Radicalism Interpretation of Verses of Blasphemy : Review of The Khawārij Sect ’ s Interpretation

This study questions the response of the Khawārij sect in interpreting the verses that speak of blasphemy. The study will focused on exploring the results of the Khawārij interpretation of the blasphemy verses in the Tafsīr Haimayan al-Zād Ilā Dār al-Ma’ād by Yusuf Wahbi, this book was chosen because it became a reference often used by the Khawārij sect to this contemporary period. For this reason, the author tries to use the Gadamer-style hermeneuticsubjectivist approach so that the ideological dimension in the interpretation can be properly embodied. The results of the study indicate that Khawārij tends to be textual and put forward their ideology in interpreting the verses of blasphemy. This is evidenced by the existence of a bid'ah instrument which is used as a benchmark to set a ban on sitting with the perpetrators such as the prohibition of sitting with people who deny and insult the Qur'an as in QS. Al-Nisa ': 140. In addition, the results of the interpretation of Khawārij have reduced the preventive principle contained in QS. Al-An'am 108 and their interpretation of QS. Al-Taubah: 12 has indirectly opened the opportunity for the creation of excessive arrogance against religious offenders.


INTRODUCTION
The response of the Muslim community which is proactive to the recent alleged blasphemous actor is very intertwined with the factors behind it.This attitude was born because it was motivated by dictums in religious texts and past historical experience which in fact often encouraged the practice of arrogance against religion opponents.As we can see in an article written by Fahrudin, it contained in the site www.kiblat.net,based on QS. al-Taubah: 12 and some historical facts which he quoted from classical histories, Fahrudin loudly said that anyone who insulted and defamed Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an, then the person was obliged to be killed (Fahrudin, 2014: 10-16).
Such an arrogance attitude certainly has the potential to give rise to radical attitudes in dealing with cases of alleged blasphemy.Nevertheless, radicalism is often said to appear as a bias from the distortion of religious understanding of religious texts, especially verses about jihad and the application of Islamic law (Zuhdi, 2010: 89-90).Meanwhile, according to al-Qaradawi, radicalism is caused by the textual understanding of the naṣ-naṣ syar'i (Al-Qaradawi, 2001: 61-64).
Such textuality sometimes encourages the emergence of understanding exclusivity which impacts on the truth claim attitude and considers the wrong of others who are not in line.In this context, we can refer to the historical fact of the emergence of the Khawārij group.Although its emergence is more influenced by the political situation, in its development Khawārij later appeared as a group that understood Islamic teachings literally.Al-Qur'an and Hadiṡ Prophets are understood textually and they feel obliged to implement them without the need for various interpretations (Abdullah, 2016: 7-8).
Speaking of the issue of understanding Khawārij groups against religious texts, the context of their interpretation of the verses that question the blasphemy of religion is important to study further.This is because Khawārij is a sect that is considered as the originator of takfiri theology (infidelizing other people) and the first group to carry out radical movements systematically and well organized (Abdullah, 2016: 5).In addition, the study of the models of interpretation of the Khawārij group is not very popular with researchers.The study conducted more questions about theological issues, such as those conducted by Sabli (2015: 105-112) political issues, reviewed by Musta'in (2009: 255-276), Purnama (2016: 213-232), andMashar (2014 : 74-87).Other studies have also been carried out by Rijal (2010: 214-231) who tried to compare the classical radicalism of the Khawārij version and contemporary radicalism by the Hizb ut-Tahrir version.
In the perspective of the interpretation study, Nasiruddin's research would be feasible to be used as a comparison in this study, because a little more Nasiruddin had succeeded in revealing Wahbah al-Zuhaili's interpretation of the verses of blasphemy (Nasiruddin, 2017).However, the research cannot be equated with the study that the author did, besides because the object of the study is different, the significance of this study is more measurable with the radicalism of the Khawarij group.
Therefore, the study will focus on exploring the results of the Khawārij group's interpretation of the blasphemy verses in the Tafsīr Haimayan al-Zād Ilā Dār al-Ma'ād by Yusuf Wahbi.This work was chosen because the interpretation was the main reference for the Khawārij group in the contemporary era.The study is expected to be able to present how Khawārij with his textuality views verses about blasphemy.

DISCUSSION
Historical Term "Blasphemy" Blasphemy idioms can be found in various language spaces.In Indonesia, for example, the word "defamation" is interpreted as an act of humiliation (insulting /abusing /cursing), this is because "nista" in Indonesian means something contemptible (Depdiknas, 2008(Depdiknas, : 1076)).
While in English, the term defamation of religion is better known as the word "blasphemy".This term developed in Ancient Greek civilization which if interpreted in English became "speaking evil".Jewish-Christians often translate the word to show various verbal expressions that oppose and insult the sacred values of a belief.The concept of blasphemy is actually still not a standard term.This concept continues to develop from the previous understanding which is defined as expressions that insult God to the utterances and statements that can ignite the emotional sensibility of certain religious communities.Hence, the meaning of the concept of blasphemy is very diverse depending on the people who interpret it (Eliade, 1986: 239).
The term "blasphemy" is actually not a new thing in Islamic treasures.Even before Islam came, the term blasphemy was known to the public.In the context of Samawi religion other than Islam, religious defamation is better known as blasphemy.Blasphemy in the Jewish tradition is used only specifically for insulting God, the opposite of ha-shem birkat (praising God's name).The consequence of insulting God in the Jewish tradition is to be put to death so that it can be a lesson for others.In addition, the punishment given also aims to safeguard the honor of God so as not to condemn its creatures in the form of earthquakes, infertility, defeat of war, floods or even failure due to blasphemy (Nabiel, 2017: 30).
Whereas in Christian Tradition, blasphemy is defined as "Impious or profane talk, especially against God: and in many legal systems, the offence of reviling God or Jesus Christ or an established church".The object of blasphemy in this definition is the humiliation of God, Jesus Christ or the Official Church.A statement is considered as blasphemy if it aims to give a sense of shock or to destroy a particular moral institution of society and ignite the period of sensibility (Nabiel, 2017: 30).
In its journey, the concept of blasphemy in Christian thought experienced a significant expansion of coverage.Condemning, challenging, rejecting and insulting Jesus are including blasphemy.Attributing the badness to every creation of God or the Holy Spirit that moves the soul of Jesus can be categorized as blasphemy.Refusing Jesus' incarnation or assuming Jesus as a human being also included blasphemy.Blasphemy is the most frequently used concept by Christians, especially as a tool to attack other groups in one religion (Nabiel, 2017: 31).
During the seventeenth century, blasphemy became a secular crime.The state began to interfere and entrust the Church as a religious institution that is responsible for investigating and carrying out executions for everyone who acts on blasphemy.The relationship between blasphemy and political subversion and the belief of the state religion unification will support the stability of the State itself and will further strengthen the dominance and intervention of the State in punishing all religious insulting thoughts.So at this stage the Church has used State authority to punish religious detractors.Perpetrators of blasphemy are considered the same as those who oppose the State's hegemony.The death penalty given to the perpetrators of blasphemy in later stages ended in the eighteenth century when the Church's dominance of the State diminished and the growth of civil society as a form of resistance to the unification of Church and State (Eliade, 1986: 240).
After entering the 20th century, the involvement of countries in the world in intervening in cases of blasphemy that occurred actually raged again.This is evidenced by the anti-blasphemy policy implemented by several countries in the world.In the Pew Research Center's record (Theodorou, 2016) in 2014 there were at least 26% of all countries in the world that applied anti-blasphemy policies.Of these, the law on antiblasphemy is more widely applied in Muslim-majority countries (Suastha, 2017).
This fact is more or less proving that Islam is more responsive in handling cases of blasphemy.Regarding this, in some classical Islamic literature many stories of blasphemy are told about the teachings of the Prophet that occurred while he was still alive.One of them is the story of Abi Saroh, the perpetrator of the Prophet who was killed during the conquest of the city of Mecca.Previously, Abi Sarah was one of the people assigned by the Prophet to write revelations.Abi Sarah turned to being an apostate and an infidel, then announced her apostasy from Islam and turned to a group of Quraish infidels in the city of Mecca.When the infidels asked Abi Sarah about her experience of being a team writer of revelations, Abi Sarah proudly said: "The Prophet Muhammad can still be" fooled ".When he dictated to me the verse ‫حكيم[‬ ‫]عزيز‬ "Aziizun Hakim" I actually wrote ‫عليم[‬ ‫]حكيم‬ "Alimun Hakim" and that was just taken for granted by Muhammad ".
When Abi Sarah delivered a joke that intended to humiliate the Qur'an and ridicule this prophet Muhammad, the unbelievers welcomed it with laughter.They seemed to think that the Prophet was very easily fooled and lied to only by a man named Abi Sarah.The news of Abi Sarah's jokes finally arrived at the Prophet and the Companions.A few years later, in the conquest of the city of Mecca, the Messenger of Allah forgave all forms of violence, cruelty and hostility towards the Quraish of Mecca.However, there is one thing that is not forgiven by the Prophet, which is the case of Abi Sarah and other infidels towards the Qur'an.As a result, at the time of the conquest of the city of Makkah the Prophet ordered the troops to immediately search for Abi Sarah and several people who had committed the same defamation, such as Abdullah bin Hilal bin Khatal and Miqyas bin Shubabah.Finally the Prophet instructed these three people to be sentenced to death even if they took refuge beside the Ka'bah (Al-Subki, 2000: 138-139).
From these historical facts, we can conclude that Islam in terms of blasphemy is proven to impose very strict rules.The act of humiliating Islam carried out by unbelievers seemed to be an unpardonable sin and required the perpetrators to be put to death.Such historical facts have finally led to the emergence of 'Ulama' discussions on the matter, which is presented specifically by al-Subki in his work entitled: al-Saif al-Maslul 'Ala Man Sabba al-Rasul.Three centuries later, a similar work was also written by al-Sindi: al-Saif al-Jali 'Ala Sabbi al-Nabi.

Blasphemy of Religion in the Qur'an
If the "blasphemy" idiom is understood as behavior or words that insult, demean, and slander a religion, then in Islamic literature the action is very identical to the word "al-Sabb" (Sabba-Yasibbu) which means cursing, swearing or denouncing (Manẓur , Tt: 1909.In some traditions, the word al-Sabb is also often used by the Prophet to show acts of revile or denounce someone, as in the following hadith: "Narrated from Abdullah bin' Amr ra.He said: The Messenger of Allah had said: (Indeed, one of the biggest sins of some major sin is if someone cursed his parents).Asked the Prophet: (O Messenger of Allah, how can someone cursing his own parents?).The Prophet replied: (someone berated someone else's father, then that someone else berated his father.He berated someone else's mother, then that person berated his mother).(Al-Bukhari, 1979: 86).
In the Qur'an, the word al-Sabb is not mentioned in the form of Isim (noun), but uses the form of a verb (Fi'il), and even then it is only mentioned in one verse, namely Surat al-An'am verse 108: "And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge.Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds.Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do." (Surat al-An'am: 108).
In addition to al-Sabb, the context of defamation of something is also close to the meaning of the word al-,ta'nu, which is etymologically meaning to pierce with a spear or by utterance (Manẓur, T.t: 2676).In other translations the term is also interpreted as an act of stabbing, denouncing, defaming and defiling honor (Al-Munawir, 2002: 853).The word al-Ṭa'nu in the Qur'an is only mentioned on two occasions, in QS.Al-Nisā ': 46 and QS.Al-Taubah: 12: Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, "We hear and disobey" and "Hear but be not heard" and "Ra'ina," twisting their tongues and defaming the religion.And if they had said [instead], "We hear and obey" and "Wait for us [to understand]," it would have been better for them and more suitable.But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few." (Surat al-Nisa: 46).
And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease."(Surah al-Tawba: 12).
Another term that refers to the context of defamation is the word "al-Sukhriyyah" which means insulting or degrading (Manẓur, T.t: 1963).In the Qur'an, the term al-Sukhriyyah is mentioned 11 times.The mention only uses the verb (fi'il) with various uses of Dlomir (pronouns) in each of the terms mentioned, some of which indicate "he", "they", "you" and "us".Each shows the same meaning, which is related to dehumanizing and harassing others.In other contexts, the word al-Huz'u / al-Istihzā' (Haza'a-Yahza'u) is also often equated with the word al-Sukhriyyah which means insulting or mocking (Manẓur, T.t: 4659).This term in the Qur'an is stated not less than 34 times.This shows that this term is more often used by the Qur'an to show the meaning of insulting acts.The Qur'an's Response to the Blasphemy of Religion Some of the terms of blasphemy that the author has explained, semantically contain meanings that are close to each other, which is relating to insulting, mocking, harassing and degrading acts of religion.However, the mention in the Qur'an is in fact different contexts.had dedicated their lives to jihad against Muslims whom he considered to have deviated from the law of Allah for accepting arbitration.With such a great spirit of jihad, several sources say Khawārij once defeated the army of Ubaidullah bin Ziyad, amounting to 2000 people with only 40 people (Hasan, 1996, juz 2: 9).
Another source said that even though the Khalīfah murder case occurred before Ali's time, the mobilization of a systematic radical movement only occurred when the Khawārij came to the surface (Abdullah, 2016: 5).The appearance of the Khawārij group was very much related to their political disappointment with arbitration which in fact was detrimental to the camp of Ali bin Abi Talib.This disappointment caused some of Ali's sympathizers to come out, and considered that the war could not be compromised by human means.This extreme view eventually requires returning to the law that is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet.They then made slogan "La hukma Illa Lillah" (there is no law other than God's law).They looked at and punished Ali bin Abi Talib, Amr bin al-Āṣ, Abū Mūsā al-Ash'āri, and Mu'āwiyah, and those who agreed and accepted tahkīm as a group that had left the religion of Islam (kāfir), because not following the teachings of the Qur'an in resolving the dispute (Qahaf, 2006: 143-169).Therefore the Khawārij group views these people as halal to be killed and this is evidenced by their success in killing Ali bin Abi Talib (Purnama, 2016: 8).
The extremism shown by the Khawarij sect on the stage of Islamic socio-political history has in fact presented a bad precedent for the next generation of Muslims.Religious discourse which was used as a political instrument in the destructive actions displayed by Khawariri in the end not only disturbed political stability, but also distorted the way of thinking and awareness of Muslims, and even has been passed down to the next generation.In the realm of contemporary politics, the Khawarij sect has become a symptom of radicalization of religious discourse that uses moral instruments in religion only to embrace power (Purnama, 2016: 229).
Although the symbols of Khawārij can be said to be absent from the Islamic political scene in the world, their thinking styles are still so visible and thriving among Muslim communities in the world.This is evidenced by the existence of several researchers who linked radicalism and fundamentalism to the Khawārij sect with the neo-Khawārij movement.One of them is Quintan Wiktorowicz who considers the takfīrī group (likes to forgive others) and radical groups such as al-Muhajirun and al-Qaeda are manifestations of the neo-Khawārij movement in global political contestation (Wiktorowicz, 2005: 186).

Khawārij's Interpretation Model
If we trace Khawārij in classic and contemporary history books, we will find many negative labels attached to them.Among these negative labels, there are at least three negative aspects that are often highlighted from this group: first, Khawārij was the first group in Islamic history who dared to leave the Jumhūr Muslimīn, so many historians who considered Khawārij were rebels (al-Bughat).Second, this group has a textual and radical understanding.With this understanding they easily deceive some friends and parties involved in arbitration.Third, Khawārij tends to leave the Sunnah and understand the Qur'an globally (Al- Uqal, 1998: 31-36).Therefore, it is natural that Khawārij does not have interpretations like the Syi'ah group, Mu'tazilah and other groups that have a lot of heritage books (Al-Żahabi, 1988: 232).
At least the legacy of the commentary from the Khawārij group according to al-Zahabi is influenced by three main factors, namely: (Al-Zahabi, 1988, juz 2: 234).
First, the majority of the Khawārij groups were from Bedouin (rural) Arabs and very few of them had lived in Kūfah or Basrah.As a result they became a group far from the development of religious, scientific and social civilizations.Secondly, since its appearance, Khawārij was more preoccupied with warfare, both during Ali's time, the Umayyad dynasty and the Abbasid dynasty.Third, Khawarij is well-known as a group that strongly adheres to the principles of faith.Their theology regulates that lying is a big sin and can lead to leaving Islam.This rigid conception of theology raises theological fears in understanding the meanings contained in the Qur'an.So that the choice of the textual approach in understanding the Qur'an is considered as the only way not to commit lies in the name of the Qur'an.
These three reasons according to al-Zahabi caused the reluctance of the leaders of Khawārij to interpret the Qur'an.So this group leaves only a few commentaries, namely: ( 1 In understanding the Qur'an, Khawārij appeared as a group that was not very interested in ta'wīl.They do not care about the possibility of other meanings behind the text.Khawārij also does not try to understand the Qur'an from all aspects that surround it; they simply depend on their understanding of the outer text and see it with a very narrow perspective (Al-Zahabi, 1988, juz 2: 229-230).
This texture causes them to be trapped in various mistakes in the meaning of the Qur'an.We can see this in their interpretation of the verse concerning the prohibition on eating the property of orphans.They consider the threat of hell only valid for people who eat the property of orphans.Besides, there is no concrete explanation from the Qur'an, so they believe that the killers of orphans do not necessarily go to hell, those who are clearly obliged to go to hell are those who can eat property of orphans (Al-Żahabi, 1988, juz 2: 229-230).

Ideology of Khawārij in the Interpretation of the Verses of Blasphemy
As I have said before, that Khawārij is more likely to be textual in understanding the Qur'an.In addition, Khawarij did not recognize the validity of the Sunnah as a source of law.Therefore in judging something, Khawārij always returns to the meanings contained in the outer text (Al- 'Uqal, 1998: 31-36).This kind of process often becomes a blunder for them because they are caught in a very fatal misinterpretation (Al-Zahabi, 1988, juz 2: 229-230).
In understanding the verses of blasphemy, Khawārij seems to have a dominant textual tendency.This is evidenced by the many literal analyzes in Khawārij's interpretation when explaining the verses that speak of blasphemy, especially in QS.Al-An'am: 108, QS.Al-Nisa ': 140 and QS.Al-Tawbah: 12.
Previously, the author had at least mapped various Al-Qur'an responses to cases of blasphemy which occurred during the Prophet's period, which in general could be classified into three models, namely: preventive, defensive and offensive.I will use these three models as instruments to measure the extent to which the Khawārij presents its radical ideology in interpreting verses that talk about blasphemy.
Volume 15 Nomor 2 2018 Khawārij as a sect that carries radical ideology has actually been proportional in their interpretation of the verses that question blasphemy.But in some respects Khawārij seems very ideological when giving their views regarding the meaning of the verses of blasphemy.
In questioning the prohibition to insult other religions mentioned in QS.Al-An'am: 108, Khawārij first began by analyzing the linguistic aspects contained in the verse.Like the use of the letter ‫"و"‬ in the word ‫"يدعون"‬ which shows the plurality of the culprit from among polytheists and the use of isim mausul ‫"الذين"‬ which shows the meaning of idols (Al-Wahbi, 1993, juz 6: 212).
Khawārij considers the prohibition in QS.Al-An'am: 108 relates to not being allowed to insult the worshipers of infidels, this insult can lead to deep hatred of unbelievers and cause them to dare to insult God excessively.For that, even though the purpose of insulting the worshipers of infidels is because of carrying out obedience, but if it can lead to disobedience it must be abandoned (Al-Wahbi, 1993, juz 6: 212).
The results of the interpretation of Khawārij have indirectly removed the preventive aspects of QS.Al-An'am: 108 by giving an explanation of the possibility of killing polytheists who try to attack Muslims and insult them (Al-Wahbi, 1993, juz 6: 212).Although their reasons are because of the urgency, according to the author, this kind of explanation is very provocative, nonetheless, the teachings in QS.Al-An'am: 108 do not want Muslims to be tolerant and moderate.Thus, according to the author, the addition of information about the possibility of killing idolaters in the context of QS Al-An'am: 108 is not right, because this can eliminate the nature of the paragraph which is preventive.In addition, the author's explanation of this matter was not found in other interpretations, most of the interpreters focused more on the preventive aspects (Dār Ṭayyibah, 711).
They also showed the textual tendency of Khawarij when interpreting QS.Al-Nisa: 140.They assume that the relationship between the lafad ‫"أن"‬ and ‫"ف"‬ contained in the verse is a reciprocal relationship that cannot be released.So that when there are infidels who deny a verse and make fun of it, then Allah forbids Muslims to sit with them until they really do not deny and make fun of them again or until they turn to another conversation.From here Khawārij then punishes the illicit one majlis with the infidels and insulters of the Qur'an.In fact they equate people who do bid'ah (innovation) acts such as infidels and insulters of the Qur'an (Al-Wahbi, 1993, juz 5: 212).
In questioning the prohibition of sitting with people who deny the verse and insulting it, the author considers Khawārij to tend to be exclusive and very ideological.This is because Khawārij equates people who carry out bid'ah acts as part of people who should not accompany us to sit like infidels and insulters of the Qur'an.Although this opinion they take from the statement of Ibn Abbas (Al-Wahbi, 1993, juz 5: 212), but according to the author this matter they are explorations because there are elements of similarity with the ideology of those who like to forgive others, and here is their interpretation indirectly will have implications for the emergence of truth-claim and right attitude.As a result, anyone who is not in accordance with their teachings will be considered as a mubdi' actor bid'ah).
The same thing was shown by Khawārij in interpreting QS.Al-Taubah: 12.The verse broadly explains the command to kill infidel leaders who violate the peace agreement and insult Islam.Khawārij in this regard considers that whoever infidels intentionally violates the peace treaty and then insults Islam, they will indirectly become leaders of the infidels ‫الكفر(‬ ‫)أئمة‬ and must be killed.This conclusion departs from the literal analysis of those who assume that the mention of the word ‫الكفر"‬ ‫أئمة‬ ‫"فقاتلوا‬ in the actual verse comes from the word ‫,"فقاتلوهم"‬ while the word ‫الكفر"‬ ‫"أئمة‬ is used only to show the nickname of people who violate the peace agreement and insulting Islam only ( Al-Wahbi, 1993, juz 7: 31-32).The interpretation of Khawārij indirectly opens the opportunity for the creation of an excessive attitude of arrogance in dealing with unbelievers who insult Islam.This is due to their understanding that makes a special word applied to unbelievers in general.

CONCLUSION
From the explanation that the author has explained, it can be concluded that Khawārij in responding to the verses on blasphemy tends to be textual and prioritize their ideology.In response to Q.S. Al-An'am: 108, Khawārij indirectly eliminated the preventive aspects of the verse, namely by giving an explanation of the possibility of killing polytheists who tried to attack Muslims and insult them.Although their reasons are because of the urgency, this kind of explanation is very provocative, because the core of the teachings is in QS.Al-An'am: 108 wants Muslims to be tolerant and moderate.
In questioning Q.S. Al-Nisa: 140 regarding the prohibition of sitting with people who deny a verse and make fun of it, the author considers Khawārij to tend to be exclusive and very ideological.This is because Khawārij equates people who carry out bid'ah (innovation) acts as part of people who should not accompany us to sit like infidels and insulters of the Qur'an.While their interpretation of Q.S. Al-Taubah: 12 has indirectly opened the opportunity for the creation of an excessive attitude of arrogance in dealing with infidels who insulted Islam because they put a special word ‫الكفر"‬ ‫"أئمة‬ in the verse for all unbelievers.