Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley door pickup 10am - 7pm 3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611

  • Open Daily: 10am - 10pm
    Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm

    3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
    612-822-4611

Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm
3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611
How Mercenary Jurists Betrayed Islam: And Reinvented Islam as Islamism

How Mercenary Jurists Betrayed Islam: And Reinvented Islam as Islamism

Terebessy, Leslie

Paperback

IslamGeneral EducationInternational Relations

ISBN13: 9798279256556
Publisher: Independently Published
Published: Dec 21 2025
Pages: 226
Weight: 0.68
Height: 0.48 Width: 6.00 Depth: 9.00
Language: English
According to Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of Islamists and ISIS terrorists, Islam was always a religion of war. If by Islam he meant how Islamist jurists interpret Islam, he was not far off the mark. For jurists reinterpreted Islam, the teaching of reconciliation, in a truly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fashion, as its exact reverse, a religion of war. By perceiving revelation through traditions and by resorting to the teaching of abrogation, they reinvented Islam, the teaching of reconciliation as Islamism, a teaching of war and imperialism. As a result, Islam is blamed for the excesses of Islamists. Resorting to a bait and switch approach, they replaced Islam with Islamism, rooted more in Main Kampf than in the Book of Allah. Accordingly, it is necessary take the Islamists to task for their distortions. In the Open Letter to Baghdadi, different clerics take him to task for misusing a particular tradition to justify the crimes of ISIS: God bless prophet Muhammad who was sent with the sword as a mercy to all the worlds. The tradition distorts verse 21:107 of the Quran, which says We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds. For the word sword in the tradition is not in the verse. Planting the word sword in the verse and then presenting it as a tradition altered the teaching of Islam. It justifies wars of aggression, prohibited in revelation. Regrettably, rather than rejecting the tradition as a fabrication, the jurists defend the hadith. In defending the indefensible, they reinforced the misperception they were endeavouring to redress. By contrast, when Muhammad Shahrur published his Quran, Morality and Critical Reason, an exposition of the shenanigans of Islamists, he was faulted by not a few ulama. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who treated acts of terror as martyrdom operations, accused Shahrur of establishing a new religion. But it is preachers that preach violence that work to establish a different faith. It is Islamism. How did matters come to this? Islam is presented as an uninterrupted tradition. But there was a break from revelation as well as from the tradition of the prophet when the umma turned from revelation to tradition. The break from revelation was also a break from the tradition of the prophet as he followed revelation. For he did not follow books of traditions, compiled after his passing and in defiance of the fabrication of revelation in the Book of Allah and in defiance of the prophet's prohibition of recording his traditions. The break was due to politics. Rulers required a justification for waging wars of aggression. As they could find no justification for aggression in revelation, they turned to tradition. Hawkish rulers engaged Islamist ulama to articulate a justification for waging wars of aggression prohibited in revelation. But this required a reinterpretation of revelation. For revelation prohibits aggression. It permits fighting only in self-defence or against persecution. In their efforts to articulate a justification for wars of aggression, mercenary ulama turned to the teaching of abrogation. The ulama abrogated all verses of reconciliation as well as verses that restrict warfare to self-defence. The abrogation of the peace verses empowered hawkish rulers to wage war on the rest of the world in the epic struggle between the dar al-Islam (realm of Islam) and the dar al-harb.(realm of war). Tradition was first treated as revelation, then as a judge and abrogator of revelation and finally as possessing the power to replace parts of revelation. This transpired with the abrogation of the revealed punishments for apostasy and adultery by punishments (death penalties) derived from traditions. The treatment of tradition as revelation, together with the ensuing ability to judge, abrogate and replace parts of revelation was an expression of shirk, treating the books of traditions as possessing greater authority than the Book of Allah.

Also from

Terebessy, Leslie

View All

Also in

Islam

View All