In the absence of a clergy within Islamic social order, it becomes difficult to identify representative voices within Muslim society. Questions will be asked about multiple voices speaking in the name of the community and representing themselves in ways that they think are Islamic. For some, it can be argued that such a state of affairs has made the question of legitimacy and authority within Muslim societies confusing. The absence of a clear cut hierarchy and an apex body of decision makers has not only produced a crisis of legitimacy but has also made the process of religious reform difficult. It is argued that it would have been much better for the state to deal with a body of Muslims rather than different maslaks and faith orientations within Muslims who have never ending arguments with each other. The problem is that if such an arrangement of power is made within Muslim society, then only the orthodox Ulema will find space within it.

The reading of Quran as is being done by Muslim feminists is as valid as those done by the Ulema

The recent debate in India on the question of retention or abolition of triple is an important example in this regard. Simply put there are two different positions on this debate. Muslim feminists, progressives of all hues including some Ulema favour the abrogation of triple Talaq due to different reasons ranging from religious to secular. They are arraigned against a belligerent body of Muslim orthodoxy (a silently supported by other religious orthodoxies) who are dead against any change in the existing mode of Muslim divorce and argue that it will amount to interference in the Muslim personal law, an Anglo-Muḥammadan law which they think is akin to a sacred canon.

An acerbic attack has been launched by the orthodox on those who want change within the personal law of Muslims, particularly revocation of triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and polygamy. Since the movement for the revocation of these practices has been led primarily by Muslim women, they are at the centre of these attacks. Apart from calling them stooges of RSS and the government, some very personal remarks have been passed which only goes on to show that the orthodox would go to any extent to discredit those championing the cause of change within Islamic law. The orthodox has not even spared the government of the day accusing it of trying to subvert the ‘age old’ personal law of Muslims. The fine print in all this is that the orthodox Ulema are convinced that only they are the custodians of Islam in India and consequently only they can opine on what constitutes proper Muslim law and whether any change is possible within it or not.

But this position is absurd to say the least. Islam consciously eschewed the institution of clergy. Any Muslim can lead the prayer as Islam proclaims a direct relationship between Allah and the individual believer. A man or a woman has equal right to offer supplication to the Almighty. Moreover, the very fact that Islam places an obligation on all believers to acquire knowledge can only mean that it does not expect that some Muslims should be more knowledgeable than others. Quran, like most other religious scriptures, has been an open book. Multiple readings of the text have spawned a plurality of denominations within Islam and each of them has their own valid interpretation of Islam. This can only mean that the reading of Quran as is being done by Muslim feminists is as valid as those done by the Ulema. From an Islamic point of view then it is not correct to say that someone’s interpretation of Islam is not valid or untrue. It seems that the Ulema, in their attempt to become the champions’ defenders of Islam have forgotten the simple fact there has never been a singular reading of the Quran which has been acceptable to all Muslims.

This can mean only one thing: that what sections of the Ulema are arguing is patently anti-Islamic. They are innovating against the established traditions which hold that multiple readings of the Quran are possible and are valid. There is a reason why Islam did not establish a clergy in the first place. The Ulema in trying to usurp the role of the clergy are therefore doing a great disservice to the spirit of Islam. Islam’s wisdom and its beauty lies in its plurality and diversity of views. Sadly it is the so called custodians of Islam who are hell bent on destroying this historical and theological heritage.

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist.

Courtesy: New Age Islam.
 

The post Who speaks for Islam in India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent data released by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) regarding cases of terrorism in 2016 took the national media by surprise. One of the ‘surprising’ elements that came out of the NIA briefing was the only about 20% madrasa graduates had been found to be involved in terror related cases. The majority of Muslim youth who are implicated in terror cases by the NIA are graduates of regular colleges, some even having engineering degrees. But why is it surprising at all. It fits the pattern of overall association of modern educated Muslims and their fascination for aligning with terrorism.

In majority of the cases of terror related activities, university and college educated Muslim youth far outnumber madrasa graduates. After all, Osama was not a madrasa graduate, neither were Muhammad Atta and others who made 9/11 a possibility.

While this must come as a huge relief to madrasas who are always under the scanner of intelligence agencies and have been accused of being involved in promoting terror, it should not be made out that nothing is wrong is with these madrasas. But we will come to that later.

The traditional focus on madrasas as a site of jihadi extremism should thus be jettisoned in favour a broader focus on the lure of Islamism, the existing pedagogical practices within Islam and the Muslim-Kafir dichotomous worldview which many readings of Islam today provide.

The simple reason in the Indian context why madrasas are not knee deep in terror is because they just do not have the capacity to do so. The sophistication that is required for arms training and the knowledge that accompanies such training simply eludes a madrasa graduate.

Within their madrasas they are too engrossed in literal textual hair splitting and in repeating a knowledge system which has absolutely no relationship with the present world. When an average madrasa graduate in India cannot locate USA on the world map, then it is too much to expect from him to be involved in the obliteration of America. When average madrasa graduate is taught that it is the Shia and the Ahmadias who are the enemies of Islam, then it is natural that their energy will be channelized in countering them rather than thinking about waging jihad against the Hindus.

When an average Barelwi madrasa student is too busy learning that Deobandis are spreading kufr, then there is no way he can be planning in terms of destroying India. The simple argument therefore is that madrasas do not have the time to think of Christians or Hindus to paint them as the enemy. They are too busy and consumed by the internal enemies of Islam, that countering them becomes the first priority. It is therefore not a surprise that madrasas are not in any position to produce graduates who would be willing to wage a jihad against India.

The more troubling part of course that came out in the NIA brief was the involvement of AhleHadis in terror related activities in India. Now it will be a long shot to call the AhleHadis a terrorist organization but there will be some questions asked if this pattern continues that members of AhleHadis are found to be involved in such activities. Similar allegations have been thrown at them in the context of Kashmir militancy. In the valley it is not just acts of terror but also their involvement in the anti-Sufi tirade has long been commented on. It is time perhaps that the AhleHadis in India comes out with a categorical statement making its stand clear in relation to Islamic terrorism in India.

But perhaps the most surprising part of the NIA brief was the involvement of TablighiJamaat. Owing allegiance to Deoband, the Tablighi Jamaat has been understood as a movement of piety which shuns violence. Its parent body, the Deoband, has denounced terrorism in categorical terms. Some policy pundits have gone to the extent of calling the TablighJamaat as the role model for Muslims across the globe to follow. So what has gone wrong with this quietist movement? The answers will always be complex and of course a lot will depend upon the individual biographies of members who are involved in such activities. But what can be said is that no one is immune from the murderous charms of Islamism. And denouncing terrorism does not mean that one has denounced the worldview which gives rise to such acts in the first place.

The fact the no Barelwis where found to be involved in such activities should also be taken with a pinch of salt. Just because so far there has been no involvement of the Barelwis so far does not mean that concepts like jihad, kufr and kafir have become redundant for them. Before the liberal camp starts celebrating this face of moderate Islam, they will do well to remember that the killer of Salman Taseer was a Barelwi and that till his eventual hanging, he was utterly convinced that killing the infidel Taseer was a divine Islamic commandment.

The traditional focus on madrasas as a site of jihadi extremism should thus be jettisoned in favour a broader focus on the lure of Islamism, the existing pedagogical practices within Islam and the Muslim-Kafir dichotomous worldview which many readings of Islam today provide.

(Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist)

This article was first published on New Age Islam.
 

The post Why the terror trap lures educated Muslims more than madrasa products appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo credit: Wessex Scene

For nearly one and a half million Rohingyas, it must be a rude shock to realise that they are no longer Burmese citizens. Rohingyas are Burmese Muslims who settled in that part of the world in the wake of British East India Company colonizing Burma. These Muslims primarily came from Bangladesh but they were not the only Muslims living in Burma. Muslim presence in Burma predates the migration of Bangladeshis to this country. But the problem today is that if you are a Muslim in Myanmar then you are considered an outsider and a threat to the country. It does not matter when your ancestors came to this country.

 It does not matter if in the past, Burmese Kings styled  themselves on the Nawabs of Bangladesh and were largely emulative of Islamic culture. What matters today is that the Buddhists do not want Muslims in their country and perhaps will go to any extent to realise this dream of Muslim free Myanmar.

Buddhism proclaims itself as a peaceful religion and goes to the world announcing its non-violence and inclusivity of its faith. And yet today the same Buddhists are baying for the blood of Muslims. Ever since the Buddhists of Burma have experienced nationalism, they have realised the need to project another: in this case an internal enemy who are supposedly bleeding the country dry. The comparisons with nationalisms in other countries have chilling similarities. Accusations of ‘breeding like rabbits’, non-acculturating tendencies of Muslims and of course their link to terrorism is touted as the reasons why Buddhist majority is supposedly losing its patience with the Muslims.

 The truth is always complex: Muslims being poor definitely have higher birth rates but whether it is due to their religion or their class situation is hardly discussed. There is hardly any documented evidence to suggest that Rohingyas have been active within any jihadist networks. But then when nationalism becomes the ruling ideology, truth is always the first casualty. There is no point talking about evidences and facts, what matters are the perceptions.

And the overwhelming perception today within Myanmar is against the Muslims. The problem is compounded by the fact that these Muslims are concentrated in one part of the country-the Rakhine state- and that gives them greater visibility as well as marks them as a community to be discriminated against.

Nothing can justify what is happening to these Muslims. Through a slow process, they are being disenfranchised and there is institutional discrimination against them. In 1982, the Burmese government passed an order which effectively made them non-citizens within their own country by classifying them as Bengali refugees. Moreover laws passed by the Myanmar government have made marriages within Rohingya community extremely difficult.

The two child norm forced by the state for this ethnic community means that other children born within families remain without education and other facilities which other children get. What is most problematic is that after being stripped of their citizenship status, the Rohingyas have been denied freedom of movement which means that they can hardly go outside of the Rakhine state. This essentially means that they are being made to live in ghettos without any opportunity to earn their livelihood.

It is heart rending to hear tales of their persecution including forcible evictions, houses raised to the grounds, shops and establishments being burnt and looted and reports of mass rape. What is perhaps more disappointing is that there is hardly any voice within Myanmar today which can call this injustice by its name: that it is akin to a pogrom or that the state has become committed to a genocide.

 It was hoped that Aung San Suu Kyi would be in a position to urge the international community to take notice of what has been happening in her country. However it is a rather sad commentary on the so called human rights activist and Nobel Prize winner that she has been silent on the whole issue. Not only has she been silent but at times she is even seen to be supporting the military junta over the question of Muslim repression. Her silence only means that there is near consensus within Myanmar over the Muslim Rohingya question.

But the most severe criticism should be reserved for Muslim countries. There are 57 Muslim countries representing a combined Muslim population of 1.7 billion and yet they have hardly been pro-active on this issue. It is true that some Muslim countries have offered refugee status to these Rohingyas but the situation is hardly satisfactory even within these countries. The Rohingya settlements in Bangladesh for example are another ghetto where these Muslims do not have freedom of movement. They are cut off from the rest of the world and independent journalists hardly have access to these settlements. But the real important point is this: that despite Muslim countries having clout in the United Nations and elsewhere, they have not been able to bring international pressure on Myanmar over its treatment of the Rohingyas.

It is not that atrocities against these Muslims have not been documented: Human rights groups have done and have tried to make international bodies aware of it. Despite all these documented proofs, important Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have not been able to isolate Myanmar over this issue. We need to ask those who swear in the name of the Ummah: is the blood of Rohingyas insipid in comparison to other Muslims?

(Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist).

(This article was first published on NewAgeIslam).

 

The post Why the Blood of the Rohingyas Does Not Fire the Muslim Ummah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Analysts are still amazed that a truck, used to carry goods, can be transformed into a weapon by Islamic terrorists. As the Berlin truck attack shows, perhaps anything can be turned into an agent of destruction. But this is not the first incident involving such an unconventional weapon. The Nice attack in France already told us of the deadly consequences of using trucks as a vehicle to mow down unsuspecting people. Automobiles ramming into civilians has been witnessed as a strategy by the Palestinians protesting against Israeli occupation.

Perhaps the ISIS took inspiration from that and used it through its propaganda magazine which detailed how large vehicles can be used as killing machines. In both Nice and Berlin, the strategy seems to have worked. Both targeted revellers thus assumed not be conscious of their surroundings. Both struck on seemingly important days in the national calendar. Bastille Day in France is an act of remembrance of the new order which set in motion the laws of the modern world which we take for granted today.

For the terrorists, it was a direct attack on the French ideas of modernity, announcing to the world that Islam is driven by very different set of ideas. Again, targeting German revellers before Christmas and that too in a Christmas market cannot be but an open affront against the national imaginary of that country. It is an act of deliberate provocation, arguing in no uncertain terms that the security of the country is at the will of the Islamic terrorists.

Apologists for the Islamic State have been quick to point out that the Nice attack was a result of the French role in Syria and Libya. However, Germany’s involvement in the Syrian conflict has been minimal and non-combative. It has only provided the services of reconnaissance planes and a couple of mid-air refuelling services, thus clearly having a non-combat role in the Syrian war. And yet Berlin has not been the first attack within Germany.

It has been reeling from the threat of Islamist violence since quite some time now. Moreover, Germany has been in the forefront of Europe to take refugees from the war torn countries in the Middle East even when the so called Islamic countries have refused to take them. It is therefore a double betrayal for the German people: they have put pressure on their government not to meddle in the Middle Eastern conflict and they have been pro-active in providing support to Muslim refugees from these countries. And yet they are being
attacked, not by anyone else but by Muslims and probably from these very countries.

The detailed contours of the attack will emerge slowly but surely. After all the German police and the media have shown restraint in the past and are showing it now by not jumping the gun by naming this Islamic organization or another. They are not even unequivocally saying that this is an Islamic terrorist attack. Contrast this with the Indian media: within minutes they seem to know the name of the terrorists, the organization which they belong to, and even their other plans. But this is beside the point; the contrast only being made to show that despite such atrocities the German press and the police have maintained their neutrality and are still not openly hostile towards the Muslims.
It is too early to say whether this was a lone wolf attack or whether it is a coordinated and planned attack. But one this is for sure: for the people of Germany, their patience must be running out with Islam and Muslim refugees. And that precisely is the real danger. In post- history stage of European evolution, their life style has mostly been defined in terms of consumption patterns. The seeming regularity and orderliness of everyday life is something that is taken for granted by most Germans and it is expected that the state will continue to work in that direction. Islamic terrorism interrupts that order but the ire of the Germans will definitely fall on the state and the government, fuelled by Islamophobia. All this can only give strength to the German Right who are the more willing to fulfil the wishes of actors like Islamic terrorists.

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com

(Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist)
 

The post Berlin Attack is a Test of German Patience appeared first on SabrangIndia.