This month we celebrated the birth day of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It is celebrated by Muslims with great devotion and reverence. But often it has been seen that devotees do not reflect on the message of the person whom they so venerate. It just becomes a tradition rather than occasion for deep reflection. Muslims also refer to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as Muhsin-e-Insaniyyat i.e. the benefactor of humanity but hardly care to know in what respect he became benefactor?

In this limited space that I have at my disposal I would try to throw some light on revolutionary aspects of Muhammad’s (PBUH) teachings and how Muslims should benefit from his teachings. Muhammad, all Muslims agree, was ummi i.e. did not know how to read and write and yet he ushered in great social and economic revolution that is as much useful today as it was then.

We can call him a liberator of humanity if we follow his teachings not so much from tangled web of hadith but from Qur’an. Qur’an indeed was his real miracle. Firstly, he emphasized importance of knowledge called ‘ilm. This word occurs in the Qur’an more than 800 times along with its various derivatives (word jihad, so controversial today occurs only 41 times).

Knowledge was so important to him that he required Muslims (both men and women) to seek it even if it is available in China, a distant land from Arabian Peninsula. Arabs who were quite averse to knowledge, especially in written form (there were on 17 people in Mecca during the Prophet’s time who could read and write), became great precursors of various sciences and even west immensely benefited from it. West discovered treasures of Greek knowledge through Arabs.

Secondly, he brought about liberation of women from bondage and gave her equal rights and recognized her individuality as a human being. He gave her equal right in marriage and made marriage a contract. He made it obligatory for her too, to seek knowledge. “Seeking knowledge is obligatory for Muslim man and Muslim women”, he said. The cause of her bondage to men was mainly her ignorance and now seeking knowledge became her right along with obligation. Knowledge, all thinkers agree, is real liberator.

Thirdly, Muhammad (PBUH) was greatly concerned with justice. Justice is so fundamental to Islam that it is one of the names of Allah (Adil). For him justice for weaker sections of society was of utmost importance. Allah, according to Qur’an, is on the side of the weak. And it is weak (mustad’ifin) who shall inherit the earth and who shall be the leaders. The powerful and arrogant (mustakbirun) shall be doomed.

Fourthly, for all the actions he made human individual responsible, not the collective unit, be it tribe or community, as responsible. Qur’an also declared that each individual carried his burden and no one else can carry it for others. For that time it was very revolutionary declaration. It was collectivity like tribe was everything and individual did not count for anything. Qur’an made reward or punishment individual-centered, not tribe centered. This freed individual from the burden of tribal customs and superstitions, Collectivity is important but not at the cost of individual.

Fifthly, Muhammad also gave human individual rights and dignity along with responsibility. And human dignity was not circumscribed by any religion, tribe or ethnicity but included all children of Adam (karramna bani Adam). It indeed was a revolutionary declaration of human rights which preceded UN Charter of Human rights by more than 1400 years. Also, the Prophet said entire creation is family of Allah.

Sixthly, he gave concept of Bayt al-maal i.e. treasury to which all Muslims will contribute according to ones income. We can describe it as concept of welfare state in modern terms. Zakat was not a tax for the luxury of the rulers, as used to happen in those days. It was strictly meant for welfare of weaker sections, orphans, widows, poor, travelers and liberation of prisoners and slaves. It was unprecedented levy in those days.

He even declared land is only for tillers thus bringing down the oppressive and exploitative feudal system. Unfortunately within few decades of his death Muslim rulers established great empire based on exploitative system again. However, all this would appear unbelievable for many non-Muslims. Why? Muslims often paid verbal tributes to the Prophet (PBUH) but did just the opposite.

What is the condition of women in Muslim countries? Are Muslim states welfare states at all? Do their rulers live simple life like the Prophet did? Do they respect individual rights and human dignity? Do they practice justice at all costs? Do they respect human life as sacred creation of Allah? Answers may not be in affirmative? Muslims have to reflect seriously on their failure and recommit themselves to the Qur’anic value system.

Advertisement: Shave Your Beard, Else Face Consequences

History books are full of kings and their battles and we forget people who were not involved in warfare. Much is yet to be written about Sufis and their contribution to India.

Bulleh Shah is a famous Sufi who continues to be popular because of his poetry. Below, I present a poem written by him on festival of colors, Holi. See how he uses Islamic terminologies and Quranic phrases and mixes so well with images of Holi that you have difficulty finding out if he is talking about physical or spiritual Holi. Well that’s the point.

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

نام نبی کی رتن چڑھی، بوند پڑی الا اللہ

رنگ رنگیلی اوہی کھلاوے، جو سکھی ہووے فنا فی اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

الست بربکم پیتم بولے،سبھ سکھیاں نے گھنگٹ کھولے

قالو بلی ہی یوں کر بولے، لاالہ الا اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

نحن اقرب کی بنسی بجائی، من عرف نفسہ کی کوک سنائی

فثم وجہ اللہ کی دھوم مچائی، وچ دربار رسول اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

ہاتھ جوڑ کرپاوں پڑوں گی، عاجز ہوکربنتی کروں گی

جھگڑا کر بھر جھولی لوں گی، نور محمد صلی اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

فاذ کرونی کی ہوری بناوں، وشکرولی پیا کو رجھاوں

ایسے پیا کے میں بل بل جاوں، کیسا پیا سبحان اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

صبغۃ اللہ کی بھرپچکاری، اللہ الصمد پیا مونہہ پر ماری

نور نبی دا حق سے جاری، نور محمد صلی اللہ

بلھا شوہ دی دھوم مچی ہے، لا الہ الا اللہ

ہوری کھیلوں گی کہہ کر بسم اللہ

Devotional dancer at the 252nd Urs of Baba Bulleh Shah in Kasur. [Photo by Saad Sarfaraz Shaikh]

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah

Naam nabi ki rattan charhi, bond pari illalah
Rang rangeli ohi khilawe, jo sakhi howe fana fi allah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah
Alast berabbikum peetam bole, sabh sakhian ne ghungat khole
Qalu bala hi yun kar bole, la ilaha illalah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah
Nahn aqrab ki bansi bajai, mann uraf nafsaa ki kook sunaai
Fasam wajah allah ki dhoom machai, wich darbaar rasul allah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah
Hath jor kar paoon paron gi, aajaz ho kar benti karon gi
Jhagra kar bhar jholi loon gi, Noor Muhammad sallalah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah
Faaza karoni ki hori banaoon, wa shakroli pia ko rijhaaon
Aise pia ke main bal bal jaoon, kaisa pia subhan allah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah
Sabghata allah ki bhar pichkari, allah hu samad pia monh par mari
Noor nabi da haq se jari, noor Muhammad sallalah

Hori khailoon gi keh kar bism allah

Links:

http://folkpunjab.com/kalam/bulleh-shah/hori-khailoon-gi-keh-kar-bismillah/

http://saajha-sarokaar.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post.html

Advertisement: Prejudiced, Aren’t They?

Mostly people think Muslim women are oppressed and forced to wear veil and confined to the four walls of their houses. This is mainly because we read every day in papers that Taliban force women into veil, burn down girls schools and always portray them wrapped completely in black cloth from head to foot. This image of Muslim women was further reinforced by the burqa controversy which erupted in France.

This image would be justified if all Muslim women followed the strict dress code propounded by Muslim theologians which was evolved in medieval ages and which they keep on justifying even today. But there is big difference in what is theologically projected and ground reality. It may not be wrong, if I venture to say, Muslim women have been defying theological code for more than a century now.

And now a century later, Muslim women have gone even further in their public achievements. It is true even today some Muslim theologians debate whether women are naqisul aql (defective reasoning power) or not but many Muslim women have superseded even Muslim men in several fields. In Saudi Arabia where women are not even permitted to drive cars, a woman became a licensed pilot and has been flying aircrafts.

Now we got news from Malyasia that Farah al-Habshi, an engineer by profession, has been appointed deputy of weapons and electrical officer in spanking new Malaysian warship KD Perak. Today she is donned in white and blue Royal Malaysian Navy uniform. What is interesting is that she also wears hijab to cover her head though not her face. She feels her hijab in no way comes in the way of performing her duties.

Maylaysia is an Islamic country and orthodox ulama exercise great deal of control over people’s lives. Recently even the Government of Malaysia chickened out when Ulama took stand that Christians in Malaysia cannot use the word Allah in their religious literature or in their newspaper. Muslim women face several problems in that country at the hands of conservative ulama in respect of family laws.

It is in the same country that a woman has been appointed naval officer on combat duty. Even in India women have not won the right to be on combat duty in navy or are not permitted to fly fighter planes or serve in combat arms. They are also not allowed seafaring in warships. Ms. Farah al-Habshi, on the other hand, recently participated in Milan naval exercise along with some other women.

Ansari- the first Muslim women astronaut

Ms. Farah is also highly articulate and answered all the questions put to her by the journalists. And it is not only one example out of many. There are several other examples. Many Muslim women have excelled even in theological fields and quite independently of the traditional theologians. They have shown courage to challenge orthodox ulama. Here I can give example of Amina Wudud of USA who teaches Islamic Studies in Washington.

She believed women can lead mixed congregation in prayer and she led around 100 persons, men and women in prayer a few year ago and that too on Friday and delivered Friday khutba (sermon), quite unthinkable in traditional Muslim world. It raised storm of controversy and even Yusuf Qardawi, otherwise a moderate theologian from Qatar, wrote an article, opposing a woman leading nixed congregational prayer.

Some Kuwaiti women, elected to Kuwaiti parliament after great deal of struggle, refused to wear hijab and fought for their right to go to parliament sessions without wearing one and fought their case up to Supreme Court of Kuwait and won. Many more examples can be cited of Muslim women daring authorities for their rights.

But media, which is interested in sensationalizing issues, refuses to highlight Muslim women’s achievements and continues to portray them as submissive to traditional authorities and meekly accepting their situation. This image of Muslim women has to change and reality, which is much more complex, has to be understood.

This is not to deny that in many countries Muslim women are facing difficult problems and their liberation is not a foregone conclusion. However, it is also true that many of them are fighting and refusing to submit meekly. What gives us hope is their continued struggle and defiance of traditional authorities.

It should also be mentioned here that many ‘ualam and jurists also have realized that medieval shari’ah formulations about women cannot be enforced easily any more and some of them like Muhammad Abduh of Egypt, Maulavi Mumtaz Ali Khan of India and Maulana Umar Ahmed Usmani of Pakistan have expressed their serious reservations about traditional theological formulations on women. The determined struggle on the part of Muslim women will force many more theologians to revise their position and take Qur’an, and not medieval theology, more seriously on women issues.

Advertisement: Shave Your Beard, Else Face Consequences

I came back to this intellectual arena when I decided to resign my job as a civil engineer in 1981 to re-engage with these subjects. I feel I would have hardly achieved any thing as a civil engineer though perhaps I would have had better and more comfortable life in the material sense. But spiritually and creatively I would have died a non-descript man. When my involvement with social and religious issues intensified, I decided to give up my job and re-engage with philosophical and theological issues.

My education was not in very reputed institution but only in municipal or government schools and colleges. My father taught me Islamic theology based on Qur’an and hadith and he had the knack of implanting it deeply in my intellect. It was as a result of this that I never lost my interest in these subjects throughout my life. Not even as an engineer. However, as a result of orthodox Islamic education I could not develop a critical mindset. I was taught not to question but to accept.

However, my father, despite his orthodoxy was a tolerant soul and I learnt from him to tolerate other viewpoints. Developed further, it resulted in developing critical thinking. Later, by the time I graduated in engineering I could appreciate one thing: real education results in rejection of what is and developing in what should be. It is this tension in what is and what should be leads to the creation of a new world.

Conforming mindset results in reinforcing the status quo which benefits the leaders of the established order. One who is lost in this world finds it very easy to live with establishment but those who wish to create a new world would never accept the given. All prophets, rishis and munis and great thinkers always rejected the world they were born in and left a new world behind before they died.

For these prophets and great thinkers, one who is lost in this world is a kafir (one who hides the truth and lives with falsehood) and one who creates a new world is a mu’min (believer in truth, in justice and human dignity). They lived and died for new possible world. The other world is always possible. From Buddha to Christ to Muhammad they all rejected the given world and showed us the way to create a new world.

Buddha, Christ, Muhammad (PBUH) gave up their comforts of life and spent years reflecting on possible new world. Instead of losing themselves in the comforts of given world they preferred to engages with blue print of a new world. Those who are lost in this world live for themselves and those who struggle to create a new world live for others. Kings and rulers who lived for themselves are part of history and their burial places are also not known. But prophets, rishis and munis continue to inspire us long after their death and their burial places and samadhis are visited by millions.

When I understood this secret of life I tried in my own humble and limited way to work for another possible world. It also changed my understanding of the word kafir and mu’min. I had inherited certain fixed meaning but now a new meaning dawned which was more in conformity with the Qur’anic spirit. It is not that one who does not accept Islam is kafir and one who does, is always a mu’min.

A real kafir is one who lives for himself and for comforts of his own life making serious compromises with fundamental values of life such as truth, justice, compassion, human dignity and inflicts suffering on others for his own comforts and lust for power and self. He lives in this world. And real mu’min (believer) is not only one who formally accepts Islam but one whose life is a continuing struggle for truth and who refuses to compromise with falsehood, is an embodiment of compassion and is always engaged in relieving others’ suffering.

To me the Prophet of Islam is what the Qur’an aptly describes him as Rahmatun lil ‘Alamin i.e. Mercy of the Universe. It is mercy and compassion which results from tenderness of ones heart, from living and feeling soul, which helps in relieving the entire humanity of all suffering. It is the hard-heartedness and lust for gain which inflicts suffering on others. However, later Muslim rulers, to fulfil their lust for power, changed the image of Islam and reduced it to some formal observations and beliefs while inflicting suffering on others. All the later theological debates (with certain honourable exceptions) and fatwas of kufr (unbelief) were the result of this reversal of Islamic spirit.

It has happened in the history of all religions that the founders’ Herculean efforts to create a new world are reduced to naught by those who convert religion into an immutable formal theology to retain their control over power. The real spirit of religion (I am not using the word ‘religion’ here in its pro-establishment theological sense) is to keep on challenging coercive powers. And the Prophet (PBUH) rightly defined jihad as telling truth on the face of a tyrant ruler.

Thus, from the above saying of the Prophet (PBUH) I conclude that real jihad can never be violent in form; much less using violence for achieving one’s objectives. Jihad is nothing but constant struggle to challenge coercive and unjust powers for creating the other world where there will be no violence or even coercion. According to my own understanding of the Qur’an, jihad is nothing but ceaseless spiritual struggle for a just world and violence is permissible in exceptional circumstances to defend oneself. And for that too it should be avoided as far as possible.

I believe any change brought about by violent or coercive means will never do away with injustice and can, at best, result in greater coercive powers. Violence, in other words, continues to reproduce itself. I also believe that religion, instead of going along with political power, should remain its strong critic. Since power corrupts, power will corrupt religion also and we have seen this in history.

However, it is happening even in the twenty first century in many countries including some advanced countries of the West. Politicians misuse religion and corrupt its teaching and practices most cynically to reap political benefit.
Initially it may appear that religion is a value-giver and a moral force and hence it would put politics on the right track. Every time it has proved to be an illusion and I believe religion should in no case be married with politics. Politics is all about power games and hence the best role for religion and religious leaders would be to maintain its distance from politics and act as strong critic of political establishment.

The doctrine, later on invented by some Muslim leaders, that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam be reinvented to say that religion, while maintaining its distance from politics, should, through criticism of political authorities, try and correct their course. Religion, by becoming part of any establishment, much less political establishment, loses its very moral spirit. Not only that, if it becomes its own establishment, religion gets corrupted. Religion, therefore, should not become an establishment at all. All religious establishments develop their own politics of control and hence suppress people, even eliminate its critics.

I believe that no religion is possible without freedom of conscience and fearlessness and commitment to truth. A religious person jealously guards his/her freedom of conscience and commitment to truth. It is lack of this commitment to truth that results religion becoming an obstacle rather than being helpful to human beings. Without this freedom of conscience and commitment to truth, religion ends to become lifeless and ritualistic.

It is my conviction that religion should spur healthy change rather than become an obstacle. However, change should be for the benefit of the whole humanity and not for a section of it at the cost of others. Value-based traditions should not be compromised and change should be guided by general human welfare. Traditions should not be spurned just because they are traditions and should not be worshipped because they are traditions. Traditions must change if they cease to play a healthy role for the humanity.

It is my opinion that religion should not divide but unite humanity. Human solidarity is the common denominator of all religions. The feeling of superiority over other religious traditions is human arrogance rather than true religious spirit. A true religious believer would never claim superiority over other religions. Since truth is the core of all religions (no religion would be acceptable without this core of truth) one truth cannot be superior over the other. However, their cultural expressions can differ and it is these cultural and linguistic differences which make one religion different from the other. Customs and traditions and parts of religious rituals are products of culture more than religion.

Cultural diversity should be celebrated and this diversity is the way of life for the entire humanity in these days of rapid transportation. Qur’an refers to this diversity as creation of Allah and all Muslims should all the more welcome it. If cultural diversity is accepted, it helps ease inter-religious tensions also as most of our religious practices are cultural in origin. Cultural and linguistic differences are more fundamental than religious ones.

Also, all religions have urged human beings to resist temptation, anger and feeling of revenge. Forgiveness is one of the highest qualities of religious life and in Islamic tradition Allah has been repeatedly described as Ghafur al-Rahim (i.e. Pardoner and Merciful). Thus a worshipper of God has to forgive and control his anger and feeling of revenge. These are truly religious qualities.

If one can suppress one’s greed, anger and feeling of revenge, there will not be much violence in the world. One commits violence because one is greedy and wants to take away what belongs to others or when one is angry and wants to take revenge and fails to forgive. Even world wars have taken place because of these negative attributes in an individual or group or nation. Our world would be a much better place to live if these negative qualities could be suppressed.

Here I am reminded of a Sufi called Sarmad who was contemporary of Aurangzeb. His story is very inspiring and also illustrates what it means to be religious. He had supported Dara Shikoh, also inclined towards Sufism, and hence Aurangzeb wanted to kill him. He obtained fatwa from the ‘Ulama on the grounds that he did not recite kalimah (profession of Islamic faith) fully. He would only say la ilaha (there is no god) but did not say illallah (except one God).

On the basis of the fatwa Aurangzeb ordered his execution and when the executioner raised his sword, one of Sarmad’s disciples rushed and whispered in his ear: ‘now at least say illallah and save your life.’ Sarmad replied ‘do you want me to speak lie to save my life?’ The disciple, surprised at this reply said, ‘is it lie to say illallah? ‘No’, said Sarmad, ‘it is the highest truth but for me it would be a lie’? ‘Why’, the disciple asked. ‘Because’, Sarmad said ‘I have not been able to really deny so many gods of desire still sitting in my heart. How can I then say il lallah (except One God)? I am still worshipping so many idols of desire and not free of them’. And his head was cut off.

Unless we deny these idols of desire we cannot become truly religious. This was the message of Sarmad. Not only we worship these idols of desire, we fail to suppress anger and feeling of revenge and purify our heart. Thus being religious is a constant effort, a continuing jihad against all evils we are controlled by. We are not free persons because we are shackled by desire, greed and revenge. A truly free person should be free of all this and his/her only passion should be truth and justice.

I also believe that passionate love of Creator and all human beings irrespective of their religion, colour or ethnicity should be our motivating force. ‘A heart without love’, says Jalaluddin Rumi, ‘is nothing but a handful of dust. A human devoid of love is not worthy of humanity’. Jalaluddin Rumi whose mathnavi (an epic poem in several volumes) is called Qur’an in Persian was a great scholar holding a high place in the court of the King of Quniya in modern day Turkey but was devoid of love.

It was a roaming dervish Shams Tabriz who introduced him to the importance of love so much so that he began to say: ‘I am neither Muslim, nor Christian, nor Jew, nor from earth nor from heavens, nor from east nor from west nor from north nor from south, but my only identity is love and love of my beloved’. It is this passionate love that made Maulana Rum to write mathnavi which made him eternal and people revere him and read his mathnavi with great fervour even today.

Another great Sufi saint Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi also makes love fundamental in his school of thought. He says in one of his poems that ‘love is my religion and love is my Shari’ah (law). Love indeed sustains life on this earth’. This love is universal and in fact I believe one can love God only through love of His creation. Life will be barren without love. It is love which frees human person of all negative passions i.e. anger, hatred greed and revenge. It removes the feeling of ‘otherness’ of the other.

Love transcends all barriers; religious, linguistic, cultural as well as ethnic. Pure love can be only in pure heart. It admits of no interests. There should not be any expectation in love. It admits only of sacrifice for the sake of one’s beloved. It also does not admit of any sense of possession. Beloved cannot be possessed. Any sense of possession destroys the spirit of love as love is supposed to be selfless.

Religion often creates a sense of otherness for people of other religions whereas love creates feeling of oneness and thus love is a superior most feeling. Love also implies the respect for beloved’s integrity. For Sufis real beloved is Allah and a Sufi considers death as wisal i.e. union with Allah. For a lover the greatest joy is union with his beloved and hence love takes away the fear of death from the lover’s mind.

There are two categories of love ‘ishq-e-haqiqui (real love) and ishq-e-majazi (figurative or metaphorical love). Love of Allah is real love (‘ishq-e-haquqi) and love of human person is called ‘ishq-e-majazi. Sufis express their love of God through love of human persons. For them real love has to be expressed metaphorically. I, therefore, maintain that human life is incomplete without love. Also, richness of life can be appreciated only through love. It is through love that one finds worthiness of life.

I also believe that real religion does not lie in rituals like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage and so on. These are means to an end and the end is inner perfection, ridding one’s heart and soul of all evils. If rituals become an end in themselves, inner perfection cannot be achieved. These rituals may be necessary but never sufficient for true religiosity. However, for many, religiosity consists more in performing these rituals than perfecting oneself.

I think rationalist attack on religion is not justified. They think reason is an end in itself. Reason is also a means, not an end. Human life is incomplete without emotions, particularly emotion of love. Reason, in philosophical sense, enables us to understand this world and hence reason plays an important part in progress and development. But reason without faith is lame. A perfect human being stands on two legs – reason and faith. It is perfect faith accompanied by reason makes human life properly balanced.

Once a human person arrives at certain conclusion with the help of reason, the role of reason ceases there and the role of faith begins. It is faith in one’s goal which infuses spiritual energy in human person to act. It is again faith which enables human beings to make supreme sacrifices to achieve one’s goal. Reason can show the way but cannot take one to its destination.

If I am convinced that human freedom and dignity are important goals, I must act to achieve these goals. Here, not reason but faith enables us to act and do whatever possible to achieve these goals. I admit faith in its extreme and devoid of reason, can be exploited by unscrupulous elements and blind faith becomes powerful tool for exploitation of many gullible people. In this sense I am one with rationalists but I disagree with them that faith is always blind and only reason helps.

As blind faith is undesirable, scepticism, the extreme form of reason, is equally undesirable. Once the founder of scepticism fell into a ditch in his old age while walking with his disciples and cried for help. However, his disciples, true to his teaching began arguing whether it is worth saving the master’s life. But one of his disciples said human life must be saved and he pulled out the master from the ditch, risking his own life.

According to the Islamic tradition, when Ibrahim (Abraham) was asked by Nimrod to jump into the fire as he was fighting against his tyranny and oppressive rule, Abraham jumped into it to save the oppressed whereas reason was only analyzing whether it is worth doing so. It is faith in values which allows human beings to sacrifice for others. Reason is important for progress and development but faith is essential for deciding the direction of progress and development.

Today’s progress and development is motivated by greed, profit and consumerism and is utterly directionless and it is achieved through the misery of millions and total destruction of our climate and ecological balance. Today’s progress and development, made possible through technology, is utterly destructive of all values and finer and sensitive aspects of inner human life. It is also not possible without using violence against the weak. The developed countries are using violence in the African and Asian countries to sustain their unsustainable growth based on greed and consumerism. Without violence they cannot sustain this so called growth. Reason is quite neutral to this destruction and only faith in human values and human goals can show the way.

Humanity today needs faith in these values and sensitization towards others suffering as never before. We are destroying our planet earth with utter impunity. Thus we need a world without violence and thousands of years ago insights of great religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Bahaism showed us the way. However, even these religions became prey to human greed and there is a great need to revive their real spirit. We should also remember that all great prophets, seers and saints were from oppressed classes and were critics of powerful and arrogant rulers and liberators.

I believe that all religions are a source of rich values and a precious heritage of entire humanity and coupled with reason, a precious gift of God, we can transform our earth into a real paradise of peace. Thus what we need is real synthesis of faith and reason to achieve our goal. Faith, reason, love and non-violence are our real saviours. These should be the guiding stars of our life and to humanize our progress and development. We will be really humanized.

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

Now a draft bill is under consideration of French Parliament imposing a fine of Euro 700 on any woman wearing burqa covering her whole body in any public place and her husband twice as much if he forces hear to wear burqa. This is for the first time that women would be penalized for wearing burqa. Earlier France had banned Muslim girls wearing hijab in schools. It argued that these religious symbols interfere with its commitment to secularism and its secular culture.

In fact nothing happens without political ideology being behind it. This measure is being championed by rightwing politicians who are exploiting anti-Islam feelings in France among a section of people under the cover of secularism. However the socialists are opposed to any ban on burqa though they are also not in favour of women wearing burqa. They feel women should be discouraged rather than banning burqa (which includes covering face).

The Socialist spokesman Benoit Hamon announced that wearing burqa is not desirable but is not favourable to legal ban which would amount to an inconsistent ad hoc ban. Mr. Hamon said on RTL Raido “We are totally opposed to the burqa. The burqa is a prison for women and has no place in the French Republic”, he said. “But an adhoc law would not have the anticipated effect”.

The stand taken by Socialists appears to be quite logical. One cannot stop women from wearing burqa through a legal ban. It is quite undemocratic to punish one for wearing certain type of dress. It is anti-democratic and anti-secular for a multi-cultural society. Let it be very clear that to cover entire body including the face is not necessarily an Islamic way.

The ulama hold different views on the subject. Majority of them hold that covering face and hands is not prescribed by Qur’an or Sunnah. Only very few theologians and jurists want women to be fully covered. To compel women to so cover their bodies and face is indeed against women’s rights and dignity. And a woman should be a free agent to decide for herself what to wear within decent limits and cultural ethos.

However, this freedom also includes right of women to cover their face, if thy so desire and if they think it is requirement of their religion. When I was lecturing in Bukhara University among a class of women students all of whom were wearing skirts and their heads were uncovered, two women came fully covered including their faces. All other women demanded that these two burqa clad women should be thrown out.

I said imagine burqa clad women were in majority and two women had come wearing skirt and uncovered head and majority of burqa clad women had demanded those two women being thrown out, what would you feel. I, therefore, argued that let us not get violent because someone dresses unlike us. We should dialogue with them and persuade them, if we can, not to wear such dress fully covering themselves.

There could be number of reasons why one prefers to wear certain kind of dress. May be there is coercion by parents or husband which is undesirable. Or may be one thinks it is religious requirement and one tries to assert ones right. Or may be one is trying to fight cultural alienation. Certain dresses also become identity markers. Many Muslims who migrate from Asia and Africa experience cultural shock when they see French or other European women wearing scanty dresses, even wearing bikinis. Thus they feel all the more compelled to wear their traditional dress.

Also, in France and several other European countries migrants are marginalized and have feeling of alienation which pushes them into practicing their own cultural norms. And then it is also to be remembered all Muslim women in France do not wear such dress covering themselves fully. In fact many Muslim women have integrated themselves into French society by taking to western dress.

Thus legal ban will only build up resistance among traditional Muslim women and they would try to defy the law resulting in social tensions. It would be far better to resort to persuasive ways to discourage traditional Muslim women not to wear all covering burqa. And persuasion alone will not work unless backed by other measures economic as well as social to fight alienation of religious and cultural minorities.

Thus one needs multi-pronged measures to contain this problem. Muslim Ulama and intellectuals living in France also have to adopt creative ways to reinterpret Islamic traditional sources to suit new conditions. It is quite necessary to revisit traditional sources rooted in medieval feudal culture.

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd is a well-known Egyptian Islamic scholar. In 1982, he joined the faculty of the Department of Arabic Language and Literature at Cairo University.

In 1995, he was promoted to the rank of full professor, but  controversies about his academic work led to a court decision of apostasy  and the denial of the appointment. A hisbah trial started against him Islamist groups and he was declared a heretic (Murtadd) by an Egyptian court. Consequently, he was declared to be divorced from his wife, Cairo University French Literature professor Dr. Ibthal Younis. This decision, in effect, forced him out of his homeland and seek refuge in the Netherlands, where he now works. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he speaks about his work and reflects on his efforts to promote a humanistic reading of the Islamic tradition.

Sikand: You have been writing on the question of human rights in Islam for a long time now. What are you presently working on?

Nasr Abu Zaid: I am presently working on a project that explores and develops the notion of the rights of women and children in Islam. The aim of the project is to promote knowledge of the traditional sources of Islam, such as the Qur’an, the Sunnah or practice of the Prophet and fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence, within Muslim communities so as to help promote general awareness of these rights. Alongside this, the project also seeks to critically look at aspects of tradition that might appear to militate against these rights.

In the course of your work how do you relate to those aspects of the historical Islamic tradition which you think might be opposed to the notion of women’s and children’s rights?

Every tradition has both negative as well as positive aspects. The positive aspects are to be further developed, while the negative aspects need to be discussed closely, to see if they are indeed essential elements of the faith or are actually simply human creations.

How does this work relate to what you have been previously engaged in?

I see it as part of my long interest in Islamic hermeneutics, the methodology of understanding the Qur’an, the Sunnah and other components of the Islamic tradition. Of particular concern for me are certain assumptions in popular Islamic discourse that have not been fully examined, and have generally been ignored or avoided. Thus, for instance, Muslim scholars have not seriously reflected on the question of what is actually meant when we say that the Qur’an is the revealed ‘Word of God’.

What exactly does the term ‘Word of God’ mean? What does revelation mean? We have the definitions of the Word and revelation given by the traditional ‘ulama, but other definitions are also possible. When we speak of the ‘Word of God’ are we speaking of a divine or a human code of communication?

Is language a neutral channel of communication? Was the responsibility of the Prophet simply that of delivering the message, or did he have a role to play in the forming of that message? What relation does the Qur’an have with the particular social context in which it was revealed? We need to ask what it means for the faith Muslims have in the Qur’an if one brings in the issue of the human dimension involved in revelation.

Are you suggesting that the Qu’ran cannot be understood without taking into account the particular social context of seventh century Arabia?In other words, are there aspects of the Qur’an that were limited in their relevance and application only to the Prophet’s time, and are no longer applicable or relevant today?

What I am suggesting is that in our reading of the Qur’an we cannot undermine the role of the Prophet and the historical and cultural premises of the times and the context of the Qur’anic revelation. When we say that through the Qur’an God spoke in history we cannot neglect the historical dimension, the historical context of seventh century Arabia. Otherwise you cannot answer the question of why God first ’spoke’ Hebrew through his revelations to the prophets of Israel, then Aramaic, through Jesus, and then Arabic, in the form of the Qur’an.In a historical understanding of the Qur’an one would also have to look at the verses in the text that refer specifically to the Prophet and the society in which he lived. Some people might feel that looking at the Qur’an in this way is a crime against Islam, but I feel that this sort of reaction is a sign of a weak and vulnerable faith. And this is why a number of writers who have departed from tradition and have pressed for a way of relating to the Qur’an that takes the historical context of the revelation seriously have been persecuted in many countries. I think there is a pressing need to bring the historical dimension of the revelation into discussion, for this is indispensable for countering authoritarianism, both religious and political, and for promoting human rights.

Could you give an example of how a historically grounded reading of the Qur’an could help promote human rights?

Take, for instance, the question of chopping off the hands of thieves, which traditionalists would insist be imposed as an ‘Islamic’ punishment today. A historically nuanced understanding of the Islamic tradition would see this form of punishment as a borrowing from pre-Islamic Arabian society, and as rooted in a particular social and historical context. Hence, doing away with this form of punishment today would not, one could argue, be tantamount to doing away with Islam itself. By thus contextualising the Qur’an, one could arrive at its essential core, which could be seen as being normative for all times, shifting it from what could be regarded as having been relevant to a historical period and context that no longer exists.

If one were to take history seriously, how would a contextual, historically grounded understanding of the Qur’an reflect on Islamic theology as it has come to be developed?

As I see it, Sunni Muslim theology has remained largely frozen in its ninth century mould, as developed by the conservative ‘Asharites. We need to revisit fundamental theological concepts today, which the Sunni ‘ulama, by and large, have ignored, for there can be no reform possible in Muslim societies without reform in theology. Till now, however, most reform movements in the Sunni world have operated from within the broad framework of traditional theology, which is why they have not been able to go very far.

How would this new understanding of theology that you propose reflect on the issue of inter-faith relations?

When I suggest that we need to reconsider what exactly is meant by saying that the Qur’an is the ‘Word of God’, I mean Muslims must also remember that the Qur’an itself insists that the ‘Word of God’ cannot be limited to the Qur’an alone. A verse in the Qur’an says that if all the trees in the world were pens and all the water in the seas were ink, still they could not, put together, adequately exhausted the Word of God. The Qur’an, therefore, represents only one manifestation of the absolute Word of God. Other Scriptures represent other manifestations as well. Then again, many Sufis saw the whole universe as a manifestation of the ‘Word of God’. But, today, few Muslim scholars are taking the need for inter-faith dialogue with the seriousness that it deserves. Most Muslim writers are yet to free themselves from a rigid, imprisoning chauvinism.

How does this way of reading the Qur’an deal with the multiple ways in which the text can be understood and interpreted?

The Qur’an, like any other text, can be read in different ways, and there has always been a plurality of interpretations. The text does not stand alone. Rather, it has to be interpreted, in order to arrive at its meaning, and interpretation is a human exercise and no interpreter is infallible. As Imam ‘Ali says, the Qur’an does not speak by itself, but, rather, through human beings. True, Muslims from all over the world, do share certain rituals and beliefs in common, but their understanding of what Islam and the Qur’an are all about differ considerably. It is for us to help develop new ways of understanding Islam that can promote human rights, while at the same time being firmly rooted in the faith tradition.

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

Lying to the immediate south of Delhi, straddling the rocky outcrops of the Aravalli range, is the region known as Mewat, named after the Meo Muslims, the principal community living in the area. Mewat covers large parts of the Gurgaon and Faridabad districts in Haryana and Alwar and Bharatpur in Rajasthan. Recently, a separate district was carved out of the Meo-dominated parts of Haryana and also given the name of ‘Mewat’.

Two decades ago I used to regularly visit Mewat—for my Ph.D. dissertation, which was about the history of the global Islamic revivalist Tablighi Jamaat, now the world’s largest such movement, which had its roots in the humble hamlets of Mewat in the 1920s. It was the Tablighi Jamaat that put Mewat on the map of the world. Some months ago, I returned to Mewat, after a gap of fifteen years, curious to learn how much, if at all, the region had changed in this period.

Despite its proximity to Delhi, Gurgaon and Jaipur, Mewat is one of the most impoverished regions in northern India. When I did fieldwork in the region in the 1990s, the literacy rate among the Meos, more than a million-strong community, was estimated at less than 10 per cent, and that of Meo females at lower than 5 per cent. This was attributed to extreme poverty (most Meos being small peasants) as well as the influence of the ultra-conservative Tablighi Jamaat, which was seen as being opposed to education imparted in regular schools, particularly for girls, believing that this would lead the Meos astray from Islam.

Two decades later, the Mewat is still characterized by endemic poverty. The villages and towns I visited this time seem to have hardly changed in terms of looks since I saw them last. But for a couple of recently-constructed large, brightly-painted mansions and a few new shops (only a few of which were Meo-owned), Nuh and Ferozepur-Jhirka, the two largest towns in Mewat, seemed to be no different from what I remembered of them from my earlier visits. In fact, they only seemed to have become even more filthy and chaotic. The villages I travelled to seemed to have remained frozen in time—the same squalid mud huts, the same visible signs of neglect by the state, the same scene of Meo women labouring in the fields while their menfolk squatted on cots sunning themselves or sucking away at their hukkahs at roadside eateries. But one change struck me forcefully throughout my trip: a distinct thirst on the part of many younger Meos for ‘modern’ education—nothing short of a revolution in terms of demands, hopes, and expectations.

Meos breaking shackles to get education

This was quite in contrast to what I had witnessed on my first visit to Mewat, in the late 1980s, when there was not a single Meo-run school, when there were hardly a dozen or so Meo girls in government-run schools throughout the region, and when many local ulema or Muslim clerics, mostly affiliated to the Tablighi Jamaat, openly condemned ‘modern’ schools as dens of irreligiousness and licentiousness, insisting that the Meos should send their children only to madrasas instead. Today, however, literally dozens of ‘modern’ schools run by Meos have mushroomed all over Mewat; girls are enrolling in these and in government-run schools in rapidly increasing numbers; many ulema are in the forefront of promoting ‘modern’, in addition to religious, education among the Meos; and scores of madrasas have begun teaching English and Hindi, with some of them having actually transformed themselves into regular schools.

Located on the outskirts of Ferozepur Jhirka town is the sprawling 15-acre campus of the recently-established English-medium Aravalli Public School, the largest Meo-run school in Mewat. Founded by a retired Meo engineer, Muhammad Israil, this residential school has some 600 students on its rolls, 60% of whom are Meos, and roughly 10% Muslims from other parts of India, the rest being from other religious communities. 60 of the school’s 70 girl students are Meos. The costs of studying here are exorbitant by average Meo standards, but tuition fees are waved for girls in order to encourage more Meo girls, whose overall literacy rate is less than 15%, to enroll. The schools’ principal is a Hindu. Most teachers are non-Meos, including Muslims from other parts of India as well as non-Muslims from Mewat.

The school’s well-maintained campus is lined with fine buildings built around a vast playing field. The swank technical training institute was built with aid from the Japanese Embassy, so I am informed by a student who takes me around, and the girls’ hostel building that is still under construction is being financed by the Islamic Development Bank.

It is late in the afternoon, and the students pour out of their hostels and onto the playing field, forming teams to play football and cricket. They are dressed in jeans or shorts, and brightly-coloured T-shirts or jackets and sneakers. None of them sports the almost mandatory Tablighi-style beard that almost every Meo male in their fathers’ generation does. These students are nearly all Meos—I can hardly believe that at first, for hardly any Meo boys dressed like this when I last visited the area. A dozen girls, Meos all, take a sprint around the playing field, brandishing their badminton rackets. Needless to say, that would have been considered sheer anathema two decades ago.

I stare, dumbstruck, at the students, stunned at what I see before me. When I first visited Mewat, the parents of most of these students would almost all have been un-educated peasants—their fathers dressed in long kurtas, tahmats and ponderous turbans, their mothers, wholly illiterate, kept carefully cloistered in their homes when they were not compelled to work in the fields.

Watch: Interview of Mewat students

That a major section of Meo youths are today defying deep-rooted traditions by clamoring for ‘modern’ education is undeniable, and signs of this are today visible all over. I am not sure if this is an entirely positive development, though. Need ‘modernisation’ necessarily be equated with ‘Westernisation’? Does it have to also necessarily imply ‘secularisation’, in the sense of focusing wholly on worldly knowledge and ‘success’, consequently trivializing religion and moral values? These crucial questions are being raised by many Meos themselves, who fear that the irrepressible desire on the part of Meo youths for ‘modern’ education might seriously erode traditional, religious values and promote crass consumerism. This is summed up in a complaint of a maulvi attached to a Deobandi madrasa located adjacent to the Aravalli Public School—‘The school has no facility for teaching Islamic Studies. All that they are taught is about this world (duniya)—how to gather more information and degrees so that they can get highly-paid jobs and lead a life of ease and comfort.’

Schools imparting religious and secular education

Devising an educational system that balances the needs of the duniya and the deen or religion has been a longstanding concern for Muslim educationists. When I first visited Mewat, I came across almost ulema who were supportive of, leave alone actively engaged in, promoting ‘modern’ or ‘secular’, in addition to religious, education. In contrast, on this trip, I met with numerous maulvis, all graduates of what are commonly considered to be ‘orthodox’ madrasas, who have set up their own schools that impart a healthy mix of both sorts of learning.

Watch: Interview of Qari Sirajuddin of Al-Falah Model School

One of these ulema is an old friend of mine, 33 year-old Qari Sirajuddin of Bhadas village near the town of Nuh. The last time I met him was when he was 18 years old. He had just completed his religious education at the Jamia Sanabil, an Ahl-e Hadith madrasa in Delhi, and had returned to his village, where he had started a small maktab in a two-room tenement to provide basic Islamic education to girls. Today, what started off as the Madrasat ul-Banat Ayesha Siddiqa is now the Al-Falah Model Senior Secondary School. Affiliated to the Haryana Educational Board, it provides education till the twelfth standard. It has almost 700 students on its rolls, of whom almost a hundred are non-Muslims. Girl students number some 125, of whom 25 are Hindus, and the rest Meo Muslims. The school supplements the government-approved syllabus for modern subjects with compulsory Islamic Studies, Urdu and Arabic for Muslim students and Sanskrit, for Hindu students.

What, I ask Qari Sirajuddin, made him transform what began as a girls’ madrasa into a co-educational secondary school? ‘There are scores of madrasas in Mewat’, he answers, ‘but what we lack are sufficient general schools, for which there is now increasing demand’. Further, he adds, ‘I did not want to keep depending on people for donations (chanda), which I would have had to had I continued to run it as a madrasa. As a school it can generate funds for itself through the fees that it charges’.

Several other small madrasas across Mewat might, too, like to make the shift and become regular schools, albeit with provision for Islamic education for their Muslim students, Qari Sirajuddin tells me. However, a major hurdle in this regard are the government’s stringent norms for providing recognition to private schools that most such madrasas fail to meet. As per the existing rules, to qualify for official recognition an institution must possess a basic minimum plot of land (half acre for primary schools, one and a half acres for middle schools and two acres for high schools)—which effectively rules out most madrasas. Likewise, an institution must possess a certain number of rooms of a particular size, a library with a basic specified number of books and so on, which many smaller madrasas, that run small budgets based on donations, simply cannot afford. Were the government to lower these requirements in the case of madrasas, Qari Sirajuddin suggests, several small madrasas in Mewat might well transform themselves into regular schools. ‘That’, he says, ‘would be a much less expensive and controversy-free way to modernize madrasas.’

Qari Sirajuddin’s own family, whom he introduces me to over a hearty meal at his home, exemplifies the rapid transformation that the Meos are today undergoing in terms of their approach to education. Although himself a madrasa graduate, none of his children is training to become a traditional alim or Islamic scholar. The first two of his six children, including one girl, study in modern, privately-run ‘public’ schools, and the rest in his own school. His brother, also a graduate of a traditional Ahl-e Hadith madrasa (the Madrasa Riyaz ul-Ulum, Delhi) has just finished a degree in Social Work from the Jamia Millia Islamia and hopes to join the civil services.

His support for ‘modern’, in addition to religious, education, Qari Sirajuddin assures me, is something that he shares with increasing numbers of ulema today—not just in Mewat, but across other parts of India, too. ‘Even some very conservative Deobandi Meo ulema, who traditionally frowned on modern schools, have opened such institutions, fearful that otherwise Muslim children would study in non-Muslim schools, because of which they might, as they see it, go astray’, he tells me. Madrasas throughout Mewat, he says, have now introduced basic English, Hindi and Mathematics in their curriculum, mainly because they realize that this is what parents of most Meo children now also want. At the same time, he laments, few of these madrasas take the teaching of these subjects seriously. ‘Some of them claim to be teaching English and other such subjects simply to keep the mouths of their critics shut and to stave off criticism that they are not giving their students a well-rounded education’, he says. ‘The managers of most madrasas do not know English or other modern subjects themselves, and so are not in a position to prescribe a proper syllabus for these subjects and to supervise the teachers they appoint for teaching them.’ Many of them also feel, Qari Sirajuddin goes on, that if they were to deviate from the traditional Deobandi-style curriculum by giving more than just a basic attention to modern subjects they would be criticized by their religious ‘elders’. Typically, he says, the staff they employ for teaching these subjects are simple high school graduates, with no training at all, and with a very poor command of these subjects.

Be that as it may, the very fact that Mewat’s madrasas, once known for their visceral opposition to what they saw as the baneful influence of ‘Western-style’ education imparted in schools, are increasingly willing to incorporate these ‘Western’ subjects into their curriculum is ample proof, Qari Sirajuddin assures me, of the veritable revolution in the demands and expectations of vast numbers of Meo parents as regards the education of their children.

Qari Sirajuddin can be contacted on 09813790027 or at gwfmewat@gmail.com

(Photos and interviews taken by Mumtaz Alam Falahi of TwoCircles.net)

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

Recently I came across an excellent monograph in the form of a small book Is Science Western in Origin? By Pof. C K. Raju, professor of philosophy who has written earlier a book on Time – a thick volume on philosophy of time. The later work is also of high academic standard. This monologue on origin of science is a significant contribution which tries to shatter the myth that science is western in origin.

We would throw more light on it little later but to begin with it would be quite relevant to discuss whether Islam and science go together or, as many believe Islam is against science. Of course one can say this debate about Islam and science was more relevant to 19^th century when the Muslim theologians (Ulama) opposed science as against Islam. What is its relevance today? Ulama no longer oppose science and its discoveries. This is largely true but still there are several problems in this debate which need to be discussed. Also, still some western scholars believe that Islam happens to be inherently opposed to scientific progress.

Recently I came across a book Lost in the Sacred – Why the Muslim World Stood Still by Dan Diner published by Princeton and Oxford and the main theme of the book is how Islam and Muslims oppose progress. That is why it is necessary to throw light on Islam and modern science and the monograph by Prof. Raju tries to prove that science originated from India and the Arab world and the west simply imitated it and then cleverly manipulated and interpolated to show that modern science is of Greek origin.

I

Does Islam oppose science? Qur’an is the main source of Islam and hence we would like to first see what Qur’an has to say about this. In fact pre-Islamic Arabs both settled in urban areas like Mecca or Madnia or Bedouins who were basically nomads were not interested in knowledge. In fact according to Tabari, the noted historian, there were only 17 persons in Mecca before Islam who could read and write. What they were proud of was their pedigree which they knew by heart for several generations. Learning and knowledge was for them hardly of any use .and hence pre-Islamic period was rightly referred to as period ofjahiliyyah (ignorance).

Qur’an, therefore, laid great emphasis on ‘ilm (knowledge) precisely because Arabs were not only ignorant but also looked at learning with contempt. What mattered to them was their distinctive origin, not learning. As it has been repeatedly pointed out the revelation to the Prophet (PBUH) began by the word iqra’ (recite or read). Thus the Qur’an says, “Read in the name of thy Lord who creates. Creates human being from a clot.” (96:1-2)

Now this statement itself that read “in the name of the Lord who creates and creates from a clot” is an important scientific statement also as modern studies have developed how fertilization of man’s semen and woman’s eggs result in creation of human being. This science has developed now tremendously through modern technology. Of course the Qur’an is a book of moral guidance and basic knowledge. It is certainly not the book of science. However, it does invite the believers to reflect and think about the creation and about our universe.

Knowledge, according to the Qur’an, is very basic if one wants to know ones God (Rabb, Allah) one has to have knowledge of this Universe as he is the creator of this universe. Thus the Qur’an says, “Those of His servants only who are possessed of knowledge fear Allah.” Lest one should think this knowledge Qur’an is talking about is knowledge of theology ordeen the preceding verse makes it clear it is knowledge about the creation. It says, “See you not that Allah sends down water from the clouds, then We bring forth therewith fruits of various hues? And in the mountains are streaks, white and red, of various hues and (others) intensely black” (35:27).

Also, in the second chapter it is stated that the believers believe in the unseen ghayb. Generally the theologians say that this unseen ghayb is all about the other world the world which begins after death. Well, that may be one of the interpretations and in those days when knowledge had not developed much it was perhaps the best available interpretation. But then divine scriptures use metaphorical and symbolic language which admits of multiple interpretations.

Ghayb can also mean potential knowledge which is hidden from those who live in a particular period. But continuously developing knowledge keeps on bringing forth what was not known to those who lived in previous times. It was ghayb (hidden) for them. And what is known to us today, may be is quite advanced compared to what was known to our predecessors, may appear to be quite primitive to coming generations. Thus that is all ghayb to us. But Allah is described in the Qur’an as ‘Alim al-Ghayb as He has knowledge of all that is to come but to us – His servants – it is just ghayb.

Thus what was known to the world when Qur’an was revealed to the Arabs, was quite primitive than what developed with few centuries during the Abbasid period and subsequently during the Fatimid period in Egypt. Great philosopher, mathematicians, chemists, geographers, astronomers and others discovered many things which was nothing more thanghayb just before two centuries.

Thus requiring believers (mu’minin) to believe in knowledge of ghayb Qur’an inspired Muslims to continuously develop knowledge. Allah’s knowledge is without limits and so the believers should constantly pursue knowledge to infinity. No knowledge is final and more knowledge develops more one is bewildered about limitlessness of knowledge. The Prophet rightly said that a moment’s reflection by an ‘Alim is more meritorious than praying whole night.

The Qur’an invites all believers to reflect about this universe and an ignorant person cannot be true believer. An ignorant person knows nothing about this universe created by Allah. If one tries to know this universe she/he realizes how wonderful this universe is and only she/he then realizes the greatness of the Creator of this universe. Today scientists, physicists and astronomers tell us how bewilderingly large are the dimensions of this universe.

There is no single solar system as earlier believed. There are hundreds of solar systems each billions of light years away from each other. The age of our universe was fixed by some Christian theologians in sixteenth century as about 4,000 years. It was all ghayb for them then. Today the scientists fix the age of our universe as at least 20 billion light years. Every now and then new stars are discovered billions of light years.

The Greek knowledge was basically deductive in nature and hence its limitation in understanding of the universe. The science develops with inductive knowledge i.e. through observations over a large period of time. Thus Iqbal points out in his lectures Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam that Qur’an lays emphasis on inductive knowledge and he quotes Francis Beacon to the effect that modern science developed through inductive logic.

The Qur’an repeatedly invites believers to reflect over the creation of Allah and this itself could inspire believers to develop knowledge about this universe and for a period of time they did and contributed richly to the knowledge about this world. The first impulse came when the Abbasids started Darul Hikmah (House of Wisdom). By the way Qur’an lays great emphasis on Hikmah (wisdom). It is Allah’s name (Hakim) and Qur’an describes hikmah askhayran kathira (i.e. goodness in abundance).

Thus the Qur’an says, “He grants wisdom to which He pleases. And whoever is granted wisdom, he indeed is given a goodness in abundance.” (2:269). Thus hikmah has great importance in the Qur’an because hikmah is not possible without knowledge and the Abbasids rightly called the place where books of knowledge from various countries as House of Wisdom. According to Prof. Raju this house of wisdom became epicenter of science and what we call western science today could not have developed without this house of wisdom.

Thus it is not true that Islam ever came in the way of development of modern knowledge or science. In fact it was the springboard, if we believe Prof. Raju, of development of modern science. Prof. H.G. Wells, in his The Short History of the World calls the Arabs as foster fathers of modern knowledge. But it is only partly true. The Arabs were much more than foster fathers. Their own contribution was quite rich as we will discuss shortly.

It is true after 13^th century there was stagnation in the Muslims world and for reasons not to be discussed here, the Muslim world was taken over by superstitious beliefs until the western colonization again awoke them from their slumber. The Muslim theologians also contributed to this stagnation a great deal. In order to maintain their hegemony they opposed great philosophers and scientists like Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicena) or (Averos) (Ibn Rushd) and others and even condemned them as heretics.

Also, persons like Ghazzali, had very different approach to knowledge which was based on certainty rather than uncertainties of philosophy and constant quest for knowledge of science and hence he also opposed philosophers like Averros and there was great debate between the two. But after the attack of Helagu in 1258 the Abbasid Empire which was already on decline, collapsed and Baghdad ceased to be the centre of learning and development of science. Though other empires like that of Fatimid in Egypt survived a bit longer but it did not help much. Ghazzli’s approach of inner certainty found now much greater resonance and Muslims now began concentrating on ‘ulum al-Din (i.e. religious sciences) which goes on until today. Ghazzali’s Ihya al-‘Ulum al-Din (i.e. Revivification of Religious Sciences) indeed became symbolic of this revival.

II

In this background we would like to discuss here briefly the monograph of Prof. C.K.Raju Is Science Western in Origin? In this learned monograph Raju tries to show the science is certainly not western in origin but it owes much more to India on one hand, and Islamic centres in Baghdad and Spain. This monograph is part of the dissenting knowledges pamphlet series.

According to Prof. Raju it is a sheer myth to say that science is of Hellenic origin. He says that “The story of the Greek origin of science postdates the Crusades. Before the Crusades, Christendom was in ‘Dark Age’” Prof. Raju also says that it was Roman Christian Emperor ordered burning down of the Great Library of Alexandria and he also says it was Justinian who ordered closure of all philosophical schools in 529 CE.  In the footnote Raju refers to Edward Gibbon who discusses in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and dismisses the canard that burning down the Great Library might have been the work of Caliph Omar, or that it might have happened during a fire started at the time of Julius Caesar’s attack.

Dr. Raju also makes an interesting observation that “Ironically, this Christian Dark Age coincided with the Islamic Golden Age.” Then he goes on to say that in sharp contrast to the book-burning tradition of Christendom, the Abbasid Caliphate had established in Baghdad House of Wisdom by the early 9^thc. This led to such an explosion in the demands for books that, along the lines of the hadith to seek knowledge even from China, paper-making techniques were imported from China to set up a paper factory in Baghdad, which had a flourishing book bazaar.

It is not true, according to him that books were brought only from Byzantine but also from Persia and India. Baghdad had scholars from all these countries and it became an important centre of intellectual debates and House of Wisdom, centre for transferring knowledge from these sources into Arabic. He also points out that apart from the contrast in knowledge, there was also striking contrast in wealth between Christendom and Islamic Arabs, Charlemagne’s emissaries were dazzled by the splendor of Haroun al-Rashid’s court, and the gifts they brought back were avidly imitated, and became models of Carolingian art.

It was only post-Crusades that the Church realized the importance of non-Biblical knowledge. In sharp contrast to earlier behavior Church preserved the magnificent library at Toledo in the Muslim Spain when it was conquered during the proto-Crusades in 1085. Now the non-Biblical knowledge was accepted at the highest levels of the Church.

Prof. Raju also points out that India had very advanced knowledge of arithmetic’s and astronomy. He says that while the Arabs valued the ‘theology of Aristotle’ for arithmetic, they turned to India, not to Greece. Arabs imported various Indian arithmetic texts, notably those of Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Mahavira. These were digested   and transcreated in the Bayt al-Hikma, by al-Khwarizmi, and became famous as Algorismus after his Latinized name. These ‘Arabic numerals’ use the place-value system which makes it very easy to represent large numerals. It also makes arithmetic very easy through ‘algorithmus’. In fact the legendry Barmakids (derived from barmak- pramukh), the viziers of Abbasides were instrumental in importing knowledge from Persia and India.

Initially many texts in Baghdad came from Persia where the same practice of collecting world-knowledge was followed. But, even in Persia, knowledge of astronomy (translated as Zij-i- Shahryar) was imported from India. Raju then dwells on how of the secular knowledge nothing was available from Rome as otherwise Khusrau to him Justinian was paying him a hefty tribute for non-aggression would have imported it from there, not from India.

Prof. Raju also exposes the myth of Euclides as the writer of Geometry Elements he points out nothing is known about Euclids as to who he was. He quotes to this effect the leading authority on Elements. Interestingly he also points out that the word Euclides is derived from Arabic iklid or klid which means key or here ‘key to geometry’. It could be because in Toledo translations were done either by those who knew Arabic but not the subject or those who knew Latin but not the subject and hence such howlers were common.

Raju also throws light on Copernicus who is considered as having revolutionized the knowledge of astronomy. Thus Raju points out that Copernicus’s mathematical model is a carbon copy of an earlier astronomical model by Ibn as-Shatir of Damuscus (d.1375). Ibn Shatir used a technique due to Nasiruddin Tusi (whose advice to Melagu led to the downfall of Baghdad, and who was rewarded with the Maraghah observatory). The Maraghah school raised new questions, and offered novel solutions. Copernicus mimics both the questions and answers. Copernicus’s lunar model is identical to Ibn as-Shatir’s. The question therefore is not whether, but when, where, and in what form he learned of Maragha theory.”

Prof. Raju of course provides answers to these questions though it is too technical for us to throw light on that. But suffice it to say that Copernicus is hailed as father of modern astronomy and in turn on it depends our knowledge of universe today. All further developments in the knowledge of universe, of stars, of solar system and so on, depends on Copernicus’s revolution.

Prof. Raju raises one more important question and says, “The key questions, however, have never been asked: Could Copernicus have openly acknowledged his Islamic sources? Had he done that wouldn’t someone have denounced him as a heretic? Would that have helped his case for theological correctness? So, Copernicus followed the tradition: he used Islamic sources, but refused to acknowledge them.”

However, according to Dr. Raju the western scholars have manipulated evidence in such a way as to hide this fact that Copernicus imitated the model of Ibn as-Shatir and maintain that it was original work by Copernicus. After quoting the sources that Ibn as-Shatir’s manuscript was present in the library of the Church, he observes, “Note a further subtle way in which the rules of evidence are being juggled. The appropriate standard of evidence for history is balance of probabilities, and there is ample circumstantial evidence that Copernicus’ model was entirely derived. So, the onus of proof is on Western historians to supply solid evidence that Copernicus did not see that text! Instead, they shift the onus of proof, and demand further evidence! So the great Copernican revolution is better called the great Copernican Quibble!”

The pamphlet discussed here by Prof. Raju though, small in length, is much larger in significance. And more scholars would work on these lines. It is highly learned in its contents and unfortunately our universities do not have departments of history of science to carry on study on these lines. In the west history of science is an important area of study and it is high time we also carry on work in this important field.

In conclusion I would like to say though what has been discussed here is historical truth Muslims should not only celebrate this but use it an occasion for serious reflection that though west  borrowed much from the Muslim world, why Muslim world is in such pathetic condition today. For them Islam is nothing more than a set of rituals and only an instrument for najat(emancipation) for the other world and not for achievements in this world?

Today Muslims are far behind western countries and depend entirely on the west for scientific knowledge. As the Christendom was passing through dark age when Islamic world was at its height of glory and achievements in the fields of science, mathematics and astronomy. Now it is just the reverse. Now the west (or Christendom) is at its height and the Muslim world is passing through dark age. The Muslim world now at best excels in religious knowledge (‘ulum al-Din).

Ilm (knowledge) must be taken in its most comprehensive sense as this word has been used in the Qur’an and it should not be confined only to religious knowledge. The ‘Ulama should not mean only those who specialize in diniyat but all those who have expertise in modern secular sciences (all its branches). The ‘Ulama who have no knowledge of modern sciences have no right to lead us. Only those who have knowledge of modern world along with that of Islam have right to show us the way. Otherwise the ‘ulama would be nothing more than what Iqbal alled them do rak’at ka imam (leader of prayer).

Institute of Islamic Studies, Mumbai.

E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

Minaret Ban Campaign Poster

In a decision with wide-ranging implications, 57.5% of Swiss voters voted in favor of a ban that will constitutionally outlaw building minarets in the country. The support for the proposal was universal with 22 of the 26 Swiss provinces voted in favor of the ban. Switzerland has almost 400,000 Muslims out of a total population of 7.7 million. The vote was preceded by a demonstrably Islamophobic campaign.

One poster showed a veiled woman in black with only her eyes visible and multiple minarets as weapons casting a black shadow on the Swiss flag. Another showed a minaret standing in the river in place of the fallen Lucerne water-hall and the words “Stop Islamization” printed in red. Yet another poster read “No Islamic symbols in Switzerland. Consider a ban on minarets”. The logo from the official website shows a minaret ripping apart the heart of Switzerland.

Minaret Ban Campaign Poster

The minaret controversy started in 2005 when the Turkish Islamic Cultural Center in Wangen bei Olten in north-western Switzerland asked for permission to construct a minaret at their mosque. The local Communal Building and Planning Commission rejected the application but the the Building and Justice Department reversed the decision. Local community members who were opposing the construction then went to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn where they lost their appeal and the Federal Supreme Court eventually affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The 20 ft (6 m) minaret was erected in July 2009. Consequently the proponents of the ban brought it to vote as Swiss Supreme Court rulings can be overturned by a majority of voters.

As is obvious from the standalone image of the mosque as well as the one with its surroundings, the mosque or the minaret does not appear imposing at all. Also, it is not that Switzerland is being besieged by minarets all over the country. There are just four minarets in Switzerland and only two more were being planned. Moreover, this ban is specifically against minarets and other religions are free from its purview.

The international condemnation of the ban has been swift. Swiss Justice Minister indicated that the higher European court could over-rule the Sunday vote. French Foreign Minister told a radio program that the vote was “an expression of intolerance”. Vatican joined Swiss bishops in condemning the vote and Muslim countries obviously voiced their disapproval. New York Times in a hard hitting editorial termed the ban as “disgraceful”.

Switzerland has had a reputation of being neutral. It is the only country in the western Europe that has not joined EU. It has a unique form of government where voters can not only over-turn Supreme Court rulings but also have the power to decide upon the citizenship applications. In 2008, BBC News highlighted the case of two brothers of Turkish origin who have lived their entire lives in Switzerland but are not able to get Swiss citizenship. The brothers had passed all language tests and the authorities recommended them for citizenship. However, since their application was subject to a final approval by local community members through secret ballots, it had been denied four times. Sometimes it is difficult even for the grandchildren of the immigrants to receive Swiss citizenship.

Right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP), that has seen its influence grow tremendously since 1991, was at the forefront  of minaret ban campaign. It has been accused of running racially charged campaigns in the past. The party has been condemned by UN refugee agency for its blatantly anti-immigrant campaigns. This time – as it has done in the past – it exploited the fears of Swiss people. A good example is this blog post (use Google Translate) which is titled “Tolerance rather than ignorance”. The author supported the ban and thinks that building minarets will lead to Islamization of Europe and more intolerance in the society. Clearly the opponents of ban failed to reach out to such Swiss citizens who seem to be misinformed about the whole issue. Tariq Ramadan, who is one of the most influential voice for European Muslims and a Swiss citizen himself, alluded to this failure in an article in Guardian.

Who is to be blamed? I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within their respective western societies. In Switzerland, over the past few months, Muslims have striven to remain hidden in order to avoid a clash. It would have been more useful to create new alliances with all these Swiss organisations and political parties that were clearly against the initiative. Swiss Muslims have their share of responsibility but one must add that the political parties, in Europe as in Switzerland have become cowed, and shy from any courageous policies towards religious and cultural pluralism. It is as if the populists set the tone and the rest follow. They fail to assert that Islam is by now a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely “integrated”. That we face common challenges, such as unemployment, poverty and violence – challenges we must face together. We cannot blame the populists alone – it is a wider failure, a lack of courage, a terrible and narrow-minded lack of trust in their new Muslim citizens. [Tariq Ramadan]

Minarets are not a requirement for mosques but Muslims are and successful communities are built not upon symbols but individuals. Muslims should use this opportunity to build alliances, reach out to local communities and proactively participate in civic activities in addition to performing their religious duties. The issue at stake here goes way beyond minarets. It is the trust deficit that seems to have built up between Muslims and others in parts of Europe. Only by addressing the fears that led to the passing of this odious ban can there be a meaningful resolution of this issue. These fears have to be addressed even though they might be unjustified. Especially if they are unjustified. Otherwise it is going to be one battle to another.

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims

While the entire period of Ramzan is a time of fasting and praying, there is one night that is special for Muslims. For, it is believed that there is one night when Allah first revealed the first verses of the Quran to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. Muhammad was then 40 years old and unlettered.

This most blessed of all nights falls on a night that no one can pinpoint with any certainty. Yet the faithful who have prayed through the night say that the heart always knows when communion has been reached. Shab-e-Qadr or Lailat ul-Qadr, understood variously to mean the Night of Honour and Dignity, the Night of Destiny and Power, can fall on any of the odd nights in the last ten days of the month of Ramzan. This year it will correspond with the 12th, 14th, 15th, and 17th of September. Since no one knows which of these four is the night, one prays on all of these alternate nights.

Unlike other anniversaries, this is a solemn occasion — a time to reflect and pray, to celebrate the arrival of the message from Allah not through a feast for the senses but through abstinence and worship. Some go into retreat (i’tikaf), spending all their time in a mosque for the last ten days of Ramzan; others take as much time out as possible on these special nights for prayer and the study of the Quran.

As children we were told to tell the beads of the rosary, chanting whichever prayer we could remember; the very young could say something simple like ‘Allah ho Akbar’ (Allah is great!). As we got older and had memorised whole verses, such as the kalmia and the qul, we were told to recite that several times before going to bed.

Dinner is usually early all through Ramzan and during Shab-e-Qadr especially so as the elders want to be well prepared for a long night. The idea, then, is to have a light meal and stay up as late as one can. Some don’t sleep at all, preferring to offer late-night prayers, reciting verses from the Pansura, reading from the Quran and Hadith till it is time to eat sehri, offer the pre-dawn fajir prayers.

It is said that on this night one should ask for Allah’s bounties to one’s heart’s content, but above all one should ask for forgiveness. The Prophet’s wife, Aisha, is said to have asked him: “O Messenger of Allah! If I knew which night is Lailat ul-Qadr, what should I say during it?” The Prophet instructed her to say, Allahumma innaka Tuhibbul Afwa Fa’fu A’nne. (“O Allah! You are forgiving, and you love forgiveness. So forgive me.”)

Advertisement: A Muslim among non-Muslims