Tuesday June 20

Dear Ram

This week, a film inspired by Your Life (Lord Ram) was released in India. However, it has been noted that the film presents a limited perspective influenced by right-wing discourse. Before discussing the film and its narrow-mindedness. I seek to discuss a captivating play called “Uttar Rama Charita.” It made me ponder the significance of dissent and disagreements when portraying You as King of Men.

“Uttar Rama Charita” is an esteemed Sanskrit play written by Bhavabhuti in the 8th century CE. Based on the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana, it delves into the events of Your life after Your return to Ayodhya from exile. Comprising seven acts, this play is widely regarded as a masterpiece of Sanskrit drama. It primarily revolves around the testing times endured by Sita, who faces criticism and doubt from some of Your subjects despite proving her purity by undergoing the trial of fire. The central conflict in the play arises when You are compelled to banish Sita due to societal pressure and the demands of your role as a king.

Within the later chapters of the play, an intriguing conversation occurs between Chandraketu, the son of your brother Lakshmana and the general of Rama’s army, and Lava, Your son and Chandraketu’s cousin. Both characters possess inclinations about each other’s identities, yet they remain uncertain. In this exchange, Lava, whom his mother (Sita) primarily raised, has had limited contact with his father (You, Lord Rama), critically assesses and questions Your actions.

Lava’s criticisms are a significant aspect of the play, as they shed light on the complexities of the characters and their relationships. Through Lava’s perspective, the play explores the themes of abandonment, the significance of maternal upbringing, and the inherent human tendency to question authority.

These criticisms contribute to the rich tradition of philosophical debates and intellectual discourse prevalent in our literature. They serve to demonstrate that even revered figures like You, Lord Rama are subject to scrutiny, and their actions are open to interpretation. This aspect of the play highlights the nuanced nature of human existence and emphasises the importance of critical thinking and questioning in understanding the complexities of morality, duty, and authority.

While You are portrayed as an omnipotent figure, the play presents an opportunity to reflect on the multifaceted nature of Your character. It invites the audience to contemplate and introspect, encouraging them to grapple with the moral dilemmas and ethical ambiguities presented by the actions of revered figures. By doing so, the play prompts deeper philosophical inquiries and enriches the overall narrative.

Should the “Idea of Ram” be confined to a single idea or imposed as a belief structure by a select few? Ideas can become dogmatic, losing their relevance to the people and community they represent.

There is a story about You as the King; You had returned to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana, You were crowned, and the city of Ayodhya celebrated the return of their prodigal son. Burdened by the responsibilities of kingship, you made a difficult decision; succumbing to the persistence of a few individuals, you chose to banish Sita from the kingdom.

One wonders what went into your mind. As a mortal human, It may be impossible for me to fathom the complexities of Your mind. They also say You were sad and lonely after ordering Sita (Your Love) to be banished from the kingdom; the victory with Ravana had left you no better. This would hardly come as a surprise; Lord, You were always gentle and often introspective about your actions.

Overwhelmed by isolation and anger, you found solace in issuing a decree banning laughter within your kingdom. The mere reminder of Ravanas’ laughter caused you immense pain, leading to this drastic decision. Unfortunately, the consequences of the ban were distressing for your subjects. Officers diligently imposed fines on those caught laughing, and severe punishments awaited those who dared to disobey the royal orders.

One day, while walking through the forest, You encountered a group of monkeys playing and laughing. Surprised, You asked why they were not afraid of punishment. The monkeys responded that they were not laughing at You but at their silly actions. This realisation dawned upon you, and you recognized that your previous orders were irrational. In a remarkable display of your true nature, you decided to reverse the ban, allowing the people of your kingdom to once again embrace laughter. This story illuminates the essence of your character, revealing your sensitivity to criticism and your willingness to listen and understand.

Contrary to Your introspective nature, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) presents a contrasting narrative with their approach to You. They impose a singular view of You as a symbol embodying virtues and moral values, advocating for a strong Hindu identity.

This situation evokes parallels to Umberto Eco’s renowned novel, “The Name of the Rose.”

The RSS’s unwavering and dogmatic perspective on You resembles Jorge’s (a priest in The Story Name of Rose) stance on laughter, ultimately leading to the destruction of the Abbey he seeks to protect. The absence of open philosophical discourse and the rigid adherence to a singular interpretation poses a risk to the broader fabric of society. It is crucial to recognize the significance of engaging in diverse dialogues and fostering an inclusive exchange of ideas to safeguard the harmony and progress of our communities.

The Name of the Rose follows the story of William of Baskerville and his apprentice Adso as they investigate a series of mysterious deaths in an abbey. William, a rational and open-minded Franciscan friar, seeks to uncover the truth behind the murders using his deductive reasoning skills. Jorge of Burgos, a blind and zealous monk, opposes William’s investigations and goes to extreme lengths to preserve the secrecy of a forbidden book on comedy. Their clash of ideologies and views on laughter ultimately leads to devastating consequences for the Abbey.

Jorge of Burgos and William of Baskerville engage in debates about laughter during their time at the Abbey. It is revealed that Jorge’s actions, including murder, were motivated by his desire to hide a forbidden book on comedy, the lost second book of Aristotle’s Poetics. Jorge sees laughter as a disruptive force threatening society, religion, and truth. He believes that all truth is known, and laughter undermines that truth. On the other hand, William argues for the virtues of laughter and sees truth as unknowable and mysterious. He believes laughter can be used to challenge falsehoods and absurdity. Jorge goes to great lengths to hide Aristotle’s treatise because it elevates comedy to the realm of art and philosophical inquiry, posing a threat to the religion and established authority. In the end, Jorge’s opposition to laughter destroys the Abbey and its library. William, in contrast, embraces doubt and intellectual flexibility, allowing him to accommodate new ideas.

The book shows Jorge’s readiness to resort to violence to protect his singular stance on laughter. Similarly, in India, there have been instances where people have been subjected to violence and coercion to conform to the RSS “idea of Ram”.The Film Adipurush seems to weaponize the concept of Ram and distort the character of Hanuman, portraying him as a seeker of revenge rather than a symbol of devotion and Bhakti ( Love)

This obsession with a singular idea leads us down a path of hatred. Hindu society must recognize that if we continue down this path, the venomous head of the snake we have unleashed will eventually bite its own tail.

We are already witnessing signs of this hate consuming us.

The idea of Ram should not be confined to a singular notion; instead, it should serve as a subject of discourse among people and communities. In this diverse narrative, Lava, the son, might criticise his father, while the nephew would come to Your defence. The monkey, representing humour, would argue in favour of laughter, while You may contemplate banning it. Valli, the aggrieved character, would say that his killing was a betrayal, and in response, You would grant him a boon to be reborn as the hunter Jara, who eventually causes harm to Lord Krishna.

On the one hand, the stories of You encompass morality, virtue, love, and loss, but they also provide space for dissenting perspectives and discourses.

In conclusion, Hindus must recognize the transformative potential of Ram as a catalyst for new discourses. The notion of a singular cultural identity, advocated by the RSS, stands as an alien concept detached from the true essence of our culture and community.

Let us not succumb to the limitations of a singular idea but rather open ourselves to the richness of discourse. In this embrace, Your legacy, Lord Ram, intertwines with our community and its diverse voices so that we can discover the path to a harmonious and inclusive future.

Yours, Argumentatively

Venkat Srinivasan

(Venkat Srinivasan is a financial professional with a master’s degree in economics. I am intensely interested in the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights)

Related:

First Letter to Lord Ram: To Lord Ram, a letter of remorse and resolve

Second Letter to Lord Ram: To Lord Ram, I write again for hope

Third Letter to Lord Ram, we must talk spirituality and politics

Fourth Letter to Lord Ram, Anantatma & Anantaroopa, the Infinite Soul & who has infinite forms

Fifth Letter to Lord Ram,  Perfect Lord and Imperfect Bhakthi

The post Lord Ram, in my sixth letter I appeal to your diverse forms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dear Rama, Karuna Nidhi, merciful Lord,

I decided to write to you again. I refuse to succumb to hopelessness. My resolve is to resist and challenge it, for within our hearts lies a flame of hope and courage. As long as there is love, these brittle structures of hate machinery will collapse.

Lord, your disciples address you as “Dheeraj Shobhit”, meaning someone who is “adorned with patience”. We must find “dheeraj” (patience) to remain undeterred from the path of compassion.

There is a lovely story about You asking Hanuman to find the ring that falls into a hole on the Earth. Hanuman does so, not surprisingly, making his way through this tiny hole and discovering the netherworld or land of spirit (bhuta), and when Hanuman says to the King of spirits,

“Rama ‘s ring fell into a hole and I come to fetch it”, 

The King of Spirits shows him a platter with thousand rings and says, 

“There are as many Ramas as many rings in the plate, and you pick up the one that belongs to your Rama and take it.”

We all seek a different ring of yours, Lord. Yet, it is the same;

In search of Rama’s rings,

Roams the disciple Hanuman in us.

Unlike Tolkien’s “One Ring” to reign,

This story of Hanuman frees us from chains.

Each ring will bear our devotion,

Love and compassion set in motion.  

You were the royal family’s beloved; your brothers looked up to you; it had been announced that you would succeed King Dasarth after his death. You had fallen in love with Sita, and in a grand ceremony, you married King Janak’s daughter, and they say it was a match made in heaven.

You, Prince of Ayodhya, are also called Sarvabhavana (beloved of all). Queen Kaikeyi, often considered the favourite wife of King Dasharatha, used a boon to demand that Lord Rama (you) to relinquish the throne in favour of Bharata, leave the city of Ayodhya for a period of exile. Queen Kaikeyi, who had always adored and pampered you, in a way, had betrayed you. When Kaikeyi sought a boon to secure her son’s throne, You and Sita were forced into exile. Even so, Lord Rama, You accepted the decision with equanimity and prepared yourself for the journey without protest.

It always amazes me how You were able to do that. I was once unceremoniously side-lined from something I had built. Anguish turned into anger, and I was bitter.

However, when I read about you, I see You accepted your duty without complaint. In the story, Kaikeyi and Bharata stop you at the city’s exit. Kaikeyi asks for your forgiveness and even calls herself a “blot on mothers” (Ku-mata). Your rightful throne is offered back to you by Bharata, but you refuse. Instead, you embrace him and wish him luck. Kaikeyi did not make you angry. It is said that Kaikeyi waited for you after you returned from the vanvas, and you embraced her when you returned.

Yet when I see that there is a Sena in your name, a Ram-Sene (Sena), that does not negotiate or discuss. They use violence and sometimes derogatory terms to describe women. In 2009 they attacked women in the pub and claimed that these women do not uphold Indian values.

My Lord Ram, you are often called “Mridu” or “Saumya” due to your gentle and compassionate nature. However, it is disheartening to Ram Sena to ignore your teachings. They fail to recognise the contradictions in their actions. If only I could remind them of your journey, of the moments when you demonstrated love by spending time with Sabari, sought reconciliation by sending Hanuman, showed compassion by holding Vali in his final moments, and shed tears as Jatayu passed away before your eyes.

In the Jaina Tradition, your story upholds the principle of non-violence and does not even entertain the idea of killing Ravana, you embody the values of truth and love while advocating for non-violence as the way forward.

As a Nation, especially as a Hindu community and as believers of Ram, we must ask, If Ram Sena represents Ram, does it reflect our collective conscious or our imagination of the King as brave and benevolent as you? If Ram Sena cannot embrace compassion and respect, they do not possess the Ring of the Ram. They and the society which offers them legitimacy must introspect.

Dear Ram, You are called “Sarva Bhuteshu“, one who sees all living beings equally. When our nation was created, the forefathers dreamt of equality, and the idea of equality must come with solidarity and compassion. At these times, I worry that we have lost out the ability to imagine; hate is blinding us. That’s why I’m speaking to you.

Like Hanuman, we must rediscover the rings of Ram for ourselves. That can only be undertaken through acts of love and compassion, a path you taught us through your life.

Seeker for your Ring

Venkat Srinivasan

(The writer is a financial professional, also passionate about the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights)

The post To Lord Ram, I write again for Hope appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Intolerance of all forms hits academic: On January 9, 2023 the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has condemned the “firing of an art professor, Erika López Prater, from Hamline University on the grounds of showing a fourteenth-century painting depicting the Prophet Muḥammad.” The statement is not just a statement of support for the professor but also urges the university to reverse its decision and to take compensatory action to ameliorate the situation.

News sources report that the matter reached the university administration after a Muslim student complained to them about the professor showing the image in class. Subsequently, undergraduate students at the university received an email from the administration declaring the incident to be “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic.” Because the professor was hired as an adjunct, her contract was not renewed and she was effectively fired.

The MPAC states, that as a “Muslim organization, we recognize the validity and ubiquity of an Islamic viewpoint that discourages or forbids any depictions of the Prophet, especially if done in a distasteful or disrespectful manner. However, we also recognize the historical reality that other viewpoints have existed and that there have been some Muslims, including and especially Shīʿī Muslims,  who have felt no qualms in pictorially representing the Prophet (although often veiling his face out of respect). All this is a testament to the great internal diversity within the Islamic tradition, which should be celebrated.” 

Ironically, this, it seems, was the exact point that Dr. Prater was trying to convey to her students. She empathetically prepared them in advance for the image, which was part of an optional exercise and prefaced with a content warning. “I am showing you this image for a reason,” stressed the professor:

“There is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture”—Dr Prater.

The statement is categoric- “The painting was not Islamophobic. In fact, it was commissioned by a fourteenth-century Muslim king in order to honour the Prophet, depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel. 

“Even if it is the case that many Muslims feel uncomfortable with such depictions, Dr. Prater was trying to emphasise a key principle of religious literacy: religions are not monolithic in nature, but rather, internally diverse. This principle should be appreciated in order to combat Islamophobia, which is often premised on flattening out Islam and viewing the Islamic tradition in an essentialist and reductionist manner. The professor should be thanked for her role in educating students, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and for doing so in a critically empathetic manner. 

The statement further adds, “ In a time of rampant Islamophobia, highly offensive and racialized images of the Prophet Muḥammad abound on the internet and on social media. We consider these images to be inappropriate and not dissimilar to “black face” or Anti-Semitic cartoons; even if such images and their makers are protected by law, social opprobrium is due to them by all those who are reasonable and decent. As Muslims, of course, we must respond in a calm and graceful manner as befits our religion: 

“The servants of the Compassionate are those who walk humbly upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them [with insulting words], they respond, ‘peace.’

(Q 25:63)

“Given the ubiquity of Islamophobic depictions of the Prophet Muḥammad, it hardly makes sense to target an art professor trying to combat narrow understandings of Islam. There is an unmistakable irony in the situation, which should be appreciated. Additionally, misusing the label “Islamophobia” has the negative effect of watering down the term and rendering it less effective in calling out actual acts of bigotry.

“Finally, we stress the importance of education in the Islamic tradition. On the basis of our shared Islamic and universal values, we affirm the need to instill a spirit of free inquiry, critical thinking, and viewpoint diversity in the university setting.

Related:

Statement of Support for Art Professor Fired from Hamline University

A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.

The post Firing of art professor for showing a 14-century painting of Prophet Muhammad condemned: MPAC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a bizarre turn of events, the All Dwarka Residents Federation (ADRF), Delhi has written to the Lt-Governor Anil Baijal, who is also chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), asking him to cancel the land allotment made for a Haj House in Sector 22. They have claimed that there is strong apprehension that this would disturb the “brotherhood, harmony and peace” in society.

The Federation’s letter goes on to say that if the Haj House is allowed to be constructed in the area, law and order will be disturbed, there will be “every possibility of riots”, migration of Hindus and “repetition of situation like Shaheen Bagh, Jaffrabad (reference to the North East Delhi violence last year) and Kashmir”.

The letter further contends that a Haj House is already operational at the Indira Gandhi Airport and can be further developed, if required. “Whereas, no such facility/space is available/allotted for Hindu Pilgrimages going to various religious places”, states the letter to Lt-Governor.

The Haj Manzil, to be constructed on 5,000 square metres of land in Dwarka, was reportedly approved in 2008 by the then Chief Minister Sheila Dixit. Since the new building has not been built yet, the Delhi State Haj Committee has been operating out of a rented building, Haj Manzil, in Rouse Avenue, near Turkman Gate.

SabrangIndia reached out to ADFR’s President Ajit Swami who revealed that the land cleared for the construction of the Haj building was earlier allotted to build a university. “If the government is allocating money, why not for something that can be used by every one and not just benefit one community?”, he remarked. He said that he is speaking on behalf of all residents of Dwarka, and that if a Haj House needs to be built, the Muslim community should pay for it from their own pockets instead of using every taxpayer’s money.

But this issue has not been raised in the letter, and instead the Federation has highlighted a “law and order” problem. When asked about the link between the Haj building and riots, Swami said that traffic and parking issues can lead to such violence. He said, “If a Haj house is built, several buses will enter Dwarka from Mewat, Chandigarh, and the traffic will create parking issues. This can subsequently lead to riots.” He said that tents will be pitched, kitchen services will be started for people, buses carrying Haj pilgrims will be parked in and around the area, that will definitely cause unwanted chaos.

He added that the Constitution lays down provisions against discrimination and that he is not against any religion. “I respect all religions, but I will definitely object if others get more. If a Haj needs to be built, Muslims should pay for it. We have no problem if the money is used to make hospitals, colleges that can be used by all. I am not wrong in bringing these issues up,” said Ajit Swami.

He also reiterated the same subject mentioned in the letter, that there is no need for a building in Dwarka, when the Indira Gandhi Airport provides for the same facility. “So many people will flock towards Delhi, the government will use the taxpayers’ money for the building’s maintenance, for electricity, for their food. Let the Haj house be situated only at the airport,” he added.

Reacting to the letter, human rights campaigner Shabnam Hashmi took to twitter calling out the federation’s “highly communal letter”, and demanding action against them.

@DCPDwarka @LtGovDelhi
While I have no interest in any Haj house being built here but how will it lead to riots ? ADRF is clearly spreading hatred against Muslims which is a criminal offence. Strongly condemn d highly communal content of this letter . Demand action against ADRF. pic.twitter.com/YTGGH028vE

— Shabnam Hashmi (@ShabnamHashmi) August 4, 2021

Related:

FIR against serial hate offender Ragini Tiwari, finally

Yati Narsinghanand continues to spread hate

Gurugram Court denies bail to ‘Jamia Shooter’ in a Hate Speech case

The post Haj House in Dwarka will lead to riots: Residents Federation write to Lt-Governor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India’s Muslim community is outraged. A Shia politician Wasim Rizvi has filed a Public interest litigation (PIL) in Supreme Court seeking removal of 26 militant, exclusivist, war-time contextual verses from the Quran. He has claimed that these militant verses were added in Quran during the rule of first three caliphs, implying that these Sunni Caliphs manipulated the Quran and Shias, who follow the fourth rightly guided Caliph Hazrat Ali, are not responsible for it.  For Sunnis these first three caliphs Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Omar and Hazrat Osman were “rightly guided’ caliphs, who had the loyalty of and benefited constantly from the valuable advice of Hazrat Ali.

There was no Shia-Sunni rift in the times of these four caliphs, though certainly there was political competition and there may have been some subterranean discord.  This discordance came out in the open during the time of Hazrat Ali and led to war. But, to my knowledge, Shias have never claimed that the first three caliphs added these 26 verses of war to the Holy Quran. Shias too have the same Quran and, to the best of my knowledge, they have never demanded deletion of any verses, as this politician is now doing.

As a response from the entire Muslim community of India, both Shia and Sunni, Rizvi has been ex-communicated; he claims that even his family and friends have deserted him. His obvious attempt to provoke a Shia-Sunni rift in India has already failed. A price has been fixed for his head, exposing the violent mindset of some Muslims. He is being called a dog, and if you can believe it, a yahoodi, a Jew, thus a section of Muslims providing proof, if any was needed, of their anti-Semitism. His motives have been questioned and perhaps rightly so, as he has never been known to be a reformer. He was happy being chairman of the Shia Central Waqf Board in the state of Uttar Pradesh and would perhaps be happy if he were to regain that position or get some similar position. But his hopes of getting rewarded for provoking Muslims may be fading now as he has started talking of eventually committing suicide, a clearly un-Islamic act.

But, while Rizvi may fail in his career move, perhaps inadvertently, he has succeeded in exposing the duplicity and hypocrisy of our ulema, the Islamic scholars who influence many in the Muslim community. The ulema should realise that calling Rizvi a dog or a Yahoodi, does not resolve the issue he has raised. No matter what happens to Rizvi, the issue he has raised is not going to go away. He is not the first to raise this issue either. Islamophobes have been demanding this for ages, and more particularly since Islamist terrorists’ attack on twin towers in New York on September 11, 2001.

The demand for removing any part of a scripture is absurd. Many scriptures have violent passages, reflecting the culture of the times in which they came. The important question is the relevance and applicability of these verses and the instructions given in Quran to Muslims today.

People belonging to other religions are not asked to edit their scriptures because they do not quote any violent passages to justify their present actions. Muslims do and with great gusto and profound belief in the universality of every word of Quran, which is considered uncreated, that is like God Himself and hence beyond question and debate.

We are living in the 21st century world, not in a 7th century desert village. Are we bound today by the orders given to Muslims of that era 1400 years ago to fight and kill the pagans in a specific context? We obviously cannot judge today the situation in which these orders were given. We live today in an age of global and instant communication. But this is also an age of fake news. So, if today, in the age of instant global communication, we are not certain what is really going on in our world, how can we be certain about what happened 1400 hundred years ago in an Arabian desert village.

There would thus be no point in sitting in judgement over these instructions in Quran to kill the pagans or stay away for Jews and Christians or to not consider any one but Muslims as our friends etc. Let us not forget that in the Prophet’s time, when these instructions were given, Islam was still in its infancy, and was fighting an existential battle to survive in the face of a determined opposition from the powers that be. However, the real question before us Muslims is: are these war-time instructions of seventh century Arabia still applicable to us today.

In their attempt to counter Rizvi ulema have spoken about Quranic verses having a context and the inability of a person to understand these verses without being aware of the context in which they were revealed. Very true, but the implication of this reference to context is that these instructions are no longer valid if that context is no longer present. As the seventh century war context is no longer present today, and is not likely to come in the present times, should we assume that these instructions are no longer applicable to us today. Obviously. Clear as day. But will any individual or group of ulema accept this? No. Not one. Will any aalim (singular of ulema) say that these war-time verses of Quran are no longer applicable to Muslims? No one is willing to do that.

The belief of our ulema is that Quran is uncreated, meaning it is an attribute of God, so there is no question of debating the applicability or non-applicability of its verses. Even the thought of their inapplicability at any time is anathema to them. As in the seventh century, our ulema continue to believe that Islam must dominate the world, the Sharia laws should prevail in all societies, sovereignty of God has to be established all over the world, and it is the duty of all Muslims to help in the process. They may not be actively promoting a Jihad for achieving this goal, but that is without doubt the objective.

Why else would our ulema be telling our 12-year-old kids in a pluralist, multi-religious society like India, to take care when they go out to kill the pagans. In teaching Islamic good manners and ethics, in a book called Islami Ekhlaq o Aadab, they assume that a Muslim kid would naturally go out to kill the mushriks (polytheists or pagans) and so he has to be cautioned against the perils on the way and the religious significance of what he is doing. This is done in just a paragraph in this book but is explained in detail in Bahar-e-Shariat for those who are doing an Aalimiat course at the age of 17. This is the training all our aalims (ulema) have received. How can we expect them to abandon this training when faced with the challenge to Rizvii?

However, I still believe that Rizvi and his likes not only pose a challenge, but also give our ulema an opportunity. Our ulema now have an opportunity to clarify their stand on the applicability or inapplicability of these verses today. As militants use these verses to justify terrorism and extremist violence, they would also be clarifying their stand on Islamist extremist violence presently going on in different parts of the world. Skirting the issue by quoting peaceful, universalistic verses of Quran and rhetoric of Islam being a religion of peace is not helping.

The issue, however, is not just of these 26 verses. The real issue is that of the understanding of Muslims about the nature of their religion through the last 14 centuries and even today. What understanding of Islamic belief system have Quranic verses created. Also important is Hadith (narrations of purported sayings of the Prophet, peace be upon him) as these Ahadith (plural of Hadith) are supposed to provide the context with which Quran’s verses are understood. Most Ulema consider Hadith as akin to revelation, meaning that there is not much difference in Quran and Hadith.

The relevant question at this point is: do Muslims consider Islam a political, totalitarian ideology that aims at conquering the world or do they consider it as a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many. I am going to give below some quotations from universally revered ulema and exegetes of Quran, past and present, about their understanding of the Islamic mission and the question of offensive Jihad, arising from these 26 verses of Quran and several others as well.  According to the Doctrine of Abrogation most ulema believe that sword verses like those quoted by Rizvi have abrogated many of the peaceful Meccan verses of Quran that teach co-existence. This is what is taught in our madrasas too.

The present-day Ulema have an opportunity to state that they do not agree with the traditional and prevailing understanding of the Islamic mission as explained by the authors I am quoting below and many more who have written throughout the last 1200 years. I will begin with quotations from a couple of modern ulema who present an apologia, so readers can judge if these apologias work in the face of strong views expressed by universally acclaimed jurists and theologians whose books are taught in all our madrasas, regardless of their sectarian identity.

(These quotations have been taken from several articles published on this website from time to time including my own, but most are from a compilation by Abdur Rahman Hamza in this article.)

Syed Hamid Mohsin’s book has been published by Salam Centre, Bengaluru with the title, “Islam: facts vs fictions”. In this book the learned author, under the sub-title, “Misquoted Quranic verses” writes:

“Islam has its own fair share of critics as well as enemies. A popular sport for them is to accuse Islam of advocating violence against non-Muslims…. To paint Islam in the darkest colours, their media is ever engaged in distorting the Quranic verses to make them appear preaching violence….In understanding the verses of the Quran, it is essential that each of them is related to its context. The critics of the Quran precisely err on this account and tear them out of context to support their prejudices against Islam…. There has been an attempt in India and other parts of the world to create confusion about a few verses of Quran…. Writers with ill intentions misquote the verses out of context and write the commentary with their own perceptions. Quran should be read in context. If anyone just chooses a verse and ignores the perspective, he will many a time go astray…… Here we are presenting such verses of Quran which are used by some writers whose intention is to create confusion and mislead the people.”

 Thereafter, he quotes some verses to prove his point.  I would like to focus on: 2: 191-193 and 9:5, which is called the verse of sword and which is said to have abrogated all the previous peace verses and cancelled all the peace treaties the prophet had made with the polytheists of Mecca.”

2:191: “Slay them wherever you may come upon them, and expel them from where they had expelled you; for oppression (persecution) is worse than slaughter; but fight them not near the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you therein; but if they fight you therein, slay them. Such is the reward of unbelievers.”

2:192: “But if they desist, then God is All-forgiving, Compassionate to each.”

 2:193: “Fight them until persecution is no more; and religion is for God. But if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, except against those who wilfully do wrong.”

“The author, while translating the word, ‘fitna’ in the verse 2:193 as persecution, says: Here, the verse “until persecution is no more and religion is for God” (Quran 2:193) has nothing to do with the domination of Islam and the subjugation and suppression of non-believers.

Abdur Rahman Hamza writes: “Keeping the above claim in mind, it seems worthwhile to discuss these verses in detail and have a look at the authentic tafaaseer written over the last many centuries and see what the reputed Islamic scholars, as well as Sahaba (companions of the Prophet), Taabieen (second generation of Muslims) and Taba Taabieen (third generation of Muslims) have understood by the word ‘fitna’ and also find out whether, as claimed by the author, they too have committed the crime of misleading the people and defaming Islam.”

We will do just this a while later.

Maulana Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi, leading Sunni-Sufi Islamic scholar and renowned Urdu writer gives his reflections on the verses of Jihad in the Quran:

“Although there are certain verses of the Qur’an which mention killing and murder, there is a specific reason and context behind these verses. However, a group of people have taken these verses out of context and have not tried to understand the story behind them and raised objections against these verses and against the Holy Qur’an. It has become the habit of these people to portray Islam as a religion of murder and mayhem and especially in this era of sectarianism all over the world. They are using these verses to turn people against Islam and its teachings. It is the effort of these narrow-minded people to portray Islam as a violent and dangerous religion and Muslims as aggressive mischief-makers.” (Aayat-e-Jihad Ka Qur’ani Mafhoom, Foreword) 

The Orwellian World of Islamic Scholars: ‘According To Quran, Peace In Non-Islamic Societies Is War And War To Destroy These Societies Is Peace’

Aman aur Fasad fil arz Quran ki istallah main!! Dr. Israr Ahmad posted on 28 Apr 2012

Peace (Aman) and Mischief or Violent Rebellion (Fasad) in Quranic terminology

By Dr Israr Ahmad, Tr. New Age Islam Edit Desk

“What is Mischief or violent Rebellion (fasad) according to the Qur’an? What is Mischief or Violent Rebellion in the land (fasad fil arz)? This would mean that this land belongs to Allah. Allah is the real sovereign. Humans should live here only according to the will of Allah. In fact, this is the truth. This is the real peace. Any rebellion against it is fasad. (In Quranic terminology) Fasad is any kind of rebellion (baghawat) against God’s order.

… “ So, what is the real peace in terms of the Quran? The answer is that the world order should be established according to the will of Allah, at both individual and collective levels. Any attitude against it; no matter how peaceful the society may seem to be, that is the real Fasad.

… “So, understand the reality of mischief (Fasad) and peace (Aman). Now, if there is Fasad anywhere in the world, that is, if the world order is not being maintained as per the will of Allah, it will be declared rebellion against Allah.

… “The next stage of this was what happened later in the Madani period where war and strife broke out. Then the Quran said, “Fight those who fight you” (Surah Baqara- 2:190)

“So, war was waged to eliminate this fasad. There was bloodshed. But this was peace in reality. Some people say, “No, don’t fight. Live in peace. Let’s accept falsehood too. Let us believe in some part of their falsehood and get some of our terms accepted by them.  By way of struggles, you are harming yourself. You are sacrificing everything. This way you are creating problems for yourself as well as for others. This is resulting into bloodshed. Leave all such things. Let it be gone. Adopt the path of peace, instead.” Holding such an attitude or this concept (of peace) is actually fasad.

“Sabotaging any struggles (to establish Allah’s order), seeking to eliminate rebellion on behalf of God is an act of rebellion against God Almighty. Instead, a group of obedient and faithful slaves of Allah Almighty must stand up in the form of Jama’at or Jam’iat (an organization) in order to fight against falsehood and corruption. So, if a person creates an obstacle in such struggles (to establish God’s order), whether in the name of reconciliation, Sulh-e-Kul (peace for all), brotherhood, and tolerance or with similar beautiful titles, this will actually be an act of real Fasad.

“Imagine the roles of Hypocrites (Munafiqin in the time of the Prophet pbuh) here. Life and property were dearest to them. They were not ready to join the battlefield. Relationships too were very dear for them. They were not ready to separate from their relatives (for the sake of Islam). And the sword of Truth that came was cutting relationships. A son was separating from his father. A brother was separating from his brother.

“So, when the Hypocrites came in opposition against this struggle, the righteous believers said to them, “when it was said to them, ‘do not make mischief (fasad) on the earth,’ they say: ‘Why, we only want to make Peace!” (2:11-12). Consider what kind of fasad this was. What does the ayat “do not make mischief” mean? This would mean that the hypocrites should stop sabotaging the ongoing reforms because this is an act of Fasad. Instead, they should support this (violent) struggle in just the same way as the righteous believers supported the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“You too say, “We believe in monotheism (tauheed) and the hereafter (aakhirat).” So why don’t you believe in the Quran which confirms the Torah. Believe in the Quran too and support the mission of reformation. Remember the call of the Prophet when he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah?” The disciples said, “We are supporters for Allah.” (3:52). Therefore, you too should come to support the same mission so that the rebellion against Allah in the land be removed and the sovereignty of Allah be established. Only then there will be real peace.  But the hypocrites and Jews made all efforts to sabotage the mission of the Prophet peace be upon him. This was described as an act of Fasad, as the Quran says, “They say, “We are but reformers.” Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters (mufsidun), but they perceive it not.” (2:11).   

As I have suggested earlier (before this speech), this was the role of Walid bin Mughira in the Makki period. Similarly, the Jews and Hypocrites under their influence played the same role. And here when the Hypocrites and Jews were asked not to spread mischief (Fasad) in the land (2:11), that is, not to oppose the prophet and his companions but support them instead, they used to say emphatically “We are nothing but reformers”. Their reply would mean that they were nothing but reformers, the people of peace and brotherhood, the people who were trying to establish peace and stop bloodshed. Commenting on their reply, the Quran said, “Beware, it is, in fact, they who are the corrupters (mufsidoon)” (2:11)

Now take into consideration what I have explained in the definition of Fasad and Aman (peace), everything will be clear to you. “Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters (mufsidun), but they perceive it not.” (2:11). They do not know. They are watching it all, but are short-sighted. They fear harm, trouble, quarrel, cutting off relations from one another and therefore they are suggesting peace and tolerance in society. In fact, this is Fasad, because they are against the struggle for eradication of the real Fasad. But they are not aware of it.

https://www.newageislam.com/multimedia/dr-israr-ahmad/the-orwellian-world-of-islamic-scholars-according-to-quran-peace-in-non-islamic-societies-is-war-and-war-to-destroy-these-societies-is-peace/d/118783

(Maulana Maududi, Haqiqat-e-Jihad, Pg 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)

To promote his politicized interpretation of Islamic doctrines and practices Maulana Maududi even challenged the collective consensus of Muslims on the Islamic prayers, which they offer to seek pleasure of and closeness to God, declaring them “means and tools to prepare for Jihad”. He writes:

“Salaat (Namaz) is a training exercise for Jihad. Zakat (Islamic charity) is a military fund for Jihad. Fasting is aimed to train people like soldiers who have to stay without food at times for long periods during the Jihad. Hajj is a huge conference in nature for plotting larger scale military operations. Thus, Salaah, Fasting, Zakat, and Hajj are actually meant for this very preparation and training” (Fundamental of Islam by Maulana Maududi – Page: 250).

Maulana Maududi advocated establishing an Islamic state where the so-called “Islamic Jihad” should be incumbent upon every Muslim until the authority of God is established on the entire earth, where the rights of non-Muslims would be limited and they would not be permitted to practice the faith, rituals of worship or social customs, where “Islamic Jihad” would not recognize their right to administer state affairs, because, as laid out in the writings of Maulana.

Maulana wrote nearly 120 books in which he extended intellectual and theological support to the radical Islamism and exclusivistic ideology of faith.  In his book Haqiqat-e-Jihad (literally meaning “the truth of Jihad”), he elaborates his point:

“A ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.

(Maulana Maududi, Haqiqat-e-Jihad, Pg 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)

In another book “al-Jihad fil-Islam” (Jihad in Islam), he explains his radical understanding and militant interpretation of Jihad:

“It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a handful of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution”.

(Jihad Fi Sabillilah: Jihad in Islam by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Chapter 3, Pg 10)

In his writings, Maulana exhorted Muslims to fight “evil forces” physically and go to the extent of laying down their life, possessions, powers, wealth and health in the fight against “evil forces of the world”. He writes in his book “Jihad in Islam”: “But the most important – indeed the most basic – ideal of the revolutionary doctrines of that “Revolutionary Party” known as Muslims is to expand all the powers of the body and soul, life and possessions, in the fight against the evil forces of the world; not so that, having annihilated them, we should step into their shoes, but so that evil and contumacy may be eradicated and Allah’s Law enforced on earth. This is the significance of jihad fi Sabillilah, Jihad for the cause of Allah.”

He further writes: “the terms “offensive” and “defensive”, which are usually applied to definitions of warfare, are not at all applicable in the case of Islamic Jihad. These terms are relevant only in the context of wars between nations and countries, for technically speaking, the terms “attack” and “defence” can only be used with reference to a country or a nation.” He further elaborates his point: “The division of Islamic Jihad into “offensive” and “defensive” is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces.” (Maulana Maududi: Jihad in Islam)

Ibn Kathir writes in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:

 2:191- 193. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.  But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin (the polytheists and wrongdoers).

(And “Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.”) “Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.”

Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:

(…until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah’s statement: (…and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.’

Maulana Maududi writes in his tafseer Tafheemul Quran

(2:191) Fight against them wherever they confront you in combat and drive them out from where they drove you out. Though killing is bad. persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Masjid Haram unless they attack you there.

Note 202: Here the word fitnah is used in the sense of ‘persecution’. It refers to a situation whereby either a person or a group is subjected to harassment and intimidation for having accepted, as true, a set of ideas contrary to those currently held, and for striving to effect reforms in the existing order of society by preaching what is good and condemning what is wrong. Such a situation must be changed, if need be, by the force of arms.

Bloodshed is bad, but when one group of people imposes its ideology and forcibly prevents others from accepting the truth, then it becomes guilty of an even more serious crime. In such circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to remove that oppressive group by the force of arms.

(2:193) Go on fighting with them till there is no more a state of tribulation and Allah’s way is established instead. *204 Then if they desist from it, there should be no more hostility except against those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality. *205

Note 204: Here the term fitnah is used in a different sense from the one in which it was used above (see verse 191). It is evident from the context that fitnah refers here to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is someone other than God. Hence the purpose of a believer’s fighting is that this fitnah should cease and obedience should be consecrated to God alone.

An investigation of the usages of the word deen (which occurs in this verse) reveals that the core of its meaning is obedience. In its technical usage, the word refers to that system of life which arises as a result of a person recognizing someone as his Lord and Sovereign and committing himself to following his commands and ordinances. This explanation of the word deen makes it quite clear that when some human beings establish their godhead and absolute dominance over others, this state of affairs is one of fitnah. Islam seeks to put an end to this and replace it by a state of affairs in which people live in obedience to the laws of God alone.

Note 205: What is meant here by ‘desisting’ is not the abandonment of unbelief and polytheism on the part of the unbelievers but rather their desistance from active hostility to the religion enjoined by God. The unbeliever, the polytheist, the atheist, has each been, empowered to hold on to his beliefs and to worship who and whatever he wishes. In order to deliver these people from their error, Muslims are required to counsel them and tell them where their good lies. But Muslims ought not to try to achieve this purpose by resorting to force. At the same time, these misguided people have no right to either enforce the false laws of their own contriving instead of the laws of God or to drive the people of God to bondage of others than God. In order to put an end to this fitnah, both persuasion and force be used, whenever and to the extent to which each of the two is needed, and a true believer will not rest until the unbelievers give up this fitnah.

Mufti Shafi Usmani writes in his Maariful Quran:

Note on 2:191: Since Muslims, during their entire Makkan period, were made to stay away from fighting against the disbelievers and were repeatedly asked to forego and forgive, so much so, that the noble Companions were, before the revelation of this verse, under the impression that killing disbelievers was bad, and prohibited. It was to remove this misconception that it was said: “And Fitnah is more severe than to kill,” that is, it is true that to kill someone is a terribly evil act, but more terrible and severe is what the disbelievers of Makkah have done by insisting on their kufr and shirk (infidelity and the associating of others with Allah) and by stopping Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligations, and from performing Hajj and ‘Umrah. It is to avoid this greater evil that killing them has been permitted. The word, Fitnah in the verse (not translated for want of a perfect equivalent in English) inescapably means kufr and shirk and to prevent Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligations of ‘ibadah. —- Jassas (Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ali Al-Razi Al-Jassas (d. 370 AH/980 CE), Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (1214 – 1273 CE) and others.

Since the generality of the words ‘kill them wherever you find them’ might lead to the misconception that killing the disbelievers is allowed even in the precincts of Haram (Kaaba), this generality has been particularized in the next sentence of the verse by saying: And do not fight them near Al-Masjid al-Haram unless they fight you there. That is, ‘you should not fight them close to AL-Masjid aL-Haram, which includes all its environs in Makkah, unless they themselves start fighting you there.’

It also comes out from this verse that the prohibition of initiating Jihad is restricted to Al-Masjid al-Haram and its environs to which the sacred precincts extend in Makkah. At other places, just as the defensive Jihad is necessary, the initiating of Jihad and Qital is also valid.

Tafseer Surah Tauba (Q. 9:1-5) by Prominent Salafi A’lim Maulana Muhammad Junagarhi and Maulana Salahuddin Yusuf

Tafseer-e-Quran Urdu published and distributed by the Saudi government which has been translated by the prominent Salafi A’lim Maulana Muhammad Saheb Junagarhi and explained by Maulana Salahuddin Yusuf says in its footnote on 9:1-5, “Allah said, 9:1 “Freedom from obligations from Allah and His Messenger”, is a declaration of freedom from all obligations from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikin (polytheists), with whom Muslims made a treaty.

“This Ayah refers to idolaters who had indefinite treaties and those, whose treaties with Muslims ended in less than four months. The terms of these treaties were restricted to four months only. As for those whose term of peace ended at a specific date later (than the four months), then their treaties would end when their terms ended, no matter how long afterwards (probably nine months). So, whoever had a covenant with Allah’s Messenger then it would last until its period expired. During this period, the idolaters were permitted to live in Mecca and its surrounding areas so that they can decide, before the expiry of this period, either to accept Islam or leave the Arab peninsula or face death.

“But there was an exception from the four month’s warning for those of the idolaters (they were two tribes) with whom Muslims had made a peace treaty, and they had not subsequently violated the treaty, nor had they supported anyone against the Muslims. So, Muslims were asked to fulfil their treaty obligations with them until the end of their term. This is the type of idolaters whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. But after the expiry of this period Muslims were ordered to fight and kill all the idolaters without exception (those who had violated the peace treaty as well as those who had not) unless, and until, they embrace Islam or leave the Arab peninsula.”

Tafseer Noorul Irfan – The famous Barailvi tafseer (interpretation).  

Note on 2:193 “From this verse we learn that the purpose of Jihad is not the total annihilation of the infidels, but to destroy the power of infidelity so that they do not become an obstacle in the propagation of Islam. The might of infidels should be destroyed so that the institution of worship of one true God can be established without any obstacle.”

Khazai-nul-Irfan by well-known Barailvi A’lim Maulana Naeemuddin Muradabadi.

Interestingly, another famous Barailvi A’lim Maulana Naeemuddin Muradabadi, in ‘Khazainul Irfan’, his urdu tafseer of Kanzul I’man, has also explained the word ‘fitnah’ in 2:193 as KUFR and SHIRK. He says, while explaining the verse 2:191, (Aur kafiron ko jahan pao maro…………………. And kill them wherever you find them), “Jo jang ke qabil naheen hain unse jang na karo, ya jin se tum ne ahed (agreement) kiya ho unse bghair dawat (inviting to Islam) ke jang na karo kyonki tareeqa-e-shara (Islamic way) yeh hai ki pahle kuffar ko Islam ki dawat dee jaye, agar who inkaar Karen to jizyah talab kiya jaye, ab agar is se bhi inkaar Karen to to unse jang ki jaye. Is mana par is aayat ka hukm baqi hai, mansookh nahin huwa hai. It further says, explaining the word ‘fitnah’ that “fitnah (Fasa’d) se shirk’ (polytheism) murad hai ya musalmanon ko makkah mukarramah mein dakhil hone se rokna”. Moreover, commenting on the next verse 2:193 (phir agar who baaz aa jayen …

But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin) “yani Agar kufr aur shirk se baaz aa jayen (that is, if they desist from kufr (disbelief) and shirk, idol-worship) …

Minhaj-ul-Quran by Dr Tahirul Qadri:

2:193. “Aur unse jang karte raho hatta ki koi fitna baqi na rahe aur deen yani zindagi aur bandgi ka nizam amalan Allah hi ke tabe ho jaye, phir agar who baaz Aa jayen to sewai zaalimon ke kisi par zyadti rawa nahin.”

In his note on the above verse 2:193 Dr Tahirul Qadri says, “Jihad aur inqilabi jadd-o-jahad deeni fareeza hain. Aur fitna-e-batil ke mukammal khatma aur qiyam-e-amn tak inqilabi jang jari rahni chaahiye. Ghalba aur nifaz-e-deen (Islam’s domination and the implementation of the Islamic Sharia- emphasis mine) Jihad aur inqilabi jang ki aakhri manzil hai. Haan agar mukhalif quwwaten fitna parwari se baaz aajayen to unpar sakhti na ki jaye.

Abdur Rahman Hamza comments: “Any person having sufficient knowledge of Islam and jihad can easily understand what Dr Tahirul Qadri actually understands by the word ‘fitna’ in verse 2:193, though he has used carefully selected and sugar-quoted words and phrases to hide the real purpose of offensive Jihad which, according to his own statement is “the ultimate domination of Islam and implementation of its Sharia all over the world.”

 “I am really shocked! I see no difference whatsoever between what these Ulema, both Deobandi and Barelvi are saying and what Maulana Maududi has written. They all agree that the purpose of Jihad is to establish the Islamic domination all over the world after destroying the powers of Kufr and Shirk where ever and whenever Muslims have the power to do it. So, we should not be surprised at what ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar -e-Taiba and Taliban are doing in their lands under the guidance of their Ulema to carry out this DEENI FAREEZAH (Religious duty).

“Now let us come to the claim of Syed Hamid Mohsin sb regarding the Quranic verse, 9:5 “So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah (prayer), and give the Zakah (Islamic Tax), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

“Hamid Mohsin Saheb says about this verse, that it cannot be seen as a command for all times. Once again, it is a specific instruction to those who violated the peace treaty. The verse speaks of the sacred months when a truce of sorts was supposed to be in operation. But actually, with the exception of the tribes of the Bani Damrah and the Bani Kananah, (who respected the treaties they made with Muslims) all other tribes in, and around Madinah frequently violated the agreement and continued to kill and persecute the Muslims. Indeed, such violations were a common characteristic of the Arabian tribes. These are the specific people to whom this verse refers, not the polytheists who respected the peace treaties.

Ibn Kathir says, Allah said: 9:1-2 “Freedom from obligations from Allah and His Messenger, (to those of the Mushrikin (idol-worshippers, polytheists), with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (Mushrikin) for four months (as you will) throughout the land“

 This Ayah refers to idolaters who had indefinite treaties and those, whose treaties with Muslims ended in less than four months. The terms of these treaties were restricted to four months only. As for those whose term of peace ended at a specific date later (than the four months), then their treaties would end when their terms ended, no matter how long afterwards, for Allah said,

9:4. “Except those of the Mushrikin with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty for them until the end of their term. Surely, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.”

The exceptional pagan tribes who remained true to their word were the Banu Hamza and Banu Kina’na who swore their treaty near the sacred mosque and faithfully observed it. Regarding them Allah said, “So fulfil their treaty for them until the end of their term 9:4. One source says the remaining period was 9 months.

9:5. So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

“All agree that this condition (submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration or leaving the Arab peninsula or getting ready to die) equally applied to all the polytheists without exception: those who frequently broke the peace treaty as well as those who remained true to their word and faithfully observed it, after the terms of their treaty ended. So, it is quite clear that the fight was not against treacherous enemy but against Kufr and Shirk.”

Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi on Jihad

Ghamidi believes that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed.

Ref: Mizan, The Islamic Law of Jihad.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Efforts on the part of the prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (shirk).

(So) It was God’s decree that he be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.

      This same mission of leading men from darkness to light had been entrusted to all the prophets in turn. The sense, however, in which the Prophet of Islam was distinct from the others was that, in his case, God had decreed – since no Prophet was to come after him – that he should not just communicate the divine message to humanity and leave it at that, but that he should also take practical steps to change the entire existing state of affairs.

      The prerequisites for putting this plan into action were all provided by God. Moreover, God also guaranteed that any shortcoming in worldly resources would be amply compensated for by special help from the angels.”

“This Point Has Been Made in The Hadith in Different Ways. One Hadith in Particular Is Quite Direct in its wording: “I Am The Eradicator Through Whom God Will Obliterate Unbelief.” Thus, The Prophet Was Not Just a Da’i (Missionary) But Also a Mahi (Eradicator).  He Was The Caller To The Faith, But He Had Also To Compel People To Answer His Call. The Qur’an clearly states that besides human beings, God’s angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission.

“This commandment of God was, indeed, realized through the Prophet, so that a whole new era could be ushered in.”

“But Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, on many occasions, seems contradicting himself. For example, he writes, in his book, “,The True Jihad: The Concept of Peace, Tolerance and Non Violence in Islam “There are certain verses in the Quran which convey injunctions similar to the following: ‘Kill them wherever you find them.’ (2:191)
Referring to such verses, there are some who attempt to give the impression that Islam is a religion of war and violence. This is totally untrue. Such verses relate in a restricted sense, to those who have unilaterally attacked the Muslims. The above verse does not convey the general command of Islam. (pp. 42-43)” 

“Contrary to the above, the same Maulana Wahiduddin Khan says in his Urdu tafseer, “Tazkeer-Ul- Quran”, while commenting on the same verse, “Momin ko deen ka aamil banne ke sath deen ka mujahid bhi banna hai.Yahan jis jihad ka zikr hai wo jihad wo hai jo rasooluullah ke zamane mein pesh a’ya. Arab ke mushrikeen itma’me hujjat ke bawajud risalat se inkar karke apne liye zindagi ka haq kho chuke the. Neez unhon ne jarihiyyat ka izhar kar ke apne khilaf fauji iqdaam ko durust sabit kar diya tha. Is bina par unke khelaf talwar uthane ka hukm hua…. “Aur unse lado yahan tak ki fitna baqi na rahe aur deen Allah ka ho jaye” ka matlab yeh hai ki sarzameen-e-Arab se shirk ka khatma ho jaye aur deen-e-Tauheed ke sewa koi deen wahan baqi na rahe. Is hukm ke zariae Allah Ta’la ne Arab ko Tauheed ka daimee markaz bana diya.

“However, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan also believes that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times. After the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam because it is not possible in our time.”

Abdul Rahman Hamza concludes: “Clearly, Ulema need to go beyond making pious declarations of Islam having nothing to do with the offensive Jihad going on in several parts of the world today. They must take a stand and clarify why Islamic theologians over the centuries including reputed Indian ulema have interpreted war-time Quranic verses as calling for offensive jihad. These verses are being used both by Jihadis and Islamophobes to justify their respective viewpoints. It is the religious duty of Ulema to come clean and clear the air, both for the sake of Muslim youth who are joining the Islamic State in growing numbers and non-Muslims who have come to fear Islam for obvious reasons.”

Sultan Shahin is founder editor, New Age Islam

This article was first published in New Age Islam and may be read here

The post Waseem Rizvi’s Challenge an Opportunity for Ulema To Proclaim the Inapplicability of These 26-War-Time Verses of Quran For Muslims Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted interim bail to Nalin Yadav and Sadakat Khan, who were arrested with comedian Munawar Faruqui by Indore Police in connection with an FIR against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

The Single-judge Bench of Justice Rohit Arya referred to the Supreme Court order that granted bail to Munawar Faruqui on February 5. The High Court order read, “The applicant is held entitled for temporary bail maintaining parity in the light of the order dated 05/02/2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (s) (criminal) No(s). 62/2021 and SLP (cri.) No. 1045 of 2021 (supra) and this court in M.Cr.C Nos. 4562/21 and 3345/2021.”

According to Bar & Bench, the District and Sessions court at Indore had rejected the bail application moved by Sadakat Khan, who has been in custody since January 1, 2021.

The case

Comedian Munawar Faruqui, along with Sadakat, Nalin, Edwin Anthony, Prakhar Vyas and Priyam Vyas were arrested by Indore Police in the middle of a stand-up show on the basis of an FIR filed by Eklavya Singh Gaur, son of a local BJP legislator Malini Laxman Singh Gaur for allegedly making indecent remarks against Hindu deities and against Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

All six were booked under sections 295A (deliberate act to outrage religious feelings of a group), 298 (deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person), 269 (unlawful and negligent act to spread an infectious disease), 188 (disobey order of a public servant) and 34 (act done in furtherance of a common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. 

Faruqui’s bail was rejected twice by district courts and once by the High Court. Finally, after over one month of incarceration, the Supreme court granted him bail and also stayed the Uttar Pradesh production warrant issued against him in an old case. The top court had observed that the arrest guidelines were also not followed in this case. The order read:

“The learned counsel has pointed out to us that quite apart from the fact that the allegations made in the FIR are vague that the procedure contained in Section 41 Cr.PC. as adumbrated by our Judgment in “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.”, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, has not been followed before arresting the petitioner. This being the case, we issue notice in both the petitions, and stay the Judgment of the High Court. The petitioner is released on ad-interim bail on conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.”

Subsequently, in the light of this order, co-accused Prakhar Vyas and Edwin Anthony were granted bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on February 12 and Priyam Vyas has also been released by a juvenile court.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Stand-up comic Faruqui Munawar’s custody extended by two weeks
Sessions court denies bail to stand-up comic held for ‘insulting’ Hindu deities
BREAKING: Madhya Pradesh HC rejects comedian Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea
Breaking: SC grants ad interim bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui
Two of Munawar Faruqui’s co-accused get ad-interim bail, two more remain in jail

The post Munawar Faruqui case: Co accused Sadakat Khan and Nalin Yadav get bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Multiple Indian and international citizens, writers, artists filmmakers, sattirrists and organisations, have come together in solidarity with indian artists Munawar Faruqui, Nalin Yadav, Prakhar Vyas, Edwin Anthony, and Sadakat Khan, and called for the dismissal of all charges against them. The statement came in on Friday, just as news broke that two artists who were co-accused with Faruqui have been granted bail, however two others still remain in jail.

According to Indian Express, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday granted interim bail to Prakhar Vyas and Edwin Anthony, who had been arrested along with stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui. They were all arrested for allegedly “hurting religious sentiments” during a show earlier this year. Munawar and Priyam Vyas were recently released on bail, Nalin Yadav and Sadaqat Khan, the other accused in the case, are still in jail. The IE reported that Sadaqat’s bail plea was rejected, for the second time, by the Indore district court on Tuesday, while Faruqui was able to walk out of Indore jail on Saturday but only after the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Indore received a “call from a judge of the Supreme Court”, urging them to check the website for the apex court’s order that had put a stay on Munawar’s production warrant and granted him ad-interim bail.” Priyam Vyas was earlier granted bail by the juvenile court.

Citizens groups, artists and writers groups, across the country, and from different parts of the world are following the case and have expressed “deep concerns around the rights to liberty and freedom of speech in India.” They have held online shows, solidarity meetings, and signed public statements demanding that the trumped up charges against the performers be dropped.

Comedy is not a crime

Artists from India, and and from around the world have issued a joint statement, reaffirming that they stood on solidarity with Munawar Faruqui, saying, “A young Muslim stand-up comic arrested in India for a joke he did not crack.” The global community of stand-up comics, artists, political satirists, writers,  musicians, actors, entertainers, and concerned individuals, stated they were “alarmed at what is happening  in India, a country where laughter and irreverence has been part of traditions across religions  and communities, and humour has been deployed by artists through centuries.”

They added that Munawar has had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of India “just for interim  bail, which was his legal right. He has now been released on bail, but the charges against him  in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh remain. We call for the dropping or dismissal of these trumped-up charges for all six individuals.” 

Munawar faces criminal charges of “uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious  feelings” among other sections of India’s penal code, for jokes he never cracked, in a  performance that did not take place. These absurd but serious charges carry jail time. The state  of Uttar Pradesh has also sought Munawar’s arrest on equally absurd charges. The institutions of a changing India appear to be colluding to give out a message—humour threatens the  powerful. And humour by a Muslim man in India will not be tolerated by Hindu supremacists.”

The artists said, “Munawar took risks that all artists take. But the stakes are higher for him. He comes  from a humble background. His family lost their home during the large-scale 2002 violence in  Gujarat, and moved to Mumbai where Munawar sold utensils and did other odd jobs during  the day and studied at night. He started stand-up comedy just two years ago, quickly garnering  some success. As artists and concerned individuals, we are alarmed that in a country that claims to be the  world’s largest democracy, a stand-up artist was imprisoned for over a month, and faces serious  criminal charges, for no crime.” They have all “called for an end to this persecution of Munawar Faruqui, his  associates, and all other performers, who must have the right in any real democracy to use their  art to comment on their times”.  

Even more solidarity has come from diasporic Indian groups such as Progressive India Collective in partnership with PEN America’s Artists at Risk Connection, Freemuse, and Reclaiming India. PEN America’s membership of over 7500 novelists, journalists and writing professionals makes it the largest of over 100 centres of the  PEN International network, and its Artists at Risk Connection is an online collaboration of more than 600 global organisations that provide life-saving resources to artists worldwide who face oppression, persecution, arrest, and violence for their creative work. Freemuse advocates internationally for freedom of artistic expression and cultural diversity, and has UN Special Consultative Status to the Economic and Social Council (UN-ECOSOC) and UNESCO. Reclaiming India is a joint initiative of the  global Indian diaspora comprising Dalit Solidarity Forum, the Global Indian Progressive Alliance, Hindus for Human Rights, India Civil Watch International, Indian American Muslim Council, and Students Against Hindutva Ideology. 

According to the collective statement issued, director of PEN America’s Artists at Risk Connection, Julie Trébault, said, “Comedy and satire are necessary to ensure a healthy democracy, as they facilitate the free communication of new ideas and  critical thinking. The arrest of Munawar Faruqui, his friends and associates, on arbitrary and unfounded  grounds is nothing short of a violation of their fundamental right to free speech and expression. We condemn the arbitrary arrests of these artists and call for their immediate release, as well as dropping  all charges that have been made against them.” 

Reclaiming India, has also released a statement during its South Asian American stand-up comedy special in support of Munawar, saying, “Faruqui is one individual, but a young, outspoken Muslim comedian. His case  encapsulates so much of what is happening in India in recent years. We are seeing rising discrimination and violence toward Muslims and other minorities, towards artists and members of the media, and  towards any public figure who dares to dissent against the government. That is why we, as young South  Asian Americans, are taking a stand in solidarity with Faruqui, and South Asia’s numerous others  prisoners of conscience.” 

Freemuse executive director Dr. Srirak Plipat, said, “The right to freedom of expression is a human right guaranteed by human rights instruments including  Article 19 of the ICCPR. Arresting comedian Munawar Faruqui under the allegation of hurting religious  sentiments for his stand-up performance is in clear violation of that right. Freemuse stands with Munawar Faruqui and his associates and calls for  the Indian authorities to release the detainees and drop all charges against them.” 

Related

Breaking: SC grants ad interim bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui
BREAKING: Madhya Pradesh HC rejects comedian Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea
Such people must not be spared: MP HC on Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea
Sessions court denies bail to stand-up comic held for ‘insulting’ Hindu deities

The post Two of Munawar Faruqui’s co-accused get ad-interim bail, two more remain in jail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It has been a month since comedian Munawar Faruqui has been arrested, he is still in jail. On January 28, 2021, Justice Rohit Arya of Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the bail pleas of Faruqui and his co performer Nalin Yadav. Justice Arya had reserved orders on their bail applications after noting that people who take undue advantage of others’ religious sentiments and emotions must not be spared.

The court had observed, “This Court refrains from commenting upon contentions of the parties touching on merits but, regard being had to the material seized and the statements of the witnesses and that the investigation is in progress, no case is made out for grant of bail.” The court added, “The evidence/material collected so far, suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of stand-up comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicant.”

The court highlighted that, “It is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country and also of the States to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India irrespective of religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities and to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture (Article 15A (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India.” The HC had also rejected the contention of Faruqui that he had not uttered any statements as alleged in the criminal complaint. Considering the video footage of the show and witness statements, Justice Rohit Arya opined, “ It is not a case of no evidence. More so, the investigation is in progress.”

As reported in Indian and international media, Faruqui’s arrest is being seen as a part of the crackdown on artists, activists, and religious minorities. In response, and in solidarity, a group of young South Asian American comedians have come together to perform a virtual comedy show titled “The Right to Laugh.” This solidarity show is being organized by Reclaiming India, a joint initiative of the global Indian diaspora, representing diverse voices, issues, identities, and their intersections. “We have strong roots in the country of our origin and stand by the Constitution of India,” said the members in a statement released. The core members of Reclaiming India are Dalit Solidarity Forum, Global Indian Progressive Alliance, Hindus for Human Rights, India Civil Watch International, Indian American Muslim Council, and Students Against Hindutva Ideology. The Philadelphia-based Progressive India Collective is cosponsoring this event.

According to the pre-event information, “United by their belief in human rights and freedom of speech, these rising comedians will showcase their talents while also calling attention to the injustice that Faruqui has been facing for the past month.” The performers include artists Myesha Chowdury, Sai D, Abby Govindan, Pallavi Gunalan, Apoorva Gundeti, Masood Haque, Rishi Mahesh, Yamini Nambimadom, and Amar Risbud. Award-winning poet, filmmaker, educator and performer Fatimah Asghar will be the master of ceremonies.

This show will be held on Saturday, February 6, 2021, at 10:30 PM, IST and will be live-streamed on Facebook and YouTube.

Related

BREAKING: Madhya Pradesh HC rejects comedian Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea
Such people must not be spared: MP HC on Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea
Sessions court denies bail to stand-up comic held for ‘insulting’ Hindu deities
Stand-up comic Faruqui Munawar’s custody extended by two weeks

The post Coming soon! The Right to Laugh: a virtual comedy show appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Rohit Arya of Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of comedian Munawar Faruqui and his co performer Nalin Yadav. Justice Arya had reserved orders on their bail applications after noting that people who take undue advantage of others’ religious sentiments and emotions must not be spared.

By his order dated January 28, 2021, the court observed, “This Court refrains from commenting upon contentions of the parties touching on merits but, regard being had to the material seized and the statements of the witnesses and that the investigation is in progress, no case is made out for grant of bail.”

Justice Arya said that, “The evidence/material collected so far, suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of stand-up comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicant.”

He highlighted that, “It is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country and also of the States to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India irrespective of religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities and to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture (Article 15A (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India.”

Emphasising on the role of the State, he said, “States must endeavour that ecosystem and sustenance of coexistence in our welfare society is not polluted by negative forces and must strive for achievement of goals as enshrined under Article 51A(e) and (f) of the Constitution of India in particular as these provisions are part of our vibrant Constitution and not dead letters.”

The High Court further rejected the contention of Faruqui that he had not uttered any statements as alleged in the criminal complaint. Considering the video footage of the show and witness statements, Justice Rohit Arya opined, “At this stage it is difficult to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as complacency of the applicant cannot be ruled out, besides vulnerability of his acts in public domain. It is not a case of no evidence. More so, the investigation is in progress.”

The judge went a step ahead and remarked, “The possibility of collection of more incriminating material and complacency of other persons cannot also be ruled out. Further, it has come on record that a similar nature of offence has been registered against the applicant at Police Station Georgetown, Prayagraj, State of Uttar Pradesh.”

Munawar Faruqui and five others were arrested on January 1, 2021 by the Indore Police on allegations that he made derogatory remarks against Hindu Gods during a recent stand-up show. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by Eklavya Singh Gaur, chief of Hindutva organisation Hind Rakshak Sangathan. On January 5, the Sessions court had dismissed his bail application.  

The order may be read here:

Related:

Such people must not be spared: MP HC on Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea
Sessions court denies bail to stand-up comic held for ‘insulting’ Hindu deities
Stand-up comic Faruqui Munawar’s custody extended by two weeks

The post BREAKING: Madhya Pradesh HC rejects comedian Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Rohit Arya of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reserved orders on the bail applications of comedian Munawar Faruqui and his co-performer, who were arrested by the Indore police on January 2 in a case related to alleged hurting of religious sentiments.

“Such people must not be spared. I will reserve the order on merits,” said Justice Rohit Arya. Parties that opposed the bail plea of Munawar submitted that the comedian has made highly objectionable statements against Hindu gods and deities.

According to LiveLaw, one lawyer argued that Munawar has posted several videos previously which were circulated on social media and that he repeated the same remarks on three different occasions i.e., comedy shows. “This has led to other comedians making such remarks about Hindu Gods. This is happening with 70 percent of the comedians”, she said.

Further, Justice Rohit Arya observed, “But why do you take undue advantage of others’ religious sentiments and emotions. What is wrong with your mindset? How can you do this for the purpose of your business?”

The court asked Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha who appeared for Faruqui whether or not he wanted to withdraw the bail application. He submitted, “He has committed no offence in the matter your lordship. Bail should be granted.”

Justice Arya has asked other counsels objecting to the bail application to file their concerned documents and supported evidence. He then reserved orders on the bail application of Nalin Yadav, arrested as a co-performer with Faruqui.

On January 5, the Additional District and Sessions court Judge Yatindra Kumar Guru rejected the bail pleas of Munawar and Nalin who were booked for allegedly insulting Hindu deities during their comedy show, based on a complaint made by Eklavya Singh Gaur, convenor of Hind Rakshak Sangathan and the son of BJP MLA.

Related:

Sessions court denies bail to stand-up comic held for ‘insulting’ Hindu deities
UP Police submit production warrant for Munawar Faruqui
Stand-up comic Faruqui Munawar’s custody extended by two weeks

The post Such people must not be spared: MP HC on Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.