Although Islamic scholars have repeatedly explained that Koranic verses endorsing war and the use of violence only apply in specific circumstances, for example, in justifying defensive violence when fighting against repression, nonetheless contemporary hard-liners continue justifying violent acts using these sacred texts and seek to legitimize their own actions on religious grounds.
"We should think of a way to end this advocacy of violence in the name of Islam. Apologists argue that the problem lies in Muslims having misinterpreted these texts. They refuse to look at the religion in a critical way but suggest a method of contextualization in interpreting these texts (emphasizing that the verses are historically bound to the era in which they were revealed). But I have become tired with this approach."
"The problem is, fundamentalists create context," Guntur explains further: "For instance, they apply the word 'holy war' to the struggle against United States domination. Another example, the hard-liners extend the meaning of 'enemy of Islam' not only to followers of the Jewish faith and Christians but also to Muslims they consider to be cooperating with the 'infidels'. So, they are very 'contextual' in their arguments."
In order to 'rescue' Islam from being tarnished by violent acts, he suggests Muslims should dare to abrogate the Islamic law on war and the use of violence, an approach that is founded on Islamic tradition itself, "Islam acknowledges a method called nasakh, abrogation of law. It is not a popular approach but we can take the step when certain stipulations are no longer applicable to the contemporary context."
Categories : 
11:03 PM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment