Distortions in the Understanding of the Concept of Shahadah
In the early period of Islam, the concept of shahadah was precisely that which has been outlined above. In this period, the word shahadah was used in the sense of witnessing to Truth. As far as giving up one’s life in God’s path is concerned, the term that was used was qital. For example, the Quran says (2:154):
Do not say that those who are killed in God’s cause (yuqtalu fi sabilillah) are dead; they are alive, but you are not aware of it.
In line with this Quranic verse, those who are killed in God’s cause will be called maqtul fi sabilillah (one who is killed in the cause of God). Undoubtedly, such a person will receive a great reward from God, but if he is remembered in human language, he will be called maqtul fi sabilillah, one who is killed in the cause of God. During the Battle of Uhud, in the year 625 C.E., 70 companions of the Prophet were killed. This is recounted in a tradition in these words: “On the day of Uhud, seventy among the Companions of the Prophet were killed.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 4078). This example shows that during the prophetic period, one who was killed in God’s cause was referred to as maqtul, and not as shahid, or martyr.
After the age of the Prophet, the age of his Companions and the generation after them are regarded as authentic periods of Islamic history. The very same manner of referring to people who had been slain in the path of God as maqtul fi sabilillah continued to be followed in this period. But after this time, a change gradually emerged in the use of the term shahadah, in the same way as changes began being made in the understanding of several other Islamic teachings, so much so that Muslims almost forgot that the term shahadah meant dawah and instead began to use the word as synonymous with martyrdom.
In later times, a new practice developed of referring to a person who had died in battle as shahid in the sense of martyr. The word shahid began being added to their names. So, for instance, Hasan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who was assassinated in 1949) began being called as ‘Hasan al-Banna Shahid’, Sayyid Qutb (key ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was hanged in 1966) as ‘Sayyid Qutb Shahid’, Sayyid Ahmad (killed in 1831 in a war he declared against the Sikhs) as ‘Sayyid Ahmad Shahid’, Shah Ismail (follower of Sayyid Ahmad, who was killed along with him) as ‘Shah Ismail Shahid’, and so on. Now, there were several Companions of the Prophet whose lives were also sacrificed, but in none of their cases was the word shahid appended to their names. So, although their lives were sacrificed, the Caliphs Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib are not called ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab Shahid’, ‘Uthman ibn Affan Shahid’ and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib Shahid’ respectively. The names of the Prophet’s Companions were always written and mentioned along with that of their fathers (for example, Ali ibn [son of] Abi Talib), and not with the suffix shahid, in contrast to the practice that developed later. Accordingly, Imam Bukhari, in his collection of hadith, has a chapter containing reports of this sort, titled Bab la yaqulu fulan shahid, meaning ‘The Chapter on Not Calling So and So a Martyr’.
This is no minor matter. Rather, it is based on an important principle of Islam—and that is, that people should be called by their father’s names. “Call them after their own fathers; that is closer to justice in the sight of God”, the Quran (33:5) says. To add the suffix shahid or any other such word to someone’s name is to create an unreal picture of a person. This is not in accordance with Islamic etiquette.
This un-Islamic practice with regard to shahadah and shahid has today reached its ultimate limit. This is the actual reason for the violence that has spread among Muslims today. Those Muslims who are killed in this violence are given the title of shahid and hailed as martyrs and it is claimed that they will enter Paradise as soon as they die.
This phenomenon as such emerged in the age of European colonialism. In this period, various Western powers established their dominance in lands inhabited by Muslims. Because of the wrong guidance of their intellectuals and leaders, Muslims were fired with a burning desire for revenge. This thirst first took the form of extreme hate, and then escalated into deadly violence.
In order to project this violence as ‘holy’, it began being claimed that those who died spearheading this violence were ‘martyrs’ or shahids and would enter Paradise immediately, without being at all questioned by God. This, without any doubt, was a self-invented claim, one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran and Hadith.
The ultimate destructive form of this extreme negative reaction to other communities is the phenomenon that has taken root among Muslims that is known as suicide-bombing. In order to sanction it and bless it as supposedly holy or sacred, some ulema or Muslim scholars have wrongly given it the name of istishhad or seeking martyrdom. And so, today, large numbers of Muslims are giving up their lives in the name of shahadah, but no one—neither the Muslim ulema, nor the Muslim public—seems at all interested in engaging in the actual work of shahadah, which is calling people towards God. The people of other communities who are being attacked and killed by those who champion this self-invented understanding of shahadah are actually madus of the Muslim ummah, people to whom Muslims should communicate the message of God—and to kill madus is not at all permissible in Islam.
