·         Indian Muslims need not look to Pakistan-centric preachers or scholars for intellectual and religious direction—particularly when some of them have yet to fully internalise and articulate the demands of pluralism within their own national context.

·         Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s intellectual trajectory itself reflects an important Indian influence: his thought was significantly shaped by the rationalist and reformist legacy of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. What Indian Muslims need today is not a wholesale importation of religious discourse from across the border, but a creative regeneration of the reformist, rational and pluralist intellectual tradition that emerged on Indian soil.

·         We need to take that legacy forward—critically, creatively and in response to India’s own civilisational, constitutional and pluralistic realities. The real task before us is to recover, renew and radically regenerate the Indian tradition of Islamic thought—not merely repeat imported formulations. We need scholars who can engage Islam through the lived realities of India: its constitutional framework, civilisational diversity, interfaith encounters, Sufi heritage and deeply plural social fabric.

·         There is an irony here that deserves to be confronted. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s intellectual formation was significantly influenced by the rationalist and reformist thought of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan—an Indian Islamic thinker who spent decades arguing for peace, dialogue, intellectual renewal and a non-confrontational engagement with modernity. If that intellectual inheritance could travel from India to Pakistan, why should Indian Muslims now imagine that their intellectual regeneration must necessarily come from Pakistan?

·         Indian Muslims do not need borrowed certainties. They need an indigenous intellectual renaissance. The time has come to stop importing answers and start producing them. We must learn to think beyond perpetual reaction, beyond every immediate political provocation, and beyond the anxieties of the next news cycle. A community that may define its intellectual agenda primarily! An intellectual renewal must mean more than changing rhetoric. It must produce new institutions, new scholarship and new answers to contemporary questions.

If Maulana Abul A’la Maududi’s political project emerged from the specific crises of colonial India and was subsequently articulated within the political realities of Pakistan, can his political theology provide an adequate framework for Indian Muslims in the twenty-first century?

For me, the answer is increasingly clear: Indian Muslims need not make Maududi’s political Islam the organising framework of their contemporary intellectual life. But that immediately raises a more difficult and important question:

What about Javed Ahmad Ghamidi?

Here the answer cannot be as simple. Ghamidi represents a substantially different intellectual trajectory. His work has challenged a number of inherited assumptions about Islamic law, politics, religious authority and the relationship between revelation and historical circumstance. His approach gives considerable importance to the Qur’an as the primary source of religious understanding, distinguishes enduring religious principles from historically conditioned arrangements, and subjects inherited interpretations to renewed scrutiny.

For Indian Muslims searching for an intellectually serious alternative to political Islam, these features make Ghamidi’s thought worth studying.

But worth studying is not the same as suitable for wholesale adoption. That distinction is crucial.

Ghamidi’s Real Significance

Ghamidi’s importance lies less in providing a ready-made political programme for India than in demonstrating that Islamic thought can be reconstructed through disciplined interpretation rather than ideological repetition.

This is an important departure from the tendency to treat every inherited formulation as equally immutable.

His engagement with questions of governance, jihad, citizenship, religious authority and Islamic law opens space for a different kind of Muslim intellectual conversation—one in which historical context, textual interpretation and reasoned argument matter.

In this respect, Ghamidi offers something that Indian Muslims urgently need: an example of intellectual disentanglement from the idea that every political claim made in the name of Islam is necessarily a religious obligation.

Yet there is a second side to the assessment.

Ghamidi’s intellectual framework was developed within the Pakistani context and within a particular South Asian scholarly genealogy. His formative relationship with Maududi and Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi is significant, even where his later conclusions differ from theirs. The reformist thought of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan also provides an important Indian parallel, particularly in the movement away from confrontationist political readings of Islam towards peace, dialogue and intellectual engagement.

Therefore, it would be historically simplistic to present Ghamidi as an entirely independent intellectual phenomenon—or as a straightforward continuation of Wahiduddin Khan.

His significance is better understood as part of a larger South Asian argument over what Islam means in the modern age.

And that argument has not ended.

Where Ghamidi Helps—and Where Indian Ulema Must Go Further

For Indian Ulema, Ghamidi’s approach can be useful precisely where it encourages critical examination of inherited political theology.

But India presents questions that require more than a Pakistani reformist framework.

The Indian Muslim intellectual condition is shaped by a constitutional order, a multi-religious society, India’s own civilisational history, regional cultures and languages, and the lived experience of Muslims as a large religious minority. Therefore, the Indian question cannot simply be: What does Ghamidi say about the Islamic state?

It must be: What does Islam mean for Muslims living as equal citizens in India’s constitutional and plural social order?

That leads to an entirely different intellectual agenda. Can Islamic ethics provide a theological vocabulary for equal citizenship?

How should concepts such as adl (justice), ihsan (moral excellence), rahmah (mercy) and shura (consultation) be interpreted within democratic public life?

How should Muslim jurisprudence address freedom of conscience, interfaith relations, gender justice, economic participation and constitutional rights?

What can India’s Sufi, Rishi and Bhakti traditions contribute to an Islamic theology of coexistence?

And how should Muslim scholars respond to artificial intelligence, biotechnology, environmental crisis, economic inequality and technological transformation?

These questions require Indian Muslim thinkers thinking from India—not merely Indian Muslims reading thinkers from elsewhere.

The Missing Indian Dimension

India has never been intellectually barren in matters of Islam.

The subcontinent produced powerful traditions of Qur’anic scholarship, Islamic philosophy, Sufism, Persian literature and Urdu thought. The Sufi centres of Delhi, Ajmer and the Deccan, the Rishi–Sufi traditions of Kashmir, the encounters between Sufis and Bhakti saints, and the reformist and intellectual contributions of figures such as Shah Waliullah and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan all demonstrate that Indian Muslim thought has historically interacted creatively with its surrounding civilisation.

This inheritance needs to be recovered—not as nostalgia, but as raw material for a new intellectual synthesis.

Ghamidi can therefore be read alongside this Indian inheritance rather than above it.

His work may help Indian Muslims reconsider inherited assumptions. Wahiduddin Khan may offer another model of religious engagement. Maududi may remain important as an object of historical and intellectual study. Iqbal may reopen questions of selfhood and creativity. Indian Sufi and Bhakti traditions may provide resources for interreligious ethics.

But none should become the final template.

From Following Thinkers to Producing Thought

This is ultimately the central issue. Indian Muslims have spent too much intellectual energy asking which scholar to follow and too little asking which institutions, methods and questions will produce the next generation of scholarship.

The answer cannot be another personality-centred movement.

India needs research institutions devoted to Qur’anic studies, Islamic philosophy and theology; centres for Islam and constitutional citizenship; serious academic study of Indian Sufism and Rishi traditions; madrasa–university intellectual programmes; Muslim public-policy and data research; translation and publishing initiatives; and fellowships for young scholars.

The purpose should be to create an intellectual culture in which disagreement is possible, inherited positions can be examined, and new interpretations can emerge without fear. That is where the Ghamidi question becomes genuinely useful.

Ghamidi need not be the answer to India’s intellectual crisis. His example can instead become part of the reason Indian Muslims begin asking better questions.

Maududi’s political theology belongs to an important chapter of South Asian Islamic intellectual history, but its political premises cannot simply be transplanted into twenty-first-century India. Ghamidi represents a more reformist and interpretive trajectory, and therefore deserves serious engagement. Yet his framework too emerged from a particular historical and national context.

The Indian Muslim intellectual project must ultimately move beyond both. Not by rejecting the wider Muslim intellectual world, but by entering it as a producer rather than merely a consumer.

India should not merely import Islamic thought. It should generate Islamic thought rooted in India’s constitutional reality, civilisational plurality and lived Muslim experience.

The decisive question is: Can India produce a new generation of Muslim thinkers who are deeply rooted in Islam, intellectually independent of imported ideological templates, conscious of India’s civilisational inheritance, and capable of addressing the realities of the twenty-first century?

That is the intellectual renaissance Indian Muslims should now begin building.

Today, Indian Muslims have no shortage of pan-Islamic intellectuals, transnational preachers or scholars speaking in the name of a global Ummah. What we lack is not voices—but an intellectual vision and renewal adequate to modern India’s reality.

What would that renewal actually look like?

It would mean developing an Indian Islamic theology of constitutional citizenship—one that explains, in substantive theological terms, why equality before law, freedom of conscience, democratic participation and fraternity are not merely political compromises but can be understood through the ethical resources of Islam.

It would mean producing a serious Islamic intellectual response to science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, climate change and the digital revolution, rather than allowing Muslim discourse to remain trapped in questions inherited from nineteenth- and twentieth-century ideological battles.

It would mean rethinking madrasa education so that classical disciplines—Qur’an, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic and Islamic theology—are placed in meaningful conversation with constitutional law, philosophy, economics, history, sociology, comparative religion, technology and the natural sciences.

It would mean recovering India’s own Sufi, Rishi and Bhakti traditions of ethical coexistence, not as romantic folklore but as serious intellectual resources for understanding India’s religious pluralism, shared sacred spaces and the ethics of disagreement.

It would mean developing a contemporary fiqh of citizenship and minority participation appropriate to a constitutional democracy—moving beyond the old binaries of dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb and asking what Islamic ethics requires of citizens living together under a common constitutional order.

It would mean making women’s education, intellectual leadership and economic participation central to Muslim social reform, rather than treating them as peripheral questions.

It would mean creating research institutions that produce data-driven scholarship on Muslim education, employment, poverty, entrepreneurship and social mobility, replacing anecdote and political rhetoric with evidence.

It would mean cultivating a new generation of Muslim scholars capable of speaking to Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian and Jewish intellectual traditions without either polemical hostility or superficial interfaith symbolism.

And it would mean developing a distinctly Indian Muslim intellectual vocabulary around peace, pluralism, environmental responsibility, ethical economics, social justice and human dignity—drawing from the Qur’an and Islamic intellectual history while engaging seriously with the realities of contemporary India.

Contributing author at New Age Islam, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar, writer and researcher on Indian Sufism, interfaith ethics, and the spiritual history of Islam in South Asia. His latest book is “Ishq Sufiyana: Untold Stories of Divine Love”.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Maududi Is Not Relevant for Indian Muslims — Nor Is Ghamidi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The question has acquired renewed urgency following recent remarks by Kerala-based Sunni cleric Sheikh Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar, popularly known as Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad and widely referred to as the “Grand Mufti of India”.

Speaking at a Hubbul Rasool conference in Kochi, the cleric reportedly said that women should remain confined to their homes and should not enter the public sphere. He defended purdah as a means of protecting women’s dignity and compared women to gold ornaments that, in his analogy, must be kept safely inside a box. He further argued that bringing women into the public sphere could lead to “great destruction” and attributed this position to the Qur’an.

Such remarks deserve serious theological scrutiny—not merely because they concern women’s rights, but because they raise a larger question about how scripture is interpreted and transmitted in contemporary Muslim society.

The issue is not whether Islam prescribes modesty. It unquestionably does. The Qur’an calls upon both believing men and believing women to observe modesty, chastity and moral restraint. The issue is whether modesty necessarily means confinement, whether purdah necessarily means social invisibility, and whether the Qur’an actually establishes a universal prohibition against women participating in public life. It does not.

The Qur’an is not a charter for female confinement!

The verse most commonly invoked to justify the confinement of women is Qur’an 33:33:

“And remain in your homes and do not display yourselves as was the display of the former days of ignorance.”

The verse occurs in a specific passage addressing the wives of the holy Prophet (pbuh). Its immediate context concerns the conduct, dignity and special responsibilities of the Prophet’s household. To extract one phrase from this context and transform it into an absolute command that every Muslim woman, in every society and historical circumstance, must remain inside her home is an interpretive decision—not an uncontested Qur’anic fact.

This distinction is fundamental!

The Qur’an repeatedly recognises women as autonomous moral subjects. It addresses believing women directly, assigns them religious responsibilities, grants them rights of inheritance and property, and describes believing men and women as mutual allies in establishing what is right and resisting what is wrong.

Most significantly, the Qur’an says:

“The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.” (9:71)

How can women be described as moral partners in the collective ethical life of the ummah if they are simultaneously understood to be categorically barred from public life?

The answer cannot be obtained by isolating one phrase and ignoring the Qur’an’s wider moral vocabulary.

From modesty to misogyny: where interpretation goes wrong

The second important word in Qur’an 33:33 is tabarruj. It is often translated as displaying oneself or one’s adornments in an ostentatious manner.

Classical exegetes associated tabarruj with conspicuous self-display, affected mannerisms and the public exhibition of beauty or adornment intended to attract sensual attention. In other words, the Qur’anic concern is with ostentatious and sexually provocative display, not with the mere physical presence of women outside their homes.

This distinction is essential!

A woman who goes to a university, teaches in a school, works in a hospital, runs a business, attends a conference, visits a market or participates in civic life does not thereby commit tabarruj.

To equate a woman’s physical presence in public with tabarruj is to expand the Qur’anic concept beyond its moral meaning.

Purdah, likewise, cannot simply be transformed from an ethic of modesty into an architecture of female imprisonment.

What happened to Bibi Khadija (RA)?

There is also a profound historical problem with treating women’s public presence as inherently destructive.

Khadija al-Kubra, the first wife of the Prophet (pbuh) was a successful businesswoman before her marriage to him. Her commercial activity was not presented in Islamic tradition as a moral failure. She was not described as having compromised her dignity merely because she participated in economic life.

The Prophet’s own community included women who transmitted knowledge, engaged in commerce, sought medical treatment, participated in communal affairs and contributed to the social and intellectual life of the Muslim community.

Women were not invisible in Medina!

Nor was the mosque exclusively a male social institution. Women attended the Prophet’s mosque. They listened to his sermons, asked questions, transmitted hadith and participated in the religious life of the community.

The historical record therefore does not support the simplistic proposition that Islam’s ideal woman is one who never enters public space.

The “gold in a box” analogy is particularly revealing!

The analogy comparing women with gold ornaments deserves special attention. A woman is not jewellery.

She is not an object whose value increases because she is locked away from society. She is a human being endowed by God with intellect, conscience, moral responsibility and spiritual agency.

The Qur’an does not describe women as commodities whose social value depends upon physical concealment. Indeed, the Qur’anic account of human dignity begins at a level far deeper than gender:

“Indeed, We have honoured the children of Adam.” (17:70)

The Qur’an speaks of Bani Adam—the children of Adam—not merely men. Human dignity precedes gender.

The “gold in a box” analogy may have been intended to express protection and honour. But theological language must also be judged by the social meaning it produces. When women are repeatedly described as precious objects who must be hidden, protected and controlled, the distinction between protection and possession becomes dangerously blurred.

A woman does not need to be locked away to possess dignity. She needs education, security, freedom from violence, economic rights, social respect and the ability to exercise her God-given moral agency.

Protection cannot become prohibition!

There is a legitimate Islamic concern for women’s safety. Muslim societies, like all societies, must protect women from harassment, exploitation and violence.

If a public space is unsafe because men harass women, the Islamic response cannot reasonably be to imprison women at home. The ethical response should be to discipline those who harass, educate society, strengthen public safety and uphold the dignity of every human being. Otherwise, the victim is effectively punished for the misconduct of the perpetrator.

The Indian Muslim tradition is more complex!

The proposition that Muslim women belong exclusively to the domestic sphere also sits uneasily with India’s own Muslim social history.

Indian Islam has never been a monolithic civilisation of female seclusion. From the courts of Muslim rulers to the intellectual circles of scholars, from women poets and mystics to educators and reformers, Muslim women have participated in India’s cultural and intellectual history in diverse ways.

The subcontinent’s Sufi traditions, in particular, cannot be reduced to a theology of female invisibility. The spiritual vocabulary of Islam speaks of taqwa, ilm, ihsan, adl and karamah—God-consciousness, knowledge, excellence, justice and human dignity. None of these virtues is exclusively male.

The Qur’an itself declares:

“Surely the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the devout men and devout women, the truthful men and truthful women…” (33:35)

The verse then proceeds to promise forgiveness and an immense reward to both.

The spiritual subject of Islam is therefore neither exclusively male nor domestically confined.

A dangerous hermeneutical shortcut!

The deeper problem exposed by Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad’s statement is not simply one controversial sermon. It is a recurring hermeneutical tendency within certain strands of Muslim clerical discourse: a social custom is elevated into an immutable divine command, and a particular historical interpretation is presented as though it were the only possible meaning of revelation.

This is precisely where Muslim scholarship needs intellectual courage. The Qur’an must be read holistically.

A verse cannot be separated from its linguistic context, historical context, rhetorical context and the broader ethical trajectory of the Qur’an. Nor should the opinions of medieval or modern exegetes—however respected—be treated as revelation itself.

The Qur’an is divine. Our interpretations of the Qur’an are human. That distinction is indispensable. The Qur’an asks women and men alike to become people of faith, knowledge and righteousness. It does not ask half of humanity to disappear from society.

When clerics tell women that their presence in public spaces will lead to “great destruction”, they are ultimately constructing a theology of fear around the female body. But Islam did not come to make women afraid of their own existence.

The Qur’an came to liberate human beings especially the womenfolk from forms of domination—spiritual, social and moral. The Prophet (pbuh) did not establish a community in which women ceased to exist beyond the threshold of their homes. He established a community in which women were recognised as believers, mothers, daughters, wives, teachers, narrators, benefactors and moral agents.

That historical reality should make contemporary Muslims cautious about transforming one interpretation of one verse into an absolute social doctrine.

The future of Indian Islam does not depend upon keeping Muslim women inside four walls. It depends upon creating a society in which women can walk outside those walls with dignity, modesty, security and equal moral agency.

A regular contributor to New Age Islam, the author is an Indo-Islamic scholar, researcher on Indian Sufism, an author of “Ishq Sufiyana: Untold Stories of Divine Love”

Courtesy: The New Age Islam

The post When purdah becomes prison appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This year in March, while this writer was serving as a short-term resident scholar in New York, an MA Class student of Islamic studies at New York University (NYU), posted an online request for “prayers for Bangladesh”. The NYU student wrote:

“We request prayers for the easing of hardships faced by Bangladeshi students. At Dhaka University, a long-standing tradition among Muslim boys to break their fast (iftaar) in the halls were physically assaulted because they were consuming beef as part of their meal. One student even sustained injuries and began bleeding due to the violence inflicted upon him”. This set me thinking and pondering about what was going to happen in Bangladesh. Far from my country, I was doing a prognosis: what in the near future would be the fate of the nation I have always known as “the most moderate Muslim polity” in the Indian neighbourhood. In light of the violent incidents in March, the student fraternity in Bangladesh backed by an alleged support from some foreign forces (read American) student unions were getting more and more mobilised. This gave them an enabling environment to create an uproar in their country which has now resulted into the regime change. This is precisely what was behind the change of guard in Bangladesh on the 5th August of 2024.

Now when Bangladesh has accepted the regime change after former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has resigned following a mass rebellion that killed nearly 300 people, my bewilderment, which worries me more than before, is: what if the crisis would spill over to India? Amid the anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh, be it politically or religiously motivated, the change of guard in bleeding Bangladesh could be bad news for Indian Muslims too.

This change comes as very difficult to many moderate and mainstream Indian Muslims who adhere to the religiously pluralist, peaceful and culture-friendly Islam. The political unrest and communal violence and radical Islamist rise among the Bangladesh people is a serious threat to the Indian Hindu-Muslims’ historically healthy relations back home.

Therefore, most significantly, speaking up for the victims of violence and fostering peace and tranquillity amidst the crisis and multifaceted challenges in Bangladesh is more sagacious and essential on part of us Muslims. It will consequently help mitigate the continuing or potential communal tensions in the South Asian region.

In an unequivocal, strong press statement, IMSD has condemned the attacks on the life and property of Bangladeshi Hindus. The Daily Star published from Dacca, and other newspapers reported that on the day the students’ movement declared “independence” from the Awami League’s authoritarian regime, at least 142 people were killed in attacks and clashes around the country, with hundreds injured. Hindu houses and businesses were looted and torched in at least 27 districts. “In the anarchic situation that prevails in the country, fearing for their lives, a large number of Hindus living close to the border have been attempting to cross over to India leaving behind their homes, businesses and motherland”, the IMSD said.

The strongly-worded statement supported and endorsed by over 50 Indian Muslim intellectuals further reads: “The attack on temples, Hindu homes and businesses, and the targeting of Rahul Ananda’s secular musical space is clear indication that some fanatical Islamist groups — there is no dearth of them in Bangladesh — are pursuing their own intolerant agenda”.

Most significantly, the statement in its conclusion exhorts and urges the majority of Muslims in India and Bangladesh not to be mute and silent spectators. It rather awakens them and says: “Bangladesh politics must not be allowed to degenerate into majoritarianism as India’s has. Communalism is a sub-continental malaise and must be fought across borders. We call upon Muslim organisations and individuals in India to strongly condemn the targeting of minorities in Bangladesh.”

Not that no Islamic organisation or conventional Muslim outfit in India or Bangladesh is speaking out against the lynch mobs, arsonists looters and fanatics. We have heard and seen how a human chain was built by some Madrasa students to protect Hindu places of worship in Bangladesh. Even some of the Islamist preachers who otherwise played a communal and sometimes viciously divisive role in the past have showed a totally different face of theirs standing up for the Hindu victims of violence.

Most strikingly, the largest Islamist party in Bangladesh (Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami) and even Jama’at-e-Islami Hind (JeI) in India have condemned the attacks on Hindus. The JeI’s wing in Delhi-NCR (Faridabad) issued a press release in Urdu newspapers in which Maulana Jamaluddin of JeI has been quoted as saying: “Targeting any community or religious group is condemnable; we must condemn it unequivocally or this disquiet will spread.…We have urged all leaders of the community to come together to address this issue and promote a harmonious culture of understanding”.

It would not have been surprising if these words were to come from the Sufi Sunni ulema and clerics who repeatedly issued clichés like these. Astonishingly, even the Salafis and Ahl-e-Hadith as well as the Jama’at-e Islami, Hind have been known for non-tolerant attitudes towards non-Muslims and their places of worship have condemned the anti-Hindu attacks. More surprisingly, they came out to condemn these acts of violence targeting the minorities in Bangladesh with several verses from the Qur’an, as well as Ahadith and Asaar-e-Sahaba (sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet’s companions).

For instance, Assam’s well-known Deobandi scholar, Maulana Nurul Amin Qasmi who is famous for his distinct da’awah (preaching) style, went as far as to say: “We cannot comment on the internal issue of the neighbouring country. But as an Indian Muslim, I urge the Bangladeshis not to target the minorities in their country. Whether they are Hindus, Christians or Buddhists, any form of attack on innocent minority communities goes against the teaching of Islam and traditions of the holy Prophet (pbuh). Maulana Qasmi has extensively quoted from the Qur’an and Hadith to substantiate the point.

Syed Muhammad Ashraf Kichauchwi, President of All India Ulama and Mashaikh Board and chairman of World Sufi Forum, who has a huge following in Bangladeshi Sufi-Sunni pockets, especially in Chittagong, remarkably told this writer:

“The extremist fundamentalists who were in jails in Bangladesh and were banned from preaching also came out on the streets and they were doing their job under the cover of protesters, which emerged as a grave threat to the peace of the entire region. The basic idea of ​​Bangladesh was about tolerating everyone with an all-embracing faith based on love and peace, but now people with an ideology of deep-seated hatred are active. They are taking advantage of the situation to further their nefarious ends.”

He continued: In such a situation, people with the philosophy of love and acceptance should be more cautious now and should maximise their efforts to restore peace. We cannot be among those who silently watch the crisis as onlookers. He appealed to the people of Bangladesh not to give a new impetus to the ongoing riots and work for the restoration of peace on the ground. He also asked the people in India active on social media to act with restraint.

There is an urgent note of caution here. People spreading the agenda of communal hatred in our country also try to take advantage of bleeding Bangladesh to further spoil the sensitive environment and communal atmosphere in India. The way videos and pictures coming from Bangladesh are floating on the internet and the kind of provocation they are creating, pose serious threat to peace and harmony. The Indian government should put every possible check on this. It will have to think deeply and devise a decisive policy for the mitigation of the communal clash and tensions snowballing from the neighbouring country. The state agencies will have to keep an eye so that the fundamentalist ideology does not get nourished and nurtured in this backdrop. Otherwise it will be fatal for both: the country as well as the community.

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is Sufi Mystic Indo-Islamic Scholar & Author based in Delhi. He can be reached at grdehlavi@gmail.com 

The post Bangladesh: Why Indian Muslims’ voice against anti-Hindu violence matters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 17, Jamia Al-Azhar strongly condemned the attacks on several churches in East Pakistan and outrightly rejected the religious legitimacy for such acts in its statement. It reads: The Holy Quran, which is attacked by some extremists under the protection of some governments, is the same book that commands that the places of worship of Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be protected. And there should be no abuse or violence in these places of worship. It added: The attackers did to the churches exactly what those who desecrated the Holy Quran did, because both are henious crimes that violate the sanctity of religions, holy books and human and moral standards. Condemning these criminal and barbaric actions, Al-Azhar stressed the need to prosecute all extremists in different territories across the world who attack other religions and their adherents in their nefarious anti-blasphemy acts, be it an attack on Holy Quran, churches or any other religious places.

Al Azhar concluded: “This religious and educational body emphasize all legal procedures to protect the sanctity of religion and it demands that legal action be taken to ensure that this type of act never happens again, and that these actions are based on prejudice, hatred and dissent”.

Church attacks are not new in Pakistan. Neither are the anti-blasphemy acts and attacks an isolated phenomenon. A pervasive, prejudiced and clearly selective application of blasphemy laws gives rise to these incidents in Pakistan. Discrimination based on religion and belief is the fate of religious minorities and heterodox sects in the self-styled Islamic nation. Human rights bodies and activists both domestically and internationally have highlighted the fact that Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws are discriminatory and brazenly violative of the human rights guaranteed by international treaties. However, the radical Islamist organizations and individuals who believe the blasphemy laws are part of their faith, vehemently disregard all the international treaties.

Since the creation of Pakistan, minorities have been repressed, discriminated and religiously persecuted by the state in the name of several Shariah laws. But the blasphemy law has undoubtedly been the worst of all. It has affected all minority communities in Pakistan to a greater or lesser extent, Hindus, Christians, Ahmadiya community and Shia Hazaras. Since the 1990s, the minority Christians, who make up just 1.6% of the population, have been systematically targeted in numerous anti-blasphemy attacks. As the second largest minority, Christians and their sacred places are most affected by the brutal blasphemy laws juxtaposed with the Sunni theological underpinnings. Thus, the Pakistan-centric radicalisation in the name of blasphemy is a lived experience in the daily life of the religious minorities. A sword of blasphemy law is always hanging on their heads, not just in the courts but also on streets and public places.

But what is more worrying is that the Pakistan-centric anti-blasphemy radicalism is no more confined within the walls of the so-called ‘Islamic’ nation. It has rather snowballed, catapulting itself to the democratic polity of India, exploiting the internal security threats, various social and current communal challenges as well as the community grievances, to further the nefarious ends. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, radical organizations tried to indoctrinate youths into an anti-blasphemy extremist ideology to spread communal disharmony in the country. Remember the Nupur Sharma episode! It was a trying time which candidly exposed the extent of insanity behind the extremist anti-blasphemy theology that was on the rampage not in Pakistan, but in India with the likes of TLP’s radical Sunni-Barelvi Islamists having complete temerity to kill Kanhaiya Lal Teli, an Udaipur tailor, for supporting Nupur Sharma’s blasphemous statement.

Mohammad Riyaz Ansari and Ghous Mohammad, the two terrorists who beheaded Kanhaiya Lal clearly asserted their theological underpinnings before the gruesome slaughter. They told us in a pre-recorded video that they were going to avenge the denigration of the Prophet by killing one of the thousands of supporters of Nupur Sharma, the original blasphemer. Now don’t try to argue that the two anti-blasphemy murderers were a miniscule minority within a subgroup of Sunni-Barelvis. Let’s not forget that Mumtaz Qadri, the terrorist and assassin of Governor Salman Taseer, was also seen as an individual and not a representative of the faction he belonged to. Even the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan mistook him and his ilk as a “small segment”. But we all know the truth and the sorry state of affairs that the minorities and their places of worship face there at the hands of anti-blasphemy radicals. The death penalty sentenced to Qadri caused more uproar in Pakistan than what we saw with horror in the wake of Asia Bibi’s acquittal by the Apex Court. The consequent protests by the Sunni Islamist hardliners across the country were much less now than the turmoil which was created to “exonerate” Qadri as “Ghazi” (man of religious valour) and “Shaheed e Millat” (the one who was ‘martyred’ for the sake of community).

Do we think this correlation is just incidental? Being episodic in our condemnation of the anti-blasphemy acts and attacks won’t serve the purpose. If we really want to seek the solution, we need to take this intricate issue with more caution, curiosity and carefulness. Let’s try to understand one thing, in an honest way: Anti-blasphemy extremists are headed for a death row not just for themselves but also for the whole community. In India, they are hellbent to hurt the peaceful image of the whole Muslim community, which is otherwise seen as sane and non-violent. Thus, if we don’t stem the tide of theological underpinnings for anti-blasphemy violence and its roots, they will henceforth be considered as extremist as their Pakistani counterparts. Then, I regret, the difference between Indian and Pakistani Muslim community will be erased. All the praise and appreciation that Indian Muslims have drawn worldwide for their patience and stoicism with which they have faced daily provocations for years, and have thus protected their life and limb, will vanish.

This is the grim situation which requires from us to make it patently clear that any theological support for the anti-blasphemy acts is dangerous for us and our survival and reputation as the moderate Muslim community. Therefore, ulema of all hues and the theologians of both classical and modern Islamic studies must call for repealing not just the draconian blasphemy laws from the Islamic countries but also removing the anti-blasphemy content from the madrasas and the Islamic textbooks. Therefore, Indian Muslims should demand and support the enactment of a law against the anti-blasphemy acts. In fact, an Act by the Parliament should be passed to prevent this mindless violence in India and thus save the Indian Muslims from becoming as notorious as their Pakistani counterparts for terrorism and violence. Punishments to the anti-blasphemy supporters with a view to minimising their public support and influence, will augur well as measures for mitigation.

But the most gigantic and urgent task is for the Indian ulema. In Pakistan, Islamic theological bodies extend the applicability of blasphemy laws to non-Muslims living in Muslim countries. Not to speak of radical Barelvi organisation ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP) or the Deobandi ‘Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’ (TTP), even the well-known Barelvi and Deobandi theologians, Muftis and Qazis (Islamic jurists) and more scandalously, even the so-called Sufi-Sunni clerics are openly or tacitly supportive. They aver that it is incumbent upon an Islamic government to execute all blasphemers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. On the pretext of protecting the Prophet’s dignity called Tahaffuz-e-Namus-e-Risalat, the Islamic postulate of Prophetology has always been misused by the hardcore Islamists in Pakistan. But in reality, the holy Prophet (pbuh), whose sanctity the extremists claim to defend never sentenced to death the Meccan pagans, who cursed, ridiculed and plotted to kill him. Even when the pagans desecrated the Prophet’s sanctity accusing him of ‘forging’ the Qur’an, he acted upon the divine instruction indicating that only Allah can decide the punishment for even as grievous a sin as ‘fabricating’ and ‘concocting’ the Qur’an. Allah says in the Qur’an:

“Do they claim that the Messenger himself has fabricated it? (If so), tell them: “If I have fabricated it, then you have no power to protect me from Allah’s chastisement. He knows well the idle talk in which you indulge. He suffices as a witness between me and you. (46:8)

Deplorably for the Indian Muslim community, our Ulema and Madrasas never quote the above verse from the Qur’an in their Khutbas (sermons) and provocative public speeches in which they embolden their audience to take revenge on the issue of blasphemy. As the most responsible community leaders, their job was to dissuade Muslims from this dastardly, inhuman, un-Islamic, anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim act. But in place of the Qur’an, what they preach on the issues of blasphemy are dangerous texts (Matan) and their commentaries (Sharah) which they themselves have studied in their respective madrasas, either Barelvi, Deobandi or Ahl-e-Hadith. Motivated by a distorted and twisted sectarian Islamic theology, they call for beheading blasphemers, apostates, and even Muslims who deviate even slightly from the views of the founder of their sect (Maslak).

——

A Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Sufi Islamic seminary in India, and acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and a Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. He has also participated in the 3-year “Madrasa Discourses” program initiated by the University of Notre Dame, USA.

Courtesy: The New Age Islam

The post Indian Ulema Must Oppose Anti-Blasphemy Laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

If anyone tried to understand India in its entirety from the prism of a ‘culture friendly Islam’, with all its diversity, festivals, cultural manifestations and artistic expressions, it was the Sufi Mystics who mainly came from Central Asia and some parts of Arabia. Remarkably, these Arab scholars and Persian saints did not attempt to ‘Arabise’ Islam in India, something that today’s self-appointed custodians of Islam are hell-bent on doing. On the contrary, a gamut of mediaeval Muslim scholars including Abu Rayhan al-Biruni, an Iranian historian and polymath during the Islamic Golden Age, author of the first Arabic treatise on Indian History (Kitab ul Hind) and popularly known as the “founder of Indology”, made remarkable contributions to exploration and promotion of the Indian civilization and its vibrant cultural heritage.

In this context, some Sufi Mystics and Scholars should find special mention, because of their practical endeavours to uphold this historic movement. They not only wrote books about the history and culture of India in Arabic, Turkish and Persian languages but also celebrated the various festivals of India including Diwali, Basant Panchami and Holi in order to strengthen the composite culture and social fabric of the country.

While the famous Sufi saint of Delhi, Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia and his closest disciple Ameer Khusrau started a beautiful tradition of the Sufi Basant at their Khanqah or shrine (known as Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia), Dewa Sharif in Uttar Pradesh is India’s famous Dargah where Holi is celebrated as “Eid-e-Gulabi” with no less fervour than in other Indian faith traditions.

The holy Qur’an says:

صِبْغَةَ اللَّهِ ۖ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ صِبْغَةً ﴿١٣٨﴾

(Allah’s colouring! And who gives better colouring than Allah?” Surah al-Baqarah: 138)

From the above verse in the Qur’an, some Sufi Mystics derived a very interesting understanding of the colours and their significance in the Indian setting. They infer that Colours should have no religious distinctions, nor should they have any caste or creed. But rather, they should be celebrated as the glaring signs of God. Thus, they took the Indian festival of Holi as an occasion which assures us that all the faces should be painted in the beautiful colours and that all colours belong to Allah.

Thus, Sufis were the first to conceive the Festival of Colours in Islam as “Eid-e-Gulabi” which is known in the modern Arabic as Eid-ul-Alwan. While in the Hindu tradition, Holi is celebrated as the festival of Divine Love, and the Festival of Spring, which celebrates the eternal and divine love between Radha and Krishna, the Sufi notion of Holi is more nuanced. It seeks to instil our collective spiritual consciousness in India. For decades, Muslims along with the Hindu devotees come together to celebrate the Sufi Holi as Eid-e-Gulabi at the sanctum of Dewa Sharif. A custodian of this Dargah, Ghani Shah, asserts that it was Waris Piya who exhorted his disciples to celebrate the Holi and show respect to every Indian religion as a spiritual foundation based on the mutual feelings of love and respect.

Born into the 26th generation of Imam Hussain, Sarkar Waris-e-Pak, more popularly known as ‘Waris Piya’ was the founder of Warsi Silsila in modern period of Indian Sufism. As a learned successor to the prominent Sufi order — Qadriyya-Razzakiyya, and well versed in classical Islamic sciences, Waris Piya was a widely travelled Sufi master for people from across the country, as well as the different countries, irrespective of faith and creed.

Noted Warisi scholar, Mr. Ghafur Shah writes in his book: “The Blessed Lord Haji Syed Waris Ali Shah,” that Waris Piya undertook the Hajj pilgrimage several times, and also paid extensive visits to the West, especially the European countries, including Germany, England and Turkey. During his travels to Europe, Waris Piya also met the Sultan of Turkey and Bismarck of Berlin, and had an audience with Queen Victoria in England.

A close relative in Waris Pak’s family lineage Prof. Wahajuddin Alwi, former Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Languages, told this writer: “Since Waris Piya wanted people in India to transcend religious/sectarian divides, he participated in Hindu festivals like Holi. His non-Muslim Mureeds and regular disciples included Raja Udyat Narayan Sing, raja of Oudh, Thakur Pancham Singh Talukdar of Eta, Pandit Deendaar Shah of Indore, Sahaj Ram Dixit, Thakur Grur Mohan Singh, a Zamindar of Bhagalpur. They were spiritually in parallel with his Muslim bureaucrat Mureeds such as governor general Ghulam Mohammad and Justice Sharfuddin.”

Another Sufi Mystic who celebrated the Holi in his own spiritual way was the 18th-century popular Punjabi poet Bulle Shah. He composed beautiful couplets invoking the spiritual blessings from Allah and his holy Prophet (pbuh) for playing the Holi, as can be seen below:

Hori Kheluungii, Kah Bismillah.

Naam Nabi Ki Ratn Charii,

Buund Pari Allah Allah.

(I start playing Holi with the recitation of Bismillah. Covered with the light of Prophet’s name, and showered by blessings of Allah)

Not only the Sufi saints of the Indian subcontinent, in fact the Mughal emperors celebrated the Holi with great gusto. Prominent Muslim historian Zakaullah writes how the founder of the Mughal Empire Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, used to take great interest in the Holi celebrations. Similarly, Emperor Akbar would collect beautiful squirts and syringes of different sizes throughout the year in anticipation. This was one of the rare occasions when Akbar would come out from his fort and play Holi with even the commoners, as Abul Fazal writes in Ain-e Akbari. Furthermore, it is mentioned in Tuzk-e-Jahangiri that Jahangir also celebrated Holi and organised musical gatherings.

Even Aurangzeb Alamgir, who is otherwise known as an orthodox and intolerant Muslim ruler, appreciated the colours of Holi. It is surprising to note what Lane Poole writes in his book, “Aurangzeb and the Decay of the Mughal Empire”:

During his (Aurangzeb’s) time, there used to be several groups of Holi singers who besides reciting libertine lyrics also indulged in salaciousness, accompanied by various musical instruments.”

Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal Emperor allowed his Hindu ministers to smear his forehead with gulal on Holi. Historic Urdu daily “Jaam-e-Jahanuma”, reported in 1844 that during the days of the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, special arrangements were made for those who celebrated Holi.

Bahadur Shah Zafar, who was also an Urdu poet par excellence, wrote these fabulous verses on the Festival of Colours which are sung as a part of the Phaag (folk songs of Holi):

Kyo Mo Pe Rang Ki Maari Pichkaari

Dekho Kunwar Ji Doongi Mein Gaari

(Why drench me with colour spray,)

Now my prince, I will swear at you)

Bahut Dinan Mein Haath Lage Ho Kaise Jane Doon

Aaj Phagwa To Son Ka Tha Peeth Pakad Kar Loon.

(After long have I’ve got my hands on you, how will I let you go?

Today is Holi, and perfect time to catch hold of you)

Much against the common perception among today’s Muslims in India, these Muslim scholars, saints and emperors believed that their religion would not be affected by the celebration of this Indian festival in a peaceful and permissible manner. Who says Holi is a Hindu festival? asks Munshi Zakaullah in his book “Tarikh-e-Hindustani”.

A regular columnist with NewAgeIslam.com Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Alim and Fazil (classical Islamic scholar). Having graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, Jamia Amjadia Rizvia (Mau, U.P.), he is now pursuing his PhD from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Who Says Holi Is Just A Hindu Festival? Muslim Scholars, Sufi Mystics, Mughal Emperors, Not To Speak Of Common Muslims, They All Celebrated Holi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Monday, the Supreme Court has rightly observed that hate speech is vitiating the nation’s atmosphere, and ought to stop. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit were hearing an appeal on the country’s increasing hate speech against minority communities. “No action was being taken by the administration to stop such comments”, said the petitioner, Harpreet Mansukhani. In reply, the bench has stated that the petitioner may be correct in asserting that the atmosphere is being sullied by hate speech and that this needs to be immediately stopped.

While the usual majoritarian hate remarks before the general elections in 2024, have indeed hurt the minority sentiments especially Muslims in India, the fringe elements within the Muslim community are no less hate-mongers. On Monday, the Uttar Pradesh Police has arrested seven individuals who participated in Jashn-e-Eid Miladun Nabi (celebration of 12th Rabi ul Awwal i.e., Prophet Muhammad’s birthday) for allegedly shouting the anti-blasphemy slogan: “Gustakh-e-Rasool Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda” (Beheading is the only punishment for blasphemers of the holy Prophet). A video of the procession on 12th Rabi ul Awwal, also called Barah Wafat in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, has gone viral in which some youths could be seen shouting “Sar Tan See Juda” slogan. Two of the nine individuals who were named in a FIR that was filed, were juveniles.

On Sunday, an entirely identical incident took place in Rajasthan’s Jodhpur. The same slogan ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ was raised in a Miladun Nabi procession. While the festival of celebrating Prophet Muhammad’s sacred birthday was being held in other parts of the country with great religious fervour and in a peaceful manner, the fringe elements in the Muslim community took this as an opportunity to create communal tensions. Thus, they have brought great defamation not just to the particular Barelwi sect to which the individuals subscribe, but also to all those who celebrate the Milad-un-Nabi and take out processions (Julus) on this auspicious occasion.

In Amravati, Maharashtra on Monday, the same case has been filed against 8 to 10 unidentified individuals for shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda“. During the Eid Milad-un-Nabi procession (Julus-e-Muhammadi) in Amravati’s rural neighbourhood, the controversial slogan was being raised which is has been widely shared in an online video. In the virtually viral footage, some participants in the Julus could be clearly heard shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda.” As a result, a case was filed in the Paratwada police station of the Achalpur district of Amravati under sections 153A, 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and 135 of the Mumbai Police Act.

Several complaints have now been lodged in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra in which it has been alleged that some radicalised individuals among Muslims have been trying to cause communal disharmony through such anti-blasphemy sloganeering. Some influential observers and community watchers, enraged by this fresh spate of incidents, warn of the threats looming large to the syncretic Indo-Islamic culture, something which is known as a symbol of Ganga-Jamuni Tahzeeb, pluralism and toleration of Muslims in India.

Every year, a peaceful and multicultural celebration of Milad-un-Nabi takes place across the country. But what has now changed that we have seen with horror that some miscreants in the name of Jashn-e-Eid Milad-un-Nabi were giving the nefarious war cry. Amethi which is historically known for the shrine of famous Indian Sufi poet and Pir Malik Muhammad Jaisi (1477– 1542) who penned down the first-known narrative of Rani Padmavati in the Awadhi language, was never defamed like this. But this year, a procession of Julus which was taken out to mark the holy Prophet’s birthday drawing hundreds of people together at the Sufi saint Jayasi’s shrine had a portion of the gathering which seemed to be in an aggressive mood. Slogan of ‘Sir Tan Se Juda’ was spelt out by a few in the procession.

This comes as a big surprise in the wake of media reports telling us that a day before the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, i.e. October 8, it was instructed by Muslim organizations that the slogan of ‘Sir Tan Se Juda’ should not be raised in the Milad-un-Nabi processions or any other programs related to 12th Rabi ul Awwal. In fact, the All India Muslim Jamaat, a socio-religious Indian organization led by Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi of Bareilly, issued a timely instruction which was, by and large, followed in most processions. But why was it wilfully ignored in Jodhpur, Amethi and Amravati? Why was this communally sensitive slogan was raised especially when the procession was passing through Nayapura Subhash Colony, a Hindu dominated area in Rajasthan? Having become aware of the situation and its repercussions, it becomes incumbent on us Muslims to call spade a spade.

Aggressive social media posts, hate speech along with communally sensitive content and comments are underfoot to disturb the volatile socio-religious atmosphere of harmony and inclusivity in India. The reason? The Pakistan-origin slogan of “Sar Tan Se Juda” coined by the extremist political-Islamist organisation, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) which emerged out of the Barelwi variant of South Asian Sunni Islam. Khadim Hussain Rizvi—the late charismatic Barelwi cleric and TLP leader–was the brain behind the growing popularity and ideology of the notorious slogan. Rizvi made the slogan his key tactic for recruiting the young gullible Barelwi youths mainly volunteering with the global Sunni Islamic outfit, Dawat-e-Islami founded by Maulvi Ilyas Attar Qadri in 1981, in Karachi, Pakistan.

Now Rizvi is no more. But his ideology is on the rampage. Not just in Pakistan but also in India. The slogan of “Sar Tan Se Juda” has snowballed from across the border into the mainland India, particularly in the northern part, which has recently wreaked havoc in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Now again it is gaining momentum in a section of the misguided Barelwi youth, from Uttar Pradesh to Rajasthan to Maharashtra. Rizvi’s blind fathers and Barelwi supporters like Mumtaz Qadri–who assassinated Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for calling for a review of Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws–have made their presence felt in different states across the country. This widespread phenomenon should make it patently clear that Barelwis are not a homogenous or monolith sect within Sunni Islam. The long-held perception that the self-styled quasi-Sufi sect is inherently peaceful ought to have been disabused. The Barelwi clergy, who are otherwise tolerant and accommodative of various Indian cultural practices like shrine visitation (Dargah Hazri) and Fatiha-O-Durud (traditional Sufi salutations), are no less obscurantist and fundamentalist in many ways. But when it comes to “defence of the Prophet’s honour”, they go haywire and make the slogan of “Sar Tan Se Juda” a war cry. These erratic and provocative clerical rants have adversely impacted the common mindset of Sunni Muslim youth in India who look up to the Barelwi Ulema as their legitimate leaders adhering to the Aqaid (beliefs) of “Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamàat”. They wrongly derive their textual or theological legitimacy from the treatises and books like Husām al-Haramayn written by A’ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (1856–1921) which declared the blasphemers of the holy Prophet (pbuh) as heretics. But as for beheading them in a secular and democratic country like India, he has not taken a violent extremist position neither did he justify it in any way of his writings. However, A’ala Hazrat was not soft on the founders and followers of the Wahhabi, Salafi [aka Ahl-e-Hadith], Deobandi, Shia and Ahmadiyya sects. His staunchly sectarian and anti-pluralistic theological stand is an open secret now. It is not difficult to understand through the prism of his Fatwas against forging alliance with the non-Muslims or non-Sunnis. In his eyes, Christians in the British India were better than the Hindus as they are considered People of the Book. Nevertheless, having been viewed as the Mujaddid or Reviver of the 21st Century, A’ala Hazrat has been venerated as an established Islamic reformer in north India. Since he wrote extensively in defence of the Prophet and popular Sufi practices, he remains the chieftain of the Sunni-Sufi Muslims popularly known as Barelwis.

Tellingly, but the calls for beheading blasphemers of the Prophet were first given in Islamic theology by the puritanical Salafist Islamist ideologue Taqiuddin Ibn Taymiyyah in his book on Islamic creed “As-Sarim al-Maslul ‘Ala Shatim ar-Rasool” (The Sword Against the One Who Insults the Messenger). Ibn Taymiyyah in this book discusses in detail his jurisprudential or Fiqhi position on those who slur or insult Prophet Muhammad. “The one who insults the prophet whether Muslim or disbeliever is to be killed…. They are to be killed even if they pay a protective tax in a Muslim State”, he enunciates in his book which he wrote in response to the following incident:

In 1293, Ibn Taymiyyah was called by his state authorities to issue a fatwa on Assaf al-Nasrani, a member of the Christian clergy accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Only after the state’s intervention, Ibn Taymiyyah issued his fatwa ordering the execution of the Christian cleric. However, the Governor of Syria persuaded Assaf to convert to Islam in exchange for his life. It was in 1294 that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote his detailed book in response to that incident. This background of the book gives a rider for his followers that even Ibn Taymiyyah would not have been in favour of non-state actors indulging in the killing of blasphemers. 

Surprisingly enough, the theological legitimacy for beheading the blasphemers comes from the Hanbali follower and pioneer of Salafism—Ibn Taymiyyah. So, what has happened to the Hanafi Muslims in India [read ‘Barelwis’ here] who have taken it upon themselves to act upon the Salafist injunction? Even the Salafis in India (Ahl-e-Hadith) do not indulge in acts of anti-blasphemy sloganeering or killing in India in the crazy bid that has been lately shown by a few fanatics from the Barelwis. Despite the fact that the Barelwi clergymen generally oppose and sometimes abhor Ibn Taymiyyah, their stand on beheading someone for blasphemy and taking the law in one’s hand is more erroneous and dangerous, as it derives its inspiration from the organizations like the TLP and its leaders like Khadim Razvi, Pir Afzal Qadri, Inayat Haq Shah and Farooqul Hassan who were all booked on charges of sedition and terrorism in Pakistan.

——

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary in India, and acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and a Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. He has also participated in the 3-year “Madrasa Discourses” program initiated by the University of Notre Dame, USA. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

This article was first published on https://www.newageislam.com

The post Who to blame for the ‘sar tan se juda’ fatwa? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The puritanical Barelvi ulema, who call themselves ‘Reformist Sufis’ have denounced the mystically-inclined custodians of the Ajmer Dargah calling them Badmazhab (heretics) and Gumrah (misguided) and Rawafiz (hardcore Shias). More bluntly, in the recently concluded annual Urs-e-Aala Hazrat in Bareilly, they have asked Sunni Muslims to boycott visitations of the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/bareilly-city-sunni-barelvi-ulma-announce-in-aala-hazrat-urs-muslims-do-not-go-to-ajmer-18612771.html

In sharp rebuttal, the custodians of the Sufi shrine also known as ‘Khuddam’ (those in service) have disassociated themselves with the ‘fatwa factories’ running in name of Sufism.   

In his press statement, Ajmer Sharif’s Gaddinashin Khadim Syed Sarwar Chishti said, in a stern counter-attack, that Barelwiyat (the Barelwi creed) is not Sufism and that it is another offshoot of religious extremism. “Their job is just to pass Fatwas against one another”, Chishti said as reported in Amar Ujala on November 8. amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/bareilly/ajmer-sharif-khadim-syed-sarwar-chishti-big-statement-on-urs-e-razavi-forum-announcement

Chishti argues that Sufism is service to people who celebrate their faiths and maintain communal harmony. Khwaja Gharib Nawaz’s humane compassion for and reconciliation with all (Sulh-e-Kul) is the glaring example. “But their (Barelwi Ulema’s) stances do not stand for the teachings of the Sufi saint”, he avers. 

In fact, on the occasion of the Urs-e-Ala Hazrat, Sayed Amin Mian, the chairperson of Khanakah-e-Barkatia in Marahra, accused the Ajmer Sufi custodians of making objectionable remarks against Aala Hazrat. Thus, he instructed his followers not to visit Ajmer Sharif. This statement made headlines in the local Urdu and Hindi newspapers, and the next day, the Barelwi ulema backed out and declined to accept that they had issued any instructions against visitation of the Ajmer Dargah.

This feud apart, what deserves attention and serious deliberation is the claims that the Barelwi movement in India has actually purged Sufism of its universal appeal and egalitarian values. No wonder that the Barelwi muftis have disparaged almost all contemporary Sufi-minded scholars for their pluralistic ethos and peaceful ideas.

For instance, Pakistani-origin Sufi scholar Dr. Tahir ul Qadri is seen as “Badmazhab” (follower of erroneous path) for his interfaith activism in Canada and other European countries where he frequently lectures. India’s chief Barelvi Muftis and Qazis including Allama Ziaul Mustafa (the chief Qazi of Barelwis in India) declared him an apostate during his lecture in a South African Muslim congregation. Consequently, the ulema of Barelwi faction in India and Pakistan issued several Fatwas of Takfeer (apostasy) against him on the grounds of his inter-religious dialogue endeavours like participating in Christmas celebrations and holding Sufi Music congregations (Mahfil-e-Sima’a).

Such retrogressive pronouncements or Fatwas from the Barelwi ulema were not on rise in India until they re-ideologised themselves in blasphemy laws emanating from Pakistan. Sultan Shahin, the founder-editor of this progressive forum, New Age Islam, rightly points it out:

“The fact remains that Mumtaz Quadri, the murderer of Governor Salman Taseer came from a non-Wahhabi Barelvi sect and was incited into his act and promised heaven in lieu of this murder by a Barelvi Mullah Hanif Qureshi. A shrine has now been built in the outskirts of Islamabad to worship him. Barelvis are considered Sufism-oriented and have been the main victims of Salafi-Wahhabi attacks on Sufi shrines. The half a million people who thronged the murderer Mumtaz Qadri’s funeral and the tens of thousands who are visiting his so-called shrine, however, are largely from Barelvi sect. They consider Governor Salman Taseer to be a blasphemer and his murderer an Aashiq-e-Rasool, i.e., someone who loves the Prophet (pbuh)…. The fact is Salman Taseer had merely called for the repeal of this black Blasphemy law.”

Mr. Shahin also asked a pertinent question in one of his earlier editorials at NewAgeIslam.com:
“Sectarian unity is certainly an admirable goal. The intention behind it, however, is also very important. Wahhabi, Deobandi and Barelvi sects, who call each other Kafir (infidel), are seeking to unite for some months now.  But towards what end?”
If this ‘unity’ of Ummah stands only for enforcement of discriminatory blasphemy laws in Muslim countries, it is indeed matter of grave concern. Isn’t it surprising enough that Khadim Razavi, Barelwi leader of the Tahrik-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) spoke in unison with the ‘father of Taliban’ Maulvi Sami-ul-Haque. The last sermon that he made to his followers before he was stabbed to death in Rawalpindi, called for a ‘painful death’ to Asia Bibi and all blasphemers. Along with Khadim Razavi, he also mobilized the protesters in Islamabad against Asia’s acquittal. He had intended to join them but he could not, as reported in New York Times.
(Source: nytimes.com/reuters/2018/11/02/world/asia/02reuters-pakistan-cleric-taliban.html)

At the same time in India, the Barelvi-controlled institutions mourned the landmark judgment of Pakistan’s Supreme Court acquitting an accused ‘blasphemer’.

Much earlier in 2011, the Mumbai-based Barelwi outfit Raza Academy strongly protested in support of Malik Mumtaz Qadri, the body-guard who assassinated Salman Taseer. It echoed in India the vociferous support of Barelwi youths’ organization in Pakistan “Shabab-e-Islami” which first protested against the imprisonment of Mumtaz Qadri. They loudly claimed to be “Ahle Sunnat”, another term that Barelvi followers choose to use in the subcontinent. In fact, the Barelwi clergy were first to disparage the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province for advocating reforms in Islam’s blasphemy laws. Now they are calling Imran Khan a ‘Shaitan’ for supporting the judgment of Asia Bibi’s acquittal.

Notably, Raza Academy had got issued a fatwa against AR Rahman for composing music, which is un-Islamic in their view, for Majid Majidi’s biopic, Muhammad: The Messenger of God. Office bearers of Raza Academy publicly asked everyone associated with the film to recite the Kalima and profess Islam again. They purported to state that the entire film crew had turned apostate and hence was obliged to reiterate their faith in Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) again. Even a stern fatwa was issued by Mumbai’s Barelwi Qazi, Mufti Mahmood Akhtar Qadri, the then Imam at Haji Ali Dargah.

Contrary to that, the custodians at Ajmer Sharif Dargah as well as in various other Sufi shrines denounced this fatwa against AR Rahman Khan. They rather hailed the Indian legendry for composing music in ‘good faith’ and called him a ‘true believer’. Thereafter, Rahman wrote this statement: “I follow the middle path and am part traditionalist and part rationalist. I live in the Western and Eastern worlds and try to love all people for what they are, without judging them”.

More to the point, the Barelwi ulema abhor the cultural practices such as the first Islamic month’s commemoration of Muharram known as Tazia, women’s entry to shrines, celebration of Basant and Diwali which occur at a few Dargahs, Sufi music known as sim’a and Sufi whirling in imitation of the dervishes called Raqs. All this is at odds with the worldview of liberal and forward-looking Sufi custodians.

One of the world-renowned custodians (Gaddinashins) of Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Syed Salman Chishty who also runs Chishty Foundation based on the pluralistic principle of “Love towards all, Malice towards none” propounded by Khawaja Moinuddin Chishty (r.a). told this writer:
“As part of the larger humane cause through the platform of Chishty Foundation, we intend to promote the blessed Sufi teachings of Khawaja Gharib Nawaz, Sufi art of Calligraphy, Sufi Poetry, Sufi music and concepts of intertwined Spirituality and Music which is a deeper connection between the Higher state of awareness of the Divine presence through Sama and Qawwali–the Chishti Sufis’ food for the Soul. However, this concept is yet to have a full vision and realization for the essence of complete Sufi understanding and teachings.”

Chishty further says that it’s a universal message for the entire humanity that we love and respect Ashraf-ul-Makhluqat (the best of creations i.e. Human beings) regardless of their faith and creed. They are all equally the best creations of the One Almighty Creator, Allah (s.w.t)
Notably, the Chishty Foundation which asserts the blessed message of Khwaja Gharib Nawaz to serve the Humanity (Khidmat-e-Khalq) is all set to celebrate the 11th International Sufi Rang Festival 2018 as its eleventh edition towards realizing the blessed vision of the Chishti Sufi lineage. “In today’s troubled times, we believe that the message of the great Sufi saints is the not just a way of communication, but rather it is an essential soft power for the solution of the 21st century’s crises, a roadmap towards the Path of Love and Brotherhood among the whole Humanity”, Chishty concluded.

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Sectarian slugfest: From Shia-Sunni, Barelvi-Deoband, its now Barelvi ulema vs Ajmer Dargah’s Sufis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Paying tributes to all the slain militants, Jama’at appealed to the UN and other international human rights bodies to “take effective steps against the forces involved in these human rights violations and file a criminal case in the International Court of Justice against these brutal forces personnel for violating the most precious human rights and committing war crimes in Kashmir.”
(Source: risingkashmir.com/news/jei-urges-world-community-to-safeguard-civilian-rights-in-kashmir-335985.html)

This is how Jama’at-e-Islami J&K seeks to mislead the Muslim youths while at the same time misinforming the international bodies, particularly the United Nations. Propelling the Kashmir issue into the religious antagonism is precisely how the militant ideologues have swayed a section of Kashmiri youth.

In fact, the false narrative of victimhood and the psyche of retaliation spread by religious fanatics among the valley’s emotional and angry youths are catastrophic. Therefore, today’s generation in Kashmir is going haywire, choosing death over degrees and education, hitting the streets, injuring and killing the police personnel and getting themselves injured and killed.

The masters of militancy in Kashmir seem to have organised themselves, with local youth spearheading a pernicious and dangerous revival of extremism. According to the reports, there are around 300 militants in Valley. But what is most shocking is the emergence of the well-educated and urbane militant youths aspiring for death over degrees.

A new and more virulent form of militancy has unfolded in Jammu & Kashmir. It has shifted from the cauldron of the gullible and semi-literate youths to the academic arena including even the PhD scholars.

Among the well-educated militants was a young PhD scholar, Manan Bashir Wani who quit his doctorate in Allied Geology and joined the militant ranks in January this year. Recently, he got killed in an encounter which encounter broke out at Shartgund Bala village in Handwara. Tellingly, Manan came from the area where one of the top ulema of Deoband, Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri was born. He is considered an authoritative Indian Islamic theologian of the 20th century for his notable exegetical contributions in classical Islamic sciences, particularly in the Hadith.
Mannan’s village is adjacent to that of Shah Faesal, the first Kashmiri IAS topper who is seen as source of inspiration for many Muslim Civil Services aspirants. But one wonders what indoctrinated Mannan into choosing militancy over the scholarly path of late Anwar Shah or the cotemporary youth icon Shah Faisal! Clearly, the rebellious Muslim youths appear unmindful of the dangerous turn that the extremism has taken in Kashmir. A utopian death cult bred by the foreign interests and inspired by the radical jihadist outfits in Pakistan in particular and the Middle East in general has held the pluralistic Islamic tradition in Kashmir hostage. What the political leaders fail to do is wean away the youth from this nihilistic path. They actually lack the ideas on how to combat the pernicious ideology of the jihadists.

Recently, ahead of the urban local body (ULB) polls in Jammu and Kashmir, Governor Satya Pal Malik averred that 225 militants who are active in the state, must realise their efforts will achieve nothing. “The LTTE was ten times stronger than you (militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir). They were supported by 12 countries. They got nothing, and you will also get nothing by violence,” he said. But this proved to be nothing short of an optimistic remark on the fate of militancy. It has had no effect on those believing in an ‘armed struggle’ as an integral part of their religious conviction. As a result, more and more educated and urbane youths seem to join the militant ranks, as they held funeral prayers for the slain militants.

Remember the death of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in mid-2016 whose funeral prayer set off a fresh wave of militancy in the valley. Similarly, the funeral prayer for the slain PhD scholar-turned-militant is seen as call for fresh recruitments into militancy.

Though the educated youth joining militancy is not an isolated incident in Kashmir, it has gained momentum during the recent days. Just like the PhD scholar Manan Wani, Sabzar Ahmad was another research scholar-turned-militant. He was rather an IAS aspirant. Going by his family’s statement, he was preparing for the civil services exams and had joined Jamia Milia Islamia in PhD program before he joined the militancy in 2016. Before joining the militant ranks, he had completed his M. Phil. from Jivagee University in Gwalior, M.Sc. from Barkatulla University in Bhopal, Bachelors in Education and B.Sc. from Government Degree College in Anantnag, as widely reported in the media.

According to a senior police official posted in south Kashmir, a number of militants have engineering background while some others are graduates. There are scholars in their ranks as well. The list includes even an assistant professor from Ganderbal, Muhammad Rafi Bhat who was recently killed in an encounter in Pulwama. More to the point, Zakir Moosa, the current chief of Al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Kashmir Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind was also an engineering student. Even the present operational chief of Hizb Riyaz Naikoo is a non-medical graduate. Similarly, Eisa Fazili from Srinagar, Syed Owais Shafi from Kokernang and Aabid Nazir from Shopian were all counted as brilliant students of bright future. But they joined the militant ranks and ruined their promising life and educational career.

The pace with which the educated youth joined militancy surprised even the terror groups and their ideologies. Recently, for the first time in the three-decade militancy in Kashmir, the United Jehad Council (UJC) led by a US-designated global terrorist, Syed Salah-ud-Din, has appealed to Kashmiri youths to “stay away” from armed struggle and concentrate on studies. Similarly, in his statement on October 13, Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen chief Sheikh Jameel-ur-Rehman said: “I appeal to the students to concentrate on studies first and stay away from the armed struggle. The militant commanders should also desist from giving training to budding students”. In this statement which was e-mailed to local news agencies, he said students were “our valuable asset,” and if they don’t concentrate on studies, then “those pro-India elements will find it easy to stretch the period of our subjugation.”

Notably, Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen drew its cadre mainly from Alh-e-Hadith school of thought. Though it had vanished from the militancy landscape in the region, it has made a comeback in 2015 when another well-educated and qualified youth, Mughees Ahmad Mir of Parimpora joined the outfit. He, along with a number of rebels paid allegiance to the Islamic State and thus they have been killed in gunfights with forces during the past 12 to 18 months. An Urdu banner by the militants which appeared for the first time in valley near the residence of Mughees Ahmad Mir, read:
“Mughees Bhai Ka Ek Paigham….Kashmir Banega Darul Islam” (Mughees conveys only one message; Kashmir will become the ‘abode of Islam’). This slogan was written boldly on the banner. It also carried al-Qaeda insignia and images of Osama bin Laden and separately Mughees with a gun in his hand and his month-old son on his lap, as Srinagar-based Kashmiri journalist Ahmed Ali Fayyaz reported in The Quint.
thequint.com/news/al-qaeda-isis-show-signs-in-kashmir-valley

This is a brief account of how the studious Kashmiri youths abandoned their studies to join the militant ranks and got killed. But the crucial question is: Who are the ideologues who approach the university students and even research scholars and influence them to the extent that they agree to choose death over degrees? We must find concrete answers to these questions: how do the Kashmiri students and research scholars turn into militants? Do they make a sudden decision or does someone brainwash them slowly, steadily? And most importantly, what are the effective ways to weed out these underground brainwashers.

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: http://newageislam.com/
 

The post Choosing death over degrees: What inspires the studious Kashmiri youths to choose militancy over scholarship? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now, contrast Zawahiri’s outlook with Zakir Musa’s outcry. The chief commander of the Al-Qaida-affiliate in Kashmir, Ansar Ghazwat-ul Hind, has gained enormous popularity, because of his Islamic caliphate propaganda using an ‘online ideology’ that is speedily gaining ground in the valley of Kashmir.

The jihadist rendition of Islamic caliphate vs. secular state by Ayman Zawahiri was clearly replicated in the outcry of Zakir Musa when he first appeared in the media limelight with this text of his speech:
“If we are fighting for secular state, then I think we cannot be martyrs. I know we have to first fight for freedom and push out Indian army which has occupied us. But, our intention should be that we have to achieve ‘Azadi’ to establish Islamic rule and not for secular state. If we are fighting for secular state then my blood won’t be spilled for that purpose.”
(Source: Kashmir Dispatch: kashmirdispatch.com/? p=149628)

Zawahiri highlighted several irreconcilable conflicts between the principles of Sharia and the premises of secular state quoting from both Qur’an and Hadith and distorting the actual meanings of their texts and other analogies. Thus, he tried to justify his untenable positions in such a cunning way that, to the theologically untrained Muslim youths, this book offered a justification for migration [Hijrah] from the non-Muslim countries to establish an Islamic state. In different territories, it was, by and large, the same tone and tenor that was reflected in the jihadist war-cry like that of the young militant in Kashmir, Zakir Musa, a former militant commander of Hizbul Mujahideen. In his video speech released in May 2017, he addressed the separatist leaders in Kashmir in these unequivocal and categorical words:

“What I said about hanging was not about All Parties Hurriyat Conference leaders but moderates who say after Azadi [freedom] we will establish a secular state. Because I know if we get freedom from India then we will have to fight those who support secular state…..I am hopeful Allah is with me, even if no one supports me. Rest, I stand on my statement. If the intention of Geelani and others is freedom for Islam and imposition of Shariah after freedom, then I am not against them……I have already said that we are fighting for ‘Azadi Baraye Islam’ [freedom for the sake of Islam]. My blood will spill for Islam and not for secular state.”

In another audio clip, Zakir Musa pitched the democratic principles of governance against the basic tenets of Islam and urged the Indian Muslims to boycott the elections and “be wary of the Congress and BJP, the Samajwadi Party and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Trinamul Congress or Bahujan Samaj Party, for all are only faces of tyranny”.

Thus, pitching democracy or secularism against Islam is the key jihadist narrative that has been flogged off by the false ideologues of Islam—from Zawahiri to Zakir. But on the contrary, there is substantial evidence in the Quran and Sunnah (the Prophetic traditions) to make it possible for us to adopt both democracy and secularism as compatible to Islamic principles. It is sufficient to quote these two verses of the Qur’an:
“Those who respond to their Lord and attend to their prayers; who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation and spend out of what We have provided for them” (42:38)

 “So by mercy of Allah, [O Prophet], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely upon Him. (3:159)”

These verses clearly exhort the Islamic principle of Shur’a (consultation) in dealing with the community affairs. In a secular democracy today, mutual consultation is a self-evident proposition. Based on this, even Muslim communities the world over are now inserting the Islamic Sharia rulings, courts and tribunals into the secular legal system and common law. Today, legal decisions based on cultural values at odds with democratic principles are accepted and incorporated into the laws of democratic countries which strengthen the religious freedom.

Significantly, in 2011, the world’s largest Sunni Islamic seminary, Al-Azhar Sharif issued an 11-clause declaration titled “document around the future of Egypt” which was read out on national television by the Al-Azhar Grand Shaikh Ahmad al-Tayyibb himself. The prominent Islamic jurists who participated in the drafting of the al-Azhar document explored the possibility of declaring a “secular” state as compatible to Islamic Shariah. After serious deliberations, the Al-Azhar ended up describing the future ideal state as “national” (al-Waṭaniyyah), “constitutional” (al-Dustūriyyah), “democratic” (al-Dimuqrāṭiyyah) and “modern” (al-Hadītha).

Thus, this declaration of the leading Al-Azhar Islamic scholars demanded the establishment of “a national, constitutional, democratic and modern state, founded on a constitution approved by the nation”. It also sought “the separation of powers, guarantees for human rights, the power to legislate given to the elected representatives of the people in accordance with the correct Islamic understanding.”

The Al-Azhar declaration premised that the principle of governance according to Shariah is merely defined by the convergence between the principles operating in governance and in the Islamic tradition. It clearly stated that there is no “religious state” in Islam, be it in its history, its legislation, or in its civilization. Islam has left to people “the administration of their society and the choice of the tools and of the institutions that realize their interests, with the condition that the comprehensive principles of the Islamic Shariah be the main source of legislation, and as long as those who follow other revealed religions may refer to their own religious principles (Shari’ah Dīniyyah) to deal with their affairs of personal status.”

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Pitching Democracy and Secularism against Islam: A false paradigm appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Several Urdu dailies have noted that “Deen Bachao, Desh Bachao” rally gathered thousands of Muslims from Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Jharkhand who made their views heard. They assembled to state that ‘under the present dispensation, both Islam and the country are in danger’.

Actually, the ‘Deen Bachao, Desh Bachao’ rally at Patna’s Gandhi Maidan was primarily organised by Maulana Wali Rehmani, the AIMPLB general secretary. He is also head of the Imarat-e-Sharia in Patna, which is an influential Islamic seminary and fatwa-issuing authority particularly for Muslims in Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha. Maulana Rahmani lashed out against the ruling government for failing to protect the Muslim personal laws. He assured the Muslim gathering in Gandhi Maidan that, “no attack on their personal laws will, henceforth, be tolerated”.

But one wonders why Maulana Rahmani who emerged as ‘hero’ of the massive Muslim gathering at Patna’s Gandhi Maidan for a roasting attack on the current regime, has fallen from grace now. Many of those who heaped high praises on him till the end of the rally are now castigating him on social media and in the Urdu press.

Questioning the ‘ulterior motives’ of the rally’s organisers, majority of them being Islamic clergymen, noted Muslim journalist at The Wire, Arfa Khanum Sherwani asks: “How come the maulvis are the self-imposed custodians of the Muslim society”? Lamenting on this rally, she avers that in a secular democracy like in India, calling such massive gatherings for religious polarization does not augur well for their future. She has pertinently asked this question: “Why the clergymen have failed to provide constructive leadership right from Shah Bano till the case of Saira Bano”?    
(Source: thewireurdu.com/29587/arfa-khanum-sherwani-on-deen-bachao-desh-bachao-conference/)

While addressing the Gandhi Maidan rally, Maulana Rahmani particularly denounced the government for introducing the Muslim Women Bill 2017 (Protection of Rights on Marriage). He decried it as an “interference with the Shariat” and demanded revoking the bill. “We waited for four years, expecting that BJP would learn to run the nation as per the constitution. But we were wrong, take for instance Muslim personal laws which are under attack. We are compelled to inform our countrymen that Islam and our country is in danger under the present government at the centre.” He went on expressing his grave concerns about the Shariah in India such as: “Following triple Talaq, it will be Uniform Civil Code and also ban on Azaan through loudspeakers. There is a long list”.

Thus, the motif behind this massive gathering, as clearly stated in numerous posters and advertisings regularly published in the Urdu press, was to create a nationwide Muslim agitation against the government’s ‘inability’ to protect the Shariah and its ‘temerity’ to strike on the Muslim personal laws in India. Maulana Rahmani contended that the Indian Muslim community must wake up now to tackle the ‘onslaught’ on Shariah. “There are numerous issues on RSS’ agenda which this government will attempt to execute. Following triple talaq, it will be Uniform Civil Code and also ban Azaan through loudspeakers”, he averred.

But interestingly, having launched scathing attacks on the government’s interference in the Shariah laws, Maulana Rahmani himself is facing the ire of the Muslim community members and close observers. For instance, an Urdu journalist Naiyer Fatmi, formerly associated with the Urdu daily Qaumi Awaz, has stated: “Deen Aur Desh Bacha Hua Hai. Pehle BJP Wale Aur Board Ke Log Thik Ho Jayen,” (both Islam and country are safe. First let the BJP leaders and Board people mend their ways).

In fact, Muslim journalists like Naiyer Fatmi (formerly with Qaumi Awaz) and Abdul Qadir of The Times of India as well as intellectuals like Professor Mohammad Sajjad of AMU were repeatedly questioning the motive and necessity of the rally. But sadly, they were lambasted, pilloried and even trolled on social media. Amid this scathing criticism, famous Urdu novelist and Muslim writer, Musharraf Alam Zauqi penned and posted his article titled “Mr. Wali Rahmani, history of Indian Muslims will not forgive you on the deal you have made”! I stumbled upon this piece on a social media group “Fikr-o-Khabar”. It reads:

“April 15 was dedicated to ‘save religion and nation’ (Deen Deen Bachao, Desh Bachao). I was critical of this sloganeering right from the beginning. But when I discussed it with my friends, they silenced me by simply arguing that it was about time Muslims exhibited their strength. Now, when it comes to the mentioning of Ulema, I keep mum.”

Zauqi further writes that when he first knew of the plan to organize the rally at Gandhi Maidan, he was convinced that it was not going to augur well for the community. He opines that while the display of the ‘Muslim strength’ may cause unsolicited issues with the majority community, the mixing of ‘Deen’ and ‘Desh’ reeks of a deeper conspiracy and an ideological crisis of the religious leadership. He gives a concrete suggestion that “Muslims must understand that the majority of Hindus still stand by them for protecting their identity. But such events cater to the marginalization of the Muslims, as they cause antagonism towards the majority community”.

Even many of those who earlier expressed a wishful thinking about the rally are now dismayed at the perceived ‘deal’ between Imarat-e-Shariah Patna and the ruling party (JDU) in Bihar. A senior Muslim journalist with a prominent Hindi daily says that he had staunchly supported and defended the rally at all platforms. “But now I realise that I was wrong. From now onwards, I have decided to expose all the designs of the so-called leaders of the community”, he avers.

As a matter of fact, the common Muslim masses had travelled from across Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha despite the scorching summer heat, with a view to discussing the crucial community issues. But the deal between Imarat-e-Shariah and JD (U) to immediately announce the rally co-organiser Khalid Anwar an MLC has angered those who took part in the rally with great fervour. “Itna Sasta Sauda Kar Liya (what a cheap deal they have made),” commented a man who had worked day in and day out for weeks, spending money from his own pocket to make the ‘Deen Bachao, Desh Bachao’ rally a success. His comments were targeted at Maulana Rahmani in the context of Khalid Anwar being nominated as an MLC during the rally.

Thus, ‘Deen Bachao, Desh Bachao’ rally is increasingly being criticized as an event to benefit the Bihar JDU politics rather than the Muslim community. But Maulana Rahmani—popularly known as ‘Ameer-e-Shariat’—has tried to rebuff the allegation of making a ‘deal’ to nominate Khalid Anwar as an MLC. In his recent press release, he has attached great importance to the rally and has stated: “It was for the first time after the independence that this large gathering of Muslims came together to reclaim their rights and protect the Deen and Shariat. Hence, this conference has infused a new passion among the Muslims to showcase their numeric strength in this democratic country”, as reported in the Urdu daily Hamara Samaj today.

But what Indian Muslims at large fail to fathom is that, as long as they are indoctrinated into believing that “Islam or Shariah is in danger”, the clerics will continue to exploit their energies in such large-scale gatherings organized on the public donations and funds raised from Masjids and Madrasas.

While the Law Commission’s public notices on UCC have gone unnoticed among Muslims which will raise another storm, they should seize this opportunity to debate whether the Shariah is in danger or in need of rethinking (Ijtihad) and constant renewal (Tajdeed).
It’s highly important to note that the Hanafi Islamic jurists (Fuqaha’) introduced the idea of employing the ‘Urf (customary practice) as a guiding principle for legislation. If Indian Muslims take a careful look at several assumptions incorporated into classical Islamic law based on the ‘Urf (custom) and ‘Adah (tradition), they will be able to re-examine their point of view on the basis of a fresh interpretation of Qur’an and Sunnah, guided by customary practices, societal values and contemporary ethics of the land rather than the medieval customs and practices.

In essence, the significance of ‘Urf in Islamic legal tradition implies that when the prevailing custom changes, several rulings of the Shari’ah also get adapted to them. Prof. Hashim Kamali states: “The Shari’ah has, in principle, accredited approved custom as a valid ground in the determination of its rules relating to Halal and Haram.” However, the customary practice must not go against the definitive principles (nusus) of the Qur’an. If it does so, custom will be given no consideration. “But if the custom opposes only certain aspects of the text, then custom is allowed to act as a limiting factor on the text”, he writes in his book “Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence” [Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 2003]. 

Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Forget saving Shariah, renew it appeared first on SabrangIndia.