetheless contradicted by the fact that whether or not their predecessors left Islam, in this life they are still seen as kafir for being non-Sunni Muslims and are, therefore, according to the harshest of takfirists, subject to the death penalty.
An alternative to killing people labelled kafir is nonetheless available; namely if the kafir pays jizyah, or tax, to the Muslim rulers, then this will afford them “protection.” In recent years, takfirist organizations such as Boko Haram, the Islamic State and the Taliban have employed jizyah to pressure minorities, such as Christians, Shias or Sikhs, to pay them money for “protection,” or to justify rape and enslavement or expulsion—as justification or compensation in cases where such jizyah is not paid.
An issue of debate is whether takfirism is a spin-off of Salafism or a separate doctrine altogether. Salafism is an interpretation of Islam rooted in Saudi Arabia (there known as wahabbism) that calls for Islamic practice based on the ways of the salafs, or devout followers of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. It is hostile toward mystical Sufism and syncretic brands of Islam that combine elements of local tradition—and it allows followers to practice takfir.
The Syrian-born Spanish national and Al-Qaeda ideologue (with a focus on “jihad”) Abu Mus’ab al‐Suri, for example, argued that “some prominent men from the Salafi‐Jihadi wave, or at least those scholars … who followed them, offered interpretations which were either extremist, or were articulated in such a general manner that some ignorant jihadis took them a step further and widen[ened] the concept of takfirism“.
As a result of this, according to al-Suri, the difference between mainstream jihadism and takfirism has become so narrow that the two are nearly inseparable today.
(al-Suri is believed to have been captured by Pakistan and sent to Syria in 2011 and then either freed by President Bashar al-Assad at the start of the Syrian uprising in 2012, or is still in a Syrian prison).
Others have argued that “the concept of global jihad and takfir” was developed on the basis of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood founder Sayyid Qutb’s ideology, whose main notion was that the Muslim community (umma) was dead so long as it was not fighting to extend Sharia everywhere in the world.
Yet others argue that takfir is a “stepping stone” to engaging in violence against secular Muslim rulers and those who are perceived to be supportive of those rulers, such as Christians, foreigners or those who participate in elections. Still others suggest that takfirism is merely a product of strictly textual interpretations from Islam itself, such as Qur’an (4:89), which says: “[Infidels] wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Conclusion
(Courtesy of Open Doors)
Whatever the outcome of these debates, it is clear that almost all of the most violent actors in the global jihad, such as al-Shabaab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and IS in Iraq employ takfiri ideology. We need to understand this concept of “infidel” to understand militant Islam.
Al Shabaab’s leaders, for example, state that Western citizens and their allies are kuffar (plural of kafir) and that it is halal (lawful) to kill and rob non-Muslims. Boko Haram similarly states “that we shall make the country ungovernable, kill and eliminate irresponsible political leaders of all leanings, hunt and gun down those who oppose the rule of Sharia in Nigeria and ensure that the kafir does not go unpunished.”
The Islamic State has forced Christians to leave their homes, burned their churches and raped or “forcibly married” Christian women, all in the name of takfirism.
As a result, it can be said that following takfirism is the means by which these jihadist groups justify their attacks on their enemies, who include anyone who is not a Sunni Muslim and possibly even Sunni Muslims who do not side with them. With Christians and other non-Sunni Muslims increasingly becoming the targets of murders en masse by takfirist groups, it raises the concern that the next mass genocide—or, more likely, religicide will be—or is already—being carried out by takfiris. It would appear that this doctrine and ideology must be confronted before the world experiences another “never again” moment. We need to understand this concept of kafir or “infidel” to understand violent extremist tendencies infiltrating Muslim populations today.
One method of confronting the threat from takfirism is to prohibit speech and advocacy in support of this ideology because it infringes on the rights of others. This is especially imperative in countries where it is not yet so prevalent that the takfiris could launch their jihad in response, such as Central Asia or Europe. Some countries are likely already late in confronting the threat, while others are on the cusp of being too late, such as Cameroon, where Salafist-sponsored mosques and madrassahs emerged in the late 1980s and 1990s, which is about 10 years later than its neighbor, Nigeria, which is now struggling greatly with takfirism. It is important for governments and civil society to de-legitimize takfirist ideology.
Another key way to stop takfirism is through protecting freedom of religion. Since takfirism calls for the punishment of death to non-Sunni Muslims, it is inherently a violation of the freedom of religion. Any preacher that espouses such ideas would be subject to prohibition or bans. Thus far, it seems that only in countries like Uzbekistan, Chad and Kazakhstan is the threat of takfirism being taken seriously, but these are the same countries that human rights groups often criticize most vehemently for violating religious rights, although they are trying to protect their own religious identities and freedoms. This is an issue that requires further understanding, discussion and resolution.
The world must take notice of the doctrine of takfirism before it is too late. If any continent should recognize these signs, it should be Europe, given its history and understanding of how a small and seemingly marginal group of people can within a decade’s time manage to become extremely powerful. While history will not repeat itself the same way as in World War II, history does, in the words of Mark Twain, “rhyme,” and this is what we are seeing across the European, African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian landscapes today.
(The author writes in a personal capacity; his report was originally commissioned by the World Watch Research Unit, Open Doors International, which works to support Christians under pressure for their faith worldwide.)
