The election results would reveal to what extent his call influenced the voters and helped the secular alliance. However, his direct involvement in the electoral process by releasing the lists of candidates at a press conference has already been exploited by the BJP to mobilise Hindu voters. It remains unclear how successful the BJP’s efforts were.

Referring to the lists issued by Maulana Nomani, dDeputy Chief Minister and BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis appealed to Hindu voters to consolidate against this move. He did not mince words, stating that the Muslim voter mobilisation (referred to as “vote jihad”) in favour of the secular alliance should be answered by a “religious war” (dharma yudh) from the Hindu side. Speaking to journalists, he outlined the BJP’s strategy: “Although we are seeking votes for our development work, if someone says to engage in ‘vote jihad’ to defeat the BJP, we will respond with a dharma yudh of votes.”

Beyond the BJP’s response, Maulana Nomani’s selection of candidates has also sparked an internal debate within the Muslim community. Supporters of excluded candidates, particularly those from the Muslim community, expressed deep disappointment. This led to questions and a heated debate about the criteria and methods the Maulana used to finalise his “lists”. Some critics went so far as to question the Maulana’s credibility, demanding a public explanation of the selection process.

This controversy feeds into a broader debate about the blurring of the boundary between religion and politics. Parties engaged in majoritarian politics have already eroded much of the separation by mobilising voters on religious grounds, using Hindu religious leaders to consolidate their base. Worse still, leaders of Hindu right-wing parties frequently win elections by campaigning on anti-Muslim platforms, delivering hateful speeches, and spreading anti-minority propaganda before and during elections. These communal and majoritarian trends, fuelled by the involvement of religious leaders, pose a serious threat to our secular republic and must be reversed.

However, the involvement of Muslim religious figures in electoral politics, even with good intentions, could undermine the very goal of preserving secularism. This is the flip side of the story. A Muslim religious scholar, like any other citizen, is free to engage in politics and support any candidate. There is no doubt about this. But political involvement is a public act, and people have the right to agree or disagree with the clergy’s actions. Asking such questions should not be seen as an attempt to demonize or silence Muslim religious leaders. I will return to this point shortly. 

Elections and the clergy

The elections for all 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra were conducted in a single phase on November 20, with results scheduled to be declared three days later, on November 23. In the current political landscape of Maharashtra, the primary contest is expected to be between the opposition MVA (Maha Vikas Aghadi) and the ruling BJP-led Mahayuti alliance. The MVA consists of Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (SHS-UBT), Sharad Pawar’s NCP (SP faction), and the Congress, supported by the Samajwadi Party, the Peasants and Workers Party of India (PWP), the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and a few independent MLAs. The Mahayuti alliance, on the other hand, includes the BJP, the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction), and Ajit Pawar’s NCP.

In addition to these two major alliances, Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) is another influential player in Maharashtra politics. While AIMIM fielded 44 candidates in the 2019 assembly elections, this time it has announced only 16 candidates, marking a significant reduction in the number of contested seats. Although AIMIM secured only two seats in the previous elections, it now seeks to focus its efforts on fewer constituencies to achieve better results.

Another notable participant in Maharashtra’s political arena is the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), led by former Member of Parliament Prakash Ambedkar, the grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The VBA, which has a strong social base among Dalits, has fielded 51 candidates. In the 2019 General Elections, the AIMIM and the VBA forged an alliance, garnering a combined 14% vote share. Consequently, smaller parties like AIMIM and VBA, which represent some of the most marginalised communities in society, cannot be overlooked. However, most candidates from AIMIM and VBA were excluded from Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s endorsed lists.

The AIMIM, which contested the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly Elections and secured two seats in Malegaon and Dhule City, has been ignored by both the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and Maulana Sajjad Nomani. However, Owaisi, unlike the allies of the so-called secular MVA, has been more vocal about raising Muslim issues, both in Parliament and beyond. Yet, his party was not included in the Maulana’s list of preferred candidates.

Maulana Nomani has not explained his reasons for excluding AIMIM and VBA candidates. Instead, he released a statement alongside his lists of preferred candidates on his official Twitter account. In the statement, Maulana Nomani—who is a member of the working executive of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the founding chairman of the Rahmani Foundation—claimed that the candidates were selected based on “extensive research, ground surveys, and in-depth analysis.” However, the statement does not provide any details regarding the methodology, sample size, or specifics of his research, survey, and analysis. The statement merely justified the selection, predominantly from the MVA, by emphasizing the significance of the Maharashtra Assembly Elections in the current political scenario. Elaborating further, Maulana Nomani stated, “Each election is a test as well as testimony to the strength of the country’s democracy and our faith in it.” His statement ended with optimism, expressing hope that the elections would result in the formation of “a secular and inclusive government.” This led to questions about whether Maulana’s support for Owaisi-led AIMIM and Ambedkar-led VBA candidates would have made his selection more “secular” and “inclusive.”

Maulana Sajjad Nomani is an eminent Islamic scholar, followed by a section of Sunni Muslims. His association with Deoband, Nadwa, and the Tablighi Jamaat is seen by politicians as political capital, to be leveraged during election campaigns. His religious background is viewed as an asset by those more interested in securing Muslim votes than genuinely working for their welfare. This is something Maulana Nomani needs to be cautious about.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani was born in Lucknow in 1955 and claims ancestral roots in Turkey. His father, Maulana Mohammad Manzoor Nomani, was a renowned Islamic scholar and an alumnus of Darul Uloom Deoband. Maulana Manzoor Nomani authored several influential books, including Islami Kya Hai (What is Islam?), a concise introduction to Islam that remains widely sold and appreciated to this day. While Maulana Sajjad Nomani benefited from his father’s legacy, he has carved his own path as a scholar, author, orator, and expert in Islamic studies.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani pursued his early education at Nadwat Ul-Ulama in Lucknow and Darul Uloom Deoband. Later, he earned a doctorate in Quranic Studies from Madina University in Saudi Arabia. Beyond his scholarly work, Maulana Sajjad Nomani is actively involved in education. He manages educational institutions and serves as the editor of Al-Furqan. In 1995, he founded the NGO Rahman Foundation, which is dedicated to supporting the poor, orphans, widows, and the oppressed. His efforts span across vast areas, with notable contributions in Maharashtra, where he runs madrasas and leads the Khanqah Nomaniya Mujaddidiyah in Neral (Raigad district), about a two-hour journey from Mumbai. Maulana Sajjad Nomani is also active on social media, regularly sharing video lectures that reach a wide audience.

He has never shied away from sharing political platforms or shifting his political loyalties. For a long time, he was associated with Waman Meshram, the national president of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF). Established by former BSP president Manyavar Kanshi Ram, D.K. Khaparde, and Dinabhana in 1971, BAMCEF is an Ambedkarite organization. While Maulana’s speeches at BAMCEF included scathing criticism of secular parties for betraying the causes of Dalits and Muslims, his recent political positions have favoured secular parties. This shift in loyalty may explain his exclusion of AIMIM and VBA candidates. It appears that Maulana has moved away from his earlier political message of forging a Dalit-Muslim alliance to challenge Brahmanical parties.

The Maulana and His critics

While the supporters of Maulana Sajjad Nomani have praised his efforts to release lists of endorsed candidates, calling them “great initiatives” and urging Muslims to follow his “wisdom,” many others have criticized his actions. A section of the Muslim community has expressed frustration with the Maulana for excluding a significant number of candidates from Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM and other political outfits representing marginalized communities. Critics argue that Owaisi, in sharp contrast to the leaders of secular parties, has been far more vocal about the concerns of minorities and other weaker sections. They claim that while secular parties have increasingly leaned toward soft Hindutva to counter the BJP, AIMIM has raised genuine issues. Secular parties, under the guise of adopting a “practical” strategy, have nearly stopped addressing Muslim issues in their manifestos and speeches, offering only symbolic gestures at best. Despite this, the Maulana has expressed support for these secular parties without clarifying whether they have assured him of any concrete measures to address the social, educational, and economic backwardness of Muslims if they come to power.

Notably, the Maulana’s list omits any mention of how the secular alliance has ignored Muslim concerns before or during their campaigns in Maharashtra. Secular parties often assume that Muslims will vote for them by default as the only alternative to communal forces. This contrasts sharply with Owaisi, who, more than most leaders from either secular or communal parties, has consistently spoken as a radical constitutionalist and effectively raised minority issues. Despite this, the Maulana did not give preference to the Owaisi-led AIMIM in his recommendations.

Against this backdrop, a significant section of Muslims has begun questioning Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s approach. Social media platforms are flooded with reactions and comments, casting doubt on the processes and criteria he used to include or exclude candidates. The backlash against the Maulana has been expressed in multiple ways. He has been accused of “selling out” the interests of the Muslim community, and some have questioned his shifting political loyalties, with a few even accusing him of working in favour of communal parties. Others have warned that such actions could damage the prestige and dignity of the Ulama (religious scholars), particularly if their recommendations fail to gain public support.

The criticisms against Maulana Sajjad Nomani also stem from his failure to address the shortcomings of secular parties in defending Muslim interests. Some Muslims have gone so far as to accuse the Maulana of issuing his list of preferred candidates in exchange for monetary benefits. Others allege that he acted as a spokesperson for secular parties under the guise of a religious scholar. Another critique is that Muslim religious leaders often provide “free” services to secular parties out of fear of the BJP. Additionally, some critics have questioned the Maulana’s influence, suggesting that his appeal would go unheard. Allegations of personal gain were also raised, with claims that the Maulana released the list hoping to be rewarded with a Rajya Sabha seat. Beyond releasing the list of candidates, the Maulana has also been criticized for “blessing” politicians ahead of the elections. In some instances, candidates and politicians were reportedly allowed to visit the Maulana’s office and be photographed with him, with these images later shared on social media to influence voters.

Muslim intellectuals, activists, and the secular intelligentsia have also raised concerns about the Maulana’s involvement in electoral politics. Professor Akhtarul Wasey, who taught Islamic studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, opined that the involvement of religious figures from any community is not good for a secular democracy. “The way we have criticized the political use of religious figures by non-Muslims, we should also criticize such acts committed by any Muslim.”

Tanweer Alam, a resident of Mumbai and president of the Aligarh Muslim University Alumni Association (Maharashtra chapter), is highly disappointed by Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s political activities, particularly during the assembly elections. “We need to strongly oppose the involvement of Muslim religious figures in political activities. Our opposition is not because we want to silence any voice or disenfranchise those with whom we disagree. Any religious scholar from the Muslim community who becomes active during elections should be closely observed. My disagreement with the respected Maulana is on two points. First, who has authorized him to speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community? Second, how does the Maulana claim to have political understanding when he makes highly irresponsible statements that can be exploited by communal forces? For example, a viral video is circulating in which he is allegedly heard saying he would boycott those who voted for the BJP. I am not sure if the video is authentic, but if it is, then he has harmed the cause of both Muslims and the country by giving a clear opportunity to communal forces.”

Ahmad Jawed, a senior journalist and former editor of the Inquilab Urdu daily (Patna edition), described Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s actions as “counterproductive.” He elaborated on his position with the following words: “With due respect to Maulana Sajjad Nomani, it should be noted that people issuing so-called fatwa, [legal ruling by Islamic scholars] farman, [order] or appeals have not had any significant impact on the electoral politics of India. A careful analysis of India’s electoral behaviour shows that Muslim voters are not influenced by fatwa, farman, or any such appeal. Each time, Muslim voters have prioritized the interests of the nation, the principles of secularism, and issues of governance, law, and justice”.

Dr. John Dayal, a veteran journalist, writer, human rights activist, ex-member of the National Integration Council (Government of India), and former national president of the All India Catholic Union, is widely regarded as one of the strongest secular voices in civil society. When asked to comment on the matter, he said, “The political party is the direct beneficiary of the support of religious leadership, who in turn enjoy this patronage for their places of worship and for themselves, individually or collectively.”

Some clarifications

While the instances of majoritarian parties politically exploiting religious figures are innumerable—and one of the main planks of their political mobilisation—there are also instances where Muslim religious figures have been drawn into the political arena. Long before Maulana Sajjad Nomani, the ruling elites used Shahi Imams, constructing their image as leaders of Indian Muslims to consolidate Hindu voters. For example, during the 2004 General Elections, Syed Ahmad Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid, appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP in the Gujarat elections, overlooking the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in massive loss of life, primarily among Muslims, under BJP rule. His appeal backfired, and the BJP was voted out of power. Similarly, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Himayat Committee, formed to gain Muslim support with the backing of several Muslim religious scholars, also failed to help the BJP secure an electoral victory. Currently, Hindutva forces have floated the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), whose Muslim members are trained to justify Hindutva agendas using the language of Islam.

However, it is not implied here that Maulana Sajjad Nomani released his list of candidates at the behest of any political party. It’s possible that he issued such a list on his own to draw media attention and place himself at the centre of Maharashtra politics. But the bigger question is how much influence he actually has over the Muslim community. While his influence among a section of Muslims is not dismissed, it is doubtful that he holds sway over the entire Muslim community. It is also uncertain if younger generations of Muslims are inclined to follow a top-down approach in decision-making. Instead, they prefer to weigh multiple factors before choosing their political affiliations.

Let me share a personal example to illustrate this point. On December 15, 2019, a large number of activists gathered at the Delhi Police Headquarters to protest the police crackdown on anti-CAA protesters at Jamia Millia Islamia. Suddenly, a prominent Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader appeared at the protest site and tried to discourage the protesters, most of whom were Muslims, from continuing. Muslim youths, however, rejected this advice outright.

Both Muslim religious scholars and the Hindu right often make the mistake of considering the Muslim community as a homogenous group, painting it primarily as a religious bloc because it suits their agendas. However, the sociological reality is that the Muslim community is sharply divided along lines of caste, class, gender, language, and region. While the Holy Quran is universally revered and Prophet Mohammad holds a central place in the Islamic faith, differences emerge in interpretations of Islamic teachings by the Ulama. These differences give rise to various religious sects and schools of jurisprudence within the Muslim community. As a result, no single religious leader can claim the authority to influence the entire Muslim population.

This raises the question of whether it is desirable for any religious leader to speak for the whole Muslim community. A larger concern is how beneficial the involvement of a religious figure—without clear ideological clarification and political strategy—is for the community. Will such appeals by religious figures serve a constructive purpose, or will they be exploited by communal forces to reinforce the myth that the Muslim community is controlled by the clergy? Hindu right-wing and anti-Muslim commentators are likely to overlook the vibrant internal debates and diversity within the Muslim community, focusing instead on such acts to perpetuate stereotypes. This is exactly what the BJP is doing in Maharashtra by citing the Maulana’s list as an example of “vote jihad” against Hindus. However, Hindutva forces conveniently ignore the fact that the Maulana’s actions have drawn significant criticism from within the Muslim community itself.

It is important to note that Islam does not grant clergy an indispensable or centralised authority. However, it is also true that certain members of the clergy play an active role in guiding the community in social, religious, and political matters. When they enter the political domain, however, it tends to erode the boundaries between religion and politics in a democratic polity. While majoritarian symbols and practices are often universalized in the name of national culture and way of life, minority religious symbols are demonized as “alien.” But this cannot justify the instrumental use of religious figures from minority communities for electoral mobilization, as such practices have the potential to undermine the secular-democratic republic.

Let me clarify a point before I conclude. My disagreement with the participation of religious leaders in electoral politics is not an attempt to silence any voice. Nowhere have I argued that a religious scholar should be silenced, nor is my criticism of a religious leader aimed at suppressing minority voices. In fact, my concern over the instrumental use of religious figures stems from a desire to strengthen the genuine voices of the minority community. Just as Maulana Nomani has every right to hold a political opinion, support or oppose any political outfit, and endorse or reject any candidate, we too have the right to seek a public explanation from the Maulana about the methods and processes involved in finalizing his list of candidates. His statements and endorsements are not private affairs; they have public significance, and he should be held accountable for his political actions. As someone involved in the political arena, he should not be immune from criticism.

Let me reiterate that a religious leader has every right to issue a list of endorsed candidates and campaign for their victory, directly or indirectly. However, our disagreement lies in whether a religious scholar’s direct involvement in electoral politics has ever truly advanced the cause of marginalised groups. Likewise, if a religious scholar is free to publicly share a list of endorsed candidates with claims that a proper method was followed in the selection process, is it not reasonable to ask him to explain the criteria for that selection?

Most would agree that the secular foundation of Indian democracy discourages religious mobilisation in electoral politics. While religion has always played some role in elections, efforts should focus on minimising its influence, not validating it. Majoritarian parties have consistently exploited religious sentiments, presenting communalism as nationalism. When such tactics are imitated by secular forces or minority groups, they often prove counterproductive.

In fact, my essay does not aim to target any particular individual, nor the community he or she claims to represent. Rather, it raises important questions and seeks a public debate. For instance, was issuing a list of endorsed candidates at the last moment before the elections truly the best way to serve the minority community? If such a practice is considered “legitimate,” how can the Hindu right—which brazenly uses religion for electoral mobilization and stokes communal tensions—be criticized alone? While Maulana Nomani may be optimistic about transferring his supporters’ votes to his preferred candidates, should he also consider the potential counter-mobilization by Hindutva forces? Ultimately, who benefits the most from the alliance between politicians and religious figures? These pertinent questions demand careful deliberation and cannot be ignored.

(The author holds a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University. His doctoral research focused on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com; Views expressed are personal)

The post Who stands to gain the most from an alliance between politicians and religious leaders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rationalist Tradition in Islamic Thought

The rationalist tradition in Islamic philosophy emerged in a context where diverse intellectual currents were converging. Philosophers such as Abū Bakr al-Rāzī and Ibn al-Hasan al-Tūsī engaged deeply with the works of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle and Plato, while simultaneously addressing the unique challenges posed by Islamic theology. This synthesis of Hellenistic philosophy and Islamic thought laid the groundwork for a rich discourse on natural rights and the moral foundations of law.

Among the notable figures is Ibn Bāja (d. 533/1139), who emphasized the importance of reason as a means to understand the divine order. His writings reflect a belief that human beings, endowed with reason, can discern natural laws that govern both the cosmos and human conduct. Similarly, Ibn Rushd(d. 595/1198), known in the West as Averroes, championed the harmony between religion and philosophy. His commentaries on Aristotle were pivotal in promoting rational inquiry as a legitimate path to understanding religious truths.

Another significant thinker, Ibn Tufayl(d. 581/1185), explored the implications of natural law through his philosophical novel Hayy ibn Yaqdhan. The story illustrates how a human being, through reason and observation, can arrive at knowledge of God and moral truths without the need for religious texts. This notion of self-discovery through reason underscores a broader rationalist perspective that transcends dogma.

The Development of Islamic Natural Rights

The contributions of these scholars culminated in the classical natural rights thesis, which posits that rights are inherent to human beings and can be discerned through reason. This idea resonates with contemporary discussions on human rights, highlighting a historical precedent for the recognition of individual dignity and moral agency within Islamic thought.

Rationalist jurists such as Ibn ‘Aqīl (d. 581/1185) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) further enriched this discourse by engaging with the ethical implications of natural law. They argued that justice is not merely a reflection of divine command but can be understood through rational deliberation. This perspective laid the groundwork for a more nuanced interpretation of Sharia that incorporated ethical reasoning alongside traditional jurisprudence.

The School of Illumination, founded by al-Suharwardy (d. 587/1191), introduced a mystical dimension to rationalism, suggesting that intellectual illumination could lead to a deeper understanding of divine truths. This integration of mysticism with rational thought provided a holistic approach to natural law, suggesting that moral truths could be accessed through both reason and spiritual insight.

The Decline of Rationalist Influence

Despite these significant contributions, the influence of rationalist scholars began to wane after the thirteenth century. A combination of political, social, and intellectual factors contributed to this decline. The rise of more dogmatic interpretations of Islam, particularly in the context of the Sunni-Shi‘i divide, led to a diminishing space for rationalist discourse. The establishment of orthodox schools of thought, which prioritized textual authority over philosophical inquiry, further marginalized the rationalist tradition.

During the Ottoman and Safavid periods, while some scholars made noteworthy contributions, their works often remained isolated achievements in an otherwise inhospitable intellectual environment. This is particularly evident in the writings of figures like Mullā Sadrā (d. 1641), who, despite his innovative synthesis of philosophy and theology, struggled to find a broader audience within a predominantly conservative milieu.

Reviving the Islamic Natural Law Tradition: The Role of Progressive Scholars

In recent decades, a new generation of progressive Muslim scholars has emerged, seeking to revive and expand upon the rationalist tradition of Islamic natural law. Figures such as Ebrahim Moosa, Hassan Hanafi, Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, and Mohsen Kadivar  are at the forefront of this intellectual revival, each contributing unique perspectives that reflect a commitment to reason, ethical inquiry, and social justice.

Ebrahim Moosa: Bridging Tradition and Modernity

Ebrahim Moosa, a prominent scholar at the University of Notre Dame, emphasizes the importance of reinterpreting Islamic texts through a contemporary lens. He advocates for a contextual understanding of the Quran and Hadith, arguing that the application of Islamic principles must be responsive to modern ethical challenges. Moosa’s work encourages a return to the rationalist principles of natural law, asserting that human dignity and rights are inherent in Islamic teachings. By engaging with both traditional sources and modern philosophical discourse, Moosa seeks to create a framework for Islamic law that is both relevant and just in today’s world.

Hassan Hanafi: Philosophy and Social Change

Hassan Hanafi, an influential Egyptian philosopher, has been a vocal proponent of a rationalist approach to Islamic thought. His work critiques the rigid interpretations of Islam that have dominated intellectual discourse and advocates for a philosophy of liberation. Hanafi argues that Islamic natural law can provide a basis for social justice, human rights, and democratic governance. By emphasizing the need for a critical engagement with Islamic texts, he seeks to empower Muslim communities to reclaim their intellectual heritage and apply it to contemporary struggles for justice and equality.

Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri: Critical Rationalism

Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, a Moroccan philosopher, has made significant contributions to the discourse on Islamic rationalism through his critical examination of Arabic thought. Al-Jabiri’s work focuses on the historical and cultural contexts of Islamic philosophy, advocating for a rationalist approach that moves beyond traditional dogmas. He argues that the revival of natural law theories can help Muslims articulate their rights and responsibilities in a modern context. By reinterpreting classical texts and integrating them with modern philosophical ideas, al-Jabiri aims to foster a more dynamic and critical engagement with Islamic thought.

Mohsen Kadivar: The Ethics of Governance

Iranian scholar Mohsen Kadivaroffers a contemporary perspective on Islamic ethics and governance, emphasizing the need for rationality in political and legal frameworks. His work critiques the prevailing interpretations of Sharia that often prioritize authoritarianism over justice and equity. Kadivar calls for a return to the ethical foundations of Islamic law, arguing that a rationalist approach to natural law can provide a robust framework for democratic governance and human rights. By advocating for an interpretation of Islam that prioritizes ethics and reason, Kadivar contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the role of Islam in contemporary political life.

Khaled Abou El Fadl: The Search for Beauty and Reason

Abou El Fadlemphasises the importance of ethical reasoning and the spirit of the law over rigid legalism, advocating for an interpretation of Islam that is both compassionate and context-sensitive.

Abou El Fadl critiques the dogmatic tendencies that can arise from a narrow interpretation of Islamic texts, arguing that such rigidity often leads to harmful consequences for individuals and communities. He encourages Muslims to engage with their faith critically and reflectively, emphasising that authenticity in Islam should be grounded in ethical considerations rather than mere adherence to tradition.

His scholarship highlights the necessity of understanding Islam as a living tradition that evolves with the times, allowing for diverse interpretations and practices that reflect the complexities of contemporary life. By advocating for a more inclusive and humane approach to Islam, Abou El Fadl challenges the notion that authenticity is merely about following established norms or historical precedents.

A Collective Effort Toward Renewal

These scholars represent a collective effort to revitalize the rationalist tradition within Islamic thought. By engaging critically with both classical texts and contemporary issues, they are forging a path that honours the intellectual legacy of earlier rationalists while addressing the complexities of modern life. Their work underscores the enduring relevance of natural law theories in articulating a vision of justice that is consistent with Islamic principles.

As they explore the intersections of faith, reason, and ethics, these progressive Muslim thinkers are not only contributing to academic discourse but also inspiring a broader movement within Muslim communities. Their emphasis on human rights, social justice, and ethical governance resonates with the aspirations of many Muslims seeking to navigate the challenges of the modern world while remaining grounded in their faith.

The Contemporary Relevance of Rationalist Thought

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the rationalist tradition of Islamic thought, with scholars seeking to revive these philosophical insights in the context of contemporary issues. Discussions on human rights, social justice, and ethical governance increasingly draw upon the foundational principles articulated by rationalist jurists. By revisiting their works, progressive Muslim  scholarscan advocate for a vision of Islam that embraces reason and ethical inquiry as central to its moral framework.

Moreover, the global discourse on natural law has opened new avenues for dialogue between Islamic philosophy and Western thought. The principles articulated by rationalist scholars resonate with contemporary debates on universal human rights, challenging the perception that Islamic thought is inherently opposed to rationalism or individual rights.

Conclusion

The rationalist scholars of the Islamic tradition laid the intellectual groundwork for a robust understanding of natural law and human rights in the contemporary period as exemplified by progressive Muslim scholars. Their contributions underscore the importance of reason in ethical deliberation and legal jurisprudence, offering a perspective that remains relevant in today’s discussions on morality and justice. The challenge now lies in fostering an intellectual environment that allows for the flourishing of reasoned discourse, ensuring that the legacy of these scholars continues to inform and enrich the moral landscape of contemporary Islamic civilization. The efforts of progressive Muslimscholars today further this legacy, demonstrating that the principles of natural law and ethical governance can thrive within the framework of Islam, ultimately contributing to a more just and equitable society.

Checkout Dr. Adis Duderija’s personal website at: https://dradisduderija.com/

A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books are ( co-edited)-  Shame, Modesty, and Honora in Islam  and Interfaith Engagement Beyond the Divide  (Springer)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Progressive modern Muslim scholars reconnect to the rationalist tradition in Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After becoming the deputy Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, he has been in the news nationally this September for raising the issue of alleged adulteration of the Tirupati Laddu Prasadam with animal fat. Later, hearing petitions filed by Subramanian Swamy and Others to seek Court monitored investigation into the matter, the bench comprising of justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan criticised the Chief Minister for making public allegations about the adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus saying that it was not appropriate on part of the high constitutional functionary to go in public to make a statement which can affect the sentiment of crores of people and when investigation to find out adulterated ghee was used to make laddus was still on going.

While the issue was first raised by Nara Chandrababu Naidu on September 18, the Chief Minister of AP, Pawan Kalyan undertook a “Prayaschitha Deeksha” to atone for the wrong that had happened and ended the Deeksha in Tirupati. It is here that he made the Varahi Declaration—a set of 7 demands including enactment of law at a national level to protect Sanatana Dharma; and declared himself as an ‘unapologetic Sanatani Hindu.’ He said that he respects all religions including Islam, Christianity and that he is a Sanatani Hindu.

In this context, he or his party never elaborated on what they mean by Sanatan Dharma that they seek to protect—whether it is the puranic traditions or the Vedic ritualistic culture. However, his rhetoric has allowed different right-wing organisations to call for freeing of temples from government control. In this context, this article will understand the evolution of temple management control in India and why it has evolved into what it is today.

The claim that government control over temples is a recent phenomenon, imposed solely by colonial rulers, distorts the historical reality of temples as centres of power and wealth. Throughout Indian history, temples have been intertwined with political authority, attracting the patronage and, consequently, the control of rulers across different eras. Temples have historically served multifaceted roles, extending beyond religious practices. They functioned as vibrant cultural and economic hubs, fostering agriculture, irrigation, artistic endeavours, and educational pursuits. This multifaceted nature led to the accumulation of significant wealth, making them attractive targets for patronage and control.

Early India

Indian rulers, from kings to nobles, recognised the social and political influence wielded by temples. They generously bestowed “Mahadanas,” or great gifts, of land and riches upon these institutions. These acts were not merely expressions of piety but calculated strategies to enhance their legitimacy and influence. Religious gifting was an integral aspect of “Rajadharma,” the ethical code governing rulers, further solidifying the connection between political authority and temple administration.[1] This patronage, while enriching temples, also facilitated a degree of state control even in ancient India. Rulers, invested in the well-being of these institutions, often oversaw the management of endowments and intervened when mismanagement occurred. Historical evidence suggests rulers viewed ensuring the proper utilisation of temple funds as part of their duty, demonstrating their active role in temple administration.

British Rule and thereafter

The British, building upon pre-existing practices, codified their control through legislative acts, starting with regulations in the early 19th century. These were enacted under the guise of preventing misappropriation of funds, these laws empowered the colonial government to interfere in temple administration.

The control of Hindu temples in India was shaped by a series of key legislations. The Religious Endowments Act of 1863 delegated temple management to committees, while retaining government oversight. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Acts of 1925 and 1926 sought to regulate temple control, with the 1935 amendment allowing non-Brahmins to become trustees. The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act of 1920 enabled audits of temple trusts. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act of 1959, later amended in 1971 to abolish hereditary priesthood, became a blueprint for temple administration.[2] Other significant acts include the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1987, Karnataka Act of 1997, all contributing to the ongoing debate over government control versus temple autonomy.

Tirupati Temple and legislation around it until the formation of Andhra Pradesh

The management of the Tirumala Temple, home to the shrine of Lord Venkateshwara, has evolved over centuries. Prior to British rule, local rulers oversaw the temple’s administration. During British rule, the East India Company initially managed the temple, but in 1817, its control shifted to the Board of Revenue. In 1843, following the Court of Directors’ instructions, management was granted to Seva Doss, the head of the Hathiramji Mutt, under a ‘sanad,’ marking the beginning of the Mahant’s involvement in temple administration.[3] However, the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 led the Board of Revenue to relinquish control over religious institutions, including the Tirumalai Temple. The Mahant’s tenure was plagued by allegations of waste and embezzlement, prompting a lawsuit that resulted in a court-framed management scheme. This scheme was later confirmed by the High Court of Madras and the Privy Council. The 1927 Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act recognised this scheme officially, but significant changes were introduced with the Tirumalai-Tirupati-Devasthanams Act of 1932, which nullified the 1843 arrangement and placed temple administration under a committee.

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) was established in 1932 following the TTD Act of 1932. The act placed the temple administration under a seven-member committee, overseen by a paid commissioner appointed by the Madras Government. The committee was advised by two councils—one comprising priests and temple administrators for operational guidance, and another of farmers for land and estate matters. Notably, the act did not specify qualifications for the commissioner or committee members, but it was limited in addressing temple fund generation and usage for religious purposes. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 repealed the earlier acts.

In 1950 the Constitution was also adopted and therefore, further developments are to be seen in the light of it rather than seen as colonial hangovers. Article 25 of the Constitution states as follows:

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1)Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which maybe associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus

The Constitution differentiates between the religious practices-in which the state shall not interfere subject to reasonable restrictions like public order, morality and health and secular activity associated with religious practices such as social and economic activities unrelated to religion as such.

For example, In the case of Vaishno Devi Shrine Board v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1997), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, ruling that the service of a priest is a secular activity, and the state can regulate it under Article 25(2). The act abolished hereditary priesthood and allowed state appointments, which did not violate religious freedom.[4]

After the formation of Andhra Pradesh

In 1969, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act replaced the 1951 act, expanding the Board of Trustees and ensuring representation from diverse communities, including mandatory positions for legislative members, Scheduled Castes, and women. The act broadened the scope of TTD’s activities, promoting the study of Indian languages and operating institutions like Sri Venkateswara University and the Hindu Dharma Prathishthanam for the propagation of Hindu culture.

This 1969 Act was also repealed by enacting the present Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 on the recommendations of Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission. This act abolished the hereditary trustees and maintained that the temple administrative trust shall not have a member who does not profess Hindu Religion. (Sections 16 and 17)

Th Act also abolished the hereditary right in Mirasidars, Archakas, and other office holders and stated that any usage of practice relating to the succession to any office or service, or post mentioned above is also void. (Section 34).

Section 41 of the act allowed the executive officer to not implement the resolution of the trustee or the Board of Trustees when it is likely to cause financial loss to the institution, or not beneficial to the institution etc.

This Act has also gone into several amendments and a major amendment took place in 2007 when Section 34 was amended to give right of archakatvam to the archakas who were in service under the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 thus changing Article 34.

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) may seem independent, but it’s mostly run by the Andhra Pradesh government. Key people like the board members, Executive Officer, and financial heads are all government-appointed. The TTD handles things like pilgrim services and infrastructure but needs the government’s approval for any big decisions, especially financial ones. Even the temple’s budget has to go through the government, which can make changes as it sees fit. So, while the TTD handles daily undertakings, the government keeps a tight grip on the bigger picture.

Why the Government cannot let go off control via acts and hand it over to the Hindu Community

One major issue is the decentralised nature of Hinduism, Hinduism lacks a unified governing body, especially vis-à-vis the administration of temples as evident by conflicting opinions on rituals, traditions etc. Temples are often managed by diverse groups—hereditary trustees, caste-based organizations, or local communities. This raises the question of who would take over management if the state withdraws. There is no singular, universally accepted authority to manage temples across the country, complicating the transition.

Moreover, without state oversight, there are concerns about corruption, exclusion of marginalized groups, and sectarianism. Some temples like in case of Vaikom have historically discriminated based on caste or used temple resources for personal gain. Handing control over without safeguards could worsen these issues.

Temples also function as public trusts, managing significant revenue from donations. The state justifies its involvement by ensuring that this wealth benefits society at large, particularly through charitable activities.

However, governments—especially the ones where BJP in power have been looking to remove any government participation. Even the Andhra Pradesh government reportedly has issued a Government Order asking executive officers to ensure temples’ autonomy regarding Vaidic and Agama traditions and preserve the sanctity of their customs and practices, under Section 13 of the Act. The Uttarakhand government too backtracked on the Char Dham Devasthanam Board Management Act which sought to exert some regulation on more than 50 temples in the state. Therefore, there is a shift in terms of how governments are approaching temple management, but the shift is not driven by any philosophical basis but purely on the directions/pressure from right-wing institutions.

Conclusion

Simply put, there is no bigger representative of the people of a religion than the government. A math might not pay heed to another math’s suggestions, but the government is supposed to, when it comes to management of temples. Religion in India is as diverse as its population where rituals and practices changes from one house to another. In this scenario, neither letting the control of temples being given to one sect nor it being centralised by a national act and a Sanatana dharma Board seems prudent.

(The author is part of the research team of the organisation)

[1] Aiyangar, S.K., 1939. A History of the Holy Shrine of Sri Venkatesa in Tirupati. Ananda Press.

[2]Geetika Mantri (2021). Jaggi Vasudev says ‘free Hindu temples’ — but how much are they under govt control? [online] The News Minute. Available at: https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/jaggi-vasudev-says-free-hindu-temples-how-much-are-they-under-govt-control-145125 [Accessed 16 Oct. 2024].

[3] Mahant Narayana Dasjee Varu And Ors. vs Board Of Trustees, AIR 1965 SC 1231

[4] AIR 1997 SC 1711

Related:

Supreme Court pulls up Andhra CM for making unsubstantiated public remarks on Tirupati laddu ghee, which led to controversy

Hindu temples & their economic worth, VHP-backed ‘Know your temple’ initiative

Hygiene or Harassment? Fears of profiling arise as UP government, once again, mandate name displays at food establishments; HP govt follows

The post Temple Management & Tirupati: the ‘WHYs’ behind temple regulation explained appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Naik’s divisive comments come at a time when Pakistan is grappling with significant social, political, and economic challenges. His rhetoric—particularly against women and those raising concerns about child abuse—has been widely condemned as regressive, dangerous, and reflective of an ideology that marginalises vulnerable communities. His actions, whether it be walking out of an event for orphaned girls or making sexist comparisons between unmarried women and sex workers, and using sex workers as a slur, have sparked outrage across the country. Women’s rights activists, journalists, and everyday citizens have expressed disgust at how Naik’s words seek to reinforce patriarchal norms that strip women of their autonomy and dignity.

One of the most contentious remarks was made during a public lecture, where Naik claimed that unmarried women cannot be respected in society unless they marry men, even if the men are already married. His comparison of single women to “public property” or “bazaari aurat” has drawn sharp criticism, with many accusing him of dehumanising women and promoting misogynistic views that have no place in a modern society. Such comments, according to critics, not only reinforce harmful gender stereotypes but also encourage societal control over women’s bodies and choices, a hallmark of extremist ideology. These comments have broader implications, especially in a country like Pakistan, where women already face significant barriers in terms of rights and freedoms.

Further adding to his inflammatory rhetoric, Naik recently engaged in a troubling exchange with a Pashtun girl during a lecture at the Governor House in Karachi. The young woman bravely raised concerns about rising drug addiction, adultery, and paedophilia in her area. Rather than addressing these pressing issues, Naik dismissed her entirely, stating that paedophilia could not exist in an Islamic society and demanding that the girl apologise for even raising the question. His defensive and dismissive attitude angered many, with critics accusing him of gas lighting the young woman and ignoring the critical social problems she was trying to highlight. Paedophilia, child abuse, and drug addiction are serious concerns in parts of Pakistan, yet Naik’s refusal to engage with them reflects a dangerous disregard for the realities on the ground. By silencing those who speak up, he perpetuated a culture of denial and inaction.

What makes Naik’s rhetoric particularly dangerous is its capacity to act as religious dog-whistling—appealing to hard-line religious sentiments while subtly promoting misogyny, patriarchy, and an anti-progressive agenda. His comments are framed in religious language, making it harder for critics to challenge them without being accused of opposing Islamic values. This tactic, often used by religious extremists, plays on the sensitivities of devout communities, pushing them to accept regressive ideologies disguised as religious truth. In countries like Pakistan, where religious leaders hold significant sway, this kind of dog-whistling can have real-world consequences. It can fuel gender inequality, increase intolerance, and silence those who seek to address critical social issues.

Moreover, Naik’s controversial statements are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader pattern of using religious rhetoric to reinforce conservative and patriarchal values. His dismissal of critical issues like paedophilia or drug addiction undermines efforts to tackle these problems within Pakistani society. Instead of addressing the legitimate concerns of the people, Naik’s responses seek to silence dissent, protect the status quo, and invalidate the experiences of those who suffer the consequences of social ills. This is not just harmful rhetoric; it actively discourages progress and reform, putting vulnerable populations at greater risk.

In a time when Pakistan is already struggling with deep socio-political divides, Naik’s presence and his hate-filled speeches are pouring fuel on an already volatile situation. His views provide justification for those who wish to maintain societal control over women, further marginalise already vulnerable communities, and dismiss important social issues as mere fabrications. The decision to invite him as a state guest has backfired, with growing frustration across the country and even among his supporters. Many feel that Naik’s brand of religious extremism has no place in a country striving for progress, equality, and justice.

Ultimately, Zakir Naik’s lecture tour in Pakistan has raised serious questions about the dangers of religious dog-whistling and its potential to inflame divisions, promote regressive ideologies, and silence the voices of those calling for reform. His words are not just offensive; they are dangerous, as they sow seeds of intolerance and misogyny, leaving lasting damage in their wake. By providing him with a platform, Pakistan risks legitimising an ideology that is at odds with the nation’s aspirations for a more just and equitable society.

Details of the derogatory speeches by Naik:

1. Refusal to present awards to young orphan girls (Islamabad)

One of the most shocking incidents occurred during an event for orphaned children in Islamabad. Naik was invited to present awards, but when it was time to give shields to the young girls, he abruptly left the stage, citing religious reasons. He stated that the girls were Na-Mahram, meaning they were unrelated to him by blood, and under his interpretation of Islamic law, it was inappropriate for him to interact with them. This act led to widespread outrage, with many accusing Naik of objectifying women and reducing young girls to mere symbols of sexual propriety, even in a context that should have been about honouring their achievements.

Sindh-based writer Zubair Soomro voiced the frustration of many critics, saying, “How could such clerics objectify women sexually? Why couldn’t he see these girls as daughters, with father-like love?” His actions were seen as not just an insult to the girls but also as a reflection of his regressive and patriarchal mind-set. This incident set the tone for the rest of Naik’s controversial tour and became a focal point for criticism on how he treats women and girls in his speeches and actions.

2. Misogynistic remarks about unmarried women (Lahore)

Naik further incited outrage during a large public gathering when he made demeaning comments about unmarried women, comparing them to “public property” if they do not marry. He argued that in society, an unmarried woman cannot be respected and that if there are no single men available, her only choice for respectability is to marry a man who already has a wife. Otherwise, he implied, she would become a “bazaari aurat” (public woman, implying a sex worker). His exact words, “There is no way an unmarried woman can be respected… any respectable woman would opt for marrying a married man over being public property,” drew condemnation from across Pakistan and beyond.

Either marry a married man or become a “bazaari aurat”. Zakir Naik is continuously coming up with problematic statements. Who invited him? Please don’t invite such illiterate people next time! pic.twitter.com/XmiXiKMgpS

— Saad Kaiser (@TheSaadKaiser) October 7, 2024

This comparison of unmarried women to sex workers, especially by talking about sex workers in a derogatory way, was seen as not only deeply offensive but also a dangerous endorsement of patriarchal control over women’s choices. Women’s rights activists, civil society groups, and many others denounced the statement for reducing women’s value to their marital status and suggesting that single women have no dignity unless they are attached to men. Naik’s statement reinforced a regressive and sexist narrative that places the blame on women for their status, reflecting a worldview that deeply disrespects and diminishes women’s autonomy.

3. Dismissal of concerns about paedophilia and drug addiction (Karachi)

In another disturbing incident during his lecture at the Governor House in Karachi, a young Pashtun girl raised concerns about growing issues like drug addiction, adultery, and paedophilia in her region. Naik’s response was dismissive and defensive. He claimed that her question was invalid because, according to him, in a truly Islamic society, paedophilia could not exist. When the girl attempted to elaborate on her concerns, particularly about the normalisation of paedophilia in her area, Naik interrupted her and demanded an apology for bringing up such a topic. He stated, “A Muslim can never commit sexual abuse against children,” and insisted that her concerns were unfounded, implying that either her claim of living in an Islamic society was false or the issue of paedophilia was fabricated.

Naik’s refusal to acknowledge the girl’s concerns, coupled with his demand for an apology, was met with sharp criticism online. Many accused him of gas lighting the girl and ignoring serious social issues, especially in regions like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where concerns about child abuse and other crimes have been raised repeatedly. His tone was seen as condescending, and his refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue on such a critical issue highlighted his lack of empathy and understanding.

Zakir Naik, the most famous Muslim scholar in South Asia, gaslights a Pashtun girl when she questions the collapse of society caused by religious extremism.

pic.twitter.com/zxEoPeTeZE

— Habib Khan (@HabibKhanT) October 6, 2024

This incident worsened Naik’s already controversial standing in Pakistan, as many were angered by his disregard for the real and pressing issues faced by people, particularly women and children. His dismissive attitude towards a young woman brave enough to speak about such concerns added fuel to the fire of his growing unpopularity during the tour.

Zakir Naik’s inflammatory comments during his tour of Pakistan have sparked significant backlash, with each of the three instances representing different facets of his problematic worldview. From objectifying women to dismissing genuine societal concerns, Naik’s rhetoric continues to alienate not only his critics but also his followers, many of whom feel embarrassed by his actions. Despite being invited as a state guest, his reception in Pakistan has been marred by widespread discontent, particularly over the harmful and regressive views he espouses in his speeches. His tour, instead of fostering dialogue or religious understanding, has served to expose the deep-seated misogyny and disregard for critical social issues that underpin his ideology.

As news surfaced of Zakir Naik receiving a warm welcome in Pakistan, India condemned the gesture, while also noting that it was unsurprising. “We have seen reports of Zakir Naik being feted in Pakistan, where he was given a warm reception,” said External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal during his weekly press briefing. “It is not unexpected for us that an Indian fugitive has been received with high-level honours in Pakistan. While it is disappointing and condemnable, it doesn’t come as a surprise,” he had added. 

Outrage on social media

Pakistani actor and singer Ali Zafar, known for his roles in Bollywood films like Mere Brother Ki Dulhan, Dear Zindagi, and Chashme Baddoor, has strongly criticised Islamic preacher Zakir Naik for his controversial remarks about unmarried women. Naik’s recent comments, where he compared single women to “public property,” have sparked widespread outrage across Pakistan, with many condemning his statements.

Ali Zafar also voiced his disapproval, using social media to share his thoughts. In a post on X, he respectfully challenged Naik’s views, offering an alternative perspective. “With all due respect, Dr. Sahab, there is always a third option. A woman can lead a respectful and independent life, whether as a working professional, a mother, or both. She can choose her own path, just like millions of women around the world do, and they are equally respected by millions of men. The problem lies with those men who view them as ‘bazaari’,” Ali wrote.

The actor-singer further emphasised that the Quran teaches men to respect women, and that purity starts with one’s own actions. “Respect is always mutual, and that’s what the Quran teaches. On a personal note, I feel we (men, in general) have suppressed women for centuries, making them feel guilty for nothing. It’s time we correct ourselves first and let them flourish, allowing them to pursue their dreams as we do. I hope you won’t take offense to this healthy criticism. May peace be upon you,” Ali concluded.

With all due respect Dr. Sahab. There is always a third option.
A woman can live a respectful and independent life, being a working woman or a mother, or both together, or the life she chooses for herself, just like millions of women around the world do and are equally respected… https://t.co/cAISOeDxS6

— Ali Zafar (@AliZafarsays) October 9, 2024

There were more social media users who came out with their criticism against the comments made by Naik. One user remarked, “Stop inviting people like this to our country.” Another voiced their frustration, saying, “It’s baffling that the Pakistani state would invite Zakir Naik, given his track record of spreading intolerance and dogmatism. While India had the courage to ban him, we seem to roll out the red carpet. What does this say about our commitment to inclusivity and moderation?”

Another comment highlighted the irony: “If Zakir Naik hadn’t come to Pakistan, we might never have realized that India was right to ban both him and his Peace TV channel. We are always quick to label India as Islamophobic without considering their perspective on this issue.”

If Zakir Naik had not visited Pakistan, how would we have realized that India was right to ban both his entry & his Peace TV channel?

We are always quick to label India as Islamophobic without taking the time to understand/consider India’s perspective on their matters. pic.twitter.com/g2lNnGJXoF

— Hafsa Akram (@Hafsa_RG) October 7, 2024

One other user criticised Naik’s inflated ego: “Zakir Naik is a textbook case of power corrupting someone. He’s so full of himself that he can’t see beyond his own ego. It’s absurd that he’s given any honour when all he does is bask in undeserved praise, further feeding his misguided sense of greatness.”

One more user added: “Naik was clearly pandering to the extreme right-wing clerics in Pakistan, and in doing so, he made a fool of himself. His being invited as a state guest speaks volumes about the priorities of our government. It’s a sad state of affairs.”

Zakir Naik’s backward remarks like “Either marry a married man or become a ‘bazaari aurat’” are not only demeaning to women but reveal a mindset stuck in patriarchal thinking. Such individuals should not be given platforms. Let’s stop inviting figures who spread harmful ideas. pic.twitter.com/JfNOkqnNBH

— Daily_Dose_News (@DdnDose) October 8, 2024

The widespread backlash Naik has faced for his remarks is not surprising, as his statements not only reveal deep-seated misogyny but also promote an extremist interpretation of religion that should have no place in modern society. His comparison of unmarried women to “public property” is not just demeaning but dangerous, as it reinforces harmful stereotypes and justifies oppressive attitudes towards women. Such religious dog-whistling, where intolerance is disguised as piety, fosters extremism and divisiveness, undermining efforts to build an inclusive, respectful society. Naik’s rhetoric fans the flames of misogyny and intolerance, and allowing him a platform sends the wrong message—that such regressive views are acceptable.

It’s crucial to reject figures like Zakir Naik and to not offer them a space to spread their extremist ideas. Religious extremism, whether it comes in the form of hate speech or discriminatory ideologies, cannot be tolerated, as it poses a threat to both social cohesion and human rights. Naik’s views should be condemned unequivocally, and countries should be mindful of the message they send when they welcome figures known for spreading hate and division.

Related:

Suspended again: Deepak Sharma’s relentless cycle of hate across multiple social media accounts

Hate Speech by Zakir Naik: Painful punishment awaits those who abuse the Prophet

Zakir Naik Showcases the Rot within Islamic Theology

Why social media giants must identify and remove Zakir Naik’s hate speech

The post Zakir Naik’s lecture tour sparks outrage in Pakistan: Misogyny and extremism in the spotlight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing three petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the controversy surrounding Tirupati laddus. The said issue surrounding the use erupted during September mid, after Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu claimed that the world renowned consecrated sweet Tirupati laddus contain “beef tallow, fish oil” and other substandard ingredients. The purported lab report that was being replied upon by CM Naidu also claimed the presence of “lard” (relating to pig fat) in the samples. Notably, the samples of the Tirupati laddu were sent to a Gujarat-based livestock laboratory, and the sample receipt date was July 9, 2024 and the lab report was dated July 16.

In its order, the bench highlighted the significance of the case, stating that it involves the religious sentiments of millions worldwide. The bench noted that the Chief Minister went public on September 18, accusing the previous government of using adulterated ghee with animal fat in the laddus. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD) had denied these claims, stating that such ghee was never used. The petitions filed sought an independent investigation and regulation of the manufacturing of prasadam at religious trusts.

Brief about the petitions:

So far, five petitions have been filed seeking various reliefs, including a Court-monitored investigation into allegations regarding the adulteration of ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus and greater accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies.

1. Petition by Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke

Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke, Editor of Sudarshan News TV, has filed a petition seeking an investigation by a committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice into the issue. He has argued that using non-vegetarian ingredients in the prasadam violates the fundamental religious rights of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect the freedom of religion and the right of religious groups to manage their affairs. Chavhanke has also requested the appointment of a retired judge to oversee the management of temples to ensure transparency and adherence to religious customs.

2. Petition by Surjit Singh Yadav

Surjit Singh Yadav, President of Hindu Sena, has filed a second petition seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged use of adulterated ghee in the laddus. Yadav claims that the use of animal fat in the prasadam deeply hurt the sentiments of Hindu devotees of Tirupati Balaji.

3. Petition by Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also filed a petition, seeking an investigation monitored by the Court. He has advocated for the formation of a committee to look into the matter and has requested a detailed forensic report on the ghee samples tested by the lab, including information on their source. Swamy argues that the issue should have remained within the confines of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) but was politicised, causing emotional distress to millions of devotees. He has posed several specific questions in his petition, including:

• How was the ghee sample procured by the lab?
• Was the ghee sample taken from what was used in offerings or from rejected lots?
• Who supplied the adulterated ghee?
• Could the lab report have been a false positive?
• Was there political interference in releasing the report?

4. Petition by YV Subba Reddy

Rajya Sabha MP and former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy has also filed a petition seeking an independent investigation by a Court-monitored committee or a retired judge with domain experts. Reddy has requested a detailed report on the forensic analysis of the ghee samples, including the procurement process. He highlights that standard operating procedures at Tirumala involve testing ghee upon arrival at the temple premises, and any non-compliant ghee is rejected. He argues that claims about adulterated ghee being used in prasadam are false. Reddy also criticises Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s remarks, which he claims have caused distress to many devotees of Lord Venkateswara. His petition notes discrepancies between the statements of the TTD and the Chief Minister, particularly questioning the silence of the state government for two months after the lab report was obtained in July 2024.

5. Petition by Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar

Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath and spiritual speaker Dushyanth Sridhar have jointly filed the fifth petition, calling for the removal of government and bureaucratic control over Hindu temples. They are advocating for the establishment of accountability in temples managed by government bodies.

Out of these five petitions, three—filed by Subramanian Swamy, YV Subba Reddy, and Vikram Sampath—were listed today for hearing before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

Arguments raised during the hearing:

Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra, representing Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, informed the bench today that ghee samples supplied in June and until July 4 had not been tested. However, ghee received on July 6 and 12 was sent for analysis to the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), where all four samples were found to be adulterated.  It was argued by them that the ghee supplied in June and early July had already been used in producing the laddus. The State Government had acknowledged the need for an investigation and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) following an FIR lodged on September 25, while the Chief Minister’s public statement preceded these actions.

In Subramanian Swamy’s petition, Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, representing Dr. Swamy, argued that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu made an unfounded claim that the ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus was adulterated. However, the Executive Officer of the TTD contradicted this statement, asserting that such ghee was never used. Rao emphasised that when high-ranking officials make such statements without sufficient evidence, it can have serious consequences and disrupt social harmony.

Rao further stated, “Those in responsible positions are expected to verify facts before making definitive claims. The CM’s statement, which has been disputed by TTD, requires oversight. If the prasadam of the deity is being questioned, it must be thoroughly examined. The CM’s public statement raises concerns about the potential for a free and fair inquiry.”

In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, argued that Swamy’s petition lacked sincerity and was politically motivated, intended to support the previous YSRCP (Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party) government. Rohatgi further claimed that Swamy’s petition was nearly identical to one filed by former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy.

Additionally, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Suresh Chavhanke, supported the call for an independent investigation into the matter.

Observations of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court was concerned about the propriety of the Chief Minister’s statement, questioning whether it was appropriate for such a high-ranking official to comment on a matter that could affect the sentiments of millions while an investigation was still underway. The Court questioned whether the SIT investigation should continue or if an independent agency should take over.

During the hearing, the Court raised several pointed questions to the State Government and TTD officials. Justice Viswanathan remarked that the lab report seemed to test rejected ghee, and it was unclear whether the ghee in question was actually used to make the laddus. Justice Viswanathan also noted that the lab report itself contained some disclaimers. According to LiveLaw, Justice Viswanathan said that “There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press,” 

The Court expressed frustration over the Chief Minister’s decision to go public, with Justice Viswanathan asking Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Andhra Pradesh, “If you ordered an investigation, what was the need to go to the press?”

Justice Gavai further raised concerns about the timing of the public statement, asking why the Chief Minister would make such a claim on September 18 when the investigation was still in progress. Justice Gavai pointedly questioned “When you have ordered an investigation through the SIT, what was the necessity to go to the press?” 

The bench emphasised that as a constitutional authority, the Chief Minister should not have involved religious matters in political statements. “When you hold a constitutional office… We expect the Gods to be kept away from the politicians,” Justice Gavai remarked as per LiveLaw.

The bench questioned whether the contaminated ghee was ever used in the preparation of the laddus, with Justice Viswanathan emphasising the need for caution before making public statements about religious offerings. The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a second opinion on the lab results and stressed the importance of prudence in such sensitive matters.

“This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus,” Justice Viswanathan observed.

He further stated that “When somebody gives a report like you, does not prudence dictate that you take a second opinion? First of all, there is no proof that this ghee was used. And there is no second opinion.”

The hearing concluded with the Court suggesting that while an investigation was necessary, the key question was whether the SIT formed by the State should continue or if an independent probe was required. Justice Gavai also requested Luthra to obtain a clearer statement from TTD regarding the alleged use of the adulterated ghee. The case was adjourned pending further instructions from the Union Government. The Court asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Union Government on whether a central investigation is required.

Related:

Despite legal promises, hate speech prosecutions in Maharashtra remain paralysed

Hygiene or Harassment? Fears of profiling arise as UP government, once again, mandate name displays at food establishments; HP govt follows

BJP-ruled states account for highest Dalit violence cases, UP on top, MP records highest reported crimes against STs

Karnataka’s draft law for welfare of gig workers, an insufficient tokenism?

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

The post Supreme Court pulls up Andhra CM for making unsubstantiated public remarks on Tirupati laddu ghee, which led to controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A video circulated on social media, showing a speaker masquerading as a religious preacher delivering a derogatory and hate-filled speech against Shia Muslims. He labelled them “Khatmal”, equating them to harmful creatures that must be eliminated, citing a religious narrative. This inflammatory rhetoric sparked outrage and concern among Shia communities, highlighting the growing threat of sectarian divisions in the region He said in his speech that “They (who believe in Shia’s religious preacher) are calling themselves Sunnis and then they will cite the argument of Shia that no, no sir, that black cloths wear Maulana had said this.”

Then the speaker again with intent to derogate the Shia Muslims, used the word “Khatmal” and said that “arey janaab, it is a bedbug, Mustafa Karim alayhi wa sallam had given the order to kill bedbugs, that the animal which causes harm should be killed, so you have made the one who harms the faith”

देवा शरीफ़ के एक स्टेज से एक (शिया)क़ौम को गाली दी जा रही है और जान से मारने के लिए उकसाया जा रहा है।धमकी खुले मंच से दी जा रही।कृपया उचित कार्यवाई करें।@Barabankipolice@Uppolice @myogiadityanath @myogioffice @SRizwanMustafa @kalbejawad @TahalkaToday pic.twitter.com/vp7Te4pckf

— Dr.Rehan kazmi (@drraihankazmi) September 23, 2024

What is Sectarian Hate?

Sectarian hate refers to violence, discrimination, or prejudice fuelled by differences within the same religion or between different religious sects. This harmful ideology perpetuates harmful stereotypes, fuels tensions, and often leads to physical violence. In the context of Dewa Sharif, sectarian hate manifests as divisive rhetoric targeting Shia Muslims, undermining India’s pluralistic fabric and highlighting the need for interfaith understanding.

Related:

CJP pursues Maharashtra police authorities to register cases in the incidents of hate speech delivered this year at various rallies across the state

Rising tide of hate speech sours election climate, targeting religious minorities

Multiple hate speeches emerge from Gujarat, Bihar, and West Bengal, sparking concerns, CJP files complaints

The post Sectarian Hate reported from UP’s Dewa Sharif town appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the current episode while many subordinates have been named and are to be charged Bhole Baba is not in the list of those who are guilty. The reason for the stampede was the propagation that the earth where Baba treads is a cure for most of the diseases. As he was leaving satsang people rushed to collect the earth where he had put his feet, a stampede took place and people died in the process. The popularity of the Baba can be gauzed from the fact that there was permission for 80000 people but 2.5 Lakh people turned up.

As such baba phenomenon is neither unique nor exclusive to India. Though of course their following has gone up in recent times. While some Babas come to be known for specific reasons there a big breed of them scattered all over the country. The notorious one’s like Asaram Bapu and Gurmeet Ram Rahim Insan are cooling their heels in jails for charges like rape and murder. The other successful Babas like Baba Ramdev have been reprimanded by the Supreme Court for his confident undermining of Modern medicine, Sri Sri Ravishanker was involved in damaging ecology of river Yamuna, Jaggi Vasudev’s Ashrams have various criminal charges as well. What is common among these Baba’s is their astounding self-confidence, wealth and promotion of blind faith.

In India while strict correlations are difficult it can be safely said that their prowess and impact has risen during the last few decades. It will not be easy to correlate their increasing prowess with the rise of politics in the name of religion. It is true that in other countries also such Charismatic’s (US) and holy Preachers in some Muslim countries do exist, but the impact of such people is phenomenal in India. These preachers do wear the garb of religion. They do not belong to the formal clergy, which is part of institutional religion. Most of them are self-made and their intelligence in mind reading and taking advantage of the weaknesses of followers is phenomenal.

The other side of this is why do people throng to them? Baba’s salesmanship is very intelligent but the followers have their own weaknesses which land them up in the lap of these frauds. Mostly people with severe problems, not easily solvable, look for soothing words, somebody who gives them confidence which tells them that their problems will be solved by the earth where Baba treads, or by subjugating themselves to the Baba, or by following some advice which Baba gives etc. The followers throng to these Babas mainly due to their own insecurity in the society. There are many other aspects of success of Babas, their nexus with the political class being one such. Just as an example Gurumeet Ram Rahim has been mostly on parole, especially when elections are due. One recalls Manoharlal Khattar took his whole Cabinet to Gurumeet to take his blessings.

The insecurity aspect of followers is the key to understanding their psychology. More the insecurity, more the submission to Baba, the common sense or rational thinking is given a total go bye by the followers. Insecurity aspect can be properly understood when we see the global scenario. In the countries where economic and social insecurity is less, religions are seeing a decline in their active followership. Key finding from Global Research by PEW shows that, “The United States is far from alone in this way. Western Europeans are generally less religious than Americans, having started along a similar path a few decades earlier. And the same secularizing trends are found in other economically advanced countries, as indicated by recent census data from Australia and New Zealand.

Centre for Political Studies Michigan’s Inglehart in “Giving up on God,” (pages 110-111) tells us “From about 2007 to 2019, the overwhelming majority of the countries we studied—43 out of 49 became less religious. The decline in belief was not confined to high-income countries and appeared across most of the world. Growing numbers of people no longer find religion a necessary source of support and meaning in their lives. Even the United States—long cited as proof that an economically advanced society can be strongly religious—has now joined other wealthy countries in moving away from religion.”

The challenge of combating this is not easy. Contrary to the Values of Constitution, Article 51 A (h) under the Fundamental Duties, “[It shall be the duty of every citizen of India] to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”, Babas flagrantly violate this clause, and those protecting or promoting them do the same?

In India at social level there are active groups who oppose the Babas scattered all around by practically exposing them, especially their tricks of taking out ash from hand or walking on fire. Maharashtra has seen Andhshraddha Nirmulan Samiti (Committee for eradication of Blind Faith) associated with Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. He was brutally murdered by activists of conservative groups probably like Sanatan Sanstha. Similarly the murders of Com Govind Pansare, Gauri Lankesh and Prof. Kalburgi were also done by similar forces. After the murder of Dr. Dabholkar, Maharashtra Assembly passed a law against blind faith and magic remedies.

We need to have similar laws all over the country and promote scientific temper. At the core can we march towards social and economic security for one and all? The present system where the poor are becoming poorer and rich are becoming richer needs to be substituted by Mahatma Gandhi’s vision where the social policies are planned keeping the last person in the line; in mind That alone can bring in a sense of security in society.

The post Why Babadom Flourishes: Insecurity is the Core appeared first on SabrangIndia.

If he had consulted Brij Bhushan Singh, he would be roaming around freely.

If a prosecution was launched there would organised protests by leading lights, like the Kathua rape-murder case.

If he was accused no cases would have been seriously prosecuted, the guys accused of rape and murder of the Dalit girl in Hathras in 2020 would have advised him.

If he was indeed convicted of rape and murder, he could come out on bail every other day. Gurmeet Ram Rahim would have informed him.

If he didn’t like to come out on bail again and again he could have come out for being ‘sanskari’, ask the Bilqis Banu rapists.

If he wanted a grand welcome on coming out after 121 stampede deaths he had great prospects of being garlanded by Ministers, ask the Ramgarh (Jharkhand) mob lynching guys or even ask Jayant Sinha. Besides, not being Yeshwant Sinha’s sons any other Ministers garlanding him would not even have been dropped from election contests!

But, being on the run within the country must be considered below the dignity of some of these gurus and babas. The guy to emulate is Nithyananda Paramashivam and set up something like the micro nation of ‘Kailaasaa’.

If none of these things worked and Bhole Baba still felt insecure the powers-that-be could have done the opposite of what they did with the BK-16, they could hack the Baba’s computer and secretly install files that proclaimed his innocence.

In Nehru’s time there may only have been tax exemptions. We now live in much better times with ‘Amrit Kaal’ and ‘Achche Din’ and can avail of crime exemptions, prosecution exemptions, conviction exemptions if you’re on the ‘goli maaro saalon ko side’. Then there are the ‘perennial bail scheme’, ‘garland-the-accused scheme’, ‘overturn-conviction scheme’, ‘you-get-convicted-someone-else-serves-jail-time-scheme’, ‘join-the-ruling-party scheme’, ‘washing machine programmes etc. All in all, there’s a scheme for every class of crime! Why should liberalisation be limited only to the economic sphere? Unleashing the animal spirit in every sphere of life can result in all-round social development towards becoming Vishwagurus. And finally, of course, we have the option of rewriting history. The idea, earlier, was to rewrite past history. We can now graduate to rewriting current history.

Amen

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post The Naive Bhole Baba appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Every year during Hajj, Muslims commemorate Prophet Abraham’s unwavering faith through the ritual of animal sacrifice, known as Qurbani. This act symbolizes Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God’s command. However, as our understanding of faith and spirituality evolves, a critical question emerges: Does the ritual of animal slaughter on Eid Al-Adha remain the most meaningful expression of sacrifice?

Islam, through principles like Ijma (scholarly consensus) and Qiyas (analogical reasoning), provides mechanisms for contextual interpretations when faced with situations not explicitly addressed in scripture. Rituals in Islam are intended to be pathways to inner peace and societal harmony. The core of Islam lies in building cohesive communities where everyone feels safe and valued, regardless of background. It is perhaps time for Muslims to revisit the essence of sacrifice, looking beyond the physical act itself.

True sacrifice, as the story of Abraham demonstrates, transcends material possessions. It embodies selflessness and devotion, akin to a parent’s sacrifice for their child’s wellbeing. Abraham’s willingness to submit to God’s will, even if it meant sacrificing his son, exemplifies profound obedience and selflessness. The arrival of the lamb as a substitute highlights a crucial truth: sacrifice is about obedience and prioritizing the well-being of others, not mere appeasement through bloodshed.

Historically, blood sacrifices were common among pagans and Jews of the time. Islam, however, ushered in a new era, emphasizing personal sacrifice and submission as keys to God’s favour. The Quranic account (Q.37:102-107) does not explicitly command the killing of a son. Instead, it suggests that Abraham’s dream may have been misinterpreted, reinforcing the idea that God does not advocate for violence (Q.7:28, 16:90).

Both Abraham and his son’s willingness to sacrifice everything demonstrates their detachment from worldly possessions. This act unlocked God’s mercy, enlightening them with wisdom and correcting the notion of blood atonement. Understanding the historical context of these verses becomes crucial in interpreting their true message.

The underlying message of animal sacrifice in Islam is not blood atonement, but gratitude. It is about sharing our blessings and acknowledging that only God has the power to give and take life. The act of sacrifice serves as a reminder of our humility and the sanctity of life. The Quran emphasizes this essence: “It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches God: it is your piety that reaches Him” (Q.22:37). The ritual becomes a symbol of thanksgiving, where meat is shared with others in need. Invoking God’s name during the sacrifice reinforces the sacredness of life and our role as stewards of creation.

The Quranic passages reveal that animal sacrifice was tied to the socio-economic realities of Arabian society. It was a way to express gratitude and share valuable resources, such as livestock, with others. Today, our most prized possessions often come in the form of money. Therefore, Muslims can consider alternative forms of sacrifice, such as donating to empower the less fortunate. Supporting a struggling vendor or a single mother can create a lasting impact, aligning perfectly with the Quranic message of utilitarianism: “Feed yourself and feed the needy” (Q. 22:36), “eat their flesh and feed the needy” (Q.22:28).

The core principle of Islam is fostering inclusive societies. As Muslims, the focus should be on the true spirit of sacrifice: selflessness and sharing our blessings. By embracing alternative forms of sacrifice that resonate with our contemporary world, we can honour the spirit of Eid Al-Azha and the timeless teachings of Islam.

The essence of sacrifice in Islam is not confined to the ritual slaughter of animals. It encompasses a broader spectrum of selflessness, generosity, and gratitude. By interpreting and practicing these principles in ways that address modern socio-economic realities, Muslims can continue to uphold the profound values of their faith in meaningful and impactful ways.

The concept of sacrifice in Islam is deeply rooted in the principles of Maqasid Sharia, which aim to preserve faith, life, intellect, lineage, and wealth. These objectives underscore the importance of human welfare and social justice in Islamic teachings. Revisiting the essence of sacrifice in light of Maqasid Sharia encourages Muslims to reflect on the broader implications of their actions and their contributions to societal well-being.

One way to expand the concept of sacrifice is by focusing on personal and communal development. This could involve volunteering time and resources to support educational initiatives, healthcare, and social services. By prioritizing actions that uplift the community, Muslims can embody the spirit of sacrifice in ways that have a lasting and transformative impact.

In today’s context, environmental sustainability is an increasingly important consideration. The traditional practice of animal sacrifice, while symbolically significant, also has ecological implications. The mass slaughter of animals during Eid Al-Azha contributes to environmental degradation and resource depletion. As stewards of the Earth, Muslims are called to consider the environmental impact of their practices and seek sustainable alternatives that align with the principles of Islam.

Adopting more sustainable practices could include supporting eco-friendly initiatives, reducing waste, and promoting conservation efforts. These actions reflect a broader understanding of sacrifice that prioritizes the health and well-being of the planet and future generations.

Economic empowerment is another vital aspect of modern sacrifice. In a world where economic disparities are prevalent, supporting initiatives that promote financial stability and independence can be a powerful form of sacrifice. This could involve investing in small businesses, providing microloans, or supporting vocational training programs. By enabling individuals and communities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, Muslims can fulfil the spirit of sacrifice in a way that fosters long-term growth and development.

Ultimately, revisiting the essence of sacrifice in Islam involves embracing a holistic approach that integrates spiritual, social, environmental, and economic dimensions. This approach aligns with the broader objectives of Maqasid Sharia and reflects a deep commitment to the well-being of all creation. By expanding the concept of sacrifice beyond ritualistic practices, Muslims can cultivate a more profound and meaningful connection to their faith and its teachings.

By exploring alternative forms of sacrifice that address contemporary challenges and uphold the principles of Maqasid Sharia, Muslims can honour the true spirit of Eid Al-Azha and contribute to a more just, compassionate, and sustainable world.

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is a scholar on Islam and contemporary affairs

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Muslims must rethink: Mass slaughter of animals on Bakrid and the meaning of sacrifice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The emergence of male reformist scholars engaging in ijtihad (independent reasoning) on gender issues within Islam holds profound significance for the acceptance and advancement of gender-affirmative interpretations of the faith. In this op-ed, we will explore the reasons why the male gender identity of these reformist ijtihadists matters, the collective nature of their efforts, their theoretical sophistication, insider engagement with tradition, global accessibility, and resonance with contemporary Muslim audiences. We will argue that these factors contribute to the potential impact and wider acceptance of gender-affirmative interpretations of Islam.

Male Gender Identity and Credibility

One of the notable aspects of the male reformist scholars’ ijtihad on gender issues is their gender identity. Historically, gender-affirmative interpretations were often dismissed by conservative-minded male scholars as feminist or subjective products of female identity. However, male reformist scholars challenge this narrative by providing a male perspective on gender equality within Islam. In traditional societies, religious authority has been predominantly associated with male figures, making the arguments put forth by these male reformists harder to dismiss. Their gender identity lends credibility to their perspectives, as they can navigate the patriarchal structures of Islamic scholarship and engage with a broader audience.

Collective Effort and Credibility

The collective nature of the male reformist scholars’ efforts significantly contributes to the impact of their work. It is not just a few isolated voices but a relatively large number of male scholars who are devoting their time and effort to foster gender equality-affirming interpretations of Islam. This collective effort enhances the credibility and influence of their arguments, distinguishing them from earlier male reformers of the twentieth century. Scholars such as Khaled Abou El Fadl , Muhammad Khalid Masud, Yousef Eshkevari ,Mohsen Kadivar and myself have made significant contributions to these discourses, amplifying the reach and influence of gender-affirmative interpretations of Islam.

Theoretical Sophistication and Engagement with Tradition

The male reformist scholars stand out due to their remarkable theoretical sophistication in engaging with the pre-modern Islamic tradition. Their work goes beyond superficial interpretations and offers robust and systematic approaches to gender issues. This level of scholarship adds substantial weight to their arguments, making them harder to dismiss or ignore. Moreover, these scholars have an intimate familiarity with the pre-modern Islamic hermeneutical, theological, ethical, and legal tradition. Many of them have undergone traditional Islamic education or have held high-ranking clerical positions. Their insider perspective enables them to engage with the tradition on its own terms, providing credibility and authority that cannot be easily dismissed by their traditionalist detractors.

Global Accessibility and Muslim Audiences

The impact of these reformist scholars extends beyond their scholarly contributions. Many of them reside in Western liberal democracies but write in major Islamic vernacular languages such as Arabic and Farsi, or their works are translated into these languages. This multilingual approach, coupled with the availability of their ideas through websites and publications, enhances the accessibility of their work to global Muslim audiences. This accessibility allows their gender equality-affirming hermeneutics to resonate with the lived realities and ethical sensibilities of contemporary Muslims, both male and female.

Reconciling Lived Experiences with Religious Ideals

Perhaps the most significant aspect of gender-affirmative Islamic hermeneutics is their potential to reconcile the lived experiences of contemporary Muslims with their desired religious ideals and norms. Unlike traditional interpretations, these hermeneutics acknowledge and address the gender-based realities of Muslims today. By doing so, they offer a path to bridge the gap between lived experiences and religious ideals, aligning with the ethical sensibilities of many contemporary Muslims.

The rise of male reformist scholars engaging in ijtihad on gender issues heralds a significant milestone in the pursuit of gender equality within Islam. Their gender identity, collective efforts, theoretical sophistication, insider engagement with tradition, global accessibility, and resonance with contemporary Muslim audiences all contribute to the potential impact and wider acceptance of gender-affirmative interpretations of Islam. By advancing gender equality through their scholarship, these male reformist scholars are paving the way for a more inclusive and progressive understanding of Islam that aligns with the lived realities and ethical sensibilities of Muslims in the modern world.

—–

A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books are ( co-edited)-  Shame, Modesty, and Honora in Islam  and Interfaith Engagement Beyond the Divide  (Springer)

This piece is based on authors academic paper that can be accessed here- https://www.academia.edu/43990448/Contemporary_Muslim_Male_Reformist_Thought_and_Gender_Equality_Affirmative_Interpretations_of_Islam

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The Significance of Male Reformist Ijtihad on Gender Issues in Advancing Gender Affirmative Interpretations of Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.