Swiss voters on Sunday narrowly backed a ban on full face Burqa for Muslim women. An official referendum has shown that in Switzerland—a country which is actually one of the first modern-style democracies in the world — around 51.21 percent of voters and a majority of federal Switzerland’s cantons are against the wearing of Burqa in public places. Some 1,426,992 voters backed the ban, while 1,359,621 were against, on a 50.8 percent turnout. 

According to reports, Switzerland will only allow women to wear it inside their respective places of worship and for “native customs”.  It was, in fact, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) which launched the proposal of the Burqa ban in public places. It has earlier held some processions and put-up posters that featured a woman in a black Burqa/Niqab with captions like “end extremism” and “fight against radical Islam” etc.

This writer has a brief experience of spending some time in certain parts of Switzerland. To my utter surprise, Burqa-clad women are hardly seen anywhere in Switzerland, except in some parts of Zurich, Lausanne and Saint Gallen where Muslims from Turkey, Pakistan, and several Arab countries are staying as migrants and refugees.

It is not surprising as only five percent of the total Swiss population, which would be around 86 lakh people, are Muslims and they mostly come from Turkey, Bosnia, Kosovo and former Yugoslavia which themselves hardly ever had a ‘Burqa culture’. According to research by the University of Lucerne, almost no Muslim woman in Switzerland wears a Burqa or any full-face veil. The University of Lucerne has found in its recent study that the Burqa, Niqab or full-face veil is hardly ever worn in Switzerland, not to speak of any one advocating it. Even in the religious places like the Turkish Sunni mosques in Zurich, Berne or Geneva, or the Shia places of worship in Schlieren and Saint Gallen, fewer women wear burqa or full-face cover. Then what is the reason behind the sudden strong reactions of Muslim communities in Switzerland. They condemned the campaign against the Swiss ban on Burqa, describing the day it was discussed in the Swiss parliament as a “black day” for Muslims?

Tellingly, the newly-founded Islamic Central Council of Switzerland and the Association of Islamic Organisations in Zurich (VIOZ), the largest cantonal Islamic umbrella organization in Switzerland have expressed great concern over the Swiss vote that, they say, has “proved an increase in Islamophobia in Switzerland since the ban on minarets in 2009.” It is worth mentioning that the Swiss citizens, both Christians, agnostics and atheists, had voted on the proposal to ban the building of minarets when the SVP claimed the building was a ‘sign of Islamisation’.

In the wake of all this, a similar discourse on the whole issue has been renewed in India’s Islamic circles. Dr. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, a Prof. of Islamic studies and Saira Shah Halim, social and women rights activist, Jawed Anand and the Indian Muslim Secular Democracy (IMSD) have all weighed in. They propound that the full-face veil is not mentioned in the Qur’an, and that only head covering is Islamic or Qur’anic, and not the covering of full face for women. Also, in the earliest period of Islam, that’s is the Prophetic Age, called Ahd-e-Risalat, women were not clad in Burqa anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula.

Regardless of the actual reasons why many Swiss voters support the Burqa ban in their country, the fact remains that the Arabic-style Abaaya or the post-1979 Islamic Revolution Iranian Hijab or Niqab, which later transformed into what we earlier called “Burqa” and now “Burkha” in the Indian subcontinent, are not actually ‘Islamic’. All these have been imposed on Muslim women in different periods to pursue the pan-Islamic political ends. Hence, they can be, at best, seen today as different regional or ‘cultural’ practices in Muslim societies, and not as part of religion or as an essential part of the Islamic code of conduct. More significantly, it cannot be justified or juxtaposed with religion as one’s ‘personal choice’ or ‘freedom of religion’ under the large ambit of human rights in the modern democratic countries, from France, Switzerland to India.

In fact, some Muslim countries of higher Islamic authorities like Egypt, the cradle of Sunni Islam’s largest seminary Al-Azhar Sharif, Tunisia, which is a new regional epicenter of the evolving neo-Salafist theology, Azerbaijan, a progressive and modern Muslim nation in Central Asia, have either banned or introduced strict laws against the full face-coverings. Turkey, which had a little stricter law against the full-face veil, especially the Saudi-Arabic style, has only abrogated it now under the current regime of the aspiring global Islamist leader, Rajab Tayyab Erdogan. In Egypt, the full-face covering has been seen as part of the anti-regime political Islamist expression of resistance. The 1996 Fatwa issued by the then Grand Mufti of Egypt and Sheikh Al-Azhar, Sayyid Tantawi categorically stated that the full-face veil was not required in Islam, and has not been mandated by the Qur’anic verses related to Hijab or Jilbab.

But ironically, in India, most traditionalist Islamic theologians and Muftis are less aware of these established Traditions and Texts (Nusus) and are more abreast of the 18th century Fatwa documents like Fatawa e Alamgiriyya (compiled at the order of Aurangzeb), and Fatawa e Razawiyyah (of Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan). The reason is that the Mufti-making ‘ifta’ curriculum, which is around a 2 to 5-year course in the Sunni Madrasas has become what they themselves call ‘Sho’aba e Waqt Guzari’ (a department for ‘time pass’).

But on the other hand, the established theologians of Islam around the world have debunked the untenable theological justifications around the full-face veil of all forms. Busting the myth of Burqa/Burkha ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm Abū Shuqqah has elucidated in his well-researched Arabic book titled as, “Freedom of Women in the Prophetic Age” (تحرير المرأة في عصر الرسالة) that there was actually no imposition of the full-face veil in times of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He has ample proof from the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic Traditions (Sahih Ahadith) to buttress this point.

A rather radically new and thought-provoking narrative is that the un-Qur’anic patriarchy brutalizes the Muslim men more than their women, as it leads to the de-humanization of the whole community, especially the men as ‘guardians’ or ‘controllers’ (Qawwamun) of the Muslim society.  All in all, an emerging moderate Muslim thinking is that the Burqa culture in the Indian setting is part of deep-rooted religious patriarchy which has its origins in the Constantinople Christianity, the Byzantine theology or more conventionally and systematically in the Jewish Hassidic community, an ultra-orthodox sect which spread in the Europe with its birth in Israel.

The latest write-ups by Ghazala Wahhab, and excerpts from her book “Born a Muslim: Some Truths about Islam in India” as reproduced by New Age Islam have also sought some intellectual contestations on the related issues.  Although there’s nothing new in Wahab’s book, it has been placed among the books of the week, which reinforces a new narrative that the “progressive” Indian Muslims were Communists or Leftists though steeped in Islamic culture by way of mannerisms and attire, and thus she singles out an Islamic feministic outlook advocating for a complete gender equality in Islam. But then she takes the position of a traditionalist Muslim when it comes to commenting on the Prophet’s first wife Hazrat Khadija. Wahab writes: “How appalling it is then that this astonishing and unparalleled story of a remarkable medieval woman has been relegated to the footnotes of Islamic history, and is remembered only for her piety and devotion to her husband”.

In fact, what we need to address is the misplaced religiosity attached to the regional Arabic, Turkish or Iranian cultural and identity expressions disguised as ‘Islamic’ in the Indian subcontinent. Those who seek to revive the ‘actual’, ‘authentic’ or ‘puritan’ Islam in India–be they Salafis, Deobandis, Shias or some of the Barelwis—they all need to look at how Islam was best practised in India as an indigenous, vernacularized faith tradition which accentuated and enhanced the overall image and socio-economic status of Muslims in different periods.

But the current state of ‘purified’ Indian Muslims, largely churned out from the ultra-orthodox Islamist ghettos, traditionalist madrasas and Maktabs from Kashmir to Kerala are indicative of their religious, cultural and socio-economic decay. We need to trace the syncretic Indian Islam’s history from the 7th century Arabia to how it arrived in India through trade routes and a great deal of cultural interactions and inter-connections which evolved through the centuries to reach its present state—which we term today as ‘Indian Islam’.

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

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

The post Swiss Vote for Burqa Ban and Its Reaction among Indian Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Star/ Focus Bangla

Hundreds of people ransacked temples and vandalized homes of the Hindu minority in the Brahmanbairs district of eastern Bangladesh. Over 100 Hindu homes and 17 temples were vandalised and looted since October 30 in Nasirnagar upazila, Bangladesh. According to media reports, this violence was unleashed by an angry mob over an alleged Facebook post ‘insulting the Ka’aba’—the house of Allah. 

Hindus made up 13.5 per cent of the total population in Bangladesh in the 1970s. Regrettably, the population of the religious minority has been steadily shrinking. From an earlier 13.5 per cent, they are reduced to an estimated 8.5 per cent now. The recent brutal attack on an already frightened religious minority in Bangladesh shows the miserable failure of the government to combat the growing Islamist communalism in the country. The Bangladeshi journalist Julfikar Ali Manik has rightly noted that “attacks on Hindus are not unusual in Bangladesh, but it is rare to see multiple crowds targeting temples in an organized way as they did on Sunday and Monday”.

As the country’s human rights commission has initiated an inquiry into the massacre, scores of human rights activists have taken out protests. At a rally recently held in front of National Press Club in Dhaka, Syed Abu Zafar Ahmed, general secretary, Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) strongly stated: “The government has failed to protect Hindus and other minorities for which, radicalised and communal groups succeeded attacking them for several times”, as reported in Dhaka Tribune.

Certainly, the attack is not justifiable by any stretch of imagination.  However, it’s important to discern the fanatics’ argument to better fathom the extremist minds. They buttress that it was tenable to vandalise Hindu temples after they saw on Facebook an edited photo of a Hindu deity inside the Ka’aba. It was something they took as a punishable offense against the holiest site of Islam — Makkah (Mecca).

Makkah is, indeed, the most sacred place in Islam. Millions of Muslims from across the world gather in Makkah to perform the annual Islamic pilgrimage of Hajj. Though Makkah consists of Najd, Taif, Jadda among other historic cities, however, when we say “Makkah”, we generally refer to the Ka’aba.  Ka’ba is also the Qibla — the the direction that Muslims face when they offer the five-time prayers (Salah or Namaz). Given this religious significance and sanctity any insult intended against the holiest Islamic site is indeed untenable.

One wonders where these extremist Islamists were when Makkah was recently attacked by a ballistic missile. Let alone the soft-core Islamists, even the hardcore Islamists of Bangladesh kept silent over the recent ballistic missile attack at Makkah. Wasn’t it an utterly shameful and offensive act? Why did they overlook the fact that it was no less a denigration of the holiest site in Islam?

A similar silence was also maintained when another holy site of Islam, Medina was under terror attack only a few months ago. No influential Muslim leader questioned as to how some Pakistani terrorists backed by the Saudi militants carried out the attack on Medina, which is under the utmost custody of the Saudi Kingdom.

But the accused Hindu fisherman, even after he has denied posting on Facebook any content offensive to Makkah, is seen as an ‘obstinate enemy of Islam’. Even after he has been arrested by the Bangladeshi police, the country’s religious zealots wantonly attacked the innocent members of the Hindu religious minority. Clearly, this is a brazen violation of law and order in the country. What the Bangladeshi radical Islamists have done in their self-styled defense of Makkah, is out-an-out religious extremism.

More regrettably, we have heard no strong opposition of this sick-mindedness from Muslim leaders and politicians in India. No protest against the fresh attacks on Bangladeshi Hindu minority. What does this ‘deafening silence’ of the Indian Muslim religio-politicians reveal?

It is noteworthy that majority of the Hindu community in India shows an avowed support to the Muslim minority in all cases where they are seen as ‘victims’. Be it the cow vigilantes lynching Akhlaq Ahmad or Najeeb Ahmad missing from JNU, Muslims in India have a huge support from non-Muslims, particularly secular and progressive Hindu members of the Indian society. Only two days ago, around 500 students from JNU, Delhi University and other central universities came out protesting for Najeeb Ahmad.

Close to 300 students took part in the sit-in, 'Light A Ray Of Hope For Najeeb', to express their solidarity with Ahmed and his grieving family. Over 250 of them have even been taken to the police station. So an avid support of non-Muslims towards their Muslim brethren in India is clearly seen in every incident of significance.

But when similar situation arises in Muslim countries in an attack against the religious minorities, one wonders why we Muslims show no spirited support of the victims, and no vehement opposition to the religious fanatics. One finds a note of introspection on part of us Muslims completely missing in such situations. It’s time we muster courage of conviction to speak for the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim world.

In fact, the violent attacks on the Hindu religious minority in Bangladesh should have evoked strong protest among us. But it is quite distressing to note that the attacks on Christians and Shias in Pakistan and on Hindus in Bangladesh have gone unchallenged by the Indian Muslims.  Only a few processions were taken out by the progressive Muslim activists, students and youths without any strong participation of the leading Muslim organisations.

In 2013, when similar attacks on Shias and Hindus occurred in Pakistan and Bangladesh, a group of Muslim youths held a candle light vigil and peace march registering their protest. They raised slogans against the government of Pakistan and Bangladesh holding placards which said “Stop Genocide of Hindus”.

A student of Jamia Millia Islamia had courage of conviction to say: “Muslims in India are quite concerned about what is happening in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We condemn the attacks in the strongest possible terms and demand that the governments of the two countries bring the perpetrators to book and ensure that the minorities remain safe and secured.”

The reason for the fresh vicious attacks on Hindu minority in Bangladesh, as the radical Islamists claim, was the local fisherman’s Facebook post which allegedly ‘denigrated the Ka’aba — the holist Islamic place of worship. Though the fisherman denied sharing the post and the police immediately arrested him for ‘hurting religious sentiment’, the religious goons were going haywire brazenly violating law and order in the country. While a few Muslims stopped at holding protests against the posting, the extremist herd in Bangladesh went berserk in its religious zeal, attacking the innocent members of the minority community. The unruly mob of religious fanatics pulled down over a dozen temples looting more than a hundred houses in Brahmanbaria.

One might ask how Indian Muslims would react if someone in India indulged in an offensive remark against Islam or Muslims. Obviously, they could only hold a protest demonstration demanding penal action, as they did in the recent case of Kamlesh Tiwari, who was accused of circulating pamphlets against Islam and the Muslims.

Tiwari has been in a Lucknow jail since his arrest last December under the National Security Act (NSA) — a tough 1980 law that makes securing bail difficult for an accused. His arrest occurred after students of Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband and other members of the Muslim community staged a protest. Though a few fanatic Islamist clerics under Maulana Anwarul Haq Sadiq of Bijnor offered 51 lakh rupees to behead Tiwari for ‘denigrating Islam’ and thus take the law in hand, no Indian Muslim got carried away to indulge in such an unlawful act.

But what is happening in neighbouring Muslim countries is completely distressing.  Not long ago, Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab was assassinated for advocating reforms in Pakistan's blasphemy laws. He was killed by his own commando Malik Mumtaz Qadri, who believed Taseer had committed blasphemy.

Of late, the ‘Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama’at’, one of the largest Islamic movements in Bangladesh whose members in Brahmanbarhia organised a rally protesting against ‘the anti-Islamic post’ has denied being involved in the hate attacks on the religious minority. The leaders of the Ahle Sunnat have rightly stated that “the attacks were aimed to disrupt the communal harmony”. Mosaheb Uddin Bakhtiar, member secretary of the Islamic movement says that there was no instance of extremist violence perpetrated by the Ahle Sunnat — an apex body of Sunni Muslims in Bangladesh. “We observed a peaceful shutdown on April 20 this year. No one can say Ahle- Sunnat unleashed violence”, he said briefing the media.

It is gratifying that, in the wake of this anti-Hindu terror attack, the Ahle Sunnat has planned an anti-militancy rally in Dhaka slated for November 12. It might heal the broken hearts of the Hindu victims in the country. But it will be of little help if the Bangladeshi Muslims merely denounce the attackers and don’t combat the Islamist communalism deeply-entrenched in the country. It’s time mainstream Muslims in Bangladesh curb the very ideological stimulus which has caused the rising scale of violence against the religious minorities, particularly Hindus, for decades.

(A regular New Age Islam columnist, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a scholar of Comparative Religion, Classical Arabic and Islamic sciences, cultural analyst and researcher in Media and Communication Studies).

(This article was first published on New Age Islam).

The post Why are Indian Muslims Silent Over Atrocities against Hindus in Neighbouring Bangladesh? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, a considerable number of Zakir Naik’s fans on social media, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, have declared all those Muslims who are against  Naik as kafir (infidel) and munafiq (hypocrite). “Those who oppose Zakir Naik are kafir (one who hides the truth)”, writes a follower of his, Saeed Ibn George on his Twitter account.

Personally, I have also received such an insolent accusation, apart from many gruesome threats from the diehard supporters of Naik. Of late, an enthusiast female adherent of his, seemingly from the UK, has posed these questions to me:  

"[You are] criticizing Zakir Naik who has helped thousands of people to revert. I personally have 2,000 revert friends in UK and each one of them has been influenced by Mr. Naik".

“I don’t know if there is any word worse than kafir that I would have used for you. People like you are destroying Islam… Most of the Dehlvi women I know from Delhi are married to idol worshippers. Why don’t you guide them first???” [you are] criticizing Zakir Naik who has helped thousands of people to revert. I personally have 2,000 revert friends in UK and each one of them has been influenced by Mr. Naik. What have you done in helping people revert?”

Without any knee-jerk reactions to the lady, I simply expressed my amazement at her naivety. I wondered how many new-age young Muslims like her are consciously or unconsciously being indoctrinated into a dangerous radical doctrine called takfirism (declaring each other kafir). At the moment, I was reminded of the Prophet’s hadith (tradition) delivered in his last sermon of the pilgrimage (Hujjatul Wida) in which he warned Muslims:  “Do not revert to takfir after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another,” is a part of the long discourse delivered by the Prophet on the occasion of Hujjatul Wida.

As a matter of fact, takfirism is specific to a particular stream of thought in Islam and is not common to all Muslims. This ideological extremism has blatantly abolished all the essential principles of tolerance and plurality enshrined in Islam. While the holy Qur'an repeatedly exhorts that “there should be no compulsion in religion” and that “all people are free to practice any religion they like”, the hardcore takfirists are hell-bent on imposing their beliefs upon everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, declaring those who don’t follow them kafir or at least munafiq (hypocrite). In their crazy bid to accord it an Islamic justification, they selectively apply verses of the Holy Qur'an and, thus, further their nefarious ends.

Now the question arises: should this takfirist understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked? Obviously, it threatens not only individuals but the entire social stability at the local, national, and regional levels creating serious geopolitical dangers to the world at large.

But the most regrettable is the inability or unwillingness of world governments to stem the tide of growing takfirism. Particularly, the Western leaders are still oblivious of takfirism, which originated in the state religion of Saudi Arabia — Wahhabism — which has also given rise to the takfiri terrorists of ISIS. Similarly, Muslim governments have not yet curbed takfirism even after the takfirists’ attack on Madina, the holiest site of Islam. The USA, France, Germany, Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have already been reeling from a series of brutal takfirist terror attacks, but they are not yet calling spade a spade.

The national and international media outlets often portray the radical Islamist extremists or terrorists as jihadists. Of course, jihadism is not Islam. But the term ‘jihadists’ makes the matter further complicated for the common Muslims unable to differentiate between mujahid (inner-struggler) and jihadist (Islamist fighter). Thus, they develop a wrong impression about the media portrayal of the global terrorists who falsely claim to be fighting for the sake of Islam or Muslims.

It can be recalled that the term ‘takfirism’ or ‘takfirist’ first appeared in the Western media when the BBC investigative journalist Peter Taylor television produced his series, 'The New Al Qaeda' in 2005. But it is still not common in the vast majority of media outlets. However, some sagacious Islamic scholars have referred to all the Islamist terrorists as takfirists. They have identified the fighters and supporters of the Daesh or ISIS as takfirists, as they emerged in June 2014 claiming to be the members of an “Islamic” State of Iraq and Syria.

The first Islamic scholar who contextualised the religious extremism of ISIS as Takfirism is Shaikh Habib Ali al-Jifri one of the progressive Islamic scholars in the UAE, who also runs Tabah Foundation to confront the extremist ideologies in the region.

In his interview with Sky News Arabia in July 2016, he explains how he seeks to confront the extremist discourse of the ISIS using the references from the Quran and Hadith. Al-Jifri says:

“In order to diagnose and describe the ISIS properly, one part of the problem is that it relies on [referencing] scriptural texts and sources. Some of these texts are inviolable. Some are based on independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) that is open to reconsideration. And some are based on legal judgments that are wrong and were not recognised [by legal authorities]. This part of the problem is related to religious discourse and it is our (religious leadership’s) responsibility to confront ISIS and pay the price of that even if it be with our lives. But we also have to confront those followers and students [of these religious leaders] who do not like to talk about ‘religious renewal’ (tajdid fil deen) which they think leads to ‘dilution of the religion’.”

Al-Jifri also expounds in his sermons, very popular among the liberal Arab Muslims, that, “the root-cause of the Islamist extremism is the lack of love and connection with the Prophet Muhammad”.

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOHfImXuO5k)

Given the recent terror strike on Madina, where the Prophet himself is buried, al-Jifri’s argument makes sense. Those who cannot harbour love and veneration for their own Prophet can go to any extent in their religious hate, xenophobia and takfirist terrorism. This is precisely what the latest fatwa issued by the Indian Islamic seminary Jamia Manzar-e-Islam has also pointed out.    
Perhaps, Mufti Mohammed Salim Noori, the spokesperson of the seminary has referred to the same hateful ideology in his anti-terrorism fatwa, saying that the terrorists like “Hafiz Saeed promotes people who have written disparaging remarks against the Prophet Mohammed”.

The 18th century takfirist ideologue Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi wrote in his book, 'Majm’u al-Fatawa al-Aamma': “One cannot be a perfect believer (Muslim) until he/she shows hatred in his/her words and actions against the non-Muslims”.

Undeniably, the takfirists are antagonistic to all the Muslims who love and venerate Prophet Muhammad and other holy saints of Islam calling them idol-worshippers and hence kafir. They show equal abhorrence to the pluralistic Muslims who befriend people of other faiths. This results from the hardcore belief in the takfirist doctrine of “al-Wala wal-Bara” (loyalty with Muslims and disavowal to the non-Muslims). The 18th century takfirist ideologue Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi wrote in his book, 'Majm’u al-Fatawa al-Aamma': “One cannot be a perfect believer (Muslim) until he/she shows hatred in his/her words and actions against the non-Muslims”.

The Indian Express has quoted Mufti Saleemt Noori to have said in his fatwa that, “followers of Islam have been asked not to listen to such people or follow them”. This  fatwa was issued in a reply to a jurisprudential query (called istifta) posed by one Mohd Moinuddin of Jaipur who had mentioned that Hafiz Saeed believed in objectionable writings against Prophet Mohammad.

Jamia Razvia Manzar-e-Islam has launched a course on de-radicalisation titled “Islam and Terrorism”. According to the madrasa rector, it is aimed to teach students a tolerant Islam to curb radicalism and extremism in their respective localities. But regrettably, the takfirist writings and thoughts that actually mobiliset the potential terrorists are not being rebutted in any so-called anti-terrorism Islamic curriculum.

In his fatwa, Mufti Saleem Noori replied that “having any type of connection with persons working against the dignity of Allah and the Prophet was haraam (forbidden in Islam)”. “Therefore, it is compulsory for every Muslim not to follow him and keep away from his ideology,” it stated. The fatwa also declared Hafiz Saeed, “a man with terrorist ideology”, and the one “whose acts have brought infamy to Islam and Muslims across the world”. Besides, Mufti Saleem Noori hinted at the un-Islamic ideology and points of view that provoked people to create terror. It is also worth mentioning that Jamia Razvia Manzar-e-Islam has launched a course on de-radicalisation titled “Islam and Terrorism”. According to the madrasa rector, it is aimed to teach students a tolerant Islam to curb radicalism and extremism in their respective localities.

But regrettably, the takfirist writings and thoughts that actually mobilise the potential terrorists are not being rebutted in any so-called anti-terrorism Islamic curriculum. They are promoted in India today as freely as in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. This rhetoric is the easiest tool for the ISIS and the ilk to catch the imagination of the gullible Muslim youths. The self-proclaimed Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has long said: "a generation of Muslim youths has been trained based on the forgotten doctrine of al-Wala wal Bara (loyalty with Muslims and disavowal to the non-Muslims)".

Of course, Mufti Saleem Noori is well-intentioned in his fatwa against Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan-based Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief and his "terrorist ideology" that has "brought defamation to Islam". But the caution is warranted on giving the 'fatwa al-takfir’ (the religious edict declaring anyone kafir). 

True, the terrorists cannot be considered Muslim in the true sense, as the Prophet clearly defined Muslim as “the one from whose hand and tongue people are safe”.  But the Islamic jurists (muftis) must take cognizance of their approach towards countering terrorism. By declaring the terrorists “kafirs” (infidels), they are also, unintentionally, going their way. The Kharjites of ISIS also declare all those who don’t believe in their vile ideology as kafir and mushrik (infidel and polytheist) and hence slaughter them.

The fatwa against radicalisation and extremism is certainly a welcome move. However, the anti-extremism ulema cannot stem the tide of the global Kharijite terrorism — which stems from Takfirism — by just issuing fatwas of kufr against the terrorists.

The Barelwi fatwa against Hafiz Saeed and his cult of violent extremism and jihadism is certainly a welcome move. However, the anti-extremism muftis cannot stem the tide of the global Kharijite terrorism— which stems from takfirism — by just issuing fatwas of takfir against the terrorists. They must engage in a brainstorming on how they can genuinely counter the extremist jihadist narratives. And it is only possible with a well-considered approach to the refutation and rebuttals of the takfirist theological underpinnings which, unchallenged by the ulema, are impacting on the Muslim religious zealots. To begin with it, Indian ulema will have to evolve a robust and progressive interpretation of the Islamic scriptures and a well-reasoned and rational understanding of the Islamic doctrines such as jihad, hakimiyah (God’s rule over the earth), khilafah (Islamic caliphate) and ishtishhad (seeking martyrdom) and al-wala wal-bara (love and hatred for the sake of God). These are some of the theological terminologies and references from the Quran and hadith that the violent Jihadists misconstrue to justify their atrocities.

Indian muftis need to articulate a complete and coherent Islam-based refutation of the takfirist theology itself, rather than resorting to the takfirism against the terrorists. Only then they can help to rescue the new-age gullible Muslim youths from the creeping extremist indoctrination.

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a scholar of Comparative Religion, Classical Arabic and Islamic sciences, cultural analyst and researcher in Media and Communication Studies.

This article was first published on New Age Islam.
 

The post Issuing Fatwas of Little Use in Fighting Terrorism in Islam’s Name appeared first on SabrangIndia.