·         Muslim thinkers have often interpreted the West through Islamic ideals and secondary sources instead of studying Western civilization on its own terms.

·         The ideas of Shariati, Mawdudi, Qutb, and Nadwi provide important critiques of Western materialism, imperialism, and secularism, but remain largely reactive in their approach.

·         A balanced comparison must distinguish between Western ideals and practices, as well as Islamic ideals and the actual practices of Muslim societies.

·         Madrasas and Islamic universities should introduce specialized Western studies based on primary sources, including Western history, philosophy, political theory, and social institutions.

·         Genuine understanding of the West is essential for addressing modernity, migration, Islamophobia, democracy, liberty, feminism, and global political and economic challenges

Muslims have long struggled to understand the West, often relying on secondary sources and comparing Western practices with Islamic ideals rather than engaging with Western realities on their own terms. This fundamental methodological error has produced a distorted picture of Western civilization, fostering false notions of Islamic superiority while leaving Muslim societies ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of modernity, migration, Islamophobia, and ideological contestation. The path forward requires a radical reorientation: understanding the West from its own sources, recognizing its internal contradictions and achievements, and building specialized knowledge institutions, particularly in madrasas and Islamic universities, that can produce genuine comprehension rather than reactive polemic.

Westoxification and the Legacy of Shariati

The Iranian philosopher Ali Shariati coined the term “Westoxification” (Gharbzadegi) to describe a civilizational malaise afflicting Muslim societies, an intoxication with Western materialism, technology, and values that erodes Islamic identity and revolutionary potential. Shariati argued that Western-dominated modernization serves the market interests of European industrialists, converting non-Europeans into consumers of surplus production while blunting their resistance to imperialist domination. For Shariati, this was not merely cultural imitation but a deeper spiritual and political poisoning, the westernized Iranian generation abandoned religion as useless for resolving contemporary problems, accepting West-constructed values that declared Islam irrelevant to modern challenges.

Shariati’s critique extended beyond governments to Western intellectuals themselves, positioning Westoxification as a degenerative but ultimately rational disease with identifiable causes, symptoms, and potential cures. He distinguished between “Red Shi’ism” (revolutionary, populist, aligned with the oppressed) and “Black Shi’ism” (clericalized, state-sanctioned distortion), attempting to reformulate Islam as an ideology of liberation for the mustadh’afin (the dispossessed). Yet even Shariati’s sophisticated analysis remained partly reactive, framing Islam primarily in opposition to Western capitalism and imperialism rather than developing an independent epistemology for understanding Western civilization from within.

Mawdudi, Qutb, and Nadwi: Three Visions of the West

The twentieth-century Islamic thinkers Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, and Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, each developed distinct approaches to understanding the West, yet all shared a tendency to interpret Western civilization through Islamic categories rather than engaging Western sources directly. Mawdudi’s political thought derived from Qur’anic interpretation provided an alternative to Western ideologies, but his framework treated Western concepts as responses to be countered rather than systems to be comprehended on their own terms. Qutb radicalized this approach, presenting the confrontation with Islam as motivated by an overriding objective to destroy Islamic doctrine.

Nadwi offered a more nuanced position, criticizing blind imitation and servility to Western civilization while advocating critical appraisal rather than complete severance from Western achievements. He identified the West’s nineteenth-century dominance as stemming from superior knowledge and education, not inherent civilizational superiority, and emphasized spirituality and morality in Islam as contrasts to Western materialism. Nadwi drew fault lines in Western philosophy by highlighting its dependence on the material while pushing spiritual and moral development behind, characterizing the modern world by imperialism, capitalism, and communism exported to the Third World. Yet even Nadwi, who cannot be accused of Westophobia and stood for proper understanding and appreciation of the West, ultimately framed his analysis within Islamic categories of knowledge rather than developing a methodology for reading Western thought from primary sources.

The Methodological Error: Comparing Practices with Ideals

The fundamental error in Muslim reformist and revivalist thought lies in comparing Western peoples’ practices with Islamic ideals, creating an illusion of Islamic superiority while obscuring the gap between Islamic ideals and Muslim masses’ actual practices. This methodological flaw produced what scholars have called a “wrong superiority” belief: reformists measured Western reality against Islamic perfection while measuring Islamic reality against Western imperfection, generating a distorted comparative framework. A proper approach would compare Western practices with Muslim practices of the masses, and Western ideals with Islamic ideals, revealing both civilizations’ gaps between aspiration and reality.

This error had profound consequences. By not understanding the West from its own sources, Muslim thinkers failed to grasp the internal dynamics of Western thought, the historical development of concepts like democracy and liberty, and the genuine achievements of Western science and philosophy. Instead, they produced reactive critiques that, while often insightful about Western materialism and imperialism, remained trapped within an Islamic epistemological framework that could not genuinely comprehend Occidental civilization. The result was a body of thought that could diagnose Westoxification but could not produce the specialized knowledge needed to navigate Western modernity strategically.

The West as Enigma: Why Understanding Matters

The West remains an enigma to many Muslims precisely because it has been understood through secondary sources, polemical frameworks, and reactive critiques rather than direct engagement with Western texts, institutions, and intellectual traditions. This ignorance has practical consequences: Muslim societies cannot effectively respond to Western foreign policy, cannot navigate migration and integration challenges, cannot counter Islamophobia with sophisticated arguments, and cannot build institutions that produce genuine knowledge about Occidental civilization. The West is not merely an enemy or a source of toxins; it is a complex civilization with internal contradictions, genuine achievements, and historical developments that must be understood on their own terms.

Understanding the West matters for strategic reasons. Muslim societies face Western military power, economic dominance, and cultural influence, without comprehension of Western motivations, decision-making processes, and ideological foundations, Muslim responses remain reactive and often counterproductive. Migration has brought millions of Muslims to Western countries, creating diaspora communities that must navigate Western legal systems, political institutions, and social norms, ignorance of these systems produces marginalization and vulnerability to Islamophobia. Furthermore, Western concepts like democracy, feminism, and liberty have global influence, Muslims must understand these ideologies in their historical context to engage them critically rather than simply rejecting or uncritically adopting them.

Oriental and Occidental: Different Trajectories of Religion and Science

A crucial dimension of understanding the West involves recognizing the different historical trajectories of religion in Oriental (Islamic) and Occidental (Western) civilizations, particularly regarding the relationship between religion and science. In the West, religion experienced retrogradation, decline and marginalization, partly because it was perceived as hampering scientific progress, leading to the Enlightenment’s secularization of knowledge and the separation of religious ethics from secular power. This historical development produced a Western civilization where religion has been pushed to the periphery, resulting in what Nadwi called moral degeneration and spiritual malaise, but also enabling scientific and technological advances that gave the West global dominance.

In the Muslim world, by contrast, religion maintained a more central role in intellectual and social life, with madrasas and Islamic universities preserving religious knowledge while often failing to develop specialized knowledge about Western civilization. This difference has profound implications: Western secularization enabled certain forms of scientific progress but produced spiritual crisis, while Islamic retention of religious centrality preserved spiritual continuity but often at the cost of scientific and institutional development needed to compete with Western power. Understanding this divergence is essential for Muslims seeking to navigate modernity: neither simple Westernization nor reactive Islamization offers a viable path; instead, Muslims must develop institutions that can produce both religious knowledge and sophisticated understanding of Western civilization.

Madrasas and the Missing Specialization

Madrasas, the traditional Islamic educational institutions, have failed to teach specialized knowledge about the West, focusing instead on Islamic sciences while leaving students ignorant of Western thought, history, and institutions. This gap is particularly striking given that madrasas could have developed specialized departments for Western studies, producing scholars who understand the Occident from primary sources rather than through reactive polemics. Instead, madrasa curricula often reproduce the methodological error of comparing Western practices with Islamic ideals, generating graduates who can critique the West from an Islamic standpoint but cannot genuinely comprehend it on its own terms.

The consequences of this educational gap are severe. Muslim societies lack the specialized knowledge needed to navigate Western diplomatic institutions, understand Western legal systems, engage Western media, or counter Islamophobia with sophisticated arguments based on genuine comprehension rather than reactive defensiveness. Furthermore, madrasas have not produced the intellectual infrastructure needed to understand Western ideologies like feminism, democracy, and liberty in their historical context, leaving Muslim societies vulnerable to both uncritical adoption and blanket rejection of these concepts. Reforming madrasa education to include specialized Western studies, taught from primary sources, with methodological rigor, and without reactive polemic, would be a crucial step toward producing a generation capable of genuine understanding rather than Westoxified imitation or Westophobic rejection.

Understanding Western Freedoms and Ideologies in Context

Western concepts like feminism, democracy, freedom, and liberty must be understood in their historical and philosophical context, recognizing both their achievements and their limitations. These ideologies emerged from specific historical circumstances: the Enlightenment’s reaction against religious authority, the French Revolution’s overthrow of monarchy, the industrial revolution’s transformation of social relations, and the Cold War’s ideological contestation with communism. Understanding this context reveals that Western freedoms are not universal truths but historically contingent developments with both emancipatory and oppressive dimensions.

The Muslim world lacks the ecosystem that produced these ideologies: no Enlightenment, no industrial revolution, no bourgeois revolution, no Cold War ideological contestation. This absence means that importing Western concepts without understanding their historical genesis produces distorted outcomes: democracy becomes majoritarian tyranny without liberal protections, feminism becomes Western cultural imperialism without genuine gender justice, and liberty becomes license without moral responsibility. Muslims must understand these ideologies in their Western context to engage them critically: recognizing their genuine achievements (individual rights, rule of law, scientific progress) while identifying their limitations (materialism, spiritual crisis, imperialist deployment).

This understanding requires reading Western sources directly: Enlightenment philosophers, liberal political theorists, feminist thinkers, and democratic theorists must be studied in their own words, not through Islamic critiques or secondary summaries. Only through such direct engagement can Muslims develop the intellectual resources to engage Western ideologies strategically: adopting what serves Islamic values, rejecting what contradicts them, and transforming what can be Islamized. Without this comprehension, Muslim societies remain trapped between Westoxified imitation and Westophobic rejection, unable to navigate the complexities of modernity with intellectual independence.

Migration and Islamophobia: The Urgency of Understanding

Migration has brought millions of Muslims to Western countries, creating diaspora communities that must navigate Western legal systems, political institutions, and social norms while facing rising Islamophobia. This Islamophobia is not merely prejudice but a structured phenomenon with historical roots in Western Orientalism, colonial representations of Islam, and contemporary geopolitical conflicts. Understanding Islamophobia requires comprehending Western historical constructions of Islam, the role of media in reproducing stereotypes, and the political economy of xenophobia in post-industrial Western societies.

Muslim communities in the West face practical challenges that require sophisticated understanding of Western institutions: legal systems that protect religious freedom but also enforce secular norms, political institutions that offer representation but also reproduce structural discrimination, and social norms that value individual liberty but also produce isolation and anomie. Without comprehension of these dynamics, Muslim responses remain reactive: defensive assertions of Islamic identity that reinforce stereotypes, or assimilationist strategies that erase religious distinctiveness. A more strategic approach requires understanding Western institutions from within, identifying points of leverage for Muslim political participation, and developing arguments against Islamophobia based on genuine comprehension of Western values rather than reactive polemic.

Furthermore, Islamophobia is not merely a Western phenomenon but has global dimensions, affecting Muslim minorities worldwide and shaping Western foreign policy toward Muslim-majority countries. Understanding this global phenomenon requires comprehending Western strategic interests, the role of media in constructing Muslim threats, and the historical development of Orientalist representations that continue to shape Western perceptions of Islam. Without this understanding, Muslim responses remain trapped in reactive cycles that reinforce rather than challenge Islamophobic structures.

The West as Enemy, Criminal, and Crony Capitalist: Beyond Reactive Critique

Characterizing the West as enemy, criminal, or crony capitalist captures certain realities—Western imperialism, capitalist exploitation, and geopolitical aggression, while obscuring the complexity of Western civilization. The West has indeed exported imperialism, capitalism, and communism to the Third World, producing what Nadwi called aggressive nationalism destructive to the Muslim ummah. Western-dominated modernization serves market interests of European industrialists, converting non-Europeans into consumers while blunting resistance to domination. These critiques are valid and necessary.

Yet reducing the West to enemy or criminal obscures genuine achievements: scientific advances, legal innovations, philosophical developments, and institutional forms that have improved human welfare. Furthermore, this reactive framing traps Muslim thought in opposition rather than comprehension: the West becomes a caricature to be rejected rather than a civilization to be understood. A more sophisticated approach recognizes Western contradictions: genuine emancipation alongside imperialist domination, scientific progress alongside spiritual crisis, individual liberty alongside structural inequality.

This recognition enables strategic engagement rather than reactive rejection. Muslims can adopt Western scientific methods while rejecting materialist metaphysics, embrace rule of law while critiquing imperialist deployment, and value individual rights while insisting on moral responsibility. Such engagement requires understanding the West from its own sources, not through reactive polemics that capture partial truths while obscuring complexity. Only through such comprehension can Muslims navigate Western power strategically, adopting what serves Islamic values while rejecting what contradicts them.

Toward a New Epistemology: Understanding the West from Its Own Sources

The path forward requires a new epistemology for understanding the West: one that engages Western sources directly, recognizes Western complexity, and produces specialized knowledge institutions capable of genuine comprehension. This epistemology must overcome the methodological error of comparing Western practices with Islamic ideals, instead comparing Western practices with Muslim practices and Western ideals with Islamic ideals. It must read Western texts in their original languages, engage Western institutions through direct observation, and produce scholarship that comprehends rather than merely critiques.

Madrasas and Islamic universities must develop specialized departments for Western studies, producing scholars who understand the Occident from primary sources. These institutions should teach Western philosophy, political theory, history, and social science alongside Islamic sciences, enabling students to engage Western thought with intellectual rigor rather than reactive polemic. Furthermore, Muslim intellectuals must read Western sources directly: Enlightenment philosophers, liberal theorists, feminist thinkers, and democratic theorists must be studied in their own words, not through Islamic critiques.

This new epistemology must also recognize the different historical trajectories of Oriental and Occidental civilizations, particularly regarding religion and science. Understanding why religion experienced retrogradation in the West while maintaining centrality in the Muslim world enables Muslims to navigate modernity strategically: preserving spiritual continuity while developing the scientific and institutional capacities needed to compete with Western power. Such understanding requires comprehending Western freedoms and ideologies in their historical context, recognizing both their achievements and limitations, and engaging them critically rather than through uncritical adoption or blanket rejection.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Comprehension

Muslims must understand the West not as enemy or toxin but as enigma: a complex civilization with internal contradictions, genuine achievements, and historical developments that must be comprehended on their own terms. This understanding requires overcoming the methodological errors of past reformists, developing specialized knowledge institutions, and engaging Western sources directly rather than through reactive polemics. Without such comprehension, Muslim societies remain trapped between Westoxified imitation and Westophobic rejection, unable to navigate the complexities of modernity, migration, and Islamophobia with intellectual independence.

The stakes are high: Muslim communities face Western power, global Islamophobia, and ideological contestation that require sophisticated understanding rather than reactive critique. Only through genuine comprehension can Muslims develop the intellectual resources to engage Western civilization strategically: adopting what serves Islamic values, rejecting what contradicts them, and transforming what can be Islamized. This is not Westoxification but wisdom: understanding the Occident to navigate it, comprehend it, and ultimately transcend the false choice between imitation and rejection.

M. H. A. Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The West as Enigma: Why Muslims Must Understand the Occident on Its Own Terms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What It Means To Be a Liberal Muslim

“Liberal Muslims” the term sounds oxymoron, both to Muslims and non Muslims. For Muslims, Liberal or Liberated Muslim means a Muslim who has given up practicing Islam, its tenants and does not bother much about the lawful and forbidden in Islam. He continues to be legally a Muslim but his opinion about Islam and Muslims is not acceptable despite being valid. For Non Muslims, Liberal Muslim is one who does not demand reservation, drinks, dines with them, does not inhabit the Muslim ghettoes and never decries about the discrimination against Muslims in India. So a liberal Muslim is on his own with little support from his community and even in general from the society. The Muslim Ulema and community do not consider them Muslim enough to be trusted while Non Muslims accuse them of not being liberal enough. So liberal Muslims are always decried and labelled as stooges of West by their own community while for others, they remain ‘communal’ Muslims. These fault lines have never been negotiated or redrawn.

With the advent of colonialism the Muslim community responded to the socio-political and educational system of the colonizers through three broad reactions. First there were those who were for the wholesome adoption and imitation of the western colonial model.

Second class was completely hostile and opposed to the model.

The other third class was of those who accepted the model with exceptions and tried to incorporate changes in it to make it compatible with Islam.

So there was a division between Traditional and Liberal Muslims. The divide continued in the free India too. The madrasas are giving birth to a traditional, backward looking leadership while the secular education is shaping a different leadership. The division is complete and compartmentalized. Each section respects the invisible contract of not breeching into the territory of the other. Madrasa educated Ulema with sectarian outlook always express opinions about Islam even if sectarian and hold sway over the masses. Whenever they find their position and status is being threatened, they initiate a movement decrying “Islam in danger”. They threaten the liberal opinionated Muslim with Fatwas and community boycott. The political parties of all hues need these madrasas trained mullahs, Maulvis and Ulema for consolidating the Muslim vote bank as they can influence the opinion of voters. This group certainly needs to be appeased as their power cannot be undermined. Plus over the centuries they have adorned, developed and evolved a certain type of dress code including the beards coupled with the reinforcement of that image by media that even Muslims cannot accept anyone as Islamic scholar and community leader who does not possess these features. So liberal Muslims here again prove dwarfs as they don not possess these features. The community cannot recognize them as leaders.

A liberal Muslim is one who believes in the principle of Sulh-I-Kul (peace with all). He upholds the fact that his is not the only source of truth but there are various versions of truth that are available in different ideologies, religions and viewpoints. A liberal Muslim even if he does not observe the rituals of Islam, implements and practices its universal values like egalitarianism, social justice, charity, supporting the destitute and contributing to the movements aiming at the empowerment of downtrodden. A liberal Muslim is tolerant when it comes to the interpretation of Islam and forging unity both intra and inter-faith. Liberal Muslim is a crusader for the cause of women rights, empowerment through education and democracy. Liberal Muslims uphold the postulates of non violence. Unlike traditional Ulema he does not indulge in mudslinging, false allegations and issuing legal decrees.

Among the liberal Muslims we lack those few who can authoritatively write, speak and interpret Islam according to the dictum of current academic debates. The door of Ijtihad that has been closed by the traditional Ulema needs to be opened up. Only liberal Muslims can have the courage to undertake the same. They should prepare themselves for this job and it will take some time to develop the requisite expertise among the liberal Muslims who then can indulge in Ijtihad. The traditional Ulema have created a false aura around themselves that they are the epitome and zenith of piety, with huge following and when they do not dare to undertake Ijtihad how can liberal Muslims do it? But as the time and necessity demands, Ijtihad, hence despite their opposition, the Ijtihad will be acceptable if undertaken by liberal Muslims.

Being a liberal Muslim brings with it plethora of accusations and allegations. One of the commonly used allegations to browbeat the liberal Muslims is they being stooges of West, working at the behest of West and trying to Westernize Islam. West and its ideologies have been the most misunderstood by the Islamic Revivalists. When the Ulema do not have a logical or Islamic answer to an interpretation of Islam that is different than theirs, the simple escapism is to label it as Western whereas the reality is that West is most happy with traditional Ulema as it helps reinforce the Islamophobic and violent image of Islam. Liberal Muslims question the legitimacy of West and have the acumen to understand the capitalistic and imperialistic model of Global powers. The West in fact has been successful in exploiting and using these traditional Ulema and their interpretation of Islam for its own imperialistic goals whether be it the balkanization of USSR or retrograding the Arab Spring to bloody and bleak Arab Winter. The Western powers in fact do help and patronize the autocratic, authoritarian, sectarian and violent regimes like Saudi Arabia to survive. The survival is at the cost of denial of basic human rights and liberal values like freedom of speech, right to form associations and rule of law. So this allegation is wrong, infact traditional mullahs are patronized by West so that a retrogressive, redundant and regressive image of Islam is presented before the world.

The lack of liberal Muslim leadership is because most of them are afraid or in awe of the traditional Ulema. They shy away from the new interpretation of Islam because of community and Ulema backlash. Most of them suppress their inner call and lack courage to stand for the liberal values. The political parties too do not want to associate with any liberal Muslim faces that are controversial for their opinions because that will cut the vote share for them. Thus the liberal Muslims who are articulate and opinionated are marginalized even by the secular political parties. At last the liberal Muslims have failed to convince the Muslim masses and Ulema that they can be selfless and dedicated defenders of their community interests. Liberal Muslims have the task of bridging the divide between the traditional Ulema and themselves and initiate a dialogue process. They need to become role models by having strong personality and values that can inspire the masses to believe and follow them. It will take some time for the Indian liberal Muslim to take and secure the mantle of leadership, till then they need to occupy the spaces of social activism and interpretation of Islam.

M.H.A. Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir and can be reached at sikandarmushtaq@gmail.com

Courtesy: http://www.newageislam.com/

The post Liberal Muslims: The Term Sounds like an Oxymoron, Both to Muslims And Non Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These Rishis evolved a culture of harmony, fellow feeling and community welfare in the Valley. Further they did not proselytize and rarely engaged with theology. Hence they were never at the centre of controversies. They practiced the values of Islam and for them most mystical practices of every religion lead to the same goal. The God of all religions is same for them and religions are different paths that lead to the same goal. It was their inspiring lives and moral characters that drove hordes of men to their hospices that still continue to be the centres of attraction even centuries after their death. Most of these hospices had a madrasa, boarding, lodging facilities and a free community kitchen associated with them. But now those are relics of past as most shrines and hospices have now been rendered as dens of nepotism, sectarian hatred and money minting institutions for those who control them.

Most of the Rishis spoke against this clergy and priestly class of Islam using derogatory term (Mullah) against them. The poetry of Sheikh ul Alam better known as Alam Dar e Kashmir (torch bearer) or Nund Rishi is full of criticism against this priestly class. Unfortunately, this message of Nund Rishi has been distorted by clergy class who has co-opted and annexed his hospice and now is indulging in the same acts against which Nund led a crusade during his whole life and was even incarcerated by the nefarious designs of the mullahs of his times.

Most Kashmiris have a deep faith in transcendence and the divine reality of God. The shrines and hospices were revered but with the advent of Islamic revivalist movements in the mainland India, the reverence of shrines and hospices came to be disputed. The puritanical, exclusivist Ahle Hadith or Salafi movement started a tirade against the shrines that they described as institutes of grave worship. So in order to behold and save Muslims they started a venomous campaign against shrines, describing them as bastions of shrik.

To supplement them Deobandis too jumped in the bandwagon and reinforced their efforts, though unlike Salafis they had a soft corner for Sufis and were not as vociferous in their criticism and campaigns against the Sufis, shrines and hospices. As a reaction to their efforts, the mullahs who have economic interests associated with shrines started supporting the Barelwis, who started owning the Sufis, describing themselves as their real inheritors and piling up wrong evidences for every economic activity conducted at shrines being in spirit with real Islam.

All these discourses of Salafis, Deobandis and Barelwis are quite alien to Kashmir. All these schools of thought are extremist in their outlook and rabidly sectarian and if provided with hospitable environs violent too. These groups have carried out violent acts against each other and different other sects in the recent past. Earlier they engaged with each other through writing diatribes, pamphlets and books denouncing each other and describing them as deviated and charging them with heresy. The sectarian mosques were used to hold debates against each other. Also the co-option and annexation of shrines by Barelwis who wrongly masquerade as Sufis has done a severe damage to the syncretic and plural message of Kashmiri Rishis.

The distortion of Sufism by Barelwis is another challenge that needs to be met. Now the fault lines between these sects are evident even among the common masses that are caught up in non ending diatribes because social media and internet has made it possible for masses to have a peek into these debates. Literary rebuttals against each other were confined to a refined section but now the videos of the sectarian mullahs are available for mass public consumption, thus widening the divide. Add to it the crisis in Middle East particularly Syria that has opened the Pandora’s box of Shia-Sunni violence. It has its impact on the Muslims of subcontinent too. Although we do not hear about violence between Shias and Sunnis in India but with each passing day the fault lines are widening. To add insult to injury some deobandi mullahs in Kashmir like Noaman Nowsheri and Muzaffar Qasmi are openly attacking the other sects. The show-boy Noaman Nowsheri is being elevated as the Manazir e Islam (Debater of Islam) as he claims to have defeated many Salafis, whereas Salafi mullahs like Abdul Latif Al Kindi and Abid Salafi are refuting him and others.

Many mosques and madrasas have been retrograded into debating theatres and in some cases physical abuses have taken place too. These repugnant debates are streamed live to score points over the opponents. In Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)’s era Masjid e Zaraar was established by certain Muslim hypocrites to carryout nefarious designs against Islam and Muslims. Prophet (pbuh) ordered the mosque to be demolished. These sectarian mullahs are retrograding every mosque to Zaraar, their designs need to be fought against and a social boycott of these sectarian mullahs needs to be orchestrated. They are vilifying the real message and values of Islam for cheap publicity and earning few bucks.

M.H.A.Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Of Salafis, Deobandis and Barelwis in Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The term “West” and “Feminism” have both assumed negative connotations in the Muslim world, thanks to the zealous efforts of Islamic revivalist movements like Jamaat e Islami, Ikhwan ul Muslimoon and Tablighi Jamaat. The Islamic Revivalists like Maulana Abul Ala Mawdudi wrote books and treatises like Purdah, Islam and West. So is the case with Syed Qutb who penned down books and pamphlets like What I saw in America. Women associated with revivalist movements like Maryam Jameelah who converted from Judaism to Islam and settled permanently in Pakistan was vociferous in her attacks on West and Feminism as can be witnessed in her books like Islam and West, Women between Islam and West. The antagonism between Islam and West has been reinforced with these types of diatribes. Very few efforts have been made to bridge this artificial divide. Both the West and Feminism have been demonized in the Muslim world in such a manner that they appear synonymous to everything vice.

The theologians have been blaming every calamity confronting the Muslim world to the West. Blaming the West is the favourite pastime of most Muslim clergy and theologians. Most of them have been rabble rousing against the West since last several centuries.

It is true that colonization of the Muslim world did gave birth to the anti-west sentiment among the Muslims, particularly in the clergy whose authority was undermined during the colonial process. Also, the colonization rendered Muslims under siege so they were vehemently opposed to the West. What is West? If we study the Muslim literature produced during the colonial era, two issues emerge as having been engaged critically by Muslims. One is the West and the other is the question of Women! Critical understanding of Muslim world and Muslim men has been missing from the discourse!

The theologians, scholars and Islamic revivalists all of them have written tomes about West, demeaning, denigrating and demonizing it. This is not to say that Western civilization is flawless. In reality certain aspects of the West’s value system cannot be acceptable to the Eastern or Muslim civilization. But that should not render us blind to the positive contribution of Western civilization in building the contemporary era.

When one engages with the literature of Islam and West critically a serious flaw is revealed. Many scholars compare the Islamic ideals with the West pointing to incidents like rapes, extra marital affairs, violence against women happening in the West as if these vices are absent in the Muslim world. Also, the criticism is aimed in such a manner that renders the West bereft of any values and ideals. The point is to drive home the fact that Muslims have ideals, but the West is just surviving on animal instincts. The “animal existence” of Western people is ridiculed vehemently basing the arguments on secondary sources or brief visits in which the clergy and theologians claim to have understood, analysed and rejected the West. Maulana Mawdudi’s writings offer ample proof of these shortcomings and flaws while criticising West. 

The biggest criticism against West is that it is inherently antagonistic and holds a deep animosity against Muslims and Islam. Islamophobia is a reality but to paint the entire West as Islamophobic will be gross injustice. The best academic works on Islam and Muslims is produced in the Western institutions and there are millions of Muslims residing in the West.

Linked to “Westoxification,” to paraphrase Ali Shariti, is the question of Women. The West is accused of destroying the morals, values and image of what constitutes as an “Ideal Woman”. The Islamic literature reveals an unseemly obsession with women’s bodies. There are scores of works titled as “Ideal Woman” available in the bookshops but I have yet to come across a title as “Ideal Man” or “Ideal Muslim Man”. Men are supposed to be legislators and can bend laws as per their whims whereas women as conformists have to abide by male centric and patriarchal laws. Feminism as a movement is being tagged as an extension of Westoxification in the Muslim world. Feminism is held to be antagonistic to being an ideal woman because feminists are destroyers of homes and families. The family as an institution is deeply patriarchal in the Muslim world and any challenge or change to its status quo is deemed as a threat to the basic unit of Muslim society that is far from what an ideal woman is supposed to behave like. The ideal Muslim wife is subservient to her husband and cares for the children, sacrificing all the way through as patriarchy demands. Thus, feminism is held antagonistic to ideal patriarchal motherhood in the Muslim world. It is this notion of feminism that Imran Khan describes as the destroyer of motherhood.

The deep-rooted prejudices against West and Feminism have been embedded over the last century deeply in the Muslim mind and it will certainly take decades to de-condition the same. But this point needs to be emphasized that not everything Western civilisation and the ideals of Feminism uphold need be accepted in toto. West and Feminism are dynamic and static concepts. They are not the same today as our older generation of Islamic revivalists understood them during colonization.

As Muslims we need to overcome this approach of either complete acceptance or total rejection. In every situation, there are certain grey areas and it is reading between the lines that help us negotiate with changing times. The new age demands a fresh engagement with the text as the context has changed. To end, it must be acknowledged that it was feminism that waged the battle for equal wages for women, paid maternity leaves, equal working hours and punishment for sexual crimes. So, lets us hope the Muslim clerics and popular leaders like Mr. Imran Khan begin to realise the virtues of the West and movements like Feminism.

M.H.A.Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir 

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Why are Muslim Leaders and Clerics So Afraid of Feminism and Critical of the West? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Indian Express

Since 1990s when the mass armed insurgency started in J&K, truth has been rendered a casualty. In the midst of blaring propaganda, prevailing anarchy and confusion the truth has became a casualty. The masses were at the receiving end, too naïve to understand factual realities amidst violence and daily killings. Not only the insurgents, combatants, uniformed men became cannon fodder of the insurgency but the opinion makers, social activists, ideologues and politically affiliated people were also targeted indiscriminately. These high profile killings of apparently apolitical people were owned by none of the insurgent groups or state institutions. In most cases the rival parties i.e. insurgents and the state blamed the assassinations on each other. Both of these rivals would pay glorious tributes to the assassinated individuals. Thus in the end the killings would be blamed on unknown gunmen.

The latest casualty of these unknown gunmen in Kashmir is Shujaat Bukhari. Shujaat was a powerful editor of four multi lingual newspapers published from the valley. Further he was a high profile civil society member who was involved in track two diplomatic efforts on Kashmir, between India and Pakistan. Some blame his killing again on these unknown gunmen and point out to his participation in track two efforts that became a reason for his assassination. The police is still investigating the murder and militants have blamed the Indian security agencies for the killing while demanding a probe through an international agency.

Leaving aside the dichotomy and controversy surrounding the death of Shujaat, the masks of these unknown gunmen still remain to be unveiled. The pertinent question has always been avoided and none is ready to engage with the same? Who are these unknown gunmen? During their lives every public person is controversial; some remain shrouded in mystery even after death. But the bravado created around the personalities after their death, makes the controversies and mysteries surrounding their lives, works and engagements go down in oblivion. We have yet to be mature enough to balance every personality according to merits. We have a persistent problem of compartmentalizing people in boxes of right and wrong. We then either condemn them out rightly or paint them as saints and heroes whose loss is always irreparable.

All those people who were vehemently critical of Shujaat during his life were not behind issuing condemnations against his gruesome assassination. This failure to criticize or introspect any personality after death has leaded us to a deadly morass. It has rendered us blind to our faults. For us a person can be with us or against us, there is no middle ground and those who intend to find one are pressurized to join a camp because both India and Pakistan, mainstream and resistance politicians, armed forces and insurgents do not want any neutral voices to emerge strongly as to create a niche among the ‘stake holders’ on Kashmir. Even most of the civil society members are being sponsored by various clandestine hands and promoted to defend and peddle a certain narrative.

Many right wing ideologues and politicians like Lal Singh while warning other journalists to mend their ways described Shujaat as an apologist for insurgents that simply translates to peddle a given narrative and surrender their independence and freedom to report. This is not the case with right wing ideologues only but other politicians and ideologues of different hues also want neutral, saner and independent voices to fall in line. Now coming back to the question of truth, given the previous experience of probes and investigation turns in high profile killings, the real assassins of Shujaat will remain under veils. We have experienced similar results in the killings of Mirwaiz Muhammad Farooq, Prof. Mashir ul Haq, Dr Qazi Nisar, Dr Ghulam Qadir Wani, Prof. Abdul Ahad Wani, Dr Farooq Ashai and Dr Guru. Their killers were never brought to the book. But the time has now come to unveil these forces of darkness who do not want the resolution of Kashmir. Whenever the bridges for dialogue and resolution are made they are ready to burn them.

Someone, some cause, some ideology has to take the blame! Police have now declared a Pakistani militant and two Kashmiri militants as murderers, who happen to belong to Lashkar e Toiba (LeT). LeT had already blamed the killing on Indian security agencies. Anyways whosoever was the culprit but the question needs to be probed is what made his assassins pull the trigger? Did the track two diplomatic efforts became a reason for his killing, did his brave reporting against military atrocities on common civilians was a bone of contention for his assassins or was he being witnessed as a double cross by both India and Pakistan and its spy agencies for the reasons best known to them? What percolated down at the much hyped Dubai conference? Who sponsored it, what was the outcome? What prompted Salahuddin, head of United Jihad Council issue a statement against the same? Whose stakes were threatened by the conference? These questions have to be asked and seriously revisited in the common discourse. Otherwise truth that has been a casualty in Kashmir will continue to be so. This status quo on factual realities and truth will continue to add confusion and anarchy to the discourse as Kashmir. In this prevailing anarchy stray bullets will continue to kill and the reasons will continue to evade us.

M.H.A. Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The Casualty of Truth in Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Deccan Chronicle

The gun culture in state of Jammu and Kashmir is not something new. Groups and organizations have been using it to achieve their ends including the state and government. Since 1931, armed insurgent groups were a part of political spectrum of Kashmir. The armed groups of Dogras massacred nearly three hundred thousand Muslims in Jammu during the months of 1947 when the whole Indian subcontinent was burning. Since 1947 many armed groups tried to overthrow the government and achieve their political goals by using violence. Till 1990s these groups were limited to few youth and their each attempt failed to yield the desired results. But since 1990s with the active involvement of Pakistan a generation of youth actively participated in the armed insurgency. The mass armed insurgency was met with brutal repression that led Kashmir to be converted in the highest militarized zone in the world.

The armed insurgency though actively supported by Pakistan materially and monetarily suffered from ideological confusion in the first phase only. The confusion among the insurgent ranks related to the vision of independent Kashmir or being a part of Islamic Pakistan. This confusion resulted in the internecine battles among the insurgents ranks. The insurgency prolonged and state armed renegades (irregulars) to do the dirty work. It resulted in massive human rights violations that further alienated Kashmiris from the state (read India).

The year 2008 proved to be a watershed in contemporary history of Kashmir. Hundreds and thousands of civilians were protesting on the streets against the alleged demographic change and attack on their peculiar and distinct identity as land was transferred to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB). This agitation brought to the fore the communal and regional fault lines between the Kashmir and Jammu region. The aftermath of this mass agitation later led to communal flare and economic blockade of Kashmir valley by the fringe Hindutva elements of Jammu. It was much hyped during the 2008 Amarnath land row agitation that the Kashmiri resistance has now transited to non violent one. I surmised, wrote and spoke that there was no transaction because even during the height of militancy, mass non violent civilian protests were carried out that did not mean insurgency and violence has transformed to a non violent struggle. For violence and non violence ideology, training and discourse are needed that can sustain it and render it pragmatic to achieve its sustainable goals.

The rise of Burhan Wani in the aftermath of 2010 agitation that resulted in the killing of 130 youth proved my prediction and surmise factual and correct. But this new spate of armed insurgency that I term as “Post militancy” is different in some aspects because it is indigenous, with little or no role of Pakistan and quite lethal than its predecessors. But the ideological confusion is still prevalent and quite manifest. It can be witnessed from the fact that two factions of militants are fighting for antagonistic ends. Unlike their predecessors when the tussle was between those who were vouching for accession to Pakistan and Independent Kashmir, today the battle of ideas is between those who want accession to Pakistan whereas the other group intends to establish an Islamic State.

The romanticism and tryst for the Islamic state is not new. In 1990s most pro Pakistan militant organizations declared their aim as establishment of Islamic state, once the accession with Pakistan is complete. But the 9/11 events changed the discourse for these organizations and also the official Pakistan policy was responsible for the U turn. The discourse in Kashmir for establishing an Islamic state became vibrant once again with the rise of Pan Islamist insurgent movements like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This discourse is being represented by Ansar Ghazawatul Hind organization headed by Zakir Moosa. It holds Pakistan on the same plank as India when it comes to declaring them as citadels of Kufr (disbelief). They espouse violence against the Indian state as well as the other insurgent groups that are fighting on the behest of Pakistan, though there are no reports of internecine battles against each other except for the press releases demeaning and condemning each other.

The use of social media has been a potent force in inspiring and radicalizing the new generation of youth. Violence, death, martyrdom has been valorised, celebrated and romanticized by the insurgents and their sympathizers, despite the fact that violence as a tool of resistance has achieved very limited success. This celebration and romanticism has to be analyzed factually and pragmatically. Most of the youth have become too emotional to understand the realities. The hyper emotional empathy towards violence has its own causes related to over militarization of public spaces, intolerance towards dissent and armed response to every grievance. To add insult to injury Islamophobia and Othering of Muslims fuels the rage.

The vicious cycle of death and violence needs to be broken and fractured. It starts with the state, which needs to rein in their armed forces that are sometimes responsible for pushing youth towards insurgency. Then resistance leaders and civil society too have a job to make youth understand that besides violence there are hundreds of ways, methods and campaigns through which they can make their voices heard all over the world. These non violent methods are a part of civil resistance that has proved to be successful in variegated contexts and numerous struggles ranging from social to political. But for reaching out to youth with these methods is a process that needs a lot of sweat and double the patience.

Civil resistance is a slow process but it saves the human capital and in the long run proves successful. It starts with the individual transformation and inculcating the spirit of non violence through a constant discipline and training. This discipline starts with reading, then imbibing the principles and later on implementing them on ground. If we as a society are not ready to pay the price of patience, work our fingers to the bone and train hard then surely the path that our youth have chosen will lead us towards collective suicide and annihilation.

M.H.A Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Kashmir: Is Violence the Only Way Out? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From the failed project of Islamisation of knowledge to Islamic banking most Muslim men of knowledge do adhere to these redundant terms. But would like to term Islamic feminism as a Western extension, conspiracy and project aimed at opening the doors of moral laxity and destroy the structure and institution of family in the Muslim world that is already under strain more because of modernity, globalization and forces of change rather than a grand conspiracy of west. It has become an innocent excuse for Muslims that instead of introspection they brand everything vice as Western and Jewish conspiracy. This conspiracy theory mindset has led Muslims towards self aggrandizement putting a pace on their progress and intellectual development.

The question of women is a tricky one for Muslims as they believe that Islam has bestowed complete set of rights on women hence they do not need salvation in Feminism. Also they may be visionary about this project of Islamic feminism unlike the failed projects of Islamic banking and Islamisation of knowledge that they can surmise about its death, even when it has not matured. Muslim women do not need to be rescued through a legal recourse or a male chauvinist like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi does not need to come to their rescue. What they need is to reclaim their rights that Islam, Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have already bestowed on them. But over the centuries patriarchy, misogyny and interpretation of Holy scriptures at the hands of men have snatched away these revolutionary rights from Muslim women. Now this patriarchy needs to be fought and Muslim women need to reclaim their rights.

Islamic feminism is a movement to restore those rights and interpret Islam in a gender just manner. Let’s leave the label Islamic feminism or Gender Justice in Islam as they aim for the same goals. I associate myself with the gender justice movement in Islam. It is easy for a woman to be associated as a feminist. But man as a feminist? Nay what are you talking about? How can a male be a feminist? No, he must be gay that is camouflaging his sexuality in the garb of feminism. Your make friends tag you as gay or a womanizer. For some male friends, claiming to be a feminist is the best way to reach out to women, make friends and exploit. Most males think that male-female friendship is not possible but with some sexual angle associated with it. Some clever male friends who are aware of your acquaintance with females want you to act as intermediary who is a ladder to their love tangles, affairs and flirts.

To your female friends, colleagues and acquaintances most of the times you are too effeminate as you are emotional like any human being should be. But patriarchy has reinforced this belief among them that men should not sob or display any emotions or they can’t afford to because they are brave and need to protect women. Most of them do not see gentle and gender just men as future husbands but men who are best suited to act as shoulders, thus friend zoned. Also if you afford to have a girlfriend or a fiancé and she ditches you or is unfaithful and you leave her without punishment, whether physical or psychological then you certainly don’t deserve the right to be called a man. Not to talk of your male friends as for them you are a spineless scoundrel, even the female friends tag you as jackass because you don’t believe in revenge.

I remember a fellow male feminist friend, who hosted two female friends for a week. When they were about to leave one of them intimated him that they guess he was impotent because having every chance for a week to take physical advantage atleast with one of them, he missed the opportunity of exploring gorgeous girls. As if getting physical is the only trait of being a man. Feminist or Gender Just men are not impotent or without physical desires but they cherish the fact that before getting physical love must be there, instead of just animal instincts ruling roost. They cherish the value of being loyal to their girlfriends or wives instead of satiating their sexual hunger whenever they find an opportunity.

To the religious minded patriarchal friends and colleagues you are just opening the flood gates of promiscuity, breaking families and granting limitless freedom to women who already have been condemned to be deficient in reason and religion. Further granting them decision making power that too as wives will create a havoc, as the wives are supposed to be subservient to their husbands because marriage as an institution can run only when there is one head. Marriage according to them is not based on mutual love, respect and understanding but on power relations that they camouflage in the disguise of religion and social norms.

The biggest shock you receive is when your female feminist friends would assign themselves the job of a mullah and begin issuing Fatwas when they seem to disagree with you. The best whip to lash at you is to brand you as patriarchal because you may not be on the same page with them about any issue. I had not encountered this bitter experience from fellow female feminists until recently when in a divorce case after listening to both the parties, I happened to reach out at a solution that for me was pragmatic one. But the feminists had made up the mind to punish the husband as he was male and the wife had rattled that he abused her which was admitted prima facie without authentication. Feminism for me does not stand for male bashing, but gender justice in which both sexes are equal stakeholders. I tried to further my efforts in resolving the vexed problem and tried to enquire about the next steps of the feminist group about which I had the illusion that they considered me a part of it. But to my utter surprise and shock the ‘feminist friend’ rebuked me by saying that they cannot disclose their cards as I am a male and its is difficult for me to be a feminist though I tried to be one, as if her ratification and certificate for me was essential for me to be a gender justice activist or a feminist. So the dilemma and dichotomy is always prevalent about your activism and stance towards gender justice even among feminists.

But if your core beliefs are strong and one believes with head and heart in gender justice then these perils are no threat to your cause. Further one needs to remind oneself that there is little good in the world and it certainly is worth fighting for. Gender Justice is one such cause and you don’t need to be a woman to be a soldier for gender jihad. All you need is a burning desire to smash patriarchy and being different to what patriarchs or feminists say about you. You are there for justice and that is all you need to remind yourself.

M.H.A.Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam
 

The post What it means to be a Muslim male feminist appeared first on SabrangIndia.