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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——

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

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

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

“Had your Lord wished, that all those who are on the earth would be believers, would you then force people until they become faithful?”                              
(Quran: Chapter 10, Verse 99.)

The verse from the Quran clearly discourages the use of force in the process of calling people towards faith and preaching religion. This rejection is equivalent to accepting the freedom of an individual to agree and accept or to disagree and leave religion.

Blasphemy means a speech that causes injury or speaking evil. Initially, blasphemy was understood in Islamic tradition as attacks on core ideas and symbols, mainly God and Prophet.

In Quran, the term equivocal for blasphemy is “Sabb”. Sabb-Allah or Sabb-Al Rasul means to abuse God or the messenger. All utterances that express contempt for Allah, his law, attributes, commands or prohibitions and scoffing at Muhammad or any of the prophets are considered as Sabb.

The word “Sabb” comes twice in Quran, in verse 108 of Chapter 6,

“Do not abuse (La Tasubbu) those whom they invoke besides Allah, lest they should abuse (Tasubbu) Allah out of hostility without any knowledge. That is how to every people We have made their conduct seem decorous/beautiful (Zeena)”

In this verse, there is no mention of corporeal punishment for blasphemy. Even in the case of apostasy, Quran in Chapter 2, Verse 217 says,

“Those whoever if you turn away (Yurtad) from his religion and dies faithless. They are the ones whose works have failed in this world and Hereafter.”

All the punishments if we look at Quran are non-physical and not hudud punishments. The approach that Quran follows, especially towards its opponents is encouraging tolerance and perseverance among Muslims.

In Hadith literature, we do have reports that contain references to blasphemy and punishing them. One of the famous examples is Ka’ab al-Ashraf. An in-depth examination of this Hadith reveals that he was not just charged with blasphemy but with extensive anti-Muslim activity, slander of the Prophet and plot to kill the prophet. He was perceived to wage war against the Muslim community.

 The present concept of blasphemy as an offence has been developed by Muslim jurists in the post Prophetic period. Blasphemy against Prophet was considered a greater legal offence than blasphemy against God. Since the prophet had passed away and was not able to defend himself, it was thought that it was the responsibility of the community (Ummah) to guard his honour by imposing punishment.

It stemmed from the idea that it was a violation of the “right of humans” (Huquq ul Abd). Since it is the right of people and not God, there can be no repentance by itself.

Abdullah Saeed, Tariq Ramdhan and Mohsen Kadivar are some contemporary scholars of Islam who present a different approach to understanding these hadiths. According to them, critical analysis and hermeneutical reading of these Hadith reveals that most of them have a weak chain of transmission and others have been taken out of context or the proper context has been ignored.

In Islamic history, blasphemy and apostasy have been used both to suppress thoughts and debate and to harass religious minorities, both inside and outside Islam. They were used as vicarious arguments to serve political and economic interests or to settle scores. Muslim rulers in the post-Prophetic era used/ abused this law to strengthen and consolidate their position by charging people and groups who oppose them as apostates and rebels (Baghi). Similar to the way the law of sedition is used in today’s politics

The accusation of blasphemy or apostasy extends beyond the law and judiciary by putting people at risk of extrajudicial killings whether in jail or on the outside. It also tends to elevate all critique of religious knowledge to blasphemy. Attacking or punishing someone just because you think that they have insulted or criticised what you consider sacred is neither in line with the teachings of the Quran nor the Sunnah of Prophets but the Sunnah(way) of Pre-Islamic Arab Jahiliyah and the oppressors like Namrud.

Quran condemns the elites of Quraysh who decided to captivate, kill or expel Prophet Muhammad. They did so because they believed that the message of Islam was an insult to their gods and the tradition of their forefathers.

Similarly, Namrud had ordered Prophet Abraham should be burned in the fire. Namrud and other priests considered Abraham’s way of preaching and denying the lordship of Namrud as an insult to their Gods.

Stabbing a 75-year unarmed old man in an education centre is bereft of any Zeena and can never be in line with the themes of peace, justice and humanity prescribed by the Quran.

 In conclusion, I would like to convey my message to the author of Satanic verses in the form of a quote by Voltaire,

“I may not agree with what you have to say, But I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The post Corporal Punishment for Blasphemy or Apostasy not in line with Quranic Ethos? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Muslim intellectuals and activists speaking at a webinar on Sunday strongly condemned the Paris beheading of a school teacher, Samuel Paty, by an 18-year-old Muslim fanatic, Abdullakh Anzorov.  The webinar was organised by the Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD). Moderated by its convener, Javed Anand, all four panellists are office bearers and prominent members of IMSD.

In his introductory remarks Anand stated: “We are here to condemn in unequivocal terms, no ifs and buts, not only the man responsible for this barbaric act but all those who had any role in the instigation of the crime as also all those who seek to justify it. We are here not just to condemn the slaying of Mr Paty, but also to demand the abolishing of apostasy and banishing of blasphemy anywhere and everywhere across the world”. 

Islamic Scholar Dr Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Mumbai-based, argued that killing people for blasphemy or apostasy is not permissible in Islam. The Qur’an never mentioned such punishments. The Qur’an has stood for peace and justice in a non-violent way. It will be very fruitful if scholars and ulema scrutinised and sifted through Hadith literature which has been pending over the years. The confirmation of a Hadith has to be in consonance with the verses of the Qur’an, she said. 

“Respectfully, the Paris beheading is a wake-up call to the ulema and leaders of the Muslim world. It is time for both the clergy and the parents to instruct children that such acts of violence are not only detested and abhorred by Islam but are in total contradiction to Islam’s reverence for peace, explicit recognition of tolerance, compassion, social equality, high moral order and spiritual depth, Ali added.

Columnist, New Age Islam, Arshad Alam, Delhi-based, in his presentation contextualised the Islamist beheading of the teacher. Pointing out that it was planned and pre-meditated, he argued the prime objective of such acts of terror is to silence any critique of Islam. Alam added that Charlie Hebdo cartoons must be seen within a European tradition which has for long satirised religious traditions, particularly Christianity. Since Islam is also now a European religion, the same yardstick must be applied to this religion also. Those who want to retain blasphemy laws on the statute are basically the same forces which are opposed to the liberal secular tradition and therefore should be rightly understood as indulging in right wing politics, he said.

Alam argued that it is incumbent on Muslims to raise their voice against the laws of blasphemy and apostasy as worldwide they are the worst victims of such laws. Moreover, these laws serve to control and intimidate the minds of Muslims and till the time they are not abrogated, Muslims and others will not have the freedom to discuss, debate and critique, something which is cardinal in order to develop a free and open society.   

Advocate and mediator, A. J. Jawad, Chennai-based, spoke about the similarities between blasphemy and sedition as weapons of power and control used by theocracies and autocracies to suppress dissent and to whip up mob frenzy. He said that religion and nationalism are excuses used to charge up emotions. The anti-blasphemy laws and anti-sedition laws are used to attack detractors and dissenters by theocratic and autocratic (far right) rulers.

He pointed out how in the 11th century AD, Sunni scholars of law and theology, called the “ulema,” began working closely with political rulers to challenge what they considered to be the sacrilegious influence of Muslim philosophers on society.

The most prominent in consolidating Sunni orthodoxy, said Jawad, was the brilliant and highly regarded Islamic scholar Ghazali, who died in the year 1111. In several influential books still widely read today, Ghazali declared two long-dead leading Muslim philosophers, Farabi and Ibn Sina, apostates for their unorthodox views on God’s power and the nature of resurrection. Their followers, Ghazali wrote, could be punished with death.

Ghazali’s declaration provided justification to Muslim sultans from the 12th century onward who wished to persecute– even execute – thinkers seen as threats to conservative religious rule. The trend continues today, said Jawad.

Activist and writer Feroze Mithiborwala, Mumbai-based, said essentially the basic argument against the cartoon controversy is that they “mock” and “offend my religious sensibilities” and thus should be banned. The cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, which undoubtedly hurt the feelings of ordinary Muslims actually required a non-violent response, which would have been far more effective.

On one hand, we have a murder committed by a religious fanatic in the name of blasphemy. On the other hand, there is a secular French tradition of absolute freedom of expression, which includes the right to offend all religions, Mithiborwala added. He said it’s high time religious people realised one basic truth: every religious text and tradition is ‘offensive, blasphemous and heretical’ to the followers of other sects and religions.

The very concepts of blasphemy and heresy are essentially anti-people and anti-democratic, as their agenda is to stymie any theological and intellectual debate and discussion on the issue of religious oppression and violence, both ideological and structural. Therefore concepts such as blasphemy and heresy have no place in any conscientious civilised society and must go, Mithiborwala concluded.

A 2-minute silence was observed at the beginning of the webinar as a mark of respect for the slain teacher whom Hassen Chalghoumi, an imam who leads prayers at a mosque in a Paris suburb described as “a martyr for freedom of expression, and a wise man who has taught tolerance, civilisation and respect for others.” The imam added: “This is not Islam, sorry, it’s not religion, its Islamism, it’s the poison of Islam.” 

The post Muslim intellectuals, activists condemn Paris beheading, demand abolition of apostasy and blasphemy laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo: Protesters mobilizing for the release of Asia Bib in Lahore, Pakistan on November 21, 2010 (Mohsin Raza/Reuters)

Bibi’s acquittal sparked protests by religious fundamentalists across the country, and despite being acquited by the highest court in the country, Bibi was not allowed to leave Pakistan. The review petition against Bibi was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, but she was forced to remain in Pakistan until she quietly left for Canada on Wednesday. Such is the sensitivity of the matter that the government is tight-lipped about Bibi’s departure and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to confirm she was in Canada for security reasons.
 

The post For How Much Longer Is The Misuse Of The Blasphemy Law In Pakistan Going To Be Tolerated? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The blasphemy-related offence carries mandatory death penalty under Pakistani law.

A review petition was filed on November 1, 2018, by Qari Muhammad Salam, a cleric who had fabricated the alleged blasphemy case against Bibi in 2009, requesting the top court to reconsider its decision.

Read full report here: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/pakistans-aasia-bibi-is-free-at-last/articleshow/67742087.cms

The post Aasia Bibi Is Free At Last: Pak SC dismisses review petition against its October verdict in blasphemy case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is a widespread notion that in Islam, the punishment for someone who says or writes something considered blasphemous of the Prophet Muhammad is death. A majority of the Fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence of the later period are of this opinion. They say that a blasphemer (Shatim) must be given capital punishment.

Now, announcing capital punishment for something is a very serious matter. Mere Qiyas (speculative reasoning) or Ijtihad (an opinion of a scholar or group of scholars) is not enough to come to this conclusion. For this, one needs to provide a Nass—a direct reference in the Islamic texts. The text of Islam is preserved in its original form in the Quran and Sunnah, and so for making any such claim, one has to provide a clear reference from the Quran or Hadith. But as far as the claim that a person who blasphemes the Prophet must be killed is concerned, there is no clear reference in either the Quran or the Hadith. By ‘clear reference’ I mean there must be a sentence in words like these: ‘One who blasphemes the Prophet must be killed.’ There is no such sentence in the Quran or in the Hadith. So, this claim that a person who blasphemes the Prophet should be killed is based entirely on Qiyas or Ijtihad. But, as pointed out earlier, in this matter, Qiyas and Ijtihad are not enough.

For such a claim there must be a Nass, a textual reference in the Quran or Hadith, to support it, but since there is no such clear Nassin either of these two sources, it is completely wrong to say that in Islam blasphemy is a crime that merits capital punishment. The claim that blasphemy is a crime that merits capital punishment is the opinion of some Fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence, but the mere opinion of these scholars is not enough to validate this claim of theirs.

In Islam, there are two kinds of issues—basics, and non-basics. With regard to the basics, you need to provide some reference from the basic sources of Islam, the Quran and Hadith. Unlike non-basic issues, in the matter of basic issues you cannot rely on your own interpretive judgment or Ijtihad.

And who were these Fuqaha who claimed that blasphemers should be killed? They were from the period of the Abbasid Empire. Fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence was compiled in the Abbasid period, and these Fuqaha were born in that period.

Now, in Islam, only three periods are considered to be authentic as models. According to a Hadith:

“The best of my community would be those of my generation, then those who come after my generation and, then those who come after this generation.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 2533)

So, there are only three periods that are authentic in Islam.

The first is the Prophetic period. The second is the period of the Sahaba, the Prophet’s Companions. And the third is the period of the Tabayeen, the Companions of the Companions of the Prophet.

So, according to the above-cited Hadith, only these periods are authentic periods as sources of reference for following Islam. After these three periods there is no authentic period in Islam. And these Fuqaha who are of the opinion that the punishment for blasphemy is death were not born in these three periods. They were born after this—that is, in the Abbasid period. So, I can say that when the opinion that someone who is considered to have blasphemed the Prophet should be killed was not found in the three authentic periods of Islam but emerged only later, in the period of the Abbasid Empire, it gives us a clue as to why these Fuqaha developed this opinion. It was due to the then prevailing empirical situation—that of Empire.

Islam began in 610 CE. At that time, there was no empire. But in the later period, there was an expansion, and by the time of the Abbasids, Muslims had established a vast empire. Later, many more Muslim empires emerged, such as the Mughal Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Now, it was during this period when Muslims were living in empires that these kinds of opinions evolved. There were many other such opinions that were evolved in this period. For example, the Fuqaha of this period divided the political geography of the earth into three parts, which they named Dar Al-Islam (the abode of Islam), Dar Al-Harb (the abode of war) and Dar al-Kufr (the abode of disbelief). There was a consensus among these Fuqaha that where Muslims were in a ruling position, that would be Dar Al-Islam, that where non-Muslim people were in a ruling position would be Dar Al-Kufr, and a place with which Muslims were potentially at war would be called Dar Al-Harb.

So, These Fuqaha Categorized The World In These Three Parts. But This Was Wrong.
How can anyone have the right to categorize humanity in this way when there is no such categorization in the Quran and Hadith? You cannot find a single verse in the Quran or a single Hadith that categorizes the world in this way. So, it is completely wrong and unfounded. No one has the right to categorize humankind in three parts like this when there is no such categorization in the Quran and Hadith.

This is one example of how these Fuqaha formed such opinions that are not found in the Quran and Hadith. So is the case with Shatm-e Rasul or blasphemy. There is no Quranic verse or Hadith in this regard but the Fuqaha, through their own Qiyas and Ijtihad, formed this opinion and declared that one who is involved in blasphemy should be killed. It was completely wrong! Totally wrong!

I think this statement itself—that one who is engaged in blasphemy should be killed—is itself a derogatory remark against the Prophet of Islam. This kind of law is itself a derogatory law. Why? Because the Prophet of Islam was a Dai, or the preacher of the truth. And who is a Dai? A Dai is one who is a well-wisher (Nasih) for humanity (Quran 7:68).Nasih means well-wisher. Every prophet was a Nasih. That is, every prophet was a well-wisher for all of humankind. The greatest concern for the Prophet of Islam was to inculcate truth in every human being. He was a well-wisher for all humans. His mission was not to kill others. Rather, it was to embrace all of humanity and bring them within the fold of Divine Mercy.

There are many verses in the Quran that tell us that the Prophet of Islam was completely a well-wisher for all humanity. So, how would it be possible for the Prophet to say that someone who said something derogatory about him should be killed? If someone were to say, ‘If a person says something bad about me, you should kill him’, it would be the saying not of a prophet, not of a well-wisher for humankind, but of a king. Only an emperor would say something like that, and not the Prophet of Islam, who was, in the words of the Quran, Rahmat un lil Alameen, that is, “a mercy to all mankind” (21:107).

According to this Quranic verse, the Prophet was a mercy to all mankind, a blessing to all mankind. And so, a saying to the effect ‘If a person says something bad about me, you should kill him’ could be attributed to a tyrannical king but never to the Prophet.

There are many other references in the Quran and Hadith that prove that the Fuqaha’s opinion on the law of blasphemy is wrong. For example, in the Madinan phase of the Prophet’s life, it so happened that one day there was a heated exchange between a Jew and a Muslim. The Jew who had been slapped in the face by the Muslim came to the Prophet and said, “O Muhammad! A man from your Ansari Companions has slapped me.” The Prophet said, “Call him.” The person was called and when he came before the Prophet, he asked, “Why did you slap him?” He replied, “O Prophet of God, while I was passing by the Jew, I heard him say, ‘By Him Who chose Moses above all the human beings.’ So I said, ‘Even above Muhammad?’ So I became furious and slapped him.” The Prophet did not say a word to the Jew. He addressed only the Muslim. It is very important to know this. Now, when the Jew had said that the Prophet Moses was the superior prophet, it was a kind of derogatory remark against the Prophet Muhammad, because it implied that the Prophet Muhammad was inferior and the Prophet Moses was superior. So, clearly it was derogatory, but yet the Prophet Muhammad said nothing to the Jew. He addressed only the Muslim. He said:

 “Do not give me preference over other prophets. On the Day of Judgment all people will be struck unconscious and I will be the first to regain consciousness. Behold! There I will see Moses [already] holding on to one of the pillars of God’s throne. I will wonder whether he became conscious before me, or if he was exempted altogether [from becoming unconscious], because of his becoming unconscious [previously] at the Mount Tur [on the earth].” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 6917)

So, this Hadith is a clear example that tells us that if anyone passes a remark that is derogatory of the Prophet, one has no right to kill him. Instead, we have to advise Muslims not to react negatively. This Hadith is very clear in this regard. The Prophet never said anything negative to that Jewish person. He only advised the Muslim not to indulge in such discussions and not to react negatively.

This is a clear Hadith, and on the basis of this I can say that the current notion that Shatm-e Rasul is a cognizable offence that is liable to death is wrong: it is not based on the Quran and Hadith, but on Qiyas.

There is another important point to consider here. And that is, that Islam is a Dawah movement. Dawah means to call people to God and to inform them about His Creation Plan. Islam requires Dawah. Islam is a religion of Dawah. The Prophet of Islam and also all his followers are dais. It is their duty to communicate the message of Islam to all humankind. This is the most important duty of all Muslims. Now, this kind of mission requires normal and peaceful relations between Dais and Madus, between Muslims and others. Muslims cannot afford any behaviour that would disrupt these normal relations. To demand that a writer be killed because he has written a book which according to some Muslims contains some derogatory remarks is bound to produce hate and enmity and disrupt the relations that should prevail between Dais and Madus. But this is what has happened many times, as when Muslim scholars demanded death for Salman Rushdie after he came out with his ‘Satanic Verses’. Similarly with Taslima Nasreen and some others. Because some of their writings contained some remarks which Muslims felt were abusive of the Prophet or blasphemous, some Muslim scholars demanded that they should be killed. They issued Fatwas calling for their death.

But what actually happened to these writers? Salman Rushdie is still alive. Taslima Nasreen is still alive. So, what was the result of those Fatwas? They only caused vast numbers of people to turn against Islam throughout the world. Because today we are living in the age of the mass media, when these Muslim scholars issued their Fatwas, it was almost instantly broadcast on the media and people all over came to know about it. And this made them believe that Islam is against freedom of opinion that in Islam there is no freedom of expression.
In our age, many people, throughout the world, believe that freedom is the greatest good. And so, when these Muslim scholars issued these Fatwas, which were broadcast throughout the world through the media, people were led to believe that Islam was against the present notion of freedom as the greatest good. Freedom has become a religion in itself for many people today, and so these Fatwas were seen as directed not only against the particular writers who were said to have committed blasphemy but as also against this present religion of freedom itself, against the present dominant thought system. So, it was a very serious issue. Because of this, people everywhere became furious. They became very negative about Islam and Muslims. And what happened as a result? Although despite those Fatwas, those writers who were accused of blasphemy were not killed, the Dawah opportunities for Islam were killed. Those Muslim scholars who issued fatwa failed to kill those writers, but they killed the Dawah opportunities.

This is a very important issue. Islam requires normalcy. It requires normal relations between Dais and Madus, between Muslims and others, but because of these Fatwas and death threats, this normal atmosphere was completely jeopardized. So, these Fatwas just weren’t against some writers. They were against Islam, against Dawah.

So, It Is Very Important To Reassess The Whole Matter.
For the sake of argument I’d like to say that even if it is a commandment in Islam that one who commits blasphemy should be killed, even then you have to stop this commandment. Why? Because this kind of fatwa is bound to become counter-productive. You have to see the result of this kind of fatwa. It is an Islamic teaching that if the result of an action is negative, you must abandon it. The Prophet has said: “Among the excellence of a person’s faith is that he leaves that which is result-less.” (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith no. 2317).This means that you have to keep yourself away from all things that are going to be counter-productive.

So, I’m saying that, first of all, this kind of fatwa—calling for death to people accused of blasphemy—is completely un-Islamic. This kind of fatwa has no basis in Islam, in the Quran and Hadith. It is based completely on Qiyas. And even if someone sincerely believes that it is indeed an Islamic fatwa, he must refrain from issuing it because it is certain that this kind of fatwa is counter-productive. A sincere person must refrain from all these kinds of negative practices.

If you read the Quran and Hadith, you will find that in the early period of Islam there were some people, in Makkah and in Madinah, men and women, who engaged in such kind of derogatory activities against the Prophet. And what happened? The Quran, the Prophet and the Prophet’s Companions answered them in a positive manner. They refuted those kinds of derogatory sayings about the Prophet on a rational basis, on a logical basis. They used logic and reason, not the sword. So, in line with the example of the early period of Islam, this sort of act must be taken as a challenge and not as a crime.

There is a difference between this sort of challenge and a crime. A crime is something that merits punishment, while this sort of challenge is something that one needs to meet on a rational basis. So, if someone is engaged in blasphemous activities, if someone issues a remark derogatory of the Prophet of Islam, it should not be taken as a crime but a challenge. So, Shatm-e Rasul is a challenge, and not a crime. Crime is a matter of the judiciary. Where there is a crime, there is punishment. And where there is a challenge, you have to meet it on a rational basis, on a logical basis.

If someone publishes a book against Islam or against the Prophet of Islam, you have to take it as a challenge—as an intellectual challenge—and you have to prepare another book to rebut it.

So, we have to note this difference between a challenge and a crime. If someone publishes a book that is derogatory of the Prophet or the Islamic religion, you have to take it as a challenge, and not as a crime. A criminal is liable to punishment, but where there is a challenge, you have to meet it on the intellectual level.  For example, if someone writes a book that is derogatory of the Prophet, you should study it and write another book in which you must refute, at the intellectual level, all the wrong arguments of the writer. This is the correct Islamic way. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim must follow this method. According to my study, it is completely wrong to take such a challenge as a crime.

What happened in the early period of Islam? The Prophet became the head of the city-state of Madinah. Then, the whole of Arabia was Islamized, so he became the head of whole Arabia. Even then he did not issue an order requiring the Muslims to kill one who blasphemed him. Some non-Muslims, who were poets, made some derogatory remarks about him, but what happened? The Prophet never ordered that they should be killed. What the Prophet did was that he told a Companion of his, Hassan ibn Thabit, who was himself a poet that he must meet this challenge. Hassan composed some poems in which he appropriately responded to those non-Muslim poets.

This was the way that the Prophet of Islam adopted. He took the poems that were very derogatory of him as a challenge, never as a crime, and instructed Hassan ibn Thabitto meet the challenge at the intellectual level. This clearly shows us what the way of Islam is in such situations.
So, the crux of the matter is that one has to differentiate between a crime and a challenge. If there is a specified crime, then of course one must take it as a crime. But when there is a challenge, one must take it as a challenge and not as a crime. And the response to a challenge is not punishment. Rather, a challenge must be dealt with at the intellectual level.

Those who respond to acts that are said to be blasphemous with Fatwas of death fail to know this difference between a crime and a challenge.

In the early period of Islam, there are several examples of people who were against Islam and the Prophet and were engaged in derogatory and blasphemous activities, but when they were addressed in the right manner, when they heard the Quran, their minds changed completely and they embraced Islam. Among the many examples of this was Umar ibn al-Khattab, who went on to become the second Muslim Caliph. Initially, Umar was against the Prophet. He was involved in defaming him and his mission. But when he studied the Quran—his sister Fatima gave him some parts of it—he was completely changed and accepted Islam.

So, This Is The Right Way Of Handling These Issues.
There is another very important point to bear in mind with regard to this discussion. And that is, in Islam we have a complete model. The Prophet of Islam is that model. The Quran is a book of ideology, and the Prophet of Islam is the practical model of that ideology. The Quran gives us the ideology of Islam, and the Prophet of Islam gives us the practical model of Islam. This is very important. From this it follows that in Islam, you cannot make any claims through your own Qiyas. You have to see what the Quran says and what the Sunnah of the Prophet says. You have to see what the model of the Prophet teaches.

In the light of this, the fact that there is no commandment about killing blasphemers either in the Quran or in the Hadith means that a commandment of this sort is not valid.

Once, when the Prophet was in Mecca, somebody directly addressed him as Muzammam. This person said this to the Prophet face-to-face. Muhammad means ‘praiseworthy’, while Muzammam means the ‘condemned one’. Now, this was a completely derogatory remark, a blasphemous remark, but what was the Prophet’s response? The Prophet simply smiled and said nothing to that person because he knew that these kinds of words were not going to become history; these were simply some words, which cannot produce any kind of negative results. So, he simply smiled. It means, he avoided and ignored the person who referred to him with these words.

The Best Reaction To All Such Things Is To Simply Ignore Them.
At the time on the Danish cartoon controversy—when a Danish paper had published cartoons that in the eyes of Muslims were derogatory of the Prophet—there was a big hue and cry. At that time, I published an article on the subject, titled ‘Ignore Cartoons’. This was based on this Sunnah or practice of the Prophet referred to above – when he heard some derogatory remarks about himself, some abusive remarks, some blasphemous remarks, he simply smiled. That means he ignored such issues.

This is, then, the Sunnah of the Prophet. You have to ignore all the Taslima Nasreens, all the cartoons, all the Salman Rushdies. This is the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam.

The title of my article was ‘Ignore Cartoons’. It wasn’t simply a title, though. It was a reflection of the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam. When the above person made that derogatory remark to the Prophet, the Prophet simply smiled, which means he ignored his words. According to the teachings of Islam, you must ignore all these negative things. You must respond positively. Positivity is a great teaching of Islam. We have to respond positively even in negative situations. This is an Islamic teaching. What is the positive response in a situation when someone says or writes something derogatory? It is to ignore the matter. You have to ignore all these things. You have to avoid all these things. You have to forget all these things. You have to engage yourself completely in Dawah work, calling people to God. It is our most important work. We have to spend all our time and resources in this work. We cannot afford these kinds of Fatwas and other negative activities that kill Dawah opportunities and that are counter to the Islamic spirit.

(The article is a modified transcript of a lecture delivered by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan on 14 December 2007.)

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Islam does not prescribe capital punishment for blasphemy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: The Christian Post

Bibi, a mother of five from rural Punjab was convicted of blasphemy following an argument with her Muslim coworkers. According to a report, her coworkers allegedly refused to drink from the water bowl fetched by her. They claimed it was “contaminated” because she's a Christian.

Five days later, an imam who was allegedly not present during the argument accused her of defaming the prophet. Despite insisting she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination, Bibi was sentenced to be hanged the following year.

The news report says that citing the reason of “conflict of interest” one of the judges – Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman requested to be replaced from the three-judge bench constituted for Bibi’s hearing.

As per the reports, Justice Rehman told the court, "I was a part of the bench that was hearing the case of Salman Taseer, and this case is related to that." A letter was written to the chief justice to appoint another judge to the bench.

Former Punjab governor Salman Taseer was assassinated in 2011 after he supported Bibi of Christian faith, who was convicted of blasphemy in 2010. His assassin Mumtaz Qadri was executed after he was found guilty by the Islamabad High Court. Justice Rehman was the Chief Justice of the high court, when the court heard Qadri’s appeal.

However, by delaying justice for Bibi, the judiciary continues to bow down to Muslim fundamentalist groups, and fails to provide justice to vulnerable members of society.

Two days prior to the hearing of Asia Bibi’s appeal in the Supreme Court, fundamentalist organisations published advertisements and video clippings, warning the Judiciary not to accept Bibi’s appeal. The Judiciary received the message loud and clear.

Bibi had filed a review petition before the Supreme Court against her death sentence by the Lahore High Court in 2014, and it was kept pending for two years. It finally came up for hearing in the highest court on October 13. Alas, the judges surprised no one in ensuring the whole matter remained in abeyance.

The message from fundamentalists and from proscribed terrorist organisations appears to have suddenly activated the memory of the judge. Their threat appears to have reminded Justice Rehman that he was a part of the Bench that was hearing the case of Salmaan Taseer. Justice Rehman informed the court that Asia’s case relates to that of Taseer. The court was later adjourned indefinitely. Asia’s lawyer, Saif-ul-Mulook, said it would probably take weeks or months for a replacement judge to be found and for the appeal to be rescheduled.
 
If the decision of the lower court is going to be retained and Asia is hanged, she will be the first blasphemy accused to be executed by the State. Most blasphemy accused are lynched by angry vigilante mobs. Proponents of reform in the blasphemy law, including lawyers and judges, have been threatened, attacked, or even killed. Prominent amongst those are ex-Governor Punjab Salman Taseer and ex-Federal Minister for Religious Affairs, Shahabaz Bhatti. They were killed for speaking against the blasphemy law and supporting Asia Bibi.

Orthodox religious zealots have also allegedly pressurised the government to deny Asia Bibi her right to medical treatment. Since June 2015, Asia has been suffering from intestinal bleeding. Jail authorities have reportedly denied her access to treatment, because extremist organisations are demanding that Bibi be executed immediately. The Judiciary is reluctant to defend Asia fearing dire repercussions from mullahs, who have been allowed full impunity by the State and are used as non-State actors to subjugate the general masses.

According to the news reports, about 150 top Muslim clerics (muftis) from the radical Islamist group Sunni Tehreek issued a statement which demanded that the government hang Asia Bibi and all other prisoners of blasphemy laws; and demanded a speedy trial of all cases still pending, before Bibi’s hearing earlier this month. They also issued a verbal decree that all those who might rescue those accused of blasphemy or who assist in trying to rescue them should be killed. 

Asia’s case is a classic example of a society marked by intellectual bankruptcy, one that manifests a cumulative failure as a nation to protect its vulnerable. The case has already resulted in two high profile murders and one hanging. Yet, it remains in the doldrums and there is no sign of relief for Asia and her family despite a lapse of seven years.

The judges are apprehensive; if they acquit Bibi, their lives, as well as that of their families are in danger. Mob vigilantism is the reality of the country; mobs dispense their idea of instant justice to any one uttering a single word deemed blasphemous. The mob spares no one, be they young or old, as witnessed in Kasur in 2014, when a Christian couple, along with their unborn child, was burnt alive over alleged blasphemy. No one has been convicted to date for the horrendous Kasur murder.

The number of complaints of blasphemy has increased significantly in Pakistan in the last three decades. Human rights activists have been saying that many of these complaints are filed in order to settles their personal scores.

A criminal justice system rife with loopholes allows anyone to wrongly accuse a person of blasphemy and get away with it. The alleged accused is however made to languish behind bars for years, even if they are innocent. Even when the case does proceed, it takes many years before a judgment is pronounced, and in most of the cases it is not favourable for the accused. This is partly because of the pressure exerted by fundamentalist religious groups and partly because the legal jurisprudence on blasphemy has still not been clearly established, ever since the promulgation of the notorious Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

The miscarriage of justice on the issue is a far cry from the reality of its application, as enunciated by several edicts on the issue, where a single unfortunate, ill-informed, ill-judged alleged utterance can lead to a conviction under the law, and to the death penalty.

Unknown to many contemporary pseudo-religious scholars, a fatwa (religious edict) issued by more than 450 reputed religious scholars from different schools of thought has clearly stated that a non-Muslim blasphemer cannot be killed unless he or she is “habitual in the offense”. Hundreds of leading ulema from South Asia have declared that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy and their pardon is acceptable unless it becomes a habitual and high-frequency offense.
 
The founder of the sect that Mumtaz Qadri, murderer of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, belonged to, also endorsed pardon for non-Muslim blasphemers and the view that non-Muslims cannot be killed for a single offense of blasphemy.

Incidentally, the co-founder of the Deoband school of thought, another orthodox group that favors death penalty for the offence, Mahmood Hassan Deobandi, is also signatory to the said edict.

Going by the edict, Asia should have been acquitted, as she has begged pardon a number of times, and is not a habitual offender. According to Asia’s husband Ashiq Masih.

“Even if Asia is released, there is a bounty on her head so their lives could never return to how they once were. Thousands have protested against her and said they would kill her if she were ever released – including the imam in her own village,” he says.

The verbal brawl that started seven years ago has destroyed the life of Asia and her five children; the family lives under constant threat and is forced into a fugitive life. Asia herself is kept in solitary confinement; to keep her safe from other inmates who might kill her. As per her lawyers, it has been a year since she has seen the open sky.

By adjourning the cases indefinitely, the judges have tried to avert the pressure on them; however, for Asia, it will mean more years of incarceration and solitary confinement. Her misery has been compounded by the inaction of the Judiciary, which is dragging its feet in her case. No judge wants to be embroiled in the mess that can ensue following her acquittal. Even on the occasion of the hearing of the case, the government had to deploy thousands of security troops to avert any violence outside the Supreme Court.
 
Related story: Asia Bibi's hearing in the Pakistan SC adjourned: Judge claims "Conflict of Interest"
 

The post Indefinite Adjournment of Asia Bibi’s Appeal invites Allegations of Evasion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: The Christian Post

The much awaited hearing of Asia Bibi’s last appeal in the court against her conviction for blasphemy in Pakistan’s Supreme Court was adjourned today, according to a report by Dawn. Another date for the hearing was not declared immediately by the Supreme Court.

The news report says that citing the reason of “conflict of interest” one of the judges – Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman requested to be replaced from the three-judge bench constituted for Bibi’s hearing.
As per the reports, Justice Rehman told the court, "I was a part of the bench that was hearing the case of Salman Taseer, and this case is related to that." A letter was written to the chief justice to appoint another judge to the bench.

Former Punjab governor Salman Taseer was assassinated in 2011 after he supported Bibi of Christian faith, who was convicted of blasphemy in 2010. His assassin Mumtaz Qadri was executed after he was found guilty by the Islamabad High Court. Justice Rehman was the Chief Justice of the high court, when the court heard Qadri’s appeal.
 
After Qadri's execution, thousands from Pakistan had rallied in Islamabad to proclaim him a hero and a martyr, as reported by The Telegraph.

Bibi, a mother of five from rural Punjab was convicted of blasphemy following an argument with her Muslim coworkers. According to a report, her coworkers allegedly refused to drink from the water bowl fetched by her. They claimed it was “contaminated” because she's a Christian.

Five days later, an imam who was allegedly not present during the argument accused her of defaming the prophet. Despite insisting she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination, Bibi was sentenced to be hanged the following year.

Appeals at lower courts have all failed, before the country's top court temporarily suspended her execution in July 2015. Recently, the Supreme Court had set the date October 14 for her last chance to appeal in the courts against her conviction.

Although several accused of blasphemy have been killed before in Pakistan, Bibi will become the first person to lose her life to Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws, if the Supreme Court of Pakistan does not overturn her sentence.

According to this report, at least 20 people charged with blasphemy in Pakistan have been murdered, some by their own prison guards. Many more have gone into hiding.

Saif-ul Mulook, Bibi’s lawyer, told The Telegraph that his client had never received a fair trial. The charges against her were the result of a “personal vendetta” between her and the complainant, he said.

Mulook, who is also being targeted with death threats, is residing in Lahore under police guard.

Bibi’s husband has been living in hiding with their five children, since past six years, as reported by The Telegraph. He said that he is hopeful about justice from the Supreme Court. “She has been living a miserable life for many years. I want justice for the mother of my five children.The complainant and witnesses were biased and the complaint was registered on personal motives,” he claimed.

If the appeal fails, Bibi’s final hope is a pardon from Mamnoon Hussain, the president of Pakistan. But the fundamentalist clerics who wish to see her executed wield considerable influence in Pakistan, and few politicians dare to openly defy them, according to this report.

Activists claim that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are often used to persecute or settle private vendettas against the country’s three million Christians.
 
Related Story: Ray of Hope for Pakistan: The return of Shahbaz, Salman Taseer’s Son

The post Asia Bibi’s hearing in the Pakistan SC adjourned: Judge claims “Conflict of Interest” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is a spot upon the earth
Where people stand firm and true
On behalf of those the Fat Cat shuns—
It’s called JNU.
 
The Fat Cat marshals violent hordes,
Enforcement winks assent;
The truth—it sneaks from subterfuge.
The mask of tyranny is rent.
 
The Fat Cat does not questions like.
He pushes them under the flag;
The camouflage does not suffice
To lock people in the bag.
 
Coming days will surely tell
The fake from the noble passion—
Do flags and heroes or little people
Make up the real nation.
———————————-

Blasphemy or Sedition

We are a continent of choice,
You are free to choose either one—
Speak freely of god or man,
And pick blasphemy or sedition.
 
Be not your hate of our kind
But deriving from atrocity,
You invite either sedition
Or embrace blasphemy.
 
Our hates are nationalist—
Yours dangerously just;
Should you insist to disagree,
Well, l we destroy you must.
 
God is that we think is god,
And State is what suits us best;
Refusing either postulate—
The police will have to do the rest.
 
 

The post Blaphemy or sedition: Poems for our times appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Aims:
Raise awareness within British Muslims and the wider public, of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ helping to contribute to a shared vision of citizenship (the separation of faith and state, so faiths exert no undue influence on policies and there is a shared public space).

• Encourage religious understanding and harmony, respect for different systems of beliefs, and encourage an understanding and celebration of the variety of Muslim cultures, values and traditions which are present in British society.

bmsd will achieve this by:

• Facilitating discourse and raising awareness of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ and its benefits.
• Facilitating broad and enlightened theological discourses, to enable British Muslims and the wider public to be better informed about the Islamic faith.
• Raising awareness of religious influence on UK domestic and foreign policies, particularly those which may lead to undue effect on civil liberties.
• Addressing Islamophobia and prejudice against Muslims and Muslim communities.
• Working with UK and global Muslim and other organisations, opposing radicalism and intolerant beliefs.
• Ensuring that politicians and community leaders encourage and practise transparency and ensure legitimate voting practices are followed.
• Engaging with marginalised Muslim communities, helping to identify root causes of deprivation and social exclusion, and help work towards a solution.
• Providing a lively and interesting social/educational programme which showcases the variety of Muslim histories, cultures, values and traditions in the UK today.
• Be responsive to the changing needs and pressures on succeeding generations of British Muslims and adjust and add to its programmes and projects accordingly.

About bmsd: bmsd was founded in 2006 by Nasreen Rehman and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. We bring together a diverse group of Muslim democrats from a variety of ethnic and social backgrounds. We want to challenge perceptions, ideas and current thinking about British Muslims as a collectivity and the issues that affect the wider society. bmsd is not a theological group but one that advocates civic engagement and good citizenship. We are not concerned with judging or being judged on the basis of religious practice. If you call yourself a ‘Muslim’, you are most welcome to be a part of our movement. If you are non-Muslim, we equally welcome your association.

bmsd is about social inclusion, co-existence and harmony. Together we can all make a difference. It is now time to work towards this goal. bmsd aims to:
Raise awareness within British Muslims and the wider public, of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ helping to contribute to a shared vision of citizenship (the separation of faith and state, so faiths exert no undue influence on policies and there is a shared public space).

Encourage religious understanding and harmony, respect for different systems of beliefs, and encourage an understanding and celebration of the variety of Muslim cultures, values and traditions which are present in British society.

Contact: Not available on website

Website: http://bmsd.org.uk/

The post British Muslims for Secular Democracy (bmsd) appeared first on SabrangIndia.