THE year 1979 holds special importance. It was the year that saw two significant happenings in the Muslim world. The events occurred in two states holding contrasting views on Islam but triggered by a common enemy, US. One was the hostage crisis in the Shiite ruled Iran, which was covered quite extensively by the press, the other being the lesser known and reported uprising at Islam’s holiest shrine in Mecca, the city under the control of Sunni Muslims.

There was a fundamental difference though between the two events. The embassy takeover in Tehran was a student initiative against the US for its meddling in the country’s politics. The siege of Mecca was the rebellion of a Muslim group against the policies of the ruling family in Saudi Arabia which were influenced by the US.

The rebellion in Mecca combined with the events in neighbouring Iran forever changed the equation of Muslims with the US, and the west in general.

Act I, Tehran
On November 4, 1979, some 400 Iranian students decided to stage a sit-in at the American embassy in Tehran. It was a demonstration both against the Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s meeting in Algiers with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security advisor, to discuss common security issues and the Shah’s admission to America for his cancer treatment.

The protest soon turned into a takeover of the embassy and its staff as more radical elements took over. The captives were paraded blindfolded before the world’s media.

Ayatollah Khomeni at first wanted the students to be taken out by force, but later changed mind riding on popular mood and supported their cause. He even denounced the embassy as a ‘nest of spies’.

“The American embassy siege proved to be a defining moment both for Khomeini and the Islamic revolution. Whereas previously he had sought to control the wilder excesses of the revolution, such as limiting the number of executions, now he fully embraced the concept of revolutionary action, and gave the student revolutionaries free rein to confront the negative influences of imperialism, liberalism and democracy.”(1)

The move was also initially opposed by two prominent student activists – one of them (surprisingly) was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Tarbiat Modarres University. Both eventually joined ranks with the majority.

Although the hostage crisis was a student initiative but it found mass support in Iran because of the role US played in the past politics of the country. America helped depose the elected and popular government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Iranians never really forgive the US for it.

The embassy staff of 52 Americans was held hostage for a total of 444 days. It damaged relations between Washington and Tehran permanently.

Act II, Mecca
The Mecca uprising was the revolt of a group of Muslim extremists against their own rulers.

Juhayman ibn Saif al Uteybi, a retired corporal in the Saudi National Guard, was the chief architect of the events that unfolded in Mecca on November 20, 1979.

His role in the uprising was an outcome of the anger that has been building inside him for some time. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that his name itself means ‘Angry Face’ in Arabic.

During the mid 1970s Juhayman lived in Medina trying to model his life on the ways of the Prophet 14 centuries earlier. He was not alone.

“Those who opted for back-to-basics called themselves Salafi, because they sought to behave as salaf, literally the pious ancestors of one of those three early generations that were mentioned with such approval by the Prophet. A group calling itself Al-Jamaa Al-Salafiya Al-Muhtasiba, “the Salafi Group That Commands Right and Forbids Wrong,” had been active in Medina for some time, and Juhayman joined it when he came to town, plugging himself into some of the Kingdom’s strongest and most ancient traditions of piety.” (2)

Medina’s Salafi Group was created around 1965.

For Juhayman wherever he looked he could detect bidda. By now his rejectionist thinking found a few takers. They started referring to themselves as Al-Ikhwan (the Brothers). The word itself had a dangerous resonance with the Saudi past. It was also Juhayman’s legacy.

A confrontation with Sheikhs though resulted in the security forces running after the Ikhwan for interrogation. Juhayman was on the run.

Unable to meet his followers, Juhayman turned to the written and spoken words. His printed words (“The Letters of Juhayman”) survived and have long influenced Muslim extremists over the years.

His grievance was that al-Saud had exploited Islam to guarantee their worldly interests, and have brought evil and corruption upon the Muslims by paying allegiance to the Americans.

It was in late 1978 that Juhayman started having dreams about the Islamic Messiah – the Mahdi or rightly-guided one – who would come down to earth to correct the problems of mankind. His dreams even revealed the identity of the Mahdi as one of his own followers, Muhammad Abdullah Al-Qahtani. Juhayman soon married his sister.

This was also the time when Juhayman was ready to confront the rulers by violent means. His armed men took control of the Grand Mosque on the First day of Muharram (first Islamic month) in the Islamic year 1400, which translates to November 20, 1979.

The siege finally ended on December 4 as the last of the remaining rebels were captured by the government forces.

The bitter struggle saw 127 government soldiers perish and 450 injured. Some 117 rebels including Muhammad Abdullah were killed. Twenty six worshippers also lost their lives.

The outcome surprised even Juhayman.

“As Juhayman was led away, one of the officers asked him again why he had desecrated the holiest shrine. The reality of utter defeat began to sink in. “If I had known it would turn out this way, I wouldn’t have done it,” Juhayman muttered in response.” (3)

It would take several months to undo the physical damage to the Grand Mosque.

The Brothers in Islam
The founder of modern Saudi Arabia Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud was ably supported by warriors from the bedouin tribes who called themselves Al-Ikhwan. For them to support the Saudi cause was to engage in Jihad and that made them ferocious warriors.

As the empire got established the Ikhwan were told to settle down peacefully. But being the bedouin warriors, they continued their raids suspecting their former leader to have made peace with the British.

Abdul Aziz spent more than a year in vain to strike a deal with the Ikhwan. The showdown finally came in March 1929 in the open plain of Sibillah, north of Riyadh. The Ikhwan were given one last chance to surrender but they ignored and attacked. In response Aziz’s men opened fire. Hundreds of men and their camels perished that day.

Among those who survived the onslaught was Muhammad ibn Saif al-Uteybi, father to Juhayman.

Birth of Political Islam
The siege of Mecca was the first major challenge to the ruling group in Saudi Arabia since the ikhwan rebellion. It brought into open the rising tension between the state and its own religion.

“It was vital to devise a formula for reconciling the state’s immense wealth with the austerity of Wahhabi* Islam. The incompatibility between religious dogma and royal pomp and the vulnerability of the royal family to attacks from within the ranks of the most loyal supporters (the religious establishment) shocked inside and outside observers who considered Saudi Arabia one of the most stable states in the Middle East. The constant search of the Saudi state for ways to accommodate the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ crumbled with the siege of the mosque.” (6)

It also forced the rulers to grant more powers to the ulama (Islamic scholars) and Islamic activities more political space in the early 1980s. The ulama seized the opportunity to reinforce the strict Wahhabi rules on ritual observance and moral behaviour.

It was also the beginning of a new era where the banner of Islam was unfurled for political means.

“However, the ‘Wahhabism’ and the ‘pan-Islamisation’ of 1980 Saudi Arabia represented two distinct processes with different causes and results. While the first was a purely domestic process promoted by the Najdi Wahhabi ulama and resulting in social conservatism, the latter had international ramifications, was promoted by the Hijaz-based organisations such as the Muslim World League (MWL) and produced political radicalism. Nevertheless, both processes left more political space for Islamist activism of all kinds. The political opportunity structure for Islamist activists – especially those seeking to mobilise people for the jihad in Afghanistan – thus became highly beneficial.” (7)

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 prompted several Islamic organisations to issue calls for jihad against the occupiers. This gave the conflict a whole new religious dimension.

Saudi involvement in Afghanistan was unprecedented and it exceeded even the assistance for the Palestinians. It also saw the Kingdom graduate from a passive and financial to an active and military approach to pan-Islamism. This was made possible by US approval, the access to Pakistani territory, and the willingness of the Afghans.

Iran, sharing its border with Afghanistan, saw this as an opportunity to increase its influence in the area. It backed the Afghan Northern Alliance, which included the Shiite Hizb-l Vahdat representing the Hazaras (a local minority Shia tribe).

The invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein forces gave another opportunity to the fundamentalists. Fearing a possible Iraqi attack on its own soil, Saudi Arabia welcomed foreign forces in 1990 to help defend the country. This was also the time when some sahwa** members began to speak out against the monarchy. Under pressure the government looked out for ways to compensate the lost credibility.

The opportunity came in the form of the Bosnian war of 1992.

Saudi was not alone in making the most of it. Iran and Sudan, too, tried to exploit the Bosnian crisis to gain regional control.

In fact Iran made good use of its long-standing links with Bosnian political leaders to provide substantial material support for the war ravaged country.

The roots of Political Islam were firmly established by now.

The Role of Wahhabism
The rigid views of Wahhabism and the patronising it received from the Saudi rulers in the past, fostered Muslim fundamentalism. The doctrine considers Muslim sects like the shiites and the sufis as heretics. It even inspired people like Juhayman to take up arms against the royal family.

Although Juhayman was beheaded soon after the uprising, his ideals and vision survived long after. The baton was passed on to another misguided flag-bearer of Islam, Osama Bin Laden. Like Juhayman, Osama too, had issues with Saudi ties to the US.

It came as no surprise to many that 15 of the 19 al-Qaida jihadists involved in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. The sad news was followed by a discovery of a huge arms cache in Riyadh and subsequent attacks on residential compounds in 2003. The terror continued in the country so much that by the December of 2004, some 176 policemen and civilians (mostly foreigners) had lost their lives.

The events showed a scary trend. The home-grown fundamentalists were turning into terrorists. The rulers of the state had to take swift and strict measures.

“Saudi Arabian officials decried al-Qa’ida’s actions in the United States, and have captured and killed operatives, arrested more than 600 suspects, forced key clerical figures to recant their radical views on television, recalled more than 1400 imams who were counselled on their divergent opinions, and took a variety of measures to diminish the financial support of terrorist organisations. The government also announced modest political reforms that began with voter registration from 2004-05, and municipal elections in 2005 which will enhance political participation.” (8)

The tentacles of the Osama factory are now reaching Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Indonesia, among others. It misses no opportunity to unleash terror on countries and people in the name of God.

The Israeli Angle
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the stumbling block in the stability of Middle-East and a cause for Arabs to take up arms. For years now it has been the driving force behind Muslim fundamentalism across the globe.

The difficulty in resolving the issue has only frustrated the parties involved.

The sad part is those who were once the land owners are now refugees in their own land. More than 300,000 Jews immigrated to the then British Mandated Palestine between 1923 and 1938. Now compare this with the 3.5 million Palestinians displaced because of the 1948 and 1967 upheavals (500,000 alone during the Six-Day War in 1967).

Millions of Palestinians refugees are today dispersed throughout the Middle-East, many in camps in neighbouring countries. They are still searching for a way to coexist with the nation that is responsible for the mess.

As per Amnesty International 1600 Palestinians are routinely arrested by the Israeli military forces every year, half of them end up being tortured. Some 25,000 Lebanese and Palestinians along with 900 Israeli soldiers have been killed since Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. (9)

The Arab and Muslim worlds remain split between rejectionist forces and those willing to recognise Israel in the name of peace.

As for Israel it continues to enjoy strong support from both the Democrats and Republicans in the US. No US president ever questions the country’s so-called security needs.

Both Clinton and Bush failed to strongly take up the case of settlement expansion and certain occupation practices, nothing to do with security, with Israel.

Barack Obama promised so much but he too gave in to the immense pressure from the Jewish lobby sitting in Washington.

Flawed US policies in the past gave ample opportunities to other state actors with their own agendas. Both Syria and Saudi Arabia attempted to broker a Palestinian unity government without Washington’s help. Iran responded by strengthening its ties to Syria and Hamas, thereby increasing its influence in the region.

The Gaza blockade and the Israeli West Bank barrier have only added to the woes of Palestine. Indirectly it has fuelled the strong sentiments of the Arabs and Muslims elsewhere against the state of Israel.

Engaging the Extremists
The West over the years has followed a flawed policy of “engaging the moderates and shunning the extremists.” You ignore a person and you ignore his cause. By ignoring such individuals we harden their stand. It makes them look out for alternate ways to make their voices heard. Unfortunately, violence is one such means which makes maximum impact.

We need to condemn violence in any form. No second thoughts there! We also have to understand that killing one Osama Bin Laden would not help. Osama has become more of a symbol of resistance to the so called jihadists. You kill Osama and there are hundreds ready to take his place and promote the cause.

Occupying lands in the name of security threats will offer only temporary solutions and would strengthen the resolve of the jihadists. Incidentally it is also this angle which extremists, like Osama, relish.

“If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of the American troops who came here with their military uniform walking proudly up and down our land while the scholars of our country are thrown in prisons. I say that this represents a blatant provocation to 1250 million Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government’s policy and to the American president. Do not let themselves be cheated by his standing before the bodies of the killed soldiers describing the freedom fighters in Saudi Arabia as terrorists. It is he who is a terrorist who pushed their sons into this for the sake of the Israeli interest.” (10)

The best way to approach them is to find their ideological mentors and engage them. A dialogue on any given day is a much better start.

This in itself is no mean task and a definite policy shift has to be exercised in the name of peace by the West.

Bridging Divides
The Muslims today are angry more than ever. But we need to separate anger from madness (of a few). Wherever the anger is justified it needs corrective measures.

1979 is history, but it could very well repeat itself. And with the power of the electronic media today the situation could be worse.

The West on its part needs to engage the Muslims more than ever before. Most importantly dialogues should be insulated from any act of violence. As we have seen in the past, the rise of Islamophobia only helps the extremists!

The US needs to rethink about its policy of dictating another country’s affairs in the name of national security. Afghanistan and Iraq are in a mess but the terror threat continues. Not to talk about the millions who lost their lives and the million others rendered homeless.

“And if the West considers September 11 as an affront to civil security in the West, then we can share with it that feeling and even the stance of rejecting attacks against civil security throughout the world. But it is important for the West to realize that civil security in the Islamic World has not seen stability for decades and a lot of the impediments to civil security have come about under the umbrella of Western policy and quite possibly due the direct actions of the West.” (11)

The once mighty British Empire also collapsed under the pressure of putting foot at too many places. You can’t win people by occupying their lands!

The Palestine-Israel conflict is one issue that will influence any peace initiative between the Muslims and the West. For long it has been a stumbling block in the stability of the Middle East. You resolve that and half the work is done.

The US handling of this crisis also is faulty and needs serious rework.

“The United States also has tried mistakenly to cherry-pick Palestinian negotiating partners, sometimes seeking to bypass more senior figures whom Washington perceives as intransigent. This approach tends to backfire; when we try to pick our winners, our diplomacy often loses.” (12)

Israel has also to be pressurised into an inspection of its nuclear arsenal. If sanctions can be imposed on Iran why Israel is enjoying this immunity!

The two main players in the Middle-East, Iran and Saudi Arabia, influence most of the Muslim world today. The tension between them is a direct outcome of the desire to control the region and their different religious beliefs. This is also a sad reflection of the divide between the Muslims in general.

Saudi Arabia needs to promote more tolerance in its society. An outright rejection of beliefs not conforming to the majority is the first step in promoting hatred. The Holy book itself speaks about it-

“If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to dispute”— Surah Hud (Chapter 11), verse 118

There is also no denying the fact that the Saudi society is gradually changing and the new rulers must be credited for it.

The difficulty the rulers face is in striking a healthy balance between admonishing the violent opposition and co-opting those with similar views. Religious sensibilities have to be taken into due consideration before making any policy shift.

“Saudi Arabia’s specific Islamic tradition, namely Wahhabi teachings, did not encourage and easy immersion in modernity in the twentieth century. From the very beginning, the ruling group stumbled across several obstacles when they introduced the most simple of technologies (for example cars, the telegraph and television among other innovations). Objections from conservative religious circles were overcome as a result of a combination of force and negotiations. Social and political change proved more problematic and could not be easily implemented without generating debates that threatened the internal stability of the country and alienated important and influential sections of society.” (6)

How successful would they be in the long run only time will tell!

The Saudis also need the US support to guard themselves against a powerful neighbour in the form of Iran, something that has not gone down well with many in the Kingdom.

Iran needs to engage in dialogues rather than raising tempers with the now familiar diatribe of Ahmadinejad.

The country has to come clean on the extent of its role in the neighbouring Muslim states. Iran needs to put more confidence building measures in place.

As the events in Iran post election show, there is a growing dissatisfaction of the young population with the power the clergy enjoys. The Shah’s topple was not possible without the student uprising. Those in charge should never forget this simple fact.

The US needs to respect the regime in Iran (whosoever) and sit with it. Surely the lessons of the past have not been learned.

“Today, as anti-Iran rhetoric in Washington becomes steadily more strident, it is urgent that Americans understand how disastrous the last US attack on Iran turned out to be. They might also ponder the question of what moral responsibility the United States has to Iran in the wake of this painful history.” (13)

The answer to that has the potential to change US-Iranian relations.

Barack Obama talked about a new beginning in his landmark speech given at the Cairo University in 2009: “We have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.”

The average Muslim, too, is sick and tired of seeing his faith questioned every time some extremist blow himself to pieces in the name of Allah. They also seek a new start where they are free in their lands and are judged by their own actions.

The world has seen enough violence in the name of religion and security. Let’s give peace a chance!

*Members of the Wahhabi movement prefer to call themselves Muslims, or muwahhidun (those who insist on the unification of the worship of Allah) or Ahl (community of) At-Tawhid (Monotheism). The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi (“following the forefathers of Islam.”)

**Sahwa movement emerged in Saudi Arabia during the late 1960s. It was a well organised political movement that pride itself on religious orthodoxy.

References

1. Khomeini’s Ghost by Con Coughlin

2. Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Terrorists, Modernists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia by Robert Lacey

3. The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam’s Holiest Shrine by Yaroslav Trofimov

4. The Battle for Saudia Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power by As’ad AbuKhalil

5. Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (“The Final Word from the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab”)

6. A History of Saudi Arabia by Madawi Al-Rasheed

7. Jihad in Saudi Arabia: Violence and Pan-Islamism Since 1979 by Thomas Hegghammer

8. Saudi Arabia: Islamic Threat, Political reform, and the Global War on Terror by Sherifa Zuhur

9. Fateful Triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky

10. Interview with Osama Bin Laden, Peter Arnett, CNN, March 1997

11. How We Can Coexist, Sheikh Salman al-Oadah, Islamtoday.net (signed by 150 Saudi academics and professionals)

12. Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East by Daniel Kurtzer, Scott Lasensky

13. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer

14. A History of Conflict, BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/)

15. In the Name of Osama Bin Laden: Global Terrorism & the Bin Laden Brotherhood by Roland Jacquard

16. Guests of the Ayatollah: the First Battle in America’s War with Militant Islam by Mark Bowden

It has been asked that I should pay back to the madrasah whatever it has spent on me before writing….. Yes, I want to but there are some difficulties which I would like to share. How will I be able to pay back to the madrasah while allowing it to continue with only Muslim students? How can we exclude one of the ‘two eyes of the bride’? What will happen to our integration in the larger society? If there is a threat of the Muslims losing their identity why do we allow that in the cases of a huge majority? Why do we have two standards in dealing with Muslim kids? Why do we expect one thing from some of them and another from the rest of them? Why not what is good for one is good for the other? Why don’t we give them a free choice as per their natural inclination in terms of selecting their disciplines?

Does paying back to the madrasah mean that if I joined a madrasah that propagates one school of thought then I should never come out of it? Should I deny my existence to prove the existence of someone else? Should I renounce my right to think and exist? Should I think more about Islam or a given school of thought? What is more important? If I studied in a madrasah that glorifies a particular personality I should keep doing so for the whole of my life?

Whom should I pay back? Should I pay back to the madrasah or I should pay back to the community that spent on my education? Did the community pay to the madrasah so that the graduates pay back to the madrasah or to the community? This we need to decide.

Jamiatul Falah in Azamgarh

Also, what if someone continued his education after the madrasah and joined a University which “stands for humanism, for tolerance, for adventure of ideas, experimentation and unceasing quest and diversity of opinions” as described by Jawaharlal Nehru? How could we reconcile the paying back with these objectives of a University – if one is a graduate from a madrasah and a University both? Because someone has studied in a madrasah he should disregard the objectives of a University?

Now there is a dilemma as to whom I should pay back more? To a madrasah or to a University? The University also spent a lot on me. I would never have been able to hire any of those professors and all those facilities for even an hour. And I benefited from the same for years together. Should I pay back to some and not to some others? Should I be selective in paying back? The fact that the educational institutions should not be contradictory to each other and should be in harmony is beside the point.

Should I disregard the fact that the country, too, has invested a lot in me and I should pay back to the country as well? Where did the country pay from? From the taxpayers’ money. The taxpayers who comprised the Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Should we disregard the taxes paid by non-Muslims? What will happen to the justice that Islam wants us to uphold and administer?

Does paying back mean that I remain in a perpetual state of self-contradiction which is precisely what I don’t want to be in and am seeking to come out of? Or it doesn’t matter? If it doesn’t matter then we should stop our quest for truth. And should not pray for it. Then we should not read and recite Soorah al-‘Asr and stop relating and applying it.

“Paying back to the madrasah” to me means keeping the divide between deen and dunyaa alive. Perpetuating the division between deeni and dunyaawee till eternity. Anyone who has followed my submissions will know that I stand against it. How could I then pay backto the madrasah without first contradicting myself? If I contradict myself it means I am not concerned about truth (which is free from self-contradiction) and that I don’t stand for anything. How can I not stand for anything knowing that our bane is that we do not know what we stand for?

How can I pay back to the same madrasah which I don’t find contributing substantially towards the building of the modern India? How can it contribute towards this goal with the current exclusivist and isolationist approach? It does not serve the purpose of even increased communication with the different sections of the larger society – leave alone addressing any other areas of importance and common concern.

I want to know how can I pay back to the same madrasah which I find a psychological barrier in the path of Muslims’ excellent performance in all the walk of life because of truncated exposition of Islam? I want to know how I can pay back to the same madrasah which is instrumental in creating a self-doubt among the ‘modern educated’. Because of the continuing deep-rooted divide between deen and dunyaa and deeni and dunaawee the ‘modern educated’ harbour a degree of self-doubt about the pursuance of various disciplines. This acts as a psychological barrier and takes away excellence. How could there be any excellence with a degree of self-doubt? Just as an individual human being may have some psychological barriers, a people may also have, I guess.

I should pay back and in a coin which has already been visualized and maybe in which already a lot is being paid back? Is there any option for me to figure out anything about the coin itself? Or I should be like a mechanical organ from which some mechanical actions are expected? If we are able to define and describe the coin in advance then there is something seriously wrong in our educationsystem. Instead of trying to figure out what that wrong thing is we ask for only paying back.

If we are able to describe the coin in advance it means that there is and has been some problem at the cognitive level. The human beings are not a “product” or “item”. A seat of learning is expected to groom an individual to the maximum possible extent and give full expression to his uniqueness and peculiarity. There are no repetitions when it comes to the human beings. We are able to describe the coin because of a faulty education system.

How could we know what the graduates of an educational institution should be like and that they should pay back in a given coin? We should not be able to know that in advance and we should not be able to find a pattern. The human beings are not for sampling. We are able to do ‘sampling’ because we do not nurture creativity and thinking skills. “The most demanding work of our students is memorizing facts for regurgitation. The product of this educational culture is deficient in the inquiry, investigation, and reasoning skills”. Our students focus on obtaining marks which indicates that we are not fostering “problem-based and enquiry-based learning, which will develop their powers of investigations and critical thinking”. (Excerpts of Prof. William K Lim’s letters from ‘Nature, 465, 13 May 2010’ and ‘Science, 327, March 26, 2010’; courtesy Dr Abdul Jabbar Khan - ajabbar_7862001@yahoo.com)

We need to keep in mind that learning involves: “knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation”. But “unfortunately, in our traditional education system learning means developing recall ability only. The other five aspects are generally ignored. That is why our curriculum is unable to induce critical and scientific thinking among its pupils. This problem has long been realized in scientifically developed societies and remedial measures were developed. Unfortunately, we are still living in the flat world.” (Courtesy Mr Pervez Ahmed -shamanaqvi@rediffmail.com)

Please help me come out of this dilemma as regards my paying back. In the meantime, I think the community needs ideas and this is what we should provide to the best of our capacities. The community needs to look at its age-old notions in a fresh manner. I have heard about “Islam (read Muslims) ki nash’at-e thaaniyah”. What does it mean? Does it entail any painful exercise? Will it come by without any adjustments? I seriously doubt it. If there are any short-cuts (which we are used to) please enlighten.

On the other hand, I think that I am trying to pay back to the madrasah and the community by sharing my submissions and by telling them what I think is wrong about them. But we don’t listen to those who pay back a bit differently. We are mindful of the huge investment made in them but we actually don’t want them to pay back. We want them to do the easier job. We should actually ask them to do the most difficult job on earth (thinking). What a paradox!?

(The author is Head of the Dept of Islamic Studies, Preston University, Ajman, UAE.  Email:malikwasimahmad@gmail.com)

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

Gandhiji: I have drawn inspiration from Islam as much as from Christianity. Islam’s emphasis on justice, equality and human dignityhas always attracted me as love and forgiveness of Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount specially attracted my attention. As you know I am deeply committed to philosophy of non-violence and it is in this respect that I am approaching you to know more in depth about Islam’s teachings about non-violence. It is necessary as Islam and terrorism are being equated by some anti Islamic forces and it is you who can help dispel these attacks on Islam. Who can be the better person than you, O Prophet of Islam.

Prophet: I am so much pained that Islam is under attack today whereas 21st century should have been the most appropriate period to appreciate its teachings. Yes, I admit there are all kinds of people in any religion and some may be motivated by their own selfish interests and indulge in violence or other misdeeds but a religion should be judged by its core teachings, not by what some followersdo. I hope you will agree with me.

Gandhiji: Yes I do agree with you sir, the great Prophet of Islam.

Prophet: You would agree with me no religion can teach violence and be followed by millions of people. The very purpose of religion is to refine morals and guide its followers to a purposeful and meaningful life with inner peace and deep conviction. Islam is a religion of surrendering to Allah and Allah is Compassionate and Merciful (Rahman and Rahim) and in your devotional song you also mention Ram and Rahim. All Muslims are supposed to invoke Allah, the Compassionate and Merciful before they begin their work (bism Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim). It is very central to Islam. Also one of Allah’s name in Qur’an, you must have noted, is Salam i.e. Peace.

Gandhiji: I understand true meaning of religion and its need for human beings in life. Inner convictions play important role in giving meaning and direction to human life. I have always relied on my own inner convictions before I took any decision. But I want to understand Islam in all its comprehensive way so that there is absolutely no confusion and it would certainly reinforce my own conviction in non-violence.

Prophet: Look when I was chosen by Allah to be His prophet the conditions in Mecca was extremely precarious. There was moral chaos in society, the tribal chiefs were growing wealthier and wealthier as they controlled international trade and were becoming arrogant and neglecting all their moral obligations towards weaker sections of society, the poor, the orphans, the widows, the needy and, in order to achieve greater grip over the minds of people, were promoting all sorts of superstitions and irrational beliefs. All this disturbed me deeply and I retired to the cave of Hira where I received revelation.

The Qur’anic revelation dealt with the situation on two levels: first, it promoted concept of one God – Allah- the creator of all and worship Him alone thus uniting entire human kind and on social level it strongly condemned accumulation of wealth and predicted it will turn into hell fire if the weaker sections of the society are neglected and injustice and oppression prevails. Thirdly, it gave equal rights to women who were denied all rights and treated as mere chattels. Fourthly, it stressed need for knowledge (‘ilm) and compared it with light (noor) and ignorance as darkness.

Gandhiji: How like Upanishads. Upanishad too compares gyan with light and one of its prayers says lead me from darkness to light.

Prophet: Yes indeed, this prayer exists in the Qur’an too. And one other prayer says rabbi zidni ‘ilman (O Sustainer of this Universe increase me in knowledge). Indeed religions (not to be confused with customs, traditions and cultural institutions) do not contradict each other but compliment and stress same values.

Gandhiji: In Hindu tradition we maintain entire humanity is one family (Vasudhaiva kutumbakum).

Prophet: Yes I too have said in one of my hadith al-khalq-u-‘ayalullah (entire creation is Allah’s family.)

Gandhiji: How similar are teachings of two of our great religions. But, Hindus often complain that Muslims call us kafirs. Sir, are wekafirs?

Prophet: No, no. there is great misunderstanding about kufr among Muslims and others. In Qur’an kafir is one who hides truth and actively opposes it. Every religion is embodiment of truth and in every religious tradition Allah or God or Ishwar’s name is Truth, In Qur’an one of Allah’s name is Haq (Truth). So those who hide truth and actively oppose it is a kafir, not one who believes in it and strongly affirms it.

Gandhiji: We Hindus do believe in truth and indeed I always said Truth is God.

Prophet: Yes, yes, how can you be kafir. All those who affirm truth, truth of values and right path cannot be kafirs. Qur’an teaches that every qaum (nation) was given truth through prophets and I have said that Allah has sent 1,24,000 prophets and Qur’an also says “We have sent prophet for every nation.” And some of the Sufis in your country have said Allah must have sent prophets to Hind also to fulfill His promise in the Qur’an. However, I know some Muslims, either out of arrogance or ignorance, call others kafirs. Do not worry about them. Then even one Muslim sect in my ummah, unfortunately call followers of other sects as kafirs. It is nothing but false sense of superiority over others.

Gandhiji: May I request you sir to further throw some light on concept of kafir in Qur’an as there is so much confusion about it amongpeople.

Prophet: When I began to invite people of Mecca to Islam, a religion of truth revealed by Allah to me and it invited the powerful leaders of Mecca too, to accept Islam, their ego as well as their powerful interests were deeply hurt and they began to actively oppose Islam. Firstly they felt how can an orphan, without any wealth and social status could tell us what is the right path and ask us to deviate from the path of our forefathers. Secondly, Qur’an, as I pointed out, attacked accumulation of wealth neglecting weaker sections of society.

This deeply disturbed them as wealth was their main power and there was no state machinery in Mecca to tax them so the Qur’an proposed a voluntary contribution and called it zakat which literally means to purify. The zakat is meant to be distributed among the weaker sections of society, the poor, orphans, widows, needy, travelers and liberating slaves and prisoners. Thus economic justice will prevail and their wealth will be purified. However, so far they had only accumulated wealth and never spared anything for the weaker sections of society. This also created strong resentment among the wealthy of Mecca and they began to actively oppose me and myfollowers and even using their power persecuted me and my followers, torturing them in most inhuman manner. They even did not allow us to enter Ka’aba, our holy shrine for centuries.

The Qur’an condemned them as kafirs because they actively opposed the truth knowing fully well that I was bearer of truth from Allah. Their arrogance and their pride in their wealth blinded them. It indeed was not their ancestral religion but their arrogance and false pride in wealth which was the problem.

There were those Arabs who did not accept Islam but at the same time did not oppose Islam and hence Qur’an said for them that “O unbelievers for you is your religion and for me is mine”. Thus you will see religion was indeed not the problem, power, wealth and arrogance was. Also, the Qur’an says la ikrah fi’ al-din (i.e. there is no compulsion in matters of religion). No one can be coerced into believing as religion is matter of conscience and deeper conviction. Even an idol worshipper cannot be coerced into abandoning his way of worship. If a kafir (which only means non-believer in Islam) desires to live in peace with Muslims his way of worship has to be respected and protected along with his life and property. Qur’an calls them dhimmis (i.e. those whose responsibility of life and property) is on Muslims and those who harm them amounts to harming me and those who harm me they harm Allah.

Gandhiji: This completely clarifies the meaning of kafir. It is indeed very humane and in keeping with the contemporary world which believes in freedom of worship and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Unto me is my religion and unto you is yours. What more one can expect from any religion.

So sir it is not in keeping with the teaching of Islam that one should use sword to preach Islam. This misconcept is so widespread in the world today.

Prophet: This is sheer monstrosity. How can Qur’an which teaches freedom of conscience can teach such a thing. Qur’an says, on the other hand, call people to the path of Allah with wisdom and goodly words. Those who went out with swords were conqueror of territories, not conquerors of hearts for Allah.

Gandhiji: This clears many of my doubts and my countrymen’s doubts. I always thought Qur’an and Prophet of Islam can never allow such things. Religion is a moral force and can never permit coercion, let alone violence, for its acceptance. The conqueror may coerce some to convert but a religious person can never. Those conversions will be more for political than for religious conviction. In India most of the conquerors also hardly ever used coercion to convert Hindus though many of them supported various Muslim rulers militarily and politically. There may have been few instances but generally Hindus and Muslims lived in peace and harmony and evolved a composite culture.

Prophet: Yes indeed you are right and my mission (da’wah) was generally accepted by weaker sections of the society. In Arabia too it is poor, slaves, women, orphans and widows who responded to my mission promptly. In your country also, it is low caste Hindus who suffered indignities who responded readily as Islam stands for social justice, equality and human dignity.

Gandhiji: Now it brings me to the question of non-violence which I have practiced in my life, even for liberation of my own country from the British rulers. Does Islam accept non-violence as a basic doctrine? Or it accepts it only tactically in certain circumstances as many Islamic theologians maintain?

Prophet: Truth, as you know is very basic to the Qur’an as I told you and it is also one of Allah’s names. Another important names of Allah and Qur’an’s fundamental values are compassion and mercy. Now put all of them (truth, compassion and mercy) together and tell me how violence can ever be part of Qur’anic teachings? It is not merely tactical but non-violence is most fundamental to Islam.

You evolved the concept of satyagraha (insistence on truth) for practicing non-violence for liberation of Hind. Truth and non-violence go together and can never be a sundered apart. One who insists on truth, as you tried to do, can never resort to violence. Truth reflects our deeper conviction and is mirror of our pure conscience and you would agree with me conviction and coercion are poles apart.

Also, truth needs certain virtues most of all patience (sabr) and control over ones anger, desire and greed without which one cannot practice it. Qur’an also lays great emphasis on these virtues, as you also do. In one of the chapters of Qur’an it has been said, “By the time! Surely man is in loss, except those who believe and do good, and exhort one another to Truth, and exhort one another to patience.”

Thus it will be seen that truth requires tremendous patience and patience, in turn, curbs anger and desire. Those who have patience cannot be provoked. To practice truth you need these qualities. And hence where there is truth, there will be no violence. Violence is result of impatience, anger, greed and desire.

Gandhiji: You are very right O Prophet of Islam. I also always emphasized truth, non-violence and simple living. Without non-violence truth is not possible and without simple living too, non-violence is not possible. It is greed and desire which leads to more and more violence. In the twentieth and twenty first century more and more consumerism has meant more and more raw materials and western powers in collaboration with the native ruling elite plunder third world countries and for that they have to suppress people and displace them from their ancestral properties resulting in great deal of violence. The naxalite violence in my country is because tribal are being displaced without any dignified rehabilitation in the hunt for minerals.

Prophet: Yes, you are absolutely right. In Mecca when I exhorted the rich and powerful not to neglect the poor and needy and leave life of luxury they turned against me and persecuted me. My emphasis was on simple life and I set a rigorous example of simplicity. I am also known to Islamic historians as kambliwala i.e. one who used rough blanket and often wore patched clothes and used pillows stuffed with just palm leaves.

We have all this in common. But the powerful merchants of Mecca had greed for profit and were used to high life style and accepting my teachings would have meant giving up all this. When finally I left Mecca and migrated to Madina they pursued me and attacked me and first battle of Badr took place. It was the first battle ought by Muslims. It is Meccan merchants who were aggressors. I had to defend.

Absolute non-violence is not possible in the world where injustices abide, inequality and human lust is widespread and powerful are ever ready to exploit and deprive people of their rights and dignity. Violence is not our choice, it is often inflicted on us without we ever desiring it. I, along with my followers left Mecca quietly and yet the Meccan merchants inflicted war on us.

It was in this condition that the Qur’an permitted us to defend ourselves. The permission was granted conditionally that we do not commit aggression. Thus the Qur’an said that fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you and do not be aggressors as Allah does not love aggressors. If we had not defended ourselves we would have been wiped out. Non-violence should essentially mean absence of violence of aggression. And for Qur’an it is matter of basic principle that Muslims should not be first resort to violence..

Gandhiji: I am in perfect agreement with you honourable Prophet. I would also like to know more about the concept of jihad. It is highly misunderstood both among Muslims and non-Muslims. I hope it does not mean war and violence but I want to hear from you.

Prophet: You are right jihad does not even remotely mean war or violence. It means struggle for truth and truth prevails, as we discussed earlier, if we suppress our unjust desires, anger and passion for possession. Thus real jihad means to struggle against ones own selfish desires and this is most difficult struggle. I call it jihad-e-akbar i.e. the greatest jihad. Then I also have said that most meritorious jihad is speaking truth in the face of a tyrant risking ones own life.

People cannot wage such jihad, such struggle as it entails great sacrifices, they wage wars for selfish desires, kill innocent people and exploit the poor and call it jihad to legitimize it. Wars of aggression and territorial possessions can never be called jihad. Some of my followers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and some other places are killing even fellow Muslims through terrorist attacks and call it jihad. Terrorism is terrorism and most condemnable act of cruelty. How can it be called jihad which is very noble act of upholding truth even at the cost of ones life. It entails self sacrifice and not killing innocent people.

Islam opposes violence of aggression in every form and respects life of even enemy and that is why the Qur’an says with great emphasis that if you kill one person without justification it amounts to killing the whole humanity and if you save one life as if you have saved entire humanity. If this principle is universally accepted there will be peace on our earth.

Gandhiji: Indeed the concept of jihad is very noble as explained by you O Prophet. I wish all Muslims and non-Muslims follow this noble principle and instead of attacking others and launching wars of aggression fight against their own selfish desires and greed for consumption and more and more possession. I have always believed that real peace is inner peace, borne by giving rather than taking from others

Prophet: Yes indeed Qur’an also says that give away what is more than what is left after your basic needs are met. Do not accumulate. It is desire to accumulate that leads to war and violence. Accumulation robs you of inner peace. Inner peace and satisfaction is real paradise as Qur’an says enter (paradise) with complete sense of peace and security. It is our desire for wealth which turns into hell.

Gandhiji: I also advised my followers to serve people and not run after power and self. I even advised Congressmen to turn themselves into an organization of serving people after independence rather than fight for crumbs of power. Serving people by sacrificing our own selfish desires is the highest goal of life. It gives you inner joy and makes your life meaningful.

Prophet: But the modern economy isn’t need based but greed based and hence so much violence in modern world despite so much talk of human rights and dignity, peace and security. It will never be realized until we wage real jihad for these noble ideals of human equality, dignity and justice.

Gandhiji: O Prophet of Islam, it was indeed very ennobling to have the honour of having talked to you. In the end I would thank you profusely for enlightening me on all these issues which have been causing so much confusion in minds of several Muslims and non-Muslims. May Allah’s peace be upon you. Your contribution to culture of justice, peace and human dignity has indeed been immense.

Advertisement: Prejudiced, Aren’t They?

Spirituality is a force. It is energy. It takes one through the thick and thin. It gives one a   much desired direction and purpose behind ALL his efforts. Bereft of it, one is directionless. Islam and Qur’an provide this energy and this force. They propel our cart in the rightdirection. They are like the much desired fuel for the much needed engine of life. But some of us have only fuel with them. Others have only the engine and not the fuel. The fuel alone isn’t moving. The engine is devoid of energy and it is not taking us on the highway of success, honor and positive contribution.

A question, however, may be asked: how and why are the others excelling? Others are excelling because they do not have self-doubt, which we do. They have relegated religion to a very marginal role in their life. Also, bereft of the ideals they veto the resolutions which they shouldn’t have. They act before truly verifying the existence of WMDs. Knowledge for them does not remain only for power. It becomes a source of blind power. This is exactly what we are experiencing today. About which we only complain. We do not analyze it to the core and do not suggest an alternative or the ways of betterment.

Being unaware of this, while we do lament on the fact that the world has lost a lot because of the downfall of Muslims we still make sure that the fuel doesn’t get nearer the engine. The logical outcome is that the Muslims will continue in the same state and the world will continue to suffer. But we don’t see any link between what we lament about and what we actually do. This is one of those situations which make me think that we don’t know what we are saying and we ourselves are not aware of what we are writing about.

We have made sure that the two, FUEL & ENGINE, do not mix. The fact that both won’t work without each other is not of much concern to us. The fact that we don’t get started and don’t move in any direction is not a question worth pondering upon. Instead, I come across the expressions like “excellent job”. And I wonder what we mean by that!? Putting the fuel in the engine and enabling both to run on the highway that leads to the progress of humanity is what the Indian Muslims can offer to the world. We, the Indian Muslims, stand a huge chance of contributing positively to the world and lead towards building a better civilization.

The balanced, healthy and all-encompassing approach which the Aligarh Movement symbolizes and which is very well expressed in its vision (“The students coming out of our Universities should have Qur’an in the right hand, most modern scientific and technological advancements in the left hand and the crown of Laa Ilaah on the forehead. So that the Muslims regain the same glorious status of founders and promoters of science and technology as they did during the ascendance of their civilization.”) is the need of the hour. Before, however, we take it any further we need to see if we are living according to the spirit of this Movement and analyze the situation a bit more. The situation at the moment is that either the Right Hand is empty or the Left Hand. Both of them are not full – at the same time.

The Aligarh Movement is the antithesis of duality and the dichotomy of knowledge. It is about rejecting the serious and thick line that we have drawn between deen and dunyaa and deenee ‘ilm and dunyaawee ‘ilm. Aligarh Movement started to do away with this division. The movement did not ask to put two contradictory things together. It asked for putting two integrated things in two hands. Both are intimately related with each other. The Qur’anic spirit is behind all the scientific discoveries and technological advancements. But this is not the complete reality. It (the Book) gives a proper direction to all human activities and guides towards higher and long term spiritual goals as well. It combines ad-dunyaa with al-aakhirah.

The Aligarh Movement has a potentiality of doing away with the duality of knowledge and bringing about a confluence leading to excellence – paving the way for regaining the glorious position. However, even if the Aligarh Movement doesn’t do so the IndianMuslims in general can contribute their part. There is no insistence on the Movement. It is about the spirit. It is about the Book. More than anything else. Everything else is just a means to an end and not an end itself.

The descriptions like ‘deeni darsgaah’, ‘‘asri darsgaah’, ‘religious institutions’ and ‘secular institutions’ are all based on a misconception which is our bane. Similarly, I always wonder what we mean when we say, “Please avoid religious (as different from ‘worldly’) discussions”. We have deeply separated the spiritual from the material and have divided deen from dunyaa – forgetting that it is the outlook (niyyah) that actually determines the value of an action. These descriptions have entered quite deep in our psyche. Generations have grown up repeating these misnomers. No wonder that we have developed resistance for any criticism of these and are considering them as ‘articles of faith’ (arkaan al-eemaan). To me they amount to the jails of our own making. We need to come out of these psychological barriers.

Our ‘Ulama, unfortunately, have reinforced this DIVIDE and are perpetually reinforcing. If not much by words then certainly a lot by their actions – and by zabaan-e-haal. Being well versed in the Book they should have spearheaded the abolition of this DIVIDE. They are doing just the opposite is all the more surprising. We as a people should come out of such self-contradictory situations. And move inone direction with renewed energy and enthusiasm.

It is all about a BATTLE of minds and thoughts now. It is not about laying the foundation stone of a new College (which we must) as much as it was earlier. It is about correcting many prevalent and deep rooted (mis)conceptions. To be precise, it is now about listening to every speech and reading every write-up critically and analyzing it thoroughly. This is a must for a rebirth. We cannot avoid the pangs. But then we need very many people who should do this job.

The above task is a must to utilize the fuel for the engine – not only for the purposes of education but for engagement with life in its entirety without compartmentalizing it. Being divorced from the life as a whole and from the tools of modern education and its various disciplines it turned out to be a fuel which is left without the engine. It catches fire sometimes outside the engine. We do not analyze its reasons to the core. Islam is the fuel for life. We marginalized it fromlife. And, in turn, the life marginalized us.

Who takes up this job is a million dollar question. We all have to take it up. We all have to go back to ourselves. We all need to be watchful of our own expressions. Our own words. Our own speeches and utterances. We have to scrutinize our own thought patterns. Besides this, whenever we come across any such words and expressions that divide the knowledge and deen and dunyaa – we need to point it out. We need to correct it.

In this regard we need to do what the candle does. It brings light wherever it is. We almost always presume that the light needs to be brought somewhere else. The candle should lighten an unknown place – farther away. Our undeclared motto is “you bring light in mymohalla and I bring it in yours”. We need to put the fuel and the engine togetherwherever we are. We need to bring Islam back to the mainstream – in order to remove our own marginalization.

(The author is Head of the Dept of Islamic Studies, Preston University, Ajman, UAE. Email:malikwasimahmad@gmail.com)

Advertisement: Shave Your Beard, Else Face Consequences

All those who are serving humanity in different ways by promoting a morally clean and non-corrupt society, are real mujahids. It is for this reason that the word jihad was interpreted differently by different sections of society. For rulers and political class it meant war and conquests to expand Islamic rule, for Sufis it meant to conquer ones own desires and greed and for theological class it meant efforts to enforce shari’ah law and to mould ones behaviour within shar’i limits (hudud).

And for Usama bin laden it meant again very different thing and he used it for retaliation against USA and gave rise to what is totally unacceptable phenomenon of terrorism. However, when the political class in medieval ages used jihad for territorial conquests, it was how the rulers expanded their regimes in those days. Even Ibn Taymiyyah had some justification for issuing fatwa for jihad after Mongol hordes sacked Baghdad.

But what Usama did was very different. It is neither an acceptable way in the contemporary world nor does he belong to a political or ruling class. No head of the Islamic state has approved of what Usama did nor has any army of a Muslim country invaded any other non-Muslim country. Usama is neither head of any country nor has he backing of any regular Muslim army. Thus his jihad has neither scriptural backing, nor political nor of Ulama. It is nothing more than personal and hence totally unacceptable.

Coming back to root meaning of jihad i.e. to strive for good of the society and for enhancing welfare of humanity as a whole, today one of the best ways of waging jihad would be to struggle and strive for saving our earth and its environment. This form of jihad has multiple levels of meaning of jihad: Firstly it is most ma’ruf (desirable and most acceptable) activity; secondly, it also has the sense in which the Sufis used it i.e. controlling ones desire and greed and exercising self control on ones inner self and fourthly it is also in keeping with the Prophet’s sunna as there are repeated commands of the Prophet to protect trees and crops and respect Allah’s creation.

Also, the very opening chapter of the Qur’an Surah Fatihah describes Allah as Rabb al-‘Alamin (i.e. Lord of the Universe) and the word rabb in Arabic means to look after carefully and take some thing through various stages of perfection. And if Allah is Rabb of entire universe and we worship him it is our duty to strive to look after it carefully and not to destroy it otherwise our worship of the Lord has no meaning, if we do not respect His creation.

Also, we must realize that global warming is the result of our greed for consumption. We are plundering the precious resources of earth for our greed. It is high time we realize the dangerous consequences of our reckless consumption and wage a jihad against our own greed as Sufis did. As political class has greed for more territories and do not care for shedding blood of innocent people, we as citizens in a modern capitalist consumer society, are plundering the scarce resources of the earth and do not care for the consequences and are making lives of our future generations difficult to live.

So, as Muslims (which means surrendering to the will of Allah) and as m’umin (which means believer, believer in the values enshrined in Qur’an and respecting the creation of Allah) we must strive i.e. wage jihad against all those who indulge in needless consumption and destroy our earth.

This form of jihad has to be both individual and collective: Individual in as much as we have first to struggle against our own greed and reduce our consumption to environmentally acceptable levels and collectively in as much as we have to make efforts to bring down consumption levels of entire world to acceptable levels through constant awareness campaigns and building pressures on the ruling classes and especially developed nations of the west whose consumptions of natural resources are far more than what is warranted by their population.

Many Arab countries have the rich oil resources and when used generates high carbon emissions which leads to global warming. When the Prophet was asked what the best form of jihad is, he replied telling the truth in the face of a tyrant ruler. Can these Arab rulers tell the truth to western and other nations, especially to USA to reduce their oil consumption and face the consequences? It would be a great jihad.

Apart from the Quran and Sunnah, another source of Shariah is ijma, consensus of the scholars. The Prophet’s declaration, ‘Difference amongst scholars is a blessing”, clearly encourages diversity of understanding in Islam. Through the centuries numerous Muslim scholars, Sufis, philosophers, theologians and jurists have elucidated and interpreted the nature of the original vision; importantly in keeping with the needs of their times.

Shariah literally means,’ the road’, signifying the outward path to righteous activity that prepares the body for the Tareeqah, the internal spiritual quest. Shariah law consists of guidelines that can be broadly classified, as actions that are indifferent, recommended, required, reprehensible and forbidden; covering areas outside of defined modern legal systems. Some of the greatest Muslim authorities have recommended not spending too much time studying the Shariah, for it can blind to the essential spiritual dimensions of Islam, mainly ihsan, that commands purity of heart and excellence of character.

Similar to secular law, distinctions in Shariah are made between the spirit and the letter of the law; based on the Prophet’s most cited saying,‘ All actions are based upon intent’. Shariah laws are contextual to environment, intention and circumstances.  Barring mandatory rules of worship, Islamic rulings have changed through the centuries and have been rooted in varying social orders. Omar, the second ruler of the Muslim caliphate after the Prophets demise did not implement the prescribed punishment for theft during a famine that led to starvation. The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion with almost five hundred converts daily in today’s world is testimony to its accommodative spirit.

Primary an oral tradition, some Muslims protested when the Quran became a written document after the demise of the Prophet. Similarly, when loudspeakers were first introduced at mosques, some scholars ruled against their usage. The conservative viewed these changes as bidah, an innovation in Islam. However, these changes were accepted and implemented for the intent being to create ease for worshippers. Clearly a head covering is preferred in the Shariah, but even that can be contextual. In the aftermath of the 9/ 11 tragedy, some American Muslim scholars issued a fatwa that since Muslims were becoming the target of discriminatory behaviour, Muslim women could avoid wearing the headscarf.

Interestingly, two thirds of the Quran was revealed in the Meccan phase before the prophet’s migration to Madinah. The Meccan revelations largely consist of spiritual narratives calling Muslims to non-violent resistance. This took place at time when Muslim men and women were being tortured and killed for no other reason other than accepting Islam. Soumayya, a woman who was tortured to death under the blazing sun, became the first martyr of Islam. After thirteen years of passive resistance, prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina; where the rest of the Quran consisting of legal rulings was revealed. These rulings came after the new society had practised non-violence and taught social ideals of tolerance, brotherhood and importantly; honouring women.

Prophet Muhammad had around one lac twenty four thousand sahabah, companions who rank the highest in Muslim piety. Only ten amongst them issued fatwas, the rest spent time working towards betterment of society. Muslim scholars could well follow this example and concentrate on the economic and educational progress of the community.  Traditionally, Fatwas required scholarship, caution, reflection and deep insights into Islamic philosophy. Enlightenment should accompany the study of religion, not dogma. We now have every other self styled scholar rushing to issue headline grabbing fatwas leading to unproductive sound byte journalism.   

In India, Muslims in general and their women in particular are clearly facing an economic, educational and spiritual famine. There is a lack of competent leadership and opportunities in all areas. Edicts coming from Muslim seminaries must be more accommodating in their nature, particularly because we share secular space with Indian brethren of other religions.

Islamic history has countless role models of women empowerment in the area of politics, economic, social engagement and spirituality. Prior to his marriage, prophet Muhammad worked for Khadijah, a woman trader who became the first financer of Islam. The prophet decreed that a woman’s wealth is discretionary and that she is not obliged to look after her anyone. The ruling presumes that there are women entrepreneurs and working women. It safeguards women from being forced to earn, placing the primary duty of providing for the family on the men. However, contrary to the Dar ul Uloom ruling, there is nothing in the Shariah that makes a woman’s lawful earnings unlawful for the male members of her family.

It is important to remember that the Shariah came to preserve and not to destroy, to make life easy, not difficult. The spirit of Islam lies not in compulsion, but free will, not in punishment but forgiveness, not in justice but compassion, not in extremism but moderation.

We do not want to discuss here the case of anti-Islamic elements as they have their own politics and cannot be expected to examine Islamic teachings dispassionately and rationally. However, the case of atheists and rationalists is a little different. They are not necessarily anti-Islam but opposed to religion in general.

Many become victims of cultural and linguistic confusion, besides practices which can be ascribed to customs and traditions rather than religion, and instead of understanding the complex relationship involving religion, culture, language customs and traditions, they damn religion straightaway. To say the least, their reading of the Quran is not only partial, it is selective and thus prejudiced and hostile. One must study their writings and reply point by point with in-depth scholarship and patience. Condemnation alone will not do.

I have been studying the Quran for the last 40 years and also have actively engaged socially to bring about reform and change for which I studied various reformist as well as revolutionary movements and also the implications of modernity and post-modernity. I have found that the Quran, if studied from modern and postmodern perspectives, helps us cope with both.

What have been the characteristics of modernity? Freedom of conscience, individual and human dignity, democracy, gender equality and a scientific outlook. The Quran lays stress on freedom of conscience (2:256); democratic and collective decision-making (42:38); dignity of human beings (17:70); gender equality (2:228; 33:35). Numerous other verses urge one to reflect on the creation of the universe, the creation of human beings, animals and so on to encourage a scientific outlook through inductive reasoning.

No wonder, then, that physics, mathematics, optics, chemistry and rational philosophy prospered during the first four centuries of Islam and became source material for European universities and subsequent scientific developments. This has been acknowledged by various European scholars and historians.

However, a decline began to set in when for various political and other reasons (including the traditionalists’ reaction to excessive importance being given to rational sciences by philosophers and scientists), traditionalists and conservatives became a dominant force. They in a way hijacked Islamic teachings, making Arab traditions instead of Quranic values central to temporal problem-solving and formulating Sharia laws.

I would also like to assert here that the Quran is no less compatible with post-modernity thinking; in fact, it is most compatible with it because it makes religious pluralism and multiculturalism the very basis of creation (5:48 and several other verses). It exhorts Muslims to show equal respect for others’ prophets (biblical and others), as all were sent by Allah in different cultures, with teachings handed out in different languages. The Quran is in Arabic only because it addressed the Arabs primarily and others through them. Quranic teachings clearly assert that the existence of different tribes, races, people of different colours and speakers of different languages is acknowledged and owned in deference to the respective people’s identities; there is no room here to establish any superiority; no religion, language or culture has hegemony over others.

Also, another characteristic of post-modernity is to negate absolute hegemony of reason, while modernity tends to be quite intolerant in its rejection of everything extra-rational. Postmodern thinking, like Islam, admits faith and spirituality besides reason as being fundamental to meaningful human existence.

Thus, the Quran, while accepting the importance of material existence and worldly human needs, does not neglect, as modernists do, the forces of faith, tradition and culture. However, it is highly regrettable that our traditionalist ulema, immersed in their customary learning, have lost sight of these important insights of the Quran, and that they rely only on narratives developed in the medieval age to pass rulings on contemporary issues.

It is only a few ulema, well-versed in traditional Islamic learning and in modern and postmodern social, political and economic movements, who can understand universal Quranic insights and project Islam in the right perspective. Most of the existing ulema cadre has unfortunately become reactive and defensive. This has resulted in a loss of original thinking and reflection which the Quran encourages. It is tafakkur (reflection) on the universe which will help Muslims progress, and not defending medieval traditions. The sooner we realise this the better for us.

—
The writer is an Islamic scholar who also heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.

[TwoCircles.net photo]

In discussions about the status of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries one issue that has been hotly debated is that of the jizyah tax. Much has been written, by both Muslim as well as non-Muslim scholars, on jizyah. Most non-Muslim scholars see jizyah as a symbol of what they regard as the degradation and subordination of non-Muslims under Islamic or Muslim rule. On the other hand, Muslim scholars argue that jizyah is a blessing for non-Muslim minorities, on the payment of which they are excused from military service and are also provided protection (zimma) by the Islamic state. They also claim that, in the past, in many cases the amount levied as jizyah was considerably less than the zakat tax that was obligatory on all eligible Muslim subjects.

In my view, those who invoke jizyah to argue that Islam seeks the subjugation of non-Muslim minorities are incorrect. In fact, several non-Muslim scholars have admitted that in the medieval age in many places, jizyah was not regarded as a symbol or badge of non-Muslim degradation. They also admit that, especially when compared to the Christian kings of Europe, medieval Muslim rulers generally adopted a far more enlightened and tolerant policy towards minority groups living in their domains.

Be that is it may, one question that is yet to be satisfactorily discussed is: In a modern Islamic or Muslim-majority state, are non-Muslims still to be treated as zimmis or ‘protected subjects’ who are obliged to pay jizyah to the state in return for protection? The fact of the matter is, as the noted Indian Islamic scholar Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqui convincingly argues in his recent book Maqasid-e Shariah(‘The Aims of the Shariah’), that, ‘[Muslim scholars] have focused on trying to argue that zimmis are given many rights in an Islamic state, but, despite these claims, the reality cannot be concealed that the status of a zimmi would be different from that of a citizen. Obviously, this different status cannot be higher than that of a citizen.’

In today’s world, which has witnessed massive social and political transformations, many fiqh prescriptions, including those related to jizyah, desperately need to be re-visited and reformulated in a contextually-appropriate manner. This has been attempted to some extent already, because of which, for instance, no present-day Islamic or Muslim government imposes jizyah on its non-Muslim citizens. Nor, it must be added, does it appear possible today to revive jizyah. That is why there is now no need to retain jizyah even at the conceptual level. In today’s context, the notions of dar ul-islam (‘abode of Islam’) and dar ul-harb (‘abode of war’) have become totally meaningless, because all the communities of the world have been linked at the global level through international treaties. Accordingly, practices such as slavery (that was sanctioned in medieval fiqh) or waging war against a community on the basis of religion no longer remain.

With regard to jizyah it must be kept in mind that it was not an institution invented by Islam. Levies similar to jizyah were a phenomenon in several societies and cultures even before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad. Naushirwan, a Sassanian ruler of pre-Islamic Iran, enforced jizyah on his non-Zoroastrian subjects. The noted Indian Islamic scholar Shibli Numani argues that the word jizyah is itself of Persian, and not Arabic origin. The original Persian term was gazit, which was later rendered into Arabic as jizyah. When the practice was incorporated into Islam, it was refined in order to protect some of the basic rights of the zimm is or those who paid jizyah. Thus, for instance, the treaty that involved the payment of jizyah by non-Muslim subjects in return for protection by the Islamic state was made permanent and no individual or group could, on his or its own, dissolve or modify it. Rather, it was considered to be the responsibility of God and the Prophet.

At the same time, the payment of jizyah was not a necessary condition for protection by the state. In other words, it was not that no matter what the circumstances, the zimmis simply had to pay jizyah. Rather, under some circumstances they could be excused from paying the tax, as was done under the orders of none other than some companions of the Prophet and some among the generation that followed them. Thus, in the mid-seventh century, Suraqa Ibn Umar excused the non-Muslim inhabitants of Armenia from paying jizyah, and the same policy was adopted by Habib IBn Muslim in Anatakya, a town in modern-day Turkey. Likewise, the representative of Abu ‘Ubaidah, a noted companion of the Prophet, entered into a pact with the Christians of the Jarajmah tribe, according to which the latter agreed assist the Muslims and, in turn, were exempted from jizyah. On the request of the Christian Banu Taghlib tribe, who considered the jizyah a sign of disgrace, the second Caliph of the Sunnis, Umar, levied zakat on them instead.

Likewise, there have been cases in the past where, when the Muslim state was unable to provide protection to its non-Muslim subjects, it did not levied jizyah on them or returned to them the money that it had acquired from them as jizyah. Thus, for instance, Abu Ubaidah Ibn al-Jarrah, a well-known companion of the Prophet, returned to the Christians of Syria the money that had been collected from them as jizyah because the Muslim army was unable to protect them from the Romans.

It is important to note that according to most ulema, jizyah is levied on non-Muslims in return for the protection they enjoy from the Islamic state and in lieu of the exemption they enjoy from compulsory military service. Accordingly, there have been instances in the past when non-Muslims performed military service and were hence exempted from jizyah. In today’s age of nation-states, all countries of the world have accepted the nation-state system, and the vast majority of the ulema have consented to it. Indeed, there exists a ‘silent consensus’ (ijma’-e sukuti) among them on this system. In such a context, every non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim-majority state has the right to perform military service in the same way as a Muslim fellow citizen. These non-Muslim minorities have played a crucial role in the struggle for freedom of their countries and for protecting them against external enemies. This is why, even from the point of view of traditional fiqh, it is not proper to levy jizyah on them. Further, in today’s age it is inconceivable that minorities would accept to be treated as ‘protected subjects’ rather than as equal citizens. This holds as true for non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries as it does for Muslims in non-Muslim-majority countries. Naturally, then, in today’s world jizyah cannot be imposed on non-Muslim minorities. Accordingly, a noted Arab Islamic scholar, Zafir al-Qasmi, writes in his book Al-Jihadu wa al-Huququ ad-Dauwaliyah al-Ammah fi al-Islam (‘The Concept of Jihad and General International Rights’):

‘If the zimmis agree to participate in the jihad of protection of their common homeland, jizyah will not be levied on them. This principle applies fully and unambiguously on non-Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries today.’

In a similar vein, the noted Egyptian Islamic scholar Allama Yusuf al-Qaradawi has issued a fatwa in which he declares that non-Muslim citizens of modern Muslim-majority countries must have the same status as that of their Muslim fellow citizens. They must not be delegated to second-class citizen status, he argues. They must enjoy the same rights and concessions as Muslim citizens of the same state enjoy. Elsewhere, Allama Qaradawi writes, ‘All thefuqaha include the zimmis among the people of the abode of Islam (ahl-e dar ul-Islam). This, in today’s language, means that they are citizens.’ Further, he elaborates, ‘We need to rethink various issues related to [the status and rights] of non-Muslims, and, bearing in mind the changed conditions, should adopt a wise path [in this regard].’

From this discussion, it is obvious that the traditional notion of zimmi needs to be reviewed in the light of the vast differences between the present-day global context and that of the past. This is also necessitated by the fact that the entire world is now tied together in a practical covenant and also because in most contemporary non-Muslim-majority countries Muslim citizens enjoy the same rights as their non-Muslim compatriots. In today’s context, the traditional understanding of zimmi cannot be said to be in consonance with Islamic social ethics. It must be acknowledged that in traditional fiqh zimm is were granted second-grade status, something which is not acceptable today.

In discussing and seeking to understand the status and rights of non-Muslim citizens of Islamic or Muslim-majority states, it is crucial to bear in mind that Islam exhorts us to behave with goodness and kindness towards others and to wish for others what we wish for ourselves. Today, four-tenths of the world’s Muslim population live in countries where they are minorities. Most of them enjoy equal citizenship rights and status. In fact, in many such countries Muslims enjoy greater peace and freedom and are more prosperous than their co-religionists in most Muslim-majority countries. Given this, is it all justifiable that non-Muslim citizens of Muslim-majority countries be deprived of the same rights that Muslim citizens of non-Muslim-majority countries enjoy? Obviously, the answer is in the negative.

————–

(Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com

(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)

Islam, properly understood, is the religion of human nature. It provides guidelines for establishing a proper and firm link between individual human beings and their Creator. It also provides guidance for relations between individuals themselves. It insists that one can have a proper relationship with the Creator only if one has proper relations with all of God’s creation, including all other human beings, because, as a well-known hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad says, ‘All creatures are [members of] the family of God’ (al-khalq ayalullah). After finishing his prayers, the Prophet would beseech God thus: ‘O God! The Sustainer of myself and of all things, I bear witness that all the slaves of God are brothers to each other’ (alahuma rabbana wa-rabba kulle shai’in ana shahidun an al-’ibada kullahum ikhwatun).

To actualise this vision of universal brotherhood and solidarity, it is imperative that Muslims and people of other faiths establish close and friendly relations. They should help each other, and share in each others’ joys and sorrows. This is indispensable for building a harmonious society. Islam insists on respect, compassion and love for all human beings. The Quran commands Muslims thus:

‘Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just’ (60: 8).

Accordingly, the Prophet invited non-Muslims to his home and accepted their invitations to visit their homes. He would visit non-Muslims when they were ill to inquire about their health, join their funerals, and exchange gifts with them. When the notorious hypocrite Abdullah Ibn Ubay died, the Prophet went for his funeral. When his body had been laid in his grave, he placed his own shirt on it. According to Jabir Ibn Abdullah, the narrator of this report, the Prophet did so because Abdullah Ibn Ubay had provided the shroud for the Prophet’s uncle Abbas when he died in the battle of Uhd. Thus, the Prophet repaid Abdullah Ibn Ubay for this deed. This action clearly suggests that we must repay goodness with goodness, even if it relates to someone who is an inveterate foe, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Generally speaking, in the early and classical Muslim period, non-Muslims living under Muslim rule were not pushed into separate ghettos, where they would have had no social interaction with Muslims. This is quite in contrast to Europe in the same period and even till much later, where, for instance, Jews were confined to their own localities. Often, after conquering new lands Muslim rulers settled Muslims in the towns and localities where the existing non-Muslim communities lived. This inevitably promoted considerable interaction between Muslims and others, at the social, economic, and cultural and even religious levels.

However, it must be admitted that today misunderstanding abounds as to Islamic teachings about relations between Muslims and others. Not just non-Muslims but even many Muslims themselves suffer from serious misconceptions about these teachings. There are several causes for this. Widespread anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim propaganda at the global level is surely one of these. In India, the political agenda of certain right-wing forces is based entirely on this anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim project. Through this they want to utterly weaken the Muslims, to destroy them socially, economically, politically and culturally, and to eventually absorb them into the Hindu cultural milieu.

Another cause for these misunderstandings about Islamic teachings regarding inter-community relations must be sought in the very structure of what is now called Hinduism. In actual fact, Hinduism is not a religion at all in the conventional sense of the term. It is, rather, a collection of different religious traditions and cultural practices. ‚Hinduism’ can even accept and absorb atheism. In contrast, despite its flexibility Islam cannot compromise on its beliefs and basic principles. Certain values based on religious principles do indeed come in the way, to a certain extent, of social and cultural interaction between Hindus and Muslims in India.

Besides this, another major cause for wrong conceptions about what Islam teaches about how Muslims should relate to others are certain views of the early fuqaha and narrow-minded ulema about inter-community relations, which, one must stress, are not in accordance with true Islamic teachings.

A Historical Survey

Hindus and Muslims have been living with each other in India for more than 1200 years now. Islam first entered India in the southern Malabar region, through the agency of Arab traders and missionaries, who used peaceful means to spread the faith. They impressed the local Rajas with their character, for which they won their respect. Consequently, they were able to closely mix with the local populace and established a place for themselves in their hearts.

Shortly after, Muslims established a presence in north India, with the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad Bin Qasim in the early eighth century. This was followed by the invasions of the Turks and Afghans from Central Asia. A large number of Muslims settled in India in their wake. Unlike in the case of the early Muslims in Malabar, this new Muslim presence was not welcomed by the local Indians. This is because these Muslims had entered India as invaders, who then became rulers of the land. Yet, despite this, gradually these Muslims established links with the local Indians, leading to the emergence of a broadly shared Hindustani culture and styles of living. This intermingling also gave rise to the Bhakti and the Sufi movements, both of which clearly indicate a remarkable degree of cultural synthesis between Hindus and Muslims.

One aspect of this shared culture was the widespread participation of Hindus and Muslims in each others’ functions and religious festivals. A number of Muslim rulers participated or shared in Hindu festivals in order, perhaps, to promote their political interests. There is no doubt that this helped promote closer bonds between Muslims and Hindus. Writing in the Tughlaq period, the historian Isami notes that Muhammad Bin Tughlaq used to play Holi with his Hindu nobles. Sultan Zainuddin of Kashmir also participated in Hindu festivities.

A number of Sufis of this period are said to have celebrated Basant, the popular north Indian Hindu spring festival, with much gusto Basant. An interesting story is told as to how this began. The death of his nephew Maulana Taqiuddin Nuh caused the noted Sufi saint of Delhi Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya deep distress and sadness. It so happened that just then a group of Hindus, singing and making merry, passed by on their way to the Kalikaji temple to offer saffron flowers there on the occasion of the Basant festival. On seeing them, Amir Khusrau, Khwaja Nizamuddin’s close disciple, burst out of his sadness and, in a state of revelry, rushed to meet his master, who was at that time at his nephew’s grave. On seeing Khusrau and hearing the verses in Hindi and Persian that he had composed on witnessing the joyous Hindu pilgrims, Khwaja Nizamuddin smiled. And, since that day, whenever Hindus headed towards the Kalikaji temple, Sufis of Delhi would take saffron flowers in their hands and head towards the shrine of Maulana Taqiuddin Nuh, taking along with them qawwals and chanting mystical verses.

This is how the Muslims of Delhi began celebrating the Basant festival. Soon, it became a fifteen-day festival at numerous Sufi shrines in the town. During this period, Muslim women would wear yellow or basanti-coloured clothes and sing Basant songs, like their Hindu sisters. Yet, it must be said that there is no evidence of Sufis who abided by the shariah (and these included Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya himself) participating in Hindu festivals such as Holi, Dussera and Diwali.

The Mughal era was known for its religious tolerance, and all Mughal Emperors, with the notable exception of Aurangzeb, participated in various Hindu festivals. Holi and Diwali were celebrated inside the royal palace during Akbar’s reign, and ordinary Muslims, emulating the Emperor, also began doing so. Aurangzeb prohibited these festivals from being celebrated inside the palace, but many common Muslims continued to do so. In his memoirs,Tuzk-e Jahangiri, the Mughal Emperor Jahangir, son of Akbar, writes:

‘[On the occasion of the Raksha Bandhan festival] Hindu nobles would tie rakhis on my father’s hand, decorated with rubies, pearls and other precious jewels. When this became too much to bear, my father instructed them to tie only a simple silk thread on his hand. In my time the [Hindu] nobles also did the same, and then I also issued an order that they tie only a silk thread on my hand.’

Dussera and Diwali were also celebrated with much gusto in the courts of Akbar and Jahangir. According to the Alamgir Namah, Dussera was also celebrated even in Aurangzeb’s court. There were a number of Hindu slave girls in the royal palace in Akbar’s and Jahangir’s reign. The Mughal princesses played Holi with these girls and with visiting Hindu Rajput princesses, and the Mughal emperors would join them in this.

Later Mughal Emperors, such as Shah Alam II, Akbar Shah II and Bahadur Shah Zafar, who were known for their addiction to luxury and their only very loose attachment to religion (if at all), are known to have celebrated various Hindu festivals with their Hindu and Muslim noblemen. The late Mughal historian Munshi Fayazuddin describes the Dussera celebrations in Bahadur Shah Zafar’s palace thus:

‘On the day of Dussera, the Emperor assembled his court. Aneel kanth bird was made to fly before him. Then, the keeper of the royal birds brought out some falcons. The Emperor placed a falcon on his hand and then dismissed the court. In the evening, the head of the stables applied mehndi on the special horses. The Emperor inspected them and, giving the man a reward, dismissed him.’

The Tuzk-e Jahangiri also indicates that in the courts of Akbar and Jahangir horses and elephants were richly decorated and brought before the Emperor on the occasion of Dussera, in accordance with Hindu traditions.

Like the Mughals, the Nawabs of Awadh also celebrated numerous Hindu festivals. The famous Urdu poet Mir Taqi Mir wrote twomasnawis on Holi, which describe very evocatively the scene of this festival being celebrated in Nawab Asafuddaulah’s court.

Following the practice of numerous Muslim rulers of India who patronised and participated in various Hindu festivals, many common Muslims did the same. This was particularly the case with numerous recently-converted local Muslim communities or such groups that had only partially converted to Islam and still maintained many of their pre-Islamic beliefs and practices. It was common for them to attend local or ‚Hindu’ fairs, some of which were religious in character. Evidence for this is plentiful in the historical records, and numerous Urdu poets, such as Nazir Akbarabadi, Insha, Fa’iz, Hatim, Amanat Lakhnavi and others, even wrote poems on such festivals and fairs.

It is obvious that many aspects of these Hindu festivals that Muslim rulers and subjects participated in were not in accordance with the commandments and principles of the shariah, but to the extent that it was possible to legitimize this participation within the limits of the shariah the ulema did not stop them from doing so. These Muslim rulers were well aware that their actions were not in full accordance with the shariah, but they probably felt that this helped gain legitimacy for themselves from their Hindu subjects, and faciliated peace and harmony in their domains. For some, however, it was sheer entertainment.

In describing the active participation of Muslim rulers and common Muslims in these festivals I do not mean to pass any judgment on the phenomenon. Rather, my aim has been to present an important, and not often recognised, part of the history of Hindu-Muslim relations in India in order to highlight the shared cultural traditions that the interaction between the two communities gave birth to. I also wish to indicate how deeply the Indian Muslim rulers and their Muslim subjects were rooted in the Indian cultural milieu, notwithstanding what the demands of the shariah truly were with respect to participation of Muslims in the festivals and other functions of people of other faiths.

The Shariah Position on Muslims’ Participating in Non-Muslim Festivals

Having discussed the participation of Muslims in Hindu festivals from the cultural and historical points of view, it is crucial to also look at it from the perspective of the shariah.

Islam does not prevent Muslims from interacting closely with non-Muslims whom they live amidst. If members of a plural society are not bound closely together through strong ties of friendship, interaction, and mutual assistance, such a society will soon disintegrate. At the same time, it must be stressed that Islam has its own views, beliefs, system or code of ethics, and social rules, which is insists its followers must abide by, including as regards Muslim participation in non-Muslim festivals.

The classical fuqaha have tried to lay down the limits, forms and conditions regulating Muslim participation in non-Muslim festivals and other social gatherings and functions. These have been discussed at length in the books of fiqh, particularly in the sections that deal with relations with non-Muslim zimmis. The vast majority of these fuqaha were of the view that it was not permissible in theshariah for Muslims to participate in non-Muslim festivals. They argued that this was because these festivals are religious in nature and involve aspects of polytheism, which Islam cannot compromise with. Invoking several Quranic verses and Hadith reports, they lay down that for Muslims to participate in non-Muslim festivals is clearly haraam (forbidden).

One hadith which they quote to back their stance relates:

‘It is narrated from Anas Ibn Malik that when the Prophet of God (may peace and God’s blessings be upon him) reached Medina, the people used to observe a festival that lasted for two days. He asked what these two days were, and his companions replied that in the days of ignorance they used to play and make merry on these days. The Prophet then said that God had given two better days than these: Eid ul-Azha and Eid ul-Fitr.’

In a similar vein, the Caliph Umar is said to have advised, ‘Stay away from the festivals of the enemies of God.’

Numerous other such reports are referred to and discussed in great detail in Allama Ibn Taimiyah’s well-known book Iqtiza al-Sirat al-Mustaqim (‘The Requirements of the Straight Path’). Ibn Taimiyah sternly forbids Muslims from participating in non-Muslim festivals, insisting it is haraam and a cause for provoking divine wrath.

This remains the position of the vast majority of our contemporaryulema as well. However, the fact is that the fiqh perspectives that are offered in order to back this claim are characterised by inordinate strictness, harshness and narrowness. In my opinion, this vexed issue needs to be studied and discussed within the framework of what is called fiqh ul-aqalliyat or ‘fiqh for [Muslim] minorities’.

Functions and other gatherings of non-Muslims which can be considered religious festivals generally involve un-Islamic, polytheistic aspects. On the other hand, there are other functions that are not, in essence, religious in nature, and can be called social functions or, at best, semi-religious functions. They mark various important life cycle events, such as marriage, birth, death, or the inauguration of a shop or a building, and various other occasions marking joy and sorrow. It may be that some un-Islamic practices are observed during these functions. However, it appears that there is nothing wrong if Muslims avoid these practices and participate in these functions. This cannot be construed as tantamount to participating in polytheistic celebrations that the fuqaha have condemned based on their reading of the Islamic scriptural sources.

It is necessary to properly determine the rules, limits and conditions of Muslims being allowed to participate in non-Muslim religious festivals. If on the occasion of Holi or Diwali, a Muslim accepts the invitation of a Hindu friend to visit his house, participates in the joys of the festival, and presents gifts to him, is it forbidden according to the shariah? In a plural society, is it at all proper for a Muslim to refuse his Hindu friend’s invitation to visit his home? Muslims live as a minority in India, and the added importance of close cultural interaction and relations between Muslims and others in this context needs no explanation. If Muslims do not choose to maintain close bonds with their non-Muslim neighbours and share in their grief and joys, they will be pushed even further to the margins of society. This would create immense problems for them, not just in the social, political and economic spheres but even in their religious lives as well. Hence, the rules, conditions and principles of participating in non-Muslim functions and festivities must be studied and developed in this light.

The classical fuqaha permitted Muslims to set up stalls and shops in places where non-Muslims celebrate their religious as well as secular social functions. They allowed them to earn a profit from such commercial activities. This is, in a sense, a sort of participation in these festivals and functions. Indeed, it can even be said to be a form of cooperation and promotion of such festivals and functions.

In this regard, the question arises if the participation of Muslims in non-Muslim fairs, that are generally associated with some or the other non-Muslim religious festival but whose basic purpose is to provide popular entertainment, can be said to be tantamount to participating in non-Muslim religious festivals, which the fuqahaforbid? It is a well-known fact that many Muslims do participate in such fairs throughout India, where they enjoy the entertainment that is provided therein. Some of this entertainment is clearly religious in nature or background, as for instance the Ram Leela plays in north India. Can seeing such programmes be considered to be tantamount to participating in non-Muslim religious festivals, as theulema claim?

It is necessary to discuss these issues and evolve suitable responses keeping in mind the sensitivities of living in a plural society and the demands of collective social existence, in the light of which we can develop the necessary possibilities within the broad framework of the shariah. The classical fuqaha, it must be noted, did indeed develop such possibilities and spaces for Muslims living in what they termed as dar ul-harb (‘abode of war’) or dar ul-kufr (‘abode of infidelity’), which are terms and concepts that are not mentioned in the Quran and are not relevant today. For instance, Allama Ibn Taimiyah, who is noted for his strict, indeed extreme, approach with regard to inter-community relations, writes in his well-known workIqtiza al-Sirat al-Mustaqim thus:

‘The prohibition on imitating non-Muslims and the commandment to distinguish oneself [externally] from them relates to the context when the deen [Islam] is already in a position of domination. When, in the beginning, the Muslims were weak, these commandments were not given. Then, when the deen received power and domination, these commandments were issued. In this way, Muslims living indar ul-harb and dar ul-harb are not obliged to abide by the commandment to distinguish themselves externally from non-Muslims, because this might cause damage [to them]. Indeed, in some such cases it is advisable, or, sometimes even necessary, for Muslims to share in the external practices and ways of [the non-Muslims] if this is in the interests of thedeen or in accordance with higher purposes.’

This comment by Allama Ibn Taimiyah is of crucial importance. He makes a critical distinction here between the conditions of Muslims living in a state of numerical and political dominance and those of their co-religionists living as minorities, and accepts that different rules might apply to them in matters relating to adopting certain practices of non-Muslims (provided they did not contravene Islamic beliefs, such as monotheism). In this way, he is able to highlight the flexibility of shariah rules depending on changed social contexts.

Unfortunately, the Indian fuqaha and muftis do not appreciate this very crucial point that Ibn Taimiyah made. Instead, they insist that the fiqh formulations developed in a period of Muslim political dominance be strictly applied to a vastly different context today where, as in India, Muslims are a minority, and a marginalised one at that. This, in my view, is not a realistic approach. To seek to blindly impose fiqh prescriptions developed in, and relevant to, a context of Muslim domination to our Indian context today can only create greater problems for Muslims and Islam, rather than solving them.

In today’s context of religious pluralism, especially in countries like India, it is necessary to review some of the views of the classicalfuqaha on such vexed issues as ‚imitating non-Muslims, cooperating with them and participating in their functions, which are certainly no longer relevant. These issues must be seen from not the lens of the classical fiqh of Muslim domination but, rather, from within the emerging paradigm of what is called ‘fiqh for [Muslim] minorities’, which seeks to steer Muslim minorities away from adopting extremist positions and, while enabling them to abide by the basic principles of Islam, facilitates their adjustment to contemporary political and cultural realities and demands.

————-

(Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted onw.mazhari@gmail.com

(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)

Most present-day ‘revolutionary’ Islamic movements have as their foremost priority the enforcement of the shariah as state law. Based on an extremely simplistic and romanticized vision, these movements believe that the cause for the decline of the Muslims, and, indeed, for all the manifold problems is the fact that Muslim societies and countries are presently not ruled by the shariah. Hence, they regard the imposition of the shariah as state law is the master-key, as it were, to solve all their problems. They take it as something that must at once be implemented by order of the state. They believe that when this happens, the Muslim ummah will once again walk on the path of progress, strength and glory and would, in fact, establish its domination all across the world.

It is undoubtedly true that the shariah exists in order to be implemented. It is also true that Islam is a way of life, and not simply a bundle of rituals to be followed by individuals in their personal lives. Islamic life must, indeed, be regulated by Islamic law and morality. If, for some reason, it is not possible for Muslims to abide by all shariah rules, or if some Muslims themselves choose not to do so, at the very least they ought to believe in them.

Today, especially in the West, efforts are underway to manufacture new interpretations of Islam in which the shariah has, if at all, only a minimal role to play. This is particularly unfortunate. But, in my view, this attempt can be seen, in part, as a reaction or response to the strident calls on the part of certain Islamist groups for the immediate and total enforcement of the shariah as public law across the Muslim world. These Islamist circles are perturbed as to why the West is so scared and opposed to the enforcement ofshariah in Muslim countries. Despite this, they have failed to seriously think about this opposition to the shariah and about how the fears regarding establishing the shariah it can be allayed.

It cannot be denied that these very same ‘revolutionary’ Islamist groups are primarily to blame, through their words and deeds, for creating an image of Islam as a tyrannical or oppressive system, rather than as the source of mercy that it is, if it is interpreted properly. A good example in this regard is of the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the name of enforcing the shariah, they sought to impose, using brute force, inflexible medieval fiqh rules on the hapless people of their land, both Muslims and others. Now, their successors, the ‘neo-Taliban’ in Pakistan, are trying to do the same. The barbarism they are indulging in, in the name of Islam, simply has no parallels in the modern world. Likewise, in the name of acting according to the dictates of the shariah, the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini passed a fatwa calling for the death of the controversial author Salman Rushdie. The only thing this fatwa was able to achieve was to convert Rushdie into a hero in anti-Islamic circles and to reinforce the misplaced image of the shariah as an unsheathed sword that is a major threat to the entire world. Likewise, in countries such as Egypt and Algeria, radicals who pose themselves as ardent champions of shariah rule or what they call the ‘Islamic system’ have played no small role in creating enormous chaos that has led to untold violence and the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Undoubtedly, many of these activists were horribly tortured by the Muslim regimes they were opposed to who, are closely allied to the West. But, still, this did not justify their engaging in violence and oppression.

Islam does not consist simply or even primarily of laws. It also includes morality and spirituality. In this regard, it is striking to note what the Prophet once said—that he had been sent by God to lead to the culmination of morality. That is why even in times of war Islam insists that Muslims must abide by certain moral codes, practices and values.

In contrast to what some simple-minded Islamists, swayed by emotionally-driven sloganeering, might think, the enforcement of the shariah in all spheres of society is far from being a simple matter. After all, this effort must deal with the fact of modern society being very complex and highly plural, consisting of people with different mentalities, outlooks and worldviews. For people to accept to be ruled by the shariah requires a long and gradual process of training and nurturing that will need to pass through various stages. Without going through these stages, trying to enforce the shariah would be like trying to produce a chick without an egg.

If one takes an objective view of efforts to enforce the shariah by various movements in the Indian subcontinent over the last three hundred years or so, one would have to conclude that they have produced no results at all. Indeed, these failed efforts have only resulted in strife and destruction. The foremost such example was the movement launched in the early nineteenth century by Syed Ahmad Barelvi and his disciple Shah Ismail. These leaders sought to impose the shariah at once, without any regard for the consequences of doing so. Therefore, the ‘Islamic government’ that they managed to set up near Peshawar, through which they sought to enforce the shariah, came to an abrupt end in a very short while, leading to the complete destruction of their movement.

For any such movement to succeed it is, clearly, not enough that its leaders be motivated by sincerity and firm faith in God. After all, there have always existed such movements consisting of sincere believers, but most of them have not been able to succeed one bit in achieving their goals. The fact remains that efforts to establish theshariah must take cognizance of various factors, particularly various Islamic principles. One of these is the principle of gradualism. It was in reference to this point that Ayesha, the youngest wife of the Prophet, noted that in the beginning of the Prophet’s mission, those verses of the Quran were revealed to him that spoke of heaven and hell. After people repented of their ways and accepted Islam, and their capacity to follow divine commandments was strengthened, verses dealing with rules regarding forbidden (haram) and permissible (halal) things began to be revealed. Ayesha added that if, for instance, the commandment to abstain from alcohol had been revealed in the first stage itself, people would have refused to ever abide by it. Likewise, she said, if in the first stage the Quran had forbidden them from engaging in adultery, they would have insisted that they would never abandon it.

The Quran did not ban the consumption of alcohol in one go. Rather, this commandment was a gradual one, which passed through several stages. This point, and the statement of Ayesha mentioned above, well illustrates the principle of gradualism in seeking to establish the shariah. This principle is also clearly evident from the fact that when the son of the Caliph Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz asked him why he did not openly and directly crush strife and oppression and immediately impose shariah rules in this regard, he replied, ‘Son! Do not be in a hurry because God condemned the consumption of alcohol twice in the Quran and [only] on the third occasion declared it forbidden. I fear that if I try to make people follow the right path fully they might abandon the true path, leading to terrible strife.’

Another important Islamic principle that must be kept in mind when seeking to establish the shariah is that of properly choosing priorities. This is to say, one should be clear as to which issues need to be taken up and worked on first and which later. This principle is well illustrated in the life of the Prophet. Thus, in Mecca he focused only on inviting people to Islam and on spiritually nurturing his disciples. When some of his followers wanted to go to the Ka‘abah to pray, he advised them against it because, he said, the Muslims were still small in number. When he shifted to Medina, the Prophet focused all his energies on peaceful missionary work and on the moral, intellectual and spiritual training of new converts to Islam so that a community of Muslims could be formed qualified to fulfill the personal and collective responsibilities required of them by Islam. In this way, the Prophet exemplified the principle of setting priorities in his effort to establish the shariah.

A third key principle in this regard is to create ease when seeking to engage in some effort. This applies to efforts to establish theshariah as well. In this regard, the Prophet said, ‘Islam [din] is easy, and you [Muslims] have been sent as people who create ease, not those who create harshness and difficulties.’ This is why, for instance, the Prophet brought into the fold of Islam some people who insisted that they would not pay the zakat.

A fourth principle to be followed with regard to social reformation and the establishment of the shariah in society is to tolerate a lesser evil in place of a larger one. This principle was well exemplified by the Prophet, who did not reconstruct the Ka ‘abah on its original lines as laid down by the prophet Abraham, even though he could have done so after he returned to Mecca in victory and had gained full control over the town. When Ayesha asked him why he chose not to reconstruct the Ka‘abah on the pattern established by Abraham, he replied that her people (by which he meant the Meccan Quraish) had only recently become Muslims, and so they might resent it if he did so.

To bring a single wayward individual to the right path needs much time, tolerance, patience, and determination. How much more of all these is needed to reform an entire society or country can only be imagined. The most deadly fault of ‘revolutionary’ groups whose slogan is ‘the enforcement of the shariah’ is their misplaced belief that this task is very simple and can be immediately accomplished simply by grabbing political power. They regard the capture of state power as the most important and basic step in this regard. If this were to happen, they fondly imagine, they can easily impose theshariah on their people and and their countries can hereby be transformed into ‘Islamic states’. The fact of the matter is that most of the activists of such groups are driven by strong emotions and have no idea of the difficulties and sensitivities involved in such a task as seeking to establish the shariah in complex modern-day societies. They mistakenly believe that if they capture state power and impose the shariah as the law of the land, their societies will automatically become Islamic in the true sense of the term.

A ‘revolutionary’ Islamist ideologue, who is immensely popular in Islamist circles, has written in one of his many books that the state is like the engine of a train, which can take the passengers sitting inside the bogies of the train in whichever direction it likes, even against their will. Hence, he insists, ‘revolutionary’ Muslims must first capture the ‘engine’—the levers of state power—after which they can enforce the shariah and force people, even against their will, to abide by its rules. In this way, he says, the ‘Islamic system’ can be established.

This, to my mind, is not at all a truly Islamic way of thinking. It does not represent the intention of the Quran and the Prophet’s practice. In fact, this type of thinking is deeply influenced by Communism, which Islamist ‘revolutionaries’ consider as one of their principle foes. This distorted way of thinking is based on force and compulsion, which are clearly and sternly forbidden in Islam. Islam seeks to transform people’s thinking and behaviour not through coercion but through appropriate moral, intellectual and spiritual training and nurturing and by convincing them of its stance. When, gradually, individuals begin to observe the rules of Islam in their personal lives as a result of such training, a truly Islamic society can come into being. Such a society cannot be expected to be created by state diktat, as ‘revolutionary’ Islamists imagine. Social change can come about only through the transformation of individuals, not through imposition of laws by the state on people against their will. This is what the Quran teaches us when it says:

‘Allah does not change a people’s lot unless they change what is in their hearts’ (13: 11).

The conditions of today’s Muslims are such that even though they might believe in the shariah laws and in the need for their enforcement in political and collective affairs, their minds are not ready to accept this enforcement in practical terms. They do not want their entire lives to be guided and controlled by the shariah. That is why if an effort is made for this purpose they will be the first to revolt against it. The fate that met the movement launched by Syed Ahmad Barelvi and Shah Ismail is ample testimony to this—it was violently opposed by the very Muslims they sought to rule according to the shariah.

A crucial point that needs to be noted here is that many aspects of the available corpus of fiqh are in urgent need of review in the light of ijtihad. Without reviewing and suitably reformulating these prescriptions, efforts to establish the shariah (which is mistakenly seen by some as synonymous with traditional fiqh) are bound to fail. This, in turn, will give the shariah itself a bad name. To make the issue of establishing the shariah as state law even more complicated is the existence of different, sometimes competing, interpretations of the shariah that are upheld by different Muslim sects and schools of law. This is an issue that is yet to be resolved. Another crucial matter is to convince non-Muslims, not just through our claims but also in practice, that establishing theshariah will indeed lead to justice. The noted classical Islamic scholar Allah Ibn Taimiyah rightly remarked, ‘An infidel government that practices justice can survive, but a Muslim government cannot survive if it practices oppression.’ The pathetic state of various Muslim governments in power throughout the world today can be properly understood in the light of this assertion.

In today’s context, it is imperative that Islamic movements place the matter of the formal enforcement of the shariah at the end of their list of priorities, and, instead, focus on solving the various social ills that are so widespread and deeply-rooted in Muslim communities and countries—issues such as illiteracy, economic exploitation, mounting inequalities, corruption, gender injustice, gross violation of human rights, and so on. Among their foremost priorities should also be raising the awareness and intellectual standards of the people so as to enable them to think about issues rationally instead of being driven simply by emotions and empty sloganeering. In this way they will be able to make a major contribution in addressing and removing widespread misunderstandings about Islam and the Islamic shariah, and will also help pave the way for a meaningful establishment of theshariah in their societies.

——————-

(Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com

(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)

Courtesy: TwoCircles.net