Bernard Lewis, the influential British-American historian and Middle East scholar, played a pivotal role in shaping Western imperial attitudes toward Islam. His influence stretched far beyond academia, into the very heart of U.S. foreign policy. His counsel underpinned the American strategy of weaponising radicalised Islam for geopolitical ends, beginning with the Afghan-Soviet war.

Under this policy, the U.S. directly funded extremist literature and helped establish madrassas across Pakistan and Afghanistan to indoctrinate young Muslim men—drawn from over 35 countries—with a weaponised theology. Once trained, these fighters joined the CIA-backed jihad against the Soviets. When the war ended, they returned home, not to peace, but to disseminate their radicalised ideology further afield.

Yet even as Lewis helped construct the “radical Muslim” archetype, he also shaped its foil: the “good Muslim.” This ideal Muslim, according to Lewis, is a pacifist, apolitical, and docile figure—more cultural than religious, more mystical than legalistic. In this dual construction, Muslims were split into two essentialised camps: one to fight imperial battles, the other to legitimise imperial presence.

The Conference That Said It All

In a 2003 conference hosted by the Nixon Centre titled “Understanding Sufism and Its Potential Role in U.S. Policy,” Lewis openly championed Sufism—not for its theology or ethics, but because, in his words, it “reflects something more than tolerance” and holds that “all religions are basically the same.” In other words, it can be co-opted.

Sufi scholar Hesham Kabbani joined Lewis at the event, enthusiastically presenting Sufism as a depoliticised, non-threatening “social force.” He assured the audience—made up of Homeland Security officials and neoconservative hawks—that Sufis “never seek leadership” but serve as “social workers.” It was a performance for the empire, tailored to reassure Washington that there exists an Islam that does not resist.

But this was a gross erasure. Figures like Salahuddin Ayyubi, Umar Futi Tal, Abdul Qādir al-Jaza’iri, and Idris as-Senussi were Sufis—and they led political revolts, commanded armies, ruled states. Even within Kabbani’s own Naqshbandi lineage, the Jaysh Rijāl al-Ṭarīqa al-Naqshbandiyya was formed in Baghdad to fight the American invasion of Iraq. To erase these legacies is to rewrite history at the feet of power.

The Liberal-Orientalist Love Affair with Sufism

The romanticisation of Sufism by Western scholars is not innocent. Nineteenth and twentieth-century Orientalists and Islamicists—such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Fazlur Rahman, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, H.A.R. Gibb, and Annemarie Schimmel—created a scholarly framework that equated mysticism with moderation.

Schimmel herself admitted the absurdity of this selective love. “A good Sufi,” she once remarked, “should follow the shariah and all that it entails.” But the Western fascination with Rumi, Ibn Arabi, and the “whirling dervishes” consistently detaches their mysticism from their Islamic orthodoxy. This detachment implies that Sufism flourished in spite of Islam’s rigidity, rather than as an organic expression of it.

Tomoko Masuzawa warns that this portrayal is racialised: Islam becomes Arab, rigid, Semitic; Sufism becomes Aryan, gentle, European. Otto Pfleiderer, a German Orientalist, typified this racial dichotomy by treating Islam as tribal and inferior while elevating Sufism as universal and transcendent. This project—consciously or not—fed into a sanitised, de-Islamised, “Islam Lite” acceptable to the empire.

Manufacturing Consent for Genocide

In Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mahmood Mamdani critiques this binary construction. “Good Muslims” are cast as secular, apolitical, spiritual-but-not-religious liberals. They advocate gender equality, nonviolence, and Western-style democracy. They vote Democrat. “Bad Muslims” are political, militant, and resistant to imperialism.

This binary fuels military invasions, drone strikes, black sites, surveillance states, and genocides. It is not a cultural misunderstanding—it is a colonial strategy.

The primary architect of the “Islamic terrorism” narrative is none other than Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long sought to manufacture global consent for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, and Palestine bear the bloody consequences of this myth.

In this context, the imperial co-optation of Sufism is not about spirituality. It is about subjugation. It is the creation of a religious subclass willing to bless bombs and normalisation deals in exchange for visas, conferences, funding, and think-tank prestige. Today’s polished collaborators—Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Hamza Yusuf, and others backed by the UAE or U.S. State Department—have become handpicked enablers of a compliant Islam, weaponised against its more resistant, justice-oriented forms.

The Two-Faced Strategy: Wahhabis and Sufis

The imperial project thrives on contradiction. It is no surprise that both “Sufi Islam” and “Wahhabi Islam” are weaponised in tandem. These two projected as opposite poles—spiritual and severe—are manipulated to serve the same master. One is used to fight wars; the other to suppress dissent.

A legion of intellectually colonised Muslims makes this task easier by parroting imperial talking points in the name of peace, tradition, or “saving Islam.” They forget that it was the U.S., in alliance with Saudi Arabia, that funded Wahhabi madrasas to radicalise Muslim youth for its Cold War proxy battles. And yet, in the same breath, the U.S. hails Saudi Arabia—a hub of Wahhabism—as a key ally, while demonising Iran, a country with deep Sufi intellectual traditions.

Iran = evil. Saudi = friend. The absurdity is the point.

This is not a war of ideologies. It is a war of obedience. It’s not theology that divides “good” from “bad” Muslims—it’s loyalty.

Collaboration is Not Neutral

The “good Muslim” trope does not merely flatter collaborators—it provides ideological cover for genocide. Whether the branding is “Sufi Islam,” “plain vanilla Islam,” or “civilised Islam,” the core objective is control. The desire to pacify Islam, to regulate it, to make it safe for the empire, is what drives the violence, not Islam itself.

The Abraham Accords, CVE programs, Patriot Act, and Muslim Ban—across Republican and Democrat administrations—prove one thing: both sides weaponise “good Islam” to suppress resistance. Under Trump’s renewed presidency, expect more glossy initiatives promoting “peaceful Islam,” “Sufi moderation,” and “Muslim societies for progress.” These are not spiritual efforts. They are tools of colonial management.

Even the most well-meaning Sufi today must ask: have we been used? Has our spiritual tradition become a fig leaf for empire? Does our silence—or selective condemnation—manufacture consent for war?

Conclusion: The Real Struggle

Whether post-9/11 or post-October 7th, the game remains the same: pit Muslims against one another. Regulate the religion. Exalt one version. Exterminate the other.

But the consequences are not theoretical. In Gaza today, the “bad Muslims” being exterminated include poets, doctors, mothers, fathers, and children.

The tragedy is not just in bombs or policies. It is in the Muslim collaborators who, eager for Western approval, have chosen seats at imperial tables over solidarity with the oppressed. This is not just moral failure—it is complicity in genocide.

It is time to repent. To cease performing “good Islam” for the empire. To reclaim Islam—not as a set of talking points for think tanks—but as a living tradition of justice, resistance, and truth.

—–

مسلمانوں کو مسخر کرنے کے لیے تصوف اور وہابیت کو ہتھیار بنانا

مصنف: نصیر احمد

(مندرجہذیلتحریر،فرحالشریفکےمضمون: “اسلاملائٹکیتیاری: صوفیازمبطور ‘اچھااسلام’: ‘اچھےمسلمان’ بمقابلہ ‘برےمسلمان’ کیسیاستکسطرحنسلکشیکےلیےرضامندیپیداکرتیہے” کاخلاصہاورترمیمشدہورژنہے۔اصلمضمونیہاںپڑھاجاسکتاہے۔)

“اچھےاسلام” کیپیدائش

برنارڈلیوس،برطانوی-امریکیمؤرخاورمشرقوسطیٰکےاسکالر،نےمغربیسامراجیسوچمیںاسلامکےبارےمیںگہرااثرڈالا۔انکیآراءصرفعلمیمیدانتکمحدودنہرہیں،بلکہامریکیخارجہپالیسیپربھیاثراندازہوئیں۔انکیرہنمائیمیںامریکہنے “ریڈیکلاسلام” کوجیوپولیٹیکلمقاصدکےلیےایکہتھیاربنایا،جسکیشروعاتافغان-سوویتجنگسےہوئی۔

اسپالیسیکےتحتامریکہنےشدتپسنداسلامیلٹریچرکیمالیمعاونتکیاورپاکستانوافغانستانمیںمدارسقائمکیےجہاں 35 سےزائدممالکسےآئےنوجوانوںکوعسکرینظریاتسکھائےگئے۔تربیتکےبعد،یہمجاہدین CIA کےزیراثرسوویتوںکےخلافجہادمیںشاملہوگئے۔جنگختمہونےکےبعد،یہلوگامنکےساتھواپسنہیںلوٹےبلکہشدتپسندنظریاتکومزیدپھیلایا۔

برنارڈلیوسنےجہاں “شدتپسندمسلمان” کاخاکہبنایا،وہیں “اچھےمسلمان” کاتصوربھیانہینےپیشکیا۔انکےمطابق،مثالیمسلمانایکپرامن،غیرسیاسی،اورمطیعشخصیتہے—جسکیشناختمذہبسےزیادہثقافت،اورقانونسےزیادہروحانیتپرمبنیہے۔اسطرحمسلمانوںکودوخانوںمیںبانٹدیاگیا: ایکوہجوسامراجیجنگیںلڑے،دوسراوہجوسامراجیتسلطکوجائزقراردے۔

وہکانفرنسجسنےسبکچھواضحکردیا

2003 میںنِکسنسینٹرمیںمنعقدہ “صوفیازماورامریکیپالیسیمیںاسکاممکنہکردار” کےعنوانسےایککانفرنسمیں،لیوسنےصوفیازمکیحمایتکی—نہکہاسکیروحانیتیااخلاقیاتکیوجہسے،بلکہاسلیےکہاسمیں “برداشتسےزیادہ” کیعکاسیہےاوریہکہ “تماممذاہببنیادیطورپرایکجیسےہیں۔” یعنیاسےسامراجیمقاصدکےلیےاستعمالکیاجاسکتاہے۔

اسموقعپرصوفیاسکالر،شیخہشامقبانینےبھیصوفیازمکوغیرسیاسی،بےضرر “سوشلفورس” کےطورپرپیشکیا۔انہوںنےحاضرین—جنمیںہوملینڈسیکیورٹیکےاہلکاراورنیو-کنزرویٹونظریہدانشاملتھے—کویقیندلایاکہصوفی “کبھیقیادتکےطلبگارنہیںہوتے” بلکہ “سوشلورکرز” کاکرداراداکرتےہیں۔یہسامراجکےلیےایکپرفارمنستھی—ایکایسااسلامپیشکرناجومزاحمتنہکرے۔

لیکنیہتاریخکومسخکرناہے۔صلاحالدینایوبی،عمرفوتیتال،عبدالقادرالجزائری،ادریسالسنوسی—all صوفیتھے—اوروہسیاسیرہنما،سپہسالار،اورحکمرانبھیتھے۔یہاںتککہقبانیکےاپنےنقشبندیسلسلےمیںبھی،بغدادمیں “جیشرجالالطریقةالنقشبندیہ” کاقیامامریکیحملےکےخلافہواتھا۔انتاریخیحقائقکومٹاناطاقتکےسامنےجھکنےکےمترادفہے۔

لبرل-مستشرقینکاصوفیازمسےرومانیتعلق

صوفیازمکومغربیاسکالرزکیجانبسےرومانویتکالبادہپہنانامحضاتفاقنہیں۔انیسویںاوربیسویںصدیکےمستشرقیناوراسلامیاسکالرز—جیسےولفرڈکینٹویلاسمتھ،فضلالرحمٰن،سیدحسیننصر،گیب،اورانیمیریشمل—نےایکایساعلمیڈھانچہقائمکیاجسمیںتصوفکواعتدالپسندیسےجوڑاگیا۔

شملنےخوداستضادکوتسلیمکیا: “ایکاچھاصوفیوہہوتاہےجوشریعتکیمکملپیرویکرتاہے۔” لیکنمغربمیںرومی،ابنعربی،اوردرویشوںکیچکرداررقصکوانکیاسلامیسختیسےالگکرکےپیشکیاجاتاہے۔جیسےیہصوفیازماسلامکیسختیکےباوجودپنپا،حالانکہیہاسلامکےاندرہیایکروحانیاظہارہے۔

ٹوموکوماسوزاواخبردارکرتیہیںکہیہپیشکشنسلپرستانہہے: اسلامکوعربی،سخت،سامیقراردیاجاتاہے؛جبکہصوفیازمکوآریائی،نرم،یورپیسمجھاجاتاہے۔جرمنمستشرقاوٹوفلیڈررنےاسلامکوقبائلیاورکمتر،اورصوفیازمکوآفاقیواعلیٰبناکرپیشکیا۔یہمنصوبہ،شعورییاغیرشعوریطورپر،ایکایسا “اسلاملائٹ” تیارکرتاہےجوسامراجکوقابلقبولہو۔

نسلکشیکےلیےرضامندیکیتیاری

“گڈمسلم،بیڈمسلم” میںمحمودمامدانیاستقسیمپرتنقیدکرتےہیں۔ “اچھےمسلمان” کوسیکولر،غیرسیاسی،روحانیمگرغیرمذہبی،اورلبرلدکھایاجاتاہے—جوصنفیمساوات،عدمتشدد،اورمغربیجمہوریتکیحمایتکرتاہے۔ “برےمسلمان” سیاسی،مزاحمتیاورعسکریہوتےہیں۔

یہتصورہیفوجیجارحیت،ڈرونحملوں،بلیکسائٹس،نگرانی،اورنسلکشیکوجوازفراہمکرتاہے۔یہثقافتیغلطفہمینہیں—بلکہایکسامراجیحکمتعملیہے۔

“اسلامیدہشتگردی” کابیانیہبنانےوالےبڑےمعمار،بنیامیننیتنیاہوہیں،جنہوںنےفلسطینیوںکینسلیصفائیکےلیےعالمیحمایتحاصلکرنےکیکوششکی۔عراق،افغانستان،شام،یمن،سوڈان،لبنان،اورفلسطین—سباسجھوٹکیقیمتاداکررہےہیں۔

ایسےمیںصوفیازمکواپناناروحانیتنہیں،غلامیہے—ایکایساطبقہپیداکرناجوبموںاورنارملائزیشنڈیلزپربرکتدے،بدلےمیںویزے،فنڈنگ،اوراسٹیٹڈپارٹمنٹکیتعریفحاصلکرے۔آجکے “پالششدہ” معاونین—عبداللہبنبیہ،حمزہیوسفاوردیگر—سامراجکےلیےمنتخبکردہاسلامکےپرچارکبنچکےہیں،جومزاحمتیاسلامکودبانےکاذریعہہیں۔

دوہراہتھیار: وہابیاورصوفیاسلام

سامراجیمنصوبہتضاداتپرپلتاہے۔اسیلیےایکہیوقتمیں “صوفیاسلام” اور “وہابیاسلام” کوہتھیاربنایاجاتاہے۔ایکروحانی،دوسراسختگیر—لیکندونوںسامراجکیخدمتمیںہیں۔ایکجنگیںلڑتاہے،دوسرامزاحمتکودباتاہے۔

ایکپورینسل،جوذہنیطورپرغلامبنچکیہے،سامراجیبیانیےکو “امن”، “روایت” یا “اسلامکوبچانے” کےنامپردہراتیہے۔وہبھولجاتےہیںکہوہابیمدارسکوسبسےپہلےامریکہاورسعودیعربنےملکرفنڈکیاتھاتاکہسردجنگکیپراکسیجنگوںکےلیےنوجوانوںکوانتہاپسندبنایاجاسکے۔

اورپھروہیامریکہسعودیعربکودوست،اورایران—جسکاصوفیروایتمیںگہرامقامہے—کودشمنقراردیتاہے۔

ایران = بُرا۔سعودی = اچھا۔
یہتضادہیاصلکھیلہے۔

یہنظریاتکیجنگنہیں،فرمانبرداریکیجنگہے۔ “اچھے” اور “برے” مسلمانوںکیتقسیمکادارومدارعقیدےپرنہیں،وفاداریپرہے۔

“تعاون” غیرجانبدارنہیں

“اچھےمسلمان” کابیانیہصرفخوشامدنہیں،بلکہنسلکشیکونظریاتیکورمہیاکرتاہے۔چاہےنامہو “صوفیاسلام”، “سادہاسلام” یا “مہذباسلام”—اصلمقصدکنٹرولہے۔اسلامکوتابع،قابلِانتظام،اورسامراجکےلیےمحفوظبناناہیاصلہدفہے۔

ابراہیمیمعاہدے، CVE پروگرامز،پیٹریاٹایکٹ،اورمسلمبین—ریپبلکنیاڈیموکریٹ،دونوں “اچھےاسلام” کومزاحمتکچلنےکےلیےاستعمالکرتےہیں۔ٹرمپکیواپسیکےساتھ، “پرامناسلام” یا “صوفیاعتدال” جیسےمنصوبےدوبارہسامنےآئیںگے—یہروحانینہیں،نوآبادیاتیاوزارہیں۔

آجکاہرسچاصوفیخودسےپوچھے:
کیاہمیںاستعمالکیاجارہاہے؟
کیاہماریروحانیروایتسامراجکےلیےپردہبنچکیہے؟
کیاہماریخاموشی—یاچُنکرکیگئیمذمت—جنگوںکےلیےرضامندیپیداکررہیہے؟

نتیجہ: اصلجدوجہد

چاہے 9/11 کےبعدہویا 7 اکتوبرکےبعد،کھیلوہیہے: مسلمانوںکوآپسمیںلڑاؤ،مذہبکوکنٹرولکرو،ایکشکلکوعظیمبناؤ،دوسریکومٹادو۔

مگرنتائجصرفنظریاتینہیں—آجغزہمیںجو “برےمسلمان” مارےجارہےہیں،وہشاعر،ڈاکٹر،مائیں،باپ،اوربچےہیں۔

سانحہصرفبموںیاپالیسیوںمیںنہیں—بلکہانمسلمانوںمیںہےجومغربیخوشنودیکےلیےسامراجیمیزوںپربیٹھنےکوترجیحدیتےہیں۔یہصرفاخلاقیناکامینہیں—بلکہنسلکشیمیںشراکتداریہے۔

ابوقتہےتوبہکا۔
ابوقتہے “اچھااسلام” پیشکرنےکیاداکاریبندکرنےکا۔
اسلامکودوبارہاپنالو—بطورایکزندہروایت،جوعدل،مزاحمت،اورسچائیکاعلمبردارہو۔

—–

A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework.

His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust.

The following is a summarised and edited version of: “Manufacturing ‘Islam Lite’: Sufism as ‘Good Islam’: How the politics of ‘Good Muslim’ vs. ‘Bad Muslim’ manufactures consent for genocide” by Farah El-Sharif. Read the original here.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Weaponising Sufism and Wahhabism to Subjugate Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Abdullah Saeed further says: “Values change according to social, economic, political, legal and intellectual circumstances. When this happens, there should be a change in how we approach the foundation texts that relate to those values. The Qur’an was given in a specific context, within the framework of a worldview that was appropriate to first/seventh-century Arabia, and in a language and symbolism that its audience understood. The Qur’an should be seen as embedded in the context in which it was received.”

While Ebrahim Moosa says that he firmly believes that Islam is a religion for all ages and eras, he also says that the key is to interpret it according to the time and world we currently live in. “Muslim communities are based on historical traditions. And I’m not saying everything in tradition has to be thrown out. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water. I think retaining an element of tradition is important. But some parts of tradition have become outdated and anachronistic in today’s world- the question of gender, relationship between self and other, questions about practices that understand the world in a very different way. Our world has changed, and with the arrival of science and scientific thinking, how do you bring all those things together in a conversation?” Moosa asserts that progressive Islam doesn’t mean changing the Quran or changing Hadith, but is instead about having alternative methodological approaches that are going to allow us to find different kinds of answers from tradition, and answers that will be much more amenable to our experiences and our way of life, be much more equitable.

“The key thing about progressive or critical traditionalist approach in Islam, to me, is that we must see that all knowledge must substantiate and support the fulfilment of human dignity. Human dignity is at the core of all Islam’s messages. And if knowledge does not deliver on human dignity, then that knowledge really is questionable. So those kinds of interpretations of the past that talked about non-Muslims in a particular way that talked about women in a particular way are no longer dignified. That has to change. You can only change it when you are prepared to ask questions, and are prepared to challenge the paradigm of interpretation that has been prevalent thus far.” Moosa also believes that that is probably one of the biggest challenges for Muslims collectively, “because certain strands of Muslim orthodoxy do not want the paradigm to be questioned. They think the paradigm is perfect. And because they think so, anyone who challenges it becomes the enemy. But that is the only way we can have peace amongst Muslims today.”

The Flawed Argument of Context by Reformist Scholars
Is historical context important to a revelation? It certainly is for progressive revelations. Allah has taken mankind forward progressively from the earliest times time when man did not even have the concept of right and wrong to a stage when mankind was ready to receive the “perfected and complete religion” from Muhammad (pbuh), the last and the seal of the prophets. This was a stage in civilisational development, when the worth of the Deen of Allah (moral principles of religion), had become evident through practice over the ages, and therefore clear from error (Quran 2:256).  Once the perfected and complete Deen (Quran 5:3) was delivered, there cannot be further improvement to it or any addition/subtraction.

The flaw in the argument is in the assumption that lessons on the eternal principles cannot be delivered through a context. No matter what the context, eternal principles remain unchanged and any given context is only incidental, but part of the deliberate methodology of experiential learning followed by the Quranic revelations.  The context is to elucidate but not to define the message itself. It is therefore erroneous to believe that the Deen of Islam would have differed if the context of the revelation was different. No, the context or the process of elucidating the message would have been different but the Deen would have remained the same.

If you believe otherwise like the reformist scholars, then you are saying in effect that Allah did not “perfect and complete his religion” and that religion can never be perfected/completed since it must continue to change with the times. You also reject in effect the argument of Muhammad (pbuh) being the last and the seal of the prophets because who else but a prophet can guide us afresh according to the changed times?

What is possible however is that the traditionalist approach is flawed, and they have misinterpreted the Quran and their mistakes need to be corrected. It is also possible to throw out the traditionalist approach completely if it is full of errors and adopt a more robust methodology to the study of the Qur’an.

Does Religion Shape Our Values, Or Do We Change The Religion According To The Changing Values?
Man did not know right from wrong. It is religion which has exclusively given us the criteria of right and wrong and each one of our ethical and moral principles. The moral/ethical domain has exclusively belonged to religion and not even one of our moral principles has come from outside of religion or outside of Divine Revelation. It is therefore preposterous for the reformist scholars to suggest changing the religion according to the changing values. If the values have come from outside of religion then religion was unnecessary in the past and if the values from religion are inappropriate in today’s world, then the religion has outlived its utility and must be abandoned. The claim of the Quran that the Deen is perfected and complete is then proven false (Nauzobillah). Is this however the case? Far from it as we shall see.

The Argument against Interpretations
First, let us question why the Quran needs to be interpreted. Whose speech requires to be interpreted? We know that we need to interpret the speech of:
1. A Child who has not yet learned to speak well.
2. An imbecile
3. Another category of speech or writing that is interpreted is poetry and literature.

 We never try to interpret the speech of sane intelligent honourable persons but take them on their word or take what they say literally.

 The Quran informs us that it is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds (Qur’an 56:80), a Book that makes things clear and not poetry (Qur’an 36:69), nor is it the word of an imbecile or mad man (Qur’an 68:2), but the word of a most honourable messenger of Allah (Qur’an 81:19). It therefore does not require to be interpreted but taken on its word or its most direct literal meaning. Those who interpret and not take the direct literal meaning are those who hold the Message in light esteem and the Quran asks: (56:81) Is it such a Message that ye would hold in light esteem?

What of the Mutashabihat verses? These also do not require interpretation but knowing which of the words have been used as a metaphor, which is also never in doubt. In any case, the Deen of Allah, or right way of living in Islam, is through the Muhkamat verses (verses of clear established meaning) alone.

 So, what do we make of this penchant for interpretation? Why is every scholar interpreting? This is because each one of us reads the Quran with pre-conceived ideas of what is right and wrong and is subconsciously bending the Message to those ideas. Nobody is listening to the Qur’an with an open, clear and blank mind. We therefore have paradigms of interpretation or theological frameworks.

The Meaning vs the Paradigms of Interpretation
However, if all that we do is interpret, then there is no end to the re-interpretations. But if you take the meaning as intended when the Quran was revealed, then this meaning is fixed and can never change. Is it possible to take the meaning? Yes, it is not only possible but easy and simple. The clear meaning is as relevant today as it always was and will forever be as the revelation of Allah is expected to be.

Allah’s attribute of Tawheed or Oneness, manifests itself in the attribute of every verse. The single, easily understood clear meaning, makes taking any other meaning clearly false. This pre-supposes that no verse of the Quran contradicts any other verse of the Quran and no verse of the Quran is abrogated which indeed is the case. Our scholars, with their misinterpretations, however, render the Book a book of many contradictions and provide proof that they misinterpret. The Quran is consistent with itself but not necessarily with the secondary literature consisting of the Ahadith, Shane-Nuzul, commentaries of the scholars and imams. The Quran is best understood by itself. The simple trick is to blank out every other noise and listen carefully to the Quran alone. Nothing can be simpler than that.    

Question the scholars, the traditionalists and every paradigm of interpretation and in fact interpretation itself, but either accept that Islam is eternal, unchanging and perfected as claimed by the Quran, or reject that claim and therefore the Qur’an itself. You are then free to follow whatever you wish to follow. Why should we be constrained by the Qur’an that makes a false claim?  Professor Ebrahim Moosa is debunking the Islam of the traditional schools without bringing out the real Islam because he has no idea of how to bring out the real Islam. He only knows that the Islam of the traditional schools is inconsistent with human dignity. I debunk the Islam of the traditional schools by showing them to be in gross error and misinterpreting.

Debunking the Islam of the Traditionalists
We need to take the bull by the horns. The misinterpretations of the traditionalists cannot be countered by an appeal to modernity. If we need to change the religion with the times, then the religion is man-made and if so, why do we need the Quran at all? We can go wherever our reason leads us. We have a case against the traditionalists only if we can show them to be in gross error or by showing that their Islam is a caricature of the real Islam of the Quran if not a complete anti-thesis of it. If not, then the traditionalists are right and we either accept their Islam or go our own ways. Why should we hang around Islam if we disagree with what we believe to be the authentic Islam? What we need to become is a person of integrity and not a hypocrite.

The fact is that the Islam of the traditionalists is a gross misrepresentation of the true Islam of the Quran as brought out by the clear meaning of the verses shorn of all interpretations.  I have brought out in my articles the eternal Islam of the Quran which is consistent with the most refined ideas of human dignity, as it should be, if the Quran is indeed a revelation, and the last word, from the Lord of the Universe. I also do not deviate from the literal meaning. The meanings of the words that I take is as defined or made clear by the Quran itself, and not the distortions that have crept in from misuse of those words by the scholars. For example:

1.       Kafir is a faith neutral term meaning an ingrate rebel or a wilful denier of the truth, or those who wilfully disobey the commands of Allah but never a simple “disbeliever”, for it is only a believer who can wilfully disobey or deny and therefore be a Kafir. There are several verses of the Quran where “Kafaru” refers to the believer. A simple “disbeliever” is la-Yuminun (one without belief) because he may be la-Yalamun (one without knowledge) and is not a Kafir. There is no verse in the Quran that refers to all the polytheists as Kafir because many of them are simply those without knowledge and are not wilful deniers of Allah’s Oneness. While “shirk” or associating partners with Allah is an unforgivable sin for the believers, it is merely among the prohibitions for the disbelievers without knowledge. There is of course a category of “disbelievers” who have the knowledge and conviction and yet are wilful deniers of Allah. These are among the category of people “who will not believe” no matter what proof comes to them and are among the Kafir. This is covered in my article: Revisiting the Meaning of Kafir

2.       Islam is the Deen (religion) of Allah from the time of creation of the Universe itself, and every scriptures-based religion is a sect of Islam. This is covered in my articles:
Understanding the Religion of Allah through the Ages
The Momineen and the Kafirin
Is It Possible To Logically Derive A Single Meaning Of Every Verse Of The Quran? Or, Does Allah Provide A Level Playing Field To All The People?

3.       The only cause for fighting that is justified and described as fighting in the cause of Allah is fighting to end any kind of oppression against any people by any oppressor. The faith of the oppressor and the oppressed is immaterial. Islam does not justify any other cause for fighting – not even fighting to end disbelief. This is covered in my articles:
The Principles of War from the Quran
The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting
The Correct Understanding of the So Called ‘Sword’ Verses of Surah Taubah
The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

4.       The polytheists (Mushrikin) who had not fought against the Muslims in violation of their treaty had a right to retain their faith and become jiziya paying citizens. Their choice was not limited to either accepting Islam or death as portrayed by the traditionalist. This is covered in my articles:
The Ahadith That Distort The Message Of The Quran – Part I
The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine Plan Allah

5.       Shuhuda does not mean martyrs in the Qur’an. It means witnesses or exemplar Muslims. They are those who provide living evidence of Islam through their deeds and words. Those slain in the cause of Allah are referred to in the Quran by the full description “qutelu fi sabi lillah” and never as the Shaheed or the shuhuda. The meaning of shuhuda has been distorted by the traditionalists to glorify getting slain in violent jihad. This is covered in my article: The Politics of Religion and the Changing Concept of Shuhuda over the Years

6.       A woman’s testimony is not worth half of that of a man’s testimony. The Quran allows women the privilege and option of witnessing and testifying jointly consulting each other. This is not a legal requirement but an option and a privilege. Their separate testimonies are not to be taken but only their joint testimony allowing them to consult each other before testifying or answering any question. This is covered in my article: Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That of A Man?

7.       Jizya as implemented by the Prophet (pbuh), was not a religious requirement under Islam, but a negotiated agreement between the parties. It was value for money. This is covered in my article: The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) From the Qu’ran (Part 6): The People of the Book and Jiziya

8.       A Muslim is anyone who establishes regular prayers and pays zakat and has accepted to follow the tenets of Islam while he may not yet have become a believer. Belief is something which grows over a period and is not a pre-condition for becoming a Muslim (Qur’an 9:5 and 49:14). You cannot therefore declare a person who establishes regular prayers and pays zakat as kafir for his beliefs no matter what those beliefs may be. A believer can be a kafir but not a Muslim because a Muslim by definition is one who submits to Allah in Islam by establishing regular prayers and spending in charity. Every sect of Islam practices takfir of every other sect and is in error and since the Kharjites started this practice, every sect of Islam is a sub-sect of the Kharjite. This is covered in my article: What Survives Of The Authentic Sunna (Practice) Of The Prophet (PBUH)?

9.       The divorce process in the Qur’an is a two-stage process with a mandatory Iddat period in between, which must be spent in the husband’s house. Divorce by pronouncing Talaq thrice in one sitting is therefore null and void and also divorce through messages. If reconciliation does not take place during the iddat period, then the divorce becomes irrevocable. If reconciliation takes place, then any subsequent divorce will have to go through the same two stages. This can happen any number of times. The Quran does not put the limit of three on it. What the Quran says is that there is no third stage. After the second stage or at the end of the iddat period, it must either end with reconciliation or with an irrevocable divorce because there is no third stage. This is covered in my article: The Process for Divorce in the Quran

10.     The five pillars of Islam is a construct of the Ash’ariyya and the Maturidiyya theology. These are better thought of as the hygiene factors rather than as the pillars of Islam. What Islam rests on are the virtues of the Siddiq, Shuhuda and the Saliheen extolled in the Quran which are the pillars of Islam and covered in my article: The Role Models in the Quran

Conclusion
The traditionalists have relied upon bigoted paradigms of interpretation which has resulted in portraying the religion at odds with the humanistic and universal message of the Quran. The answer to that is not another paradigm of interpretation but rejection of every paradigm of interpretation and establishing the true meaning of the Message of the Quran as demonstrated through my articles. What comes through are the eternal values of human dignity and Allah as the God of all mankind, who provides a level playing field to all people irrespective of the religion into which they are born.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Islam: Why the Reformist Scholars Cannot Make a Difference appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 (21:107) We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all the people.(12:104, 38:87, 68:52, 81:27) “This is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds.

While the revelation has a context and the Book can be best described as experiential learning, the general principles that can be easily derived are applicable to all people irrespective of their faith. The Quran provides comprehensive guidance on waging war in the cause of Allah.

The Principles of war that are derived by considering all the verses on fighting are clear and free from ambiguity. None of the verses make an exception based on the times and circumstances of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh). The principles are therefore eternal and based as these are on Divine guidance and inspiration, are common to all the scriptures and may be taken as guidance by all the people whether they follow the religion of Islam or not. The clear, unambiguous principles are:

1. There is no compulsion in religion. Any form of coercion in religion or prevention from following one’s religion peacefully, constitutes persecution.
2. War is mandated to end any kind of oppression against any people. The oppression may be religious persecution or any other form of oppression. The faith of the oppressor and the oppressed is immaterial.
3. Only a ruler with a territory and people under his political authority can wage war. Civil war is not permissible. And only people in the territory ruled by such a ruler can participate in the war effort. People residing in territory under the control of the oppressor, must migrate from that territory first, if they wish to join the war effort against the oppressor.
4. The only justifiable cause for making war is to fight against the oppressors to end oppression. There is no other justifiable cause.
The major battles fought by the Prophet against the people of Mecca were against their persecution of the Prophet and followers of the new faith of Islam. After his people suffered torture, persecution and even killing for 13 years, the Prophet (pbuh) was forced to migrate to Medina. Even then, the Meccans pursued them as is evident by the three major battles fought near Medina with the last battle being the siege of Medina itself. The Muslims eventually prevailed over their enemy. Surah Taubah describes the judgment on the vanquished enemy. The General Principles underlying the judgment on the vanquished religious persecutors are as follows:
1.       Let those vanquished persecutors who fought but never violated their treaties, the freedom to practice their faith and live peacefully, if they agree to become your willing subjects.
2.       To those who were treacherous and fought in violation of their treaties, provide protection if they seek protection. Make them hear the word of God and if they still refuse to accept your religion, escort them to a safe place outside your territory.
3.       Those who were treacherous and fought in violation of their treaty, are allowed 4 months of time in which they are free to migrate to a neighbouring country or accept the victor’s faith. Those who remain defiant at the end of the amnesty period may be killed.
As may be seen, the rules are extremely generous. If it was a fair war without violation of treaty, the vanquished simply must accept the new political authority and become willing subjects and can live peacefully practicing his faith. The treacherous violators of treaties can also save their lives by accepting exile or the victor’s faith. These rules are in no way unfair for a people who had fought to annihilate the religion of their victors.
In any other war where religion is not the issue, it is only treachery of the combatants alone that is punishable by death or exile. The remaining people simply must become willing subjects of the victors or may choose to migrate.

Treaties, Alliances and Relations with Other Nations/People
 
The Quran is unequivocal in advocating peace treaties and treaties of mutual cooperation with other people irrespective of the faith professed by them even if they are your enemy:
 
(8:61) But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
 
The Prophet had treaties with several of the pagan tribes. The Quran attaches the utmost importance to strict observance of treaties so much so, that even if someone from amongst your own people,  commit a crime punishable by death, and then goes over to the people with whom you have a treaty, you cannot touch him. Treaties covering extradition of such people were perhaps not common in those days.
 
This is a hypothetical situation but if a tribe from among the Mushrikin had said to the Prophet “we do not understand your religion and do not accept it, but we defend your right to practice and preach it, and would like to align ourselves with you in your fight against your persecutors”, the Prophet would have readily entered into a treaty of mutual alliance and cooperation with such people. On being successful against the persecutors, he would have given such an ally a place of honour in the new polity irrespective of whether they accepted Islam. Going by the message of the Quran, such people would have been blessed by Allah with faith in Him, eventually. We can therefore assert the following:
 
 In Islam, the other is the Kafir, but they are not the non-Muslims but the unjust and the oppressors who could be professing any faith including Islam. The cause of Allah, identified from the Quran, is to end all injustice and oppression, and all those who stand up for justice and fight against oppression are from “the community of God” and the Muslims must form an “Ummat-e-Wahida” or a united front with all such people to end injustice and oppression in the world.

The God of Islam is the God of all the people and is not the parochial God of only the Muslims in our theology for Allah says:
“Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah (by whatever name) and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (2:112).

The Muslim of the Quran, is therefore simply anyone who submits to God (by whatever name), and is a doer of good deeds. There are therefore only two kinds of people – those who stand for justice and against oppression are the friends and helpers of God and the oppressors are the enemies of humanity and of God. This is the Universal Message of the Quran.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com
 

The post The Muslim of the Quran is simply anyone who submits to God (by whatever name), and does good deeds appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The former category is referred to as the Kafaru or the Kafirin and the latter as merely “disbelievers” or la Yuminun. The punishment for the Kafirin is in verse 9:5 and their Kufr is described in 9:12, 13. The punishment for those who chose to remain disbelievers but were not among the Kafirin, was being debarred from entering Kabah (9:28) and required to pay Jizya 9:29. All the polytheists had the option to migrate to a neighbouring country during the four month period of amnesty and save themselves from the consequences of the punishment in 9:5 or 9:29. The outcome was that not a single person was punished by either verse 9:5 or 9:29. They either chose to migrate or accepted Islam.

بَرَاءَةٌ مِّنَ اللَّـهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ
(1) A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Mushrikin with whom you have contracted mutual alliances:-

فَسِيحُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّـهِ ۙ وَأَنَّ اللَّـهَ مُخْزِي الْكَافِرِينَ
(2) Go you, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as you will), throughout the land, but know you that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame the Kafirin.

وَأَذَانٌ مِّنَ اللَّـهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الْأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ اللَّـهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ۙ وَرَسُولُهُ ۚفَإِن تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّـهِ ۗ وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ
(3) And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Mushrikin. If then, you repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know you that you cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim to the Kafaru, a grievous penalty.

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنقُصُوكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يُظَاهِرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ أَحَدًا فَأَتِمُّوا إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ
(4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Mushrikin with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loves the righteous.

فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ ۚ فَإِن تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
(5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Mushrikin wherever you find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّـهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ
(6) If one amongst the Mushrikin ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
Please note when a verse uses Mushrikin and when it uses Kafirin or Kafaru and the way it distinguishes between the two. It is only the Kafirin who will be covered with shame (9:2) and to whom is proclaimed a grievous penalty (9:3). Who are these Kafaru and what is their Kufr?

 وَإِن نَّكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ عَهْدِهِمْ وَطَعَنُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُوا أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ ۙ إِنَّهُمْ لَا أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُونَ
(12) But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith (a-Immata L-Kuf’ri): for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

أَلَا تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَّكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُم بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۚ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ ۚ فَاللَّـهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَوْهُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ
(13) Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do you fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom you should more justly fear, if you believe!

The Kufr of the Kafirin was:
Violating their oaths and treaties, those who had plotted to expel the Prophet from Mecca and those who were fighting battles against the Prophet. In brief, it was religious persecution. The punishment in 9:5 is only for the religious persecutors and they are the Kafaru mentioned in 9:2,3.
Those who never broke their treaties nor helped the enemies of the Muslims, nor fought them (9:4) and those who seek asylum are not considered Kafir but only people without knowledge (la Yalamun 9:6) and exempt from the punishment in 9:5. These are however, disbelievers (la-Yuminun) and are barred from entering the Sacred Mosque from the next hajj (9:28) and are required to pay Jizya (9:29)

 يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـٰذَا ۚ وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّـهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
(28) O ye who believe! Truly the Mushrikun are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
(29) Fight those who believe not in Allah (la Yuminun) nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Why does 9:5 say kill the Mushrikin except those exempted under 9:4 and 9:6 if it is only the Kafirin who are intended? If 9:5 had said kill all the Kafirin except those exempted in 9:4 and 9:6, it is applying exemptions to the Kafirin which makes all of them Kafir. The way it is worded, the exemptions in 9:4 and 9:6 are for those Mushrikin who are not Kafir. The remaining Mushrikin are Kafir to whom the punishment in 9:5 applies.

While 9:5 appears to be harsh, it had the desired effect, and at the end of the four-month amnesty period, not a single Kafir remained to be meted out the death punishment. They either accepted Islam or migrated.

Those who were merely disbelievers but not Kafir, were among the general mass of people who follow their leaders. Once the (a-Immata l-Kuf’ri) or the leaders in Kufr accepted Islam, the rest also accepted Islam, and there were no Jiziya paying Mushrikin.  This historical fact is misinterpreted, and the opinion of the scholars is that the Mushrikin had no choice, but to accept Islam, migrate or be killed.  In effect, they say that 9:29 did not apply to the Mushrikin but only to the People of the Book. This is false. The only people the Quran accuses of not believing in Allah and the last day are the “Mushrikin” or the polytheists. There are numerous verses that speak of the Jews and the Christians but not even one verse accuses them of not believing in Allah or the last day. There are also numerous verses that speak of the “Mushrikin” which accuse them of not believing in the last day and associating partners with Allah or disbelieving both in Allah and the Last Day (44:35, 50:3, 56:47). The Jews and the Christians are accused of not holding that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and his messenger (4:161, 5:42, 5:62, 63) and not acknowledging the religion of Truth. The subject of the latter part of the verse is therefore the Jews and the Christians. The verse therefore covers the Polytheists, the Jews and the Christians and all of them are given a choice to willingly pay Jiziya or face war.

Fundamental Principles of Islam
Freedom of Conscience
Let there be no compulsion in Religion (2:256)
To the (peaceful) rejecter of the faith be his way and to me mine (109:6)

The discussion on the verses of Surah Taubah clearly establish that the above two principles, were never violated by the Prophet in his battles against the enemy, and are fundamental principles of Islam. The peaceful Mushrikin had the choice of retaining their religion and paying Jizya and the others had a choice to migrate and retain their religion.

Those who had fought against the Muslims, in violation of their treaty, were deserving of the death punishment, according to the rules of that society. Even these people were given the opportunity to migrate during the amnesty period, and save themselves. The judgment was not only in accordance with the secular law of that society, but more humane and merciful. Calling these the “sword verses” is therefore a complete misrepresentation of both the intent and the outcomes. The people to whom the key words Mushrikin, Kafirin, La Yalamun and La Yuminun apply, and therefore their meaning, is explained with the help of the verses themselves.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to www.NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The much misunderstood “sword verses” in the Quran appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Islam is Scriptures based religion and yet, it is the theology that determines the beliefs and practices of its followers. When the theology and the practice go awry, then the solution may be found by going back to the Scriptures.

The relationship of a community with the rest of the world is influenced by the concept of the “other” and the attitude to the other. In Islamic theology, the other is the non-Muslim, and Kafir, an odious word, has acquired the meaning of non-Muslim, which this paper, seeks to establish with evidence from the Quran, as demonstrably incorrect. Kafir does not even mean disbeliever, let alone non-Muslim. 

The leading lights of all sects of Islam also mistranslate and or misinterpret the verses of the Quran on fighting, and make it appear incorrectly, that the Prophet of Islam was waging battles against the disbelievers to end disbelief, when the Quran makes it clear, that the permission for fighting is only to end persecution or oppression. This paper also establishes that the Quran affirms that the freedom of conscience in Islam is absolute and without any restraints. “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and “To the peaceful disbeliever be his way and to me mine” are fundamental principles. These principles were never compromised by the Prophet in his battles against the religious persecutors.

The Twin Problems of Growing Extremism and Islamophobia
The false ideology of the traditionalists and the extremists
 
1.       Kafir means non-Muslim/disbeliever
2.      The Prophet was fighting battles against the disbelievers to end disbelief. It is our duty therefore to wage holy war until there is no more disbelief
 
Kafir is an odious word and means a conceited person whose haughtiness makes him an ingrate rebel against God, a rebel against his benefactors, one who is steeped in self-glory, and self-gratification. These personal failings are reflected in his behavior that makes him deny: the Hereafter, the prophets, scriptures and the Signs of God. It makes him an enemy of: the prophets, the good people and of God. A Kafir fights for evil causes, spreads mischief and disorder and is a high handed oppressor. The Kafir is in war with the good people and the good people are in war with the Kafir. The Prophet was therefore fighting the Kafir who were the religious persecutors to end religious persecution.  He was not fighting the disbelievers to end disbelief.
 
The Quran does not describe the disbelievers as Kafir in any verse of the Quran nor did the early Muslims have such an understanding which is why the Muslims were tolerant of other religious faiths. The false notion of “Kafir means the disbelievers”, developed only later in Islamic theology but lay dormant for much of the history of Islam which is why it did not become problematic earlier. It is in the post-colonial period and most recently on account of political developments that required a military response that the false ideas which lay dormant are surfacing and providing ideological support to the extremists and for raising armies of civilians to fight in several theaters of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. The truth is that religious persecutors from among the disbelievers were the Kafir, and the war was against them only and not against the peaceful people who were never considered Kafir although they were disbelievers. Quran uses the word “la Yuminun” for the disbelievers and never Kafir.
 
The corresponding ideology of the Islamophobes and of those from among the extreme right and the neoconservatives:
 
1.        Terrorist means Muslim
2.       Since the terrorists are out to get us, we should get them before they get us.
 
The ideology of the traditionalists/extremists among the Muslims   and that of the Islamophobes are logically equivalent and equally false. Neither are all non-Muslims Kafir nor are all Muslims terrorists. Neither was there ever a war by Muslims against all disbelievers/non-Muslims nor are all non-Muslims at war with all Muslims.
 
It can be seen that the two ideologies based on falsehood provide justification to each other, and unless refuted and defeated, can get out of hand and result in extreme strife and distrust, and over a period isolate the Muslims and pitch them against the rest of the world. Islamophobia turns out to be not irrational phobia but rational fear considering the ideology of the extremists/traditionalists which remained suppressed for centuries, but in the current political climate is gaining strength.
 
The true Islamic ideology that we must proclaim to defeat the ideology of the extremists:
 
1.       Kafir does not mean disbeliever although there are some who are Kafir among the disbelievers.
2.      The Prophet was fighting battles against the religious persecutors and their allies and helpers to end religious persecution and establish the Deen of Allah in which there is no oppression but there is justice for all. The Prophet was not fighting against the disbelievers for their disbelief.
 
There is a correspondence in the stand of the liberal and peaceful Non-Muslims, who proclaim the following:
 
1. Terrorist does not mean Muslim although there are some who are terrorists among the Muslims.
2. We are fighting against terror to end terrorism and not against the Muslims to end Islam.
 
While there are numerous peaceful liberals among the non-Muslims who support the Muslims in their fight against Islamophobia, there are very few Muslims who are even aware of the authentic and true Islamic ideology, let alone proclaim the same boldly and fight extremism and the false ideology of the traditionalists. This paper seeks to fill the knowledge void with the authentic and clear meaning from the scriptures on the subject.

The rest of the paper covered what has been covered by me in several articles on this forum. The links to those articles are provided below:

What Is Kufr And Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Full and Revised Text of the New Age Islam Series on the Subject)
The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period
The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary
The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting

The paper ended with the following conclusion:

To Summarize:
The Quran, even among its very last revealed verses, makes a distinction between those who are Kafir among the Mushrikin and those who are not, although all the Mushrikin are considered disbelievers. Not all the Mushrikin are kafir and some among the Muslims and the People of the Book are also kafir. Logically therefore, all that we can say is that Kafir does not mean disbeliever, although there are some who are Kafir among the disbelievers.

Fighting is permitted against the oppressors to protect the weak and the oppressed and not for any other cause. The faith of the Oppressor and the Oppressed is immaterial. Those who fight to protect the weak and the oppressed, fight in the cause of Allah and are the Mominin. The oppressors are Kafir. The faith professed by those who fight in the cause of Allah, the Oppressor and the Oppressed are immaterial.

In Islam, the other is the Kafir, but they are not the non-Muslims but the unjust and the oppressors who could be professing any faith including Islam. The cause of Allah, identified from the Quran, is to end all injustice and oppression, and all those who stand up for justice and fight against oppression are from “the community of God” and the Muslims must form an “Ummat-e-Wahida” or a united front with all such people to end injustice and oppression in the world.

The God of Islam is the God of all the people and is not the parochial God of only the Muslims in our theology for Allah says:
“Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah (by whatever name) and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (2:112).

The Muslim of the Quran, is therefore simply anyone who submits to God (by whatever name), and is a doer of good deeds. There are therefore only two kinds of people – those who stand for justice and against oppression are the friends and helpers of God and the oppressors are the enemies of humanity and of God.

The finding of this paper needs to be leveraged to transform young minds to think in terms of objective attributes of people, rather than in terms of the narrow stereo types based on a person’s religious identity. Since our theology says otherwise, we need to work to change it according to the clear message of the Quran brought out in this paper to remove the ideological basis for extremism among the Muslims and to promote greater co-operation with all good people of other faiths.

The objective of a University is to provide thought leadership to the world to address the problems that beset humanity. This paper may have succeeded in finding a solution to the current malaise of growing radicalism among the young of one community. Radicalization infects all people to a greater or lesser degree and tackling it in one community reduces its appeal in other communities as well.
 
We need to follow-up on our finding by organizing focused talks on the subject to take the message to a wider audience within the University to start with, and then based on our experience, to the whole world.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to http://www.NewAgeIslam.com

This article was first published on New Age Islam
 

The post In Islam, kafir does not mean a disbeliever or a non-Muslim appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Treatment of Divorced Women
The relevant verse from the Quran is:
(2:241) for divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale) This is a duty on the righteous.
The Quran, in its wisdom, has kept the above verse open ended. What is maintenance on a reasonable scale is left to be decided by the society in which one lives and by what is customary in that society and on the merits of the case. In the case of a 62-year-old woman, who has crossed her menopause and no longer marriageable, nor able to work, what is reasonable is not a onetime settlement of the princely sum of Rs5400 as contended by her former husband, but a monthly maintenance. It is difficult to imagine, that a man of means, would grudge paying the paltry amount of less than Rs 180 a month to a woman who had lived as his wife for 46 of the best years of her life! What is expected of any good human being is that he settles an amount that is generous and acceptable to his wife without making her run around the courts seeking justice. A just person is expected to even pay for the maintenance of a servant who is old and no longer able to work if that person has served for a long period. The SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the HC order.
The SC judgment became a raging controversy. There were protests from many sections of Muslims against what they were led to believe, was an attack on their religion and their right to their own religious personal laws. Their spokesmen were Sunni Barelvi leader Obaidullah Khan Azmi and Syed Kazi. At the forefront was All India Muslim Personal Law Board, an organization formed in 1973.The Shariat courts should have helped the woman to get justice or helped her in the case against her husband. The AIMPLB however supported the husband in the case on grounds that he was right according to the Shariat law. Iniquity by an individual was made worse by iniquity by the Islamic Institutions and support of the masses.

Surah At-Talaq
(65:7) Let the man of means spend according to his means: and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given him. Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him. After a difficulty, Allah will soon grant relief.
(8) How many populations that insolently opposed the Command of their Lord and of His messengers, did We not then call to account,- to severe account?- and We imposed on them an exemplary Punishment.
(9) Then did they taste the evil result of their conduct, and the End of their conduct was Perdition.
(10) Allah has prepared for them a severe Punishment (in the Hereafter). Therefore fear Allah, O ye men of understanding – who have believed!- for Allah hath indeed sent down to you a Message,-

The Punishment of Allah on the Iniquitous
Rajiv Gandhi, with an eye on the coming elections, tried to gain political capital from the situation and issued an ordinance “The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986”, to please the unjust Muslims and their unjust leaders making the cup of injustice to overflow. There was the expected howl of protest from the Hindu right, and to appease them, Rajeev Gandhi ordered the reopening of the Babri Masjid gates for worship by the Hindus.

The rest is history. Without this gross injustice to Shah Bano by the entire Muslim population and their leaders, the history may have been entirely different. The politics of appeasement gave rise to the politics of polarization that lead to the demolition of Babri Masjid, riots and further polarization and a situation today, when the Muslim vote has ceased to make a difference because the Hindus have become completely polarized giving rise to the politics of majoritarianism.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which was ostensibly meant to reverse the SC verdict achieved little as is clear from later judgments such as Shamima Farooqui versus Shahid Khan case. The Act proved to be in fructuous because it was based on the premise that the SC had meddled with the Shariat law and the SC showed that it had not meddled with the Shariat law in the Quran but had in fact based its verdict on the clear wording of the Quran in verse 2:241.

The Triple Talaq Case
The case has shown that the AIMPLB and the Ulema have not learnt any lesson from the Shah Bano case. The practice of TT is admitted being a Bidat or innovation and against the Shariat of the Quran and distasteful and yet our Ulema are not ready to ban it on their own although Muslim women and their organizations have been demanding it. Are they waiting for some more of Allah’s wrath to be visited on the Muslims? Do they not see the writing on the wall that unless they change and reform to render justice to their own women, they will be wiped out? It is a shame that this matter had to go to the courts for adjudication and the AIMPLB could not settle the issue through discussions and negotiations with the All India Women’s Personal Law Board (AIWPLB) and the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA). They would do well to at least now work with them on the model Nikahnama to be used for all Muslim marriages. The default clause should include the contract of a monogamous marriage. This does not amount to banning polygamy as the parties can agree to delete or change the default clause or the wife could permit at a later date a second marriage.

The AIMPLB and the seminaries must do all that they can to make the ban on Triple Talaq effective by issuing Fatwas, to the effect that divorce is necessarily a two stage process separated by a four month period of Iddat and saying Talaq any number of times is immaterial. The Iddat period must be spent in the husband’s house during which the couple can choose to reconcile. They should declare that the past practice was an aberration and not in accordance with the Quran.

The Way Forward On Other Issues
 
The way forward is obvious. The SC judgment in the Shah Bano case and now in the TT case has demonstrated that the understanding of the Ulema as to what constitutes the Shariat is open to being contested in a court of law by any Muslim citizen whose rights are violated. The Muslims have a Book, the Quran, which by its own claim, contains the “perfected Deen” or religion or way of life made clear beyond doubt. The single meaning of each of its “Muhkamat” verses or verses containing its commands and injunctions can be logically derived as shown in several of my articles. Based as it is on a Clear Book, any contravention of its explicit commands, injunctions and guidance on the plea of past practice and rulings can be set aside. The meaning of freedom to practice his religion to a Muslim citizen is also the right to be judged by the Quran and rendered justice according to the Quran in all personal matters. It cannot mean freedom for any institution or seminary to practice injustice on any section of the Muslims by dictating what the religion means even though such meaning contradicts the Quran.

The Muslim Institutions, the seminaries and the Ulema may therefore take notice that unless they initiate necessary reforms and become responsive to all sections of the society, they are in danger of being swept aside and overruled by the courts. The erosion in their credibility will erode the people’s faith in the religion itself. They should not become instrumental in destroying the religion. Islamic theology has become parochial and paternalistic and it is time to do a clean-up act in the light of the Quran. The people are waking up. The Ulema need to wake up faster.

The students attending the madrasas have a fundamental right to be taught the Universal Message of the Quran and not the parochial and bigoted version that its theology has become. The government and the courts have the right as well as a duty to instruct them to correct their curriculum and content for conformance with the clear message of the Quran in which a Muslim is any person who submits to God (by any name) and does good deeds. A Kafir is not a non-Muslim but a rebel against God and an oppressor irrespective of the faith he professes even if that faith is Islam. The religion of Islam permits fighting only against oppression and not against disbelief and it is a religion in which the freedom of conscience to practice any religion is absolute and without any restraints. What is being taught is quite the reverse and against the clear, single, logically derived meaning of the Quran which can be easily demonstrated as I have done in my articles. In the interests of the Muslims themselves and of the country, we need Madrasa students to be broad-minded without in any way compromising on their religion according to the Quran.

This is an opportunity to become good Muslims as per the Quran where a Muslim is a person who can be trusted and who causes no harm to anyone and is never unjust. We need to clean up our theology of the accumulated Kufr from 1400 years of practicing bigotry, parochialism and misogyny in various degrees. We must save our children from the ill-effects of our mistakes and clear deviations from the true message of the Quran, so that their lives may become blessed and not accursed.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to www.NewAgeIslam.com

The post The Triple Talaq Case: The Unjust Muslim Men and Their Unjust Leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.